The Pros And Cons Of The Capitalist Peace Theory

As Carl Jung once stated, “Man's task is to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious”. To reach a peaceful reconciliation, one must learn to embrace two distinct elements of their personality, the "Persona" and "Shadow." Likewise, in the bildungsroman, A Separate Peace, author John Knowles depicts the common rivalry between young adolescents, and how they struggle to accept their identity and the relationship between their unconscious self. Gene, a Devon High student, becomes best friends with Finny and grows jealous of his ostensibly flawless friend, causing him to make a life-changing decision. His struggles to reach an inner balance between his “Persona” and “Shadow” lead to the ultimate death of Finny. Gene’s transformation involves the changes of his mask and “Shadow”—from guilt and jealousy to pride and tolerance—which results in the later acceptance of the light and dark parts of himself, allowing him to truly reach adulthood and a state of peace.

The American “way of war” is primarily based on the American interpretation of the national fundamentals and values to include capitalism and basic freedoms surrounding financial enterprising as applied in the democratic system. Along with these ideals concerning free marketing and democracy, the American “way of war” seeks to reinforce alliances with nations that uphold similar concepts and values through international trade and commerce. In doing so, the United States intrinsically denounces political ideologies that are contradictory, such as communism.

According to the hegemonic stability theory, “a hegemonic power is necessary to support a highly integrated world economy.” (Nau 2007, 280) Nau explains that as long as there is a relative distribution of power, no one power can affect the system as a whole (280). When there are several equally competitive countries, the global economy reaches the model of a perfect market. Each state acts according to their self-interest, and such behavior leads to higher gains for everyone because “competition maximizes efficiency” (Nau 2007, 280) in a perfect market. However, there is no place for violence in a perfect market because a hegemon assures security by deploying a police force (Nau 2007, 280). Since there is usually no such force in the international system, many competitive nations have to fear violence. This is what the realists meant when they stated that in the multipolar world, nations cannot be sure about alliances. In addition, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two great powers after World War II; thus, they developed an example of a bipolar world, in which there are separate and self-governing “half-world” economies that includes very little trade with each other (Nau 2007, 280).

John Knowles’ novel A Separate Peace is about a few boys at a boarding school in New Hampshire. The story is centered around the friendship of two boys, Gene and Finny, at a boarding school in New Hampshire. Although in the beginning of their friendship Gene did not trust Finny, by the time he dies Gene feels as if a part of him has died, showing that he still felt closely bonded to him after all they had been through.

The novel A Separate Peace by John Knowles is about learning and it reveals that people have to have the bad to see the good. This thematic statement connects to both the book and the world that we live in today. Many people want everything to be perfect and beautiful but the hard truth is that it will never completely be that way. Life isn’t going to be the way every stroke was placed on the perfect painting of life that everyone has in there head which was handcrafted from their wildest dreams. Their may be some slippery patches but good will follow close behind.

John Knowles’ “A Separate Peace” takes place at a boarding school during World War II. Best friends Gene and Finny have been inseparable during their time at the Devon School. This is until reality hits Gene, and he slowly starts to realize that he is inferior to his best friend. Through the unbalanced friendship between two teenagers in “A Separate Peace,” Knowles illustrates that a loss of identity may be present in a relationship if there is an unequal amount of power.

In A Separate Peace, the author chooses to use conflicts to show the growth of a character. As a conflict happens there is some sort of growth which the character gains as a result. In fact, there are many conflicts throughout the story that shape the characters in unique ways including Genes jealousy of his best friend, Finny doing dangerous things, and Gene trying to live through Finny. Some conflicts result in good ways some result in bad and it changes the way the character is. The book is a good example of what it is like when a conflict happens in real life, by showing growth of a character after a conflict. The decisions made by the characters will either change them in positive or negative ways; that is an important message that the book tells quite well.

Skidelsky questions whether the market system is favourable to harmony or total conflict, and brings up the fall of communism, and points out that the latter view was the one that reigned. Globalisation seemed to offer a unabridged answer to the main tribulations that were encountered by the international society- poverty, war and political oppression- through free trade which was seen as the ‘principle of economic growth’ (Skidelsky, 2012). Economic growth was the primary

#1 conflict “I felt betrayed.I felt more alone than ever. By the end of the fourth day at military school, I had run away four times” (Moore 90).

Liberals argue that economic cooperation leads to political cooperation. This is due to economic cooperation being able to dictate the country’s policies. This is because of the fact that the government know to be regarded as a success the economic stability of the state is one of the most important things. This leads the state into cooperating with not only transnational organizations but similarly other states in order to maximize their possible economic opportunites. A major example of economic cooperation leading to political cooperation was at the end of the Cold War whereby many former communist states saw

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

This belief faced significant criticism, however, since free trade between states of different stages of development can result in a relationship in which the less developed state is dependent on the more developed state ( global South to North dependency). Many beliefs related to Liberalism actually face criticism as a result of an imbalance of power and influence between states. The Democratic Peace Theory, for example, suggests that conflict between two democratic states is unlikely – less likely than conflict between two non-liberal states or conflict between a liberal and non-liberal state. While history would suggest this to be true, there are multiple factors that contribute to this truth. For one, liberal states tend to be wealthier than non-liberal states. This means that they have less incentive to start war than a less wealthy state. Additionally, liberal states tend to have amicable relations with other liberal states – take Canada and USA for

In the current anarchic world, The United States acts as the global hegemon. However, China’s recent rise to power has lead international relations experts, Ikenberry, Mearsheimer, Subramanian, and Friedberg, to predict an upcoming power shift in the international system. China’s increasing control over the Asia-Pacific region has threatened U.S. power. According to Waltz, the realism paradigm interprets the anarchic structure of the international community, as a constant power struggle. Although each country may be different, to survive, they must all strive for power. Under the liberalism paradigm, the system is still anarchical but cooperation may be achieved by shared norms, and aligned political and economical interests.

Learning about the events that lead to the modern global political system and global market defiantly strengthened my belief that the global trade has significant benefits, taught me that economic incentives and potential loss can prevent wars, and money runs the world when it comes to being politically dominant. In the medieval ages the kings were dominant and had power over little except the economy. “The economy was not thought of as a distinct sphere separated from politics but instead as a tool of statecraft which the state could manipulate to serve its own ends.” (Erik Ringmar). Times have changed and medieval kings do not rule all the land but the concept remains the same, countries use their economic standing as a way to make deals, prevent political issues, and push forward their political agenda. This is not always successful especially when it came to the Cold War because the US and the USSR were both economically built