Crash Course: International Relations

Avatar
So there is only 2 ways to look at things, it's either Idealistic or Realistic nothing in between.And there definately is no way of having Realistic reasons of doing things while masking them to be idealistic.Mayby you and your kitchen philosophy can go touching your self somewhere else, where people dont have to see it.
Avatar
Didnt read the article, spouts nonsense regardless.
Avatar
I hardly see how a picture about a basic course of antiderivative is linked to that article...
Avatar
I am an idealist. And I love gunboat diplomacy :)
Avatar
One comment, lumping in the HBC with the goons as 'the same culture' is very risky given that PL, likely the most elite-attitude alliance in the game, is in the HBC.I think the reasons so many alliances hate -A- is simply because they're dickheads.
Avatar
And I'm an idealist that wishes idealists could be realistic from time to time.
Avatar
^ this
Avatar
I believe this part of the article may be of use to you:"I hope to explain the two ORIGINAL schools of thought regarding how and why nations act the way they do on the international stage"There are, of course, more than two thoeries as to why nations act the way they do, I could list them in length and debate the nuances of each of them with you however for the average reader I suspect that would be boring.This article is simply a brief, and hopefully light, read giving you a bit of an introduction, allowing you to look into the subject more if you so wish.For your other point of course you can mask "Realist" philosophy as "Idealistic" however International Relations as a subject is as much about the study of the past as it is about forumlating theory to predict the future. Over time motives often become a lot clearer, and if they don't well.... no-one will ever know any different.
Avatar
While you are, of course, correct that PL is a very "elite" Alliance, it is the exception rather then the rule. Most alliances within the HBC don't view themselves as "elite" and certainly do not follow the same sort of CTA, Red Penning attitudes as -A-.I could be clearer on that I guess, however the point I'm trying to make is that the war against -A- isn't purely just self interest, it has an ideological struggle as well.
Avatar
You have no idea how hard it is to find a decent blackboard picture to use :(If anyone can find me a more appropriate one I am happy to use it.
Avatar
I would read that, to be honest. In fact, if you could possibly write some in-depth analysis of historical moments in EVE like the fall of BoB using international relations/political theory, I'd probably love you forever.
Avatar
While I appreciate the compliment I hated my time doing such things at university. Plus I've already had a 40 minute discussion on my alliance jabber channel about whether or not the war with BoB or -A- really are ideologically motivated or not.Fact is these things are theories, and people will always disagree, it's how academics make their money: by writing arugments and counter arguments over subjects with no definitive answer!I want to try and keep these articles snappy so if people fancy going and doing a little research (even just on wikipedia) they have a starting point.
Avatar
Like IRL, in EVE there is the competition factor and search for victory driven by the military. The state keep it under control most of the time. Culture and idealisme are also kept under control until the State decides to move for its INTEREST. Then Idealisme & culture are set loose to justify, mobilise & support. Sometimes, the State can be pulled into a conflict to defend allies or by pure stupidity of its foes.
Avatar
The thing I find most interesting about Eve politics is how war works. Alliances need fights, because warfare is a huge chunk of the actual gameplay. There's obviously some idealism behind the HBC's war, but there's also the practicality of needing things to shoot because that's what the game is about for most of their members. I'd say that finding a fun target usually comes first, and only then the moralising about spaceships to whip up some furor. If everyone shared the same philosophy, we'd still all be getting all the gudfites we could.
Avatar
Eve will always be weird compared to real life diplomacy because fighting (within certain parameters) is a goal in itself.
Avatar
I was reading an interesting article on predicting international diplomacy and relations just a few days ago.The study found that the model using game theory on short-term nationalistic goals was twice as accurate as indepth psychological and idealogical analysis of countries leaders.What does this mean in EVE terms? Most decisions are going to be the result of e-peen and short-term gains, not over-reaching beliefs.
Avatar
That's interesting actually as I was thinking of donig another article like this on game theory!
Avatar
Good article, Inquisitor.
Avatar
Hah I thought the same thing with the first line of integration, and the second line is a method for solving 2nd order differential equations. Gotta love it.
Avatar
"BoB, and -A- were/are everything in EVE that the Goons and HBC hate about the game. Elite PvP arrogance fly right in the face of goon/HBC culture and ideas about what playing EVE is about."This statment would make sences if Test and Goons were not both blue to PL, and if Raidendot, and Initiativedot were not apart of the HBC. Serious question..... Have you guys run out of things to write about that you have just started making things up? We all know the war started when HBC/CFC dogpiled onto nulli/RA, and back then it had nothing to do with elite PvP arrogance, and more to do with Test wanting to get more space for their coalition. I understand that history is written by the victors, but how about you wait more then a few months before feeding us this crusade against elite PvP arrogance bull.
Avatar
If you really wanted the best example of Idealism in EVE, you should have gone with NRDS entities instead of using 2 over highlighted crusades where the idealism involved could easily have been a ruse for propeganda purposes.
Avatar
You forget that goons never followed otec market policies and always sold their shit at wrong prices, failing to follow their own agreements...
Avatar
This article is pure propaganda from "On the other hand..." till the end.
Avatar
If anything, the war with BoB was a hybrid war. BoB had once sworn up and down that Goons would "never again live in 0.0", that they'd annihilate them if they do, and so on and so forth. From a realist's perspective, such threats must be taken seriously, and the most appropriate response to them is to instead annihilate your foe.That's not to say that the idealist's perspective wasn't alive and well, though. ;)
Avatar
The idealist, as defined by the Tony Benn quote, doesn't fit into eve at all, because "all lack of war is a failure of [diplo/leadership/...]".
Avatar
Your propaganda is not rational because:A- If the HBC war against -A- is related to ideology that is based on hating the "elite" arrogant claim.. then how do u explain the Test's "DICK SUCKING" act towards PL (a self claimed "elite" alliance)B- Goons / Test always used the term "Russians do this, Russians do that" ... is racism part of your ideology?C- The only thing that is considered a real ideology is what CVA and its NRDS allies are doing in providence, they jeopardize their assets and ratting ships from possible neutral pilots potential hostility just for the sake of believing that 0.0 should be accessible to all neutral pilots (from the hulk pilot to a ratter , etc...), all other alliances are either greed based (Test/goon culture) or elite / E-Peen based (PL/-A-/NC. culture)
Avatar
I'll bite:A) PL is elite in terms of skill, however their attitude is far from it. Never once have I ever heard a PL member unironically say "You don't speak back to PL!" for example. In fact the last time I saw a fallout on the Test forums and some Test guy had a go at Shadoo the PL attitude was like 'Look, if you want to tell me I'm a fucking moron and I've done everything wrong then you're free to do so, however I'm free to call you a "mouth breathing retard who isn't fit to press F1 never mind lead a fleet" back'. PL actually have a history of working with and respecting "less skilled" allies. -A- doesn't respect any of it's allies and believe itself to be superior to them.B) Well the point that using broad generalisation to explain the actions of a group of players from one particular nation is clearly using sterotypes, I don't think it is done out of any form of intentional racism. However if it was and the Mittani kept talking about the superiority of the English Speaking race and that we should exterminate all the russians, then yes it would be an ideology. Not say it would be a nice one, but it would be one.C) You are right, CVA are a great example of Idealism in EVE.
Avatar
You could argue that, and you'd be partly right.However I think that the preferred option for the big coalitions is to reach a point where no-one is going to try and take sov off each other but you will still fight each other for ~~gudfites~~.So the actual term "war" has a different meaning I feel. The CFC and HBC aren't at war, yet it's members can (and do) fight each other.
Avatar
Well since you mention HBC and CFC relations, there are exactly 2 Goon kills for november on the Test killboard. Seems like after the Thorn incident everyone knows that HBCs NBSI rules are just an alibi, at least towards CFC, and that people who defy that will be dealt with.The (true) NIPs to allow for some ~gudfites~ are but a bone for the bored 0.0 masses. War (as in conflict with full commitment) is the most important content generator in eve and is incredibly hard to come by atm. Needles to say, I disagree that strategies that minimize this content are desirable.
Avatar
I like this critique and debate. The article needs more 'meat.' Part 2 please.
Avatar
Thanks.I might do a part 2 in the future, at the moment I'm working towards having a couple of these "Crash Course" articles in a bit of a series.
Avatar
HBC is a good example of Idealism, because most of the space that TEST (for example) owns is pretty empty. We didn't NEED to evict most of the south to have enough space to live in, but arguably we NEEDED to kick in SoCo's teeth to provide some content (and demonstrate superiority over bad-posters and "elite-pvp" alliances).
Avatar
This was okay for being an incredibly brief crash-course in international relations (IR) theory. But as someone who teaches IR classes at a university, it’s pretty much my duty to point out some things for you. Fist fights happen over smaller things among IR students/professors.1. Stop using the word “nation” when you are speaking in terms of IR and what you're trying to do with this article. In the context of IR, the word “nation” and the word “country” are not interchangeable. Nation depicts a common identity (be it culture, ideology, language, whatever) among a group of people that can span beyond political boundaries. For nation, think of Cherokee Nation, Colbert Nation, or the Kurdish nation – these are groups of people, not countries. You should be using the term “state” in terms of IR – especially when you’re discussing the realist paradigm. You would be academically bitch slapped for mixing up “nation” and “state” in the world of IR. If you’re going to be quasi-academic here you should at least try to use the right terminology.2. Echoing #1, any self-respecting realist would roll their eyes when they see you type “The basis of Realism is that every nation or actor acts purely with only their own interests at heart.” Yes and no. That would be an argument posed by a rational-actor advocate. Realists are rational-actor oriented, but they would stab you for even mentioning “nation” or say anything besides a state. Realists view states as the primary and sole actors of the international system – nations, non-state actors, international organizations, terrorist groups, do not matter in the grand scheme of things … these entities exist at the discretion of the state ( a realist would say). Thus, your statement should say: “The basis of realism is that every state acts purely with their own interests at heart.”3. You’re wrong when you say “[realism] leaves very little room for emotion, empathy or idealism.” The entire basis of classical realism is hinged upon human emotion – most notably fear and uncertainty. The Melian Dialogue (Thucydides) and The Leviathan (Hobbes) are the cornerstones of classical realism. These specifically highlight human’s vulnerability to fear/uncertainty. In turn, these cornerstones plant the foundation for neorealism which discusses states “balancing power” in relation to their own fears and considerations. Emotion is a component in realism insofar as it is the crux behind states’ uncertainty about other states’ future actions.4. I guess it was okay to touch on idealism. But idealism as a whole isn’t very main stream and is often an umbrella for various other more IR theories that are incredibly more popular and well-known. Judging by your spelling, I’m guessing you’re from the UK, which I know teaches IR theories in different frames and curriculum. Even if that were true, I’m surprised you didn’t include a blurb from Copenhagen school or British school theories. Regardless, honestly you just made the idealists look like a bunch of peace-loving hippies. Maybe that’s how they’re framed in the UK IR world (so I’ll give you that, just in case), but in the US field, idealism-camp IR theories still pursue national interest overall, but prefer to use other mechanisms (economics, trade, international organizations, etc.) to project power other than state military power (what realists predominantly cherish.) From a US-oriented, idealist-umbrella theory, an idealist would ask "Why shoot a bullet when I can coerce through other less taxing means?" Or a less pessimistic question: "Why not try to avoid this conflict via international tribunals so that way everyone wins a litte?"5. It’s difficult to transplant IR theories into Eve. The overwhelming amounts of IR literature focus primarily upon states as the main actor. So, from an Eve standpoint, what entity would we consider a state? A corporation? An Alliance? Or a coalition? A core tenet of statehood is sovereignty, so in-game mechanics wise I suppose an alliance would be the best version of a state, while corporations would more or less represent nations. It’s hard to view Eve in any other term besides realism since economic-centric ideas and trans-alliance organizations seldom exist (and if they do, don't seem to be working -- which would just re-affirm the realist paradigm). Ultimately, I think what you should have mentioned is that realism is a descriptive theory (explains how the world is) while idealism is a prescriptive theory (explains how the world ought to be.) That being said, realism easily describes Eve. As for the "ought" in terms of Eve... well... that depends on who you ask.6. Overall, I don’t think you did either IR approach very much justice. I read in the comments that you said you did not want to bore the average reader with too much detail, which I guess I can understand, but your explanations of each theory are four sentences each. I mean, come on now.
Avatar
Hi,Actually Allbrecht has nicely put out some errors. I will just add some other misleading thingyis. First, the goal of a state/player/agent in the IR is to survive. As Allbrecht rightfully mention: Good to see in the Milos Dialog and Hobbes Chapter 13. So "own interests" and self-help system are tools to secure survival. The same counts for the Neoliberals, they say interdependenz is a tool for the states survival.... etc.But most of all you have forgot the explain Anarchy. Or in Game of Throne words: Chaos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... :) .Also, I really dont know what you mean with Idealist? A Theory school which has "acting based on ideals or morals" as center?

Diplomacy, whether on an individual basis or between massive nullsec alliances, is one of the murkiest areas of EVE. With this article I am hoping to give you, the average EVE player (or otherwise lost internet denizen), a crash course in International Relations theory and how it applies to New Eden... without being so boring that you resort to reading the article when you run out of sleeping pills. 

I hope to explain the two original schools of thought regarding how and why nations act the way they do on the international stage, and then show you how this applies to EVE.

The Realists

“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.” - Will Rogers

They say the best way to start a project is to come up with a really good name. The first Realists certainly did this when they decided to call their school of thought “Realism”.

The basis of Realism is that every nation or actor acts purely with only their own interests at heart. In essence this means any alliances, agreements or otherwise acts of diplomacy are simply carried out as it is of benefit to the nation in question. 

War, diplomacy, international trade... All these are tools to the realist that allow them to advance their nation’s interest, as soon as one of these things ceases to be in their nation’s interest they will stop doing it.

This school of thought leaves very little room for emotion, empathy or idealism, which funnily enough leads me to the next school of thought...

The Idealists

“All war represents a failure of diplomacy.” - Tony Benn 

If there is one thing you can do to start your project better than picking a good name, it’s picking your opponent’s name, which is exactly what the Realists did when they labeled the “other” school of thought “Idealists."

Idealists are, by nature, given to acting based on ideals or morals than on pure national interest alone. That is not to say they don’t believe in a national interest (or that they should promote it) - simply that ethical and moral concerns should be a considered factor in a nation’s foreign policy. 

Things like international organisations, carbon emission treaties, foreign aid... all these things are, generally speaking, the work of Idealists in action on the world stage. The downside, of course, is that Idealists tend to be seen as “weak” for not conforming to the world of realpolitik (i.e. agressive/backstabbing diplomacy and war). 

Applying this to your spaceships

Right now you might be thinking: “How exactly does this apply to EVE?” The more astute of you may even be thinking, “What a waste of an article - clearly, everyone is a Realist in EVE!” At first glance, this seems correct; however, I feel on closer inspection that we can see glimmers of Idealism shining through.

The OTEC agreement was a clear example of Realism in action. Hostile forces agreeing to help to defend each other’s Tech Moons and rig prices in order to earn extra income is a wonderful example of past (and present) differences put aside for the goal of advancing self interest. Just because it’s a treaty doesn’t mean it was done out of any ideals other than “this will make me richer."

On the other hand though we can look at Goonswarm’s war with BoB or the HBC’s current crusade against -A-. Were these driven purely by self interest? I don’t think they are. These are wars driven by ideology. BoB and -A- were/are everything in EVE that the Goons and HBC hate about the game. Elite PvP arrogance fly right in the face of the Goon/HBC culture and ideas about what playing EVE is about. Again, just because this is space violence doesn’t mean it can’t be driven by ideals or beliefs.

EVE is often seen as a cut-throat machiavellian universe in which everyone is acting in their own interest. Take a moment to review the wars your own alliance has been in, the agreements it has made and the assistance it has provided to others. Contemplate the motivation behind them all and whether it was purely self interest that drove those actions, or whether there was some overarching ideal, ideology or belief in what you were doing was “right."

So: now that you’ve had your crash course in International Relations theory, you have some homework to do. Think about the following question.. are you a Realist, or an Idealist?

Hailed as both a "posting god" and a terrible poster I am a member of Executive Outcomes giving me access to two coalitions to bombard with good/bad posts. Out of game I have a Politics & International Relations degree and work in Risk Management.