[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 22:14:19 -0700
In case any pacifists are treating this discussion train seriously, they
should understand that Fukuyama and Barnett both advocate processes that
would result in world peace. In Fukuyama's case as can be seen in his book
America at the Crossroads, he believes in taking a rather passive stance
because the process is, in his view, inevitable. Hegel as Kojeve taught
believed the end of history would be achieved through Capitalism. Marx
thought Hegel right except he got things backwards. The end of history
would be Communistic. That opinion prevailed until the fall of the USSR in
1991. After that Fukuyama wrote his book describing the Hegelian, the
Kojeve Hegelian end of history.
World peace is a great incentive. The Neocons embraced Fukuyama's thesis
except they did it a little too enthusiastically to suit Fukuyama. He
didn't agree with the idea that Liberal Democracy could be exported to Iraq;
so he parted company with the movement he was partly responsible for
founding.
Barnett too had a plan, a much more detailed plan for achieving world peace.
Once all nations are in the functioning core (aka Liberal Democracies) world
peace will be achieved. An important assumption is that Liberal-Democracies
do not war against Liberal Democracies. Everyone involved believes that's
the case, Fukuyama, Barnett and all the Neocons. World Peace is the
incentive for the Neocons to be proactive, but that isn't going so well for
them nowadays.
I asked a question that thus far no pacifist has answered. If (a
conditional word) world peace can be achieved by means of the spread of
Liberal-Democracy, shouldn't it be favored by pacifists even if it means a
few wars here and there to prevent Liberal-Democracy from losing ground --
not like the war in Iraq, but a war perhaps to prevent a rogue nation from
causing a lot of trouble? Pacifists like to tote up the dead. Surely there
would be fewer dead with a few wars to keep Liberal-Democracy on the
expansive straight and narrow than if all wars regardless of their merit
were to be resisted willy nilly -- given the fact that Pacifists merely
impede and obfuscate. They never succeed in actually stopping wars. In
fact their efforts seem to encourage such people as Osama bin Laden, Saddam
Hussein and Ahmadinejad. They hear about all that opposition to the
administration's policies, and they think they don't need to take the Bush
administration seriously. Saddam Hussein didn't take the Bush
administration seriously for similar reasons. And before Saddam Osama bin
Laden didn't take the Bush administration seriously.
What say ye pacifists? Are you ready to reform? What say ye?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
