What is neo-realism? How does it relate to the Iraq War?

I found several links about it, but it just makes no sense. I can't figure out what it means at all.

It is referred to in this blog archive, as something "progressives" don't want to embrace in terms of the Iraq War. Puzzles me.

http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/11/limits-of-realism.html

It is also mentioned in this blog and doesn't sound a I would like to embrace it. :shrug:

http://mid-atlantic.blogspot.com/2006/02/neo-realism.html

This confused me more.
http://radicalacademy.com/adiphilnewrealism.htm

Anyone explain it simply?

Even wikipedia left me confused on this term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neorealism

but these are too densely packed to excerpt from.

Skim this and then see the section on neo-realism.

http://www.cascadia.ctc.edu/Faculty/jmiller/POL102/realism.html

I thought I was pretty smart. But I haven't had courses in philosophical thinking for years, many years. My last professor was a Scotsman, a brilliant man. I just never was introduced to all this neo stuff...neo cons, neo libs, neo realists? In other words, very little political philosphy....now I'm kind of glad I missed it.

for nations. Only, why nations don't act in their best interests and why.

The realist school starts with a definition of human nature (as self-centered and competitive) and sees the interests of the state as reflecting this nature. States are unregulated and the international system anarchic. States act on their own national interest (like self interest). It's a very bleak but probably warranted view of human beings and the governments they form. States build up power (military and other) and their position in the international system derives from that power.

Neorealism doesn't speculate on human nature, but claims that the international system sets some constraints on the behavior of states, so while there is no world government, there is something beyond the will of the state itself that acts to affect its behavior in the international arena. Further, these constraints by the international system actually produce behavior in individual states that is fairly similar and predictable. It's as if the international system is its own society with its own customs and expectations, and nations stay within those expectations.

This is what I got from the wikipedia articles. Neorealism is a variant of realism, its focus being more structural and systemic (deriving behavior from constraints of the international system) than essential (deriving from human nature in a bottom up kind of way.)

"The Iraq war is leading some progressives into a full embrace of neo-realism. These liberals shun interventionist internationalism for the type of pragmatic realism that was the hallmark of Brent Scowcroft and Jim Baker. In fact, these two Republican figures are rapidly becoming national security role models in progressive circles."

It is from the 1st link in the OP. I can't get my brain around what he means. I mean, I don't like to think in terms of intervening internationally for the reasons we went to Iraq...regime change and such. I don't like to think of our spreading Democracy.

So I guess I am trying to figure if that makes me one or not?

It sounds like the interventionism being rejected is the kind that "spreads democracy" with the ultimate goal of having a more peaceful world at the end of the whole thing. If every nation could be brought up to speed (saved from cruel tyrannical leaders, made nice and democratic) then human progress would occur.

This paragraph from wikipedia:

"Neorealists conclude that because violence is part of the structure of the international system it is likely to continue in the future. Indeed, neorealists often argue that the international system has not fundamentally changed from the time of Thucydides to the advent of nuclear warfare. The view that long-lasting peace is not likely to be achieved is described by other theorists as a largely pessimistic view of international relations."

In other words, peace is unlikely to impossible, the system is the way it is, and intervention doesn't do much good.

I think some liberals are disillusioned, because intervention often has some unintended consequences. On the other hand, the reference to Iraq requires that you believe that the invasion of Iraq was about installing democracy (or a neoliberal economic system) and not about a naked grab for oil resources or, if as I think is more likely, a naked grab for a staging area for the US war against Iran that was supposed to take place. (Afghanistan on one Iranian border, Iraq on another, and US allies around the rest of it.)

super-rich. It means that giant corporations can roam the planet like the pirates of old, with no barriers, seeking out the cheapest, most unprotected labor markets for manufacturing, ever undercutting workers' bargaining positions simply by moving on, with no penalties from any government, and identifying the richest oil, gas, mineral and other resources and ripping them off with no benefit to the people who live there, in "free trade" deals with the local rich elite. That's basically it. Example: If the workers in Mexico get uppity and demand $3 an hour in wages, then the multinatonal manufacturer pulls up stakes and moves to Cambodia, where they pay 25 cents an hour. The Mexican workers have no recourse--because their national government are bought and paid for corporatists (neo-liberals).

The phrase "neo-liberalism" is a riff on the liberalism of former centuries, where the business class sought to free itself from monarchy-landed gentry-controlled trade restrictions. The old liberalism was associated with the better qualities of the middle class, including an emphasis on education for all classes, and the opportunity to raise yourself out of poverty by your native talent, industriousness and work (not get stuck at the bottom of a rigid class structure--social mobility). You may have come across the phrase "a liberal education." It means open-minded, tolerant, based on a search for truth, rather than a reliance on "given" truths (such as the Pope and associated royalty dished out). Liberalism, in other words, meant freedom--freedom to think, freedom to invent, freedom to improve yourself, freedom to travel and freedom to make up your own rules, in whatever sphere, including trade. Thomas Jefferson & Co. were liberals! Our country was founded on those liberal principles.

Neo-liberalism, however, means freedom only for the super-rich. It means slavery for many in horrible sweatshops. It means heinous exploitation of people and of the environment. And it is directly an assault on national governments, in so far as they represent the "sovereignty of the people." In democracies, the people take the place of the monarch--and thus acquire the power to regulate trade in their interest--whether to protect local industries and jobs, or to appropriately tax businesses and wealth, or to protect the environment and the health of the people. Neo-liberalism is the wild, lawless, piratical rule of global corporate predators--huge, multinational corporations with loyalty to no one, and with the specific purpose of destroying all local laws and powers that stand in their way.

Global free piracy is also facilitated by the World Bank/IMF which offers loans to needy countries, with onerous payback provisions, such as opening local natural resources to global corporate predators, and severe cutbacks in social programs--education, health, help for small local businesses. Often the local rightwing government incurs the loans, and rips off the money leaving the poor to pay the debt. And a final--and equally devastating--plank of neo-liberalism is the big rich countries dumping their ag produce at cut-rate prices on third world markets, destroying local agriculture, small farmers and the ability of the country to feed itself, and enslaving the country to big country imports. Thousands of small farmers in places like India and South Korea have committed suicide because of these policies, and many more--in third world countries around the world--have been displaced, lost their land, have nowhere to go. (Southern Mexico is a good example--it's one of the bases of the Oaxaca uprising.)

This is what "neo-liberalism" means to third world countries, and why there is such a huge worldwide movement against it. In 2003, Brazil led a 20-country third world revolt against the WTO, a secretive organization, dominated by the most powerful countries, which makes the trade deals and trade rules that disfavor poor nations, and the poor in general, and that assault national sovereignty (for instance, imposing fines on countries with stiffer environmental laws). Neo-liberalism is in disrepute throughout South America, with leftist government after leftist government getting elected on platforms of rejecting neo-liberalism, and re-establishing national and regional self-determination.

Bolivia had a good example of neo-liberalism. The local rightwing government sold the water rights in one Bolivian city to Bechtel Corp. Bechtel then jacked up the prices to the poorest of the poor--even charging poor peasants for collecting rainwater! Classic neo-liberalism! But the Bolivians revolted. There was a major uprising over this, with many large protests, and they basically threw Bechtel out of their country, and then elected socialist Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. Morales is pledged to prevent multinationals from grabbing Bolivia's resources--to keeping local control over them--and, for instance, intends to nationalize Bolivia's gas reserves, so that Bolivians get the most benefit from the resource. (Note: Bechtel then tried to extract millions of dollars from Bolivia in payment for "their" rights to Bolivia's water. This is how neo-liberalism works--a big U.S. corporation manages somehow, through legal deals and trade deals, to claim rights to a basic human resource--water--in a third world country, and then puts the squeeze on. I believe that Bechtel has since dropped the demand for payment for Bolivia's water--it was earning them such terrible publicity.)

Argentina also had a good example of neo-liberalism. The rightwing government incurred huge World Bank debt, with no benefit to the population, and the World Bank/IMF extracted draconian measures in repayment terms. Argentina's economy and society was in near ruins; it was defaulting on the loans. The people rose up against the loans and the draconian terms of payment, and an alliance of poor and middle class people went round with tiny hammers and broke every bank ATM display window in the country, in protest. Three governments later--in quick succession--they finally got a good leftist government to pledge to get them out of World Bank debt and never get into it again. Enter Venezuela, flush with oil profits. Venezuela bought up some of Argentina's debt on easy terms (I believe they may have done it in exchange for beef, since Venezuela is not yet self-sufficient on food), and, with other measures, Argentina is now well on the road to recovery--all indicators are up--and it is doing so well, in fact, that Argentina recently entered talks with Brazil about a common currency. (The talk of South America now if for a South American "Common Market"--specifically to fight neo-liberalism.)

The solution to neo-liberalism is regional self-determination, self-sufficiency and cooperation--and that is what is happening in South America now, with its many new leftist (majorityist) governments--in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador (and in the next election cycles, Peru and Paraguay--my prediction). South America has had it with global free piracy!

www.venezuelanalysis.com is a good source of info on the Bolivarian (ant-neo-liberal) revolution--mostly about Venezuela, but covers some other countries and events as well.

Another source of info on neo-liberalism (global corporate piracy), and on "fair trade" (as opposed to "free trade") is www.globalexchange.org.

NOT neo-liberalism! Well, I wonder if there is a connection. I will come back to this later and explore. Now to my hopefully not "neo-real" dinner!

That is what I am trying to figure out. I mean, really..."neo-realism?"

It just sounds so weird.

:kick:

;)