Soviet Union's Possible Success

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I still have yet to see proofs that the Democratic Peace Theory is incorrect.

The applicability of the Democratic Peace Theory is limited to quite specific historical circumstances, when there are relatively few democratic countries and at the same time there exists a really strong undemocratic opponent. Otherwise, this theory doesn't work, for each country has its own interests and these interests clash, sometimes strongly, irrespective of any democracy.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I still have yet to see proofs that the Democratic Peace Theory is incorrect.

How does its evidence rise above that which can not be explained away by chance? What with the rarity of war and all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The applicability of the Democratic Peace Theory is limited to quite specific historical circumstances, when there are relatively few democratic countries and at the same time there exists a really strong undemocratic opponent. Otherwise, this theory doesn't work, for each country has its own interests and these interests clash, sometimes strongly, irrespective of any democracy.

How does its evidence rise above that which can not be explained away by chance? What with the rarity of war and all.

Yet the Democratic Peace Theory has shown that two democratic dyads will not go to war against each other. They will more likely negotiate before going to war. The Democratic Peace Project has been analyzing every war since 1700 (democracies really didn't exist before then) using the IR definitions of war and democracy and have found no wars between democracies.

[Dom Pedro II]

What exactly is the definition of a "democracy" by the study's standards?

[Ecthy]

I succeeded.

[germanos]

Communism never had a chance to succeed in Russia. (probably not elsewhere either)

In the case of Russia:

Communism was (according to Marx's theory/analasys) to take hold/power in an industrialized society. It was no coincidence Marx did his studies in the most industrialized country of the time: Britain.

The masses of the workers, living and working on horrible conditions, and the wide gap between them and the ruling industrialist was supposed to make them so misarable to revolt.

Now, in 1917 Russia was a predominant agricultural society, and so there was not a working class to even want communism. Hence the large industrial program set up by the bolshewists: they thought they would be able to create the neccasery conditions for a comunist revolution to take place. Hence also the large collectivation programs to lure the peasants to work in the set up industries. Hence the term Leninism, which spread fast in other non-industrial countries which saw 'communists' revolts (Cuba, Angola and not the least: China)

The industrial countries west of Russia were very happy to see the threat of comminism being expelled from their own societies towards a state far away from home. The fact that the bolshewists made peace with Germany in WW I was an easy target, so the west could point out to this betrayel and start fighting the russians after the victory over Germany. Given human nature, it was a brilliant move to combine the xenofobic tendencies with the fear of communism, therefore pacifying the social unrest in their own society. Knowing they had to cede some power to the workers, in many European countries it was only around this time that genaral elections in which all people got voting rights, started taking place. Many absolute ruling monarchies were transformed to a more republican rule (f.e. Germany, Austria-Hungary, the netherlands, Turkey).
This lead to great influence for the social-democratic parties, who have been able to realize a lot of ideas also supported by Marx, without having to resort to the abject notion of dictorship (of the proletariat)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yet the Democratic Peace Theory has shown that two democratic dyads will not go to war against each other.

1) War is a rarity in the international system.
2) As are democratic dyads during the whole of the time period studied by the theory.
3) Finland was in an alliance with Nazi Germany during WWII.

How does the theory deal with these problems?

[chequita guevara]

Okay fine, there have been now wars between democracies because there have been no democracies.

[DinoDoc]

Bump

[Imran Siddiqui]

1) War is a rarity in the international system.
2) As are democratic dyads during the whole of the time period studied by the theory.
3) Finland was in an alliance with Nazi Germany during WWII.

How does the theory deal with these problems?

1) War is a rarity, however, Great Power wars in the 1600s, 1700s, etc. were not so much a rarity. For a while it seemed that every Great Power was involved in war. This rarity of war is a recent phenomenon, and seems to have come about because of the expansion of democracies.

2) Yes they are (if you mean Are instead of As)

3) Finland stopped elections during the war. The 'Long Parliament' as it is refered to. That kinda stops the democratic nature of the government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What exactly is the definition of a "democracy" by the study's standards?

****, my reply last night was eaten. And btw, it is 'democracy' under the IR definition that the study is using.

Anyway, if I can remember:

1) Free and fair multiparty elections
2) Peaceful transfer of power
3) Ablity to critique the government (some freedom of speech)
4) Exist for over 3 years (to prove the peaceful transfer and all that)

And hmm... there is one or two more that I can't quite remember.

[Stefu]

3) Finland was in an alliance with Nazi Germany during WWII.

*beats head against the wall*

Finland. And. Nazi. Germany. Did. Not. Have. An. Alliance. We. Were. Co-Belligerents. Any. Questions?

[Arrian]

Democracies can fight, just like any other country, but I think it stands to reason that it's less likely than two dictatorships or a democracy vs. a dictatorship. Not all democracies are the same, and I think the theory that two democracies wouldn't fight requirse two perfect democracies... the likes of which do not, and shall not ever, exist.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS POST, "DEMOCRACY" SHALL MEAN THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT USED BY THE UNITED STATES AND MOST OF EUROPE - "REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY" FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. YES, THIS IS A VAGUE DEFINITION.

Che,

Most of the countries you assert were democracies, che, fail my definition at the time. The USSR was never a democracy. WWI Germany was not a democracy, though it wasn't despotic either. Britain circa 1776 is debatable, but I think by 1812 it qualifies. But this is silly...

This whole thread revolves around your assertion that the poor, docile Soviet Union was doomed to failure because the EVIL IMPERIALIST CAPITALIST WEST wouldn't let them succeed, and the excesses of the Soviet Union are attributable to insidious, underhanded tactics by the EVIL IMPERIALIST CAPITALIST WEST which forced the poor, docile Soviet Union to do terrible things which it otherwise wouldn't have done. Who, besides yourself, are you kidding?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This rarity of war is a recent phenomenon, and seems to have come about because of the expansion of democracies.

Democracies are just as likely to make war as often as non-democracies even according to the theory of the Democratic Peace. I think that you're going to have to come up with another factor to explain the rarity of war.