Man, the State and War summary

At first glance, it seems obvious that the source of conflict, violence and war is the selfishness and egoism of human nature.

Yet there must be some good in human nature as it’s also the source of peace.

Whereas the first-image thinkers believe human nature is the cause of war, second-image thinkers believe it is the internal structure of the state. They believe that if only the right state structure were instituted worldwide, it would guarantee world peace. But, just like the first-image thinkers, not all of them agree, and these thinkers can also be roughly divided into two groups: the liberal and the socialist thinkers.

Liberal thinkers insist on the benefits of a free-trade market, decentralization and freedom from governmental regulation in preventing conflict and fulfilling individual citizens’ needs.

John Stuart Mill, the famous liberal thinker, ranks among the greatest philosophers of all time. He asserted that liberty is the only infallible source of a better quality of life. Furthermore, he believed that individuals’ desire to improve their lives would lead to an improvement of the state as a whole. For these reasons, there shouldn’t be any restraints on individuals’ behavior – and this should lead to peace.

But in some circumstances, liberal states do go to war.

Karl Marx and his followers had great dreams: they believed that with the victory of worldwide socialism, the nation-states would disappear – and war along with them.

But the Second International, an international organization of socialist parties formed in 1889, failed to achieve international solidarity and preserve peace during World War I.

According to the third-image thinkers, the international scene is characterized by lawless anarchy – like a country without a police force – and therefore it’s a hotbed for conflict.

For them, the world’s sovereign states are what Hobbes, the English philosopher, called “individuals in the state of nature.” This means they aren’t controlled by law, a higher institution of power or a common superior – which, according to Hobbes, inevitably leads to violence and conflict.

Third-image thinkers dream of stopping international anarchy by creating a world government that could maintain order. But a world government is only thinkable if every state’s main goal is self-preservation. Even if they did agree on this basic point – which they probably wouldn’t – a world government would inevitably run into a fundamental problem.

Namely, that it cannot enforce its laws without violent action against the state that broke the international law.