Liberalism and Globalization For the most part, liberalism is a reaction to the realist question of insurrection. Realists argue that if there is no central control in a revolutionary system a security dilemma will arise. Ultimately, a shift in power may be inevitable. Liberalists, on the other hand, are idealists and argue that there is a potential concordance of interests between states and that cooperation is possible so that common integrations can be achieved. This depends on the fundamental suspicion that all states are balanced and understand their own interests. Some theories of liberalism, for example liberal institutionalism, also include that when we are faced with a security problem, the best solution to overcome it may be to stop arms competition in the meantime and maintain a stable equalization of power through understandings. Law-based peace theorists also demonstrated that just states could be peaceful among themselves, instead of struggling for power. The liberal method of global economics, the dominant constraint in international business today, has been supported by this theory of "winners and losers." As a result, globalization today presents numerous problems, for example, environmental problems, loss of local jobs, extraordinary economic contrasts between countries and indistinguishable social classes, deterioration of ethics, and finally, remote dependence. These are parts of life that no one appreciates, yet they are perpetuated by the current economic fortress, liberal extremism. This extreme type of capitalism is not helping the people of this world and, in general, is really harming them. Indeed, a protectionist may admit that capitalism brings with it significant and useful theories for the structure. .....states have unequal bartering power compared to the wealthy Core. In conclusion, economic structuralists argue that peace must be achieved if there are equivalent dispersions of fortune. In general, favoritism in terms of economic status will eventually lead to conflicts and even wars. Given the standardizing positions of economic structuralism, it is questionable whether international associations can undoubtedly serve to motivate the Core. The Foundation, for example, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which have lectured on the need to fight, have not prepared critical effects, while we see the world powers continue to prosper. In other words, the economic gap between rich and poor has continued to widen. Thus, given the sick impact of international associations and their regulations, economic structuralists attach little importance to their presence.