A friend here in Madison, now retired from teaching social studies in a local high school, volunteered a few years ago to critique the script of a new sound-filmstrip series I was producing on THE TOTALITARIAN STATE. In the script I included the story of President Reagan giving a speech in Florida where he famously called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” My teacher friend wrote in the margin “my students would laugh this out of class!”
He and his students were not alone. Activists like Helen Caldicott promised to emigrate from the U.S. should Ronald Reagan become president. She was convinced a nuclear war would result. Students at my friend’s school, as well as the faculty at one of the nearby University of Wisconsin branch campuses were unanimous (nor a single dissenting voice!) in opposing Reagan’s cold war policies and pronouncements.
Part 8: Why the Cold War Ended?
How can you explain this amazing turn of events, the most surprising political and economic events of my lifetime?
Some think President Reagan’s policies had much to do with the final Soviet collapse. The theory goes that the Soviets (like all communist countries) had always spent a far larger portion of their budget on military expenses then we did and now they could no longer compete with the U.S. militarily or economically after the Reagan-initiated U.S. military build-up. And with the “Star Wars” threat they realized they were even more behind on the electronic front and would never be able to catch up.
Some think that while the perestroika and glasnost policies championed by Gorbachev were needed for the Soviet economy, in the end they proved fatal to the Soviet system. These scholars point out that tyrannical systems do not collapse when the tyrants have total control, but they often do collapse when reformers try to soften and change the system. That seemed to be true in the Soviet case. Lenin and Stalin kept power because they were so ruthless. Gorbachev lost power because he tried to rule without terror.
Probably the most important causes of the collapse were internal. Marx had claimed that contradictions within the capitalist system would inevitably lead to its collapse. Ironically it was the communist systems instead that gave birth to contradictions that led to their own collapse. While free-market capitalist systems around the world were bringing greater wealth and real progress for workers, command systems like Marxist-Leninism were bringing greater poverty and real oppression for workers.
In contrast to the increasing prosperity of the free-market democratic world in the late 20th century, it was becoming increasingly obvious to leaders (and to citizens), of communist countries in the late 20th century that their system was not working. They were falling further and further behind in technology, especially in computers and electronics. They were having trouble growing enough food to feed their populations. Their manufactured goods were shoddy, scarce and plainly inferior to the goods coming out of western factories. More and more of their citizens were becoming educated (a good thing!) but that very education enabled them to see how far their society was slipping behind. They did have better housing after the Khrushchev reforms in the 60s. Instead of many families sharing small rooms communally as they had to do under Stalin, single families now often had private apartments where they could talk to one another without fear of being denounced by informers and sent to gulags-or worse. And talk they did. With perestroika and glasnost in the 80s, more of the leaders (and citizens) could now travel to western countries and see for themselves how far behind they were at home. The new leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev was also much more reluctant to use the KGB or brute military force to suppress dissent. And perhaps most important of all, the rapid explosion of new electronic means of communication that were difficult to censor—cell phones, computers, television and the Internet was making contrasts all the more obvious to more and more people in all countries of the world.
Underlying the direct causes there was and is a basic flaw in communist and socialist theory about human nature. Free-market capitalism assumes that humans usually act in self-interest and that diversity of talents and rewards leads to progress for all, so long as private property, free trade and free markets are given a chance to work their magic. Democracy insists that the individual human being has rights and privileges that must be acknowledged and protected, that freedom of speech, of religion and of the press are essential to a civilized society. On the whole both democracy and capitalism say self-interest, diversity of talents and individual rights are good things. And finally both democracy and capitalism are pragmatic, not utopian. That is, they are open to change and to new ideas and do not have a grand fixed vision-of-the-future, nor a dogmatic set of rules on how to get there.
Socialism, on the other hand, tends to be utopian. It envisions a future where everyone is equal and near-perfect justice is the norm. Socialism assumes that humans are equal and altruistic by nature and can and will be their natural good-seeking selves once capitalism is abolished. Socialism stresses that community needs should take priority over individual rights, that private property should be strictly limited if not abolished, and that there should be equal outcomes as well as equal opportunities. (In communist Cuba today, for instance, a brain surgeon and a day laborer receive the same salary–as well as the same ration cards.) Socialism asserts that people can and should be unselfish, that they should sacrifice their private concerns for the public good. And socialism preaches that in the future a new man and a new woman freed of petty greed and self-interest and dedicated only to the common good will emerge.
This socialist dream is inspirational to many people and may even have worked passably well for religiously-motivated people and some voluntary communities in the past and present. When applied to an entire society however socialist theory tends to destroy incentives for economic, scientific and social progress. Where it has been tried in entire countries (for more than half a century) instead of leading to equality and altruism it has led more often to apathy and alcoholism. It has restricted innovation and compromised art. In the end it has only been able to take and keep power by coercion. After 70 years of experimentation on state-wide levels and despite the over 100 million victims who paid with their lives, the socialist utopia seems today more remote than ever.
An old joke makes the case: a socialist orator preaches to the crowd “Comes the revolution we all eat strawberries and cream!” A little guy in the front row objects “But I don’t like strawberries and cream.” “Comes the revolution, damn it, you’ll eat strawberries and cream.”
What lessons, if any, does the cold war have for the 21st century?
Stay tuned for Part 9: The Rise of Radical Islam
For a long range perspective on all of the issues discussed in this COLD WAR script I recommend our best-selling new program: DEMOCRACY IN WORLD HISTORY. Here is a recent review from EDUCATIONAL MEDIA REVIEWS ONLINE, Univ. of Buffalo, NY
Democracy in World History
2006
Distributed by Hawkhill Associates, Inc., 125 Gilman St., Madison, WI 53703; 800-422-4295
Produced by Bill Stonebarger
Directed by Bill Stonebarger
DVD, color, 194 minutes (6 DVDs, approx. 30 minutes each)
Sr. High – Adult
American Studies, Economics, European Studies, History, Middle Eastern Studies, Political Science
Reviewed by Michael J. Coffta, Business Librarian, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania
Highly Recommended
Date Entered: 6/18/2007
This voluminous work sets out on the daunting task of discussing hundreds of years of the evolution of democracy in a swift manner without seeming cursory. Democracy in World History accomplishes this with a balance of detail, analysis, and identification of overarching themes related to strings of significant world events. The series does an excellent job in demonstrating linkages of events and movements. It also does a superb job of examining common threads among different civilizations. For example, it makes comparisons between Roman and medieval and industrial civilizations in the context of slavery. The viewer never feels overwhelmed by jargon, but is skillfully acquainted with terms such as Divine Right, human rights, industrialization, enlightened despotism, etc. The most notable aspect of this series is its overall consistency. The narration has the feel of a grandfather’s storytelling. Casual references, such as referring to microbes as “beasties,” and the like give this series a relaxed but informative tone. Make no mistake, however, that this is a rigorous rendering of the history of democracy. Scripts for each DVD are available on the Hawkhill web site. www.hawkhill.com.
Not simply a recording on a disk, the filmmaker has taken full advantage of the medium, by including a good deal of interactivity on each DVD volume. “Guided Questions” (usually in multiple-choice format) provide instant feedback and links the learner back to the portion of the “movie” with the information pertinent to the question.
This is an outstanding body of work, and is highly recommended for high school audiences and higher. It is important to note that while the volumes are interrelated, they also stand independently as solid surveys of the historical eras.
Bill Stonebarger, Hawkhill Owner/President
P.S. Don’t forget our 2010 sale: 70% discount on all DVD programs, 90% discount on all VHS tapes. See our website: www.hawkhill.com