pacifism <> anti-militarist <> non-violence

However depending on how you define those, you may recognize in each one. If we rely on a legal definition, militarism and war are only link to states. Armed force without state are not an army, and armed conflicts no declared by states are not war. Dumb lex, sed lex

For exemple, in this definition revolution is not a war, so pacifist could took part in armed force independent from states. That explain why their is a pacifist tradition in communism … except when those revolution succeed … well you should leave that armed force that became an army and refuse conscription.

This debate occurred recently through the essay “How Nonviolence Protects the State”, which address the non-violence and/or pacifism as exploiters : if you don’t want to use violence, other will have to The essay do not get rid of the ideal of non-violence, only what individual position do to people that could not choose.

Now their is an Elephant in the room : police. A violent armed force, acting for a state but without a declaration of war. So from our first definition, we could be a pacifist and let the cops do the exact same thing that an army.