Soldiers of peace: Wm Penn, Leo Tolstoy, M. K. Gandhi, Bertrand Russell and their work for a better world.

摘要

This study considers historical figures who have pacifist reputations, reviews the history of their actions and their written contributions, and attempts to place their work within the structure of international theory proposed by Martin Wight in his book International Theory: The Three Traditions. Each figure made a meaningful contribution to the body of thought regarding war and peace, but none of them fit neatly into one or another of Wight's categories of Realists, Rationalists and Revolutionaries, and pure pacifism appears inconsistent with the structure of international relations as it presently exists---centered upon the state as the primary actor.;Four subjects have been chosen for this study. William Penn established the colony of Pennsylvania in North America to create a society based on religious toleration, fairness, and peace. An early Quaker leader in England, Penn found it necessary to reconcile his pacifist Quaker identity with his later identity as a statesman. Leo Tolstoy was an outspoken advocate of pacifism and non-resistance during the 19th century, basing his position on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. He considered government to be a source of evil, recognized the dangers of the balance-of-power politics practiced in his day, and advocated a peaceful form of anarchy. Mahatama Gandhi was a religious Hindu, but seasoned Hindu theology with ideas from other sources as he built his program of non-violent resistance, which met with some success in India, although Gandhi's goal of a united independent India was never reached. Bertrand Russell was against war initially, but declined to take a blanket position until the advent of air power and nuclear weapons. Once the United States and the USSR had developed such weapons he became an ardent pacifist. Although he admitted a belief in God, his reasoning was entirely secular.;Our subjects displayed hints of several elements in Wight's typology, but they each viewed the human race as a global entity rather than a collection of sub-species protecting themselves from one another. Their efforts energized idealists in politics, but failed to demonstrate that pacifism is compatible with a state-centric international system.