Are you a realist?

[BloosCornia]

When it came to IR, I was always most sympathetic to the world systems theory and Neo-Marxist schools of thought.

In other words, more realist than the realists.

But also inherently idealist, because it is "theoretically" possible to fix the world.

[Napkiraly]

It's funny to read the left describe themselves as realist. That's either a lie or ignorance.

As Caninope said, it's a paradigm. It is compatible with anywhere on the left or the right, there are plenty of cases throughout history showing that both the left and right can practice realism in IR.

[Napkiraly]

I support offensive realism, both in game and in RL.

More of an English School (pluralist) person myself. However I do think there is plenty of merit behind structural realism, personal fan of Walt myself, and I'm starting to tilt towards Neoclassical (to be a mix of some sort between the English school and Neoclassical) as to me is more accurate than structural realism as it does take into account domestic variables within states, which cannot be ignored.

[Caninope]

I support offensive realism, both in game and in RL.

More of an English School (pluralist) person myself. However I do think there is plenty of merit behind structural realism, personal fan of Walt myself, and I'm starting to tilt towards Neoclassical (to be a mix of some sort between the English school and Neoclassical) as to me is more accurate than structural realism as it does take into account domestic variables within states, which cannot be ignored.

You're an English School? I find myself agreeing with the English School more and more as I go along; it meshes with my want for a pragmatic neoconservative ideological approach (I was a neoconservative, and still hold those Wilsonian ideals, but I abandoned the Bush style approach several years ago).

Of course, I also find inspiration in the neoclassical school (I do like Fareed Zakaria, in general) and some in the neorealist (gotta give Waltz credit where credit is due). Surprise surprise, liberalism holds some good tenets too- I can certainly see cases where the neoliberalist approach of absolute gains over relative gains could be more beneficial in the long run.

[Napkiraly]

More of an English School (pluralist) person myself. However I do think there is plenty of merit behind structural realism, personal fan of Walt myself, and I'm starting to tilt towards Neoclassical (to be a mix of some sort between the English school and Neoclassical) as to me is more accurate than structural realism as it does take into account domestic variables within states, which cannot be ignored.

You're an English School? I find myself agreeing with the English School more and more as I go along; it meshes with my want for a pragmatic neoconservative ideological approach (I was a neoconservative, and still hold those Wilsonian ideals, but I abandoned the Bush style approach several years ago).

Of course, I also find inspiration in the neoclassical school (I do like Fareed Zakaria, in general) and some in the neorealist (gotta give Waltz credit where credit is due). Surprise surprise, liberalism holds some good tenets too- I can certainly see cases where the neoliberalist approach of absolute gains over relative gains could be more beneficial in the long run.

I can see why you'd agree with the English School as a neoconservative, but only the solidarists agree with Democracy promotion. A pluralist like myself believe societies and nations should be run according to the values, customs, government types, etc. that allow states within that society to be the most independent while offering what their society deems to be the "good life". As you can see the English school is split among those who are more realist (pluralists) and those who are more liberal/cosmopolitan (solidarists). I too like Zakaria and Waltz, as well as Schweller and Walt, just to name a few.

Personally, I am against Wilsonian ideals and theory, and just neoconservativism in general. I believe it creates unnecessary conflicts and ends up doing more harm than good, not to mention it will backfire. Trying to impose ideals on people that don't agree with them isn't going to end well, particularly if it's done through violent promotion. Good to see you abandoned the Bush approach though, it was painful to watch and was a complete disaster. While I find Liberalism interesting and to say that they hold no good ideas is wrong, for some ideas are good and even realism is starting to look beyond just beyond military power and territory, I do believe that overall their theory is both wrong and naive. They have good intentions (for the most part, depends on how you view cultural imperialism), but in the end their view of the international arena is incorrect.

[Caninope]

You're an English School? I find myself agreeing with the English School more and more as I go along; it meshes with my want for a pragmatic neoconservative ideological approach (I was a neoconservative, and still hold those Wilsonian ideals, but I abandoned the Bush style approach several years ago).

Of course, I also find inspiration in the neoclassical school (I do like Fareed Zakaria, in general) and some in the neorealist (gotta give Waltz credit where credit is due). Surprise surprise, liberalism holds some good tenets too- I can certainly see cases where the neoliberalist approach of absolute gains over relative gains could be more beneficial in the long run.

I can see why you'd agree with the English School as a neoconservative, but only the solidarists agree with Democracy promotion. A pluralist like myself believe societies and nations should be run according to the values, customs, government types, etc. that allow states within that society to be the most independent while offering what their society deems to be the "good life". As you can see the English school is split among those who are more realist (pluralists) and those who are more liberal/cosmopolitan (solidarists). I too like Zakaria and Waltz, as well as Schweller and Walt, just to name a few.

Personally, I am against Wilsonian ideals and theory, and just neoconservativism in general. I believe it creates unnecessary conflicts and ends up doing more harm than good, not to mention it will backfire. Trying to impose ideals on people that don't agree with them isn't going to end well, particularly if it's done through violent promotion. Good to see you abandoned the Bush approach though, it was painful to watch and was a complete disaster. While I find Liberalism interesting and to say that they hold no good ideas is wrong, for some ideas are good and even realism is starting to look beyond just beyond military power and territory, I do believe that overall their theory is both wrong and naive. They have good intentions (for the most part, depends on how you view cultural imperialism), but in the end their view of the international arena is incorrect.

Like I said, I'm a pragmatic neoconservative. My Wilsonian ideals are just that- ideals. When it comes down to it, I would happily practice realpolitik. As it see it, there's a goal and a means. For me, I share the same goal as neoconservatives and others in the Wilsonian tradition, my ideological brethren, although I'm more than willing to use realpolitik as the means. That kind of evolved after I realized the Bush approach wouldn't work. The pendulum had swung and I went from being one type of Cold Warrior (the late, Reagan era warrior) to another type of Cold Warrior (the Nixon/Kissinger era warrior).

My willingness to overlook compromises in ideology (because let's face it; Kissinger's realpolitik and neoconservatism are near incompatible) for ultimately furthering my goal is what brought me academically to the realist paradigm, and agreement with some of the tenets of liberalism ultimately brought me to the English School (before I had even realized what the English School was).

What bothers me is the fact that all forms of realism (and English School, if we're counting it as separate from realism) need to start rethinking their paradigm. Global Trends 2025 (found here, for anyone unfamiliar with it) raised a good point; what should we be doing as we slowly move away from the Westphalian System? Is our system really an anarchy anymore? Are states still the highest order of actor? The English School has done a better job at addressing these, I think, but I doubt any (current) school will be prepared if the number and importance of NGOs continues to increase.

[Trotskylvania]

When it came to IR, I was always most sympathetic to the world systems theory and Neo-Marxist schools of thought.

In other words, more realist than the realists.

But also inherently idealist, because it is "theoretically" possible to fix the world.

No, that's rationalism, not idealism. "Idealism" is the polar opposite to materialism, not anything else.

In IR theory, realism's primary opposite is liberalism. These have almost no connection to the domestic politics meaning of the terms. For example, most American liberal presidents have been international relations realists.

[Caninope]

But also inherently idealist, because it is "theoretically" possible to fix the world.

No, that's rationalism, not idealism. "Idealism" is the polar opposite to materialism, not anything else.

In IR theory, realism's primary opposite is liberalism. These have almost no connection to the domestic politics meaning of the terms. For example, most American liberal presidents have been international relations realists.

In his defense, idealism was the precursor to Liberalism, and Marxist schools of thought could be considered idealist in that they attempt to make their political philosophy their foreign policy too.

[Napkiraly]

Like I said, I'm a pragmatic neoconservative. My Wilsonian ideals are just that- ideals. When it comes down to it, I would happily practice realpolitik. As it see it, there's a goal and a means. For me, I share the same goal as neoconservatives and others in the Wilsonian tradition, my ideological brethren, although I'm more than willing to use realpolitik as the means. That kind of evolved after I realized the Bush approach wouldn't work. The pendulum had swung and I went from being one type of Cold Warrior (the late, Reagan era warrior) to another type of Cold Warrior (the Nixon/Kissinger era warrior).

My willingness to overlook compromises in ideology (because let's face it; Kissinger's realpolitik and neoconservatism are near incompatible) for ultimately furthering my goal is what brought me academically to the realist paradigm, and agreement with some of the tenets of liberalism ultimately brought me to the English School (before I had even realized what the English School was).

What bothers me is the fact that all forms of realism (and English School, if we're counting it as separate from realism) need to start rethinking their paradigm. Global Trends 2025 (found here, for anyone unfamiliar with it) raised a good point; what should we be doing as we slowly move away from the Westphalian System. Is our system really an anarchy anymore? Are states still the highest order of actor? The English School has done a better job at addressing these, I think, but I doubt any (current) school will be prepared if the number and importance of NGOs continues to increase.

I knew what you meant, I was just stating my views on Wilsonian ideals and neoconservativism in general. Honestly if it were ever to succeed, Liberalism would have to practice realism in order to accomplish its goals, or else face a lot of stiff opposition. However, liberalism practicing realism creates all sorts of problems, the chief one being that it is almost inevitable that it would be back stabbed by those it overlooked, for they would know that if the primary threats were dealth with, they are next on the chopping block. To use a very simple example: You have Coalition A that are liberal democracies that support liberalism, yet practice realism. Then you have coalition B, which are the worst dictators in the world and are naturally opposed to coalition A. Coalition C consists of petty dictators and not so bad human rights abusers and are for some reason opposed to coalition B. A and C team up to beat B, A looking away a C's crimes. However C knows what the eventual end goal is and they aren't part of it. So, naturally they'll sabotage the conflict to keep it running as long as possible and will switch sides if A comes to close to winning. Now, obviously the real world is a lot more complicated but I'm sure you can see how this can/would/has happened in the real world. If your end goal is to spread democracy to everyone, yet you ally with dictators against other dictators, your allies will sabotage the conflict to create a quagmire form which you cannot win, to ensure their own survival lest the Wilsonian faction end up winning.

Now as to is there still international anarchy. I'd say yes, there still is. NGO's and globalization are gaining power, but I don't think they will become more powerful than states. NGO's are becoming increasingly influential, there is no denying it and any realist who believes otherwise needs to wake up. However, they cannot as them selves regulate the behaviour of states. They can bring attention to their actions and influence other nations to take actions, hence why they play an important role, but they cannot themselves regulate a state's behaviour. At the end they can advise, criticise, influence a nation, but the final decision is still up to the state and so they still retain more power, not to mention NGO's need a governments approval to work within its borders. Globalization is seen as a threat to states, because it allows people to interact with one another and share views, values, etc. Essentially people will feel less and less tied to nations as people interact more. It's also harder to paint the other side as evil, if it's a country that is, as it is easier to put a human face to the opposite side. However, as we've seen there is still lots of people who feel some sort of national pride. There is something inside of people that make them proud to say they're from *insert name of country*. Sure we'll interact, and we'll think less about where they come from and who they are, but the whole feeling of being proud of your country be it by birth or adoption is a long way off from dying out, but it's true its no longer as powerful as it once was, but it is still incredibly powerful, it just no longer has a monopoly. That's how I view this, states and companies, the two main units in IR for centuries, no longer have the monopoly on power and influence that they had in the past; but they still retain the most power, therefore they must be more careful. But on the international stage, no other entity has more power then the state itself. The only entities that can effectively regulate a state's behaviour are a state's own society/people (how constructivist of me ) and other states, and it will most likely remain this way for the foreseeable future.

[Abatael]

I am.

[Caninope]

I knew what you meant, I was just stating my views on Wilsonian ideals and neoconservativism in general. Honestly if it were ever to succeed, Liberalism would have to practice realism in order to accomplish its goals, or else face a lot of stiff opposition.

It wouldn't necessarily be realism, but it would have to be Machiavellian- realpolitik could work for instance (realpolitik not being realism, because realpolitik is an approach on foreign policy, not IR). But I understand what you're saying.

Now as to is there still international anarchy. I'd say yes, there still is. NGO's and globalization are gaining power, but I don't think they will become more powerful than states.

That's an interesting statement though. It isn't necessarily that NGOs will become the most powerful, but that they may become the primary actors. Also, supranational organizations have been growing in size and power as of recently.

NGO's are becoming increasingly influential, there is no denying it and any realist who believes otherwise needs to wake up. However, they cannot as them selves regulate the behaviour of states.

Really? Al Qaeda regulated the behavior of the US. The W3 does it with the internet.

However, as we've seen there is still lots of people who feel some sort of national pride. There is something inside of people that make them proud to say they're from *insert name of country*. Sure we'll interact, and we'll think less about where they come from and who they are, but the whole feeling of being proud of your country be it by birth or adoption is a long way off from dying out, but it's true its no longer as powerful as it once was, but it is still incredibly powerful, it just no longer has a monopoly. That's how I view this, states and companies,

Nations are beginning to dissolve.

the two main units in IR for centuries,

Actually, that would be nations and states, but I'm being pedantic here.

[The Congregationists]

I've been wondering for a time how many realists NSG has when it comes to international relations. For those of you who don't know what realism is, in regards to international relations some of the core ideas it holds are: international anarchy (no actors above states can regulate other states), the rejection of injecting foreign relations with morality, relations are determined by levels of power, all nations are working towards their own self-interest, distrust of any long term alliances, overall interest is the survival of the nation and keeping the balance of power.

Yes, very much so. Also, I hold this view when it comes to class, race and sex relations within the nation as well. The joke's on those who believe that social relations of all kinds boil down to anything other than power. Those end up being the subordinate actors.

[The Realist Polities]

As you can judge by the name, I am very much a hardcore Realist and of the classical kind.

What deep down separates Realism from all other FP doctrines is exceptionalism: be it idealists, liberals, neocons, marxists (like Trotskylvania) or english school travesty 'realists' (like Caninope or Napkiraly), you all believe there are exceptions to be made to sovereignty. Neocons will promote democratic solidarity, marxists will act on socialist solidarity but all will undermine the national interest in the name of whatever is their biased idealism.

True Realists are particularists: this does not mean interventions are not carried out but rather that they are carried out only with national interest considerations, not ideological ones.
All others are idealists who promote one kind of universalism or another and will therefore destabilise the world.

What sets Realists apart in Napkiraly's analogy is that Realists don't discriminate according to regime in their approach to alliances and conflicts. Everyone else does. State is the primary concern, not whatever regime colour du jour...

[Valaran]

Depends on the situation, and usually, which area of the world.

[SaintB]

[Meryuma]

Realism seems pretty accurate for describing how states act. I hate states.