• 小莱卡
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    reposting from lemmygrad:

    Havent watched this but i would be wary of Mearsheimer, the “realist” analisis might seem similar to marxism at times but it is not marxism.

    Here is an article analyzing the shortcomings of his “realist” lenses, and ends up with the same conclusions as any run of the mill conspiracy theorist (jews control the world): https://gowans.blog/2024/05/21/the-israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy-a-realistic-marxist-view-vs-mearsheimers-realist-view/

    • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      The fundamental flaw of liberal realist analysis like Mearsheimer is they don’t or refuse to understand class struggle, so a lot of their analysis boils down to conceptualizing countries on a map as differently colored geometric shapes fighting against each other. They have no way of properly analyzing internal contradictions within a given society outside of ethnoreligious divides, which they mostly do so by dividing a geometric shape into smaller geometric shapes and understanding ethnoreligious tensions through the interactions of those geometric shapes.

      • 小莱卡
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yea these guys always end up talking about judeo-christian values vs orthodox vs taoists and whatever 😂

    • arymandias [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think the descriptive analysis of Mearsheimer (how nation states interact with each other) is pretty good, but I don’t often agree with his prescriptive analysis, which is mostly to maintain US hegemony (but in a more peaceful manner than the liberal foreign policy currently is).