The Cold War was a continuous struggle between two powers that had formed after World War II: the Western camp headed by the USA included the Western capitalistic developed countries; the Eastern block headed by the USSR consisted of the countries which “professed” communism and had command economy.
This was a strong political confrontation based on a fundamental mutual ideological rejection; despite the two blocks did not carry out direct military operations, they nevertheless were involved in a perpetual arms race, which led to the substantial increase of their military potential and a huge breakthrough in the field of weapon and military technology. Despite the war is called “cold” considering absence of the explicit military confrontations, this struggle had been “incandescing” the political environment in the World for a long time.
When analyzing the causes of the capitalistic camp’s victory in the Cold War, it is hardly possible to limit the discussion by one certain reason; the explanation of the struggle’s outcome lies in both theoretical and historical dimensions, and it is necessary to consider them both. As for the historical context, after the War the USA had rather a beneficial position which helped the country to revive quickly and set the economical and political domination: the Marshall Plan, which seemed to be aimed at Europe’s economical rehabilitation, served for the benefit of the United States, as it brought the international dominance of the dollar and provided the country with a huge international market (McMahon 2003). At the same time, the USSR had been ruined substantially by the 4-year warfare and had no support “from outside”; it recovered not “by means of”, but “in defiance of”.
The theoretical aspect of the analysis concerns the essence of two opposite economical systems, which are capitalism and planned economy. The first system is based on competition and private property; correspondingly, the second one rejects private property, and the volume of production is defined not by the demand, but by the governmental planning. Thus, capitalism has a strong advantage: it stimulates progress in production and mass consumption, which are the pillars of economical growth. The absence of these factors is the planned economy’s biggest weakness (Painter 1999).
Therefore, it would be perfunctorily to state that the Eastern camp’s defeat was caused only by the pressure of the external factors; as well, the whole economical system of the USSR seems to have “putrefied” from insight. The main problem with the planned economy is that to make the system work it is necessary to plan precisely and farsightedly; however, for the USSR it was an impracticable task: first of all, the country was huge, and the central organs of government were not able to observe the needs of every region; secondly, the political system of the country was in a perpetual condition of stagnation: nepotism and lobbying flourished, and the decisions taken by the government were often not for the benefit of the population (Hanhimaki and Westad 2003).
Finally, it is possible to assume that improper planning was a tool that helped to suppress and constrain the nation. As a result, people experienced a strong shortage of first-necessity goods, their salaries lost their value. Besides, the absence of competition did not stimulate consumption and progress in production technology. Thus, the country had neither international trade, nor an effective inner market, and the economy collapsed; after the disintegration of the USSR, the whole communistic block stopped its existence.
Nevertheless, it is difficult to talk about the defeat in the Cold War: its outcome looks like a win-win situation. After 1990, Russia had a hard transition period, but at the moment this country is increasing its economical and innovative potential and participates actively in the international trade; the benefit for the USA and the Western developed countries consists in extended foreign market and absence of necessity to waste their economic potential to the arms race. The realities of the modern world have shown that economic competition and international trade are much more effective than political confrontation, as they serve for the benefit of all the participants.
Reference List
Hanhimaki, Jussi M., and Odd A. Westad. 2003. The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McMahon, Robert J. 2003. The Cold War: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford University Press.
Painter, David. 1999. The Cold War: An International History (The Making of the Contemporary World). 1st ed. USA, Canada: Routledge.