Dr.

RISHU RAJ

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

DEPT.OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

MAGADH MAHILA COLLEGE (PATNA UNIVERSITY)

COLD WAR
The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet
Union and the United States and their respective allies, the Eastern Bloc
and the Western Bloc, after World War II. The period is generally
considered to span the 1947 Truman Doctrine to the 1991 dissolution of
the Soviet Union. The term "cold" is used because there was no large-
scale fighting directly between the two superpowers, but they each
supported major regional conflicts known as proxy wars. The conflict
was based around the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global
influence by the two powers, following their temporary alliance and
victory against Nazi Germany in 1945.[1][2] The doctrine of mutually
assured destruction (MAD) discouraged a pre-emptive attack by either
side. Aside from the nuclear arsenal development and conventional
military deployment, the struggle for dominance was expressed via
indirect means such as psychological warfare, propaganda campaigns,
espionage, far-reaching embargoes, rivalry at sports events and
technological competitions such as the Space Race.

Causes of the cold war

1 Ideological Differences

2 Use of atomic bomb America

3 Propaganda against USA

4 Voilation of Yalta Conference by Russia

5 Soviet Inteference in Poland

6 Frequent use of veto power by Russia

7 Arms Sales

8 Political Superiority

9 Star War

PROGRESS IN COLD WAR

FIRST PHASE (1947-1953)

The first phase of the Cold War began immediately after the end of
the Second World War in 1945. The United States created the NATO
military alliance in 1949 in apprehension of a Soviet attack and
termed their global policy against Soviet influence containment. The
Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955 in response to NATO.
Major crises of this phase included the 1948–49 Berlin Blockade, the
1927–50 Chinese Civil War, the 1950–53 Korean War

In this phase America and Soviet Russia disbelieved each other.

America always tried to control the Red Regime in Russia.
Without any hesitation Soviet Russia established Communism
by destroying democracy in the Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania,
Hungery, Yugoslavia and other Eastern European Countries.

In order to reduce Russia’s hegemony, America helped Greece

and Turkey by following Truman Doctrine which came into
force on 12 March 1947. According to Marshall Plan which was
declared on 5 June, 1947 America gave financial assistance to
Western European Countries.

In this phase, non withdrawal of army from Iran by Soviet

Russia, Berlin blaockade etc. made the cold was more furious.
After the formation of NATO in 1949, the Cold War took a halt.

SECOND PHASE (1553-1963)

 Now United States of America formed SEATO in 1954 in order to
reduce Soviet Russia’s influence. In 1955 America formed MEDO in
Middle East. Within a short span of time, America gave military
assistance to 43 countries and formed 3300 military bases around
Soviet Russia. At that time, the Vietnamese War started on 1955.

To reduce the American Power, Russia signed WARSAW PACT in

1955. Russia also signed a defence pact with 12 Countries. Germany
was divided into Federal Republic of Germany which was under the
American control where as German Democratic Republic was under
Soviet Russia. In 1957 Soviet Russia included Sphutnick in her
defence programme.

In 1953 Stalin died and Khrushchev became the President of Russia.

In 1956 an agreement was signed between America and Russia
regarding the Suez Crisis. America agreed not to help her allies like
England and France. In fact West Asia was saved from a great danger.

In 1959 the Russian President Khrushchev went on a

historical tour to America. Both the countries were annoyed for U-2
accident and for Berlin Crisis. In 13 August 1961, Soviet Russia made
a Berlin Wall of 25 Kilometres in order to check the immigration from
eastern Berlin to Western Berlin. In 1962, Cuba’s Missile Crisis
contributed a lot to the cold war.

This incident created an atmosphere of conversation between

American President Kenedy and Russian President Khrushchev.
America assured Russia that she would not attack Cuba and Russia
also withdrew missile station from Cuba.

The this Phase which began from 1962 also marked a mutual
suspicion between USA and USSR. There was a worldwide concern
demanding ban on nuclear weapons. In this period Hot Line was
established between the White House and Kremlin. This compelled
both the parties to refrain from nuclear war. Inspite of that the
Vietnam problem and the Problem in Germany kept Cold War
between USA and USSR in fact.

THIRD PHASE (1963-1979)

The Cuban Missile Crisis, a new phase began that saw the Sino-Soviet
split between China and the Soviet Union complicate relations within
the Communist sphere, while US ally France began to demand
greater autonomy of action. The USSR invaded Czechoslovakia to
suppress the 1968 Prague Spring, while the US experienced internal
turmoil from the civil rights movement and opposition to the
Vietnam War. In the 1960s–70s, an international peace movement
took root among citizens around the world. Movements against
nuclear arms testing and for nuclear disarmament took place, with
large anti-war protests. By the 1970s, both sides had started making
allowances for peace and security, ushering in a period of détente
that saw the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and the US opening
relations with the People's Republic of China as a strategic
counterweight to the USSR.

This phase commencing from 1969 was marked by DETENTE

between USA and USSR- the American President Nixon and Russian
President Brezhnev played a vital role for putting an end to the Cold
War. The SALT of 1972, the summit Conference on Security’ of 1975
in Helsinki and Belgrade Conference of 1978 brought America and
Russia closer.

In 1971, American Foreign Secretary Henry Kissinger paid a secret

visit to China to explore the possibilities of reapproachment with
China. The American move to convert Diego Garcia into a military
base was primarily designed to check the Soviet presence in the
Indian Ocean. During the Bangladesh crisis of 1971 and the Egypt-
Israel War of 1973 the two super powers extended support to the
opposite sides.

NEW COLD WAR(1980-1991)

Détente collapsed at the end of the decade with the beginning of the
Soviet–Afghan War in 1979. The early 1980s were another period of
elevated tension. The United States increased diplomatic, military,
and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when it was
already suffering from economic stagnation. In the mid-1980s, the
new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the liberalizing
reforms of glasnost ("openness", c. 1985) and perestroika
("reorganization", 1987) and ended Soviet involvement in
Afghanistan. Pressures for national sovereignty grew stronger in
Eastern Europe, and Gorbachev refused to militarily support their
governments any longer. The result in 1989 was a wave of
revolutions that (with the exception of Romania) peacefully
overthrew all of the communist governments of Central and Eastern
Europe. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself lost control
in the Soviet Union and was banned following an abortive coup
attempt in August 1991. This in turn led to the formal dissolution of
the USSR in December 1991, the declaration of independence of its
constituent republics and the collapse of communist governments
across much of Africa and Asia. The United States was left as the
world's only superpower.

The Cold War and its events have left a significant legacy. It is often
referred to in popular culture, especially with themes of espionage
and the threat of nuclear warfare. Meanwhile, a renewed state of
tension between the Soviet Union's successor state, Russia, and the
United States in the 21st century (including its Western allies) as well
as growing tension between an increasingly powerful China and the
U.S. and its Western allies have each been referred to as the Second
Cold War.

CAUSES OF RELAXATION IN COLD WAR

1 Peace co- existence between USA and soviet union

2 The effect of non –aliged movement

3 The economic condition of USSR becomes very poor

4 Democracy market economy in communist countries.

In its course, the Cold War became a growing threat to world peace
and when it reached its highest form of confrontation, as a direct
and indirect consequence, numerous people suffered great
misfortunes. Since the end of the war up until its subsequent
century, the Cold War had many effects on nation-states and
targeted them in many economical and social ways, for example in
Russia, military spending was cut dramatically since 1991 creating a
decline in the Soviet Union’s military-industrial sector. Such a
dismantling left hundreds of millions of employees (throughout the
former Soviet Union) unemployed thus affecting Russia’s economy
and military[1]

After Russia embarked on several economic reformations in the

1990s, it underwent a financial crisis and a recession more
oppressive than the United States and Germany experienced during
the Great Depression. Although Russian living standards worsened
overall in the post–Cold War years, the economy held an
overwhelming growth after 1995 and in early 2005 it became known
that it had returned to its 1989 levels of per-Capita GDP.

The legacy of the Cold War continued to influence world affairs, after
the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the post–Cold War world is
widely considered as unipolar—with the United States the sole
remaining superpower. The Cold War defined the political role of the
United States in the post–World War II world: by 1989 the United
States held military alliances with 50 countries and had 1.5 million
troops posted abroad in 117 countries which institutionalized a
global commitment to huge, permanent peacetime military-
industrial complexes and large-scale military funding of science.

REFERENCES

1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:K.K.GHAI

2 ANTARASTIYE RAJNITI: B. L. FARIYA

3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS in the 21st centuary:PUSHPESH PANT

4 ANTARRASTIYE RAJNITI: S . C. SINGHAL

5 WIKIPEDIA
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)
drishtiias.com/printpdf/non-aligned-movement-nam

Why in News?
Non-Aligned Movement Summit is to be held in Azerbaijan in June 2019.

Background
The Non-Aligned Movement was formed during the Cold War as an organization of
States that did not seek to formally align themselves with either the United States or
the Soviet Union, but sought to remain independent or neutral.
The basic concept for the group originated in 1955 during discussions that took place
at the Asia-Africa Bandung Conference held in Indonesia.
The first NAM Summit Conference took place in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in
September 1961.
It has 120 members as on April 2018 comprising 53 countries from Africa, 39 from
Asia, 26 from Latin America and the Caribbean and 2 from Europe (Belarus,
Azerbaijan). There are 17 countries and 10 international organizations that are
Observers at NAM.
The Non-Aligned Movement was founded and held its first conference (the Belgrade
Conference) in 1961 under the leadership of Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia, Gamal Abdel
Nasser of Egypt, Jawaharlal Nehru of India, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Sukarno
of Indonesia.
The purpose of the organization was enumerated in Havana Declaration of 1979 to
ensure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of
non-aligned countries" in their struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-
colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign subjugation.
During the cold war era the NAM played a vital role in stabilizing the world order and
preserving peace and security. Non alignment of NAM doesn't mean the neutrality of
state on global issues, it was always a peaceful intervention in world politics.

Principles
1/5
As J.L Nehru was founding members, the principles of NAM was largely guided by
Panchsheel principles, some of them are:

Respect for the principles enshrined in the charter of the United Nations and
international law.
Respect for sovereignty, sovereign equality and territorial integrity of all States.
Peaceful settlement of all international conflicts in accordance with the charter of the
United Nations.
Respect for the political, economic, social and cultural diversity of countries and
peoples.
Defence and promotion of shared interests, justice and cooperation, regardless of the
differences existing in the political, economic and social systems of the States, on the
basis of mutual respect and the equality of rights.
Respect for the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence, in accordance
with the charter of the United Nations
Non-interference in the internal affairs of States. No State or group of States has the
right to intervene either directly or indirectly, whatever the motive, in the internal
affairs of any other State.
Promotion and defence of multilateralism and multilateral organisations as the
appropriate frameworks to resolve, through dialogue and cooperation, the problems
affecting humankind.

Objectives
NAM has sought to "create an independent path in world politics that would not result
in member States becoming pawns in the struggles between the major powers."
It identifies the right of independent judgment, the struggle against imperialism and
neo-colonialism, and the use of moderation in relations with all big powers as the
three basic elements that have influenced its approach.
At present, an additional goal is facilitating a restructuring of the international
economic order.

NAM in Cold War Era

Against Apartheid: The evil of apartheid was massively prevalent in African countries
like South Africa, its was on the agenda of NAM right from first conference. During 2nd
NAM conference at Cairo the government of South Africa was warned against the
discriminatory practices of apartheid.
Disarmament: The Non-aligned Movement repeatedly comes out for maintenance of
peace,'the cessation of arms race and the peaceful coexistence of all States. In the
General Assembly, India submitted a draft resolution declaring that the use of nuclear
weapons would be against the charter of the United Nations and crime against
2/5
 humanity and should therefore be prohibited.
UNSC reforms: Right from its inception NAM was in the favour of UNSC reforms, it
was against the domination of US and USSR. It wanted the representation of third
world countries to make UNSC more democratic. Members echoed with same
demand at 17th NAM conference at Venezuela.
Failed to resolve regional tensions: In the era of cold war the tension in South Asia
escalated due to regional conflict between India- China and India-Pakistan. NAM failed
to avoid tensions in the region, that further led to the the nuclearisation of the region.

India’s Position
India being a founder and largest member in NAM was an active participant in NAM
meetings till 1970s but India’s inclination towards erstwhile USSR created confusions
in smaller members. It led to the weakening of NAM and small nations drifted towards
either US or USSR.
Further disintegration of USSR led the unipolar world order dominated by US. India’s
New Economic Policy and inclination towards US raised questions over India’s
seriousness over non alignment.
Prime Minister of India skipped the 17th Non Aligned Movement (NAM) summit held
in Venezuela in 2016, it was only second such instance when Head of a state didn’t
participate in NAM conference.
Moreover, NAM continued losing relevance for India in a unipolar world, especially
after the founding members failed to support India during crisis. For instance, during
1962 War with China, Ghana and Indonesia, adopted explicitly pro-China positions.
During 1965 and 1971 wars, Indonesia and Egypt took an anti India stance and
supported Pakistan.
India in particular, but also most other NAM countries, have integrated themselves to
varying degrees within the liberal economic order and have benefited from it.
India is a member of the G20 and has declared itself as a nuclear weapons power
and has for all practical purposes abandoned the call for global nuclear disarmament.
India has also engaged itself with new and old global powers. India joining the
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, a coalition seen by many as a counterforce to
China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific and Shanghai cooperation organisation led by China
shown India’s balancing approach in new world order.
India is striving hard for a multipolar world order and asserting itself as one of the
player. Multi polar world order is very much closed to NAM principles.

Emerging Global Order

NAM has to adopt and change itself to suit the newly emerging challenges and geopolitics
such as:

3/5
 World has again moved towards bi-polarity, one led by US and other by China-
Russia. The war torn syria is prime example of this, where both US and Russia is
asserting power.
The escalating tension in Indo-pacific region due to China’s assertion and US acting
as a counterweight to check the Chinese expansionist policy.
The large scale migration in Europe and Asia due to the unstable regimes and
ethnic conflict in different parts of world.
Issue of global climate change and occurence of catastrophic disasters raising
demand to form global consensus to deal with it.
Changing US policies, protectionism, prevalent terrorism and nuclearisation of
middle east.
Formation of multiple regional economic groupings like TPP and RCEP and fading
away of multilateral bodies WTO from global arena.

Relevance of NAM
NAM continues to hold relevance as a platform and due to its principles.

World peace - NAM has played an active role in preserving world peace.It still stands
by its founding principles, idea and purpose i.e. to establish the peaceful and
prosperous world. It prohibited invasion of any country, promoted disarmament and
a sovereign world order.
Territorial integrity and sovereignty - NAM stands with this principle and proved its
repeated relevance with the idea of preserving the independence of every nation.
Third World nations - Third world countries fighting against socio-economic
problems since they have been exploited for a long time by other developed nations,
NAM acted as a protector for these small countries against the western hegemony.
Support of UN - NAM’s total strength compromises of 118 developing countries and
most of them being a member of UN General Assembly. It represents two third
members of general assembly, hence NAM members act as important vote blocking
group in UN.
Equitable world order - NAM promotes equitable world order. It can act as a bridge
between the political and ideological differences existing in the international
environment.
Interest of developing countries - If disputes arise between developed and
developing nation at any point of a concerned topic for example WTO, then NAM act
as a platform which negotiates and conclude disputes peacefully securing the
favorable decisions for each member nation.
Cultural diversity and human rights - In the environment of gross human right
violation, it can provide a platform to raise such issues and resolve the same through
its principles.
Sustainable development - NAM supported the concept of sustainable development
4/5
 and can lead the world toward sustainability. Can be used as larger platform to make
consensus on global burning issues like climate change, migration and global
terrorism.
Economic growth - The countries of NAM has inherent assets, such as a favourable
demography, demand and favourable location. The cooperation can lead them to
higher and sustainable economic growth. Can be an alternative to regional groupings
like TPP and RCEP.

Way Forward
NAM as a concept can never be irrelevant, principally it provides a strong base to
foreign policy of its members.
It should be seen as “Strategic Autonomy”, which is the need of the hour of today’s
world. The principles of NAM still can guide the nations towards it.
NAM is a platform where India can assert its soft power and provide an active
leadership and by being a torchbearer for smaller countries at multilateral platforms.
The conference of Heads of the State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries,
often referred to as Non-Aligned Movement Summit is to be held in Azerbaijan in
June 2019. Platform should be used for consensus making on spectrum of global
issues.
It should be used as a platform to raise global issues like terrorism, climate change
and trade protectionism and others.
NAM platform can be used to garner support by South-East Asian countries like
Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines against Chinese assertion in South China
Sea and related island and border disputes.
NAM can provide a platform for Afro-Asian cooperation and a strong position for poor
African nation to have healthy negotiations with China and US for economic
development without compromising the sovereignty of their land.

5/5
Historical Perspectives
UNIT 4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION*
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Bolsheviks and a New System of International Relations
4.2.1 Peace Initiatives of the Bolshevik Government
4.2.2 Bolsheviks Renunciation of Special Privileges in the Neighbouring Countries
4.3 Bolsheviks and Anti-colonial Struggles
4.4.1 Spread of Socialist ideas in the East
4.4.2 Unity of nationalist and socialist forces in the East
4.4.3 Intensification of national liberation movements
4.3.4 Communist International
4.4 Rise and Growth of Communist and Workers Movements
4.5 Let Us Sum Up
4.6 References
4.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

4.0 OBJECTIVES
The Unit deals with the Bolshevik revolution – the world’s first socialist revolution
inspired by the ideology of Marxism. After going through this Unit, you should
be able to understand and comprehend the following:
Nature of the Bolshevik revolution and its impact on international relations
Measures taken by the new Soviet state to create a new system of international
relations based on peace and non-aggression, free of exploitation and
colonization.
Impact of the Bolshevik revolution on anti-colonial struggles, and
Contribution of the Bolshevik revolution to international communist and
workers movements.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Capitalism and industrialization rapidly advanced in Russia after the emancipation
of the serfs in 1861 and the defeat of Russia in the Crimea war (1856-59). The
need of sustaining itself as a strong continental power prompted Russia to
undertake industrialization on a large scale. This was accomplished by the state
playing a major role in economic activities, and with the advancement of
capitalism, there arose the need for raw material and markets. In the third quarter
of the 19th century, Russian imperialism had already colonized Central Asia and
was competing with other imperialist powers for concessions in the Balkans and
the Far East. Russia, by the end of the century, was an imperialist power with a
semi-feudal system of agriculture and an authoritarian state system. There was

60
*
Prof. Ajay Patnaik, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
no popular government, no elected organ with real powers to make laws, and a Significance of the Bolshevik
Revolution
total lack of civil rights and political freedom. The liberal groups were weak and
compromised too frequently with the ruling Tsarist autocracy. Marxism was
becoming popular and was entrusted with the historic task of combining both
the anti-feudal and anti-capitalist struggles.

The Marxists, or Social Democrats as they were known then, were divided into
various groups and the ideological heterogeneity was too strong to be overcome.
The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), established in 1898,
was split into two major groups who wanted a socialist revolution in Russia to
be preceded by a democratic anti-feudal revolution. The former (Bolsheviks)
wanted the working class to lead this democratic phase of the revolution. The
Mensheviks, instead, wanted the bourgeoisie, i.e., the capitalists to lead it. The
Bolsheviks under Lenin’s leadership finally emerged as leaders of the revolution
in October 1917, with a successful strategy of the workers-peasants alliance to
head state power after the revolution. The Mensheviks, who supported the
bourgeois government and participated in it after the overthrow of the Tsar in
February 1917, had lost the support of the workers and peasants by October. On
7th November (25 October according to the old Russian Calendar) the Bolsheviks
were triumphant after three days of the armed uprising which led to the surrender
of the provisional government set up in February 1917.

It was the First World War which finally sealed the fate of the Tsarist autocracy.
The war exacerbated the crisis that had gripped the Russian state. Russian society
was an ensemble of contradictions when the war began – contradictions between
feudals and peasants, between peasants and capitalist farmers (known also as
kulaks), between kulaks and landless labour, between factory owners and workers,
between the big bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie, and so on. Once the war
came, all these contradictions sharpened. The enormous cost of the war was too
heavy for Russia, which still was relatively backward as compared to other
imperialist powers. The state could not sustain such an expensive war and the
burden was borne by the working people and the peasants. Workers and even
soldiers were up in arms against the State. A socialist revolution materialized for
the first time in history and there was no better country than Russia, which was
the weakest link in the imperialist chain, for the revolution to succeed.

The October Revolution heralded a new era by creating a state of the workers
and poor peasants whose interests were opposed to economic exploitation, wars,
aggressions, colonization and racial discrimination. The revolution brought into
existence a socialist state that would work as a bulwark against war and
imperialism. It also began a process of creation of an alternative world socialist
system based on equality, freedom from exploitation, and which renounced all
forms of aggression, colonization and racial prejudice.

4.2 BOLSHEVIKS AND A NEW SYSTEM OF

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
The October revolution spread a new message of hope and liberation for the
toiling peoples all over the world and the peoples of the colonies. It was a message
of liberation from all forms of Exploitation - national, social, economic, and
political. This was reflected in a series of declarations, legal pronouncements,
and diplomatic initiatives of the new Bolshevik government.
61
Historical Perspectives The Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People adopted in the
Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets (the supreme governing body) in January
1918, reaffirmed an inflexible determination to deliver mankind from wars and
to achieve at all costs a democratic peace among Nations without annexation or
indemnities, on the principle of self-determination of nations. The Declaration
proclaimed Soviet State’s “complete break with the barbarous policy of bourgeois
Civilization, which has built the prosperity of the exploiters belonging to a few
chosen nations on the enslavement of hundreds of millions of working people in
Asia, in the colonies in general, and in the small countries.”

The new Soviet state took a determined stand against the prevailing system of
International Relations in which war and colonization were organic components.
Instead, the idea of just and democratic peace and the establishment of a system
of international relations based on general democratic principles was advocated.
The renunciation of secret diplomacy was a necessary corollary of Soviet
international diplomacy.

4.2.1 Peace Initiative of the Bolshevik Government

The Decree on Peace, one of the first major acts of the new Soviet state, proclaimed
the abolition of secret diplomacy and in accordance with this law, the Soviet
foreign ministry published the previous secret treaties signed by the Tsarist state
(Russian emperors were called Tsars), including importantly the Anglo-Russian
secret treaty and convention of 1907 on “demarcation” of spheres of interests of
England and Russia in the Ottoman empire’s provinces in the Middle East; and
the 1916 tripartite secret pact to carve up Turkey between England, France and
Russia, etc.

The refusal of the Entente Powers (the ultimate victorious powers in the First
World War) to negotiate a general peace settlement, forced Soviet Russia to enter
into peace talks with the Central Powers viz. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman
Empire and Bulgaria. The Soviet proposal included six points: no forcible
annexation of territories occupied during the war; restoration of political
Independence to nations vanquished during the war; freedom of choice to the
national minorities to either remain within a state or become independent through
a referendum; safeguarding of the rights of the national minorities in a state by
special legislation protecting their national culture and, whenever possible,
administrative autonomy; renunciation of War indemnities: and solution of
colonial problems in accordance with the first four principles. Though imperialist
Germany rejected the Soviet proposals and imposed humiliating peace on the
latter, Lenin still agreed to sign the peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) on
Germany’s terms despite strong opposition within the Bolshevik party and
government. Lenin firmly believed that war is detrimental to the interests of the
toiling people.

4.2.2 Bolshevik Renunciation of Special Privileges in the

Neighbouring Countries
The idea of national sovereignty and equality ran through the theory and practice
of the Soviet foreign policy, which aimed at reshaping International Relations
on socialist principles. The emergence of the first socialist state produced strong
inspiration and idealism among formally independent small states, colonies, and
62 semi-colonies to struggle for freedom and defend their sovereignty against
oppression and encroachment by imperialist powers. In the process of evolving Significance of the Bolshevik
Revolution
a new system of International Relations, the Soviets attached special significance
to relations with the Eastern countries based on the principles of equality, mutual
respect and friendship. The Soviet state was willing to give them friendly
assistance in their struggle against imperialism and colonial domination. Despite
its difficult economic situation, the new socialist state rendered not only political
and moral but also great material support to countries such as Turkey, Afghanistan,
Iran, and others. In June 1919, the Soviet government abolished all special
privileges for Russian nationals in Iran, renounced all concessions and control
over Iran’s revenue, and handed over to Iran without demanding any
compensation, the banks, the railways, highways and port facilities on Iran’s
Caspian coast and other property which had belonged to Tsarist Russia. A Treaty
of friendship with Iran was signed in February 1921 (the first equal treaty between
Iran and an European power), guaranteeing Iran’s independence and security of
her borders with the Soviet state. Similarly, a treaty of friendship and alliance
was signed with Turkey, which received generous economic, financial, and
military aid from the Soviet state. A Soviet-Afghan treaty was signed in spring
of 1921 by which interest-free loans were given to the latter and Soviet specialists
were assigned to work there.
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) List the key initiatives of Soviet government for new International Relations.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

4.3 BOLSHEVIKS AND ANTI-COLONIAL

STRUGGLES
More lasting, however, was the inspiration provided by the establishment of the
first socialist state which till then was regarded by many as a distant dream. The
success of Revolutionary ideas influenced the thoughts and actions of generations
of freedom fighters in the colonised countries. It also provided great impetus for
the growth of radical movements of the toiling peoples in the underdeveloped
world. The victory of Russian workers over feudal and capitalist forces convinced
many in the colonies that the European imperialists and their local surrogates
were not invincible against the combined strength of the oppressed. In the new
socialist state’s Appeal to the Toilers of Russia and the East, a direct call was
given to “Persians, Turks, Arabs and Hindus” to lose no time in throwing off the
yoke of their oppressors and making themselves the masters of their lands. The
Appeal made a pointed reference to the rising tide of nationalism in India. Such
63
Historical Perspectives declarations by the new revolutionary state further convinced the colonised
peoples that they now had a powerful ally in the revolutionary government of
Russia whose support they could count upon in their struggle against imperialists.

4.3.1 Spread of Socialist Idea in the East

Under the impact of the October revolution, socialist ideas became widespread.
These ideas influenced the view of many leaders of the national liberation struggle.
In India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was particularly influenced by Bolshevik idea
of scientific socialism and wrote in his Discovery of India that Marx’s general
analysis of social development seems to have been remarkably correct. Lenin
successfully adapted the Marxian thesis to some of these subsequent
developments. Acquaintance with scientific socialism provided a better
understanding to the national intelligentsia about the political and social forces
in their countries and outside that could be relied upon in the struggle for political
independence and social progress. It also helped them to determine the ideology
best suited to solve the pressing problem of national revival.

4.3.2 Unity of Nationalist and Socialist Forces in the East

Under the impact of the October revolution, socialist ideas spread that witnessed
the creation of revolutionary groups and communist parties whose activities raised
the consciousness of the working people and organized them against oppression
- be it from imperialists or local oppressors. These revolutionary socialists and
communist groups were also active in arousing the masses to political activity
and in preparing for conditions that would combine the struggle of the workers
and peasants with that of national liberation and anti-imperialism. The October
revolution showed the necessity of an alliance between the worker’s movement
and the anti-colonial freedom movements to defeat imperialism. With the success
of socialism in Russia and a setback to Western colonialism, the national liberation
movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America assumed greater scope and intensity,
embracing more countries and greater masses of people. The national liberation
movements became more profound and radical in their content and goals, and
more importantly, became more and more successful. This was to a large measure
due to the Revolutionising effect of the new Soviet state’s successful handling of
the national and social question. In short, the October revolution blazed the trail
of Socialist national liberation all over the world. It stimulated the consciousness
of the people in the colonies, widened the basis of the national movements and
finally, hastened the process of growth of the left movements in the colonies and
semi-colonies.

Inspired by the success of revolutionaries in Russia, the Indian Revolutionary

Nationalists, operating from abroad, formed contacts with Lenin and the Bolshevik
leadership. Mahendra Pratap, Barkatullah, Obaidullah Sindhi, Virendranath
Chattopadhyaya, Bhupendranath Datta, Hardayal and M. N. Roy were the
prominent names who went to Moscow to seek cooperation and guidance for
India’s Liberation. Two great sons of India, Pandit Nehru and Rabindranath Tagore
were greatly influenced by events in Russia and remained till the end of their
lives most committed friends of the Soviet Union. Many of the Indian
revolutionaries working abroad drew inspiration from the October revolution
and adopted socialism as their programmatic goal. The nascent working-class

64
movement in India led to the emergence of Communist groups and the formal Significance of the Bolshevik
Revolution
launching of Communist Party of India in 1925. Shaheed Bhagat Singh was
being attracted towards socialism during his term in jail and one of his last political
acts in prison was celebrating the Lenin Day.

4.3.3 Intensification of National Liberation Movements

The October revolution contributed to the quickening of the pace of national
liberation movements by inspiring broader sections of the population in the
colonies. In India, the closing month of 1918 and early 1919 witnessed a series
of strikes by working people on a scale never known in India. The Bombay
textile workers strike involved 125,000 workers. The strike movement reached
its peak in the first six months of 1920 with about 200 strikes involving one and
a half million workers. It was in this situation that Gandhi and the Congress
decided to launch the “non-violent non-cooperation” movement, which marked
a big step forward in mass mobilisation.

Some other countries also witnessed intensified struggles against imperialism.

Irish militants under the leadership of Michael Collins continued to fight the
British while the Sinn Fein Party proclaimed the creation of the Irish Republic.
In Egypt, the nationalist party of Zaghlul Pasha was seriously challenging British
rule. The Egyptian uprising was savagely put down by British rulers.
Independence of Egypt was declared in 1920. In Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Pasha
declared war against the Allied occupations. He resisted the partition of the Turkish
mainland and set up a provisional government. China, not only refused to sign
the Treaty of Versailles but also witnessed a new phase in its struggle against
imperialism. The May Fourth movement of 1919, signalled this transition. It led
to mass participation of intellectuals and students, frontal assault on Confucianism
and boycott of Japanese goods.

The Nationalist leaders of the East responded positively to the message of the
October revolution. Bal Gangadhar Tilak hailed the victory of Bolsheviks in his
newspaper Kesari, Bipin Chandra Pal, another prominent leader of Indian national
movement, was greatly inspired by the October revolution and its call against all
the forms of exploitation. Lala Lajpat Rai was all praise for the success of the
revolution in Russia and its policy towards the East. The Russian Revolution
and its socialist achievements had a lasting impact on the political thinking of
Jawaharlal Nehru and this led to a radical shift in the thinking of Indian National
Congress.

Sun Yat Sen was the first of China’s public leaders to call for the recognition of
Soviet Russia by Asian states. This was also a response to the policies of a new
revolutionary state towards China despite the hostility of the then Chinese
government towards the Soviet Republic. In 1918, Soviet Russia publicly
renounced all treaties, agreements and loans that were imposed on China by the
Tsarist government. The best minds of China saw the historical relevance of the
October revolution for China’s future. Li Dazhao and Lu Xin, the moving spirits
behind the May Fourth Movement, which soon became the nucleus of China’s
communist movement, hailed the October revolution as the dawning of a new
era.

65
Historical Perspectives 4.3.4 Communist International
Communist International (Comintern) was an organization of fraternal communist
parties devoted to hastening socialist revolutions over the world. Comintern
worked under the overall ideological and political guidance of the Communist
Party of Soviet Union (CPSU). CPSU leaders prepared many of the Comintern’s
major decisions and often decided strategies and tactics to be followed by the
Comintern.

The founding congress of the Comintern in 1919 was the first step toward realizing
Lenin’s dream of uniting the world’s workers for socialism. The Congress
declared Comintern “a unified world Communist Party, specific sections of which
were parties active in each country”. The Second Congress of Comintern was
held in 1920; it adopted 21-Points which called upon all affiliated parties to
organize themselves on the principle of democratic centralism – the same as the
CPSU.

The Comintern existed in two worlds: in the USSR, the socialist world; and in
the international arena, the capitalist world. Within the USSR, its roles were to
elaborate policies to strengthen the international communist movement and to
defend Soviet policies. In the outside capitalist world, the Comintern guided,
directed communist parties, laid down their line of political action and demanded
that affiliated communist parties defend Soviet leaders and their actions.

There were twists and turns in the ideological trajectory of the Comintern. Until
1921, it followed a hard line: communist parties should not ally with social
democrats and others; they must wean away workers from social democrats and
other radical parties, and seize power in their respective countries through an
armed revolution. Historically, the victory of socialism is inevitable. After 1921,
as the prospects of socialist revolution ebbed, Comintern became flexible: it
now advocated the formation of broad fronts of communists, social democrats
and other popular forces to bring about revolution. When Nazism and fascism
arose in Germany and Italy in the 1930s, Comintern called for the formation of
anti-fascist Popular Fronts. The idea of Popular Front brought communists,
socialists, and liberals of various political hues together. Many communist parties
importantly in Spain, forged Popular Fronts; the idea of the popular front also
got a resonance in countries like India which were fighting for their national
freedom from colonial rule. In 1943, Joseph Stalin ordered the disbandment of
the Comintern.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the Unit for tips for your answer.
1) What is Comintern?
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

66 .......................................................................................................................
 Significance of the Bolshevik
4.4 RISE AND GROWTH OF COMMUNIST AND Revolution

WORKERS’ MOVEMENTS
The October revolution not only had a great impact on the liberation movements
in the colonies, but it also paved the way for the rise and growth of the communist
and workers’ movement in the East. To unite various communist groups, parties
and movements, to popularise Marxist-Leninist theory and to discuss and debate
the strategies and tactics of uniting with other nationalist non-communist forces
against imperialism, a Communist International (also known as the Third
International or Comintern) was formed in Moscow in 1919. The ideal that was
embodied in the formation of the Communist International was the unity of the
working class in the developed West and the oppressed peoples of the colonies
in their common struggle against imperialism. The Communist International
became the coordinating centre of revolutionaries the world over. The problem
of a united anti-imperialist front occupied a central place in the Comintern’s
theoretical and practical activities on the national and colonial question. The
idea of uniting all anti-imperialist forces – the national liberation movements
and the socialist movements of workers and peasantry – occupied the attention
at the second congress of the Comintern in 1920.

Given the repressive nature of the colonial regimes, many communist parties of
the Eastern countries were formed in Soviet Russia under the auspices of the
Comintern. Turkish communists were the first to organise a communist party in
Soviet Russia, followed by Iranians, Chinese and Koreans. The first group of
Indian communists was formed in October 1920 following the arrival in Tashkent
of Indians who had attended the second congress of the Comintern. On the
initiative of M. N. Roy and H. Mukherjee, this group of seven people proclaimed
itself the Communist Party of India.

Most industry and banks were nationalised in November 1917. This meant that
the government took over ownership and management. The land was declared
social property and peasants were allowed to seize the land of the nobility. In
cities, Bolsheviks enforced the partition of large houses according to family
requirements. They banned the use of the old titles of the aristocracy. To assert
the change, new uniforms were designed for the army and officials. The Bolshevik
Party was renamed the Russian Communist Party. Non-Bolshevik socialists,
liberals and supporters of autocracy condemned the Bolshevik uprising. Their
leaders moved to south Russia and organised troops to fight the Bolsheviks, (the
red). During 1918 and 1919, the ‘greens’ (Socialists Revolutionaries)’ and ‘Whites’
(Pro-Tsarists) controlled most of the Russian empire. They were backed by French,
American, British, and Japanese troops- all those forces were worried at the
growth of socialism in Russia.

4.5 LET US SUM UP

The Bolshevik victory and its support to the liberation movements created
favourable conditions for the intensification of anti-imperialist struggles in the
colonies. It not only inspired nationalists and communists all over the world but
also helped to bring them together on the common platform of anti-colonialism.
The Bolshevik policy of peace and renunciation of special privileges and secret
diplomacy created an alternative system of international relations. The structure
67
Historical Perspectives of International Relations changed drastically. Existing socialist parties in Europe
did not wholly approve of the way the Bolsheviks took power and kept it. In
many countries, communist parties were formed - like the Communist Party of
Britain. The Bolsheviks encouraged colonial peoples to follow their experiment.
By the time of the outbreak of the Second World War, the USSR had given
socialism a global face and world stature.

4.6 REFERENCES
Dev, Arjun & Indira Arjun Dev. (2009). History of the World. Hyderabad. Orient
Blackswan.

Ali, Anbraf & G. A. Syomin. (1977). (eds.). October Revolution and India’s
Independence. Delhi. Sterling Publishers.

Chamberlain, Lesley. (2017). Arc of Utopia: The Beautiful Story of the Russian
Revolution. London. Reaktion Books.

Carr, E. H. (1985). The Bolshevik Revolution 1917- 1921. New York. W. W.

Norton & Company.

Lowe, Norman. (1997). Mastering Modern World History. Gurgaon. Macmillan

Publishers.

McMeekin, Sean. (2017). Russia Revolution: A New History. New York. Basic
Books.

Milrokhin, L.V. (1981). Lenin in India. Delhi. Allied Publishers.

Nester, William R. (2010). Globalization, War, and Peace in the Twenty-First

Century. Palgrave. Macmillan.

Patnaik, Ashok Kumar. (1992). Soviets and The Indian Revolutionary Movement,
1917-1929. Delhi. Anamika Publishers.

Pethybridge, Roger. (1972). The Spread of the Russia Revolution: Essays on

1917. London. Macmillan.

4.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) The new Soviet state took a determined stand for democratic peace among
nations. To achieve this, it i) rejected secret alliance and made public all
treaties signed by the Tsarist state, ii) supported the self-determination of
national minorities, iii) renounced special privileges, iv) and failing to achieve
general peace settlement, negotiated peace treaties with Central powers.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2.
1) The Comintern was an organisation of fraternal communist parties which
worked under the ideological and political guidance of the Soviet Union. It
was intended to hasten socialist revolutions across the world.
68
 1

What is Classical Liberalism?

There are several broad characteristics that define liberalism, that

distinguish it from other doctrines and political systems. In the words of
John Gray,
Common to all variants of the liberal tradition is a definite conception, distinctively modern
in character, of man and society … It is individualist, in that it asserts the moral primacy of
the person against the claims of any social collectivity; egalitarian, inasmuch as it confers
on all men the same moral status and denies the relevance to legal or political order of
differences in moral worth among human beings; universalist, affirming the moral unity of
the human species and according a secondary importance to specific historic associations
and cultural forms; and meliorist in its affirmation of the corrigibility and improvability of
all social institutions and political arrangements. It is this conception of man and society
which gives liberalism a definite identity which transcends its vast internal variety and
complexity.1

Liberal societies confer rights on individuals, the most fundamental of

which is the right to autonomy, that is, the ability to make choices with
regard to speech, association, belief, and ultimately political life.
Included within the sphere of autonomy is the right to own property and
to undertake economic transactions. Over time, autonomy would also
come to include the right to a share of political power through the right to
vote.
Needless to say, early liberals had a restricted understanding of who
qualified as a rights-bearing human being. This circle was initially
limited, in the United States and other “liberal” regimes, to white men
who owned property, and only later was broadened to other social
groups. Nonetheless, these restrictions on rights ran contrary to the
assertions of human equality contained both in the doctrinal writings of
liberal theorists like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and in
foundational documents like the US Declaration of Independence or the
French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
The tension between theory and practice drove, as well as the grass-roots
mobilization of excluded groups, the evolution of liberal regimes towards
a broader and more inclusive recognition of human equality. In this
manner, liberalism differed sharply a manner that differed sharply from
nationalist or religiously based doctrines that explicitly limited rights to
certain races, ethnicities, genders, confessions, castes, or status groups.
Liberal societies embed rights in formal law, and as a result tend to be
highly procedural. Law is simply a system of explicit rules that define
how conflicts are to be resolved and collective decisions made, embodied
in a set of legal institutions that function semi-autonomously from the
rest of the political system so that it cannot be abused by politicians for
short-term advantage. These rules have become progressively more
complex over time in most advanced liberal societies.
Liberalism is often subsumed under the term “democracy,” though
strictly speaking liberalism and democracy are based on distinct
principles and institutions. Democracy refers to rule by the people, which
today is institutionalized in periodic free and fair multiparty elections
under universal adult suffrage. Liberalism in the sense I am using it refers
to the rule of law, a system of formal rules that restrict the powers of the
executive, even if that executive is democratically legitimated through an
election. Thus we should properly refer to “liberal democracy” when we
talk about the type of regime that has prevailed in North America,
Europe, parts of East and South Asia, and elsewhere in the world since
the end of the Second World War. The United States, Germany, France,
Japan, and India were all established as liberal democracies by the
second half of the twentieth century, although some, like the United
States and India, have been backsliding in the last few years.
It is liberalism rather than democracy that has come under the
sharpest attack in recent years. Few people argue today that governments
should not reflect the interests of “the people,” and even overtly
autocratic regimes like those in China or North Korea claim to be acting
on their behalf. Vladimir Putin still feels compelled to hold regular
“elections” and seems to care about popular support, as do many other de
facto authoritarian leaders around the world. On the other hand, Putin has
said that liberalism is an “obsolete doctrine,”2 and has been working hard
to silence critics, jail, kill, or harass opponents, and eliminate any
independent civic space. China’s Xi Jinping has attacked the idea that
there should be any constraints on the power of the Communist Party,
and has tightened its grip on every aspect of Chinese society. Hungary’s
Viktor Orbán has explicitly said that he is seeking to build an “illiberal
democracy” in the heart of the European Union.3
When liberal democracy regresses, it is the liberal institutions that act
as the canaries in the coal mine for the broader authoritarian assault to
come. Liberal institutions protect the democratic process by limiting
executive power; once they are eroded, democracy itself comes under
attack. Electoral outcomes can then be manipulated through
gerrymandering, voter qualification rules, or false charges of electoral
fraud. The enemies of democracy guarantee that they will remain in
power, regardless of the will of the people. Of Donald Trump’s many
assaults on American institutions, the most serious by far was his
unwillingness to concede his loss of the 2020 presidential election and to
peacefully transfer power to his successor.
Normatively, I believe that both liberalism and democracy are morally
justified and necessary as a matter of practical politics. They constitute
two of the three pillars of proper government, and both are critical as
constraints on the third pillar, the modern state—a point I elaborated at
some length in my Political Order series.4 However, the present-day
crisis of liberal democracy revolves in the first instances less around
democracy strictly understood than around liberal institutions. Further, it
is liberalism much more than democracy that is associated with economic
growth and the prosperity of the modern world. As we will see in
chapters 2 and 3, economic growth detached from considerations of
equality and justice can be very problematic, but growth remains a
necessary precondition for most of the other good things that societies
seek.
There have been three essential justifications for liberal societies put
forward over the centuries. The first is a pragmatic rationale: liberalism is
a way of regulating violence and allowing diverse populations to live
peacefully with one another. The second is moral: liberalism protects
basic human dignity, and in particular human autonomy—the ability of
each individual to make choices. The final justification is economic:
liberalism promotes economic growth and all the good things that come
from growth, by protecting property rights and the freedom to transact.
Liberalism has a strong association with certain forms of cognition,
particularly the scientific method, which is seen as the best means of
understanding and manipulating the external world. Individuals are
assumed to be the best judges of their own interests, and are able to take
in and test empirical information about the outside world in the making
of those judgments. While judgments will necessarily vary, there is a
liberal belief that in a free marketplace of ideas, good ideas will in the
end drive out bad ones through deliberation and evidence.
The pragmatic argument for liberalism needs to be understood in the
historical context in which liberal ideas first arose. The doctrine appeared
in the middle of the seventeenth century towards the conclusion of
Europe’s wars of religion, a 150-year period of almost continuous
violence that was triggered by the Protestant Reformation. It is estimated
that as much as one-third of central Europe’s population died in the
course of the Thirty Years’ War, if not from direct violence then from the
famine and disease that followed upon military conflict. Europe’s
religious wars were driven by economic and social factors, such as the
greed of monarchs eager to seize Church property. But they derived their
ferocity from the fact that the warring parties represented different
Christian sects that wanted to impose their particular interpretation of
religious dogma on their populations. Martin Luther struggled with the
emperor Charles V; the Catholic League fought the Huguenots in France;
Henry VIII sought to separate the Church of England from Rome; and
there were conflicts within the Protestant and Catholic camps between
high and low church Anglicans, Zwinglians and Lutherans, and many
others. This was a period in which heretics were regularly burned at the
stake or drawn and quartered for professing belief in things like
“transubstantiation,” a level of cruelty that is hardly understandable as an
outgrowth of economic motives alone.
Liberalism sought to lower the aspirations of politics, not as a means
of seeking the good life as defined by religion, but rather as a way of
ensuring life itself, that is, peace and security. Thomas Hobbes, writing in
the middle of the English Civil War, was a monarchist, but he saw a
strong state primarily as a guarantee that mankind would not return to the
war of “every man against every man.” The fear of violent death was,
according to him, the most powerful passion, one that was universally
shared by human beings in a way that religious beliefs were not.
Therefore the first duty of the state was to protect the right to life. This
was the distant origin of the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness” in the US Declaration of Independence. Building on this
foundation, John Locke observed that life could also be threatened by a
tyrannical state, and that the state itself needed to be constrained by the
“consent of the governed.”
Classical liberalism can therefore be understood as an institutional
solution to the problem of governing over diversity, or, to put it in
slightly different terms, of peacefully managing diversity in pluralistic
societies. The most fundamental principle enshrined in liberalism is one
of tolerance: you do not have to agree with your fellow citizens about the
most important things, but only that each individual should get to decide
what they are without interference from you or from the state. Liberalism
lowers the temperature of politics by taking questions of final ends off
the table: you can believe what you want, but you must do so in private
life and not seek to impose your views on your fellow citizens.
The kinds of diversity that liberal societies can successfully manage
are not unlimited. If a significant part of a society does not accept liberal
principles themselves and seeks to restrict the fundamental rights of other
people, or when citizens resort to violence to get their way, then
liberalism is not sufficient to maintain political order. That was the
situation in the United States prior to 1861 when the country was riven
by the issue of slavery, and why it subsequently fell into civil war. During
the Cold War, liberal societies in Western Europe faced similar threats
from Eurocommunist parties in France and Italy, and in the contemporary
Middle East the prospects for liberal democracy have suffered due to the
strong suspicion that Islamist parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in
Egypt do not accept the liberal rules of the game.
Diversity can take many forms: in seventeenth-century Europe it was
religious, but it can also be based on nationality, ethnicity, race, or other
types of belief. Byzantine society was riven by a sharp polarization
between the Blues and Greens, racing teams in the Hippodrome that
corresponded to Christian sects professing belief in Monophysite and
Monothelite doctrines respectively. Poland today is one of the most
ethnically and religiously homogeneous societies in Europe, and yet it is
sharply polarized between social groups based in its cosmopolitan cities
and a more conservative one in the countryside. Human beings are very
good at dividing themselves into teams that go to war with one another
metaphorically or literally; diversity thus is a prevalent characteristic of
many human societies.5
Liberalism’s most important selling point remains the pragmatic one
that existed in the seventeenth century: if diverse societies like India or
the United States move away from liberal principles and try to base
national identity on race, ethnicity, religion, or some other substantive
vision of the good life, they are inviting a return to potentially violent
conflict. The United States suffered such conflict during its Civil War,
and Modi’s India is inviting communal violence by shifting its national
identity to one based on Hinduism.
The second justification for a liberal society is a moral one: a liberal
society protects human dignity by granting citizens an equal right to
autonomy. The ability to make fundamental life choices is a critical
human characteristic. Every individual wants to determine their life’s
goals: what they will do for a living, whom they will marry, where they
will live, with whom they will associate and transact, what and how they
should speak, and what they will believe. It is this freedom that gives
human beings dignity, and unlike intelligence, physical appearance, skin
color, or other secondary characteristics, it is universally shared by all
human beings. At a minimum, the law protects autonomy by granting and
enforcing citizens’ rights to speak, associate, and believe. But over time
autonomy has come to encompass the right to have a share in political
power and to participate in self-government through the right to vote.
Liberalism has thus become tied to democracy, which can be seen as an
expression of collective autonomy.
The view of liberalism as a means of protecting basic human dignity
that emerged in Europe by the time of the French Revolution has now
been written into countless constitutions of liberal democracies around
the world in the form of the “right to dignity,” and appears in the basic
laws of countries as diverse as Germany, South Africa, and Japan. Most
contemporary politicians would be hard-pressed to explain precisely
which human qualities give people equal dignity, but they would have a
vague sense that it implies something about the capacity for choice, and
the ability to make decisions about one’s own life course without undue
interference from governments or broader society.
Liberal theory asserted that these rights applied to all human beings
universally, as in the Declaration of Inde-pendence’s opening phrase “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” But,
in practice, liberal regimes made invidious distinctions between
individuals, and did not regard all of the people under their jurisdiction as
full human beings. The United States did not grant citizenship and the
franchise to African Americans until passage of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth,
and Sixteenth amendments in the wake of the Civil War, and after
Reconstruction shamefully took them back in a period that stretched up
to the Civil Rights era in the 1960s. And the country did not grant women
the right to vote until passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1919.
Similarly, European democracies opened up the franchise to all adults
only gradually, removing restrictions based on property ownership,
gender, and race in a slow process that stretched into the middle of the
twentieth century.6
The third major justification for liberalism had to do with its
connection to economic growth and modernization. For many nineteenth-
century liberals, the most important form of autonomy was the ability to
buy, sell, and invest freely in a market economy. Property rights were
central to the liberal agenda, along with contract enforcement through
institutions that lowered the risk of trade and investment with strangers.
The theoretical justification for this is clear: no entrepreneur will risk
money in a business if he or she thinks that it will be expropriated the
following year either by a government, business competitors, or a
criminal organization. Property rights needed to be supported by a large
legal apparatus that included a system of independent courts, lawyers, a
bar, and a state that could use its police powers to enforce judgments
against private parties.
Liberal theory did not only endorse the freedom to buy and sell within
national borders; early on it argued in favor of an international system of
free trade. Adam Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations demonstrated the ways
in which mercantilist restrictions on trade (for example, the Spanish
Empire’s requirement that Spanish goods be carried only in Spanish ships
to Spanish ports) were highly inefficient. David Ricardo laid the basis for
modern trade theory with his theory of comparative advantage. Liberal
regimes did not necessarily follow these theoretical dictates: both Britain
and the United States, for example, protected their early industries with
tariffs, until the point where they grew to a scale that allowed them to
compete without government assistance. Nonetheless, there has been a
strong historical association between liberalism and freedom of
commerce.
Property rights were among the initial rights to be guaranteed by
rising liberal regimes, well before the right to associate or vote. The first
two European countries to establish strong property rights were England
and the Netherlands, both of which developed an entrepreneurial
commercial class and saw explosive economic growth. In North
America, English common law protected property rights prior to the time
when the colonies gained their political independence. The German
Rechtsstaat, building on civil codes like Prussia’s 1792 Allgemeines
Landrecht, protected private property long before the German lands saw
a hint of democracy. Like America, autocratic but liberal Germany
industrialized rapidly in the late nineteenth century and had become an
economic great power by the early twentieth century.
The connection between classical liberalism and economic growth is
not a trivial one. Between 1800 and the present, output per person in the
liberal world grew nearly 3,000 percent.7 These gains were felt up and
down the economic ladder, with ordinary workers enjoying levels of
health, longevity, and consumption unavailable to the most privileged
elites in earlier ages.
The central place of property rights in liberal theory meant that the
strongest advocates of liberalism tended to be the new middle classes that
were the by-product of economic modernization—what Karl Marx would
call the bourgeoisie. The original backers of the French Revolution who
took the Tennis Court Oath in 1789 were mostly middle-class lawyers
who wanted to protect their property rights against the monarchy, and
had little interest in extending the vote to the sans-culottes. The same was
true of the American Founding Fathers, who almost universally came
from a prosperous class of merchants and planters. James Madison
argued in his “Address at the Virginia Convention” that “the rights of
persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of
which Government was instituted.” In his essay “Federalist 10”, he noted
that social classes and inequality would inevitably result from the
necessary protection of property: “From the protection of different and
unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different
degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the
influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective
proprietors ensues a division of the society into different interests and
parties.”8
Liberalism’s current travails are not new; the ideology has gone in and
out of fashion over the centuries but has always returned because of its
underlying strengths. It was born out of religious conflict in Europe; the
principle that states should not seek to impose their sectarian views on
others served to stabilize the Continent in the period after the Peace of
Westphalia in 1648. Liberalism was one of the early driving forces of the
French Revolution, and was initially an ally of democratic forces that
wanted to expand political participation beyond the narrow circle of
upper- and middle-class elites. The partisans of equality, however, broke
with the partisans of liberty, and created a revolutionary dictatorship that
ultimately gave way to the new empire under Napoleon. The latter,
nonetheless, played a critical role in spreading liberalism in the form of
law—the Code Napoléon—to the far corners of Europe. This then
became the anchor for a liberal rule of law on the Continent.
Following the French Revolution, liberals were shunted aside by other
doctrines on the right and on the left. The Revolution spawned the next
major competitor to liberalism, which was nationalism. Nationalists
argued that political jurisdictions should correspond to cultural units,
defined largely by language and ethnicity. They rejected liberalism’s
universalism, and sought to confer rights primarily on their favored
group. As the nineteenth century progressed, Europe reorganized itself
from a dynastic basis to a national one, with the unification of Italy and
Germany and growing nationalist agitation within the multiethnic
Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires. In 1914 this exploded into the
Great War, which killed millions of people and paved the way for a
second global conflagration in 1939.
The defeat of Germany, Italy, and Japan in 1945 laid the basis for a
restoration of liberalism as the democratic world’s governing ideology.
Europeans saw the folly of organizing politics around an exclusive and
aggressive understanding of nation, and created the European
Community and later the European Union to deliberately subordinate the
old nation-states to a cooperative transnational structure.
Liberty for individuals necessarily implied liberty for the colonial
peoples conquered by the European powers, leading to rapid collapse of
their overseas empires. In some cases, colonies were granted
independence voluntarily; in others, the metropolitan power resisted
national liberation by force. This process was completed only with the
collapse of Por-tugal’s overseas empire in the early 1970s. For its part,
the United States played a powerful role in creating a new set of
international institutions, including the United Nations (and affiliated
Bretton Woods organizations like the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund), the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, its
successor the World Trade Organization, and cooperative regional
ventures like the North American Free Trade Agreement. American
military power and commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and a series of bilateral alliance treaties with countries like
Japan and South Korea undergirded a global security system that
stabilized both Europe and East Asia during the Cold War.
The other major competitor to liberalism was communism. Liberalism
is allied to democracy through its protection of individual autonomy,
which implies juridical equality and a broad right to political choice and
the franchise. But, as Madison observed, liberalism does not lead to an
equality of outcomes, and from the French Revolution onwards there
were strong tensions between liberals committed to the protection of
property rights, and a left that sought redistribution of wealth and income
through a strong state. In democratic countries this took the form of
socialist or social democratic parties based on a rising labor movement
like the Labour Party in Britain or the German Social Democrats. But the
more radical proponents of democratic equality organized under the
banner of Marxism–Leninism, and were willing to abandon liberal rule of
law altogether and vest power in a dictatorial state.
The largest threat to the liberal international order that took shape
after 1945 came from the former Soviet Union, and its allied communist
parties in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Aggressive nationalism may
have been defeated in Europe, but it became a powerful source of
mobilization in the developing world, and received backing from the
USSR, China, Cuba, and other communist states. But the former Soviet
Union collapsed between 1989 and 1991, and along with it the perceived
legitimacy of Marxism–Leninism. China under Deng Xiaoping took a
turn towards a market economy and sought to integrate itself into the
burgeoning liberal international order, as did many former communist
countries that joined existing international institutions like the European
Union and NATO.
The late twentieth century thus saw a broad and largely happy
coexistence of liberalism and democracy throughout the developed
world. The liberal commitment to property rights and the rule of law laid
the basis for the strong post–Second World War economic growth.
Liberalism’s pairing with democracy tempered the inequalities created by
market competition, and general prosperity enabled democratically
elected legislatures to create redistributive welfare states. Inequality was
kept under control and made tolerable because most people could see
their material conditions improving. The progressive immiseration of the
proletariat foreseen by Marxism never occurred; rather, working-class
people saw their incomes rise and turned from being opponents to
supporters of the system. The period from 1950 to the 1970s—what the
French call les trente glorieuses—was thus the heyday of liberal
democracy in the developed world.
This was not just a period of economic growth, but one of increasing
social equality. A whole series of social movements sprang up in the
1960s, beginning with the civil rights and feminist revolutions that
pressured societies to live up to their liberal principles of universal
human dignity. Communist societies pretended that they had solved
problems related to race and gender, but in Western liberal democracies
the social transformation was driven by grass-roots mobilization rather
than top-down decree and hence proved more thoroughgoing. The circle
of rights-bearing individuals in liberal societies continued to expand, in a
process that is incomplete and that continues up to the present day.
If one needed proof of liberalism’s positive impact as an ideology, one
should look no further than the success of a series of states in Asia that
went from being impoverished developing countries to developed ones in
a matter of decades. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and
Singapore were not democracies during their high-growth periods, but
they adopted key liberal institutions like protection of private property
rights and openness to international trade in ways that allowed them to
take advantage of the global capitalist system. The reforms instituted by
Deng Xiaoping in China after 1978, such as the Household
Responsibility law or the township and village enterprise system,
replaced central planning with limited property rights and incentives for
peasants and entrepreneurs to take risks because they were allowed to
enjoy the fruits of their own labor. There is a large literature explaining
how the countries of East Asia never adopted anything like the full-
blown form of market capitalism that existed in the United States—
indeed, European capitalism looked very different as well.9 In East Asia
and in Europe, the state remained a much more important actor in
encouraging economic growth than in the United States. But such
“developmental states” still relied on liberal institutions like private
property and incentives to trigger their remarkable records of economic
growth.
Nonetheless, liberalism also had a number of shortcomings, some of
which were precipitated by external circumstances, and others of which
were intrinsic to the doctrine. Most doctrines or ideologies begin with a
core insight that is true or even revelatory, but they go wrong when that
insight is carried to extremes—when the doctrine becomes, so to speak,
doctrinaire.
Liberalism has seen its core principles pushed to extremes by
advocates on both its right and left wings, to the point where those
principles themselves were undermined. One of liberalism’s core ideas is
its valorization and protection of individual autonomy. But this basic
value can be carried too far. On the right, autonomy meant primarily the
right to buy and sell freely, without interference from the state. Pushing
this notion to extremes, economic liberalism turned into “neoliberalism”
in the late twentieth century and led to grotesque inequalities, which is
the subject of the following two chapters. On the left, autonomy meant
personal autonomy with regard to lifestyle choices and values, and
resistance to the social norms imposed by the surrounding society.
Pushed down this road, liberalism began to erode its own premise of
tolerance as it evolved into modern identity politics. These extreme
versions of liberalism then generated a backlash, which is the source of
the right-wing populist and left-wing progressive movements that
threaten liberalism today.

Notes
1. John Gray, Liberalism (Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, 1986), p. x.
2. See “Vladimir Putin Says Liberalism Has ‘Become Obsolete’” in the Financial Times
(June 27, 2019), www.ft.com/content/670039ec-98f3–11e9–9573-ee5cbb98ed36
3. See Csaba Tóth, “Full Text of Viktor Orbăn’s Speech at Báile Tuşnad (Tusnádfürdő) of
26 July 2014,” The Budapest Beacon (July 29, 2014).
4. Francis Fukuyama, The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French
Revolution (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011); Political Order and Political
Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy (New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014).
5. See the examples given in Dominic J. Packer and Jay Van Bavel, The Power of Us:
Harnessing Our Shared Identities to Improve Performance, Increase Cooperation, and
Promote Social Harmony (New York and Boston: Little, Brown Spark, 2021).
6. For an account of this process, see Fukuyama (Political Order and Political Decay,
2014), chapter 28.
7. McCloskey (2019), p. x.
8. James Madison, Federalist No. 10 “The Same Subject Continued: The Union as
Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” Federalist Papers (Dublin, OH:
Coventry House Publishing, 2015).
9. For a summary, see Stephan Haggard, Developmental States (Cambridge, MA, and New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2018); and Suzanne Berger and Ronald Dore,
National Diversity and Global Capitalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996).
​ he Marxian approach to international relations (IR) is rooted in the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich
T
Engels, focusing on the economic structures of global society and the inequalities and power dynamics that
result from capitalist systems. This approach interprets international relations primarily through the lens of
class struggle, economic exploitation, and imperialism, emphasizing how capitalist structures shape the
behavior of states and the global system.

Here’s an overview of the key tenets of the Marxian approach to IR:

1. Historical Materialism

Historical materialism is central to Marxian thought, positing that the economic base of society—how
production is organized and who controls resources—determines its political and ideological superstructures.
In the context of international relations, this means that global politics and state actions are influenced by the
economic interests of the ruling capitalist class.

According to Marxian theory, global history is a history of class struggle, and this struggle extends across
borders, with capitalist nations seeking to dominate and exploit other, often less-developed, nations.

2. Class Struggle on a Global Scale

Marxian IR theorists view the international system as an arena where the interests of different classes
(primarily the capitalist class and the working class) are in conflict. This conflict is not limited to individual
nations but occurs globally, as capitalists seek to exploit labor and resources worldwide.

The global capitalist class seeks to maintain control over production and distribution systems, often with the
help of powerful states, leading to increased inequality and exploitation of the working classes globally.

3. Imperialism and Global Capitalism

In the Marxian view, imperialism is an inevitable outcome of capitalism. Lenin, a major Marxist theorist,
argued that imperialism is the “highest stage of capitalism,” where advanced capitalist nations seek new
markets, cheap labor, and raw materials in less-developed regions.

Through imperialism, powerful capitalist states and their corporations exploit poorer nations, ensuring
continued capital accumulation at the expense of developing countries. This economic dominance can be
maintained through military power, political influence, and economic mechanisms like debt.

4. Dependency Theory and World-Systems Analysis

Dependency theory, developed in the mid-20th century, draws on Marxian thought to analyze the unequal
economic relationships between developed and developing countries. It argues that global capitalism creates a
"core" of wealthy nations that exploit a "periphery" of poorer countries, locking them into dependency.

Building on this, world-systems theory, associated with Immanuel Wallerstein, categorizes countries into the
core, semi-periphery, and periphery. According to this theory, the capitalist world system operates to benefit
core countries at the expense of the periphery, creating a global hierarchy.
5. The Role of the State

Unlike traditional IR theories, Marxian approaches view states not as autonomous actors but as entities shaped
by the interests of the dominant economic class within each society. In capitalist countries, the state serves the
interests of the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class) by promoting policies favorable to capital accumulation and
global expansion.

The state is thus seen as a tool for advancing capitalist interests internationally, whether through diplomacy,
military intervention, or economic policies, rather than as a neutral actor.

6. Global Capitalism and Transnational Actors

Contemporary Marxist thinkers argue that globalization and the rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) have
intensified the global capitalist system, making class-based analyses even more relevant. TNCs operate across
borders, wielding influence that often rivals or exceeds that of states.

These transnational actors are seen as the vehicles for spreading capitalist values and practices, perpetuating
inequality, and controlling labor and resources globally.

Criticisms of the Marxian Approach

While the Marxian approach provides critical insights into economic inequality and imperialism, it has faced
criticisms, including:

Overemphasis on Economics: Critics argue that Marxian IR reduces complex global issues to economic factors,
overlooking cultural, ideological, and political dynamics.

State Autonomy: Some contend that Marxian theory underestimates the role of state autonomy, as not all state
actions serve capitalist interests or economic motives.

Determinism: Marxian approaches have been criticized for their deterministic view of history, suggesting that
all societal developments are inevitable consequences of economic forces.

Conclusion

The Marxian approach to international relations provides a critical perspective on how global capitalism
shapes the behavior of states and influences global inequalities. By focusing on class struggle, imperialism, and
dependency, it highlights the economic structures that drive global power dynamics and points to systemic
inequalities that perpetuate exploitation and hinder development in poorer nations. This approach remains
relevant in analyzing issues like globalization, neoliberalism, and t
he role of powerful corporations in shaping world affairs.
​ he Marxian approach to international relations (IR) offers a distinctive perspective, focusing on the economic
T
foundations of society and the role of class struggle, capitalism, and imperialism in shaping the global political
landscape. Rooted in the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this approach contrasts with traditional IR
theories by analyzing international relations not just as interactions among states but as expressions of deeper
socio-economic dynamics, especially those stemming from capitalism. In the Marxian view, states, corporations,
and even international organizations operate within a global capitalist framework that privileges the interests
of the ruling economic class over those of others, often leading to inequality and exploitation on a worldwide
scale.

1. Historical Materialism and Class Dynamics

At the core of the Marxian approach to IR is historical materialism—a theory that suggests the economic
structure of a society (its “base”) shapes its social, political, and ideological institutions (its “superstructure”).
According to this framework, the global political order is a product of the underlying economic forces and class
structures that govern human interactions. Capitalism, as the dominant economic system, drives international
relations by shaping the motivations of states and other actors within the global system.

In a Marxist perspective, history is a record of class struggles—conflicts between those who control economic
resources and those who do not. These conflicts are not contained within national borders; they extend across
the world, creating a global class struggle. In the context of IR, this translates into a view of international
relations that is primarily influenced by the interests of the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) in expanding
markets, accessing resources, and controlling labor. This class-based analysis challenges the traditional IR view
that states are autonomous, independent actors and instead sees state actions as shaped by capitalist
imperatives to maximize profits and maintain economic dominance.

2. Capitalism, Imperialism, and Global Exploitation

A significant component of the Marxian approach to IR is the concept of imperialism, which, according to
Marxist theorist Vladimir Lenin, is the “highest stage of capitalism.” Lenin argued that capitalism inevitably
leads to imperialism as capitalists seek new markets, resources, and cheap labor beyond their borders to
maximize profits and prevent economic stagnation. Advanced capitalist nations, driven by the need for
continuous expansion, become imperialist powers, exploiting less-developed countries and drawing them into
the global capitalist system.

This process of imperialism results in the creation of a hierarchical global order where wealthy capitalist
nations dominate poorer, resource-rich nations. The international system becomes one of dependency and
unequal exchange, where the wealth of the core capitalist countries relies on the poverty and exploitation of
the peripheral nations. In this view, powerful countries maintain economic control over developing nations
through trade, investment, and even direct political and military interventions, ensuring that these countries
remain economically dependent and politically subservient.

3. Dependency Theory and World-Systems Analysis

Building on the idea of global exploitation, dependency theory emerged in the mid-20th century as an extension
of Marxian thought, especially influential in Latin America. Dependency theory argues that developing
countries are locked into economic dependency due to historical exploitation by wealthy, industrialized
nations. According to this theory, the global capitalist economy is structured to benefit the “core” nations, which
dominate and exploit the “periphery” (the poorer, developing countries). This dependency is perpetuated
through unequal trade terms, foreign investments that extract rather than build, and debt dependency.

World-systems theory, developed by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, expanded on these ideas by categorizing
countries within a global hierarchy. Wallerstein proposed a “core,” “semi-periphery,” and “periphery” model,
where core countries wield economic and political power over semi-peripheral and peripheral countries,
securing cheap labor and resources while controlling markets for their products. In this framework, the global
system of capitalism is seen as inherently unequal, with countries in the periphery providing raw materials and
labor while core countries reprocess and sell back goods at higher prices. World-systems theory further argues
that as long as capitalism exists, this hierarchy and dependency structure will remain in place.
4. The Role of the State in Marxian IR Theory

In contrast to traditional IR theories that treat the state as a primary, autonomous actor, Marxian IR sees the
state as an entity that largely serves the interests of the capitalist class. In capitalist societies, the state is not a
neutral arbiter but an institution that safeguards capitalist interests, promoting economic policies favorable to
capital accumulation, both domestically and internationally. For instance, policies encouraging foreign
investment, free trade, and military interventions in developing nations can be seen as efforts by states to
support the global expansion of capital.

This state behavior is thus guided not by national interests in a traditional sense but by the class interests of
those who control economic resources. According to Marxian theorists, the state acts as a facilitator of capital,
ensuring that national and international environments are conducive to economic growth and stability, often at
the expense of workers and less-developed nations.

5. Globalization and Transnational Capital

Contemporary Marxian theorists emphasize the effects of globalization, which they argue has intensified the
influence of capitalist structures on international relations. The rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) and
international financial institutions has transformed the global economy, concentrating wealth and power in a
few multinational corporations and weakening the role of individual states. TNCs operate across borders, with
resources and labor from multiple nations, enabling them to exert significant influence on global policies.

These corporations contribute to a “race to the bottom” by seeking the cheapest labor and least restrictive
regulations, often undermining local labor standards and environmental protections. Globalization in this
sense is seen as a means for capital to spread its influence further, consolidating the power of the global
capitalist class while deepening inequalities within and between nations.

Criticisms of the Marxian Approach

While the Marxian approach to IR offers valuable insights into the economic underpinnings of international
relations, it has faced criticisms. Some argue that Marxian theory overly emphasizes economic factors,
neglecting the role of ideology, culture, and other non-economic influences on state behavior. Additionally,
critics contend that it underestimates state autonomy, as not all state actions align strictly with capitalist
interests. Lastly, the deterministic perspective of historical materialism can lead to a view of history that
overlooks human agency and complexity.

Conclusion

The Marxian approach to international relations provides a compelling critique of the global capitalist system,
highlighting the role of economic structures, class struggles, and imperialism in shaping world politics. By
focusing on inequality and exploitation, this approach uncovers the underlying economic forces driving
international relations and emphasizes the systemic nature of global inequalities. Although it has limitations,
the Marxian approach remains relevant, especially in the age of globalization, where transnational capitalism
continues to influence international dynamics and
deepen disparities across the world.
​ he Marxian approach to international relations (IR) offers a distinctive perspective, focusing on the economic
T
foundations of society and the role of class struggle, capitalism, and imperialism in shaping the global political
landscape. Rooted in the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this approach contrasts with traditional IR
theories by analyzing international relations not just as interactions among states but as expressions of deeper
socio-economic dynamics, especially those stemming from capitalism. In the Marxian view, states, corporations,
and even international organizations operate within a global capitalist framework that privileges the interests
of the ruling economic class over those of others, often leading to inequality and exploitation on a worldwide
scale.

1. Historical Materialism and Class Dynamics

At the core of the Marxian approach to IR is historical materialism—a theory that suggests the economic
structure of a society (its “base”) shapes its social, political, and ideological institutions (its “superstructure”).
According to this framework, the global political order is a product of the underlying economic forces and class
structures that govern human interactions. Capitalism, as the dominant economic system, drives international
relations by shaping the motivations of states and other actors within the global system.

In a Marxist perspective, history is a record of class struggles—conflicts between those who control economic
resources and those who do not. These conflicts are not contained within national borders; they extend across
the world, creating a global class struggle. In the context of IR, this translates into a view of international
relations that is primarily influenced by the interests of the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) in expanding
markets, accessing resources, and controlling labor. This class-based analysis challenges the traditional IR view
that states are autonomous, independent actors and instead sees state actions as shaped by capitalist
imperatives to maximize profits and maintain economic dominance.

2. Capitalism, Imperialism, and Global Exploitation

A significant component of the Marxian approach to IR is the concept of imperialism, which, according to
Marxist theorist Vladimir Lenin, is the “highest stage of capitalism.” Lenin argued that capitalism inevitably
leads to imperialism as capitalists seek new markets, resources, and cheap labor beyond their borders to
maximize profits and prevent economic stagnation. Advanced capitalist nations, driven by the need for
continuous expansion, become imperialist powers, exploiting less-developed countries and drawing them into
the global capitalist system.

This process of imperialism results in the creation of a hierarchical global order where wealthy capitalist
nations dominate poorer, resource-rich nations. The international system becomes one of dependency and
unequal exchange, where the wealth of the core capitalist countries relies on the poverty and exploitation of
the peripheral nations. In this view, powerful countries maintain economic control over developing nations
through trade, investment, and even direct political and military interventions, ensuring that these countries
remain economically dependent and politically subservient.

3. Dependency Theory and World-Systems Analysis

Building on the idea of global exploitation, dependency theory emerged in the mid-20th century as an extension
of Marxian thought, especially influential in Latin America. Dependency theory argues that developing
countries are locked into economic dependency due to historical exploitation by wealthy, industrialized
nations. According to this theory, the global capitalist economy is structured to benefit the “core” nations, which
dominate and exploit the “periphery” (the poorer, developing countries). This dependency is perpetuated
through unequal trade terms, foreign investments that extract rather than build, and debt dependency.

World-systems theory, developed by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, expanded on these ideas by categorizing
countries within a global hierarchy. Wallerstein proposed a “core,” “semi-periphery,” and “periphery” model,
where core countries wield economic and political power over semi-peripheral and peripheral countries,
securing cheap labor and resources while controlling markets for their products. In this framework, the global
system of capitalism is seen as inherently unequal, with countries in the periphery providing raw materials and
labor while core countries reprocess and sell back goods at higher prices. World-systems theory further argues
that as long as capitalism exists, this hierarchy and dependency structure will remain in place.
4. The Role of the State in Marxian IR Theory

In contrast to traditional IR theories that treat the state as a primary, autonomous actor, Marxian IR sees the
state as an entity that largely serves the interests of the capitalist class. In capitalist societies, the state is not a
neutral arbiter but an institution that safeguards capitalist interests, promoting economic policies favorable to
capital accumulation, both domestically and internationally. For instance, policies encouraging foreign
investment, free trade, and military interventions in developing nations can be seen as efforts by states to
support the global expansion of capital.

This state behavior is thus guided not by national interests in a traditional sense but by the class interests of
those who control economic resources. According to Marxian theorists, the state acts as a facilitator of capital,
ensuring that national and international environments are conducive to economic growth and stability, often at
the expense of workers and less-developed nations.

5. Globalization and Transnational Capital

Contemporary Marxian theorists emphasize the effects of globalization, which they argue has intensified the
influence of capitalist structures on international relations. The rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) and
international financial institutions has transformed the global economy, concentrating wealth and power in a
few multinational corporations and weakening the role of individual states. TNCs operate across borders, with
resources and labor from multiple nations, enabling them to exert significant influence on global policies.

These corporations contribute to a “race to the bottom” by seeking the cheapest labor and least restrictive
regulations, often undermining local labor standards and environmental protections. Globalization in this
sense is seen as a means for capital to spread its influence further, consolidating the power of the global
capitalist class while deepening inequalities within and between nations.

Criticisms of the Marxian Approach

While the Marxian approach to IR offers valuable insights into the economic underpinnings of international
relations, it has faced criticisms. Some argue that Marxian theory overly emphasizes economic factors,
neglecting the role of ideology, culture, and other non-economic influences on state behavior. Additionally,
critics contend that it underestimates state autonomy, as not all state actions align strictly with capitalist
interests. Lastly, the deterministic perspective of historical materialism can lead to a view of history that
overlooks human agency and complexity.

Conclusion

The Marxian approach to international relations provides a compelling critique of the global capitalist system,
highlighting the role of economic structures, class struggles, and imperialism in shaping world politics. By
focusing on inequality and exploitation, this approach uncovers the underlying economic forces driving
international relations and emphasizes the systemic nature of global inequalities. Although it has limitations,
the Marxian approach remains relevant, especially in the age of globalization, where transnational capitalism
continues to influence international dynamics and

1. deepen disparities across the world.

​ he Marxian approach to international relations (IR) offers a distinctive perspective, focusing on the economic
T
foundations of society and the role of class struggle, capitalism, and imperialism in shaping the global political
landscape. Rooted in the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this approach contrasts with traditional IR
theories by analyzing international relations not just as interactions among states but as expressions of deeper
socio-economic dynamics, especially those stemming from capitalism. In the Marxian view, states, corporations,
and even international organizations operate within a global capitalist framework that privileges the interests
of the ruling economic class over those of others, often leading to inequality and exploitation on a worldwide
scale.

1. Historical Materialism and Class Dynamics

At the core of the Marxian approach to IR is historical materialism—a theory that suggests the economic
structure of a society (its “base”) shapes its social, political, and ideological institutions (its “superstructure”).
According to this framework, the global political order is a product of the underlying economic forces and class
structures that govern human interactions. Capitalism, as the dominant economic system, drives international
relations by shaping the motivations of states and other actors within the global system.

In a Marxist perspective, history is a record of class struggles—conflicts between those who control economic
resources and those who do not. These conflicts are not contained within national borders; they extend across
the world, creating a global class struggle. In the context of IR, this translates into a view of international
relations that is primarily influenced by the interests of the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie) in expanding
markets, accessing resources, and controlling labor. This class-based analysis challenges the traditional IR view
that states are autonomous, independent actors and instead sees state actions as shaped by capitalist
imperatives to maximize profits and maintain economic dominance.

2. Capitalism, Imperialism, and Global Exploitation

A significant component of the Marxian approach to IR is the concept of imperialism, which, according to
Marxist theorist Vladimir Lenin, is the “highest stage of capitalism.” Lenin argued that capitalism inevitably
leads to imperialism as capitalists seek new markets, resources, and cheap labor beyond their borders to
maximize profits and prevent economic stagnation. Advanced capitalist nations, driven by the need for
continuous expansion, become imperialist powers, exploiting less-developed countries and drawing them into
the global capitalist system.

This process of imperialism results in the creation of a hierarchical global order where wealthy capitalist
nations dominate poorer, resource-rich nations. The international system becomes one of dependency and
unequal exchange, where the wealth of the core capitalist countries relies on the poverty and exploitation of
the peripheral nations. In this view, powerful countries maintain economic control over developing nations
through trade, investment, and even direct political and military interventions, ensuring that these countries
remain economically dependent and politically subservient.

3. Dependency Theory and World-Systems Analysis

Building on the idea of global exploitation, dependency theory emerged in the mid-20th century as an extension
of Marxian thought, especially influential in Latin America. Dependency theory argues that developing
countries are locked into economic dependency due to historical exploitation by wealthy, industrialized
nations. According to this theory, the global capitalist economy is structured to benefit the “core” nations, which
dominate and exploit the “periphery” (the poorer, developing countries). This dependency is perpetuated
through unequal trade terms, foreign investments that extract rather than build, and debt dependency.

World-systems theory, developed by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, expanded on these ideas by categorizing
countries within a global hierarchy. Wallerstein proposed a “core,” “semi-periphery,” and “periphery” model,
where core countries wield economic and political power over semi-peripheral and peripheral countries,
securing cheap labor and resources while controlling markets for their products. In this framework, the global
system of capitalism is seen as inherently unequal, with countries in the periphery providing raw materials and
labor while core countries reprocess and sell back goods at higher prices. World-systems theory further argues
that as long as capitalism exists, this hierarchy and dependency structure will remain in place.
4. The Role of the State in Marxian IR Theory

In contrast to traditional IR theories that treat the state as a primary, autonomous actor, Marxian IR sees the
state as an entity that largely serves the interests of the capitalist class. In capitalist societies, the state is not a
neutral arbiter but an institution that safeguards capitalist interests, promoting economic policies favorable to
capital accumulation, both domestically and internationally. For instance, policies encouraging foreign
investment, free trade, and military interventions in developing nations can be seen as efforts by states to
support the global expansion of capital.

This state behavior is thus guided not by national interests in a traditional sense but by the class interests of
those who control economic resources. According to Marxian theorists, the state acts as a facilitator of capital,
ensuring that national and international environments are conducive to economic growth and stability, often at
the expense of workers and less-developed nations.

5. Globalization and Transnational Capital

Contemporary Marxian theorists emphasize the effects of globalization, which they argue has intensified the
influence of capitalist structures on international relations. The rise of transnational corporations (TNCs) and
international financial institutions has transformed the global economy, concentrating wealth and power in a
few multinational corporations and weakening the role of individual states. TNCs operate across borders, with
resources and labor from multiple nations, enabling them to exert significant influence on global policies.

These corporations contribute to a “race to the bottom” by seeking the cheapest labor and least restrictive
regulations, often undermining local labor standards and environmental protections. Globalization in this
sense is seen as a means for capital to spread its influence further, consolidating the power of the global
capitalist class while deepening inequalities within and between nations.

Criticisms of the Marxian Approach

While the Marxian approach to IR offers valuable insights into the economic underpinnings of international
relations, it has faced criticisms. Some argue that Marxian theory overly emphasizes economic factors,
neglecting the role of ideology, culture, and other non-economic influences on state behavior. Additionally,
critics contend that it underestimates state autonomy, as not all state actions align strictly with capitalist
interests. Lastly, the deterministic perspective of historical materialism can lead to a view of history that
overlooks human agency and complexity.

Conclusion

The Marxian approach to international relations provides a compelling critique of the global capitalist system,
highlighting the role of economic structures, class struggles, and imperialism in shaping world politics. By
focusing on inequality and exploitation, this approach uncovers the underlying economic forces driving
international relations and emphasizes the systemic nature of global inequalities. Although it has limitations,
the Marxian approach remains relevant, especially in the age of globalization, where transnational capitalism
continues to influence international dynamics and

1. deepen disparities across the world.

​ he end of the Cold War, marked symbolically by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the
T
Soviet Union in 1991, was a major turning point in global history. This shift signaled the conclusion of a
decades-long ideological, political, and military standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Scholars and historians attribute the end of the Cold War to a combination of internal weaknesses within the
Soviet Union, economic challenges, shifts in leadership, and ideological transformations. Here’s a closer look at
some of the major factors:

1. Economic Stagnation and Crisis in the Soviet Union

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union faced significant economic difficulties. Its centrally planned
economy, heavily focused on heavy industry and military spending, proved inefficient, and the economy
struggled to meet the consumer needs of its population. Additionally, it lagged behind the West in technological
development and innovation, particularly in high-tech sectors and consumer goods.

Military expenditures, particularly in the arms race with the United States, drained resources that could have
been invested in civilian economic development. The Soviet Union was unable to keep up with the United States
in terms of technological advancements, especially after the U.S. initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),
popularly known as "Star Wars," which aimed to develop missile defense systems. This only heightened the
pressure on the Soviet economy.

2. The Reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev

When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he recognized the urgent need for reform to address the
economic and social issues facing the Soviet Union. He introduced two key policies: Perestroika (restructuring)
and Glasnost (openness).

Perestroika aimed at restructuring the Soviet economy by introducing limited market mechanisms and
reducing central planning. This was intended to revitalize the economy, make industries more efficient, and
encourage innovation.

Glasnost allowed for greater openness and transparency in government and permitted more freedom of
information and expression. By lifting censorship restrictions, Gorbachev hoped to encourage critical debate,
which he saw as essential to reform.

However, these reforms had unintended consequences. Glasnost led to a wave of criticism of the Soviet
government and exposed systemic flaws, weakening the Communist Party's authority. Perestroika, meanwhile,
created economic disruption as managers and workers adjusted to the new system. Together, these reforms
accelerated calls for political change and increased dissatisfaction with the government.

3. Ideological Shifts and Weakening Communist Bloc Support

The Communist ideology that once united the Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe had
weakened considerably by the 1980s. People in the Eastern Bloc grew increasingly dissatisfied with
authoritarian governments and poor economic conditions, contrasting their situations with the relatively
higher living standards in the West.

Gorbachev adopted a less interventionist approach toward Eastern Europe, known as the Sinatra Doctrine
(replacing the Brezhnev Doctrine). This new policy allowed Eastern European countries to pursue their own
paths without fear of Soviet intervention. This change emboldened independence movements, and by 1989,
popular uprisings across Eastern Europe led to the fall of Communist regimes in countries like Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.
4. The Role of Arms Control and Diplomatic Engagement

During the 1980s, both the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in various arms control negotiations that
helped to ease tensions. A notable example is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed in
1987, which eliminated a significant number of nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise
missiles.

These arms control agreements were part of a broader effort by both the Reagan administration and
Gorbachev’s government to manage the risks associated with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev’s willingness to
pursue arms control agreements indicated a significant shift from the rigid, militaristic posture of previous
Soviet leaders, reducing the sense of imminent threat that had defined the Cold War.

5. The Influence of Western Culture and Information

Increased global interconnectivity allowed Western culture, media, and ideas to permeate the Eastern Bloc,
exposing people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to Western lifestyles, economic models, and political
freedoms.

In particular, advancements in communications technologies, such as television and radio broadcasts, allowed
Soviet citizens to access Western media, which contrasted sharply with their own lives. This exposure to
alternative lifestyles, consumerism, and democratic ideals contributed to growing discontent with the Soviet
system and its restrictions on freedom and economic choice.

6. The Afghanistan War and the Soviet Military Overreach

The Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 became a costly and drawn-out conflict, often referred to as
the “Soviet Vietnam.” The war drained Soviet resources, inflicted significant casualties, and failed to achieve its
objectives.

The conflict also damaged the Soviet Union's global reputation, undermining its image as a defender of
socialism and increasing international pressure against it. The Afghanistan war became a symbol of Soviet
overreach, exacerbating economic strains and contributing to a general sense of pessimism within Soviet
society.

7. Decline of Ideological Rivalry and Rise of Diplomacy

The ideological rivalry that had defined the Cold War began to wane in the 1980s as both superpowers
recognized the costs of prolonged competition. Gorbachev’s reforms and willingness to negotiate indicated a
shift away from viewing the West as an enemy.

Through multiple high-profile summits between Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan, the two leaders
managed to build a degree of mutual trust. These meetings helped reduce Cold War tensions, and Gorbachev’s
adoption of a more conciliatory stance toward the West played a significant role in defusing the ideological
conflict that had sustained the Cold War.

8. Popular Movements and Revolutions in Eastern Europe

In 1989, a wave of popular movements swept across Eastern Europe, with citizens demanding greater freedoms
and an end to authoritarian rule. The revolutions were largely peaceful, with mass protests leading to political
reforms and, in some cases, the collapse of Communist governments.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 became a potent symbol of the end of the Cold War and signified
the reunification of East and West Germany. This event accelerated the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and
inspired further resistance to Soviet influence, eventually culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union itself
in 1991.

Conclusion

The end of the Cold War was the result of a complex interplay of factors, including economic stagnation within
the Soviet Union, Gorbachev’s reforms, shifts in ideology, popular movements, and successful diplomacy
between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic and political liberalization in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, combined with declining support for Communist ideology, created conditions that made the
Cold War's continuation unsustainable. By the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had disintegrated, marking the
definitive end of the Cold War and the emer
gence of a new, unipolar global order led by the United States.
​ he end of the Cold War, marked symbolically by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the
T
Soviet Union in 1991, was a major turning point in global history. This shift signaled the conclusion of a
decades-long ideological, political, and military standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Scholars and historians attribute the end of the Cold War to a combination of internal weaknesses within the
Soviet Union, economic challenges, shifts in leadership, and ideological transformations. Here’s a closer look at
some of the major factors:

1. Economic Stagnation and Crisis in the Soviet Union

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union faced significant economic difficulties. Its centrally planned
economy, heavily focused on heavy industry and military spending, proved inefficient, and the economy
struggled to meet the consumer needs of its population. Additionally, it lagged behind the West in technological
development and innovation, particularly in high-tech sectors and consumer goods.

Military expenditures, particularly in the arms race with the United States, drained resources that could have
been invested in civilian economic development. The Soviet Union was unable to keep up with the United States
in terms of technological advancements, especially after the U.S. initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI),
popularly known as "Star Wars," which aimed to develop missile defense systems. This only heightened the
pressure on the Soviet economy.

2. The Reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev

When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he recognized the urgent need for reform to address the
economic and social issues facing the Soviet Union. He introduced two key policies: Perestroika (restructuring)
and Glasnost (openness).

Perestroika aimed at restructuring the Soviet economy by introducing limited market mechanisms and
reducing central planning. This was intended to revitalize the economy, make industries more efficient, and
encourage innovation.

Glasnost allowed for greater openness and transparency in government and permitted more freedom of
information and expression. By lifting censorship restrictions, Gorbachev hoped to encourage critical debate,
which he saw as essential to reform.

However, these reforms had unintended consequences. Glasnost led to a wave of criticism of the Soviet
government and exposed systemic flaws, weakening the Communist Party's authority. Perestroika, meanwhile,
created economic disruption as managers and workers adjusted to the new system. Together, these reforms
accelerated calls for political change and increased dissatisfaction with the government.

3. Ideological Shifts and Weakening Communist Bloc Support

The Communist ideology that once united the Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe had
weakened considerably by the 1980s. People in the Eastern Bloc grew increasingly dissatisfied with
authoritarian governments and poor economic conditions, contrasting their situations with the relatively
higher living standards in the West.

Gorbachev adopted a less interventionist approach toward Eastern Europe, known as the Sinatra Doctrine
(replacing the Brezhnev Doctrine). This new policy allowed Eastern European countries to pursue their own
paths without fear of Soviet intervention. This change emboldened independence movements, and by 1989,
popular uprisings across Eastern Europe led to the fall of Communist regimes in countries like Poland, Hungary,
Czechoslovakia, and East Germany.
4. The Role of Arms Control and Diplomatic Engagement

During the 1980s, both the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in various arms control negotiations that
helped to ease tensions. A notable example is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed in
1987, which eliminated a significant number of nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise
missiles.

These arms control agreements were part of a broader effort by both the Reagan administration and
Gorbachev’s government to manage the risks associated with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev’s willingness to
pursue arms control agreements indicated a significant shift from the rigid, militaristic posture of previous
Soviet leaders, reducing the sense of imminent threat that had defined the Cold War.

5. The Influence of Western Culture and Information

Increased global interconnectivity allowed Western culture, media, and ideas to permeate the Eastern Bloc,
exposing people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to Western lifestyles, economic models, and political
freedoms.

In particular, advancements in communications technologies, such as television and radio broadcasts, allowed
Soviet citizens to access Western media, which contrasted sharply with their own lives. This exposure to
alternative lifestyles, consumerism, and democratic ideals contributed to growing discontent with the Soviet
system and its restrictions on freedom and economic choice.

6. The Afghanistan War and the Soviet Military Overreach

The Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 became a costly and drawn-out conflict, often referred to as
the “Soviet Vietnam.” The war drained Soviet resources, inflicted significant casualties, and failed to achieve its
objectives.

The conflict also damaged the Soviet Union's global reputation, undermining its image as a defender of
socialism and increasing international pressure against it. The Afghanistan war became a symbol of Soviet
overreach, exacerbating economic strains and contributing to a general sense of pessimism within Soviet
society.

7. Decline of Ideological Rivalry and Rise of Diplomacy

The ideological rivalry that had defined the Cold War began to wane in the 1980s as both superpowers
recognized the costs of prolonged competition. Gorbachev’s reforms and willingness to negotiate indicated a
shift away from viewing the West as an enemy.

Through multiple high-profile summits between Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan, the two leaders
managed to build a degree of mutual trust. These meetings helped reduce Cold War tensions, and Gorbachev’s
adoption of a more conciliatory stance toward the West played a significant role in defusing the ideological
conflict that had sustained the Cold War.

8. Popular Movements and Revolutions in Eastern Europe

In 1989, a wave of popular movements swept across Eastern Europe, with citizens demanding greater freedoms
and an end to authoritarian rule. The revolutions were largely peaceful, with mass protests leading to political
reforms and, in some cases, the collapse of Communist governments.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 became a potent symbol of the end of the Cold War and signified
the reunification of East and West Germany. This event accelerated the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and
inspired further resistance to Soviet influence, eventually culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union itself
in 1991.

Conclusion

The end of the Cold War was the result of a complex interplay of factors, including economic stagnation within
the Soviet Union, Gorbachev’s reforms, shifts in ideology, popular movements, and successful diplomacy
between the United States and the Soviet Union. Economic and political liberalization in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe, combined with declining support for Communist ideology, created conditions that made the
Cold War's continuation unsustainable. By the early 1990s, the Soviet Union had disintegrated, marking the
definitive end of the Cold War and the emer
gence of a new, unipolar global order led by the United States.
​ he disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a historic event that marked the end of the Cold War and the
T
collapse of a superpower. The causes of this breakup are multifaceted, encompassing economic challenges,
political struggles, social transformations, and ideological shifts. Below is an analysis of the major factors that
led to the disintegration of the USSR:

1. Economic Stagnation and Crisis

The Soviet Union faced persistent economic stagnation from the 1970s onwards. The centralized, command
economy struggled with inefficiency, low productivity, and an inability to innovate. Industries focused heavily
on military and heavy industry, leaving little room for consumer goods and technological development, which
negatively impacted the quality of life.

Additionally, the Soviet Union could not keep up with the technological and industrial advancements of the
West. While Western economies were rapidly modernizing, the Soviet economy was stuck in outdated
production methods. This created an economic gap that hindered its competitiveness on the global stage.

A large portion of the USSR’s budget was devoted to defense expenditures, especially during the arms race with
the United States, putting a massive strain on the economy. Resources that could have been used for social
services, infrastructure, or technological advancement were funneled into maintaining military parity, which
further aggravated economic difficulties.

2. The Burden of the Arms Race and the Afghan War

The Cold War arms race with the United States imposed significant economic costs on the Soviet Union. The
USSR tried to match the U.S. in military spending, but with a much smaller and stagnant economy, this proved
to be unsustainable.

The decision to invade Afghanistan in 1979 further drained the Soviet economy. The war, which was meant to
assert Soviet influence, turned into a prolonged conflict that resulted in heavy casualties and financial strain
without achieving strategic objectives. The Soviet Union’s “Vietnam,” as it was often called, demoralized the
Soviet people, highlighted the weaknesses of the Soviet military, and exposed the government to criticism both
domestically and internationally.

3. Mikhail Gorbachev's Reforms: Perestroika and Glasnost

Mikhail Gorbachev, who became General Secretary in 1985, introduced two major reforms: Perestroika
(economic restructuring) and Glasnost (political openness).

Perestroika aimed to revitalize the Soviet economy by introducing market mechanisms and reducing
centralized control. However, the transition from a command economy to a more market-oriented system
created severe disruptions. Production slowed, shortages increased, and inflation rose, worsening economic
conditions for ordinary citizens.

Glasnost was intended to make Soviet society more open and transparent, allowing people to voice criticisms of
the government. This freedom of expression led to a wave of criticism and exposed the failures of the Soviet
system. Under Glasnost, previously suppressed ethnic and nationalist tensions came to the surface, weakening
the unity of the Soviet Union. The media and public opinion turned increasingly against the government and
the Communist Party, which had long controlled information and public discourse.

4. Nationalist Movements and Ethnic Tensions

The USSR was a union of multiple republics with diverse ethnic groups, and during the period of Glasnost,
suppressed nationalist sentiments resurfaced. As people were allowed to discuss issues more openly, nationalist
movements grew in strength, particularly in the Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), as well as in
Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia.

Many of these republics sought independence, seeing the USSR as a system that primarily served Russian
interests while stifling their cultural identity and autonomy. Ethnic and national pride, which had been
repressed for decades, fueled desires for self-determination and ultimately led to declarations of independence
from the USSR.

5. Decline of Communist Ideology and Loss of Party Control

By the 1980s, belief in the Communist ideology had significantly weakened, both among Soviet citizens and
party officials. Many people no longer viewed the Communist Party as capable of delivering prosperity or
improving their lives.

Corruption within the Communist Party further eroded public trust. Glasnost exposed a bureaucratic system
plagued by incompetence, inefficiency, and privilege, alienating the Communist Party from the people it
claimed to represent.

The weakening of the Communist Party's authority allowed opposition movements to gain momentum.
Gorbachev’s political reforms included creating a presidency and allowing for competitive elections, which
effectively reduced the party’s monopoly on power and encouraged alternative political voices.

6. Failure of the 1991 August Coup

In August 1991, hardline members of the Communist Party, who were dissatisfied with Gorbachev’s reforms,
attempted a coup to take control of the government and restore the old order. The coup failed, however, as key
military leaders refused to support it and thousands of citizens, especially in Moscow, protested in defense of
the reforms.

The failure of the coup attempt marked a turning point, severely weakening the Communist Party’s control and
accelerating demands for independence among the republics. Boris Yeltsin, the President of the Russian
Federation, emerged as a hero for his role in resisting the coup, further undermining Gorbachev’s authority and
bolstering Yeltsin’s leadership.

7. The Rise of Boris Yeltsin and the Push for Russian Sovereignty

Boris Yeltsin’s rise in Russian politics posed a direct challenge to Gorbachev and the central Soviet government.
As President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Yeltsin championed Russian sovereignty and
independence from the Soviet Union.

Yeltsin introduced economic and political reforms that furthered the cause of Russian independence. He
advocated for market-based economic reforms and democratic principles that contrasted with the centralized,
socialist model of the Soviet Union. His support for Russian sovereignty inspired similar movements in other
republics, accelerating the fragmentation of the USSR.

8. Economic Disparities and Regional Inequality

Economic inequality among the Soviet republics was another source of division. Certain republics, such as the
Baltic states, enjoyed relatively higher standards of living, while others, like the Central Asian republics, were
poorer and less developed. These economic disparities created resentment among wealthier republics, which
felt they were subsidizing the poorer ones.

The economic burdens imposed by the centralized Soviet system motivated some republics to seek
independence, hoping that separation from the Soviet Union would allow them to pursue more prosperous,
market-based economic policies.

9. Global Influence and the Attraction of the West

The Soviet Union’s loss of global influence was also a contributing factor to its dissolution. In the face of
globalization and increased contact with Western countries, many Soviet citizens became aware of higher
standards of living and greater freedoms enjoyed by those in the West.

The influence of Western culture, media, and ideology had a profound impact on the youth and intelligentsia in
the Soviet Union, who increasingly questioned the legitimacy of the Soviet system. This growing attraction to
Western ideals of democracy and capitalism undermined loyalty to the Communist ideology and the USSR.

Conclusion

The disintegration of the Soviet Union was the result of a complex set of factors, including economic weakness,
Gorbachev’s reforms, rising nationalism, political power struggles, and global influences. Together, these
factors eroded the authority of the Communist Party, weakened the unity of the Soviet republics, and sparked
widespread calls for independence. By the end of 1991, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, and its former
republics embarked on paths toward independence,
marking the end of an era and reshaping the global political landscape.
​ he disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a historic event that marked the end of the Cold War and the
T
collapse of a superpower. The causes of this breakup are multifaceted, encompassing economic challenges,
political struggles, social transformations, and ideological shifts. Below is an analysis of the major factors that
led to the disintegration of the USSR:

1. Economic Stagnation and Crisis

The Soviet Union faced persistent economic stagnation from the 1970s onwards. The centralized, command
economy struggled with inefficiency, low productivity, and an inability to innovate. Industries focused heavily
on military and heavy industry, leaving little room for consumer goods and technological development, which
negatively impacted the quality of life.

Additionally, the Soviet Union could not keep up with the technological and industrial advancements of the
West. While Western economies were rapidly modernizing, the Soviet economy was stuck in outdated
production methods. This created an economic gap that hindered its competitiveness on the global stage.

A large portion of the USSR’s budget was devoted to defense expenditures, especially during the arms race with
the United States, putting a massive strain on the economy. Resources that could have been used for social
services, infrastructure, or technological advancement were funneled into maintaining military parity, which
further aggravated economic difficulties.

2. The Burden of the Arms Race and the Afghan War

The Cold War arms race with the United States imposed significant economic costs on the Soviet Union. The
USSR tried to match the U.S. in military spending, but with a much smaller and stagnant economy, this proved
to be unsustainable.

The decision to invade Afghanistan in 1979 further drained the Soviet economy. The war, which was meant to
assert Soviet influence, turned into a prolonged conflict that resulted in heavy casualties and financial strain
without achieving strategic objectives. The Soviet Union’s “Vietnam,” as it was often called, demoralized the
Soviet people, highlighted the weaknesses of the Soviet military, and exposed the government to criticism both
domestically and internationally.

3. Mikhail Gorbachev's Reforms: Perestroika and Glasnost

Mikhail Gorbachev, who became General Secretary in 1985, introduced two major reforms: Perestroika
(economic restructuring) and Glasnost (political openness).

Perestroika aimed to revitalize the Soviet economy by introducing market mechanisms and reducing
centralized control. However, the transition from a command economy to a more market-oriented system
created severe disruptions. Production slowed, shortages increased, and inflation rose, worsening economic
conditions for ordinary citizens.

Glasnost was intended to make Soviet society more open and transparent, allowing people to voice criticisms of
the government. This freedom of expression led to a wave of criticism and exposed the failures of the Soviet
system. Under Glasnost, previously suppressed ethnic and nationalist tensions came to the surface, weakening
the unity of the Soviet Union. The media and public opinion turned increasingly against the government and
the Communist Party, which had long controlled information and public discourse.

4. Nationalist Movements and Ethnic Tensions

The USSR was a union of multiple republics with diverse ethnic groups, and during the period of Glasnost,
suppressed nationalist sentiments resurfaced. As people were allowed to discuss issues more openly, nationalist
movements grew in strength, particularly in the Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), as well as in
Georgia, Ukraine, and Armenia.

Many of these republics sought independence, seeing the USSR as a system that primarily served Russian
interests while stifling their cultural identity and autonomy. Ethnic and national pride, which had been
repressed for decades, fueled desires for self-determination and ultimately led to declarations of independence
from the USSR.

5. Decline of Communist Ideology and Loss of Party Control

By the 1980s, belief in the Communist ideology had significantly weakened, both among Soviet citizens and
party officials. Many people no longer viewed the Communist Party as capable of delivering prosperity or
improving their lives.

Corruption within the Communist Party further eroded public trust. Glasnost exposed a bureaucratic system
plagued by incompetence, inefficiency, and privilege, alienating the Communist Party from the people it
claimed to represent.

The weakening of the Communist Party's authority allowed opposition movements to gain momentum.
Gorbachev’s political reforms included creating a presidency and allowing for competitive elections, which
effectively reduced the party’s monopoly on power and encouraged alternative political voices.

6. Failure of the 1991 August Coup

In August 1991, hardline members of the Communist Party, who were dissatisfied with Gorbachev’s reforms,
attempted a coup to take control of the government and restore the old order. The coup failed, however, as key
military leaders refused to support it and thousands of citizens, especially in Moscow, protested in defense of
the reforms.

The failure of the coup attempt marked a turning point, severely weakening the Communist Party’s control and
accelerating demands for independence among the republics. Boris Yeltsin, the President of the Russian
Federation, emerged as a hero for his role in resisting the coup, further undermining Gorbachev’s authority and
bolstering Yeltsin’s leadership.

7. The Rise of Boris Yeltsin and the Push for Russian Sovereignty

Boris Yeltsin’s rise in Russian politics posed a direct challenge to Gorbachev and the central Soviet government.
As President of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Yeltsin championed Russian sovereignty and
independence from the Soviet Union.

Yeltsin introduced economic and political reforms that furthered the cause of Russian independence. He
advocated for market-based economic reforms and democratic principles that contrasted with the centralized,
socialist model of the Soviet Union. His support for Russian sovereignty inspired similar movements in other
republics, accelerating the fragmentation of the USSR.

8. Economic Disparities and Regional Inequality

Economic inequality among the Soviet republics was another source of division. Certain republics, such as the
Baltic states, enjoyed relatively higher standards of living, while others, like the Central Asian republics, were
poorer and less developed. These economic disparities created resentment among wealthier republics, which
felt they were subsidizing the poorer ones.

The economic burdens imposed by the centralized Soviet system motivated some republics to seek
independence, hoping that separation from the Soviet Union would allow them to pursue more prosperous,
market-based economic policies.

9. Global Influence and the Attraction of the West

The Soviet Union’s loss of global influence was also a contributing factor to its dissolution. In the face of
globalization and increased contact with Western countries, many Soviet citizens became aware of higher
standards of living and greater freedoms enjoyed by those in the West.

The influence of Western culture, media, and ideology had a profound impact on the youth and intelligentsia in
the Soviet Union, who increasingly questioned the legitimacy of the Soviet system. This growing attraction to
Western ideals of democracy and capitalism undermined loyalty to the Communist ideology and the USSR.

Conclusion

The disintegration of the Soviet Union was the result of a complex set of factors, including economic weakness,
Gorbachev’s reforms, rising nationalism, political power struggles, and global influences. Together, these
factors eroded the authority of the Communist Party, weakened the unity of the Soviet republics, and sparked
widespread calls for independence. By the end of 1991, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, and its former
republics embarked on paths toward independence,
marking the end of an era and reshaping the global political landscape.
Fascism: Politics of 20th Century Europe
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism marked by forcible suppression of
opposition, dictatorial power, and strong regimentation of society and economy. The movement
came to prominence following the end of Wolrd War I in the early 20th century, where it first took
root in Italy before spreading to other European nations

The details about Fascism gathered from this article will be useful in the world history segment
of the UPSC Mains exam.

Definition of Fascism
The Italian term ​fascismo​ is derived from​ fascio​ meaning "a bundle of sticks", ultimately from the
Latin word ​fasces​.

Political scientists and historians have debated for long about the exact nature of fascism, with
each definition having unique elements and many other definitions being criticised for either
being too broad or too narrow

According to many scholars, fascism and its adherents have always attacked communism,
conservatism and liberalism, drawing support mainly from the far-right to be in power

The common definition of fascism is that of historian Stanley G Payne, which is widely accepted
by contemporary scholars as reliable. His definition breaks down fascism in three concepts

One common definition of the term, frequently cited by reliable sources as a standard definition,
is that of historian Stanley G. Payne. He focuses on three concepts:

1. Fascism is anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism

2. The goals of fascism are the creation of a nationalistic dictatorship that will regulate
economy and structure social relations within a modern, self-determined culture to
transform a nation into an empire
3. Fascism gathers support through romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view
of violence and promotion of authoritarian leadership.

What are the tenets of Fascism?

The tenets of Fascism are as follows:

1. ​Nationalism (with or without expansionism): ​Nationalism is a key foundation of fascism.

The fascist view of a nation is that of a single organic entity that binds people together by their
ancestry and is a natural unifying force of people. The ideology seeks to resolve economic,
social and political problems by achieving a millenarian national rebirth exalting the nation
above all else and promoting traits of unity, strength and purity

2. Totalitarianism: ​Absolute control by the state is the hallmark of fascism. It opposes liberal
democracy and rejects multi-party systems in favour of one-party systems that will, in its view,
benefit the nation. In order achieve this a fascist state pursues policies of social indoctrination
through propaganda in education and the media and regulation of the production of educational
and media materials. Such steps are undertaken to purge ideas that are not in line with the
views of the state

3. Economy​: Fascism presented itself as an alternative to both socialism and free-market

capitalism. Fascism advocated economic control with self-sufficiency as a major goal. It
advocated a resolution of domestic class conflict within a nation to secure national solidarity

Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and
public ownership over the means of production. Economic planning was applied to both the
public and private sector and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of
synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. Fascist economic ideology supported
the profit motive but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to
private profit.

4. Action: ​Fascism emphasizes direct action which supports political violence and believes in its
legitimacy as a core part of its politics. The basis of fascisms support of violent action is
connected towards social Darwinism, which believes that a perceived superior race has all the
right to dominate races that are thought to be weaker.

A brief history of Fascism

The period following World War I in 1919 was marked by weak governments and economic
hardship. Events such as the Russian Revolution and the Great Depression had further made
economic prosperity a distant dream in post-war Europe. This was more evident in Italy and
Germany. The Weimar Republic of Germany had inherited a country reeling from defeat and the
harsh sanctions imposed on it by the Versailles treaty. The economic hardship in 1929 further
aggravated matters as inflation rendered the German currency virtually useless.

This stopped the German government from paying war reparations under the Versailles treaty.
France in a bid to force the Germans to repay the debt owed briefly occupied the Ruhr valley.
Events such as these were fertile grounds for Hitler and his Nazi party (the German variant of
Fascism) to offer an alternative. Hitler promised to do away with the ‘injustices of the Versailles
treaty’ and usher in a new era of prosperity. Benito Mussolini of Italy also rose to power in
similar conditions.

The Fascist movements in both countries met their end after the defeat of Germany and Italy in
1945 during World War II. But the ideology was alive in Spain under General Franco and under
General Pinochet of Chile who ruled the country until the 1970s.
Today fascism exists as fringe movements in contrast to its past mobilisations. Even though
such movements have yet to make any mark in national elections, they are gaining momentum
due to ongoing issues of war, immigration and other crises that have effected their nations as of
late.
Feminist Approach to International Relations
For Prelims: World War 2, Cold War

For Mains: Feminist Approaches to International Relations.

Why in News?

After World War 2, the changing global order witnessed the rise of non-state actors, ethnic
tensions, and the Cold War. This necessitated alternative approaches to International Relations (IR),
including the Feminist Perspective that views the international arena through a gendered lens.

What is the Origin of Feminist Perspective of International Relations?

Positivists and Post-Positivists:

The feminist perspective in IR emerged from the "Third Debate" between positivists and
post-positivist scholars in the 1980s.
Positivists believed that IR is a value-neutral field with definitions and
structures such as anarchy and nation state are fixed.
Post-positivists challenged this view and called for critical analysis, pluralism,
and diversity in IR (which till then was dominated by realist and liberal
perspectives).

Note:

Realists believe the international arena is in a state of anarchy (there is no overarching

sovereign power to govern nation states and tell them what to do).
Therefore, states are constantly involved in ‘power politics’, trying to safeguard their own
interests and security.
Liberal scholars on the other hand prioritize cooperation. While they agree on the premise of the
global order being anarchic, they contend that instead of power, nation states actively seek
alliances in order to safeguard their interests.

Feminists:
Feminist challenged the masculine assumption of human nature inherent in these
perspectives, arguing that it neglected social reproduction and development as integral
aspects of human nature.
They view the global order as a socially constructed hierarchy that perpetuated
gender subordination.
Feminist criticize the marginalization of women's experiences in war, conflict, and
diplomacy. They argued that women's voices, knowledge, perspectives, and experiences
were often overlooked or subsumed under a male-centric "universal" experience.

How has Women’s Participation in Discussing War and Conflicts been?

 In international conflict, women are often portrayed as vulnerable and in need of protection, but
this perspective has marginalized them from participating in discussions and processes of
war.
There is a masculinisation of the sphere of war and conflict, where women are made completely
invisible in spite of their active role during war and conflicts such as taking care of wounded
persons and becoming prostitutes to support their war torn families.
Even within the discourse of protection, the exclusive targeting of women through rape and
sexual violence is seen as an effect of war and not as a key military strategy used by
nations for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

How do Different Feminist theories contribute to the Understanding of Existing

Challenges in IR?

Liberal Feminist:
While liberal feminist theory does not fundamentally challenge the traditional ideas of IR, it
questions the content. Liberal feminists look on the role of the gender gap in global
politics and the disproportionate effect of war on women in the form of sexual
violence and trafficking.
They call for more female participation in high-level politics and contend that the
presence of more women leaders would facilitate peaceful and humanitarian policies.
Constructivist Feminist:
Constructivist feminist theory looks at how gendered identities play a role in global
politics. It looks at gender as the core component which influences structures and
personal relationships.
It places emphasis on the idea of gender and how it upholds unequal global
material conditions.
While liberal feminism focuses on achieving formal equality and individual rights for women
within existing structures, constructivist feminism examines how gender is socially
constructed and seeks to transform societal norms and power relations for true
equality.
Feminist Post Structuralist:
A feminist post structuralist approach talks about binary linguistic oppositions in IR like
order/anarchy, developed/underdeveloped, national/international etc, which perpetuate
and seek to empower the masculine over the feminine.
They are highly critical of the assertion that more women in high-level diplomatic positions
would lead to pacifist policies as it seeks to further essentialise and reinforce
certain characteristics as feminine.
Postcolonial Feminist:
It seeks to challenge the assumption of universality of women’s experience across
regions and cultures.
It is especially critical of liberal feminists’ approach of looking at women in the Global
South as powerless, lacking agency and helpless or as one homogenous category.

How is the Feminist Approach to IR Relevant in Present Times?

Gender Inequality:
The feminist approach highlights the need to address gender disparities and
challenges traditional power structures that perpetuate inequality.
It sheds light on how gender shapes global politics, including issues related to security,
development, and human rights.
Peace and Security:
Feminist scholars and activists have challenged traditional notions of security and
broadened the concept to include human security, which encompasses the well-
being and rights of individuals and communities.
They have highlighted the disproportionate impact of conflicts on women, advocated for
women's inclusion in peace processes, and emphasized the importance of addressing
gender-based violence as a security issue.
Global Governance:
 The feminist approach to IR challenges the male-centric nature of global governance
and institutions.
It calls for greater gender equality in decision-making bodies and promotes the
inclusion of women's perspectives and voices in shaping global policies and agendas.
It also pushes for the recognition of care work and the redistribution of resources and
power in more equitable ways.
Transnational Feminism:
The feminist approach to IR recognizes the importance of transnational feminist networks
and movements. It acknowledges the interconnectedness of women's struggles
globally and the need for collective action to address common challenges.
It highlights the significance of cross-border solidarity and cooperation in promoting
gender equality and social justice.

Conclusion

While feminist IR theories have gained traction, they still remain marginal within the discipline.
With environmental policies and non-state actors playing an even bigger role in the global
arena, feminist theories have much potential in analysing and offering real world solutions.

Source: TH

PDF Refernece URL: https://www.drishtiias.com/printpdf/feminist-approach-to-international-relations

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

​The Neo-realist Approach to International Relations

Neo-realism, also known as structural realism, is a major theoretical perspective in the study of international
relations that emerged in the late 20th century, primarily through the work of Kenneth Waltz. Building upon
the foundations of classical realism, which emphasizes human nature and state behavior as key drivers of
international politics, Neo-realism shifts the focus to the structure of the international system itself. This
approach has shaped our understanding of global politics, power dynamics, and state interactions.

The Core Principles of Neo-realism

1. Anarchy in the International System

At the heart of Neo-realism is the idea that the international system is anarchic. Unlike a domestic political
system where a central authority enforces rules and order, the international system lacks such a governing
body. In this anarchic environment, states operate in a self-help system where their primary concern is
survival. The absence of a higher authority compels states to act in their own self-interest, often leading to
competition and conflict.

2. Material Power and State Behavior

Neo-realism posits that the distribution of material power—primarily military and economic capabilities—
determines state behavior. States are viewed as rational actors that pursue power to ensure their security. This
perspective contrasts with classical realism, which often emphasizes psychological and historical factors in
shaping state behavior. In Neo-realism, states are driven by the imperative to maintain sovereignty and fend off
threats, leading them to engage in power maximization strategies.

3. Types of Neo-realism
Within Neo-realism, scholars have developed distinct strands of thought. The two most notable are defensive
and offensive Neo-realism:

Defensive Neo-realism, championed by Kenneth Waltz, argues that states seek sufficient power to ensure their
survival but do not pursue excessive power. This approach suggests that states are more concerned with
maintaining the status quo and balancing against threats rather than seeking to dominate others. States will
often form alliances and coalitions to counter potential aggressors, reflecting a cautious approach to
international relations.

Offensive Neo-realism, articulated by John Mearsheimer, posits that states are inherently power-seeking and
will pursue hegemony when the opportunity arises. According to this view, states are motivated by the desire to
achieve regional or global dominance, believing that accumulating power is essential to secure their own safety.
This perspective emphasizes the competitive nature of international politics and the tendency of states to
engage in aggressive behaviors when they perceive a favorable balance of power.

4. The Balance of Power

A central tenet of Neo-realism is the concept of the balance of power. States operate under the assumption that
no single state should become too powerful, as this can lead to instability and conflict. To maintain this balance,
states will engage in various strategies, including forming alliances, building military capabilities, or engaging
in diplomatic negotiations. The balance of power acts as a stabilizing force in the international system,
preventing any one state from dominating others and thereby reducing the likelihood of war.

5. State-Centric Analysis
Neo-realism places states at the forefront of international relations, viewing them as the primary actors. This
state-centric approach downplays the role of non-state actors, such as international organizations, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations, in shaping global politics. Neo-realists
argue that domestic political considerations have limited impact on a state's international behavior; instead, it
is the structure of the international system that largely determines how states act.

6. Predictive Power and Scientific Approach

One of the distinguishing features of Neo-realism is its emphasis on predictive power. By analyzing the
distribution of power and the anarchic nature of the international system, Neo-realists aim to generate
systematic insights into state behavior and international outcomes. This scientific approach seeks to establish
generalizable theories that can explain why states behave the way they do, moving beyond mere historical
accounts of specific events.

Critiques of Neo-realism

Despite its contributions to the field of international relations, Neo-realism has faced several critiques.

1. Overemphasis on Power and Anarchy

Critics argue that Neo-realism places too much emphasis on power politics and the anarchic structure of the
international system. They contend that this focus can lead to a deterministic view of international relations,
where cooperation and diplomatic engagement are overlooked. In reality, states often engage in collaborative
efforts through international institutions, treaties, and alliances, demonstrating that cooperation is also a
crucial aspect of international politics.

2. Neglect of Domestic Factors

Another significant critique is that Neo-realism largely neglects domestic political factors that can influence
state behavior. Political leaders, public opinion, economic conditions, and societal values can all shape a state's
foreign policy decisions. Critics argue that understanding these internal dynamics is essential for a
comprehensive analysis of international relations.

3. Limited Role of Non-State Actors

The state-centric focus of Neo-realism has also drawn criticism for overlooking the growing influence of non-
state actors in international relations. In an increasingly interconnected world, entities such as multinational
corporations, NGOs, and international organizations play crucial roles in shaping global policy, humanitarian
efforts, and economic interactions. Ignoring these actors limits the explanatory power of Neo-realism in
contemporary international relations.

4. Evolution of International Norms

Lastly, Neo-realism has been critiqued for not adequately addressing the role of norms and ideas in shaping
international behavior. Constructivist scholars argue that state actions are influenced by social constructs,
identity, and normative frameworks, which can transcend the purely materialist focus of Neo-realism. These
perspectives highlight the importance of understanding how values and beliefs shape international relations.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Neo-realism offers a compelling framework for understanding international relations through its
emphasis on the anarchic structure of the international system, the distribution of material power, and state
behavior. By focusing on these structural factors, Neo-realism provides valuable insights into the dynamics of
power politics and the challenges states face in ensuring their survival. However, its limitations, particularly in
addressing the role of non-state actors, domestic politics, and international norms, suggest the need for a more
nuanced understanding of global interactions. As the international landscape continues to evolve, the interplay
between Neo-realism and alternative theories will remain a crucia
l area of inquiry in the study of international relations.
​The Neo-realist Approach to International Relations

Neo-realism, also known as structural realism, is a major theoretical perspective in the study of international
relations that emerged in the late 20th century, primarily through the work of Kenneth Waltz. Building upon
the foundations of classical realism, which emphasizes human nature and state behavior as key drivers of
international politics, Neo-realism shifts the focus to the structure of the international system itself. This
approach has shaped our understanding of global politics, power dynamics, and state interactions.

The Core Principles of Neo-realism

1. Anarchy in the International System

At the heart of Neo-realism is the idea that the international system is anarchic. Unlike a domestic political
system where a central authority enforces rules and order, the international system lacks such a governing
body. In this anarchic environment, states operate in a self-help system where their primary concern is
survival. The absence of a higher authority compels states to act in their own self-interest, often leading to
competition and conflict.

2. Material Power and State Behavior

Neo-realism posits that the distribution of material power—primarily military and economic capabilities—
determines state behavior. States are viewed as rational actors that pursue power to ensure their security. This
perspective contrasts with classical realism, which often emphasizes psychological and historical factors in
shaping state behavior. In Neo-realism, states are driven by the imperative to maintain sovereignty and fend off
threats, leading them to engage in power maximization strategies.

3. Types of Neo-realism
Within Neo-realism, scholars have developed distinct strands of thought. The two most notable are defensive
and offensive Neo-realism:

Defensive Neo-realism, championed by Kenneth Waltz, argues that states seek sufficient power to ensure their
survival but do not pursue excessive power. This approach suggests that states are more concerned with
maintaining the status quo and balancing against threats rather than seeking to dominate others. States will
often form alliances and coalitions to counter potential aggressors, reflecting a cautious approach to
international relations.

Offensive Neo-realism, articulated by John Mearsheimer, posits that states are inherently power-seeking and
will pursue hegemony when the opportunity arises. According to this view, states are motivated by the desire to
achieve regional or global dominance, believing that accumulating power is essential to secure their own safety.
This perspective emphasizes the competitive nature of international politics and the tendency of states to
engage in aggressive behaviors when they perceive a favorable balance of power.

4. The Balance of Power

A central tenet of Neo-realism is the concept of the balance of power. States operate under the assumption that
no single state should become too powerful, as this can lead to instability and conflict. To maintain this balance,
states will engage in various strategies, including forming alliances, building military capabilities, or engaging
in diplomatic negotiations. The balance of power acts as a stabilizing force in the international system,
preventing any one state from dominating others and thereby reducing the likelihood of war.

5. State-Centric Analysis
Neo-realism places states at the forefront of international relations, viewing them as the primary actors. This
state-centric approach downplays the role of non-state actors, such as international organizations, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations, in shaping global politics. Neo-realists
argue that domestic political considerations have limited impact on a state's international behavior; instead, it
is the structure of the international system that largely determines how states act.

6. Predictive Power and Scientific Approach

One of the distinguishing features of Neo-realism is its emphasis on predictive power. By analyzing the
distribution of power and the anarchic nature of the international system, Neo-realists aim to generate
systematic insights into state behavior and international outcomes. This scientific approach seeks to establish
generalizable theories that can explain why states behave the way they do, moving beyond mere historical
accounts of specific events.

Critiques of Neo-realism

Despite its contributions to the field of international relations, Neo-realism has faced several critiques.

1. Overemphasis on Power and Anarchy

Critics argue that Neo-realism places too much emphasis on power politics and the anarchic structure of the
international system. They contend that this focus can lead to a deterministic view of international relations,
where cooperation and diplomatic engagement are overlooked. In reality, states often engage in collaborative
efforts through international institutions, treaties, and alliances, demonstrating that cooperation is also a
crucial aspect of international politics.

2. Neglect of Domestic Factors

Another significant critique is that Neo-realism largely neglects domestic political factors that can influence
state behavior. Political leaders, public opinion, economic conditions, and societal values can all shape a state's
foreign policy decisions. Critics argue that understanding these internal dynamics is essential for a
comprehensive analysis of international relations.

3. Limited Role of Non-State Actors

The state-centric focus of Neo-realism has also drawn criticism for overlooking the growing influence of non-
state actors in international relations. In an increasingly interconnected world, entities such as multinational
corporations, NGOs, and international organizations play crucial roles in shaping global policy, humanitarian
efforts, and economic interactions. Ignoring these actors limits the explanatory power of Neo-realism in
contemporary international relations.

4. Evolution of International Norms

Lastly, Neo-realism has been critiqued for not adequately addressing the role of norms and ideas in shaping
international behavior. Constructivist scholars argue that state actions are influenced by social constructs,
identity, and normative frameworks, which can transcend the purely materialist focus of Neo-realism. These
perspectives highlight the importance of understanding how values and beliefs shape international relations.

Conclusion
In conclusion, Neo-realism offers a compelling framework for understanding international relations through its
emphasis on the anarchic structure of the international system, the distribution of material power, and state
behavior. By focusing on these structural factors, Neo-realism provides valuable insights into the dynamics of
power politics and the challenges states face in ensuring their survival. However, its limitations, particularly in
addressing the role of non-state actors, domestic politics, and international norms, suggest the need for a more
nuanced understanding of global interactions. As the international landscape continues to evolve, the interplay
between Neo-realism and alternative theories will remain a crucia
l area of inquiry in the study of international relations.
​ he Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, also known as the October Revolution, was a pivotal event that reshaped not
T
only Russia but also the global political landscape. Led by the Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Vladimir
Lenin, this revolution marked the transition from a provisional government to a socialist state, fundamentally
altering the course of Russian history and influencing communist movements worldwide. Here is an analysis of
the significance of the Bolshevik Revolution in various contexts:

1. Political Significance

a. Establishment of Soviet Power

The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the establishment of the world's first communist government. This was a
radical departure from the autocratic rule of the Tsars and the subsequent provisional government that had
failed to address the pressing issues of war, land, and social inequality. The Bolsheviks implemented a system of
governance based on Marxist-Leninist principles, emphasizing workers’ control, collective ownership, and the
dictatorship of the proletariat.

b. End of Imperial Rule

The revolution effectively ended centuries of imperial rule in Russia. It dismantled the existing class structures
and redistributed land to peasants, addressing long-standing grievances that had fueled discontent among the
populace. By overthrowing the provisional government, the Bolsheviks sought to create a society free from
oppression, albeit through authoritarian means.

2. Social Significance

a. Redistribution of Land and Resources

One of the key outcomes of the Bolshevik Revolution was the redistribution of land from the aristocracy to the
peasantry. This land reform was a crucial element in gaining popular support among the rural population, who
had long suffered from feudal exploitation. Additionally, the revolution sought to nationalize industry and
redistribute wealth, aiming to reduce inequality and improve living conditions for the working class.

b. Social Change and Gender Equality

The Bolshevik regime promoted social reforms, including women's rights. The revolution led to significant
changes in gender roles, granting women the right to vote and access to education and employment. The
government implemented policies aimed at promoting gender equality, which was revolutionary for the time
and set the stage for future advances in women's rights within Soviet society.

3. Economic Significance

a. Command Economy

The Bolshevik Revolution initiated the transition to a command economy, characterized by state control over
production and distribution. The new regime sought to manage the economy through central planning, aiming
to eliminate the chaos and inequality produced by capitalism. This shift had profound implications for
economic development and state involvement in the economy, influencing future socialist states.

b. Economic Isolation and Challenges

In the aftermath of the revolution, the Bolsheviks faced significant economic challenges, exacerbated by civil
war, foreign intervention, and the legacy of World War I. The introduction of War Communism during the
Russian Civil War aimed to meet wartime needs but led to economic hardships, including famine and a
breakdown of the economy. These challenges eventually necessitated a shift in policy, leading to the New
Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which allowed for some degree of market-oriented reforms.

4. International Significance

a. Spread of Communist Ideology

The Bolshevik Revolution had a profound impact on the global spread of communist ideology. It inspired
communist movements and revolutions worldwide, particularly in Europe and Asia. The success of the
Bolsheviks encouraged other socialist and communist groups to pursue similar revolutionary paths, leading to
the establishment of communist parties in various countries.

b. Cold War Dynamics

The Bolshevik Revolution set the stage for the ideological confrontation between capitalism and communism
that characterized much of the 20th century. The establishment of the Soviet Union as a superpower led to the
Cold War, a prolonged period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet bloc and the Western capitalist nations.
The revolution's legacy influenced international relations, military alliances, and ideological conflicts for
decades, shaping the contours of global politics.

5. Cultural Significance

a. Influence on Art and Literature

The Bolshevik Revolution inspired a rich cultural movement in Soviet Russia. The state promoted avant-garde
art, literature, and cinema as tools for propaganda and social change. Artists and writers embraced
revolutionary themes, contributing to the development of new artistic styles that reflected the ideals of the
revolution. The impact of this cultural renaissance extended beyond Soviet borders, influencing global art and
literature.

b. Legacy of Dissent and Critique

The revolution also led to significant intellectual discourse and debate regarding the nature of socialism,
totalitarianism, and human rights. The oppressive measures taken by the Bolshevik regime against dissenters
and rival factions generated a critical response, leading to diverse interpretations of Marxist theory and
practices. This ongoing critique continues to influence discussions about the nature of communism and
authoritarianism today.

Conclusion

The significance of the Bolshevik Revolution extends far beyond the borders of Russia. It marked a fundamental
shift in political, social, economic, and cultural paradigms, laying the groundwork for the establishment of the
Soviet Union and the spread of communism worldwide. The revolution's impact on the 20th century,
particularly in shaping ideologies, influencing global conflicts, and inspiring movements for social justice,
underscores its lasting legacy. While the outcomes of the Bolshevik Revolution were complex and often
contradictory, its role as a catalyst for change remains a critical point of reference in unde
rstanding modern history and international relations.
​ he Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, also known as the October Revolution, was a pivotal event that reshaped not
T
only Russia but also the global political landscape. Led by the Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Vladimir
Lenin, this revolution marked the transition from a provisional government to a socialist state, fundamentally
altering the course of Russian history and influencing communist movements worldwide. Here is an analysis of
the significance of the Bolshevik Revolution in various contexts:

1. Political Significance

a. Establishment of Soviet Power

The Bolshevik Revolution resulted in the establishment of the world's first communist government. This was a
radical departure from the autocratic rule of the Tsars and the subsequent provisional government that had
failed to address the pressing issues of war, land, and social inequality. The Bolsheviks implemented a system of
governance based on Marxist-Leninist principles, emphasizing workers’ control, collective ownership, and the
dictatorship of the proletariat.

b. End of Imperial Rule

The revolution effectively ended centuries of imperial rule in Russia. It dismantled the existing class structures
and redistributed land to peasants, addressing long-standing grievances that had fueled discontent among the
populace. By overthrowing the provisional government, the Bolsheviks sought to create a society free from
oppression, albeit through authoritarian means.

2. Social Significance

a. Redistribution of Land and Resources

One of the key outcomes of the Bolshevik Revolution was the redistribution of land from the aristocracy to the
peasantry. This land reform was a crucial element in gaining popular support among the rural population, who
had long suffered from feudal exploitation. Additionally, the revolution sought to nationalize industry and
redistribute wealth, aiming to reduce inequality and improve living conditions for the working class.

b. Social Change and Gender Equality

The Bolshevik regime promoted social reforms, including women's rights. The revolution led to significant
changes in gender roles, granting women the right to vote and access to education and employment. The
government implemented policies aimed at promoting gender equality, which was revolutionary for the time
and set the stage for future advances in women's rights within Soviet society.

3. Economic Significance

a. Command Economy

The Bolshevik Revolution initiated the transition to a command economy, characterized by state control over
production and distribution. The new regime sought to manage the economy through central planning, aiming
to eliminate the chaos and inequality produced by capitalism. This shift had profound implications for
economic development and state involvement in the economy, influencing future socialist states.

b. Economic Isolation and Challenges

In the aftermath of the revolution, the Bolsheviks faced significant economic challenges, exacerbated by civil
war, foreign intervention, and the legacy of World War I. The introduction of War Communism during the
Russian Civil War aimed to meet wartime needs but led to economic hardships, including famine and a
breakdown of the economy. These challenges eventually necessitated a shift in policy, leading to the New
Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which allowed for some degree of market-oriented reforms.

4. International Significance

a. Spread of Communist Ideology

The Bolshevik Revolution had a profound impact on the global spread of communist ideology. It inspired
communist movements and revolutions worldwide, particularly in Europe and Asia. The success of the
Bolsheviks encouraged other socialist and communist groups to pursue similar revolutionary paths, leading to
the establishment of communist parties in various countries.

b. Cold War Dynamics

The Bolshevik Revolution set the stage for the ideological confrontation between capitalism and communism
that characterized much of the 20th century. The establishment of the Soviet Union as a superpower led to the
Cold War, a prolonged period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet bloc and the Western capitalist nations.
The revolution's legacy influenced international relations, military alliances, and ideological conflicts for
decades, shaping the contours of global politics.

5. Cultural Significance

a. Influence on Art and Literature

The Bolshevik Revolution inspired a rich cultural movement in Soviet Russia. The state promoted avant-garde
art, literature, and cinema as tools for propaganda and social change. Artists and writers embraced
revolutionary themes, contributing to the development of new artistic styles that reflected the ideals of the
revolution. The impact of this cultural renaissance extended beyond Soviet borders, influencing global art and
literature.

b. Legacy of Dissent and Critique

The revolution also led to significant intellectual discourse and debate regarding the nature of socialism,
totalitarianism, and human rights. The oppressive measures taken by the Bolshevik regime against dissenters
and rival factions generated a critical response, leading to diverse interpretations of Marxist theory and
practices. This ongoing critique continues to influence discussions about the nature of communism and
authoritarianism today.

Conclusion

The significance of the Bolshevik Revolution extends far beyond the borders of Russia. It marked a fundamental
shift in political, social, economic, and cultural paradigms, laying the groundwork for the establishment of the
Soviet Union and the spread of communism worldwide. The revolution's impact on the 20th century,
particularly in shaping ideologies, influencing global conflicts, and inspiring movements for social justice,
underscores its lasting legacy. While the outcomes of the Bolshevik Revolution were complex and often
contradictory, its role as a catalyst for change remains a critical point of reference in unde
rstanding modern history and international relations.
​ lassical realism is one of the foundational theories in international relations (IR) that emphasizes the
C
competitive and conflictual nature of international politics. Originating from the ideas of classical political
philosophers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, classical realism has evolved over time but retains
core principles that inform our understanding of global affairs. Here’s an analysis of classical realism, including
its key tenets, assumptions, and implications for international relations.

Key Principles of Classical Realism

1. Human Nature and Power Politics

Classical realism asserts that human nature is inherently self-interested and competitive. This perspective
suggests that individuals, and by extension states, act according to their desires for power and security.
Thucydides, often considered a father of realism, illustrated this in his account of the Peloponnesian War,
highlighting how fear, honor, and interest drive state actions. Machiavelli further emphasized the need for
states to prioritize their own power and security over moral considerations, laying the groundwork for a
pragmatic approach to governance.

2. The Anarchic International System

At the core of classical realism is the belief that the international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no
overarching authority to enforce rules or maintain order. In this environment, states must rely on themselves
for security and survival. The absence of a higher power leads to a self-help system where states compete for
resources and influence, resulting in a constant struggle for power. This anarchic structure creates a context in
which conflict is inevitable.

3. State-Centric Focus
Classical realism emphasizes the state as the primary actor in international relations. It views states as rational
entities that act in their national interest, primarily focusing on the pursuit of power and security. While
acknowledging the existence of non-state actors, classical realism maintains that states dominate the
international arena and their interactions primarily shape global politics.

4. The Balance of Power

The concept of the balance of power is central to classical realism. Realists argue that stability in the
international system is achieved when power is distributed relatively evenly among states. When one state
becomes too powerful, it can threaten the security of others, leading to balancing behaviors, such as alliances
and military buildup. This balancing mechanism acts as a stabilizing force, as states seek to prevent any one
state from achieving hegemony.

5. Moral Skepticism
Classical realists maintain a skeptical view of moral principles in international relations. They argue that
ethical considerations are often secondary to national interests. The pursuit of power and security can justify
actions that may be deemed immoral or unjust, such as war, deception, and coercion. This pragmatic approach
challenges idealistic views that emphasize cooperation and global governance based on shared values.

Assumptions of Classical Realism

1. Innate Human Conflict

Classical realism posits that conflict is a natural part of human existence, rooted in human nature. This
assumption leads to the conclusion that states will inevitably act in ways that reflect their self-interest, often at
the expense of others.

2. Rationality of States
States are assumed to be rational actors that make calculated decisions based on their interests. This rationality
leads states to prioritize their survival and power, influencing their foreign policy choices.

3. Pessimism about Human Progress

Classical realists are generally pessimistic about the possibility of achieving lasting peace and cooperation
among states. They argue that the anarchic nature of the international system and the competitive instincts of
states create an environment where conflict is likely.

Implications for International Relations

1. Realpolitik
The classical realist perspective gives rise to realpolitik, a pragmatic and often cynical approach to
international politics that prioritizes power over ideals. This approach can lead to strategies that emphasize
military strength, strategic alliances, and calculated interventions.

2. Security Dilemmas
In an anarchic system, states may engage in arms races or military buildups out of fear of potential threats
from others. This security dilemma arises when defensive measures by one state are perceived as aggressive by
another, leading to escalating tensions and conflict.

3. Influence on Foreign Policy

Classical realism influences foreign policy decision-making, as leaders prioritize national interests and security.
This often results in policies that may disregard international norms or moral considerations, focusing instead
on pragmatic calculations of power.

4. Critique of Idealism
Classical realism serves as a counterpoint to idealism and liberalism in IR. While idealists emphasize
cooperation, diplomacy, and the potential for progress through international institutions, classical realists
argue that these approaches often fail to account for the underlying power dynamics and human tendencies
that drive international relations.

Critiques of Classical Realism

While classical realism has significantly contributed to the understanding of international relations, it has also
faced several critiques:

1. Overemphasis on Conflict
Critics argue that classical realism places too much emphasis on conflict and competition, neglecting the
instances of cooperation and peaceful coexistence among states. They point out that many international issues,
such as climate change and terrorism, require collaborative approaches that realism does not adequately
address.

2. Neglect of Domestic Factors

Classical realism often overlooks the influence of domestic politics and non-state actors on foreign policy
decisions. Factors such as public opinion, interest groups, and internal political dynamics can significantly
shape a state’s international behavior, which classical realism tends to simplify.

3. Determinism
The deterministic nature of classical realism, which views states as solely motivated by power and security, has
been criticized for failing to account for the complexities of human motivations and the influence of ideology,
culture, and ethics in shaping international relations.

Conclusion

Classical realism remains a foundational theory in the study of international relations, offering insights into the
nature of power, conflict, and state behavior. Its emphasis on human nature, the anarchic international system,
and the pursuit of national interests provides a framework for understanding the often tumultuous landscape
of global politics. While it has faced critiques and evolved over time, the principles of classical realism continue
to inform debates about security, dipl
omacy, and the dynamics of international relations in the contemporary world.
​ lassical realism is one of the foundational theories in international relations (IR) that emphasizes the
C
competitive and conflictual nature of international politics. Originating from the ideas of classical political
philosophers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, classical realism has evolved over time but retains
core principles that inform our understanding of global affairs. Here’s an analysis of classical realism, including
its key tenets, assumptions, and implications for international relations.

Key Principles of Classical Realism

1. Human Nature and Power Politics

Classical realism asserts that human nature is inherently self-interested and competitive. This perspective
suggests that individuals, and by extension states, act according to their desires for power and security.
Thucydides, often considered a father of realism, illustrated this in his account of the Peloponnesian War,
highlighting how fear, honor, and interest drive state actions. Machiavelli further emphasized the need for
states to prioritize their own power and security over moral considerations, laying the groundwork for a
pragmatic approach to governance.

2. The Anarchic International System

At the core of classical realism is the belief that the international system is anarchic, meaning that there is no
overarching authority to enforce rules or maintain order. In this environment, states must rely on themselves
for security and survival. The absence of a higher power leads to a self-help system where states compete for
resources and influence, resulting in a constant struggle for power. This anarchic structure creates a context in
which conflict is inevitable.

3. State-Centric Focus
Classical realism emphasizes the state as the primary actor in international relations. It views states as rational
entities that act in their national interest, primarily focusing on the pursuit of power and security. While
acknowledging the existence of non-state actors, classical realism maintains that states dominate the
international arena and their interactions primarily shape global politics.

4. The Balance of Power

The concept of the balance of power is central to classical realism. Realists argue that stability in the
international system is achieved when power is distributed relatively evenly among states. When one state
becomes too powerful, it can threaten the security of others, leading to balancing behaviors, such as alliances
and military buildup. This balancing mechanism acts as a stabilizing force, as states seek to prevent any one
state from achieving hegemony.

5. Moral Skepticism
Classical realists maintain a skeptical view of moral principles in international relations. They argue that
ethical considerations are often secondary to national interests. The pursuit of power and security can justify
actions that may be deemed immoral or unjust, such as war, deception, and coercion. This pragmatic approach
challenges idealistic views that emphasize cooperation and global governance based on shared values.

Assumptions of Classical Realism

1. Innate Human Conflict

Classical realism posits that conflict is a natural part of human existence, rooted in human nature. This
assumption leads to the conclusion that states will inevitably act in ways that reflect their self-interest, often at
the expense of others.

2. Rationality of States
States are assumed to be rational actors that make calculated decisions based on their interests. This rationality
leads states to prioritize their survival and power, influencing their foreign policy choices.

3. Pessimism about Human Progress

Classical realists are generally pessimistic about the possibility of achieving lasting peace and cooperation
among states. They argue that the anarchic nature of the international system and the competitive instincts of
states create an environment where conflict is likely.

Implications for International Relations

1. Realpolitik
The classical realist perspective gives rise to realpolitik, a pragmatic and often cynical approach to
international politics that prioritizes power over ideals. This approach can lead to strategies that emphasize
military strength, strategic alliances, and calculated interventions.

2. Security Dilemmas
In an anarchic system, states may engage in arms races or military buildups out of fear of potential threats
from others. This security dilemma arises when defensive measures by one state are perceived as aggressive by
another, leading to escalating tensions and conflict.

3. Influence on Foreign Policy

Classical realism influences foreign policy decision-making, as leaders prioritize national interests and security.
This often results in policies that may disregard international norms or moral considerations, focusing instead
on pragmatic calculations of power.

4. Critique of Idealism
Classical realism serves as a counterpoint to idealism and liberalism in IR. While idealists emphasize
cooperation, diplomacy, and the potential for progress through international institutions, classical realists
argue that these approaches often fail to account for the underlying power dynamics and human tendencies
that drive international relations.

Critiques of Classical Realism

While classical realism has significantly contributed to the understanding of international relations, it has also
faced several critiques:

1. Overemphasis on Conflict
Critics argue that classical realism places too much emphasis on conflict and competition, neglecting the
instances of cooperation and peaceful coexistence among states. They point out that many international issues,
such as climate change and terrorism, require collaborative approaches that realism does not adequately
address.

2. Neglect of Domestic Factors

Classical realism often overlooks the influence of domestic politics and non-state actors on foreign policy
decisions. Factors such as public opinion, interest groups, and internal political dynamics can significantly
shape a state’s international behavior, which classical realism tends to simplify.

3. Determinism
The deterministic nature of classical realism, which views states as solely motivated by power and security, has
been criticized for failing to account for the complexities of human motivations and the influence of ideology,
culture, and ethics in shaping international relations.

Conclusion

Classical realism remains a foundational theory in the study of international relations, offering insights into the
nature of power, conflict, and state behavior. Its emphasis on human nature, the anarchic international system,
and the pursuit of national interests provides a framework for understanding the often tumultuous landscape
of global politics. While it has faced critiques and evolved over time, the principles of classical realism continue
to inform debates about security, dipl
omacy, and the dynamics of international relations in the contemporary world.