Introduction

The ideological construction of the Cold War in the 1950s responded to the need to outline a geopolitical strategy capable of sustaining the interests of the United States and the Soviet Union. In order to accomplish that aim, the superpowers resorted to the essential aspects of their founding ideologies, namely American Exceptionalism and Eurasianism. Metapolitics is important in understanding the functioning of the international order. The actions set in motion by the superpowers in the 1950s coincided with the evolution of the strategic situation that unfolded during that decade. Cultural values served to demarcate the boundaries of rational action. What was considered to be rational differed for each superpower, for they both held different cultural values. The social practices that emerged from these cultural values responded to an essentialist ideology informed by notions of American Exceptionalism and Eurasianism, which had a significant heuristic component that allowed the leadership of both countries to deploy a workable scheme of international relations capable of bolstering their geopolitical standing. Therefore, it is important to determine the metapolitical tenets that guided the actions of the United States and the Soviet Union in world affairs during the 1950s and the manner in which they served to legitimize their system of government. These factors were of significant importance in the creation of an essentialist construction of the international order in the 1950s, which was aimed toward meeting the geopolitical needs of the United States and the Soviet Union.

The Importance of Metapolitics in the Understanding of the Evolution of the Cold War

The actions undertaken by the United States and the Soviet Union responded to essentialist accounts of the notion of civilization. The actions undertaken by the superpowers during the 1950s attest to the fact that certain practices arise as a result of long-held beliefs about the way in which a particular community should engage with the world. The “exceptionalist” attitude espoused by Washington was aimed at satisfying specific political interests. Communism succeeded in entrenching itself in power in the Soviet Union due to its quasi-religious qualities. Berdyaev states that “Russia has always been full of mystical and prophetic sects and among them there has always been a thirst for the transfiguration of life [and that] the religion of the soil is very strong in the Russian people [as] it lies deep down in the very foundations of the Russian soul.”

Introduction

This chapter charts an interpretative path to the unfoldment of the international order in the 1950s. The role of ideology was crucial for centralizing power and achieving the mastery of the international order. In spite of the ideological differences that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union, both superpowers applied a managerial approach to the administration of domestic and international affairs, which was ultimately responsible for preventing the onset of disruptive conflict. Both superpowers labored under the assumption that the legacy of World War II demanded the type of management aimed at ensuring the creation of a new humanity, which could be devoid of the aggressive and militaristic instincts of the past. There are, therefore, three main elements that characterized the international order in the 1950s. First, the management of the international order took place as a result of the effective use of ideology as an instrument for order, which entailed limited geopolitical expansion informed by cultural commonality. Second, both superpowers deployed the means to centralize power through an effective bipolar alignment that was underpinned by a scheme of collective security within their respective spheres of influence. Third, the element of geopolitical legitimacy was entrenched by the notion that both the United States and the Soviet Union were working for the betterment of the human condition. This principle consolidated the notion of peaceful coexistence and a rather rigid adherence to the tenets endorsed by both superpowers.

Managing the International Order

The effective management of the international order required the use of ideology as a tool of order. American Exceptionalism and Eurasianism informed the ideological principles that propelled the geostrategic interests of the Soviet Union and the United States in the 1950s. The liberal connotations of American Exceptionalism, and the Communist elements attached to the Eurasianist foreign policy of the Soviet Union, enabled the superpowers to justify political and economic interventions in their respective spheres of influence in the postwar era. Ideology gave shape to the cultural and material scaffolding that sustained the management of the international order in the postwar period. The specific ideological formulation that guided the scheme of foreign policy of the superpowers in the 1950s gave an important measure of predictability to their actions.

The National Interest and the Geopolitical Dimension

The more that the national interest is rooted in a geopolitical dimension the more likely it is that it will manifest in powerful ways. Isolationism is not a viable option for countries that seek to instill a narrative of greatness at home and abroad. A retreat away from the responsibility to manage the international order is likely to create the conditions for other powers to arise and erode that sense of greatness. The great powers do not have interests that revolve around economic reasons. They are glory seekers, in the words of Italian geopolitician Dario Fabbri.

The way that this manifested in the 1950s was ref lected in the impact that American Exceptionalism and Eurasianism had on creating an indelible mark on the international order. The expansion of American Exceptionalism and Eurasianism was undertaken in the context of changing the complexion of the area of inf luence with whom they shared cultural commonalities. American Exceptionalism profoundly altered the notion of Europeanness, which was imbued with the values of the modern world, namely liberalism. Something similar can be said about the Soviet Union and Eurasianism, in regard to the forms of organization adopted in the Eastern bloc.

The geopolitical dimension is the main way in which prominent states can accomplish their national interest due to the way in which culture and space interact. During the initial period of the Cold War, the interaction between the United States and the Soviet Union demarcated the geostrategic spaces that would enable them to fulfill their most vital interests. The geopolitical perspective explains why the divergence of interests between the superpowers did not result in overt military conflict. The United States and the Soviet Union were not motivated by the same interests. The United States had an expansive approach regarding the management of the international order, which translated into the handling of a common geopolitical space in areas of the world with cultural affinity and complementary economic interest. For the Soviet Union, the main interest was to maintain the vitality of the Communist system at home and to expand that ideology in a careful manner.

Introduction

During the 1950s, the United States would begin to promote a unidirectionality of history, geared toward enabling the United States to prevail in the geopolitical confrontation against the Soviet Union. In order to project the geopolitical power of the United States, there was a need to ensure that the countries affected by the confrontation that emerged in the 1950s would be persuaded about the good intentions of the United States, particularly when it came to promoting the economic and social rehabilitation of vast areas of the world. The 1950s saw the beginning of the idea of a “global commonwealth” of nations, initially restricted to the areas of the world that had a cultural affinity with America, aligned with the geostrategic interests of the United States, and willing to accept the political and economic principles projected from Washington.

Exerting Power and Shaping the Future—A Look at America's Role in the 1950s

The United States played a significant role in the world during the 1950s. After World War II, the United States emerged as one of the two superpowers, along with the Soviet Union. The United States played a leading role in establishing and leading the Western alliance, which was a military alliance between North American and European countries that was formed to counter the Soviet Union's influence in Europe. The United States also played a major role in the Korean War, which took place from 1950 to 1953, and in the Vietnam War, which lasted from the 1950s to the 1970s. During the 1950s, the United States experienced a time of economic prosperity and cultural conformity known as the “American Dream” or the “Affluent Society.” The 1950s also saw the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, as African Americans and other minority groups in the US began to agitate for equal rights and treatment under the law. In addition to its role on the world stage and its domestic developments, the US also played a major role in shaping popular culture during the 1950s. The decade saw the emergence of rock and roll music, and many iconic cultural figures, such as Elvis Presley, emerged during this time.

Introduction

The concept of “redemptionism” propagated by the Soviet Union during the 1950s relied on a nonuniversalist notion of history, which allowed Moscow to achieve geopolitical preeminence in its sphere of influence and protect the stability of the regime. This approach allowed Moscow to extend its geopolitical influence and promote despotic principles to countries that were not within its immediate area of influence but that sought socioeconomic improvements and a detachment from the political guidelines drawn up by the United States.

A National Version of Marxism

By the time Nikita Khrushchev came into power, there was an idea that socialism could only be built according to the national characteristics of each society. This idea emerged as a result of the multinational nature of the Soviet Union. Additionally, the Soviet leadership was able to instill this idea due to the prestige that it gained as a result of victory in World War II, which was won with the collaboration of the different peoples of the Soviet Union. The endorsement of a national version of Marxism was a sign of the limitations to expanding Soviet ideology as well as the increasing difficulties experienced regarding the launch of a program of social and economic reforms at home. The Khrushchev period served to raise awareness about the possibility of using Communism in order to create an economic system that would surpass American capitalism. It was vital for the Soviet Union to ensure that it remained the beacon of socialism, which compelled Moscow to ameliorate socioeconomic conditions at home. This was the main legacy of De-Stalinization. Indeed, during the Malenkov-Beria-Molotov interregnum, the ministries were endowed with further decision-making powers in an attempt to raise living standards. There were some successes in agricultural production due to a partial liberalization of production, further investment, and the lowering of taxes in private markets and plots. The emphasis on national Marxism went hand in hand with the efforts to improve the socioeconomic situation. In the 1950s, and as a consequence of victory in World War II, there was an entrenchment of a national version of Marxism. Moscow's actions were seen by many as a renunciation of the possibility of replacing capitalism with a dictatorship of the proletariat at the world level.

Introduction

In the 1950s, American Exceptionalism was informed by three distinct particularistic components: faith, dominion, and managerialism. The particularistic markers of the notion of American Exceptionalism dictated the course of US foreign policy in the 1950s. American policymakers dealt with the threat posed by the Soviet Union by putting together policies aimed at securing the supremacy of the United States in the international order. American Exceptionalism was underscored by the faith in the supreme moral values of the United States. In order to operationalize these values in an effective manner, there was a need to give a quasi-religious quality to the expansion of the geopolitical reach of the United States. The faith in the supreme moral values of the United States was needed for legitimizing the dominion over the American sphere of inf luence. The large scope of responsibilities that the United States acquired as a result of the outcome of World War II created a new relationship between the private and the public sectors, aimed at managing the international political system in an effective manner.

The Faith in the Supreme Moral Values of the United States

There are two important components regarding the significance of faith in the development of US foreign policy during the 1950s. First, faith was seen as an instrument for improving the world in the postwar conflict context. Second, faith allowed the American political establishment to see the Cold War as a spiritual battle between two totally opposed systems: communism and Western capitalism. Communism symbolized evil, while the American system symbolized good. The North American configuration of Christianity legitimized America's mission as a force for good in the wider world. It was believed that there could be a confluence between “both the best of American democracy and the best of Christianity,” embodying values such as “compassion, tolerance and belief in justice and equality.”1 The Christian faith, as practiced by the descendants of the British settlers who made their way to North America in the seventeenth century, was seen as an instrument in order to improve the world. American and Christian values were seen as a workable platform for world government.

Introduction

This chapter examines the markers of foreign policy of the Soviet Union in the 1950s. The Soviet intellectual class contributed to maintaining social control of the citizenry through the projection of a narrative that served to legitimize the power of the ruling elite. Eurasianism was also an instrument that entrenched the geopolitical inf luence of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. The cultural rapprochement between the Soviet Union and the countries of the Intermarium was propelled by the need to secure that area of Europe from interference by the Western powers. Eurasianism became an important instrument for harmonizing the political and economic principles that would guide relations among the countries that made up the Soviet bloc. The bureaucratic class also played a role as a bulwark of the managerial system that prevailed in the Soviet Union during the 1950s. The despotic tendencies that emerged from the bureaucratic class were of paramount importance for deploying a scheme of foreign policy that would enable the Soviet Union to keep control over its sphere of inf luence.

The Intellectual Construction of Communism in the 1950s

The Soviet intellectual class disseminated the articles of faith that guided the construction of Soviet society and Moscow's foreign policy in the 1950s. The intellectual class was put in charge of constructing a narrative aimed at legitimizing the Communist system. The task of Soviet intellectuals was informed by the international environment, which was still perceived as being hostile toward the Soviet Union. The Soviet intelligentsia was in charge of projecting a legitimizing narrative in exchange for a living standard that was higher than the rest of the population. Their role was to “perfect” social relations and to create a “new man,” even when this implied the existence of a certain level of dissonance between reality and ideology. The intellectual class was in charge of paying attention “to the ideological and political education of all the people,” which included the members of its own social stratum. This meant that the leading class of the Soviet Union was not the “proletariat” but a small group of people in charge of disciplining society through the projection of narratives that legitimized the power of the Communist Party.