T. Morgenthau: A Comparative Analysis

“The right of nature... is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life. “ – T. Hobbes, one of the earliest classical realists claimed in 17th century. Classical realist H. Morgenthau in 20th stated, “The struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience.” (1948:29). Despite the difference of over 300 years between Hobbes and Morgenthau’s times, the approach of realism has an universal principle – power is the dominant factor in international relations’ arena. Realism is “a doctrine of state building and proposes that the market should be subordinate to state interests” (Smith et al, 2014: 8). Neo-realism is

The coordination of state’s national economy and external relations has to match the matter of national security. National economics, mainly aspects vital to security and survival of the state (for instance, energy resources and defence industry) should be independent from other countries. Because of this principle, foreign ownership of firms is discouraged and different protectionist policies might be adopted in a sphere of trade. Realists also see international system as anarchical as world government does not exist. This leads to the belief that state is the highest form of political power and states shape international relations. In these circumstances, states naturally pursue their self-interests; so one country wins something at the expense of other’s loss (Smith et al, 2014:8). Realism became the dominant theory of International Relations after World War 2 and still remains one of the basic approaches of studying International Relations. Morgenthau in his Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948) saw realism as “a product of human nature” (Brown and Ainley, 2005: 29). Aggression and power-pursue of states are the consequences of the competitive human nature. He considered state a key actor in international arena, as, despite the influence of international organisations, enterprises or pressure groups, state is the institution,

Medieval business system created the basic structures of contemporary commercial world. Mercantilism is known as dominant view during this period (Smith et al, 2014: 9). Mercantilism originated between Middle - Ages and the age of laissez-faire, even though these periods start and finish at different dates in different countries and regions (Heckscher, 1962: 20), and “reflects the low political priorities of nations seeking to industrialize” (Ravenhill, 2011: 34). Mercantilism was directed more “inwards and not outwards, against the still more narrowly confined social institutions, cities, provinces and corporations which have dominated medieval social activity” (Heckscher, 1962: 20-21). Nation state became a central figure of economic thinking. Security of the state is he main issue as it is closely linked to the power while interacting with other states. Strong army and the “acquisition of wealth” are the ways to strengthen the state. Maximised tax revenues and ‘export more, import less’ principle were seen as ways to enhance the level of wealth the country owns. The goal of a state is to own a surplus in its trade balance. But the issue arises here, as not every country is capable of achieving this, leading to conflicts. However, mercantilism received some critique, mostly from liberals, led by A. Smith (In his piece Wealth of Nations (1776),