User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 32

  1. #21
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    I believe we would agree the US came out of the cold war on top, a realist would say that Russia's higher rate of decline and expenditures made it benificial for themselves to end the war, so they wanted it to end. The US had the soviet union break apart, USSR losing it's newly gained lands, which was benifical for the US, that seems to be the realist equation here.

    Realism takes on more forms than just warfare, in regard to warefare though, with the destruction of weapons increasing, it becomes less inticing to start a war against another super power.
    You're incorrect, and apparantly you haven't researched this era. In fact, please note that the Cold War ended two years before the Soviet Union dissolved. You will note that Condy Rice is on the record of saying in 1989 that there were no winners and losers. You will also note that both Gorbachev and Reagan were largely heretics in their own houses for doing this, which was not viewed as probable given realist assumptions about IR. In short, the Fall of the Berlin Wall symbolized the end of the Cold War and not when the USSR went away two years later. Second, the US did not cause the USSR to break apart. This is again part of the triumphalist narrative that emerged only after and which, by the way, most Russians don't agree with as well as some American intellectuals including Stephen Cohen, Pat Buchanan, Robert Tucker, and so forth. I could go on but I'd rather you did some reading first. Also, it pays to point out that while negotiation is preferred to war, war is preferred to a loss of power. As the archrealist Carl Von Clausewitz has pointed out, war is a mere continuation of policy by other means. And the expenditures you mentioned are really nothing compared to the enormous stockpile of WMD the Soviets had which was larger than that of the United States by the way. Surely, more than enough to do the US then face losing power. The problem is more complicated then you can imagine. I recommend reading Jennifer Sterling-Folker who is a proponent of neo-classical realism, which helps explain some of these goings on.

  2. #22
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    You're incorrect, and apparantly you haven't researched this era. In fact, please note that the Cold War ended two years before the Soviet Union dissolved. You will note that Condy Rice is on the record of saying in 1989 that there were no winners and losers. You will also note that both Gorbachev and Reagan were largely heretics in their own houses for doing this, which was not viewed as probable given realist assumptions about IR. In short, the Fall of the Berlin Wall symbolized the end of the Cold War and not when the USSR went away two years later. Second, the US did not cause the USSR to break apart. This is again part of the triumphalist narrative that emerged only after and which, by the way, most Russians don't agree with as well as some American intellectuals including Stephen Cohen, Pat Buchanan, Robert Tucker, and so forth. I could go on but I'd rather you did some reading first.
    Each theorists has a different reason why the cold war was fought, and depending on which theory you subscribe to, does the winning/losing aspect take hold or not. Russia suffered a major recession, a leap in disease and drug use, and an increase in crime. Whether you to call it a win/lose or not, Russia did not prosper as well as the US after the cold war, and the decline can be traced to elements due to the strain received from the cold war and the peace terms agreed upon afterwards.

    Also conflict doesn't end that easily, just because the war "ended", doesn't mean the conlfict ended, we are still experiencing conflict now, Russia still has a tech ban placed upon it, and was not invited to join the WTO, what are these if not restraining components of power politics due to the cold war?

    Edit:

    The fact that the US was able to place these restraints on Russia, would be a good indicator that the US came out with the upper hand, since the recent removal of the missle shield in Poland, Russia is asking that the tech and WTO ban to be removed.

  3. #23
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post

    Marxism isn't up there because, A) it could fall under a type of constructivism, for those wanting to spread Marxism or against B) if the wealthy are connected to the health of the state, it can fall under realism, monarchies were realists, Marx has no weight to throw around as it's own special group.
    One could argue realism is type of constructivism as well, but realism is up there. So that is dubious reasoning on your behalf. Regarding your second point, you're not looking at the fundemental difference between the relationship between capital and state. For Marxists, capital trumps politics. In this sense, politicians are merely puppets of capitalists. For realists, politics trump economics, and thus economic policy is to serve national interests. In the US, capitalists, lobbyists, and so forth have an enormous say over policy. Cheney and Haliburton--you know the list. For Russia, we've seen Russia's richest man, Mikhail Khordorkovsky, challenge Putin politically and get put in prison. There, there is a long history of a powerful ruling political class. Marxist analysis is very relevant and provides a systematic way of looking at how politics unfolds. You're reasons for leaving it out are dubious.

  4. #24
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    One could argue realism is type of constructivism as well, but realism is up there. So that is dubious reasoning on your behalf. Regarding your second point, you're not looking at the fundemental difference between the relationship between capital and state. For Marxists, capital trumps politics. In this sense, politicians are merely puppets of capitalists. For realists, politics trump economics, and thus economic policy is to serve national interests. In the US, capitalists, lobbyists, and so forth have an enormous say over policy. Cheney and Haliburton--you know the list. For Russia, we've seen Russia's richest man, Mikhail Khordorkovsky, challenge Putin politically and get put in prison. There, there is a long history of a powerful ruling political class. Marxist analysis is very relevant and provides a systematic way of looking at how politics unfolds. You're reasons for leaving it out are dubious.
    I have no interest in challenging your values or views on the importance of Marx, if it suits you more, I picked the three biggest, most known, and popular categories.

    If you know other schools of thought list them, hurts me not.

  5. #25
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Russia suffered a major recession, a leap in disease and drug use, and an increase in crime. Whether you to call it a win/lose or not, Russia did not prosper as well as the US after the cold war, and the decline can be traced to elements due to the strain received from the cold war and the peace terms agreed upon afterwards.
    Yes, the US also had a recession in the late 80s and there were vast cuts made under Reagan as well as Thatcher. In fact, we call this a global recession. Thus, it was not particular only to the USSR. Actually, once Gorbachev began the process of democratization, and instituted glasnost and perestroika Russia had a degree of pluralism in their newspapers and journalism that many have argued was far more diverse then you'd see in American media outlets. There were free and fair elections in 1989. I think what you mean to say is after the the Soviet Union went away and particularly after Yeltsin shelled the parliament and instituted rapid reform in the form of shock therapy did Russia decline. But as I mentioned, in history books the Cold War ended with the Fall of the Berlin Wall and not the collapse of the USSR. To believe that the US caused the USSR to collapse is an American conceit. Russians themselves know that there were internal conflicts and polzarizing factions in the ruling elite and how this power struggle played out is much more telling.

    That said, I do agree that the conflict lives on. In fact, if we look at the evidence there is a new Cold War. NATO has continually expanded, despite president Bush the senior's promise that it would not move one inch eastward, which now fully encircles Russia. THe US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002. And more recently we saw the Georgian War of August 2008, which was really a proxy Russian American war since the US trained and supplied most of the Georgian troops and supported Sackashvili. As a result of this and the triumphalist policy that you and others have bought into, there has been a backlash in Russia and a powerful faction urging the Kermlin to build strategic partnerships in the east with China, Iran, and so forth.

  6. #26
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    Constructivism would best be represented by the EU's standards, requiring countries to ban the death penalty, adopt the Euro, and ultimately think and ultimately political and social unison, and the changes Turkey is trying to make for such. Also, one of the reasons going into Iraq was to "spread democracy", which is due to constructivist thinking.
    The hard-core Constructivists (who are a major reason I am so resistant to simplistically labeling myself as a Constructivist without major caveats) would agree with you on the EU thing, but I think they are vastly over-estimating the potential of Constructivism if they imagine such a thing on a global scale. Just to bore the non-IR majors with jargon (), the development of the EU has been a "path-dependent" process. The "democratic peace," on the other hand has been a global process with (arguably) less overlap with competing theories.

  7. #27
    Retired Member Wonkavision's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,155

    Default

    Of the three, I'm mostly a Realist.

    But I wonder, what would the admixtures be?
    __________________


    I'M OUTTA HERE.

    IT'S BEEN FUN.

    TAKE CARE.

    PEACE OUT!!!


  8. #28
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    I have no interest in challenging your values or views on the importance of Marx, if it suits you more, I picked the three biggest, most known, and popular categories.

    If you know other schools of thought list them, hurts me not.
    As a statement of fact, Marxism has historically had much more influence in IR than constructivism, both in terms of its application (the people who were influenced by Marxist ideas and waged socialist revolutions) and as an intellectual framework for studying IR (constructivism is only a recent addition to IR, while Marxism has a much longer history and more extensive literature). It should be noted that popularity, which you mentioned, does not itself make an argument logically valid. That is an ad populum fallacy. But if popularity did make an argument logically valid, then I assure you the average lay person will likely have heard of Marxism more often than constructivism. Right now constructivism is fashionable, in part because of its malleability, but it does not have the same historical literature base that Marxism and its variations--notably dependency theory, have.

  9. #29
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cogdecree View Post
    I picked the three biggest, most known, and popular categories.
    Exactly. Marxist theories of International Relations are simply not well-respected within American academia (for good reason, IMO).

  10. #30
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Provoker View Post
    As a statement of fact, Marxism has historically had much more influence in IR than constructivism, both in terms of its application (the people who were influenced by Marxist ideas and waged socialist revolutions) and as an intellectual framework for studying IR (constructivism is only a recent addition to IR, while Marxism has a much longer history and more extensive literature). It should be noted that popularity, which you mentioned, does not itself make an argument logically valid. That is an ad populum fallacy. But if popularity did make an argument logically valid, then I assure you the average lay person will likely have heard of Marxism more often than constructivism. Right now constructivism is fashionable, in part because of its malleability, but it does not have the same historical literature base that realism and Marxism have. Note this.
    I wasn't making an argument, I was giving my reasons for such, but lets close ealier topics before we open too many

    You made two claims, if I interpreted them wrong, send over a virtual slap

    A) this period of time was hard for realists to explain
    B) that Russia did not lose the cold war

    What are your thoughts on the tech and WTO ban? Wouldn't the implementation of these be attributed to the US possessing the ability to levy such? Thus more influence (upper hand)? We can safely say that these items were against Russia's direct interest for integration.

    Also as you mentioned, the "shock therapy" was due to a division, but the division was marked because of the recognized flaws in the system, and the disproportional losses when compared to the US, if there was no comparison or need for efficiency where else would the division have derived from?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 09:35 AM
  2. Are You the Lion, the Witch or the Wardrobe?
    By angelgirl in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2017, 11:38 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-25-2014, 10:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO