I did a lengthy interview with The Institute of Art and Ideas in London on 6 November 2023, which was recently posted on YouTube. The interviewer asks probing questions about how I think the world works. In addition to asking questions about specific cases like the Ukraine war, he asks question about the value of realist theory for understanding international relations.
If anything, state actors use ideological rhetoric and other types of alternatives as a way to gain support for their objectives. Perhaps these 'irrational' wars were driven by the state actor, as a result of internal conflicts. If you were to argue the wars the US had fought were irrational, you ought to question why the state actor had behaved that way. Perhaps, you could argue from a rational irrationality perspective: the state actor had been indeed rational, holding and maintaining an irrational position, as it was instrumentally useful to signal strength and as a way to garner public support within the nation-state. You could simply just go back and say, another instance of state irrationality. That very well could be, but it's a lazy explanation.
The problem with calling a video "How the world works" is that exceptions to how it works weaken the predictive power of the theory.
If you then criticise how part of it works - the USA shouldn't be focusing on Ukraine, says John here - then you contradict your own theory that Great Powers (and states in general) are rational.
When you then blame the USA and NATO for causing the war, you've either got your history badly the wrong way around, or you've thrown your Great Powers book in the bin. I would argue he has done both.
Great thinkers have thrown their books in the bin before - witness Wittgenstein trashing his Tractatus. John's error is two-fold: first he forgets that his book has the word "Tragedy" in it - Great Powers can't help but defeat themselves eventually - he clearly argues here that the USA and NATO are not acting rationally; and because his theory has holes (structural theories cannot account for Agency; cause and effect are confused; the Domestic Determinant and the Constructivist complexity of decision-making are ignored), his policy advice comes over as just another opinion on social media, however trenchant, articulate, and enjoyably controversial!
Maybe we'll see a great cleansing all around in 2024 ,Putin can't win in a war that he should have steamrollerred into victory in one year. And all the candidates in the USA are owned by trier lobbyists. . Anyway it was pleasant to chat with you.
Very interesting interview. It felt there were attempts to try to discredit the realist framework theory inorder to allow a harder to prove, more importantly disprove, ideology rhetoric to explain certain state's decisions. These ideological rhetoric can easily be manipulated by the media to severely misinform the public, which lead to political support of irrational wars.
Where as the realistic framework is a more objective and logical understanding of how the countries make decisions, and therefore is a useful tool to determine when there influences which are leading to countries not making rational decisions.
I understand the guy was interviewing and that was his job. And I’m biased because I have a warm spot in my heart for Johnny but that numb nutz basically kept saying, over and over and over…what you can’t tell the future?
That is not what I mean, Fran. John is capable of juggling the different pieces of Asia and so is Michael. There is a lot of connection, depending on how one looks at it. Luckily, they are not one-trick ponies.
Furthermore, I am only talking about two intelligent human beings who are humane AND realist having public conversations for the benefit of everybody. Which I kinda think many people want.
You can't deflect the fact that China is rising and may even play a constructive role in solving the problems that upset us all so much. And it doesn't have to happen on Substack.
I'm just bringing it up on “John’s Substack.”
Not “Fran’s Substack."
And you don't get to decide Who wants What on Substack, Fran.
You are one person with an opinion.
I am one person with an opinion.
"I’m out of here?” You like to use little threats? Then go back to your abusers on MSM. Otherwise, don’t copy the sad little angry people who want intellectual overlords to talk about one piece of a horrible historical puzzle without even glancing around for the different pieces!
It seems the interviewer's question at the end wasn't fully answered by John. The interviewer was looking for a justification for why we should use realism as a prescription of what we ought to do.
I think there is a very basic answer to this which is that by failing to behave according to realist logic and letting ideologies take control, states endager their survival.
If you consider realism a fairly reliable framework in predicting or explaining how state actors behave, you could certainly form prescriptions for the very same state actors.
A model is a model, it relies on assumptions as a way to explain the world. A model shouldn't be judged on the assumptions but rather it's accuracy. If we understand that, and indeed acknowledge the irrationality of state actors, which is something to maybe explore as well, policy prescriptions guided by realist principles seem understandable but it can be often too zero sum unfortunately.
1. It would be neat to see an article titled, "When Realist Theory Doesn't Work". What is the domain of the 25%? Ideology? Irrationality?
2. By the answer to the question at the end of the interview, you made the claim in effect that, "When Realist Theory doesn't work, States should act like better Realists." This feels true, but why? Because when States are not being good Realists, they are not putting their survival first (for one reason or another). So an investigation into this might lead to a subtitle for #1 above: "Why States Don't Always Put Survival First." (Maybe I'll write this article if you don't.)
The framework that realism provides is quite handy for generally analyzing state actor behavior with one another. I'm not too certain about the prescriptions it provides though, that seems much more sketchy.
I would recommend reading two of my posts:
The Invisible Hand of Power
Economics and International Political Economy
It won't explicitly answer your question but maybe it'll help you think about it. If not, look up rational irrationality, Bryan Caplan.
I hesitated to bring it up here, but post-modernism and surrealism are rich parallels to the collective west states’ recent ‘acting.’ For me, at least. I’m not suggesting anyone look there for answers, but the conflation of rational irrationality made me want to bring it up.
I think it would be interesting to hear John re: focus on China. Not as a call to fear China though, because Americans need to understand why China is so well positioned today, thanks to the Great US Deindustrialization, in great part. Fearing China is counterproductive, unless you are a warmonger. John is not.
Engendering understanding re: the why of China’s geopolitical rise, outside of ideology, could be more powerful if you considered it in tandem to the work of economist Michael Hudson, who works on/in China and is an economic realist and a historian of economics. He also went to UofC as an undergrad and is an ex-Hyde Parker!
I see so many good reasons to debate/discuss Mearsheimer IR and Hudsonian economic realism. Potentially a very rich discussion. Survival of a state and the economic realities inside and outside its borders go hand in hand.
Well, if that happens and we focus on China, so we can better deal with our future and don't deal with the present which is quite disturbing to say the least I'm out of here. I think most on substack that are into politics are not looking to take a class.
I was not referencing your comment and simply made a mistake in posting it under your comment. I understand humility, but you don't understand how to respond in a non-demeaning tone. Join Eric.
Oh John, there is a realist view of Ukraine too bad its the nazi view. Let the slavs grind each other into the mud, self-genocide is so much easier, best of all it means cheap oil AND cheap grain! Maybe you want to reconsider your purported realism because your views on Palistan are certainly bleeding heart liberal internationalist whereas a realist Israeli would say "the Pals want from the river to the sea? No problem! Let's drive them into the sea!"
You are looking at ugly ass echoes of WW2, not echos of crazy stupid gulf war afghan turn tribal patriarchal warlike religious subsistence economies into swedish style social democracy, fyi.
A state may be a rational actor, but the people who run it are not. I’ve come to believe in something I call “folie à plusieurs” (from folie à deux) which can become more widely contagious under the right conditions. Neo-conservative geopolitical ideology and neo-liberal economic ideology are the “deux” in this scenario and they have bred a kind of irrationality affecting everyone and everything to some degree. This period will keep historians busy for a long time. Assuming we survive as a species.
Ask yourself: what is collective rationslity compared to that of the individual? Each individual has their own interests. The rational behavior of those actors may not just configure to overall collective rationality.
How would you define a state actor then? I consider the state actor to be an aggregate of individuals. That allows for different interpretations at different levels of analysis.
Your terms collective versus individual are simplistic and meaningless without context. And I wouldn’t define a state actor either, in the abstract. I know there is a state apparatus but much of it is hidden and I suspect it functions lawlessly. There is a revolving door of “actors” and they act anonymously and, I suspect, lawlessly, in the eyes of people like me. That is just on the nation-state level. I am not an IR analyst and not interested in the questions the field asks of itself as a specialist. What drives my interest in IR analysis is, simply, when the questions that do interest me can be answered by IR analysts.
I didn’t mean to appear rude. I’m a bit salty, I know. I study geopolitics and economics now, so I am thinking and analyzing on both levels all the time. I argue for the relevance of geopolitics in my local social media, that geopolitics is on our front doorsteps and in our back yards, and I don’t mean Canada or Mexico either! I mean literally.
Perceiving state actor behavior as generally being rational or attempting to maximize their pursuit of power is a good framework, but you should have two levels of analysis primarily: the nation-state and the international system.
omfg the idiot Mearsheimer is STILL shilling for Putin claiming RuSSia is acting like something other than the lying thieving neo-nazi war criminal scum they really are. Other than that? Oh, he imagines america capable of "off shore balancing" and simultaneously bitches like a little girl getting her first period about "the blob". He's fucking stuuuuuuuuuuuuupid.
Or put another way, the leaders may be in a situation where they escape the risks faced by the state they lead. This actually happens frequently - in "proxy" states. These often are compelled by trickery (or external pressure), on the scale of nationally-local politics, to act in the interests of another more powerful sponsor and do things that in retrospect make it seem as if they're sacrificing themselves for the benefit of another, when other courses of action more to their benefit would have been available. If I understand correctly, realist theory answers this by pointing out that such cases, the state in question lacks the minimum "subjectivity".
It's a pretty big loophole, but to return to what I think is JM's argument - the critics ought to then find some other theory that's better.
As for the neocons, I'd say they fall into another category. Their motivations are as expected - to maximize the power of the US. However their judgment is simply flawed.
Subjectivities are always complicated! Doesn’t realism try to step back from the body of theory that wants to accommodate every little subjective idiosyncrasy?
It makes me chuckle when I hear the “strongman” or dictator charge against a leader who won’t bend to US dictates. It’s simply not an issue if the dictators are willing to ignore their own sovereignty in favor of US dictates. The US loves a dictator because it means less work and expense trying to corrupt an entire government, its opposition, and color-revolutioning its people too!
Of course states (which are fictions) are "captured" by factions which act in their own interest, which may diverge from those of the people or peoples they represent. I am not an atomist or a dualist, but any collective is by definition constantly changing. States do not always act in their own rational self interest, nor do all individuals which compose them. It is the failure to account for irrationality and factionalism which more or less force all states into varying degrees of liberalism and democracy. But the failure of the "realists" is their self-inflicted incapacity to see those processes at the state-level and then transpose them internationally. John thinks liberal internationalism cannot work. Thankfully he is wrong, or we already would have had world war three several times over. Fucking dinosaur.
Why are you here then? Are you the moth drawn to the flame?
I know why I listen to what John has to say. I am rationally motivated with humane purpose. A lot of critics of realism like to divide reason and ethics. When his 2015 talk on Why Ukraine is the West’s Fault talk blew up the internet (29+ million views on YouTube currently), we knew he was right. Anyone who suspected or knew how the US state apparatus works, suspected or knew how the Department of ‘Defense’ and the public-private ‘partnerships’ with the weapons industry worked, knew he was right.
Something about how he understood geopolitics made sense to us.
A theory is just a theory. I recommend you get writing, start an internet channel, do something constructive, in other words, to flesh out your weak claims. Build your own theory. Good luck.
Because although John is demonstrably wrong, even without wanting to front for trotskyite scum, he does, and despite being wrong he has at least some influence. So I have to slap him around psychologically speaking since his wrong will get the wrong people killed. Comprende?
Because although John is demonstrably wrong, [PROVIDE EXAMPLE OF A DEMONSTRATION?] even without wanting to front for trotskyite scum, [BE SPECIFIC WITH EXAMPLES] he does, [HOW?] and despite being wrong [HOW?] he has at least some influence. So I have to slap him around psychologically speaking since his wrong will get the wrong people killed. [I TAKE THE CLAIM OF “SOME INFLUENCE” TO BE THE REASON FOR THE SUB-CLAIM OF THE “WRONG” KILLED PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE RIGHT(?) KILLED PEOPLE. AGAIN, BE SPECIFIC, WITH EXAMPLES] Comprende? [NON.]
[I’m intrigued by the last sentence though. You have a covert preference for the survival of one group of people over another group of people. Preferences for one group over another lie outside the theory. Although we are all human and allowed to root for a team of our choosing, the theory is valuable because it refuses to allow you to have your own individual, emotional way, just because you want it that way. With no overt reason that others can evaluate and either agree with you or not.]
omfg the idiot Mearsheimer is STILL shilling for Putin claiming RuSSia is acting like something other than the lying thieving neo-nazi war criminal scum they really are. Other than that? Oh, he imagines america capable of "off shore balancing" and simultaneously bitches like a little girl getting her first period about "the blob". He's fucking stuuuuuuuuuuuuupid.
You are wrong to equate neoconservatism (which is horrible warmed over fascism) with neoliberalism (which is basically just adam smith minus the labor theory of value). As to Mearsheimer, though he imagines himself to be a realist, he really isn't in practice he embraces liberal internationalism. Too bad he is right to point out some of the failings of liberal internationalism, yet unable to notice the serious limitations of realism. Nazi realists exist, and are currently celebrating, absolutely thrilled, with the Arab-Israeli and Slav self-genocides. Fewer enemies of the Aryans! Mearsheimer might be right to oppose the Israelis' war, but not for "realist" reasons. This is why his ideas are crap. They are shallow, even self-contradictory, due to inadequate theoretical foundation and a pig headed unwillingness to change his ideas in the face of obvious facts like: Putin is basically Hitler.
"As to Mearsheimer, though he imagines himself to be a realist, he really isn't in practice he embraces liberal internationalism". Yes, in his attack on Israel's war in Gaza, he has shown himself to support international law, as liberal internationalists do, whereas realists usually ignore or play down the significance of ideology, norms and law.
There are two reasons why he is being internally coherent with his realist theory: first, because he argues the Israel Lobby in the USA shapes policies that may not always align with broader American interests (hinders academic freedom and wider freedom of speech, Israel's interests do not always align with the US national interest, and often undermine US interests in the Middle East); and second, his Offensive Realist theory "pays little attention to individuals or domestic political considerations such as ideology", he treats states as "black boxes or billiard balls", thus freeing him up to opine like any other ordinary human being on issues of the day like genocide and ethnic cleansing.
His internal coherence exposes his model's weakness. If states were in fact black box billiard ball rational power maximizers (they are not) then factional capture would be impossible and irrelevant. In fact, unrepresentative factions capture state power all thetime, and sometimes go on to do irrational things. His model dismisses that and cannot account for it because it ignores ideology. His model is "simple" in every sense of that word (q.v. simpleton...=)
His inability to test or update it is simply unscientific and stupid.
Quite so, a point I made in a comment earlier. And to be fair to him, he makes some of your points in the Introduction to his Great Powers book and the section "The virtues and limits of theory".
Your point about factional capture is a good one for two reasons: upon closer inspection, the state may do a number of contradictory and even contrary things; and because of this at times its calculus of what power maximisation means may seem to have only bounded or compromise rationality.
For this reason, when it comes to foreign policy, Constructivists also have alot of interesting things to say. We may think Putin, Hitler, and other leaders mad, but in their heads their reasons seemed to them to be coherent. We'll never get a theory of International Politics that is scientific, but if we divine theories that can predict accurately some of the time, then don't you think they have some value?
Standing back from the fray, I like his theory that Great Power politics is a Tragedy, and that the international anarchy can explain alot, but not all, of How The World Works.
I’m kinda done with replying to you, unless you make a point that is interesting enough to me to consider. I’m not an expert in IR.
I did not “equate” neoconservativism and neoliberalism. Folie a deux is not an equation. You already don’t understand that part. So what ensues will be wrong. Anyway, it was half-joking on my part, because it is a claim that requires a lot of unpacking. And it is not 100% pure, so I know I’m in trouble there with some of you.
You use a great deal of emotionally-motivated language. Thankfully, I am not in your head. I have my own issues to deal with. However, it really obscures your point, if you have one, beyond your disdain for John, which is not a point. It’s an outburst, at best.
if murrica were capable of off-shore balancing it wouldn't be getting blobbed into four more wars lol. How can one believe the foreign policy establishment to be captured by duh J00s and at the same time imagine a nuanced shrewed off shor balancing policy is even possible? Fucking self contradictory joke of a man gets mocked. Probably not senile, so on with the stfu John.
omfg the idiot Mearsheimer is STILL shilling for Putin claiming RuSSia is acting like something other than the lying thieving neo-nazi war criminal scum they really are. Other than that? Oh, he imagines america capable of "off shore balancing" and simultaneously bitches like a little girl getting her first period about "the blob". He's fucking stuuuuuuuuuuuuupid.
The economic ideology that is neoliberalism has soared because it has mostly benefitted from the geopolitical antics of imperialism, in its Neo-con form. They have fed off of each other but the carcasses will have trouble continuing their antics without an animating force.
That same professor would agree with you. He believed in a form of government ran by the intelligent caste, with order being maintained by the warrior caste ,with a strong man ruling.
I was being facetious, with a game of thrones reference. Most academics who look at problems of state power imagine themselves into a position of having all-power, of being head of state, and thus they tend to overlook the serious constraints on heads of state. They figure themselves, generally speaking, to be smarter, better read, more intelligent, than those holding state power and thus are overly-critical of states and their leaders while also over-estimating their own capacity. most of them are elitists and thus look down on "the masses". Also, most of them, certainly the majority, are dishonest, though to varying degrees and various different reasons (careerirsm, political agenda, romantic agenda e.g. are some of the different agendas.
I haven't read anything from your writings which justifies a high opinion of your teacher. Maybe there is more than I have seen but if so not so far.
An Uber driver can understand things as well as a Political Scientist. It's not a worthless field, but it is pretty close. Dressing up common sense into complex theories that accomplish little.
In science, the role of falsification is different than in social science. 75/25% sounds like a pretty good track record in social science and it thumbs the nose at impossible purism requiring 100% correctness in messy human affairs, as if...!
If anything, state actors use ideological rhetoric and other types of alternatives as a way to gain support for their objectives. Perhaps these 'irrational' wars were driven by the state actor, as a result of internal conflicts. If you were to argue the wars the US had fought were irrational, you ought to question why the state actor had behaved that way. Perhaps, you could argue from a rational irrationality perspective: the state actor had been indeed rational, holding and maintaining an irrational position, as it was instrumentally useful to signal strength and as a way to garner public support within the nation-state. You could simply just go back and say, another instance of state irrationality. That very well could be, but it's a lazy explanation.
The problem with calling a video "How the world works" is that exceptions to how it works weaken the predictive power of the theory.
If you then criticise how part of it works - the USA shouldn't be focusing on Ukraine, says John here - then you contradict your own theory that Great Powers (and states in general) are rational.
When you then blame the USA and NATO for causing the war, you've either got your history badly the wrong way around, or you've thrown your Great Powers book in the bin. I would argue he has done both.
Great thinkers have thrown their books in the bin before - witness Wittgenstein trashing his Tractatus. John's error is two-fold: first he forgets that his book has the word "Tragedy" in it - Great Powers can't help but defeat themselves eventually - he clearly argues here that the USA and NATO are not acting rationally; and because his theory has holes (structural theories cannot account for Agency; cause and effect are confused; the Domestic Determinant and the Constructivist complexity of decision-making are ignored), his policy advice comes over as just another opinion on social media, however trenchant, articulate, and enjoyably controversial!
One of my favorite skits of all time. 😂
I agree. I'm curious what you think on some of my posts relating to International Relations?
Hi Eric, that was a useful bit of discourse !
Maybe we'll see a great cleansing all around in 2024 ,Putin can't win in a war that he should have steamrollerred into victory in one year. And all the candidates in the USA are owned by trier lobbyists. . Anyway it was pleasant to chat with you.
Very interesting interview. It felt there were attempts to try to discredit the realist framework theory inorder to allow a harder to prove, more importantly disprove, ideology rhetoric to explain certain state's decisions. These ideological rhetoric can easily be manipulated by the media to severely misinform the public, which lead to political support of irrational wars.
Where as the realistic framework is a more objective and logical understanding of how the countries make decisions, and therefore is a useful tool to determine when there influences which are leading to countries not making rational decisions.
Thoroughly enjoy your work sir!
I understand the guy was interviewing and that was his job. And I’m biased because I have a warm spot in my heart for Johnny but that numb nutz basically kept saying, over and over and over…what you can’t tell the future?
That is not what I mean, Fran. John is capable of juggling the different pieces of Asia and so is Michael. There is a lot of connection, depending on how one looks at it. Luckily, they are not one-trick ponies.
Furthermore, I am only talking about two intelligent human beings who are humane AND realist having public conversations for the benefit of everybody. Which I kinda think many people want.
You can't deflect the fact that China is rising and may even play a constructive role in solving the problems that upset us all so much. And it doesn't have to happen on Substack.
I'm just bringing it up on “John’s Substack.”
Not “Fran’s Substack."
And you don't get to decide Who wants What on Substack, Fran.
You are one person with an opinion.
I am one person with an opinion.
"I’m out of here?” You like to use little threats? Then go back to your abusers on MSM. Otherwise, don’t copy the sad little angry people who want intellectual overlords to talk about one piece of a horrible historical puzzle without even glancing around for the different pieces!
It seems the interviewer's question at the end wasn't fully answered by John. The interviewer was looking for a justification for why we should use realism as a prescription of what we ought to do.
I think there is a very basic answer to this which is that by failing to behave according to realist logic and letting ideologies take control, states endager their survival.
If you consider realism a fairly reliable framework in predicting or explaining how state actors behave, you could certainly form prescriptions for the very same state actors.
A model is a model, it relies on assumptions as a way to explain the world. A model shouldn't be judged on the assumptions but rather it's accuracy. If we understand that, and indeed acknowledge the irrationality of state actors, which is something to maybe explore as well, policy prescriptions guided by realist principles seem understandable but it can be often too zero sum unfortunately.
Always enjoy your work sir!
A Skeptic War Reports
https://askeptic.substack.com/
1. It would be neat to see an article titled, "When Realist Theory Doesn't Work". What is the domain of the 25%? Ideology? Irrationality?
2. By the answer to the question at the end of the interview, you made the claim in effect that, "When Realist Theory doesn't work, States should act like better Realists." This feels true, but why? Because when States are not being good Realists, they are not putting their survival first (for one reason or another). So an investigation into this might lead to a subtitle for #1 above: "Why States Don't Always Put Survival First." (Maybe I'll write this article if you don't.)
The framework that realism provides is quite handy for generally analyzing state actor behavior with one another. I'm not too certain about the prescriptions it provides though, that seems much more sketchy.
I would recommend reading two of my posts:
The Invisible Hand of Power
Economics and International Political Economy
It won't explicitly answer your question but maybe it'll help you think about it. If not, look up rational irrationality, Bryan Caplan.
I hesitated to bring it up here, but post-modernism and surrealism are rich parallels to the collective west states’ recent ‘acting.’ For me, at least. I’m not suggesting anyone look there for answers, but the conflation of rational irrationality made me want to bring it up.
Perhaps you should elaborate on that more through a post. I would read it!
The architect Rem Koolhaas has exploited this kind of thinking magnificently all over the world.
I think it would be interesting to hear John re: focus on China. Not as a call to fear China though, because Americans need to understand why China is so well positioned today, thanks to the Great US Deindustrialization, in great part. Fearing China is counterproductive, unless you are a warmonger. John is not.
Engendering understanding re: the why of China’s geopolitical rise, outside of ideology, could be more powerful if you considered it in tandem to the work of economist Michael Hudson, who works on/in China and is an economic realist and a historian of economics. He also went to UofC as an undergrad and is an ex-Hyde Parker!
I see so many good reasons to debate/discuss Mearsheimer IR and Hudsonian economic realism. Potentially a very rich discussion. Survival of a state and the economic realities inside and outside its borders go hand in hand.
Well, if that happens and we focus on China, so we can better deal with our future and don't deal with the present which is quite disturbing to say the least I'm out of here. I think most on substack that are into politics are not looking to take a class.
I replied to you above. Some people understand humility, others not so much.
I was not referencing your comment and simply made a mistake in posting it under your comment. I understand humility, but you don't understand how to respond in a non-demeaning tone. Join Eric.
I apologize if I was wrong. Sometimes people on this site are really pretty awful, as you know. I just don’t shrink from any of it.
Okay, I'm just caught up in all the horrors going on today, and I really didn't realize I posted under your comment. Sorry.
Oh John, there is a realist view of Ukraine too bad its the nazi view. Let the slavs grind each other into the mud, self-genocide is so much easier, best of all it means cheap oil AND cheap grain! Maybe you want to reconsider your purported realism because your views on Palistan are certainly bleeding heart liberal internationalist whereas a realist Israeli would say "the Pals want from the river to the sea? No problem! Let's drive them into the sea!"
You are looking at ugly ass echoes of WW2, not echos of crazy stupid gulf war afghan turn tribal patriarchal warlike religious subsistence economies into swedish style social democracy, fyi.
This is simply brilliant. Thank you.
A state may be a rational actor, but the people who run it are not. I’ve come to believe in something I call “folie à plusieurs” (from folie à deux) which can become more widely contagious under the right conditions. Neo-conservative geopolitical ideology and neo-liberal economic ideology are the “deux” in this scenario and they have bred a kind of irrationality affecting everyone and everything to some degree. This period will keep historians busy for a long time. Assuming we survive as a species.
Ask yourself: what is collective rationslity compared to that of the individual? Each individual has their own interests. The rational behavior of those actors may not just configure to overall collective rationality.
State is not collective or individual. I wouldn’t tie yourself in knots unless you like doing that. Not my conversation.
How would you define a state actor then? I consider the state actor to be an aggregate of individuals. That allows for different interpretations at different levels of analysis.
Your terms collective versus individual are simplistic and meaningless without context. And I wouldn’t define a state actor either, in the abstract. I know there is a state apparatus but much of it is hidden and I suspect it functions lawlessly. There is a revolving door of “actors” and they act anonymously and, I suspect, lawlessly, in the eyes of people like me. That is just on the nation-state level. I am not an IR analyst and not interested in the questions the field asks of itself as a specialist. What drives my interest in IR analysis is, simply, when the questions that do interest me can be answered by IR analysts.
My question had been relevant but ok.
I didn’t mean to appear rude. I’m a bit salty, I know. I study geopolitics and economics now, so I am thinking and analyzing on both levels all the time. I argue for the relevance of geopolitics in my local social media, that geopolitics is on our front doorsteps and in our back yards, and I don’t mean Canada or Mexico either! I mean literally.
Perceiving state actor behavior as generally being rational or attempting to maximize their pursuit of power is a good framework, but you should have two levels of analysis primarily: the nation-state and the international system.
I recommend reading these two if you're more curious!
https://open.substack.com/pub/juneroll/p/macro-and-micro?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1iy56g
https://open.substack.com/pub/juneroll/p/the-invisible-hand-of-power?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1iy56g
If we have any decent historians then
No, it is not brilliant. Its crap.
in your opinion. your previous comment was just gibberish lacking any semblance of coherent thought.
My thought exactly, Cosmo T Kat.
omfg the idiot Mearsheimer is STILL shilling for Putin claiming RuSSia is acting like something other than the lying thieving neo-nazi war criminal scum they really are. Other than that? Oh, he imagines america capable of "off shore balancing" and simultaneously bitches like a little girl getting her first period about "the blob". He's fucking stuuuuuuuuuuuuupid.
Or put another way, the leaders may be in a situation where they escape the risks faced by the state they lead. This actually happens frequently - in "proxy" states. These often are compelled by trickery (or external pressure), on the scale of nationally-local politics, to act in the interests of another more powerful sponsor and do things that in retrospect make it seem as if they're sacrificing themselves for the benefit of another, when other courses of action more to their benefit would have been available. If I understand correctly, realist theory answers this by pointing out that such cases, the state in question lacks the minimum "subjectivity".
It's a pretty big loophole, but to return to what I think is JM's argument - the critics ought to then find some other theory that's better.
As for the neocons, I'd say they fall into another category. Their motivations are as expected - to maximize the power of the US. However their judgment is simply flawed.
Subjectivities are always complicated! Doesn’t realism try to step back from the body of theory that wants to accommodate every little subjective idiosyncrasy?
It makes me chuckle when I hear the “strongman” or dictator charge against a leader who won’t bend to US dictates. It’s simply not an issue if the dictators are willing to ignore their own sovereignty in favor of US dictates. The US loves a dictator because it means less work and expense trying to corrupt an entire government, its opposition, and color-revolutioning its people too!
Correction: “Accommodate” should be changed to “exploit.”
Of course states (which are fictions) are "captured" by factions which act in their own interest, which may diverge from those of the people or peoples they represent. I am not an atomist or a dualist, but any collective is by definition constantly changing. States do not always act in their own rational self interest, nor do all individuals which compose them. It is the failure to account for irrationality and factionalism which more or less force all states into varying degrees of liberalism and democracy. But the failure of the "realists" is their self-inflicted incapacity to see those processes at the state-level and then transpose them internationally. John thinks liberal internationalism cannot work. Thankfully he is wrong, or we already would have had world war three several times over. Fucking dinosaur.
You give yourself a lot of credit. Moth.
Why are you here then? Are you the moth drawn to the flame?
I know why I listen to what John has to say. I am rationally motivated with humane purpose. A lot of critics of realism like to divide reason and ethics. When his 2015 talk on Why Ukraine is the West’s Fault talk blew up the internet (29+ million views on YouTube currently), we knew he was right. Anyone who suspected or knew how the US state apparatus works, suspected or knew how the Department of ‘Defense’ and the public-private ‘partnerships’ with the weapons industry worked, knew he was right.
Something about how he understood geopolitics made sense to us.
A theory is just a theory. I recommend you get writing, start an internet channel, do something constructive, in other words, to flesh out your weak claims. Build your own theory. Good luck.
Because although John is demonstrably wrong, even without wanting to front for trotskyite scum, he does, and despite being wrong he has at least some influence. So I have to slap him around psychologically speaking since his wrong will get the wrong people killed. Comprende?
Because although John is demonstrably wrong, [PROVIDE EXAMPLE OF A DEMONSTRATION?] even without wanting to front for trotskyite scum, [BE SPECIFIC WITH EXAMPLES] he does, [HOW?] and despite being wrong [HOW?] he has at least some influence. So I have to slap him around psychologically speaking since his wrong will get the wrong people killed. [I TAKE THE CLAIM OF “SOME INFLUENCE” TO BE THE REASON FOR THE SUB-CLAIM OF THE “WRONG” KILLED PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE RIGHT(?) KILLED PEOPLE. AGAIN, BE SPECIFIC, WITH EXAMPLES] Comprende? [NON.]
[I’m intrigued by the last sentence though. You have a covert preference for the survival of one group of people over another group of people. Preferences for one group over another lie outside the theory. Although we are all human and allowed to root for a team of our choosing, the theory is valuable because it refuses to allow you to have your own individual, emotional way, just because you want it that way. With no overt reason that others can evaluate and either agree with you or not.]
omfg the idiot Mearsheimer is STILL shilling for Putin claiming RuSSia is acting like something other than the lying thieving neo-nazi war criminal scum they really are. Other than that? Oh, he imagines america capable of "off shore balancing" and simultaneously bitches like a little girl getting her first period about "the blob". He's fucking stuuuuuuuuuuuuupid.
Not sure what your issue is re: crap. I’m joking. Anyway, I think you are on your own trajectory, tout seul. Comme c’est triste.
I think I’m replying to M. Engle, sorry Pxx. (He has limited communications skills.)
You are wrong to equate neoconservatism (which is horrible warmed over fascism) with neoliberalism (which is basically just adam smith minus the labor theory of value). As to Mearsheimer, though he imagines himself to be a realist, he really isn't in practice he embraces liberal internationalism. Too bad he is right to point out some of the failings of liberal internationalism, yet unable to notice the serious limitations of realism. Nazi realists exist, and are currently celebrating, absolutely thrilled, with the Arab-Israeli and Slav self-genocides. Fewer enemies of the Aryans! Mearsheimer might be right to oppose the Israelis' war, but not for "realist" reasons. This is why his ideas are crap. They are shallow, even self-contradictory, due to inadequate theoretical foundation and a pig headed unwillingness to change his ideas in the face of obvious facts like: Putin is basically Hitler.
"As to Mearsheimer, though he imagines himself to be a realist, he really isn't in practice he embraces liberal internationalism". Yes, in his attack on Israel's war in Gaza, he has shown himself to support international law, as liberal internationalists do, whereas realists usually ignore or play down the significance of ideology, norms and law.
There are two reasons why he is being internally coherent with his realist theory: first, because he argues the Israel Lobby in the USA shapes policies that may not always align with broader American interests (hinders academic freedom and wider freedom of speech, Israel's interests do not always align with the US national interest, and often undermine US interests in the Middle East); and second, his Offensive Realist theory "pays little attention to individuals or domestic political considerations such as ideology", he treats states as "black boxes or billiard balls", thus freeing him up to opine like any other ordinary human being on issues of the day like genocide and ethnic cleansing.
His internal coherence exposes his model's weakness. If states were in fact black box billiard ball rational power maximizers (they are not) then factional capture would be impossible and irrelevant. In fact, unrepresentative factions capture state power all thetime, and sometimes go on to do irrational things. His model dismisses that and cannot account for it because it ignores ideology. His model is "simple" in every sense of that word (q.v. simpleton...=)
His inability to test or update it is simply unscientific and stupid.
Quite so, a point I made in a comment earlier. And to be fair to him, he makes some of your points in the Introduction to his Great Powers book and the section "The virtues and limits of theory".
Your point about factional capture is a good one for two reasons: upon closer inspection, the state may do a number of contradictory and even contrary things; and because of this at times its calculus of what power maximisation means may seem to have only bounded or compromise rationality.
For this reason, when it comes to foreign policy, Constructivists also have alot of interesting things to say. We may think Putin, Hitler, and other leaders mad, but in their heads their reasons seemed to them to be coherent. We'll never get a theory of International Politics that is scientific, but if we divine theories that can predict accurately some of the time, then don't you think they have some value?
Standing back from the fray, I like his theory that Great Power politics is a Tragedy, and that the international anarchy can explain alot, but not all, of How The World Works.
I’m kinda done with replying to you, unless you make a point that is interesting enough to me to consider. I’m not an expert in IR.
I did not “equate” neoconservativism and neoliberalism. Folie a deux is not an equation. You already don’t understand that part. So what ensues will be wrong. Anyway, it was half-joking on my part, because it is a claim that requires a lot of unpacking. And it is not 100% pure, so I know I’m in trouble there with some of you.
You use a great deal of emotionally-motivated language. Thankfully, I am not in your head. I have my own issues to deal with. However, it really obscures your point, if you have one, beyond your disdain for John, which is not a point. It’s an outburst, at best.
if murrica were capable of off-shore balancing it wouldn't be getting blobbed into four more wars lol. How can one believe the foreign policy establishment to be captured by duh J00s and at the same time imagine a nuanced shrewed off shor balancing policy is even possible? Fucking self contradictory joke of a man gets mocked. Probably not senile, so on with the stfu John.
omfg the idiot Mearsheimer is STILL shilling for Putin claiming RuSSia is acting like something other than the lying thieving neo-nazi war criminal scum they really are. Other than that? Oh, he imagines america capable of "off shore balancing" and simultaneously bitches like a little girl getting her first period about "the blob". He's fucking stuuuuuuuuuuuuupid.
no worries
I am not worried. Wrong ideas fail.
wasn't replying to you
The economic ideology that is neoliberalism has soared because it has mostly benefitted from the geopolitical antics of imperialism, in its Neo-con form. They have fed off of each other but the carcasses will have trouble continuing their antics without an animating force.
Thanks ,John. It sounded like the intro I got in Political Science 201.
Appreciated by those of us in Political Science 201. Timothy Snyder should be in the class.
in other words simplistic and sophomoric. yep, it is that.
True. My favorite professor would say the simplest solution to any problem is done by removing politicians and replacing them with scientists.
Yeah, me, I would prefur Draconian rulers, the serpentines work out really well on Westeros!
That same professor would agree with you. He believed in a form of government ran by the intelligent caste, with order being maintained by the warrior caste ,with a strong man ruling.
I was being facetious, with a game of thrones reference. Most academics who look at problems of state power imagine themselves into a position of having all-power, of being head of state, and thus they tend to overlook the serious constraints on heads of state. They figure themselves, generally speaking, to be smarter, better read, more intelligent, than those holding state power and thus are overly-critical of states and their leaders while also over-estimating their own capacity. most of them are elitists and thus look down on "the masses". Also, most of them, certainly the majority, are dishonest, though to varying degrees and various different reasons (careerirsm, political agenda, romantic agenda e.g. are some of the different agendas.
I haven't read anything from your writings which justifies a high opinion of your teacher. Maybe there is more than I have seen but if so not so far.
p.s. he copypasted plato and plato was wrong.
An Uber driver can understand things as well as a Political Scientist. It's not a worthless field, but it is pretty close. Dressing up common sense into complex theories that accomplish little.
True. I've never seen the Game of Thrones,so your reference missed me.[note I am correcting my spelling errors]
Plato was the foundation for this professors theory and Occam his building blocks.
In this set of studies we also used parts of feudal Japan.
His point? Democracy will always be a short lived concept.
As we are run by a Ship of Fools theor now, I can't find fault his teaching
Already watched it as I follow the iai channel and enjoyed it as usual.
This was a very good interview & the interviewer did a great job.
with great answers as well!
In science, the role of falsification is different than in social science. 75/25% sounds like a pretty good track record in social science and it thumbs the nose at impossible purism requiring 100% correctness in messy human affairs, as if...!