Kissinger argued....that there were two kinds of state systems, "legitimate" and "revolutionary" ones. In the former, all member states accepted each other's fundamental legitimacy and did not seek to undermine them or otherwise challenge their right to exist. Revolutionary state systems, on the other hand, were constantly beset by large conflicts because of the unwillingness of certain of their members to accept the status quo. An obvious example of a revolutionary state is the Soviet Union, which since its inception was committed to the struggle for worldwide revolution and the global victory of socialism. But liberal democracies like the United States have at times acted like revolutionary ones as well, when it sought to promote its form of government in unlikely places from Vietnam to Panama. Revolutionary state systems are inherently more prone to conflict than legitimate ones: their members are not content with co-existence and regard every conflict as a Manichean struggle over first principles.
- Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, page 250
Hm, very interesting, and incredibly revealing.