Kant’s foedus pacificum: Path to peace or prolegomena to neoliberalism and authoritarian corporatist globalization in contemporary liberal democratic states?

Terence M. Garrett

doi:10.18778/1899-2226.23.2.01

Autor

Terence M. Garrett University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Political Science Department

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1899-2226.23.2.01

Słowa kluczowe:

perpetual peace, post-structuralism, spectacle, neoliberalism, authoritarianism

Abstrakt

Immanuel Kant’s language and concept of foedus pacificum (league of peace) combined with his call for a spirit of trade promised a prescription for world peace—“seeking to end all wars forever.” Nation-state level cooperation between liberal democracies has borne out Kant’s analysis to some effect. A consequence of the twin pursuits of foedus pacificum and spirit of trade has ironically resulted in the exploitation of society. Today’s international corporations adversely affect public policies ostensibly designed to protect citizens through an anti-democratic market-based ideology within the State—as seen through the lenses of Foucauldian post-structural theory and Debord’s society of the spectacle. The author proposes that globalist-corporatist control of governing apparatuses is now exposed for its authoritarian tendencies. This action could result in the ultimate destruction of the representative democratic state with the onset of neoliberalism and authoritarianism.

Bibliografia

Agamben, G. (1993). The coming community. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Agamben, G. (2000). Means without end: Notes on politics. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bauman, Z. (2010). 44 letters from the liquid modern world. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Debord, G. (1995). The society of the spectacle (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). NY: Zone Books. (Original work published 1967).

Der Derian, J. (1997). Post-theory: The eternal return of ethics in international relations. In M. W. Doyle & G. J. Ikenberry (Eds.), New thinking in international relations theory (pp. 54–76). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Doyle, M. W. (1997). Ways of war and peace. NY: Norton.

Doyle, M. W. (2005). Three pillars of the liberal peace. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 463–466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051798

Doyle, M. W. (2006). Kant and liberal internationalism. In P. Kleingold (Ed.), Rethinking toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace, and history (pp. 201–237). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300128109-017

Doyle, M. W. & Ikenberry, G. J. (1997). New thinking in international relations theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Evangelista, M. (1997). Domestic structure and international change. In M. W. Doyle & G. J. Ikenberry (Eds.), New thinking in international relations theory (pp. 202–228). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics (G. Burchell, Trans.). NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Garrett, T. M. & Sementelli, A. (2012). Knowledge production: Public management and the market spectacle. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(7), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211231650 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211231650

Gilman-Opalsky, R. (2011). Spectacular capitalism. London: Minor Compositions.

Hartnett, S. J., & Stengrim, L. A. (2006). Globalization and empire: The U.S. invasion of Iraq, free markets, and the twilight of democracy. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.

Kane, J. (2012). Democracy and world peace: The Kantian dilemma of United States foreign policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 66(3), 292–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2012.672950 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2012.672950

Kant, I. (1983). To perpetual peace: A philosophical sketch. Perpetual peace and other essays (T. Humphrey, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published 1795).

Lemke, T. (2001). ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy & Society, 30(2): 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140120042271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140120042271

Marcuse, H. (1969). An essay on liberation. Boston: Beacon Press.

Monbiot, G. (2016, April 15). Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Ostry, J. D., Loungani, P. & Furceri, D. (2016, June). Neoliberalism: Oversold? Finance & Development, 53(2), 38–41. Retrieved from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/pdf/ostry.pdf

Pippin, R. B. (2006). Mine and thine? The Kantian state. In P. Guyer (Ed.), Cambridge companion to Kant and modern philosophy (pp. 416–446). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL052182303X.013

Schumpeter, J. A. (1992). Conflicting interests in imperialism. In E. Luard (Ed.), Basic texts in international relations (pp. 220–223). New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Originally published in The Sociology of Imperialisms (1919), by H. Nordern, Trans., reprinted from 1951, New York: Augustus M. Kelley).

Waldron, J. (2006). Kant’s theory of the state. In P. Kleingold (Ed.), Rethinking toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace, and history (pp. 179–200). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300128109-016

Wallerstein, I. (1995). After liberalism. New York: The New Press.

Wilson, W. (1992). The coming age of peace. In E. Luard (Ed.), Basic texts in international relations (pp. 267–270). New York: St. Martin’s Press. (Original work published 1918).