Consider
WHY differing ideologies would matter to each superpower?
Why couldn't these two superpowers simply co-exists?
What reason/motivations would each nation have for opposing so intently
the other ideology (enough to divide the world)?
What MORAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL reasons/motivations might
each side have had for opposing the ideology of the other so intently (enough to
divide the world)? Worded differently, why would the US care if the USSR and
other nations chose to practice communist ideals? (and vice versa)?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is all true but forget the historical events, why did the IDEOLOGIES matter? Why does capitalism OPPOSE communism?
DeleteStalin's occupation of Eastern Europe meant he closed these markets off to the USA. He would not allow these nations to accept financial aid from the US as he was suspicious of the strings attached so the US lost these potential markets. SO in that way Stalin's occupation of EE was connected to the ideologies.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a capitalistic economic system, the US, was obliged to halt the spread of communism, as it was counter productive towards making maximum profit. Cheap labor plays a large role in order to make profit in a capitalist market, and therefore class struggle, and exploitation of the working class is almost always found in a capitalist system. Since communism revolves around the welfare of the people, especially the worker's population, the introduction of such ideology in a capitalist system would ignite a revolutionary movement amongst the workers of the capitalist society. Not only is the lower class typically the majority of the overall population, and could theoretically overthrow capitalist leaders, but loss of cheap labor due to worker strikes or demand for higher pay is equal to a loss of profit in a capitalist business. Therefore it was inevitable that the capitalist US would oppose the communist USSR as a preemptive measure to avoid loss of profit.
ReplyDelete-Maja
YUP!
DeleteDifferent ideologies would’ve mattered massively to each superpowers. During the cold war, USSR and the US had different philosophies; communism and capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system that must expand for profit, whilst communism is a system that caters to the workers. During 1950s, US, as a capitalist superpower needed a bigger market to gain profits from selling home appliances, such as television and telephone. Therefore they didn’t like USSR, which had a great economic influence (communism) within their country and other client states by banning US to expand their market in those states. US was also concerned about their mid-lower class citizens knowing the benefits they can receive from being communist, such as getting free health care, social services and education. Conversely, USSR was also anxious about US getting involved into their economy. They were apprehensive that their market (workers’ rights) might imbalance due to the exposure to capitalism. In economic perspectives, USSR endeavored to keep their finance as if it was and US desired to ‘expand’ their market. It is ironic how people call Stalin (leader of USSR), an expansionist, whilst US attempted to enlarge their market. Referring to the political reasons, both sides saw the other as undemocratic. Capitalism was considered undemocratic because money is the power. There might be freedom of speech in capitalist society, but the voice that is heard are from the authorities. Furthermore, powerful corporations, such as companies and banks are like dictators, controlling the society with money. Communism was also thought undemocratic because it’s a one party state. No other form of thought was tolerated. Due to these contrasting beliefs and the urge that the rest of the world should follow their ideologies, the two super powers could not co-exist.
ReplyDeleteBut I think when you say 'the voice most heard in the capitalist society' it is the wealthy businessmen and corporations.
ReplyDeleteSo should I change it and repost it?
DeleteNO don't worry
DeleteThe difference in ideology between the two powerful nations got to a point where they were so far apart they had to oppose each other from spreading. Communism ideally would cater to those who have less (workers) due to the fact that these working classes become attracted to this kind of system this would cause a major problem to the capitalistic economy. The fact is that a capitalist society feeds off the cheap labor force in many countries to exploit for maximize profit within the country. The US therefore had to prevent the growth of a communistic system to prevent the workers from striking against the capitalistic society that they are in. A strike or higher minimum wage would mean less profit for the high class within the capitalist system. To lower the percentage of this the US greatly opposed the USSR communistic system. In the end the large population of lower class in most country would be able to throw over the capitalist to ensure this doesn't happen the US had merely oppose and antagonize the other system to ensure the safety of their economy.
ReplyDeleteEdited Version
ReplyDeleteDifferent ideologies would’ve mattered massively to each superpowers. During the cold war, USSR and the US had different philosophies; communism and capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system that must expand for profit, whilst communism is a system that caters to the workers. During 1950s, US, as a capitalist superpower needed a bigger market to gain profits from selling home appliances, such as television and telephone. Therefore they didn’t like USSR, which had a great economic influence (communism) within their country and other client states by banning US to expand their market in those states. US was also concerned about their mid-lower class citizens knowing the benefits they can receive from being communist, such as getting free health care, social services and education. Conversely, USSR was also anxious about US getting involved into their economy. They were apprehensive that their market (workers’ rights) might imbalance due to the exposure to capitalism. In economic perspectives, USSR endeavored to keep their finance as if it was and US desired to ‘expand’ their market. It is ironic how people call Stalin (leader of USSR), an expansionist, whilst US attempted to enlarge their market. Referring to the political reasons, both sides saw the other as undemocratic. Capitalism was considered undemocratic because money is the power. There might be freedom of speech in capitalist society, but the voice most heard in the capitalist society is the wealthy businessmen and corporations. Furthermore, powerful corporations, such as companies and banks are like dictators, controlling the society with money. Communism was also thought undemocratic because it’s a one party state. No other form of thought was tolerated. Due to these contrasting beliefs and the urge that the rest of the world should follow their ideologies, the two super powers could not co-exist.
The US, as the capitalistic society, was rapidly expanding and innovating at the highest rates just as the ideology projects. However, this had induced an increase in the demand of products and had ultimately led for the US to seek for low paid workers and resources. The USSR would not let them do that, because communism was all about equal pay amongst everybody. Therefore, the US had to label Russians as "bad" amongst their citizens, because had the population known about the ideology of communism in the USSR, the low paid workers would have tried to overthrow the business. This would have led to no supply and too much of a demand, but most importantly less profit. On the other hand the USSR, was all about defending the rights of the workers and stopping the expansion of the US. Nevertheless, this didn't change the side effects of a huge community running communism and the fact that they had a crazy dictator. These major disadvantages were what gave the US way, because their approach to expansion was more manipulating in regards to the defense of worker's rights from the side of the USSR.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about this. A bit confusing:
DeleteHowever, this had induced an increase in the demand of products and had ultimately led for the US to seek for low paid workers and resources. The USSR would not let them do that, because communism was all about equal pay amongst everybody. Therefore, the US had to label Russians as "bad" amongst their citizens, because had the population known about the ideology of communism in the USSR, the low paid workers would have tried to overthrow the business. This would have led to no supply and too much of a demand, but most importantly less profit
COmmunism was all about defending the rights of the workers but was Stalin? truthfully - communism suited his agenda, to industrialise Russia in 5 years. But he brutally oppressed any dissent and criticism. So I don't think you can say this.
DeleteOn the other hand the USSR, was all about defending the rights of the workers and stopping the expansion of the US. Nevertheless, this didn't change the side effects of a huge community running communism and the fact that they had a crazy dictator. These major disadvantages were what gave the US way, because their approach to expansion was more manipulating in regards to the defense of worker's rights from the side of the USSR.
The Cold War followed two enormous systems carried by two powerful nations which role was either to support freedom (Capitalism) or to control everything by the state (Communism). This lead to an opposition between the two, America deciding to spread and expand its ideologies across the world so their own workers would not feel the need to create revolts inside the country and strike for a better profit, as this therefore would cause the lost of profit among the business people and the production of the market would reduce. Their attempt is to hold the communism ideas away from the lower worker class and therefore they needed to be oppressive. However, Russia in the other hand opposed capitalism as they did not needed to expand its ideologies due to the fact that they cared about the people and everyone was treated equally receiving the same profit, however the expansion of capitalism ideas would affect the workers motivation, therefore Russia was in a more defensive and preventive zone in order to not let their labor community be affected, not only that its own economy and resources as well. In other words, what played a major role in the capitalist public is the profit (money) if communism continued to spread its philosophies and ideologies as a system where the people are the main consternation specifically the lower class and the workers, the needs and requirement of a higher salary payment in the capitalist humanity would rise up causing the business/company to lose profit and therefore the closure of it and the economy decreases.
ReplyDelete- Neidemar
Communism is supposed to cater to the worker but be careful - the Russians hoped the ideology would spread as well and thus were seen as expansionists. Marxist communism saw the overthrow of the upperclass owners by the working class as a natural thing that would happen worldwide.
DeleteStalin did not 'care' about his people though. he was a brutal dictator who pushed a communist agenda to industrialise his nation and brutally oppressed any dissent, Communim in THEORY cared about the workers and treated everyone equally.
In this question avoid talking about Russians and stick to discussion why COMMUNISM would oppose CAPITALISM and vice verse
DeleteThe USSR and the USA could not co-exist in peace because their economic systems were such polar opposites. Because the Capitalist system in the USA aims to make the biggest profit they often traded with other countries as well as expanded outside its borders. However in a Communist system such as in the USSR, enough supplies were provided to maintain comfort within its own country and that was all. The USA suspected that if communism ideals were to expand then the USA would not be able to maintain its trade and as a result could reduce its profit.
ReplyDeleteAs well as this, in the capitalist system there is not a guaranteed job for individuals, however in a communist system everyone is guaranteed a job. The USA was concerned that if communist ideals were to spread into America then people would be demanding similar systems and considering that a large percent of the population was lower class and could benefit from communist ideologies, the USA were worried that a uprising (or something similar) could occur. This may have led to the government being forced to employ more people and as a result the profit would once again decrease.
Generally, communism was a threat to the USA and as a result the US wanted to stop its expansion before it seriously affected their profit. Propaganda was often used by both sides to convince their nations that the other ideology was wrong, evil etc. This greatly affected large populations and resulted in the general public’s support of what their government was doing to stop the other from expanding.
Did the US expand outside its borders? No it expanded its INFLUENCE (and control) outsides its borders. Its capitalistic economy by nature needed to grow.
Delete
DeleteYou said: This may have led to the government being forced to employ more people and as a result the profit would once again decrease.
not quite. this would have led to workers demands for better rights, higher pay, health care and other benefits, shorter work day, holidays, etc which would decrease profits for American businesses.
It was primordial for the USSR and USA to oppose each other’s ideologies and avoid the expansion and influence of the opposite powers. After WWII USSR was suspicious of USA’s presence in European matters during this period; furthermore their demands regarding reparations were ignored by USA forcing USSR to expand their power throughout the European continent. Capitalism was in threat with this expansion as private owners who made big profits and used low wages for labor could have workers turned against them and their system would be destroyed and taken to that of communism system in which equality is promoted and private ownership is avoided. For the communists, it was important to avoid capitalism as there could be a clear difference of economic classes that would then minimize the power deserved for the entire population as well as it will create an economic disorder within the country since the government would have no influence. Communism could also in fact affect the economic interests of USA as their exportations could include higher economic costs as well as minimum use of innovation in the regions.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Cold War, the coexistence of the economic systems, capitalism and communism, was proven incapable by the two superpowers, the US and the USSR. In theory, the capitalistic ideology revolved around private ownership and gaining profit for individual benefits, whereas the communistic ideology focused on providing equal benefits for the entire community. With the US depending on expanding its market to gain profit, the opposing idea of communism posed a major risk to their businesses in more than one way. Firstly, the spread of communism would result in a smaller market for private businesses, hence lowering profits. Secondly, as businesses thrived at the cost of the workers (the majority), the communist practices of welfare and equal benefits would influence the masses to strike for wage hikes. This was a great threat for wealthy capitalists, as such demands from labour unions would endanger their profits and, in time, the economic status of the nation. The capitalists drive for profit combined with the communists protection of social security led to the opposition of the US and the USSR, hence proving their inability to coexist.
ReplyDeleteBoth US and USSR were in a position where they had enough power to control the whole except for the only other strong nation of the world. USSR pushed on communism which is an ideology where everyone is treated equally and can obtain only equal amounts. There were no wealthier people or poorer people they were all one controlled by government. In the other hand US believed on a capitalist ideology. People who work harder can have more and could be on higher classed people. These two superpowers could not co-exist. In economic reason capitalist people who would work more to grow and gain more profit would lose their desire to work harder which would be critical to the country. People working fewer amounts due to same compensation would cause drop in gdp. US who has lots of leaders that benefitted from their wealth and power would strongly disagree with introduction of communism. They will lose their ability to control people and gain more than ordinary people.
ReplyDeleteThe capitalistic western world cared so much about the spread of communism by the Soviets as the two ideologies run directly counter to each other: while capitalism supports the “survival of the fittest”, and perpetuates the notion of hard work leading to a better life, communism focuses on the welfare of the people, and maintains the abolition of private ownership in favor of utilizing products for the better of all. This posed a significant problem to the West as Communist nations would be an untapped market, filled with consumers,
ReplyDeleteresources and workers ripe for the picking (or exploitation), closed to the outside world by their inherent focus on self-reliance. These isolationist nations would prove to be major obstacles in maintaining a healthy free market, which depends on growth and expansion to succeed. In addition, the worker-centered policies of the Soviets could have proved attractive for the burgeoning proletariat, thanks to their guarantee of social benefits (such as healthcare, unemployment coverage and pension) and increased wages. These workers, introduced to the empowerment of the worker, would have been swayed by the idea of protesting for better conditions, in the same vein as how newly-minted Communist nations came to be through overthrowing the bourgeoisie. These fundamental disturbances would greatly reduce the motivation behind the class struggle, a key facet of the capitalist ideology allowing for the exploitation of the lower classes, and would lead to lower production and decreased consumption. All these factors combined posed a significant threat to the stability of the economic system, and convinced the capitalist West to become aggressive in their ideological, political, and economic battle against the ever-expanding communist Soviets.
To each super power, the difference of ideologies mattered since they both believed that their ideas were the most ideal idea, and thus everyone should accept and follow the same ideas as them. Nevertheless, the two superpowers, USA and USSR had two opposing ideas when it came to economics, and they were capitalism and communism. Due to these two different ideas and their belief that the rest of the world should follow their ideologies, the two superpowers could not co-exist. It may have been possible for the two counties to stay in peace however, USSR’s plan of land expansion right after WW2, which was unexpected for the USA fired the Cold War between the two power blocs. Thus, the hatred created between the two nations made both of them to strongly oppose each other’s ideologies. To specify, the violation that USA felt after the Second World War towards USSR raising as a new power bloc of the world made them to oppose against any moral, economic or political system the USSR had. On the USSR’s side, the USA going against them may have felt like a violation against them, and thus, they opposed to any ideas that USA had. As their conflict got deeper as the Cold War preceded the two blocs opposed to all the ideas they had and started a competition to overpower any technologies that one of them had.
ReplyDeleteAlso, since the system of capitalism and communism are completely opposite, each ideology violated one another. Especially on the capitalist side, where the system by nature has to expand to profit, existence of communism interrupted them from earning profit. The market where capitalists could sell their products and therefore profit would decrease which meant less earnings for the capitalists. Moreover, there was high chance of the people to want the government to adapt the system of communism, which sounds perfectly equal by theory. However, as capitalists who lived in the system of capitalism, which brought the ruling class the wealth, it was hard to give up their privileges and the rich class. Thus, the USA had to be offensive towards the communism system and had to sell the system as non-profiting and useless while promoting capitalism as the best economic system they could ever have.
Being capitalist the US depends on indivuality, private ownership, self achievement and luck. Luck, meaning if a person is lucky enough to be born into a wealthy family, they do not have as hard to strive, however, if born into a poor family thus they must work harder to achieve often not appreciated for their hard work. In a capitalist society, it aims to expand, thus there are obvious signs of different classes in it's society depending on the person's earnings. The wealthy would tend to exploit the lower class due to it's ownership of power and cheap labour taking advantage of the uneducated or desperate, often searching for low standard countries resources.
ReplyDeleteRussia does not agree to the unequal characteristics of this type of society, it believes everyone deserves equality with assistance of the state. It believes in a eutopean, however, this can not be completely possible, thus there is no ownership of any property it belongs to the state and there is no freedom of speech or democracy. this type of system eventually leads to a dictatorship.
These opposite ideologies result in the US and USSR opposing each other because one, being the US does not want communism to spread towards it's own country or it's own labour community, if it does the workers will demand higher payments by going on a strike causing a decrease profit and an increase in costs, businesses in a capitalist society can not afford to lose profit because in such society it is "survival of the fittest". The USSR however, does not want the expansion of capitalist believes and behaviour because in a communist society they all earn the same amount of payments thus there is no motivation to work harder for the state, because it benefits them in the same amount. The people who used to be wealthy in the USSR, would now have to share their goods, this encourages them to support the capitalist, or americans.
The two economic systems were not able to co-exist based on the nature of both systems. A capitalist system needs to expand in order to profit, this is the ideal system for the higher class in order to gain individual benefit. A communist system focuses on the the idea of eqaulity for the people and supports the average worker. It was because of this that the two super powers the USA and the USSR felt that they could not accept each other’s vastly different ideologies. With the USA depending soley on an expanding economy the USSR felt threatened that the spread of their market would lead to the exploitation of their people and that they would be influenced by their ideology.
ReplyDeleteWhy capitalism and communism cannot co-exist?
ReplyDeleteThe main reason why capitalism and communism cannot co-exist is the ideal of these two ideologies. First of all, capitalism is an ideology that money is in the centre. This mean U.S.A wants more capitalism country to expend their business to makes more profits. However communism is opposite of ideal, that everyone is equal. In communism society, there are no works and owners. If American wants ideology of communism, owners has to pay more salary to workers, pay for the social services. Therefore they use propagandas to tell people that communism is not a good ideology and Union Soviet is bad because they practice communism. Obviously, America is a side of offence and Union Soviet was side of defense. Communism can co-exist with capitalism, however capitalism cannot co-exist with communism. Therefore, America had to cold war because of stop expending communism country in the world. More communism country means less market for capitalism and that lead to lower profit.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe coexistence of the two differing ideologies, capitalism and communism, were proven impossible by two super powers, USSR and US. The United States, being a capitalistic nation, revolved around the idea of 'freedom', strived on private businesses and focused greatly on expanding in order to make profit. The USSR, on the other hand, embraced equality and believed in catering for the workers and the welfare of the people. This Communist ideology seemed to pose a large threat to the Capitalistic nations, such as USA. As the US depended largely on markets, the spread of Communism, through the minds of capitalists, would translate directly to a world of an untouched market, rich in goods and consumers, closed and unwilling to ‘grow’ to their fullest potential, mainly in terms of profit. Opportunities to reach out to a larger market are lost, making less profit. Moreover, if Communism begins to influence the workers of Capitalistic nations, through demands in higher salary or possibly even strikes, it would result in less profit and could potentially cripple the Capitalist economy. Thus, the Capitalistic drive and determination to grow and make profit could easily be shot down by the Communists ideas of catering to the workers and the welfare of the people, resulting in its impossibility to coexist.
ReplyDeleteOnly be careful here:
DeleteThe USSR, on the other hand, embraced equality and believed in catering for the workers and the welfare of the people
In THEORY a communist nation would do this but I don't think you could say the USSR did this
The ideologies of both superpowers simply contrasted each other. The US, as a capitalist country required to expand and produce goods for selling at a massive scale in order to achieve its most important goal, which is to make the biggest profit possible. In the other hand, the communist USSR was more of a "self-sufficient" country, as all the money and goods produced would be distributed within its population. The US knew that if communism kept expanding; its markets, ideologies and most of all, the amount of profit that could be made would be seriously threatened. In the communist side, the USSR would not allow capitalism to keep expanding and would defend the rights of the workers from a system that is getting bigger and richer by overexploiting its working class population. Both countries would use any method possible (like negative propaganda) to prevent the opponent’s ideologies to spread within their population in order to keep their own system to be influenced by the other. Both superpowers refused to coexist with each other, what would lead to a worldwide cold war. In my opinion, this was a huge mistake made by arrogant leaders from both the US and the USSR that were more concerned about their political and economic systems than the wellbeing of their people. By negotiation and cooperation from both countries, the creation of a new system that would combine the strengths of both communism and capitalism might have been possible, what could have avoided the cold war.
ReplyDeleteGood
DeleteWHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?
ReplyDeleteSome societies or communities can happily exist along other totally different societies or communities without feeling threatened or compromised and others cannot. What is it about some cultures and societies that they feel a need to dominate, control, conquer, suppress other cultures and societies?
Can we get some clues from the past?
The Egyptians used to conquer lands around them to get control of resources such as grain or gold but never showed much interest in EXPORTING their culture to the lands they conquered or taking away people's cultural identity. The price of this was that they constantly had to RECONQUER lands they wanted to control. The Romans on the other hand conquered for the same reason as the Egyptians but also EXPORTED their culture because that made people easier to control. In other words the Roman approach was to conquer then ABSORB cultures around them creating common interests that made people want to stay inside the empire. Later empire builders learned this lesson and thus imposing your value system on conquered people to make them easier to exploit and less rebellious became pretty standard.
So, considering the above, you might reason that the Americans and the Russians and the Chinese in the Cold War era were just taking pages out of the empire builder's playbook but the world is a big place and in the great age of empires in the 18th and 19th Century empires coexisted so why not now? Here are some possible explanations.
THE ZERO SUM GAME
ReplyDeleteA zero sum game is a game where the winner takes all. The belief systems of Capitalism and communism (taken to their logical conclusion)left no room for coexistence. If you list the key points of say Capitalism you will find that the Communist equivalents are directly opposite. Take for example private ownership of land, freedom of choice, the financial system, business for profit and compare them with their opposites in the communist system. The beliefs are not simply uncompromising, they are actually a direct threat to the opposite point of view. For example, the idea of free elections and freedom of speech cannot work in a society where a single PARTY and its APPOINTED LEADERSHIP make all the decisions.
both Communism and Capitalism were trapped in their belief in the zero sum game. any compromise, any peaceful coexistence was seen as a threat to survial in a WIN ALL or LOSE ALL scenario.
TOTAL WAR
Once again, looking back in history, the great issues could be decided by contained battles fought between professional armies. Julius Caesar for example conquered what is now France by defeating a single leader in a single battle. (his name btw was Vercingetorix) The two world wars demonstrated that in the modern era any really decisive war involved all the resources, wealth and military power of a nation deployed worldwide for the purpose of utterly destroying the resources, wealth and military capacity of your opponent. FEAR of global war was a HUGE force in decision making at the top level from 1918 onwards. The conflict between Capitalism and Communism in the Cold War era continued this pattern of trying to avoid global war. Remember the Romans? they brought peace into the empire by creating shared beliefs and common interests but the Communist and Capitalist belief systems were so hostile to each other that this was too difficult for governments to achieve. both sides therefore resorted to strategies of DETERRENCE. This means that they wanted to discourage the other side with such huge obstacles to winning a war that they wouldn't even attempt it. The logical yet insane extreme of this was NUCLEAR ESCALATION. The Russians and Americans invested mountains of treasure and brainpower in maintaining a credible nuclear threat. It was rightly referred to as MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) where any attack would invite an immediate
retaliation that would wipe out the opponents society. The atmosphere in the 1950s was very much filled with a continual sense of threat with the possibility of attack and retaliation happening at any time. It is difficult to imagine these days why it was so difficult to step back from the edge of destruction and negotiate a common sense solution. Tragically, both sides feared that to make the first move, to back down in any sense would be to show weakness. Study the Cuban Missile Crisis to learn all about that. i guess you could say that the Americans and Russians found themselves trapped in a CLOSED CIRCUIT of mistrust and aggression.
PROXY WARS
ReplyDeleteImmediately after World War Two there were a series of "small wars" over the control of territories that had become destabilized during the war itself. Those wars were about local issues such as resources in the ground, potential allies versus potential opponents and so forth. Later however proxy wars were linked to the bigger issue of total war. Part of "winning' the total war was to avoid giving any sign of weakness (remember the closed circuit?) America couldn't stand by and not act in Korea or Vietnam because it would encourage the other side to think that they could try it again somewhere else without the treat of reprisals knocking the dominoes down one by one , step by step towards total war. Korea was a good example. The Americans had no inherent interest in the Korean Peninsula but it was close to Japan and they weren't going to stand back and allow communist expansion or send a message that they had not WILL TO FIGHT. you can see how this was nther CLOSED CIRCUIT that trapped the super powers.
EGO & MEMORY
Remember that the decision makers at this time had grown up between the wars and had , in many cases fought in the Second World War. President Truman was a domestic politician with little foreign policy understanding. his understanding of communism was based on the domestic portrayal of communists as a foreign threat to business. Eisenhower who followed Truman was the chief military commander in WW2 and had personally engaged with the Russians in Europe during and after the War. Even Kennedy who followed Eisenhower had fought during the war. On the Russian side, Stalin was not simple deeply scarred by the experience of WW2, he was part of the original group of revolutionaries from 1917. his memories of Western attempts to destroy the revolution between 1919 and 1921 would have been vivid and bitter. Khrushchev, his successor was a veteran of the 1030s as well as WW2. He was in fact the political representative sent by Stalin to stop the German advance at Stalingrad. Like Stalin, the memory of those days would have burned deep and the determination never to repeat them would have dominated his psyche. On top of this, we need to consider the psychology of leadership. to become the leader of any nation requires a potentially dangerous mix of ruthlessness, an appetite for power and self belief. all the leaders needed to retain the support of their populations by always appearing strong so that they could continue to rule. Sheer egotism, some paranoia, the habit of mistrust, being surrounded by "yes men" and a lack of self doubt would all have influenced decision making and added to the difficulty of stepping away from confrontation. Go and find out about Senator Joe McCarthy. for a while in 1950s America anyone who suggested that the Russians should be sympathized or negotiated with was publicly crucified (if not imprisoned and victimized) as a "commie sympathizer". Of course over in Russia, anyone who voiced public disagreement at that time tended to simply disappear along with their families.
CAPITALISM & AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY
ReplyDeleteUp until 1958, Cuba was ruled by a brutal and corrupt dictator called Batista. Batista ran Cuba under American protection in the interests of himself, a wealthy elite of land owners and a small number of foreign interests (mainly American) Up to 75% of all farmland was owned by foreign companies like United Fruit. They used it to grow fruit and other products for export to the USA where it was processed and reexported at great profit to world markets. Ironically for a rich food producing country, poverty and malnutrition were common in Cuba. America, the great advocate of freedom and democracy (see WW2) saw no contradiction in all this.
When Fidel Castro led a revolution in Cuba in 1958 he exiled Batista and his cronies, confiscated the assets of foreign companies (land, money and factories) and redirected those resources to feeding the people. The American reaction was to pass laws forbidding any kind of trade with Cuba, confiscating Cuban government assets in the USA, repeatedly try to assassinate Castro, actively support opponents to the new regime and to plan a military invasion. They also moved to reinforce their support for anti-communist dictators and governments in the region generally. For the small countries close to America and perhaps for small countries everywhere, the American EMBARGO (the longest and most punishing in US history) must have sent a very clear message about what happens if you mess with US assets.
QUESTION
What do you think this case study reveals about the difference between American rhetoric (what they say) and American policy (what they do?)
IMPORTANT TO REALIZE
It's wrong to imagine that these attitudes and concerns in American government circles are a result of the Cold War even though the idea of a Communist state off the coast must have been alarming. US governments for 100 years had been very consistent in using military force to "protect" US interests (mostly business) mainly in America's "back yard". You could argue that in the Cold War era America came to regard the whole world as its "back yard"
WHY DO AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT BUSINESS INTERESTS?
President Calvin Coolidge (1921 - 1923) summed it up quite well when he said:
“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.”
In other words, American politicians believed that their job is to facilitate business (Capitalism) because that's what generated the wealth and power of society, that's what Americans want, that's what gets them elected. They saw no inconsistency between the protection of business interests and the protection of broader American interests.
QUESTIONS
How do you think that this attitude might play a role in foreign policy?
How do you think that an American Government's idea of its "job" might be different to a Russian Government's idea of its "job"
WHAT DOES AMERICAN BUSINESS NEED?
ReplyDeleteBusiness needs to make a profit buy taking cheap raw materials and converting them into expensive products through American factories. While America had plenty of factories (especially after the war) cheap raw materials and markets to sell to often involved external partnerships. In other words American business had a direct interest in the conditions outside America in both the sources of raw materials and in the growing markets for American goods.
American Governments made up of elected politicians (who need to keep the voters happy)had to take an interest in what business wanted because any slowdown in business (it needed to grow constantly) would lead to unemployment , economic disruption (remember the shock and damage done by the Depression) and a loss of American power and influence.
IMAGINE THIS....
Its 1948. The American President is surrounded by advisers and business leaders in the White House. They are worried men. At home in America they are worried about unemployment and factory closures now that the war has been won and all those government contracts for weapons are finished. Add to that, the fact that millions of American males are being discharged from the wartime military and are coming home expecting to find jobs waiting for them. They are looking at a map of the world getting covered seemingly day by day with more red ink as Communism and other political movements create a bigger and bigger zone where American business will not be welcome. Everyone is thinking about what that map might look like in 5 or 10 years and they are worried.
QUESTIONS
What do you think is on the President's mind?
What do you think his advisers are saying to him?
What do you think the business leaders in the room are saying to him?
the capitalist ideology beliefs in the ideas where the rich controls everything and that the poor tries to survive. the ideas of big business, expansion,markets, and globalization are in a capitalist society. capitalism love to expand there empire for profit and exploit the working class to achieve there goal in society. Everything in capitalism has to be about big profit and good business. Communism in the other hand belief in equality, the rights of workers, anti big business, anti rich,welfare to all, and prefer to be self sustained then the capitalist globalization. communism always belief that the many come before the few and that the many deserve more rights and equality. the exploitation of people is consider to be the most inhumane and monstrous things to do and that all property belong to the public while still show respect to personal property. The capitalist government of the United States saw this as a threat to there way of society and belief this ideology could totally collapse the capitalism system. The USSR which represent communism in that time, belief that the American way of life is oppressing and exploiting the American Proletarians and would like to liberate them from there bourgeois masters. with both ideologies has different beliefs and different system, and also there stubbornness, both sides are unable to coexist and remain in total rivalry with each other. Both sides use espionage,sabotage,propaganda, and other methods use for there gains and beliefs. in both sides, people were taught that the other sides were savages and evil through the power of media. but from my point of view, these sides needs to cooperate and to accept that there are some people who disagree of there beliefs and prefer to live in a society of there liking. but there stubborn and arrogant leaders believes that that side needs to be dispose of because they saw that side as a threat. that is one of the main mistake all because of human arrogance and the desire to be number one and to eliminate the ones who does not belief in there ideas.
ReplyDeleteGood answer Ichsan!
Delete