Prof. Mearsheimer ANALYZES the ORIGINS of the Current Geopolitical World Order
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Please remember to like, subscribe, and click the notification bell to stay up to date on all of our new videos.
(Dated: November 13, 2017)
Part 2 of the Series: • Prof. Mearsheimer ANAL...
Part 3 of the Series: • Prof. Mearsheimer ANAL...
In this video, Prof. John Mearsheimer, the prominent international relations scholar, discusses the roots of liberal hegemony, human nature, and liberalism’s solutions to conflict, including individual rights and state intervention, and its implications for international relations and foreign policy.
Dans cette vidéo, le professeur John Mearsheimer, éminent spécialiste des relations internationales, discute des racines de l'hégémonie libérale, de la nature humaine et des solutions du libéralisme aux conflits, y compris les droits individuels et l'intervention de l'État, et de ses implications pour les relations internationales et la politique étrangère.
در این ویدیو، پروفسور جان میرشایمر درباره ریشههای هژمونی لیبرال، طبیعت انسان و راهحلهای لیبرالیسم برای درگیریها، از جمله حقوق فردی و مداخله دولت، و پیامدهای آن برای روابط بینالملل و سیاست خارجی صحبت میکند.
في هذا الفيديو، يناقش البروفيسور جون ميرشايمر، الباحث البارز في العلاقات الدولية، جذور الهيمنة الليبرالية، الطبيعة البشرية، وحلول الليبرالية للنزاعات، بما في ذلك الحقوق الفردية والتدخل الحكومي، وتداعياتها على العلاقات الدولية والسياسة الخارجية.
En este video, el profesor Mearsheimer, destacado erudito de relaciones internacionales, discute las raíces de la hegemonía liberal, la naturaleza humana y las soluciones del liberalismo a los conflictos, incluyendo los derechos individuales y la intervención del estado, y sus implicaciones para las relaciones internacionales y la política exterior.
Neste vídeo, o professor John Mearsheimer discute as raízes da hegemonia liberal, a natureza humana e as soluções do liberalismo para conflitos, incluindo direitos individuais e intervenção estatal, e suas implicações para as relações internacionais e a política externa.
اس ویڈیو میں، پروفیسر جان میرشایمر لبرل ہژمونی کی جڑیں، انسانی فطرت، اور لبرل ازم کے تصادم کے حل، بشمول انفرادی حقوق اور ریاستی مداخلت، اور بین الاقوامی تعلقات اور خارجہ پالیسی کے لیے اس کے مضمرات پر بات کرتے ہیں۔
В этом видео профессор Джон Миршаймер, выдающийся ученый в области международных отношений, обсуждает корни либеральной гегемонии, природу человека и либеральные решения конфликтов, включая индивидуальные права и государственное вмешательство, а также их последствия для международных отношений и внешней политики.
Dalam video ini, Profesor John Mearsheimer membahas akar hegemoni liberal, sifat dasar manusia, dan solusi liberalisme terhadap konflik, termasuk hak individu dan intervensi negara, serta implikasinya terhadap hubungan internasional dan kebijakan luar negeri.
在这段视频中，著名国际关系学者约翰·米尔斯海默教授讨论了自由霸权的根源、人性以及自由主义对冲突的解决方案，包括个人权利和国家干预，以及其对国际关系和外交政策的影响。
Σε αυτό το βίντεο, ο καθηγητής John Mearsheimer, εξέχων μελετητής των διεθνών σχέσεων, συζητά τις ρίζες της φιλελεύθερης ηγεμονίας, τη φύση του ανθρώπου και τις φιλελεύθερες λύσεις στις συγκρούσεις, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων και της κρατικής παρέμβασης, και τις επιπτώσεις τους στις διεθνείς σχέσεις και την εξωτερική πολιτική.
In questo video, il professor John Mearsheimer discute delle radici dell'egemonia liberale, della natura umana e delle soluzioni del liberalismo ai conflitti, inclusi i diritti individuali e l'intervento dello stato, e delle sue implicazioni per le relazioni internazionali e la politica estera.
इस वीडियो में, प्रोफेसर जॉन मीरशाइमर, प्रख्यात अंतरराष्ट्रीय संबंध विद्वान, उदारवादी वर्चस्व की जड़ें, मानव स्वभाव, और संघर्षों के लिए उदारवाद के समाधान, जिसमें व्यक्तिगत अधिकार और राज्य का हस्तक्षेप शामिल है, और अंतरराष्ट्रीय संबंधों और विदेश नीति के लिए इसके निहितार्थ पर चर्चा करते हैं।
In diesem Video spricht Professor John Mearsheimer über die Wurzeln der liberalen Hegemonie, die menschliche Natur und die liberalen Lösungen für Konflikte, einschließlich individueller Rechte und staatlicher Interventionen.
Sa videong ito, tinatalakay ni Propesor John Mearsheimer, ang kilalang iskolar sa internasyonal na relasyon, ang mga ugat ng liberal na hegemonya, likas na katangian ng tao, at mga solusyon ng liberalismo sa tunggalian, kabilang ang mga karapatan ng indibidwal at interbensyon ng estado, at ang mga implikasyon nito sa internasyonal na relasyon at patakarang panlabas.
Bu videoda ünlü uluslararası ilişkiler bilimcisi Prof. John Mearsheimer, liberal hegemonyanın kökenlerini, insan doğasını ve çatışmalara liberalizmin çözümlerini, bireysel haklar ve devlet müdahalesi dahil olmak üzere, ve bunların uluslararası ilişkiler ve dış politika üzerindeki etkilerini tartışıyor.
Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
#usa #political #world #order #liberal #politics #realism #geopolitics #analysis
Professor Mearshheimer, I found your lectures about a year ago. I learned the concept of global hegemony from your teachings, and I have a new found perspective on the workings of the modern world. I recognize that you tend to speak in a different way than many people will be able to digest. I had a graduate professor who talked about holding opposing theories in tension and it being something that most people will struggle to do. You are quite liberal with your application of that style of lecturing.
You present ideas in a way seeks to identify valid points in either theory, and often without sharing your stance. This is a great way to present information to thinking people, but an approach to in not digestible by the masses. I enjoy listening to your observations. I'd love for your perspectives to reach more non college educated people, and in a way they would find palletable. I find your teachings to be necessary to navigate this challenging momentin human development.
N
Inalienable rights. Nice in theory. ❤
His lecturing style is perfect for me. I want him to explain everything to me.
He is the best professor in the world❤
Great lecture.
Liberalism is like being on a bus where every 100 yards you throw some belongings out the bus until in the end you have nothing, no clothes, no food, and the passengers resort to fantasy and the driver tells the bus is still full with stuff and they're doing great.
The globalists wanted to make a fool out of Russia. But instead, the globalists ended up making fools of themselves. Let that be a lesson.
Snapped so many people out of their trance as well.
Last I checked, it wasn't the globalists who are losing soldiers on the field by the thousands and it wasn't the globalists that are hemorrhaging top talent from their countries en mass.
Arguable. They wanted to drain Russias capacity to annex further territory. Even is Russias ramped up military production and made its economy more self sufficient, they’ve absolutely lost the manpower and material capacity to seize more of Europe before the rest of NATO has time to tool up to sufficient strength to stop them. Read: Russia will need years if not decades to launch another invasion. No one ever expected maximum victory for Ukraine, you’d have to be stupidly credulous to think anybody but Zelensky thought that was possible. So the globalists achieved their goals
Who are the globalists?
Many people are still not convinced. Many still think Ukraine will win and Russia will collapse.
The individual and the collective; evidenced in people and nations.
A manifestation, I believe, of the duality within humankind.
I love talks like this which get me thinking. Thank you Prof. Mearsheimer.
John, my hero
has long been my one and only hero in thoughts
he also has getting more and more involved in actions. thought indeed is an action
the only theorist who keeps learning. agree totally with humans are basically social animals
the best talk jm has so far given
See tribalism .
Impressive and beautifully analyzed.
a thinking man is a beautiful sight
I disagree with the argument that an emphasis on individualism leads to any foreign policy consequences. Sure, you can say, for example, that since Ukrainians and Americans are all individual humans, a threat to the inalienable rights of an individual Ukrainian is equivalent to a threat to the inalienable rights of an individual American and try to justify an American foreign policy response on that basis (although the response is probably really more about profits for the American Military Industrial Complex!), but you could equally argue that different societies are equivalent, so a threat to Ukrainian society is equivalent to a threat to American society. Societies have a right to continued existence, even though the individual members of those societies come and go (are born and die). The society as a whole is what is important, not the transient individual. This would seem to be able to be used to try to justify the same sorts of foreign policy responses.
No they don't have a right, no society has. The world is run by powerful and the alliances of them as no state or power house stay ever powerful due to entrophy, change of times, social paradigms and technology advancing for new crisises and opportunities to be born. Do Palestinians have a right to exist? Majority of West especially who runs the Western countries right now deny that right. And the non-West is too weak to say anything on this case. Thus Palestinians has no right to survive de facto right now as Israel is thousands of times more powerful than them militarily, technologically and they have huge powerful alliances to back them. Do you still want to argue about rights? Mearsheimer ,is a realist, like myself, you on the other hand is not. Yes individiualism leads to foreign possibilities when most of a certain population is individualist. Since individualism brings with itself a rejection of dogmas and long reaching traditions, it is by definition opportunist and progressive since it is anti long reaching dictation, preservation and direction by a superior and leading power. This makes mostly individualistic nations to be open to populists and idol breakers. And what populists and idol breakers do best is to create crisises to benefit from breaking any rule and agreement, breaking and core and crucial fundementals a state and its international relations created and benefited from before. Bush seeking a stupid reason for Americans to believe in for invading Iraq was needed as Americans are individualists, they are not bound to obeying their leader for war. They are by design pacifists. Yet Bush can't saying the real reason which was totally individualistic for US hegemony, has nothing to do with war on terror by any means on the contrary it helped ISIS to be born is why individualism sucks after a point. Why did you think half of Roman rule was peaceful on the borders but thorn by civil wars inside which inturn made the borders in secure and Roman Empire was back to the begining with zero safety from outside? They gave up collective traditionalism for individualism to get it.
There is a system
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism which can operate effectively anywhere on the spectrum between classical and modern liberalism. Capitalism seems conspicuous by its absence from this lecture.
I think Mearsheimer considers it a question of domestic politics. What stance a society should have regarding capitalism in that society, I mean.
Professor Mearsheimer says nationalism is the strongest force but I have not found anything where he discusses this in detail.
Nationalism is regarded as the world's greatest threat by liberals and western societies that have been raised with these (compulsory) values.
It's got to the point where we've lost all instincts of sel-preservation.
Propaganda has focused so hard on demonizing it. They want people to be interchangeable.
Liberals draw a moral distinction that doesn't make a difference: "there's patriotism, just loving your country, and nationalism, hating others, which is bad." In other words, inclusionary and exclusionary. They don't notice that "loving one's nation" is always the stepping stone to hating others. And that both presuppose exclusionary thinking from the start. This distinction is stupid because both presuppose this national identity, this collective "we", without at all explaining what it is.
Nationalists see support for the nation as so self-evident that they never hit on the idea of asking why they support it. Yet what really is the collective that nationalists are sympathizing with? It is the state - and this, viewed with a little detachment, is the very opposite of the common bond they think of it as:
“Me (the individual) & my country” - - objectively, the relation is the reverse: the country has its nationals. You belong to the state quite passively, by birth, and that is done by an act of rule. The fact that a citizen is nothing but the object of a compulsory categorization becomes palpable when, e.g., a group wants to separate from a country and create its own state: the state fights their separatism with war. On the other hand, the fact that it is not the the individual who decides who belongs to the national collective, but only the sovereign, is experienced on a daily basis by immigrants and refugees.
“Our way of life”? The state organizes a comprehensive system with its laws - one that is by no means harmless; certainly not one that is also in the hands of working people: competition for money and property is the comprehensive social principle, and the state continuously re-organizes and judges its monopoly on violence for this purpose. This is not a free cooperative, nor some "social contract".
“We are who we are”? A modern state in its cause and social substance is not an autochthonous, individual thing: nearly every state guarantees capitalist property as its systemic principle, prescribes monetary growth, and one state after another competes on the world market for this unvarying standard of success. (Currently, they even all have the same crisis.) So there is nothing original or exceptional about the patriotic feelings of any country.
@@in.der.welt.sein.La distinción entre patriotismo y nacionalismo no proviene de los liberales. Proviene del razonamiento lógico. Amar a tú patria es amor hacia tú patria, cómo un padre ama a sus hijos y amar a tus hijos requiere amor hacia tus hijos no odio hacia los hijos de otros. El nacionalismo es la degradación del patriotismo, dónde el amor a tú patria se transforma en odio hacia otras patrias y así se ha verificado en los siglos XIX, XX y parece que si no lo impedimos se va a replicar en el XXI.
How about Biden's FP doctrine in Ukraine and Gaza, Senilism??
Lecture is seven years old.
I asked Meta if liberalism is a camouflaged form of Machiavellianism, and "he" concludes that: "The relationship between liberalism and Machiavellianism is complex, and this question encourages critical examination of political ideologies and their potential contradictions".
wow, at least better than most scholars
Pure non-sense in other words... :-)
in the battle of all these isms ...egoism will win
Very informative lecture, learned about definitions of liberalism.
Every ism, inherently, has a dialectical counterpart. Within this relationship there must be balance or the ism will go too far towards its natural tendency to cancel and dominate its opposite. Political, economic and social forces work towards this end. Without considering all 3 of these variables, a deeper understanding of these dialectical polarities is impossible to understand.
The American “rules-based order” has become unbalanced due to the misconception that the world has become unipolar. It assumes capitalism does not tend towards monopoly, remaining in equilibrium, checked by the invisible hand of the market. This system becomes contradictory as it departs from reason and truth.
Unbridled capitalism becomes absolutist and authoritarian economically, while asserting a veneer of equality in the social, while the wealth disparity increases. The political becomes a reflection of this disparity and manifests in a managed democracy - a veneer of democratic representation but a functionally inverted system of totalitarianism.
As this reality becomes increasingly manifest, the system doubles down on the social veneer of equality. The system increases in its contradiction and departure from the notion of truth.
The world is multi-polar. There are strong countries with a more balanced and truthful approach to the economic, social and political spheres. These countries observe the inherent contradictions and falsity of the perceived unipolar hegemon’s schema, and its increasing departure from balanced social and economic forces, manifesting in a dysfunctional, unrepresentative and untrue political outcome.
Thank you!
Inalienable rights. Nice in theory. ❤
As George Carlin said, explain "inalienable rights" to Japanese Americans during WW2.
He said what we actually have are "temporary priveleges" which can disappear in a flash.
@@Kavala76 Rights and priviledges are not exactly the same as I would suggest. ☺ ❤
@@MendeMaria-ej8bf I agree, and that was Carlin's point.
Rights cannot be denied or taken away from you. If they are then they are more accurately descibed as temporary priveleges.
@@Kavala76 I got it. Thank you for explaining. ❤
Great lecture. It has a little Gramscian flavor ;) Focusing on the "superstructure" of ideas at the expense of the base and political economy. Would combining it with Michael Hudson approach make it perfect? I wonder.
Agree. Hardly can tell the difference.
I think machiavelli and kenneth waltz have covered all this stuff. And the notion of liberal hegemony is absurd.
Are not universities supposed to be universal by definition? Would not they be just vocational higher schools without that? Have not all great kings, emperors etc. tried to gather all bright minds of their periods and collected as many manuscripts or books as possible from all over the world to their libraries? The only exceptions to this tradition were Romans who destroyed the Great Alexandria Library, Crusaders who destroyed the Great Library of Constantinople, etc. in history and in modern times the US occupation forces in Iraq who destroyed the richest and most ancient library in entire Middle East that is the Great Baghdat library and of course Taliban and ISIS.
Its so sad that such a few people watch this videos! Regards from Russia
in parts of south western usa you can have water rights but that doesn't allow you access to water unless you are entitled to wet water rights.
Liberalism probably has it's roots in maternalism and Nationalism has it's roots in paternalism - 😮 If that's true , then we need both . Liberalism (maternalism ) to achieve harmony at home and Nationalism ( paternalism ) to achieve regional and beyond hegemony ? If true , then what proportion ?
Barriers to education , makes it impossible for the individual to succeed ! The individual gives up !! Liberalism to me removes the barriers ! Produces strong healthy society !
Liberalism is for non thinking people who think they are doing the correct things.
I consider I'm holding a library. Free.
Better education than my college & graduate education that I paid for.
Free
Just a thought.
Global hegemony is not liberalism. so is he confused.
I believe that Prof. John Mearsheimer is one of the last thinking Americans.
I do find couple of issues with his lectures: 1. The is complete lack of reference to material part of things. I personally don't believe that America went to war with Iraq just for Iraqis rights but rather for their oil. 2. America has a long record of overthrowing democratically elected governments and replace them with dictatorships, including my country, which again contradict the theory of projection of rights on other countries. 3. As professor point out isn't health care and education a fundamental human right? Why the access to them is so limited in America? I suspect because money matters more in America than anything else.
He discussed these criticisms in another video. But I remember one answer being the us sees the establishment of a dictator for the free market is a means of creating these rights
I am slightly confused and I am not entirely sure what you mean by that...
I the case of my country, Greece, the market became less free because the dictatorships promoted some kind of monopoly schemes for the entitled once, that is some chosen families who became extremely rich and still are. I think the main motivation for the overthrow was to stop social parties to come to power.
Liberalism was created by Prof. Mearsheimer's ethical group, back in the day.
Therefore, forgive me if I look at him with some caution.
"Nationalism IS war!" - François Mitterand
Compare your collar to the collar on the suits of King Charles.
do you have a position on corruption? outside what was anticipated.
It's the bloody reality of economy, not the argument of abstract theories. Just Look at the combined GDP of 'CIA' -- China, India and ASEAN pointed out by Singapore Krishna.
It depends on the meaning of Liberal !! I believe liberals believe in the rights of every citizen of the country to be able to access education and live to their highest potential !! When those who want to reign over the individuals and make barriers to stop the people from going ahead ,be healthy and feel like they can contribute to the good of the group ! 😊
No you are wrong. Liberalism in this context means (1) a small group of "elites" claims absolute freedom to do whatever they want (2) they use the cause of "Liberty" of whatever minority in other countries to justify their own actions (3) they promote absolute irresponsible activities and policies in their own country to separate the low income group so they can't get organized and start a rivalutuon, actually they don't mind riot as riot only affects normal people.
As to the result, their countries are turned into another south Africa or Mexico.
China has the greatest manufacturing capacity and the greatest science and technology clusters. US has the greatest clown production capacity and the greatest national debt.
American imperialism using liberalism.
🌹🌹
Human Nature? 😵💫
Professor, you need a better tailor. Your collar does not fit.
*I have no idea what John is yapping about in his lecture.*
because you can only hear "yapping"?
LOL, what a nutcase...
The WIND will CARRY OFF ALL YOUR IDOLS, Donald---> The Bible tells me so! (ISAIAH 57:6.11-13""") Amen. HARRIS 2024!