Man, the State and War - Book Summary

Embark on a journey to understand the birthplace of war - and discover ways to evade it

The year was 1959 when Waltz unveiled his groundbreaking examination on the concept of war. It was a time when the world was under the shroud of the Cold War and intellectuals were striving to decipher the root causes of conflicts, primarily to prevent the looming nuclear annihilation.

Even though the dust of the Cold War has settled and the world hasn't witnessed any global warfare for quite some time, we still find our planet peppered with conflicts, ceaseless and ruthless. This compelling scenario begs critical questions: Why do humans slaughter their own kind on such a grand scale? Can we ever put a stop to this merciless carnage?

"Man, the State and War" bravely addresses these questions by scrutinizing the theories proposed by eminent philosophers throughout the centuries. The author clusters these theories into three distinct categories — or images:

First Image — The innate nature of human beings

Second Image — The internal architecture of states

Third Image — The chaotic layout of international relations

Each image is meticulously dissected to explore its potential in explaining why mankind engages in warfare. After an in-depth analysis, Waltz arrives at the conclusion that the Third Image — the tumultuous skeleton of international relations — holds the key. However, a comprehensive understanding of war cannot be achieved without considering the other two images as well.

As you journey further, you will not only comprehend why this is the case, but also:

Uncover the truth that human nature is not the primary source of all atrocities,

Realize why neither liberals nor socialists can provide a lasting peaceful resolution, and

Learn why, to this day, we've failed to find a panacea for war.

Exploring the foundations of war: is human nature to blame?

Ask a variety of people what they believe to be the root cause of war, and you'll likely hear a diverse range of theories: economic instability, autocratic governments, power-thirsty leaders, and so on. A particular group, known as first-image thinkers, considers human nature as the prime culprit behind wars. However, these first-image thinkers are further split into two factions — the optimists and the pessimists — depending on their interpretation of human nature.

The optimists view human nature as plastic, capable of change and growth. They are of the opinion that education is the ultimate antidote for war — if we can cultivate human nature through education, we can obliterate war.

Historically, optimists placed their faith in religious teachings and moral compasses, but the modern optimists — or behavioral scientists — pin their hopes on understanding human behavior. Their goal is to unearth educational strategies and societal structures that can eradicate aggression and violence.

During the era of World War I, for instance, the English psychologist J.T. MacCurdy pointed out the efficacy of preventive psychiatry, that is, proactive measures taken to avert mental illnesses. He suggested that a similar approach might just be the key to warding off wars. Moreover, the renowned American cultural anthropologist, Margaret Mead, put forth the notion that studying peaceful "primitive" tribes could provide critical insights into avoiding conflicts.

On the other hand, the pessimists perceive human nature as inherently evil and immutable. They believe that external control is the only measure to deter humans from triggering wars and mass killings.

The Christian theologian and philosopher, Augustine of Hippo, for example, postulated that in the absence of governance, humans would engage in ruthless bloodshed until the entire species was wiped out. Another example is Baruch Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher of the seventeenth-century, who asserted that humans are guided by their uncontrolled passions and not reason. Therefore, he argued, we must develop mechanisms to suppress and counteract our unpredictable emotions.

In the end, despite their contrasting views on the solution, both optimists and pessimists converge on the root cause of war: human nature. While the optimists aim to highlight and nurture the aspects of human nature that foster peace, the pessimists advocate for the control and containment of human nature.

Is the optimists' explanation of war sufficient?

At the outset, it might appear evident that selfishness and egotism inherent in human nature fuel conflicts, violence, and wars.

However, there must be some virtues within human nature, for it is also the cradle of peace.

This can be inferred from the cyclic pattern of war and peace that prevails despite the constancy of human nature. Furthermore, when we weigh the boundless opportunities for evil against the relatively limited incidents of crime and wars that actually materialize, it could even be argued that human nature is intrinsically benevolent.

The crucial flaw in the optimists' perspective of human nature is their belief in its malleability. The sheer impossibility of altering the natures of millions of people simultaneously makes their argument untenable. The process of education is neither swift nor potent enough to bring about such a radical change. Echoing this sentiment, German-American psychologist Kurt Lewin remarked that it is more feasible for society to influence education than for education to transform society.

Another issue with the optimists' viewpoint is that their proposed pathways to a peaceful world order — be it through conquest, religious fraternity, or world federalism — share a common deficiency. They all presuppose that a single belief system, state structure, or philosophy can reign supreme globally, thereby eliminating wars. However, given the diverse conceptions of an ideal world that have existed throughout history, there are bound to be disputes over the methods to be implemented.

Above all, the fundamental error of the optimists lies in attributing the cause of war solely to human nature.

Although behavioral scientists and pacifists can contribute to a peaceful world by fostering courage, faith, and character to manage aggressive impulses, they undervalue the role of political structures in either promoting or curbing aggressive emotions.

However, it is crucial to keep human nature in perspective, as it allows us to comprehend the flaws inherent in all social and political frameworks, as well as devise ways to effectively deal with them.

Could the internal state structures be the culprits behind wars?

While first-image thinkers attribute the origin of wars to human nature, second-image thinkers point fingers at the internal structure of states. In their view, establishing the right state framework across the globe would ensure lasting peace. However, the second-image thinkers, much like their first-image counterparts, are not a monolith and can be broadly categorized into two groups: the liberals and the socialists.

Liberal thinkers extol the virtues of a free-trade market, decentralization, and minimal governmental regulation in staving off conflicts and catering to the needs of individual citizens.

This school of thought is perfectly embodied by Adam Smith, the Scottish economist, who championed the idea that it was the impersonal forces of the market, not governmental regulation, that ensured social harmony and public welfare.

Liberal thinkers extend this rationale to international relations, arguing that free trade among states deters war. As states become economically intertwined through trade agreements, the costs of engaging in war outweigh the benefits of peace.

Socialist thinkers, however, present a counterargument.

They believe that a free market invariably triggers internal state conflicts and sparks off wars. As per socialist thinkers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the capitalist system ignites a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The proletariat battles for control over production means, while the bourgeoisie strives to retain their control.

This internal class struggle spills over to the international arena, escalating into wars. Capitalist state leaders aim to promote the interests of their own class, the bourgeoisie, often disregarding the proletariat's desires for peace and harmony. For instance, if the bourgeois interests of one state conflict with those of another, the bourgeoisie would not hesitate to thrust the proletariat into war. Governments often exploit wars to hike taxes and tighten their grip over the proletariat, thereby cementing their power.

Therefore, socialist thinkers conclude that eradicating capitalist states and embracing global socialism would pave the way for the disappearance of wars.

Liberal thinkers diverge on how to handle volatile states.

John Stuart Mill, a revered liberal philosopher, staunchly believed that liberty was the unequivocal path to an improved quality of life. In his view, individuals' pursuit of better lives would inadvertently elevate the state. Hence, by providing unrestricted freedom to individuals, peace could be ensured.

However, instances of liberal states participating in wars cast doubt on this presumption.

This counterpoint refutes the liberal conjecture that peace is a shared objective of all human beings, thereby negating the possibility of war. The snag here is that the government often overlooks individuals' desire for peace, leading to a failure in translating these sentiments into state actions.

Another chink in the liberal armor emerges when we probe deeper: Should a liberal state intervene if an anti-democratic state threatens world peace? Such an act would seemingly contradict their foundational beliefs.

This dilemma led to the split of liberal thinkers into two factions: interventionists and non-interventionists.

Mazzini, an Italian patriot and interventionist, contended that if democracy was under threat, a state had an obligation to intervene; otherwise, the ‘good’ non-interventionism stood for would pave the way for evil to triumph.

Non-interventionists, on the other hand, argue that achieving peace by enforcing a state structure through war is unfeasible. Since there is no global consensus on the blueprint of an ideal state, conflicts between democracies, dictatorships, monarchies, and socialist states are inevitable. Thus, intervention would likely wreak more havoc than resolution.

To substantiate their viewpoint, non-interventionists cite the case of Woodrow Wilson, an interventionist president of the United States. Although he argued that a war aimed at securing peace and justice, rather than redrawing the power map, was justified, this raises a contentious question: Who gets to judge whether the cause for war is just or not?

Did the socialist attempt at forging global solidarity backfire?

Karl Marx and his disciples harbored grand visions: they dreamed of a world where the triumph of socialism would signal the end of nation-states, and consequently, wars.

Yet, the Second International, a consortium of socialist parties founded in 1889, fell short of fostering global unity and maintaining peace during World War I.

But why?

One of the major stumbling blocks was the propensity of each socialist party to prioritize its own interests over those of the international organization. The German party, the largest among all socialist parties, provided a case in point when it advocated for war credits, causing a furore among socialist parties in other nations.

Another pitfall was the pre-war peace resolution set forth by the Second International, which made provision for socialists to join the war efforts if it was defensive in nature — as a precautionary measure. However, as every state viewed World War I as a defensive war, socialists from all over the world were mobilized — often against their comrades.

By 1915, the socialists had to confront the harsh reality that their aspiration for global solidarity was a chimera.

So where did it all unravel?

Much like their liberal counterparts, socialist thinkers banked on the belief that the rationality of the various parties would guide them to overcome their differences and arrive at the best possible outcome. But the brutalities of World War I shattered this illusion. French, British, and German socialists found themselves at the receiving end of each other's gunfire, and their dream of international socialism was ruthlessly squashed.

However, one cannot conclusively negate the notion that international socialism could be the panacea for wars, primarily because it has never been fully realized. That being said, past events seem to suggest that its success might be more of an exception than a rule.

Thinkers of the third image perceive global relations as a state of anarchy.

Third-image theorists postulate that the international landscape is akin to a police-less country brimming with lawless anarchy, serving as a fertile ground for disputes.

Their view aligns with Hobbes, an English philosopher who compared the world's independent states to "individuals in the state of nature." Such entities are not bound by law, nor governed by any higher authority or overarching power. This absence of control, as Hobbes argued, invariably spurs violence and conflict.

Moreover, while individuals are compelled to form alliances for survival, states enjoy enough autonomy to refrain from such alliances.

Rousseau, the Swiss philosopher, deepens this argument by drawing a parallel between state conflict and interpersonal conflict, identifying an identical set of irrational behaviors at their core. The primary catalyst for conflict is when the specific interests of one state clash with those of another, much like the interpersonal dynamics among individuals.

Rousseau's analogy provides an apt illustration:

Consider five famished men who agree to hunt a stag as a team, since it's easier to do so collectively, and the stag's meat would satiate everyone's hunger. In the course of the hunt, one man spots a hare and decides to hunt it independently because it's easier and would sate his hunger, albeit not the others'. By choosing this path, he forsakes the initial collective pursuit, putting the entire group's hunt at risk.

Another factor bolstering the third-image thinkers' belief in the prevalence of global anarchy is the resemblance of international relations to a rule-less strategic game. Every state's liberty to make choices is dictated by the actions of all other states. If every state's strategy is contingent on every other state's, then the aggressive strategies of the Hitlers of the world essentially determine the actions of those states striving to uphold peace.

Achieving global governance is a tall order.

The proponents of the third-image theory entertain the idea of curtailing global anarchy by instituting a world government responsible for maintaining peace and order. However, the concept of a world government is feasible only if every state prioritizes self-preservation above all else. Despite reaching consensus on this primary objective — which in itself is an enormous task — a world government would still have to grapple with an insurmountable problem.

Specifically, it would be challenged with enforcing its laws against any state that violates international law, without resorting to violence.

Much like an individual who expects police assistance when confronted by thieves, a state under attack from another anticipates the intervention of the international community. But such violent interventions might spiral into a relentless cycle of retribution.

Additionally, there's no assurance that the leadership of the world government would always operate in the collective interest of its member states. The possibility of personal agendas, or the influence of a powerful state, corrupting the global leadership cannot be overlooked.

Hence, while the concept of an entirely effective world government is largely unattainable, it's imperative to establish an international political structure backed by a binding judicial system to instill as much order as possible.

Concluding insights

The book's central idea:

Comprehending the complexity of war demands a layered examination that can uncover diverse causes and their interconnectedness. Studying the wisdom of prominent thinkers throughout history enables us to better interpret present-day predicaments — and actively contribute to averting warfare.