The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories.
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
4.0 An Explanation of Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism and Post-Structuralism. 4.1 Realism Realism or political realism prioritizes national interests and security concerns in addition to moral ideology and social reconstruction. The term is often associated with political power. The term is often associated with political power. Realism believes that the state is the main actor of the most important in determining the direction of a country.
Assess the claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. On the contrary, it will contend that there are, in an actual fact, more of the latter than there are of the former on, for example, the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument.
Therefore, it provides differences between the status quo power and progressive states, while maintaining and emphasizing the importance of government at the same time. In contrary, Structural Realism is more concerned on ensuring their survival, by seeking and maintaining that power. Structural Realism would treat states as they are black boxes: they are assumed to be alike (Mearsheimer). Furthermore, Classical Realism and Structural Realism differ in their views of interconnection in international politics, fundamentally what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. Classical Realists believe that the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction.
Liberalism, along with realism, is one of the main schools of thought in international relations. According to liberals, international relations is not only controlled by the relationship between states but also includes and emphasises the role of other actors. During WWI and
Interestingly, Captain Kirk displayed examples of liberalism and realism simultaneously. It is these actions of the two warring enemies in which the conflict begins and appropriately ends. To move on, the theories of realism and liberalism must be expounded upon. Realism, as a theory, deals with how the world is perceived, and it predominantly focuses on the true nature of man. The state of the world is anarchy according to this theory.
Capitalism and democracy Some historians, such as Charles Sellers and Nancy Cott, label the period following the war of 1812 as a Market Revolution. Whether the historian labels the period as such or not, all agree on the economic, social, and innovative changes and developments that occurred during this era. However, historians disagree on the positive or negative effects that took place because of these changes. Charles Sellers argues that this “Market Revolution,” called so because it introduced capitalism and other drastic changes, served only to strip the small farmers or businesses of any advantages and give it to the large corporations. Or in Jill Lepore’s words, “made the poor poorer; the middle-class smug, pious, and bourgeois;
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK It involves using theories to explain the existing problem in various situations. Realism theory and the dependency theory will be used to explain the existing conflict between Israel and Palestine. It will also be able to justify the use of force by the Israeli government when dealing with Palestinian Hamas. Realism theory in the Israeli and Palestine conflict Realism theory explains how states are selfish, struggle to gain power and succeed in acquiring its national interests in the international system. Realists identify world politics as a trans-historical and trans-geographical struggle for power, and that in this context Thucydides’ dictum that, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (where strength and weakness are calculated by military capabilities) is the stark and universal truth (Schmidt, 2007; Thucydides, 1972, p. 402).
According to Kerry Ferris and Jill Stein in The Real World: An introduction to Sociology, “socialism is an economic system based on collective ownership of the means of production, collective distribution of goods and services.” We can say socialism is common ownership or rights. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population. In simple words, this is an economic system in which goods and services are provided through a main central system of loyal government ownership rather than through competition and a free market system. Socialism, as and substitute to capitalism, is an economic system which is measured and regulated by the government so as to ensure the welfare and equality of opportunity to
According to Marx, capitalism does not work because the working class people, the proletariat, who are ultimately responsible for the production of goods do not reap the benefits, but are rather exploited by the bourgeoisie. This is why communism requires that people pool their labor in order to collectively own the means of production as well as the products. Marx asserts that the very drive to production that characterizes capitalism results in it burning itself out: in order for capitalism to continue flourishing and increasing its means of production, it must further exploit the proletariat; however, repression is only possible when the repressed are being maintained consistently, and the living conditions for the proletariat are only diminishing
A glance at today’s world reveals that society is a ground of greed. In society people are advancing for their aesthetics and social standing rather than wishing to advance on capability or for self improvement. In Guy de Maupassant’s short story, “The Necklace”, the views and thoughts of society exhausts the characters in an endless effort in which satisfaction is unable to be achieved, which is revealed through Marxism and Feminism theory. For one, the desire to reach a higher view in society of oneself through aesthetics and equipment. As well, the creation of repressed desires through the treatment of women in society. All in all, the views and thoughts of society deeply affects the characters, making them ineligible to ever reach
In other words, to get from “here and now”, one must first be knowledgeable about the “here and now” including the people’s existing ideas , desires, and opinions, the desirability of these “future” and the means of achieving this “future”. After all the discussions, it follows from this that political judgment is exercised best when it uses theories or philosophies that are realist; theories or philosophies that start and are concerned, in first instance, at “the way the social, economic or political institutions operate in the society under a particular time, and what elements or variables move these humans to act in the given contexts” (Geuss, 2008). So why realist theory? This is because a realist theory is not concerned in the first instance with how people ought ideally to act, desire or ought to be. It focuses its discussions in the real motivations of the people and the elements that determines it.
Each theory has been developed and grounded on various perspectives relating to human nature and the world in general, but as the world is constantly evolving, the usefulness of each theory is also constantly being tested in the face of critical issues as they arise and the success or failure of these applications will determine in essence which of these theories will stand the test of time. This essay is an analysis of the theory of Idealism and whether or not its application in modern international politics is capable of working successfully to solve the common goods problem. The Theory of Idealism Idealism is one of the major theories in international relations. “The basic insight of this theory is that the national characteristics of individual States matter for their international relations.”