Forums → WEPR → Are you a Realist? Liberalist? Marxist? Constructivist?

After reading up on those concepts on Wikipedia, I think I do have a better understanding of what those concepts entail. Also thank you nicho for your explanations.

I still don't have an overview over all different tendencies and facets, and I agree with different points of different schools of thought, so for the moment I refuse to adhere to one specific IR theory. However, I may say that in the situation Realism vs Liberalism, I tend to be more of a liberalist than a realist. Some criticism of realism I have is the following:

- The importance of non-state actors is underestimated, even though we have examples for it. The Avaaz.org network for example is a global actor that has had some influence on other actors. Or better yet, the terrorist group IS (while they proclaimed to be a state/califate now, I still consider them a non-state actor due to their geographically inconsistent distribution and world-wide network). These two groups are influential non-state actors in recent IR.

- A critique particularly to classical realism is the focus on a state's aggressiveness. If you look at Europe, many countries are neither militarily or economically aggressive. This also leads me to the point of world peace; I think that, while a global government cannot be excluded as a possibility to achieve this, a federation of actors without central leader is just as good a solution to world peace.

Cause of War:
Ignorance, people who do not have the ability to understand the viewpoints and differences of another person. People like that are a hindrance to society. Examples of this would be the Civil War when people were too stupid to realize that human beings are not all white. Another thing about this would be how people get so bent out of shape for religious reasons and Gay rights and so on.
HOWEVER, war and conflict also arise from people who do something immoral and don't stop, such as the murder and genocide of innocent people, in which case someone needs to stop them if rationalization is not working; they deserve to be taken out and they do not deserve any form of mercy for what they have done. If someone is doing something immoral and wrong, and attempts to rationalize with them fail; those who have the ability to stop them have the obligation to do so.
Many wars happened in combination of both and I do not believe either party is completely innocent.

Cause of Peace: The person(s) who were doing said heinous crimes were stopped and/or understanding has been reached between the two parties. Ultimately no sense of peace will ever happen; maybe for brief spurts in specific areas of the world, but I do not believe that 'world peace' will ever happen. I have a pretty blunt (some people consider it barbaric) sense of justice in the sense that some people not only deserve to die, but need to. Examples would be Hitler, the whole Kim family, Stalin, etc. Those people did such awful things that the world is/would be better off if/when they were killed.
World peace is an illusion that will never exist until all the humans are off the planet; we are fundamentally violent in nature and we do not naturally jump to understanding and logic.

As far as what I fall under... no clue, but those are my answers.

Liberalism is just a term that we constrict.ourselves by. Liberalism in this case stemmed from the explosion of ideas in the Age of Enlightenment which swept away many old fashioned traditions, hence the name.

What we classify as Liberal today is extremely narrow and confining: Generally a person who is a Democrat. Virtually all major Western political parties, if not all, owe their roots and foundation to classical Liberal thought greatly. Ideas and institutions that we deeply embrace and cherish such as a constitution, separation of church and state, separation of government into lesgislative, judicial and executive functions, freedom of speech, these all stemmed from classical Liberal thought.

It would not prove fruitful or prudent if we judge ourselves as Liberal or not simply because of the word's etymology instead of the reverse; considering our own stances before finding a term of identity that encompasses them.

If you were born in the 18th century, you would be considered a Liberal, and an ardent one at that. Though it seems quite clear that you are not a Liberalist with regard to the discussion on hand and you are not wrong in pointing out that democracy and.capitalism are not mutually.exclusive with realism, contemporary perceptions of what a Liberal is should hopefully not cloud the issue further!

Cause Of War: Greed
Cause For Peace: A democratic or socialist government, with leaders who must be willing to compromise in any way to prevent war from occurring, and if they refuse to prevent war, they must resign from the position, with someone else taking their place.

I know that I am an extreme pacifist, but I'm not sure where I would fall into here.

Well, if we're just answering instead of trying to label ourselves into a set group I might as well throw in my 2 cents.

Cause of War: I agree with Pegasus, greed is the cause of all war. Specifically the lust for power. Every war ever fought was the result of one or both sides seeking power through land, money, and/or control.

Cause of Peace: There is none really. As long as one person is capable of having more power than another there is no way to eliminate that greed. Since there isn't any way to genuinely make every person, every job, and every group equal there will always be a quest for more power. Socialism just provides a disguise of equality for those in power to hide behind (Stalin spent decades proving that) so we're stuck with wars. The best we can do is make wars so costly that it's reserved as a last resort through methods like M.A.D. and scorched earth tactics.

A democratic or socialist government, with leaders who must be willing to compromise in any way to prevent war from occurring,

That is an extremely poor solution. Such behavior would be seen as a sign of weakness on the global stage and would only result in other nations invading. Pacifism as an ideal is all well and good but it needs a grounding in reality. Even a rat will attack a cat when cornered, likewise any nation has to be prepared to defend itself even if that means war.

Greed is a simple factor of human emotion as much as anger and pride. Does greed cause war? Yes. But, greed also causes us to work together when we don't necessarily care to so that we may get what we want. I don't particularly care to sit on the phone all day, but it's what drives a chain of jobs in which I get paid and am able to purchase the things I want.

We can't simply shrug off an emotion as being a sole cause for war as if the emotion itself should cease to exist. There's nothing inherently wrong with greed. It's the manner in which we strive to achieve our goals that is important.

As for capitalism, socialism, and communism, I find it absurd to think any of these economic systems inherently encourage war. Foreign policy and economic policy are not one and the same and must be evaluated as two separate systems.

For capitalism, watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6adVQrSUAc

As for capitalism, socialism, and communism, I find it absurd to think any of these economic systems inherently encourage war. Foreign policy and economic policy are not one and the same and must be evaluated as two separate systems.

Socialism is believed to encourage war because of things like slavery, and which race is on top. Stuff like that.

Capitalism also encourages war because nation states want more resources from other nation states. Like invasions of other states for oil or territory.

They are more than just economic systems. More to add, feminism also talks about how the male gender could also be the cause of war.

Classical Liberalist and God believer.

I think a better and more sound understanding of Socialism, Capitalism, and the other "isms" mentioned earlier would be a great idea.

Both Capitalism and Socialism can refer to economic systems; Socialism differs because the term can also carry deep political meanings.

Capitalism, when stripped bare of all its fancy trappings is just an economic system whereby trade, industry and means of production are privately owned for the sake of profit. A socialist economic system is the opposite; the State, the citizens or cooperatives own such economic nodes, in any combination. Socialism can also be extended to the political realm. There are dozens upon dozens of variations of such political causes such as democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, communism, etc. Political socialists generally aim to achieve equality amongst people, a welfare state or greater social security, etc.

In today's world, there's virtually no nation that adheres to a purist capitalist or socialist route. For example, the ruling Socialist Party in France cracks down harshly on the rich and corporations and is vocal in its support for unions, yet France is still clearly taken as a vibrant bastion of capitalism.

These two systems do not inherently cause war; history can give us a dozen examples of such ilk. There are always other push factors that come into play.

I would hardly agree with the two statements put forth by yourself. Countries do go to war for resources; but this is not a war due to capitalism. It's a survival instinct, a reason that realists will gleefully jump upon. Nations have been going to war since time immemorial over resources and capitalism is a rather recent phenomenon. We should be careful not to mix up greed or a desire for resources with capitalism. They are subtly linked, but they are not wholly alike.

You would have to elaborate more on your socialist point...it's too coagulated a statement, containing too many generalizations to boot. If you intended to mean that socialists nations go to war to rid other nations of slavery, and hence to establish a friendly government that would not be wholly incorrect. Socialist governments during the Cold War tended to do so, and their leaders were often fervent believers in their ideals, yet there were plenty of other savvy political reasons to do so.

That is an extremely poor solution. Such behavior would be seen as a sign of weakness on the global stage and would only result in other nations invading. Pacifism as an ideal is all well and good but it needs a grounding in reality. Even a rat will attack a cat when cornered, likewise any nation has to be prepared to defend itself even if that means war.

An anarchist, utilitarist, humanist, secularist, atheist, technocrat, who believes at emergency we must develop the technology of interstellar travel (couldn't find a term for that).

The only part I see realism-problem is anarchy, and technocracy is debatable for others.

Cause of war: Money
Peace: Money or defeat

This is true. Yes there are some other reasons, but this is the most comon reason.

I can't tell what I am , so help my.
I want democracy. Don't like capitalisam but it is better then having Sttalin (Idea of comunisam is quite good but there are allways people who want power. Read Animal farm by George Orwell.).I am traditionalist but I am still for equallity of all. I am for sociall help. I am for diplomacy with west. I am against death penalty. I am religious but still see that there are some mistakes in it.