An analysis of Schumpeter, Machiavelli and Kant via Doyle

The basis for Schumpeter's argument was the "interaction of capitalism and democracy as the foundation of liberal pacifism." To prove his theory, he demonstrated that the arrival of capitalism and democracy over imperialism has led to unwarlike dispositions and a lack of forcible expansion, and therefore, more pacifism through the pursuit of common material interests. A few of his points, however, seem debatable (aside from those already pointed out by Doyle). First, he defines imperialism as "an objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible expansion," claiming that the private interests of imperialists have no larger objective on the national level. This makes a rather large assumption that private monarchical and militaristic attitudes do not include survival of the state as their first priority (a largely national objective). Without the survival of the state, private interests could not be pursued. He also claims that “the least feudal, most capitalist society – the US – has demonstrated the least imperialistic tendencies.” It could be easily argued against that the US portrays extremely imperialistic tendencies, from the days of the Monroe doctrine, to imperialistic actions in the Philippines, to even the Iraq invasion of 2003. The US has traditionally sought to expand its control on a localized and even global scale by acting as a global policing power. Schumpeter also reasserts his claim that capitalist democracy “steadily tells against the use of military force and peaceful arrangements, even when the balance of pecuniary advantage is clearly on the side of war.” Schumpeter’s strict definition of force as war or warlike tendencies is also lacking depth. Even today, military force is used to create peaceful situations (for example, the current war in Iraq), or the threat of military force, even in international institutions, can be used to maintain existing peaceful situations (such as the UN Peacekeeping force in Sudan). Schumpeter’s definition of force must be expanded to encompass these aspects of force to truly be able to defend pacifism in capitalist democracies. Although the examples I have listed deal with governments of mixed political dispositions, I agree with Doyle’s assertion that Schumpeter must further address the variety in world and state politics, without simply assuming that evolution towards democracy and capitalism is inevitable for all countries.

Another point I wanted to bring up refers to Doyle’s analysis of Machiavelli’s Liberal Imperialism. Machiavelli asserts that republics are the best form of guaranteeing state survival, and that they can be “characterized by social equality, popular liberty and political participation.” He also says that “we are lovers of glory” and that we seek to rule or avoid being oppressed, and so “necessity – political survival – calls for expansion.” The concept of expansion, however, even if it is supported by liberal motivations, portrays the importance of relative gains, a realist motivation. I find Machiavelli’s description a bit conflicting in the sense that imperialism is (as Schumpeter would also put it) “antithetical” to liberal theories.

An overall critique I have of Kant’s Liberal Internationalism is that even given his three “definitive articles” of peace, he is far too idealistic in assuming that man can act ethical and in accordance with all values, including his own, at all times. Situations are complex, and what is ethical is not always what can be done. People also take shortcuts and make mistakes that prevent them from acting as they should – it’s a part of human nature. He also fails to consider that some values can be fundamentally contradictory and does not address actors that have fully internalized some of these contradictions, such as fundamentalist terrorist groups. Countries cannot be fully hospitable towards these stateless actors because true intention can never be fully know – it is an internal thought. Also, ethics are never the only influencing factor in a situation, and until they are, Kant’s theory is merely a prediction that cannot be proved.