Full podcast episode: ruclips.net/video/r4wLXNydzeY/видео.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: ruclips.net/user/lexfridman Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
almost no charge? I guess I bought the phone and cell service (my method) but I was gonna do that anyway. this is certainly no charge to me. Thanks Lex❤️
And manipulative. Wouldn't the other side call themselves the "realists". By naming yourself the realist you are showing your biases, as well as displaying an attempt to manipulate people into seeing your side of the argument as the real and correct side
@@la7era1u54 By "realist" he's contrasting himself with the idealist. The idealist says "Flowers, candy, and universal love for everyone! Yay!" And the realist says "Hey wait those things cost money, we don't have enough, and people just don't work that way." We need both given the circumstance.
the guy might be well spoken but he's lost in abstract ideas and couldn't make a fire or know how to wipe his own ass in the woods when it came down to it! as far as I can tell the guy is part of the problem that humanity is facing today. he's not contributing to any real solution that the average human being is facing. it's just hogwash!
@@pyros4333 what's there to understand ... the guy is just lost in terminology, intellectualizing ... as if he's lost touch with reality, moving only in abstract thoughts that have no practical application.
Fukuyama saying, in the early 90s, that liberal democracy had beaten fascism and beaten communism, so it was going to beat everything else, might be the International Relations version of Disco Stu predicting exponential growth of disco music just based on sales up to 1976.
He forgot how democracy can turn into a dictatorship, see Hitler or even Lenin, and then we know what happened. Same with idealistic unregulated capitalism, competition will be won by some company which results in a monopoly or oligopoly and then there's no competition any more, it degenerates into imperialism over time which is questionably almost as bad as socialism.
The greatly disciplined approach of the host is reason for the beauty of the discussion; a very long episode that is captivating and enlightening. Thank you Mr. Lex and Prof. J.M
The comment at around minute 8 sums it up perfectly. Survival trumps prosperity every time. Theres only so much prosperity that's valuable, but if you're dead the whole game of life is over.
"It's amazing how much economic intercourse is taking place in Europe among all the actors" is something I fervently agreed with, and then remembered we were talking about WWI.
I really think we (well I don't) do not know much about the economic interdependencies between European countries pre-WWI or even to what granularity of detail is needed to make such an opinion. Furthermore, this a simplistic-one sentence statement that completely underpins a one-sentence statement about one type of geopolitical liberalism. I mean given the context of a RUclips interview, Mearsheimer is totally fine with this 50,000-ft level, elementary assertion. That doesn't mean any of this --> we learned anything or any of this is profound, or even true. I think that is what we all have to keep in mind. It's an introductory (for me) STEP-ONE into this discipline. That's what I think everyone should remember (IMHO), it doesn't mean anything in it of itself and has no applicability because it's too simplistic to be meaningful. But that's not Mearsheimer job to remind us, and although he may (or may not) be blowing smoke up our collective asses (because he's wrong or similar, not because of ill intent), he does a really great job phrasing things as propositions, and expressing uncertainty in what he is saying. I appreciate that. It, in this instance, is a sign of honest communication and good-faith engagement.
I've always viewed the culture war as such an extremest issue, and I feel like I consistently get blasted for telling people that I am unsure what is correct. Mearsheimer does a great job to over arch the left vs right debate here. I always wonder how people in the future will look at our views and depict us, but honestly I feel like I try to be the best person I can and depict political views I think are positive, knowing I can change my mind or be persuaded
You're in a great place my friend. Very balanced approach and navigating the middle is a teaching bestowed to us by our prophet. Never go extreme in any direction. The next step i suggest is to look into islam. For someone who is clearly intelligent i think it will resonate with you And youre always welcome to cone back here and pop me a question! Take care
When you have kids you realize you have to pick a side. Society has rules because we are bound to each other through mutual acceptance for what we know of as the accepted societal rules . Just like in your house , you have rules… if someone comes in and violates them … what will you do? Passively stand there and accept it ? That’s weakness someone will end up taking your home
@@gxqx797what’s denoted as “extreme” is relative . Currently the left is so left even center right is “far right” . People who think they are virtue signaling decency by not having a opinion are not engaging in moderating their own fate
@@TheMightyWalkI’d like to think I’m non aligned because really in the current demographic of things I’m from England so it doesn’t effect me so I live my life normally carrying on not supporting either side but more just dwelling on the fact that more senseless death is happening.. but others around me seem to insert themselves into something they didn’t have any regard for before any of this is mind baffling really..
@@TheMightyWalkI suppose certain individuals feel important when they get rid of that individuality and replace it for religion or to a group for belonging… idk maybe I’m rambling nonsense
I don't get how anyone could take Francis "history has ended" Fukuyama seriously anymore, after Ukraine and Israel. The 1000 year long regularly scheduled program isn't over, we just grew up during the commercial break.
@@SusanHopkinsonConveniently because this is the way all civilian brains work within an empire😂 can easily point out world atrocities if they're not themselves at all involved😊
I appreciate Lex's willingness to listen and allow: Makes sense and is boiled down to terms I can see. Politicians and intellectuals enjoy and make a living out of clouding and complicating. At the end "will you kill me" or "can I defend myself against you" is the bottom line. He gave me more insights on WWII than previous and again the involvement of USA in need to make and facilitate war. Enjoyable and interesting interview.
As some one who supports democracy I should say the argument " democracies don't fight democracies" almost can also be applied to "communist" regimes. They usually didn't (and don't) fight each other but it just proves that they are members of a same league (fun fact: they call themselves democratic!!). Not only this, but also we should consider that unfortunately many of the tyrant dictators in third world countries which wage war against others and even thier own people have been supported by the same western democracies.
I live in a democracy that has been at an almost constant state of war for it's entire history. I always found the idea of democracy being peaceful as at best willfully ignorant, at worst the ravings of a crazy person.
Ppl living in less “democratic” societies argue, that it is pillaging and unfair trade that made possible to finance political circus that is democracy. As soon as amount of resources dwindles, so does the democracy. Seems we are witnessing this process in western countries right now.
I loved his guest but my god, Lex paraphrases what his guest says so badly. He tried to "unpack" a few times during this clip and each time he showed he just misunderstood what his guest was saying.
Hes not summerizing for you, he’s predicting what the guest is implying (its extreme) and whatever the guest makes it a point to refute means that the other aspects of his question is along the right lines
Perhaps a little annoying, but Lex' strength is that he isnt adversarial, but instead, seeking knowledge. Lex is exceptionally smart, but his greatest strength, in my opinion, is acting stupid.
I prefer him over Joe Rogen. At least Lex is better about selecting guests. Sometimes I think Rogen’s guests are nut jobs or self professed “experts”, that just stoke conspiracy or spread misinformation
I’ve never heard the term “economic intercourse “ before. Is that where in international politics, countries that aren’t democracies get economically fucked?
Before this comment is removed or buried, I want Lex to know that I think that within all countries the will of the people to democratically elect their leaders is a good thing.
effectively john is describing the varied forms of realism (structured, etc.) in a way which mirrors game theory. game theory posits the most beneficial outcome is derived from a set (individuals, states, etc.) working together (cooperators) until a bad actor (uncooperative) attempts to disrupt the cooperative/trust system. According to game theory, the best outcome of a cooperative system with a bad actor is to break the trust with the set of bad actors, but to extend a modicum of good faith to encourage bad actors to restore their integrity which will strengthen the overall trust system. In short, democratic states should cooperate until a bad actor disrupts the trust, but absolve that bad actor in the hope that they will see the errors in their ways and rejoin the trust system. That is my understanding of john's explanation of realism and how it mirrors game theory.
Which further assumes that in order to help absolve the world of bad actors, we need a different approach to bring them back into the game of society without pushing them further into their negatively compounding behaviors and confirmation biases? Maybe?
One thing I would say is that a democracy does not correlate with altruism as a whole, It is geared towards the people it over looks. It is more of a popularity contest not even a meritocracy.
But then it gets to what defines a winner in a popularity contest, which gets into the argument that the contest is only a mirror of the collective ideal in people who ultimately decide who becomes voted in as "best-choice" candidate. So it is only as altruistic as the people within
This interview was absolutely incredible, eye opening and mind blowing. I watched many of his videos and I agree on every single word with the professor. It’s a shame people who run the USA are so foolish, they need to learn from prof Mearsheimer.
People who think that everyone will get along under some impossible circumstances are naive. If everything is perfect on every level, there will still be someone who just wants to watch it burn, or have a bigger crown, or want to take from others for some other reason. You have to treat one another respectfully and also be capable of absolute darkness to hold each other accountable. I wish things could be fair and nice, but if you count on that you will get taken advantage of.
Very interesting, thank you. Regarding countries willing to abandon prosperity to gain security. One could make an argument that in essence it shows the insecure nature, it's not about power, it's about covering for their insecurities.
if realism is pursuing survival and liberalism is pursuing prosperity, then a better framework of what to pursue is to pursue prosperity while not ignoring survival. as clearly when either ONLY survival OR only prosperity is pursued, the only outcome is conflict. Know the nuance!
March 2003 was a democracy launching a war so good point. Also...he didn't touch on unipolar vs multipolar argument....ussr 1991 still had 1000s nuke heads...the line became a buffer. Awesome discussion.
The older I get the more I realize that this may be the single biggest factor. It’s the difference between self sufficient producers and dependent consumer states.
in addition to the less uncertainty arguement, i think another arguement is that, when you support/undermine the legitamacy of a state that shares similar value and institution as you, you are supporting/undermining your own legitamacy, this is especailly true when there are competing sets of value in the world, for example when liberalism spread across europe Monarchs formed alliances to bulwark against it.
The easiest way to become more powerful when you are mightiest of all is to maintain good relations around you which will eventually corner your worst enemy leaving no option than to retreat itself.
In any discussion about liberalism and realism they each have to be defined. The human world is based on nation states, each largely based on common language and or ethnicity, each trying to improve in an ever shifting dynamic. Economics is the main driving force with competition for resources. Capitalism is revolutionary with very destructive phases and if unregulated it starts to eat itself. Democracy and Capitalism are not easy bedmates and may never be.
Capitalism and Democracy can never be true playmates. There is an antagonism evident within the function of each. But fascism is Capitalism and government coming together in defiance of democracy. For obvious reasons.
Thanks for this clarification of world-power views. Very insightful. I have always been disgusted by Mearsheimer's unsympathetic views on the Ukrainian-Russian War but now I understand why.
That’s a lot of fine handled ideation ya got there Professor! But have you looked recent at the ground beneath your feet. Nobody can land there. That’s no compromise.
It is not only nations that compete with each other but companies compete with eachother too. Therefore economic intercourse between nations alone cannot guarantee peace because both of these apparently distinct type of competitions are in reality closely linked to each other. In two ways. The companies serve the interest of the state of their origin by keeping the core know how and R&D within the state of the origine and they use also the political power of the state of the origine when competing with other companies in a foreign country.
The UN was a good concept of the balance of power amongst countries. Unfortunately it was captured by superpower countries & it has become very useless. We have seen superpowers give them the middle finger whenever they attack less powerful countries since it's inception.
Absolutely brilliant! I believe as long as humans did not shift to a higher consciousness in great numbers, the theory of realism that he describes is the best way to live peacefully together. Think of a world where everyone is a deadly martial artist but therefore also super peaceful because they know what violence means and the price for it is way too high. But in case they have to theirs always more than just ready.
There are a bunch of other ones, but they're not the most popular. There's Marxism, constructivism, and even feminism. They're all valid ways of understanding the world, but some are more valid than others especially based on how well they apply to the historical database, and how solid the causal logic is. Realism is pretty simple, which is why its logic has less "complications," contradictions, or slippery slopes than other theories. However, even within realism, there are multiple flavors (human nature, structural offensive/defensive). You'll find most realists place a lot of importance on history as a way to validate the theory as both descriptive and prescriptive.
Those two remain (by far) the most powerful empirically explanatory ones, which is why Mearsheimer explained them. The others are what you might call revisionist theories. And it’s not a “logical fallacy.” It comes closest to the “either/or” fallacy, but Mearsheimer is merely breaking down a field he knows well in its complexity, given the time constraints, to provide what he thinks are the dominant perspectives. He never says they are the only ones! The other options, which now penetrate and in my view adulterate the radical university’s (by that I mean virtually all) abdication of IR foundations, are mainly rhetorical sophistry and do not, as the liberalism-realism debate did, either welcome or elevate from debate over the historical evidence. They merely assert a rather shallow (e.g., Marxist) theory and demand you accede to it. Like postmodernism, there’s no desire to build a body of knowledge. It’s just a bullying of convention and radical-ratcheting rhetorical sophistry. Hard-core historians often criticize classical IR theorists like Mearsheimer for their loose or simplistic interpretations of history. But the “new” IR theorists abandon any serious interpretation. They just assert it, and denigrate rather than build on those who studied the issue before them using ad hominem and unsupportable assertions. So academic inquiry in the social sciences has devolved, sadly. So has its rhetorical civility. Just my two cents.
@@tommyrq180 I totally agree that the social sciences are becoming a cesspool for divisive woke ideologies that do the reverse of what they purport to fight against. I've never seen men so vilified; women needing to compete with former male narcissists in sports; children/confused gays forced to take gender-affirming drugs/surgery; reduction of law enforcement and law enforcement funding; people barely maintaining the population size required to maintain civilization to help fight climate change; etc. There's also an overarching war between centralization and decentralization that will hopefully bring back the good times in due time, but we're living in tumultuous times.
Economic interdependency will eventually lead to one side out competing the other so its back to Survival. Neither is more or less peaceful as outcome is the same. Eventually the survivalist will splinter off into two groups and back to square one again.
It is a little bit of everything he said and much more. He did not mentioned huge costs of modern warfare , lack of man power, general dissilusion about true intentions of war in societies and no economic reasons for war, huge cultural changes everywhere in the world.
12:02 aggressive realism seems like a self propagating/self fulfilling view point. You believe that everyone is out for power at every possible opportunity, which in turn makes you out for power at every turn as well for survival.
It is, but that is not the main factor. Consider a situation where you have a market bubble of Tulip flowers. Then the idea that "Tulip flowers would crash in price" is a self-fulfilling view point. Everyone believes that the flower would decrease in price, so they would be urged to sell it fast, which lowers its price. But you cannot say that this view point **caused** the price crash of Tulip flowers. The unstable state of a bubbled market was the **cause**. The view point is merely something that set it off. If a system can be set off by a single view point, then it's the system, not the view point, that is causing the problem. Same goes for offensive realism. The view point can indeed create the self-fulfillment you have just said. But that is not the **cause** of offensive realism. The anachy between the countries is the cause--it is this structure that sets up the unstable state of the world. The view point of offensive realism is merely setting it off.
One of his realistic view points at 5:25 is a good and marvelous political thought as he say Democracy when each of opponents know each other trust will be built then eliminate possibility of waging war reference can be found the theory laid down by Fukuyama the End of History.
“Survival” meaning “the policies of one country don’t benefit your own country so corporations and politicians send you to die”. Or in America’s history “a country has something you want so liberate them”
Interviewers like Lex and Joe Rogan that actually let the interviewee speak....are priceless. Before I listen to an interview I scan the video, and if I see the stupid interviewers face too much, I skip it.
His core theory is survival and prosperity for the sustainable future. When you don’t have an overwhelming power on the international stage you want to be the overwhelming power to protect your own interests.
The competition for power will never end until there is a winner or we are all dead. The only way to win the competition for power is world submission.
I've not heard liberalism used in this way before. I almost feel like there is a better term for him to use. To my knowledge, liberalism is more about internal state power distribution, focusing more on the power and rights of the individual. It's usually used in opposition to collectivism.
8:00 I believe that the use of the word "survival" is insufficient as, IMO, the realistic state does not have a general sense of survival, but one of identity (ie state's history, culture, territory etc) survival. States leading from the perspective of an Ego, an identity (other than the general one: humanity as a specie) will always have the mission to conserve its identity. IMO, a state's mission should be prosperity of the human kind. This is dependable on a multitude of factors which put together lead to complex networks and patterns. In order to sail this sea of variables, my indication is to side with those whom have created/done no harm and will abide by this core rule.
Democracy relies on prosperity in order to deliver on its values and principles. However, empirically, it doesn’t seem like wars are per se not profitable, at least for the winners. After the first major war, the infrastructure is there, and the experience of victory and spoils become baked into the culture, which is a key departure from the theories and assumptions that underpin the strong preference for peace. This also supplements the security discussion, which also motivates people regardless of their supposed choice of government.
This concept of the structure of the system of power was beautifully showcased by the prisoner's dilemma game, where a defensive realist(tit for tat approach) can only place 2nd or tie with some other player in the power struggle, whereas a more careful-greedy or a greedy but calculated approach might get a player to the top of the power struggle, but rarely. And If you look closely, this has been the course of human history all along, where empires try to gain more and more power and eventually the system's punishment catches up-to them. Its a vicious cycle.
Interesting stuff. This is called 'realist theory' and yet even material science doesn't understand what's real or not. Mental gymnastics... It may move the needle a little bit, but don't think it is pointing us in the right direction
If a large group of people are working on a project, and an argument breaks out between two people; if the larger group starts egging them on, then it is on. But if the larger group breaks it up and pushes for everyone to get back to work, there is a better chance that the friends intervene and prevent the fight. DUH Anything else is corruption.
Are these position really mutually exclusive? Take the "human nature" realists. Isn't human nature at the root of all these positions? Think of the proposition that states seek power after conducting a risk/benefit analysis if the odds and outcome are favourable enough. This is a projection of human nature onto the bureaucratic mechanisms of state. Individuals that feel disempowered (e.g. the masses) seek peace and security, while individuals that feel empowered are willing to take ever greater risks to consolidate and extend that power. Think of a troop of chimpanzees and how individuals within the group will be either resigned to submission or seek strength, dominance, territory and breeding rights. The mistake we make, I think, is assuming that people belong to one or the other group, rather than recognising that our entire mindset and attitudes change in accordance with where we sit on that spectrum of power at any given time; granted some people may be stuck in the same situation and not experience significant personal change. However, over the course of our lives - in tandem with our social, health, age and economic circumstances - our attitudes change. This is why revolutions often fail, since those who were weak become powerful, and their attitudes change accordingly. Democracies are not immune to defensive and offensive power strategies when feeling threatened, and economic interdependence is a useful deterrent by balancing power and risk, but one that can be surmounted if the threat level is high enough. Institutional opt-ins are a great idea, i.e. rule of law, but fail when major players opt out (e.g. the US opting out of the ICC etc). We've discussed these topics for so many centuries, we all know the score - the question is whether we actually want to live in peace and harmony, and whether we're mature enough to recognise the enemy who lies within, just waiting to rise up if the situation allows it.
Democracies use capitalism, as long as there is competition among democracies then there will be wars over that competition because greed is an inherent motivation in capitalism. If you want to end war, then you must somehow eliminate greed from the options for human behavior.
Socialism in comparison doesn't wage wars. Don't be silly. Capitalism is a method, not the structure he's talking about. The structure might mold around financing structures, sure. But it's ultimately because the structure has the monopoly on violence, and extracts and justifies the resources to enable it that aggression happens. In any case it happens whether there's capitalism or not, so the common denominator is the structure, the State.
China uses capitalism. Lots of states benefit from capitalism and they don't wage war. Singapore for instance. I think you need to dig deeper on history to understand why states wage war. You might want to look at the realist perspective.
@rageburst China is at wars with the USA through other means. They engage in proxy conflicts, criminal activities,boarder disputes and more. Just look at the India China boarder, the south china sea disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam and other states. How they supply fentanyl to the USA through Mexican cartels.
Makes sense and all.. But I fear its missing its counterpart, I'm left wondering how the 'structure' aka blackrock/state st. play into it..? When do we start defining what and who is calling the shots in the structure..?
On the first aspect of liberal worldview, democratic peace among liberal democracies, I believe Fukuyama overlooks one point. Liberal super power democracies hinder and block democracies in third world countries through war, expansion, coups and any other tools that helps stealing their resources or in general keeps the super powers' interests satisfied.
I'm impressed that the NATO nations have not gone to war with each other. Is that an example of an effective liberal structure? It was known that Russia is generally fearful of invasion, but itself has a history of empire that Putin bemoaned the loss of. What then should NATO have done when ex Soviet Union countries sent feelers seeking protection from Russian control? Said, sorry, if Russia is in a re-expansion mood, it's their neighborhood to do what it wants with?
Anarchy does not mean inter state war. The common measure against anarchy is encapsulation, closing the border. Anarchy is an intra-state, ie. civil war precursor. Here, it is a severe factor and every citizen should strive to avoid the anarchy in his own state. On the international scene, anarchy may not be desirable but is hardly the decisive factor to wage a war.
If international competition and aggression is too normal to eliminate, how about just an international agreement to resist and defeat if possible invasion to take territory? Economic and maybe many kinds of armed competition would not be included, but only the taking of territory that characterizes the most destructive of wars.
Full podcast episode: ruclips.net/video/r4wLXNydzeY/видео.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ruclips.net/user/lexfridman
Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.
Political Science lessons for almost no charge. Thank you Lexa and Mearsheimer.
Lex*
you can say aLexA
for sheeple like you
almost no charge? I guess I bought the phone and cell service (my method) but I was gonna do that anyway.
this is certainly no charge to me. Thanks Lex❤️
Yup, I feel like I'm in an international politics class.
This guy speaks better than I can possibly write. His language and word choices are so accurate, descriptive and clear.
And manipulative. Wouldn't the other side call themselves the "realists". By naming yourself the realist you are showing your biases, as well as displaying an attempt to manipulate people into seeing your side of the argument as the real and correct side
@@la7era1u54 By "realist" he's contrasting himself with the idealist. The idealist says "Flowers, candy, and universal love for everyone! Yay!" And the realist says "Hey wait those things cost money, we don't have enough, and people just don't work that way." We need both given the circumstance.
the guy might be well spoken but he's lost in abstract ideas and couldn't make a fire or know how to wipe his own ass in the woods when it came down to it! as far as I can tell the guy is part of the problem that humanity is facing today. he's not contributing to any real solution that the average human being is facing. it's just hogwash!
And Lex still can't understand him lol
@@pyros4333 what's there to understand ... the guy is just lost in terminology, intellectualizing ... as if he's lost touch with reality, moving only in abstract thoughts that have no practical application.
Fukuyama saying, in the early 90s, that liberal democracy had beaten fascism and beaten communism, so it was going to beat everything else, might be the International Relations version of Disco Stu predicting exponential growth of disco music just based on sales up to 1976.
LOL
Hell yeah
He forgot how democracy can turn into a dictatorship, see Hitler or even Lenin, and then we know what happened. Same with idealistic unregulated capitalism, competition will be won by some company which results in a monopoly or oligopoly and then there's no competition any more, it degenerates into imperialism over time which is questionably almost as bad as socialism.
The greatly disciplined approach of the host is reason for the beauty of the discussion; a very long episode that is captivating and enlightening.
Thank you Mr. Lex and Prof. J.M
Try enlightening someone that thinks that it's good to undermine democratically elected officials because government usually does bad stuff@bill855
Or with Trump.
well said
We studied Mearschiemer and Fukuyama at my liberal arts school. Had to take a class called Introduction to International Relations Theory, though.
The comment at around minute 8 sums it up perfectly.
Survival trumps prosperity every time.
Theres only so much prosperity that's valuable, but if you're dead the whole game of life is over.
Live long and prosper. Spock.
"It's amazing how much economic intercourse is taking place in Europe among all the actors" is something I fervently agreed with, and then remembered we were talking about WWI.
History may not repeat but it sure does rhyme.
Those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it like our 'leaders'.
It's funny he didn't even bother to argue about the institution theory, as we all know UN is a joke😂.
I really think we (well I don't) do not know much about the economic interdependencies between European countries pre-WWI or even to what granularity of detail is needed to make such an opinion. Furthermore, this a simplistic-one sentence statement that completely underpins a one-sentence statement about one type of geopolitical liberalism. I mean given the context of a RUclips interview, Mearsheimer is totally fine with this 50,000-ft level, elementary assertion.
That doesn't mean any of this --> we learned anything or any of this is profound, or even true. I think that is what we all have to keep in mind.
It's an introductory (for me) STEP-ONE into this discipline. That's what I think everyone should remember (IMHO), it doesn't mean anything in it of itself and has no applicability because it's too simplistic to be meaningful.
But that's not Mearsheimer job to remind us, and although he may (or may not) be blowing smoke up our collective asses (because he's wrong or similar, not because of ill intent), he does a really great job phrasing things as propositions, and expressing uncertainty in what he is saying.
I appreciate that. It, in this instance, is a sign of honest communication and good-faith engagement.
@@walterwang2011 it's actually amazing the kinds of superstitions that the world modern & it's institutions believe. The guest is correct.
@@walterwang2011Probably a destructive force in the world. Possibly straight up evil.
I've always viewed the culture war as such an extremest issue, and I feel like I consistently get blasted for telling people that I am unsure what is correct. Mearsheimer does a great job to over arch the left vs right debate here. I always wonder how people in the future will look at our views and depict us, but honestly I feel like I try to be the best person I can and depict political views I think are positive, knowing I can change my mind or be persuaded
You're in a great place my friend. Very balanced approach and navigating the middle is a teaching bestowed to us by our prophet. Never go extreme in any direction.
The next step i suggest is to look into islam. For someone who is clearly intelligent i think it will resonate with you
And youre always welcome to cone back here and pop me a question!
Take care
When you have kids you realize you have to pick a side. Society has rules because we are bound to each other through mutual acceptance for what we know of as the accepted societal rules .
Just like in your house , you have rules… if someone comes in and violates them … what will you do? Passively stand there and accept it ? That’s weakness someone will end up taking your home
@@gxqx797what’s denoted as “extreme” is relative . Currently the left is so left even center right is “far right” . People who think they are virtue signaling decency by not having a opinion are not engaging in moderating their own fate
@@TheMightyWalkI’d like to think I’m non aligned because really in the current demographic of things I’m from England so it doesn’t effect me so I live my life normally carrying on not supporting either side but more just dwelling on the fact that more senseless death is happening.. but others around me seem to insert themselves into something they didn’t have any regard for before any of this is mind baffling really..
@@TheMightyWalkI suppose certain individuals feel important when they get rid of that individuality and replace it for religion or to a group for belonging… idk maybe I’m rambling nonsense
I don't get how anyone could take Francis "history has ended" Fukuyama seriously anymore, after Ukraine and Israel. The 1000 year long regularly scheduled program isn't over, we just grew up during the commercial break.
You skipped Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen…
thast what i am wondering too.
Take biased "intellectuals" on western payroll such as Fukuyama and Harari seriously at your own peril!
@@SusanHopkinsonConveniently because this is the way all civilian brains work within an empire😂 can easily point out world atrocities if they're not themselves at all involved😊
So long as the tribe has any power, there will be permanent war.
What does the American military do other than follow the commands of the tribe?
I’ve learned more from this dude abt war/politics in the last week then I think I have from anyone ever
keep in mind that what you are hearing is his _opinion_, his views are archaic and not fit for today's politics.
Lol if ur learning from this clown. Gl
Amount of nonsense and lies coming out from his mouth about Ukraine conflict is staggering.
I appreciate Lex's willingness to listen and allow: Makes sense and is boiled down to terms I can see. Politicians and intellectuals enjoy and make a living out of clouding and complicating. At the end "will you kill me" or "can I defend myself against you" is the bottom line. He gave me more insights on WWII than previous and again the involvement of USA in need to make and facilitate war. Enjoyable and interesting interview.
WWII? I must have missed something.
Good to see a guest on who is offering a somewhat academic view on the culture war
He is an academic by profession.
self-proclaiming realist who sounds like theoretical physicist: i did not know much about Putin, but i know what he is thinking. 🤷♂️
@@suslikfromcarussian bot from ca how ironic
@@Guccifer808 sorry from NC 🤪 why Russian and not Ukrainian bot 🤔
When did Lewis Black get so serious???
As some one who supports democracy I should say the argument " democracies don't fight democracies" almost can also be applied to "communist" regimes. They usually didn't (and don't) fight each other but it just proves that they are members of a same league (fun fact: they call themselves democratic!!). Not only this, but also we should consider that unfortunately many of the tyrant dictators in third world countries which wage war against others and even thier own people have been supported by the same western democracies.
Fun fact, Western Plutocracies call themselves democracies too 😅
@@SusanHopkinson at this point, it's more like a corportocarcy.
Great observation!
Democracies don't "fight" other democracies. They instigate coups instead. For the good of democracy ofcourse...
@@davidmontgomery1442Also, China and the USSR fought actual battles during the Cold War
I live in a democracy that has been at an almost constant state of war for it's entire history. I always found the idea of democracy being peaceful as at best willfully ignorant, at worst the ravings of a crazy person.
Ppl living in less “democratic” societies argue, that it is pillaging and unfair trade that made possible to finance political circus that is democracy. As soon as amount of resources dwindles, so does the democracy. Seems we are witnessing this process in western countries right now.
@hrissan are u saying that those lesser " republics" are a bit more equal?
I loved his guest but my god, Lex paraphrases what his guest says so badly. He tried to "unpack" a few times during this clip and each time he showed he just misunderstood what his guest was saying.
He always does this it’s so infuriating! Rather simple shit too
Hes not summerizing for you, he’s predicting what the guest is implying (its extreme) and whatever the guest makes it a point to refute means that the other aspects of his question is along the right lines
Lex is an idiot
Perhaps a little annoying, but Lex' strength is that he isnt adversarial, but instead, seeking knowledge. Lex is exceptionally smart, but his greatest strength, in my opinion, is acting stupid.
I prefer him over Joe Rogen. At least Lex is better about selecting guests. Sometimes I think Rogen’s guests are nut jobs or self professed “experts”, that just stoke conspiracy or spread misinformation
I’ve never heard the term “economic intercourse “ before. Is that where in international politics, countries that aren’t democracies get economically fucked?
Sounds about right…
Only makes sense
Before this comment is removed or buried,
I want Lex to know that I think that within all countries the will of the people to democratically elect their leaders is a good thing.
@@Flintknappingtips😂
@@shafsteryellow why are you laughing? I don’t expect my comment to make morning. Why laugh at it?
Great philosophical explanation
effectively john is describing the varied forms of realism (structured, etc.) in a way which mirrors game theory. game theory posits the most beneficial outcome is derived from a set (individuals, states, etc.) working together (cooperators) until a bad actor (uncooperative) attempts to disrupt the cooperative/trust system. According to game theory, the best outcome of a cooperative system with a bad actor is to break the trust with the set of bad actors, but to extend a modicum of good faith to encourage bad actors to restore their integrity which will strengthen the overall trust system. In short, democratic states should cooperate until a bad actor disrupts the trust, but absolve that bad actor in the hope that they will see the errors in their ways and rejoin the trust system. That is my understanding of john's explanation of realism and how it mirrors game theory.
Which further assumes that in order to help absolve the world of bad actors, we need a different approach to bring them back into the game of society without pushing them further into their negatively compounding behaviors and confirmation biases? Maybe?
Lex I don't ever comment ever but you kept falling asleep during this interview and it was actually good
Love that he ends it with a behaviour economics argument.
One thing I would say is that a democracy does not correlate with altruism as a whole, It is geared towards the people it over looks. It is more of a popularity contest not even a meritocracy.
But then it gets to what defines a winner in a popularity contest, which gets into the argument that the contest is only a mirror of the collective ideal in people who ultimately decide who becomes voted in as "best-choice" candidate. So it is only as altruistic as the people within
Politics aside John seems like he’d be a good dinner party guest.
Man, I'd throw a banquet just to be able to listen to Mr.Mearsheimer
This interview was absolutely incredible, eye opening and mind blowing. I watched many of his videos and I agree on every single word with the professor. It’s a shame people who run the USA are so foolish, they need to learn from prof Mearsheimer.
Well, the USA is a democracy--presidents wouldn't have wisdom if the electorates don't.
@@howardkong8927 well.. they call is "democracy" but its even wikipedia says its "Flawed democracy"
Leha, please invite mr.Mearsheimer for one more round. It is a great pleasure to listen to him.
Severity of conflict should be recognized too. Wars are not all the same.
this man is a mentor
Wow! What a profound discussion.
People who think that everyone will get along under some impossible circumstances are naive. If everything is perfect on every level, there will still be someone who just wants to watch it burn, or have a bigger crown, or want to take from others for some other reason. You have to treat one another respectfully and also be capable of absolute darkness to hold each other accountable. I wish things could be fair and nice, but if you count on that you will get taken advantage of.
"Fear knocked on the door. Faith opened the door and no one was there."
Very interesting, thank you.
Regarding countries willing to abandon prosperity to gain security. One could make an argument that in essence it shows the insecure nature, it's not about power, it's about covering for their insecurities.
If u r a realist, then defensive and offensive reasoning must both be happening at the same time.
if realism is pursuing survival and liberalism is pursuing prosperity,
then a better framework of what to pursue is
to pursue prosperity while not ignoring survival.
as clearly when either ONLY survival OR only prosperity is pursued, the only outcome is conflict.
Know the nuance!
Basic International relations theory 101
March 2003 was a democracy launching a war so good point. Also...he didn't touch on unipolar vs multipolar argument....ussr 1991 still had 1000s nuke heads...the line became a buffer. Awesome discussion.
Don't forget about good old fashioned geography.
The older I get the more I realize that this may be the single biggest factor. It’s the difference between self sufficient producers and dependent consumer states.
Love Lex and Mersheimer is always so succinct and on point. His logical reasoning is rock solid.
Good to see you interviewing someone with a brain, instead of populist grifters like Shapiro.
Yer panties still in a bind?😂😂😂 You see something new, but still have to regress to where it hurts. Does Trump still live in your brain rent free 😂😂😂
I think Mearsheimer's point is well illustrated by modern China: When it comes down to security vs. prosperity, security wins.
Unless the simple explanation is "it's complicated", you are probably being told a story that is appealing for reasons other than being true.
❤
Conflict at one level means harmony at a higher level.
in addition to the less uncertainty arguement, i think another arguement is that, when you support/undermine the legitamacy of a state that shares similar value and institution as you, you are supporting/undermining your own legitamacy, this is especailly true when there are competing sets of value in the world, for example when liberalism spread across europe Monarchs formed alliances to bulwark against it.
Lex, how could you leave the cap off the coke bottle?
The easiest way to become more powerful when you are mightiest of all is to maintain good relations around you which will eventually corner your worst enemy leaving no option than to retreat itself.
In any discussion about liberalism and realism they each have to be defined. The human world is based on nation states, each largely based on common language and or ethnicity, each trying to improve in an ever shifting dynamic. Economics is the main driving force with competition for resources. Capitalism is revolutionary with very destructive phases and if unregulated it starts to eat itself. Democracy and Capitalism are not easy bedmates and may never be.
Capitalism and Democracy can never be true playmates. There is an antagonism evident within the function of each.
But fascism is Capitalism and government coming together in defiance of democracy. For obvious reasons.
The world, Is a business. Simple.
Thanks for this clarification of world-power views. Very insightful. I have always been disgusted by Mearsheimer's unsympathetic views on the Ukrainian-Russian War but now I understand why.
That’s a lot of fine handled ideation ya got there Professor! But have you looked recent at the ground beneath your feet. Nobody can land there. That’s no compromise.
It is not only nations that compete with each other but companies compete with eachother too. Therefore economic intercourse between nations alone cannot guarantee peace because both of these apparently distinct type of competitions are in reality closely linked to each other. In two ways. The companies serve the interest of the state of their origin by keeping the core know how and R&D within the state of the origine and they use also the political power of the state of the origine when competing with other companies in a foreign country.
The UN was a good concept of the balance of power amongst countries. Unfortunately it was captured by superpower countries & it has become very useless. We have seen superpowers give them the middle finger whenever they attack less powerful countries since it's inception.
“You and I,” you were right the first time
Great explanation
Absolutely brilliant! I believe as long as humans did not shift to a higher consciousness in great numbers, the theory of realism that he describes is the best way to live peacefully together. Think of a world where everyone is a deadly martial artist but therefore also super peaceful because they know what violence means and the price for it is way too high. But in case they have to theirs always more than just ready.
Realism and liberalism aren't the only options available. That is a logical fallacy.
What are the other options?
@@chananjamajiji5412 More than two. Mearsheimer admits in this interview that realism has at least two divisions.
There are a bunch of other ones, but they're not the most popular. There's Marxism, constructivism, and even feminism. They're all valid ways of understanding the world, but some are more valid than others especially based on how well they apply to the historical database, and how solid the causal logic is. Realism is pretty simple, which is why its logic has less "complications," contradictions, or slippery slopes than other theories. However, even within realism, there are multiple flavors (human nature, structural offensive/defensive). You'll find most realists place a lot of importance on history as a way to validate the theory as both descriptive and prescriptive.
Those two remain (by far) the most powerful empirically explanatory ones, which is why Mearsheimer explained them. The others are what you might call revisionist theories. And it’s not a “logical fallacy.” It comes closest to the “either/or” fallacy, but Mearsheimer is merely breaking down a field he knows well in its complexity, given the time constraints, to provide what he thinks are the dominant perspectives. He never says they are the only ones! The other options, which now penetrate and in my view adulterate the radical university’s (by that I mean virtually all) abdication of IR foundations, are mainly rhetorical sophistry and do not, as the liberalism-realism debate did, either welcome or elevate from debate over the historical evidence. They merely assert a rather shallow (e.g., Marxist) theory and demand you accede to it. Like postmodernism, there’s no desire to build a body of knowledge. It’s just a bullying of convention and radical-ratcheting rhetorical sophistry. Hard-core historians often criticize classical IR theorists like Mearsheimer for their loose or simplistic interpretations of history. But the “new” IR theorists abandon any serious interpretation. They just assert it, and denigrate rather than build on those who studied the issue before them using ad hominem and unsupportable assertions. So academic inquiry in the social sciences has devolved, sadly. So has its rhetorical civility. Just my two cents.
@@tommyrq180 I totally agree that the social sciences are becoming a cesspool for divisive woke ideologies that do the reverse of what they purport to fight against. I've never seen men so vilified; women needing to compete with former male narcissists in sports; children/confused gays forced to take gender-affirming drugs/surgery; reduction of law enforcement and law enforcement funding; people barely maintaining the population size required to maintain civilization to help fight climate change; etc. There's also an overarching war between centralization and decentralization that will hopefully bring back the good times in due time, but we're living in tumultuous times.
Economic interdependency will eventually lead to one side out competing the other so its back to Survival. Neither is more or less peaceful as outcome is the same. Eventually the survivalist will splinter off into two groups and back to square one again.
My problem with this thinking is the fundamental idea that this all ultimately zero sum. I think that's false.
@@roarblast7332 Eash iteration humanity has evolved to be stronger.
It is a little bit of everything he said and much more. He did not mentioned huge costs of modern warfare , lack of man power, general dissilusion about true intentions of war in societies and no economic reasons for war, huge cultural changes everywhere in the world.
12:02 aggressive realism seems like a self propagating/self fulfilling view point.
You believe that everyone is out for power at every possible opportunity, which in turn makes you out for power at every turn as well for survival.
It is, but that is not the main factor.
Consider a situation where you have a market bubble of Tulip flowers. Then the idea that "Tulip flowers would crash in price" is a self-fulfilling view point. Everyone believes that the flower would decrease in price, so they would be urged to sell it fast, which lowers its price.
But you cannot say that this view point **caused** the price crash of Tulip flowers. The unstable state of a bubbled market was the **cause**. The view point is merely something that set it off. If a system can be set off by a single view point, then it's the system, not the view point, that is causing the problem.
Same goes for offensive realism. The view point can indeed create the self-fulfillment you have just said. But that is not the **cause** of offensive realism. The anachy between the countries is the cause--it is this structure that sets up the unstable state of the world. The view point of offensive realism is merely setting it off.
One of his realistic view points at 5:25 is a good and marvelous political thought as he say Democracy when each of opponents know each other trust will be built then eliminate possibility of waging war reference can be found the theory laid down by Fukuyama the End of History.
“Survival” meaning “the policies of one country don’t benefit your own country so corporations and politicians send you to die”. Or in America’s history “a country has something you want so liberate them”
It's not that Democracies dont fight other Democracies. It's that they are a lot less likely to. That's the argument.
Survival trumps prosperity
Interviewers like Lex and Joe Rogan that actually let the interviewee speak....are priceless. Before I listen to an interview I scan the video, and if I see the stupid interviewers face too much, I skip it.
My new favourite words are “economic intercourse”
Everyone thinks they are a "realist".
It is important to atleast try to avoid your own self bias
I got your realist hangin
John, the core variable in your theory is NOT survival, it IS hegemony and the benefits comes with it. 7:57
His core theory is survival and prosperity for the sustainable future. When you don’t have an overwhelming power on the international stage you want to be the overwhelming power to protect your own interests.
"war is an instrument of statecraft" ament
Politics by other means.
How much does it cost to be on your show Lex?
Fascinating insight. Makes you wonder just how many pawns are we?
Lex is sound chill out fam!
The competition for power will never end until there is a winner or we are all dead. The only way to win the competition for power is world submission.
I've not heard liberalism used in this way before. I almost feel like there is a better term for him to use. To my knowledge, liberalism is more about internal state power distribution, focusing more on the power and rights of the individual. It's usually used in opposition to collectivism.
8:00 I believe that the use of the word "survival" is insufficient as, IMO, the realistic state does not have a general sense of survival, but one of identity (ie state's history, culture, territory etc) survival.
States leading from the perspective of an Ego, an identity (other than the general one: humanity as a specie) will always have the mission to conserve its identity.
IMO, a state's mission should be prosperity of the human kind. This is dependable on a multitude of factors which put together lead to complex networks and patterns. In order to sail this sea of variables, my indication is to side with those whom have created/done no harm and will abide by this core rule.
Democracy relies on prosperity in order to deliver on its values and principles. However, empirically, it doesn’t seem like wars are per se not profitable, at least for the winners. After the first major war, the infrastructure is there, and the experience of victory and spoils become baked into the culture, which is a key departure from the theories and assumptions that underpin the strong preference for peace.
This also supplements the security discussion, which also motivates people regardless of their supposed choice of government.
This concept of the structure of the system of power was beautifully showcased by the prisoner's dilemma game, where a defensive realist(tit for tat approach) can only place 2nd or tie with some other player in the power struggle, whereas a more careful-greedy or a greedy but calculated approach might get a player to the top of the power struggle, but rarely. And If you look closely, this has been the course of human history all along, where empires try to gain more and more power and eventually the system's punishment catches up-to them. Its a vicious cycle.
Peace is not profitable. Just like good health.
Interesting stuff. This is called 'realist theory' and yet even material science doesn't understand what's real or not. Mental gymnastics... It may move the needle a little bit, but don't think it is pointing us in the right direction
In short - Realistic view versus liberalistic view = riding a horse versus riding a unicorn
6:16
Economic intercourse is a term im going to use from now on. This guys vocabulary is outstanding. I mean that genuinely.
If a large group of people are working on a project, and an argument breaks out between two people; if the larger group starts egging them on, then it is on.
But if the larger group breaks it up and pushes for everyone to get back to work, there is a better chance that the friends intervene and prevent the fight. DUH
Anything else is corruption.
Are these position really mutually exclusive? Take the "human nature" realists. Isn't human nature at the root of all these positions? Think of the proposition that states seek power after conducting a risk/benefit analysis if the odds and outcome are favourable enough. This is a projection of human nature onto the bureaucratic mechanisms of state. Individuals that feel disempowered (e.g. the masses) seek peace and security, while individuals that feel empowered are willing to take ever greater risks to consolidate and extend that power.
Think of a troop of chimpanzees and how individuals within the group will be either resigned to submission or seek strength, dominance, territory and breeding rights.
The mistake we make, I think, is assuming that people belong to one or the other group, rather than recognising that our entire mindset and attitudes change in accordance with where we sit on that spectrum of power at any given time; granted some people may be stuck in the same situation and not experience significant personal change. However, over the course of our lives - in tandem with our social, health, age and economic circumstances - our attitudes change. This is why revolutions often fail, since those who were weak become powerful, and their attitudes change accordingly.
Democracies are not immune to defensive and offensive power strategies when feeling threatened, and economic interdependence is a useful deterrent by balancing power and risk, but one that can be surmounted if the threat level is high enough. Institutional opt-ins are a great idea, i.e. rule of law, but fail when major players opt out (e.g. the US opting out of the ICC etc).
We've discussed these topics for so many centuries, we all know the score - the question is whether we actually want to live in peace and harmony, and whether we're mature enough to recognise the enemy who lies within, just waiting to rise up if the situation allows it.
RUclips chill on the ads
Democracies use capitalism, as long as there is competition among democracies then there will be wars over that competition because greed is an inherent motivation in capitalism. If you want to end war, then you must somehow eliminate greed from the options for human behavior.
Those who try to change human nature, always fail. It's biology my man.
Xenocide do you mean?
Socialism in comparison doesn't wage wars. Don't be silly. Capitalism is a method, not the structure he's talking about. The structure might mold around financing structures, sure. But it's ultimately because the structure has the monopoly on violence, and extracts and justifies the resources to enable it that aggression happens. In any case it happens whether there's capitalism or not, so the common denominator is the structure, the State.
China uses capitalism. Lots of states benefit from capitalism and they don't wage war. Singapore for instance. I think you need to dig deeper on history to understand why states wage war. You might want to look at the realist perspective.
@rageburst China is at wars with the USA through other means. They engage in proxy conflicts, criminal activities,boarder disputes and more. Just look at the India China boarder, the south china sea disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam and other states. How they supply fentanyl to the USA through Mexican cartels.
Want to see world peace in real time? Go up to someone and just stand there. There you go, world peace.
Makes sense and all.. But I fear its missing its counterpart, I'm left wondering how the 'structure' aka blackrock/state st. play into it..? When do we start defining what and who is calling the shots in the structure..?
Is it just me or does this guy have a little twinkle in his eyes? ✨
1. why modern democracy do not attack each other. 2. why japan/south korea/taiwan can become democracy successfully.
On the first aspect of liberal worldview, democratic peace among liberal democracies, I believe Fukuyama overlooks one point. Liberal super power democracies hinder and block democracies in third world countries through war, expansion, coups and any other tools that helps stealing their resources or in general keeps the super powers' interests satisfied.
It’s sweet the way they both think that there’s even such a thing as a modern democracy.
I'm impressed that the NATO nations have not gone to war with each other. Is that an example of an effective liberal structure?
It was known that Russia is generally fearful of invasion, but itself has a history of empire that Putin bemoaned the loss of. What then should NATO have done when ex Soviet Union countries sent feelers seeking protection from Russian control? Said, sorry, if Russia is in a re-expansion mood, it's their neighborhood to do what it wants with?
Professor Mearsheimer will go down as one of the greatest political thinkers in history. No wonder the media try to suppress him.
Best guests
Very good. Now can we talk about how narcissists and sociopaths always become our leaders and is it possible to have qualified people in power?
Anarchy does not mean inter state war. The common measure against anarchy is encapsulation, closing the border.
Anarchy is an intra-state, ie. civil war precursor. Here, it is a severe factor and every citizen should strive to avoid the anarchy in his own state. On the international scene, anarchy may not be desirable but is hardly the decisive factor to wage a war.
M: ‘… the first big divide between realists is : structural realists and human nature realists… ‘
Lex: ‘… Niiccee!…’
Sigh - I love this man
Q: What is peace?
A: Peace is what comes after war. Every. Single. Time.
I've realised that if Lex wasn't wearing a suit he would look like a pothead, mainly due to the what he says and the way he speaks.
Heal within, balance the Earth.
If realists would ditch Clausewitz and study Sun Tzu, war would be far, far less frequent.
If international competition and aggression is too normal to eliminate, how about just an international agreement to resist and defeat if possible invasion to take territory? Economic and maybe many kinds of armed competition would not be included, but only the taking of territory that characterizes the most destructive of wars.
The World that no one wants to admit exists... except those in charge and who KNOW that's how it is, and acts accordingly.
These are high quality interviews like before Joe became special.