Can William James' "Moral Equivalent of War" Actually Create Change?

After I finished reading William James "The Moral Equivalent of War" I found the overall tone of the writing quite optimistic, and the writer's arguments well founded, but I found myself disagreeing with the notion that we need any sort of "Equivalent" for war. Before asserting my disapproval all over the place like I normally do with these sorts of things, I would really like to point out the parts of the James' analysis that I found quite profound. James mentions several times the "pleasure-economy" that we have in the United States. The idea that our cultural breeds us to be self-centered and to strive for what is good for us can be quite a destructive way to run a society. James' other point that the military provides us with the framework to break away from the trap that a "pleasure-economy" brings by teaching self discipline and other beneficial virtues.

What I disagree with however with the notion that the what needs to be preserved is this cultural notion of manliness, that James says is so essential to society. James' notion of manliness includes virtues of "toughness" and "authority." While I don't want to say that these things cannot contribute positive things to society, I think that James' "alternative" has the potential to breed the same kind of violence and oppression that war brings, just without the actual killing. While this is certainly better than our current state of affairs, it is not creating a positive peace. James' says: "we should all feel some degree of it imperative if we were conscious of our work as obligatory service to the state." I don't want to be too outlandish, but to me this seems like revamped fascism. Human action and work done not because of passion and love but rather an obligation? James' even goes on to say "we should be owned, as soldiers are by the army." This utopia the author is creating is starting to look quite oppressive.

I understand what William James is saying in that it is much more productive to take the cultural notion of war and the military and simply reposition its energy for good. I do however see that this looks like dangerous business to get ourselves into. James' says that if we simply get rid of both the military model and war, both will soon come back. But instead that it is more productive to keep the military and position it as an anti-war force. I disagree with the notion that this capability for oppression which James calls "manliness" is so essential to our nature that it needs to continually be nurtured. Like any aspect of human nature, whether it be love or hate, creation or destruction, toughness or gentleness. What is nurtured is what will be expressed. I agree with James that we shouldn't ignore the tough and rigid side of our humanity, but I do not think that continually building society around these notions will produce anything more just than it already has.