The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Paperback)

by Jonathan Schell (Author) "Some of the most important changes for the future of war have come from within war itself..." (more)
Key Phrases: global war system, abolition agreement, unconquerable world, United States, Soviet Union, South Africa (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
In what seems at the moment a quixotic thesis, Schell argues that warfare is no longer the ultimate arbiter of political power and that a maturing tradition of nonviolent political action offers hope for a peaceful future. Schell, an eloquent antiwar essayist best known for The Fate of the Earth (1982), begins with a study of the modern "war system," which he says proceeds from Clausewitz's premise that wars are fought to secure political objectives. As wars grew increasingly devastating, they became unwieldy means to achieve political ends. Since no political goal justifies annihilation, the Cold War nuclear standoff made the war system obsolete. Meanwhile, people's revolutions were also contributing to the demise of the war system. Citing Gandhi's independence campaign and anti-Soviet dissident movements. Schell argues, not totally convincingly, that political liberation can be achieved by popular will alone, through passive resistance and active construction of civil society. As we enter what Schell calls "the second nuclear age," in which proliferation threatens us with a "nuclear 1914," he warns against the Bush administration's "Augustan" policies of "unchallengeable military domination." Schell proposes instead the development of cooperative institutions to promote four goals: banning weapons of mass destruction, using shared sovereignty to settle wars of self-determination, enforcing an international law prohibiting crimes against humanity and creating a "democratic league." Hard-nosed realists will consider these ideas na‹ve pacifism. But at a time when Americans feel insecure despite overwhelming military superiority, Schell's radical rethinking of the relationship between war and political power offers a fresh and hopeful perspective.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From The New Yorker
At the outset of this lucid survey of alternatives to warfare, the author disavows the label "pacifist": he is not opposed to the use of force, but he believes that it has become an ineffective tool for achieving political ends. On this pragmatic basis, Schell builds a case for civil noncoöperation, which he argues has long played a crucial role in deciding otherwise bloody conflicts (among them the American, French, and Russian Revolutions). Showing how nonviolent action proved successful in ending apartheid in South Africa and in dismantling the Soviet bloc, Schell writes with discipline and urgency. It's disappointing, then, that, once he has persuaded us of the need for peaceful solutions, those he offers—such as shared sovereignty—seem disconnected from the realities of politics today.
Copyright © 2005 The New Yorker

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 448 pages
• Publisher: Holt Paperbacks (July 7, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0805044574
• ISBN-13: 978-0805044577
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.1 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #230,453 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

49 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Good, thought-provoking work, June 9, 2003

By	thedevilscoachman (Vienna, Virginia) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Hardcover)

I picked up this book after hearing the author speak at a book signing in Washington, DC. I was quite impressed by the power of his thought, and this book demonstrates the same qualities of well-supported, insightful and frequently iconoclastic analysis. The central premise, as the above reviews note, is that "political power" - which is based upon the consent of the governed and the agreement by political actors to keep promises and to behave within certain rules - and "violence" - which relies upon ruling by fear of harm and actually destroys the social bonds from which actual "power" flow - are at odds, and that ultimately political ends may be more effectively achieved by application of "power," a constructive force, than by "violence." Accordingly, the author argues, the political aims of mass movements of people frequently may be more effectively achieved by non-violent means than violent ones. And lest this example be dismissed by "realists," the author analyzes in-depth examples of non-violent or mostly non-violent "revolutions" that include the Indian independence movement, the collapse of the Soviet empire, and the transformation of South Africa from apartheid state to democracy (as well as a host of other, somewhat less-striking examples including the growing democratization of South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Chile, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc.) Although, in my view, the author does not fully answer one of the central questions posed in response to pacifism - how can a non-violent movement gain political traction when confronted by a totalitarian system that utterly denies the worth of human life? - his thoughts on non-violent mass movements are fascinating and thought-provoking, and shed much needed light on largely non-violent political transformations - like the collapse of the Soviet empire or the democratization of South Africa - that have been taken for granted. Thus, while I am not entirely convinced of some of his points, I believe that the author has framed a very interesting political argument, one which cannot be dismissed out-of-hand and must be answered by those who feel that the liberal application of violence by the United States is helping to make the world a safer place.

Not by any means an easy or a quick read, this book is very worthwhile and good material for thought whether you tend to agree with the author's perspective or not. Recommended.

47 of 49 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Restores Faith, Non-Violent Restoration of People Power, September 13, 2003

By	Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)

This review is from: The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Hardcover)

Edit of 21 Dec 07 to add links

This book, together with William Geider's The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy, and Mark Hertsgaard's The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World, in one of three that I believe every American needs to read between now and November 2004.

Across 13 chapters in four parts, the author provides a balanced overview of historical philosophy and practice at both the national level "relations among nations" and the local level ("relations among beings"). His bottom line: that the separation of church and state, and the divorce of social responsibility from both state and corporate actions, have so corrupted the political and economic governance architectures as to make them pathologically dangerous.

His entire book discusses how people can come together, non-violently, to restore both their power over capital and over circumstances, and the social meaning and values that have been abandoned by "objective" corporations and governments.

The book has applicability to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places where the US is foolishly confusing military power with political power. As he says early on, it is the public *will* that must be gained, the public *consent* to a new order--in the absence of this, which certainly does not exist in either Iraq or Afghanistan, no amount of military power will be effective (to which I would add: and the cumulative effect of the financial and social cost of these military interventions without end will have a reverse political, economic, and social cost on the invader that may make the military action a self-inflicted wound of great proportions).

Across the book, the author examines three prevailing models for global relations: the universal empire model, the balance of power model, and the collective security model. He comes down overwhelmingly on the side of the latter as the only viable approach to current and future global stability and prosperity.

A quote from the middle of the book captures its thesis perfectly: "Violence is a method by which the ruthless few can subdue the passive many. Nonviolence is a means by which the active many can overcome the ruthless few."

Taking off from the above, the author elaborates on three sub-themes:

First, that cooperative power is much greater, less expensive, and more lasting that coercive power.

Second, that capitalism today is a scourge on humanity, inflicting far greater damage--deaths, disease, poverty, etcetera--that military power, even the "shock and awe" power unleashed against Afghanistan and Iraq without public debate.

Third, and he draws heavily on Hannah Arendt, here a quote that should shame the current US Administration because it is so contradictory to their belief in "noble lies"--lies that Hitler and Goering would have admired. She says, "Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities."

Toward the end of the book the author addresses the dysfunctionality of the current "absolute sovereignty" model and concludes that in an era of globalization, not only must the US respect regional and international sovereignty as an over-lapping authority, but that we must (as Richard Falk recommended in the 1970's) begin to recognize people's or nations as distinct entities with culturally-sovereign rights that over-lap the states within which the people's reside--this would certainly apply to the Kurds, spread across several states, and it should also apply to the Jews and to the Palestinians, among many others.

On the last page, he says that we have a choice between survival and annihilation. We can carry on with unilateral violence, or we the people can take back the power, change direction, and elect a government that believes in cooperative non-violence, the only path to survival that appears to the author, and to this reviewer, as viable.

This is a *very* important book, and it merits careful reading by every adult who wishes to leave their children a world of peace and prosperity. We can do better. What we are doing now is destructive in every sense of the word.

Other recommended books with reviews:
The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits (Wharton School Publishing Paperbacks)
Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World's Last Dictators by 2025
Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik
Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart
The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship

42 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Schell's Pacifist Manifesto., January 31, 2004

By	G. Merritt (Boulder, CO) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This review is from: The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Hardcover)

Best known for THE FATE OF THE EARTH (1982), Jonathan Schell is an anti-war essayist and frequent contributor to "The Nation," "The New Yorker," "Harper's," "The Atlantic," and "Foreign Affairs" magazines. In his pacifist manifesto, THE UNCONQUERABLE WORLD, Schell examines the history of conventional war, nuclear war, people's war and revolution, from Von Clausewitz's premise that wars are fought to secure political objectives, to the Bush administration's ongoing "war on terrorism," while simultaneously examining the history of nonviolence, from Jesus's commandment to "put up thy sword," to Gandhi's, Havel's, and Martin Luther King's more recent nonviolent victories. (King liked to say that Jesus gave him "the message," and Gandhi gave him "the method" to practice what he preached, p. 246.) Along the way, Schell carefully develops his argument that all government depends for its existence on the cooperation of its citizens, civil servants, and soldiers. If that cooperation is withdrawn, the government will fail in its objectives (p. 128). This philosophy ("satyagraha") was demonstrated by Ghandi, who prescribed nonviolent action in which the participants refused to cooperate with laws they regarded as unjust or otherwise offensive to their consciences, accompanied by their willingness to suffer the consequences (p. 119). "The nonviolent actor," Schell observes, "exhibits the highest degree of freedom also because his action originates within himself, according to his own judgment, inclination, and conscience, not in helpless, automatic response to something done by someone else" (p. 133). In other words, noviolence is a means by which "the active many can overcome the ruthless few" (p. 144).

Since September 11th, Schell writes, the "Augustan" policies of the Bush administration have brought us to the brink of "some nuclear 1914 or anthrax 1914" that could "send history off the rails" (p. 8). Americans are now faced with a choice between "two Americas" and two possible futures. In an imperial America, power would be put in the hands of the president and checks and balances would end; civil liberties would be lost; military spending would supercede social spending; the gap between rich and poor would increase; electoral politics would be dominated by corporate money; and social, economic, and ecological agendas would be neglected. In an alternative America, the immense executive power would be broken up into the three branches of government as the Constitution provides; civil liberties would remain intact; money would be driven out of politics; and the social, economic, and ecological agendas of the country and world would become government's chief concern (pp. 345-46). Whereas the Bush administration's policies rely upon individuals confirming the system, fulfilling the system, making the system, becoming the system ("living the lie"), Schell advocates a revolution in our hearts and minds in which violence becomes unnecessary, and we are able to live instead in truth, which means living in opposition to the repressive regime.

Carefully reasoned, thoroughly analytical, radical, brilliantly revolutionary, highly intellectual, and hopeful, Schell's UNCONQUERABLE WORLD is one of the most important books of our time.

G. Merritt