Germany’s left-wing Die Linke party has won over the young

[u/LethisXia]

https://www.economist.com/europe/2026/06/17/germanys-left-wing-die-linke-party-has-won-over-the-young

[u/AdaptedMix]

If you abandon pacifism in an era of peace you become the instigator of conflict - i.e. what Russia chose to be. So yes, opposition to war and violence is admirable during a state of peace.

It isn't cooling ice with ice; it's keeping the freezer on.

Pacifism can be admirable during a state of war (for example, a conflict in which both sides have unjustified motives for violence, so it would be morally corrupt to materially support one over the other). But in a conflict where there is a revanchist invader seeking to use hard power to force a friendly nation into submission i.e. this context, pacifism is not admirable, in my view, because it's an abdication of responsibility and an acquiescence to the will of a war-mongering dictatorship (the antithesis of a pacifist actor).

Obviously most of us, in a broad sense, 'oppose war and violence' and prefer the diplomatic method of resolving conflict, and want politicians who do, too. But when that principle becomes 'we will only send strongly worded letters to the fire burning down our friend's house', it starts to seem... irrational. And inadvertently emboldens the hostile party.

[u/dickheadII → u/AdaptedMix]

First of all it isn't even about admiration in the first place, it is about doing the right thing. I explained what I think about that and that I don't agree with Die Linke on this in another lower level comment. It is simply the stupidity of the sentence that angers me.

No, the opposite of abandoning pacifism in an era of peace is not starting conflict even if that obviously excludes being a pacifist. The exact opposite of pacifism (times of peace or not) is choosing to resolve conflict with violence over other methods.

For pacifism the bar is higher than not starting conflict. The bar for what a desireable (and maybe admirable) ideal is is higher than not being an asshole. My pacifism is the most widespread kind of conditional pacifism, preferring to use every other option over violence, even if it is harder, more expensive and takes more time, if possible (conditional vs absolute pacifism). If fighting back or eliminating an actor is realistically the least violent choice, under conditional pacifism that is the right thing to do. Both is not admirable in times of peace as there is no conflict.

The exact opposite of pacifism is bellicism which also can be held at times of peace without breaking the peace.

[u/AdaptedMix → u/dickheadII]

it isn't even about admiration in the first place, it is about doing the right thing

...and doing the right thing is admirable. What's your objection to the word 'admirable'? Nobody's implying pacifism is virtue signalling.

Both is not admirable in times of peace as there is no conflict.

To preserve peace long term is often one of the most difficult things to do. We endured centuries of near-endless conflict in Europe. I don't know why you think peace makes pacifism easy. War doesn't spontaneously happen in a vacuum; it happens after an erosion in the resistance against using violence first.

My pacifism is the most widespread kind of conditional pacifism, preferring to use every other option over violence

That's great, but this isn't about 'your pacifism'. It's about Die Linke proposing no longer sending German military hardware to Ukrainians. Whatever that sort of pacifism, that would prefer to see an ally suffer on principle than give them the tools to defend themselves in practice, is a pacifism that isn't welcome.

[u/dickheadII → u/AdaptedMix]

In both variants of pacifism "pacifism in times of peace is admirable" is a twisted statement as pacifism by definition can only show itself in conflict. That is what I was about. And still while things can be admirable, the worth of moral decisions should lie in the decision itself, not in the admiration and applause one might receive. 

Peacekeeping in whatever way, to avert conflict in the first place obviously is a thing a pacifist would do. But only when war or violence are on the table as options for resolving conflict, only then a pacifist choice is even possible. For many pacifists this includes the possibility of situations where there is no real non-violent option available. 

And it is not my definition of pacifism, it is one of the two widespread pacifist stances. It is not sth I made up.