Read a brief paper by Candace Riddle on Classical realism and neo-realism… these were my thoughts.
“Classical realists believe that the state of war can be reduced to human nature. It is the nature of man that pushes states and individuals to act in a way that places interests over ideologies.” What about if and when ideologies are the interests of individuals?
“To classical realists, power is an end. National interests are secured through the use of power to gain even more power. “Although traditional Realists recognize different elements of power…, military power is considered the most obvious element of a state’s power” full and willing support of a ‘power’ from the people of a state, is also ‘power’ and leads to the strength of the ‘power’ which you refer to. The freedom and security within a state by the state for the people within it give the willigness and desire to the people to continuously support the state and reconnize and legitimize the state’s ‘power’, not to mention continue the free support of the ‘military power’ of a state, if that is what a state uses as a measure of security and soverignty, then it would be a wise act to include that an element of power is, in fact, a justice within the levels of society and recognition of such leads to free willing participation and support of the state. Even sometimes there would be disagreement with the actions of the state and the desires of the people, if the free will and security of the state allows for the same within its people, despite the disagreement, the trust would be in the states system of justice that ensures that avenues are exhausted before the nature of inevitable conflict must ensue in order to keep the states power in tact.
Uneven distribution of power: would it not be safe to say that, power, in effect is uneven. It is the consistency with which power is applied within a state, or by a state or whatever, that is the “balance”, not necessarily an equal playing field where all the teams run out at once and attempt to play a game, but that the field be consistently open for all teams and all games to be played, and that the same rules apply to the teams, despite their ability, and access to that field ‘evens’ the games. The dominating ream is not always the team on the field playing the games, winning or losing; some teams, with different capabilities and levels of ability, hell maybe even a different game, can play on that field. Consistent access to that field is important.
” also argued that the disappearance of the balance of power will result in the remaining power eventually exercising its superiority. The disappearance of the balance of power occurs in several different ways. One of which is through the growth of a country’s economy. As a country’s economic ability grows it moves the country from a lower level of power to a dominant presence in regional and global affairs. Neo-realists believe that a states position in the hierarchy of the international system will influence its behavior. It is the combined power of a state, such as economic and military powers, that will define the capabilities of a state and thus its position in the international system. This is in contrast to the belief that a state’s function in the international system is that which would determine its place.”
Hmm… ok, well to maintain balance, on a scale for instance, there must be a constant and consistent pressure, which is not going to disappear. What remains is consistency within ‘powers’ allows consistency throughout and outside, if desired. But, again it important to recognize the legitimacy of the people within a state, and economy sustains the well being of people, no matter how great or small the measure of that economic state, and the free and willingness of a state to stabilize, or sustain or expand the economic consistency of the state will build the support of people within a state… I think I explained that how I was thinking… I hope that came out right. Hmmm… let me try to re state, maybe?
“One such force today is the implementation of sanctions and tariffs as a means to apply force to other states. To Machiavelli morality had no place in international relations “
This could, however lead to alienation instead of engagement in discussion, and alienation must be avoided to avoid conflict. I think.
