Do any philosophers argue for a state of constant war?

Question

Do any philosophers argue for a state of constant war? Not as a state that needs to be prevented, but an ideal state. I don't think that's Marx, but it may be some variants of Marxism. Does Machiavelli argue for this in some way?

Answer 1

Maybe not what you are looking for...

If our definition of war extends beyond direct military conflict to include conflicts such as the arms race and its doctrine of mutually assured destruction, then military strategists have developed and adopted a philosophy based on mathematical game theory and its concept of Nash equilibrium.

Nash equilibrium has a technical definition which roughly says that given a strategy adopted by one side, neither side could do strictly better (i.e., increase their payoff) by adopting another strategy. This gives rise to an infinite game where it is in the interest of both sides to keep the game going. Particular conflicts, such as direct military conflicts (e.g., Ukraine), may come and go but the game continues indefinitely.

Answer 2

This is the closest thing to this that I'm aware of:

• "The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. ... The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, ... But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien," (p.26)

(Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1932), From the 1996 translation by George Schwab)

Just so you know who we're dealing with here, this book is a brick-by-brick blueprint for fascism. Schmitt joined the Nazi party one year after the publication of this book.

Schmitt conceptualizes politics as being, inherently, an "us versus them" dichotomy, in which political unity/solidarity is only possible when a group holds a distain for a common "enemy" (which can be selected arbitrarily, so long as they are different/alien/foreign/etc.).

Regarding war, Schmitt does say that

• "If such physical destruction of human life is not motivated by an existential threat to one's own way of life, then it cannot be justified. Just as little can war be justified by ethical and juristic norms"(p.49)

But: A conception of political unity that depends on perceiving the "other" as an existential threat which much be unified against is going to be very war-prone, as the only way of securing safety against this existential threat would be to negate the other -- to get rid of them.

And he does say this explicitly too:

• "War follows from enmity. War is the existential negation of the enemy."(p.33)

• "War as the most extreme political means discloses the possibility which underlies every political idea, namely, the distinction of friend and enemy"(p.35)

Schmitt does seem to recognize that killing people is generally bad, but within the sphere of the political, believes that because of the friend/enemy divide that is the founding principle of his philosophy, he does seem to think of it as inevitable. He does discuss policies of pacifism to an extent, but takes them to be merely declarations of temporary inaction; that regardless of what a state might say it will or won't do, in being a unified political entity, it necessarily reserves the right to retaliate if faced with an existential threat, be that from invasion, civil unrest, international tension, etc.(p.50-51) So even if a nation is not in active combat against another, for it to be secure in its own existence, then it has to be constantly prepared for war.

So I'd say Schmitt is maybe the closest you're going to get, as most people will generally agree that people dying sucks. But what I think makes Schmitt approximate what you're looking for is that his 'people dying sucks' comes with the asterisk of "but war is a necessary aspect of keeping a political community united, as without any enemy there is nothing to unify against."

So it kind of a position in favor of constant warfare (active or not).

I will once again remind you that this guy was a literal Nazi. Do with this information as you will, and I hope this helped.

Answer 3

Maybe not literal war but, in a sense, intellectual war/struggle.

Adorno does derive from the negative Dialectics that there needs to be a perpetual enlightenment of enlightenment, ie. for freedom and autonomy, structures of power and institutions need to be questioned and reevaluated constantly. This includes language, culture, and politics.

As of Carl Schmitt, his political theory included the stipulation that any imposition of one's will on others, including domination by war, was the purest embodiment of autonomy in the sense of sovereignty. He also stated that in any given state where the Rule of Law counted, the judges of the supreme court were the true sovereigns. It is ambiguous whether his theory is descriptive or normative though.