In 'The Tragedy of Great Power Politics' (pdf) Mearsheimer argues that nations being what they are, the inevitable struggle for security and survival between established and rising international powers leads to inevitable conflict. The thesis is often compared with Samuel Huntington’s 'The Clash of Civilizations' (pdf) and Francis Fukuyama’s 'The End of History' (online).
The latter's argument was based on a Hegelian concept of history as a coherent and directional process culminating in the realization of human freedom. After the Cold War, fascism and communism had been discredited. Liberal democracy was what was left and had no serious competitors. Fukuyama saw the global trend towards liberal democracy and free market forces as evidence of this being the end point of the evolution of forms of government, certainly by the end of twentieth century. A secondary argument was that liberal democracies offer the freedom, recognition and dignity humans seek. Taken together, in the long run, liberal democracy is therefore the most likely - and the most peaceful, per the democratic peace theory - form of government. He did not rule out the emergence of other forms of government.
Fukuyama saw capitalism as complementary to liberal democracy. Yet today the inequalities brought about by unbridled capitalism undermine the claim that liberal democracy provides the freedom and dignity people seek. Perhaps it provides more than some other forms of government - and perhaps less than other, perhaps older forms of government - but is it enough? The very concept of "enough" is problematic. As a statement "it is enough", it challenges the capitalist model but as a question is almost participates in capitalist notions of sufficiency - that one can never have enough, that demand must be created.
Mearsheimer's idea of nations in constant struggle against competitors are ultimately conflictual and destructive (the "great tragedy"). Pace Fukuyama, Mearsheimer's idea reflects similar dynamics to capitalism. In his "Offensive Realism": states are inherently self-interested, exploitative actors pursuing power and security in an anarchic international system. This leads to conflict and inequality. The parallels with the free market economic system are obvious particularly from the perspective of comparison with economic competitors but also from the angle of comparison with the workers / employer relationship.
Huntington in contrast thought geopolitics would be driven not by ideological or economic differences but by cultural and civilizational divides (e.g., Western, Islamic, Sinic, African, Latin American etc). China is a spanner in the works for Fukuyama's theory but is better accommodated by Huntington's idea. The Israel - Gaza war is a case study for Huntington's argument, particularly the idea that nations do not necessarily have to have similar levels of power to clash.
Each of the three theses rely on the existence of nation states and their values. They explain how countries engage geopolitically. Huntington's view might outlast the others (e.g. if nation states become obsolete) because we do see one or more countries sharing different values. When conflict arises though it is often not through merely cultural and civilizational differences per Huntington, but because these blur with political and economic issues. Some of the great grievances of recent times have not been against e.g. the West merely because it is secular and lives differently but because it has meddled widely in other countries affairs politically and economically. An exception is the Israeli - Gaza war of 2023-24 but again is it about cultural and civilizational difference or is it about land?
A more interesting question would be what happens when countries renounce the struggles for ownership, possession and security which are the bedrock their current values? The societies which do this are unnoticed on the global scale. They are societies that practice communal living or are indigenous, historical or nomadic. These societies still have forms of government, but unlike the ones described. They are absent from the international stage because they do not make the same claims as nation states and because they are almost or often unrecognised by them. What would happen if societies used non-competitive, non-acquisitive models as new forms of government, what would be the effects globally and how might this come about?
Access to land (purchased, donated or granted temporarily or permanently) is a foundational requirement for communal living groups to establish alternative governance and lifestyle models that differ from those prevalent in Western capitalist societies. So even if a community wanted to renounce, say, individual ambition and ownership of possessions they are only able to do so within the constructs of ownership of the wider nation state. However, countries like Sweden and Denmark do provide direct land grants or subsidies to some intentional communities particularly where these relieve societal problems such as sustainable development, social cohesion, or affordable housing. As an example, Sweden's kollektivhus movement began in the 1960s as a response to a housing shortage in urban areas and a desire for alternative forms of living and social organization. Germany, the Netherlands and some US States (Massachusetts, New York, California, Oregon, Minnesota) have related incentives, grants, loans, legal frameworks, policies and community land trusts etc.
Once achieved, communities establish their own forms of government regarding topics like ownership, work and rules. While subject to the laws of the land in which they find themselves they can and often do live very differently. Groups like the Bruderhof (documentary) are an interesting (religious) example of how such communities transcend international borders.
