John Mearsheimer

The problem in international politics is that there is no world state.

There is no hierarchy.

And if you have no hierarchy and you're in an anarchic system, you have no choice but to try to maximize your relative power to make sure you are, as we used to say when I was a kid on New York City playgrounds, the biggest and baddest dude on the block.

Not because you necessarily want to beat up on other kids or on other states, but because, again, that's the best way to survive.

And as I like to point out to people, the best example of what happens when you're weak in international politics is

is what the Chinese call the century of national humiliation.

From the late 1840s to the late 1940s, the Chinese were remarkably weak.

And the great powers in the system preyed upon them.

And that sends a very important message to not only the Chinese, but to other states in the system.

Don't be weak.

Be as powerful as you can.

The will to power in an individual has a lot to do with individual psychology.

The story that I tell about the pursuit of power is a structural argument.

It's an argument that says when you are in a particular structure, when you're in a system that has a specific architecture, which is anarchy,

the states have no choice but to compete for power.

So structure is really driving the story here.

Will to power has a lot more to do with an individual in the Nietzschean story where that concept comes from.

So it's very important to understand that I'm not arguing that states are inherently aggressive

My point is that as long as states are in anarchy, they have no choice but to behave in an aggressive fashion.

But if you went to a hierarchic system, there's no reason for those states to worry about the balance of power.