An analysis of the idea of democracy in the united states and the soviet union

No lyrics from to Revised lyrics from to

An analysis of the idea of democracy in the united states and the soviet union

And with this defeat went its fundamental truth about democracy promoting peace. Interestingly, in the last decade there has been a conservative resurgence of classical liberalism. President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher exemplify this, and their often expressed views on the positive role of free institutions for peace are straight out of classical liberalism.

World’s most-wanted drug kingpin is captured in Mexico

This popular resurgence has yet to percolate up to those in the social sciences and peace research communities. This is not to say that most peace researchers generally view capitalist political-economic systems as the cause of war, as asserted by hard-line socialists.

Many European and Third World peace researchers generally view capitalism as one cause among several, although some theoretical emphasis may be given to capitalism, as in Galtung's influential center-periphery theory which clearly lays the major blame for war on a capitalist type, competitive system.

In either case, neither is a general factor in war. Now, capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. Democratic socialist systems exist, as in Sweden and Denmark, as do authoritarian capitalist systems like Chile and Taiwan.

Communism for the Internet Age

Why then has the peace-making effects of democratic freedoms been tossed out with capitalism? As mentioned, these freedoms were part of an ideology emphasizing capitalism--as the ideology retreated, so did its belief in the positive role of freedom in peace.

But there other factors at work here that are at least as important. Kant and the classical liberals were writing in theory about freedom and war; they had virtually no historical evidence. But by the middle of the 20th century enough democracies had existed for over half-a-century for an historical judgment to be made.

And that was believed to show that democracies not only do go to war, but they can be very aggressive. Americans alone could easily note their American-Indian Wars, Mexican-American and Spanish American wars, and of course the Civil war, the most violent war of any in the century between the Napoleonic wars and World War I.

And even if one argues that the United States was dragged into both World Wars, there is the invasion of Grenada and the Vietnam War, which many peace researchers view as a case of American aggression.

Then, of course, there is Great Britain, who between to fought 20 wars, more than any other state.

Citation Information Background of the Present Crisis Within the past thirty-five years the world has experienced two global wars of tremendous violence. It has witnessed two revolutions--the Russian and the Chinese--of extreme scope and intensity.

France, also a democracy for most of this period, fought the next most at The United States fought 7. These three nations alone fought 63 percent of all the wars during these 92 years. The historical record of democracies thus appeared no better than that of other regimes; and the classical liberal belief in the peacefulness of democracies seemed nothing more than bad theory or misplaced faith.

But all other types of regimes seemed equally bellicose. The supposed peacefulness of socialist systems was belied by the aggressiveness of its two major totalitarian variants, that of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany [15] ; and other types of regimes, whether authoritarian dictatorships like Japan before World War II, or absolute monarchies like czarist Russia before World War I, appeared no less warlike.

The verdict was and is an easy one--all types of political, or politico-economic, systems make war; none is especially pacific. Clearly articulated in Kenneth Waltz's widely read Man,the State and War, [16] this critique is today the consensus view of American peace research, and in peace research elsewhere it is the major alternative belief to that of the inherent bellicosity of capitalist systems.

A number of methodological errors account for peace researchers misreading the recent history of democracies ; and the history of wars being so misleading. First, there is that of selective attention.

The many wars of a few democracies is focused upon and the total population of democracies and wars is ignored. A true comparison should involve that of all democracies with non-democracies and for all wars, at least in this century.

Second, there is the error of improper weighting. Even where such systematic comparison is done, the intensity of wars is ignored.

The proposition that democracies are more peaceful than other political systems really means that they engage in less violence, where violence is understood as a continuum, from low intensity to high. To say that democratic freedom reduces violence is like saying that aspirin reduces pain.

It is not a question of the presence or absence of war, but of the degree of killing involved. Another error, one I also admit to being guilty of in my earlier work, is to atheoretically screen correlations and to ignore low ones--to claim that low correlations between political systems and violence simply show that no meaningful relationship exists.

This is simply a matter of seeking mountains and ignoring the hills. In truth, as a systematic screening of all the empirical and quantitative literature shows, [18] there is a consistent and significant, but low, negative correlation between democracies and collective violence, as predicted by classical liberalism.

The reason for this low correlation is that freedom is not both necessary and sufficient for non-violence to occur. That is, like democracies, authoritarian and totalitarian systems can be without violence for many years.

Even if these errors caused an historical misinterpretation of the relationship between freedom and violence, how could it be missed that democracies do not make war on each other, if true? After all, this is a point prediction whose historical truth or falsity should be obvious.

An analysis of the idea of democracy in the united states and the soviet union

The problem is just that social scientists and peace researchers do not ordinarily think dyadically.Just as was the case for the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union could not defeat rebel armies in Afghanistan the first crisis of the post-Cold War era was.

Relations between the Soviet Union and the United States were driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, which led to shifts between cautious cooperation and often bitter superpower rivalry over the years.

George Kennan, the American charge d’affaires in Moscow, sends an 8,word telegram to the Department of State detailing his views on the Soviet Union, and U.S. policy toward the communist. The most powerful western bloc nation was the United States of America, and the eastern bloc was led by the Soviet Union during the 20th century.

Initially, the Soviet Union was a strong supporter of Mao Zedong's communist schwenkreis.comon: Fallout world. Revelations from the Russian Archives The Soviet Union and the United States The Soviet Union and the United States stayed far apart during the next three decades of superpower conflict and the nuclear and missile arms race.

in May he conceived the idea of placing intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Cuba as a means of countering. Just as was the case for the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union could not defeat rebel armies in Afghanistan the first crisis of the post-Cold War era was.

The Political and Economic Idea of Communism Tore the United States and Soviet Union Apart.