The first time I heard about John Mearscheimer was several years ago when I came across a YouTube video of him talking about geopolitics that I found to be interesting. I saw the title of this book and thought I might consider it and then once I saw the author I decided I would read it.
Mearscheimer writes about geopolitics from 1792 to the end of the twentieth century. He presents his theories and then he examines the historical record to support the theory he is presenting.
He begins the book by noting that many felt with the fall of the Soviet Union that the world would be much more peaceful. He notes “Alas the claim that security competition and war between the great powers have been purged from the international system is wrong. Indeed there is much evidence that the promise of everlasting peace among the great powers was still born.”
Mearscheimer presents several theories about power politics in his book. He writes: “My theory offered in chapter two attempts to explain why great powers tend to have aggressive intentions and why they aim to maximize their share of world power. I tried there to provide a sound logical foundation for my claims that status quo powers are rarely seen in the international system and that especially powerful states usually pursue regional hegemony.”
When trying to analyze why wars begin he notes: “Power in the international system is usually arranged in three different ways bipolarity, balanced multi-polarity and unbalanced multi-polarity … the core of my argument is that bipolar system tend to be the most peaceful and unbalanced multipolar systems are the most prone to deadly conflict.”
Overall this was an interesting book published in 2001. As such it did not include an analysis of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. After completing this book I learned that there is a 2014 update but that is not the version I read. This is a scholarly work that I rate 3 out of 5 stars.
William Wilberforce has been called an agitator for his commitment to ending the slave trade. One of his well known speeches on the subject was given on May 12, 1789.
Cardinal Richelieu has been hailed as a great statesman and as a subversive authoritarian. Depending on who you talk to he was a man needed to strengthen the monarchy in France, or he was a tyrant seeking personal power. Next week I will have a book review that may shed more light on Cardinal Richelieu.
When Lenin was working on his major writing projects he would often pace across the room formulating the ideas that he would write down by saying them out loud. Once he had the idea for what he wanted to write he would often repeat the idea to Nadezhda Krupskaya, who would provide feedback. Once this process was complete he would then write the ideas down.
Here is an AI rendering of what that might have looked like when he was drafting What is to be Done.
This month this community will focus on political subversion. What is subversion? When is it justified? What is the interplay between subversion and agitation? These are some of the topics to be discussed this month.
“You get used to the despot’s shortcomings, when they are not great vices, and the change of an autocratic ruler leads to involuntary fear.”
Sergei Trubetskoi
