Class Notes (808,298)
Canada (493,122)
POL327Y5 (40)
Jurgensen (20)

January 14.docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Mississauga
Political Science

January 14, 2013 Brief review on the literature on how the authors look at it. Russian Foreign Policy American foreign policy marked by stability over long time, basic institutions have been around for a long time. The institutions remain more or less the same, allows us to come to definite conclusions that political culture plays. In Russia: where last 20 years has had a huge transformation, in terms of institutions & in outputs of Russian foreign policy. This transformation began with the ascendency Govatrof leadership to soviet union his recognition that the SU needed reform, institution with parastoda and grassnof, economic restructuring and reopening. This was to rescue it, if the SU continued on its trend it would fail. These new initiatives made forces that were very hard to contain, which ended in its collapse, a period of instability through the 1990s and first decade of first century and is only emerging from it now. SU: immediate outcome of the collapse was the 180 degree switch in foreign policy, to integrate Russia into western economies and political institutions, through a largely western prescribed program, from this the yellton government reasserted itself as the close arrangements with the US and NATO began to emerge in a slightly different light, the push for NATO east, more and more states integrated into Warsaw Pac – chec, Poland, Ukraine.. came to ahead with the NATO intervention in Caso, Russia relations to US and West reached all time low, this attitude of Russian leaders under Yellson continued to the assent to power in 1999 of Putin, his government made a drastic face in attitude towards powers, in context of 2001, which Putin saw as a mean of finding a common cause with the west, Russian leaders were worried with Sunni fundamentalism Jadis movement, saw in the declaration take the gloves off, a green light for Russia to do the same in respect to similar movements that threatens its interests, central asia and chet-ne-a. this about phase, lasted for a year, during which the Putin government made some impressive steps, facilitated this intervention, close relationship came to an end, with 2 factors: increasing hawkish of the Bush administration, impending attack of Iraq, and on the sharp rise in Oil prices that coincided with the attack, more than doubled the price of oil, which is the Russian main source of foreign currency. Made much of western Europe dependent on Russian energy sources, let them wheel a blunt stick, that were likewise dependent on Russia. This context the Putin government became more resistant to western goals, and sought to articulate a much more independent foreign policy. Increasingly India, Brazil Bric-Bloc: Brazil, Russia, India, china. History of Russian foreign policy and institutions, this be wilding back and forth, obscured Russian foreign policy, regards to the previous centuries. Even if they had stable patterns, the Russian state didn’t follow this. 1725-1825 came to an end with peter the great where the Russian state became a modernizing empire since 1825, period from 17 to 1825, Russia state tried to Insulate itself from western Europe, emanating from the west. Separate itself. Russia saw to import European technologies and European institutions, to allow it to function in the IS as a great power, but did so unsuccessfully, not in that there weren’t impressive results, city of st. Petersburg, but because it didn’t end the long history of absolutism in Russia, in so far it succumbed to forces that undermined its own stability. This is a pattern where a number of forces have identified, Russian history has always been torn between need to modernize, and commitment to maintain an absolute state, with lack of accountability, when these two goals came into contact, modernizing trends undermine the absolutism state, Russian leaders opted for more conservative options, downplayed modernization to maintain the absolute state. Next transform came with the Russian revolution, the Bolshvi movement to implement the ideas of communism, came in a way inconsistent with revolution theories who inspired this. Brief Marxist thought: Karl Marx, critic of modern capitalism, better understood if we approach his ideas not as a critic, but as a supporter of capitalism. In so far that Capitalism can be summed up as the phrase as the great locka moda of history. Serves to transform those societies from previous institutions of feudalism to more rationale means of efficient production, the reason for that he argued is that in contrast to that, capitalism is defined by class division, those who own means of production and those that are exploited. Produce surplus value, the value they themselves pay and those plus an hour a day. In that sense its not different from peasants who work there piece of land, where owners collect the land. Exploit the peasantry. The ruling class is not free. In slave owning societies they can do what they want with them.capitalist cant engage in this, they are in competition w/ one another. To maintain this status, they have to devote this share with the form of investment in the means of production. Vital stage that carries the seeds of its own destruction, as the means of production is upgraded they are capable of producing more output with fewer input, downward price of labor, this continuous of the working class, will bring about forces where they won’t be able to contain them, polarization of the haves and have not, will create social instability, privileged only means of defending themselves, this collecting action is to break with the individualism. Since workers represent majority of population, can vote in socialism. New economic plan, Lenin: well aware that SU was not right for communism, yet to accomplish that stage, therefore he saw It as what occurred as bourgouise, get rid of old feudal elites, to transform society, new economic plan didn’t get far: soviet revolution from the outset was under attack, saw in Russian revolution a threat to own stability, backed counter revolution forces, thrusted into a civil war. Reconceptulization of Marxism, Karl Marx looked at capitalism like a national set of institutions, Marx himself extracted the nation state and failed to conceptualize imperialism or colonialism as a progressive force that would speed up the process, they try to export to preriferal states, capitalism therefore is a world system, not something limited to nation states, if it’s a world system, makes perfect sense it would rupture where it would be least established. Necessity of security and war, that Soviet development could not be left to slow development of capitalist development, how it occurred in places like Britain, accomplish it through series of 5 year plans, we often talk about revolutions, When we think of the industrial revolutions, we tend to think of them as the introduction of new technologies, more efficient means to make things esier Violence that came from industrial revolution, American Revolution gained the US independence but left the same elites in place, did not result in a social change. The real revolution replacement by old elite to new elite came due to
More Less

Related notes for POL327Y5

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.