I would like to say I am a classical realist. Many things in the world are caused by human error, and egoism.
The other thing is, I have currently finished a class on Global Society, and I just have to say, everything is more complicated than it seems, especially opinions.
Just post what you think you are, and why.
Maybe an outline will do everyone good.
Cause of War: (answer may be as long as you like)
Key to Peace: (answer may be as long as you like)
I'm a socialist at heart, because I think everyone deserves an equal chance, but should be helped if they fail, but also think that promoting a strong capitalist economy is an important part of this, because that way you can raise more taxes to pay for state projects.
Marxists believe that socialism is the key to peace, and the capitalism is the cause of war
Well yes, dont Marxists believe that capitalism promotes class inequality? And by the conflict theory viewpoint this would promote violence? The lowerclass overthrowing the uppeclass to form a classless, or Communist, society?
Correct if If Im wrong
I don't think it's an entirely fair comparison, as the four schools of thoughts listed by OP encompass broad categories (philosophy, the arts, politics, economics, etc) that can overlap or diverge, depending on the situation. Generally, do you aim to ask what is my stance on international relations?
your causes of war have to go deeper than that, like how what caused those events you are talking about.
Key to peace: you sound like a neo realist (newer version of realists), they believe that the key to having world peace is having a world government, which currently does not exist. For International Law is not binding. Though in a way treaties are, countries still have the power to ignore them.
Can you explain what 'realism' is supposed to mean exactly in the context of your thread? You seem to give a different meaning to the word than the meaning I'm used to (like in the context of optimism, pessimism, realism, simply).
He's referring to a person's stance on international relations, if what I'm sensing from him is correct.
Realism is the school of thought that centres around the core tenet that the primary actors in international relations/politics are states, which actively pursue goals that contribute to self-preservation and self-interest. Translated into tangible terms, realists feel that the world is an anarchic and dangerous place, wherein international bodies such as the UN hold little real power. Power is the only certain constant, consequently leading to military might being an essential factor in the calculations of adherents to the realist school. Famous realist thinkers include Machiavelli; A modern day realist would be Kissinger, or just about any major politician during the Cold War.
@SirLegendary Can you elaborate on one point, then? You said before that neo-realists see the key to global peace in a world government. Why neo-realists, and what about classical realists (what you see yourself as, if I recall correctly)? If, as nicho said, the core tenet of the realists is that the primary actors are states, a world government appears on first sight to be the key to world peace for realists in general.
Yes that is their view on the world, and it's "actors". Actors being states and probably other big organizations. But they're view on the key to peace and cause of war, is slightly different. Though they may believe the same general idea, they do have a difference. But if you believe one world government is what you think is right, then you may say you are a Realist. If you believe capitalism and democracy is the way to go, then you can say you are a Liberalist. Though these definitions are a little general.
This video might help you understand more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k04tMdeCO8k
It talks about the basics of IR theory.
But if you believe one world government is what you think is right, then you may say you are a Realist. If you believe capitalism and democracy is the way to go, then you can say you are a Liberalist. Though these definitions are a little general.
I suppose the definitions are not only general, but overlapping. Or what would you call someone who thinks a democratic world government is the way to go? But I'll watch the video, maybe I'll stop asking questions then ^^
I think that's not an entire correct understanding of realism or liberalism with regard to international relations.
Realism does not exclude support for domestic democratic ideals and capitalism. A nation that maintains a democratic government can very well take up the mantle of a realist military power on the international stage, with the United States during the Cold War/Bush-era being a key example. You would however be correct in stating that nations taking a realist stance to international politics have disdain for an international system of democracy whereby a supranational assembly passes laws and resolutions that its members have to adhere to.
Capitalism at its core is simply an economic system that espouses private operation and running of trade and industry. Both realists and liberalists can promote capitalism, or they can not support it. For example, Liberalism espouses a tenet that international rules and organizations can help foster cooperation, trust, and prosperity. That doesn't preclude a nation going for capitalism or not.
Neorealism is also known as structural realism; it differs from so called classical realism in that neorealism is much more structured and "scientific" in its approach. Classical realism puts alot of emphasis on human nature and ego of statesmen and domestic governments, such as the human urge to dominate, whereas neo-realists places maintains that the pressures of international anarchy is a more direct and essential factor.
I think that should be a...sufficient if not very detailed summary. I've forgotten alot of what I studied after going to the army.
