Be it books, movies, documentaries, or even music. I feel like I have people around me whom wish to fight violence with violence, with mentalities like “we should just counter-invade and show them who’s boss” or “I’m not afraid to fight for what I believe in”, showing a clear intent against an “enemy”.
“The enemy” is such a dehumanizing perspective, and only breeds further animosity. I wish for them to see that we all manage to find justifications for our actions, but that doesn’t make it worthy of just any sacrifice.
I recently saw the Norwegian movie Max Manus, which is about real events during WW2.
Tap for spoiler
He survives, but with almost none of his friends, and after the war he struggles with alcoholism and nightmares for the rest of his life.
It left me with a feeling of despite “victory”, many people paid with more than just their life. And this is the feeling I wish others to feel, just for a bit, and ponder if “doing the right thing” really is the best thing.
No one should want conflict, and I wish to emphasize just how much we really should try and avoid warmongering. I’ve seen uncensored videos from modern wars, been in the military, had a great grandfather who fought in WW2 (who also struggled with nightmares and PTSD until his natural death), and all of it makes me dread the potential of the horrors that happen to everyone involved in an armed conflict, especially the innocents and the kids…
So, any suggestions for media that conveys this in a way that makes one really reflect?
The villifcation of war will not persuade those who are already out for blood, they’re determined to have those wars. However, I fear it may drive our potential allies to passivity in the face of fascist expansion, making the fascists’ jobs easier. I very much enjoy media that glorifies war for a just cause, such as Star Wars or Inglourious Basterds.
Everyone believes their cause is just. Every conflict ever can be framed as defensive. The US has compared every major conflict since WWII to stopping Hitler, even cases like Vietnam. My mother once quoted, “All that’s necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing” in the context of supporting the invasion of Iraq.
If You investigate and deconstruct the concept of “defensive” wars (as You are so wont to deconstruct concepts) then You will find that they are entirely dependent on socially constructed ideas about “legitimacy.” If Switzerland does not have “legitimate ownership” of Zurich, then to station troops there or to fight against Zurich being occupied by foreign powers would make Switzerland the aggressor. It could be argued that, when the US invaded Vietnam, it was merely “coming to the aid” of the Republic of Vietnam, which had requested our aid (nevermind that they were our puppet). Likewise, in Ukraine everything about how you view the conflict is dependent on who you think is legitimate - the “consensus” interpretation in the West is that the central government is legitimate and the separatists are just Russian puppets, while the pro-Russia view says that the separatists are legitimate and the central government just Western puppets.
So V.I. Lenin observes:
Funny enough, this observation was shared by Leo Tolstoy, the Christian Anarchist/Anarcho-Pacifist, who writes:
World War I is a prime example of how things can go wrong. There had been a major socialist movement at the time across every major country in Europe, and there had been a significant fear that, should the imperialist powers start a major war like that, it would lead to a coordinated revolution across all of Europe. But instead, when war broke out, the social democrats all found reasons to rally around the flags of their respective countries. They were committed to keeping their positions within the realm of acceptability, and the war narrowed that realm of acceptibility to the point that coordination with ordinary people of other countries (or genuine opposition to the war) was considered treasonous. So, all the social democrats of Europe rallied around their flags and drafted proles to go out and kill each other for no good reason.
If Your “anarcho-antirealist” stuff is supposed to have any merit at all, then it ought to allow You to recognize that the concept of “defense” is largely arbitrary - or are You seriously of the belief that national borders have some inherent natural truth when even the law of gravity does not?
I do think with the right angle, those out for blood can indeed be persuaded. There’s no “general cure” to the bloodlust, which makes it difficult, but far from impossible. And vilification is but one angle. Another is a profound sadness, felt in relation to their personal situation.
It might drive the good people to passivity, true, but I believe that the fear of conflict can become great enough to warrant action, so that fascists/imperialists meet resistance/consequences internally within the nation. Like by the workers who are in the business of weapon logistics, the journalists who write glorifying articles in the news, the people who not only speak up but act against “their own people”. I think there are already many like it, based on several videos I’ve seen from Russia in 2022 for example, although not many enough, evidently.