It isn't rhetoric, its technical terminology in every school of IR from Marxist to Realist to Liberal and onwards. Even constructivism acknowledges that there is a state actor, it is just about where you assign emphasis to. As for anarchy, I never said the words chaos or disorder. Anarchy in the international system is an underlying tenant of all realist and liberal schools of international relations, it refers to the notion that the international system has no inherent leadership and natural moves towards an anarchic system made up of the actors (states) involved in that system. With no hierarchical power capable of arbitrating, it is entirely in flux. Realists claim this leads to perpetual competition for the accumulation of power and self-preservation, Liberals claim that artificial international organizations, alliances, treaties, and norms can provide a restraining structure on this anarchy and lead to a more cooperation and stability, Constructivists acknowledge the anarchy but assert that it is a construct and thus can be willed away by proper governance and better democratic states (well some of them say this, it leads into neoconservatism). The point being this is not rhetoric it is academic.