What role did ideology play in Cold War?

[Capitalist Octopus]

I'm writing a history paper on how the Cold War ended (81-89), and I want it to focus on the role of ideology in the negotiations.

I've done a bunch of reading, and have some good quotes, just looking for your ideas on how important ideology was in the conflict?

My first reaction is obviously to say that ideology played little role, as it was more material forces that generated the conflict and carried it out. Here are some quotes though, from the source I was forced to read..

"“The set of ideas, beliefs, and characteristics that Reagan brought to his office enabled him to deal effectively with Gorbachev. He understood that the Cold War was ultimately about ideology. He saw both the arms race and geopolitical competition as symptoms of an ideological struggle, not its causes” "

· “Democracy triumphed in the cold war because it was a battle of values – between one system that gave pre-eminence to the state and another that gave pre-eminence to the individual and freedom” (316).. “triumph of one idea over another” (316)


· “It was the Communist system and the ideology that inspired it that lost the competition with liberal democracy and capitalism, not the country...” (316)

Any help is great..

[Raúl Duke]

Ideology did play a role in the US's perception of the USSR (beyond the public opinion sphere, as in military and diplomatic circles); this cannot be denied. After WWII, particularly after a certain speech by Stalin, it became widespread among US diplomatic circles the idea that "the USSR was aggressive due to their ideological belief in an inevitable conflict with capitalism." Thus, they adopted the Truman Doctrine/Containment policy which has influenced the US foreign policy throughout the Cold War and beyond. I think the Truman policy began the acceptance of supporting dictatorships as long as they were anti-communist when prior US intervention (in Latin-America) was more direct yet tended to leave behind a bourgeois republic rather than towards clandestine support for anti-communist military elements in Latin-America (which established dictatorship) and open support for other dictatorial-like regimes (Syngman Rhee, South Vietnam, etc). A lot of US foreign policy in Europe and Asia involved more containment and strategic issues it seems rather than material ones, although of course there were material concerns such as the idea that Korea and Vietnam can be good markets for either the US or its pacific NATO ally, Japan. Plus Iran and the Middle-East has a lot of material considerations due to oil. Market considerations might have driven the ideological resistance towards the USSR/"international communism" (as they called it) because it lead to closed markets to some extent (but not necessarily completely, I remember seeing a soviet 70s catalog for a special goods store, which was mostly opened to those from the top of the Soviet hierarchy, and certain American products (primarily tobacco) were available.

However, in Latin-America, US foreign policy may have a more stronger case of particular material forces due to how they even insisted of disposing "center-left" elected regimes (I say center-left, usually all they demanded was land reform which was a demand that can be traced back to even the liberals of the past in Latin-America; the US of course mis-percieved it as "communist" plus it went against their interest in certain areas) which weren't exactly communist (although they may have been opened to trade with the USSR or at least Cuba, but than again many non-aligned nations probably did that too.)

Your source however seems rather weak, it makes it seem like Reagen adopted this whole ideological view when in fact it goes back to Truman (at least so far the American perception of it, although the Soviets also had an ideological perspective). Plus that source seems more like propaganda rather than well-researched history. Are you a college student? That source sounds like total shit and one my own professors would probably not recommend.

It may be better that you use primary sources and interpret it yourself. Online you can find FRUS documents.
Than again, you may be better arguing that ideology was in a way a forced used to masked and push forward material considerations. But ideology did seem to play a role.

[Capitalist Octopus]

That's interesting..
The course is a full year history seminar on Reagan and the 80's.
The book in question is by Jack Matlock, a high ranking official with Reagan during the time.
The books are sometimes assigned for overall quality, sometimes for discussion purposes since we do have quite a bit of space to discuss things.
In this case, I'm guessing his "insider" perspective is part of what brought the book into the curriculum.

Anyways, since it's just a short paper (5 pages double spaced) I want to focus on something like this (I can't formulate a thesis yet so I'll break it into some chunks)...

-Ideology a front for Reagan
-Claims he is fighting communism, sees it as an evil because of human rights abuses, imperialism, etc
-In order to do this he takes part in funding terror groups/dictators who commit many of the same crimes he accuses the communists of
-As such, not fighting for ideological reasons, merely going against those who don't match with America's economic interest


This is just rough, I need to flesh it out more.

[Capitalist Octopus]

Actually, a better idea. Here is the very minimal outline... Thoughts?

· -Throughout his reign, Regan is consistent in his opposition to “communism”


· -Yet replicates a great deal of what he attacked under a different name (think funding terrorist groups, dictators, human rights violations, etc)



· -This shows that ideology was used to justify his actions, make them sound good, but that was it (masking economic interest under the guise of “omgz freedoms”)

[Raúl Duke]

Ideology has been a front for Reagan and it goes back to Truman, it's not new to Reagan. Of course his insiders may so so, I think Reagan marks a point in US political history where it has become more historically short-sighted and delusional. Even though despite the image Reagan was pushing he was quite similar to pre-1980s Republicans (i.e. there was some elements of "Rockefeller Republicans" despite his electoral victory being their death-knell; now "Rockefeller Republicans" seemingly don't exist or cease to exist when running for national/federal office).


In order to do this he takes part in funding terror groups/dictators who commit many of the same crimes he accuses the communists of
-As such, not fighting for ideological reasons, merely going against those who don't match with America's economic interest
This goes back before Reagan though...

However, since your paper is short and its in a class about Reagan it would be more prudent to focus on Reagan and not so much about historical precedent although you could mention that in a way, the US aggressive stance of the 1980s was more of a "reversal of detante" to a more aggressive form of the containment policy that not only focused on stopping the flow of influence (as Truman's) but even seemingly attempting to push it back (i.e. US support of Afghan rebels against a pro-Soviet government; before the US was more keen on trusted pro-US military elements to do coups and usually on states that were non-aligned). US support for dictators and military reactionary elements goes back before Reagan.

[Let's Get Free]

The cold war was a ideological fight between American capitalism and Soviet "communism." Both the repressive superpowers, the US and the USSR, practiced a double play: they were repressing people in their dominant sphere and “supporting” the peoples' struggle for freedom in the sphere dominated by the opponent. So the Soviet Union supported the Vietnamese people struggle against American intervention and the Cuban revolution, as well as other revolts in Latin America and places which were under US backed dictatorships. On the other hand, the US and the capitalist bloc supported the wave of revolts in Eastern Europe, etc. This double game is still played until now. The US is ready and wiling to support such rebellions in Iran for example, but never in Saudi Arabia.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The USA and the USSR was filled mostly with pragmatic bureaucrats, in positions of government...

Serious ideology occassionally popped up in the Cold War, though, for example in the "armed groups" (ie Revolutionary Cells, Red Army Faction, Red Brigades etc), the nationalist movements and thinkers like Amilcar Cabral, and certain regimes like China in the later half of the 1960's and the Khmer Rouge.

[#FF0000]

"“The set of ideas, beliefs, and characteristics that Reagan brought to his office enabled him to deal effectively with Gorbachev. He understood that the Cold War was ultimately about ideology. He saw both the arms race and geopolitical competition as symptoms of an ideological struggle, not its causes”

Well that's a loaded fuckin' statement hahahaha.

But yeah, ideology definitely played a role in it. It certainly played a role in a lunatic like Reagan breaking the detente with the Soviet Union and re-igniting the arms race for literally nothing. Ideology played a role in the cold war, in that it was insane ideologue zealots like reagan who pushed it along at times.

[Zealot]

Part of the Reagan Doctrine was a sustained ideological offensive against the Soviets. By contrast, Gorbachev took a soft approach and his "Communist" ideology wasn't projected anywhere near the level of Reaganite rhetoric (in fact, Gorbachev was a social democrat as he admitted in later years). But reducing the Cold War to a "battle of values" is simply absurd. The US showed no interest in spreading democracy numerous times throughout the Cold War. In my opinion and the opinion of many scholars ideology didn't play much of a role in ending the Cold War although the ideological pressure from Regan may have certainly contributed something.

[Crimson Commissar]

I'd say Reagan is perhaps one of the cases on the American side of the Cold War where ideology really did play a large part in forming his beliefs. He was the type to truly, seriously believe that the imposing of Capitalism world-wide would somehow result in widespread "freedom and liberty" for the whole world. He was one of the main supporters of the idea that the Cold War was some kind of binary "good vs evil" struggle, with idyllic western libertarian democracy and prosperity on one side, and dark grey evil repressive Communism on the other. This coupled with Gorbachev's rise to power at the exact same time, and his dismantling of the Socialist system along with withdrawal of all support for the Communist movements abroad that relied on Soviet aid, created a dire situation for anyone that didn't follow the American line. Reagan, an ideological crusader for Capitalism effectively, was able to lure the weakening nations in the Eastern camp away from the USSR that no longer had any intention of protecting the interests of the working class on a global scale.

The late 80s were a time of great ideological strength and fervour for Capitalism (Reagan, Thatcher, etc) and unparalleled ideological weakness and apathy for Communism (Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, etc). A far cry from the 50s and 60s where the Cold War would come close to turning hot on several occasions due to the sheer tension between the two sides, and also far off from the 70s and the age of detente.