Unlike the ideas born in the Renaissance, realism does not believe in progress. For example, two typical slopes that have their origins in the Renaissance are socialism and liberalism. Both believe in human progress, ie the human capacity to create more just and peaceful societies and man's capacity to act rationally.
realism argues instead that human nature, which determines policy and relations between men, nations or any other group of power is
eternal and immutable
. There is no possibility of changing human nature and realism he tries to do is understand what makes that kind.
The origins of this tradition can be searched in ancient China, in the wonderful book "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu and the mysterious in ancient Greece, in "The History of the Peloponnesian War" by Thucydides . Other modern authors such as Machiavelli, Hobbes and Clausewitz are considered historical background of modern realism. This came after the failure of liberal ideas applied in international politics in the interwar period. Its founders are EH Carr (who was not really realistic), and Hans Morgenthau.
Suppose this example, two enemy soldiers are in a battle in opposing trenches. They are alone out of sight of the other soldiers. Neither wants to fight. Both have been forced to go to war. Start talking to trench and trench agree not to attack each other. Both know rationally that this is the best option. Is the solution that serves to both: why fight for a war do not care? Why not agree and decide both that it is better not to fight? Because they can not trust each other. Even when they know rationally that the best solution is to not fight, can not be sure what the other will do. Then choose to fight even though they know it's not the best solution.
However, this example may seem far away and does not apply to everyday life. Why people do not kill each other in any society? Because there is a higher power that controls the force. The subjects in this higher power are covered by that power and is therefore not necessary for them to defend themselves. This rule also applies to international politics. Why are there wars for example in Europe or Latin America? Because these countries are under the sphere of influence of a higher power (United States).
Now, look at the periphery, what happens in regions where U.S. power is indisputable? Iran wants nuclear weapons to consolidate his position. Russia supports Iran to reduce U.S. influence in the region and uses Iran does not want direct confrontation with the United States. Israel pushes U.S. intervention in Iran to destroy its nuclear program because they fear being under the scope of Iranian nuclear missiles. Israel does not want to intervene directly against Iran because that could unite Arab countries against him. On the other hand, Turkey added further instability to communicate his decision to invade northern Iraq to fight Kurdish guerrillas. Ie: nothing new. The classic
and everlasting
game of power politics .
Now, when violence erupts? When one of the sides think you have enough advantage over their rivals and believes it can destroy the threat they pose to use violence.
Many fallacies have been written and will be writing to deny these facts. Some might say that wars and confrontations are the result of capitalism others would say it is the result of states or elites defend interests obsolete anachronistic. The truth is that it is a consequence of human nature and how it affects politics.
Some will say again that globalization has been established, national boundaries have disappeared and the States have been destroyed, conflict will disappear because the companies come to the conclusion that there should
them fight one another. This conclusion is erroneous because it believes that the only motivation
a business is what suits him and gives more benefits. But first of all is
survive. If you currently empresariasles no interstate wars is for the simple reason that companies are under the orbit of states which in turn control the force. Therefore employers need not fear that business rivals use violence against them. But what would happen if they fell States and everything was in the hands of companies? What would happen is that there would be a higher power that controls the force and therefore the only way to defend against a possible attack is with the means.
And then triggers the classic process: there is nothing to prevent an attack on another company. There is no longer a state that can prevent it. However, all companies know that
war should not . All companies agree that to get higher profits is better
peace. But insurance can not be
of what the other will do. No assurance can be
that the other is not going to attack. This uncertainty translates into defensive measures. These defensive measures are seen by other companies as a threat which in turn translates into more defensive measures. The escalation of measures continues. Eventually a party believes that the best chance to get rid of the threat of rivals is attacking. After the period of violence is reconfigured the balance of power. Nothing new under the sun