How significant a role did Ideology play in the formation of Soviet Essay

How significant a role did Ideology play in the formation of Soviet foreign polity - Essay ExampleThe paper tells that Soviet analysts have held that the central characteristic of Soviet foreign constitution was established through Lenins Decree on two-eyed violet that was approved in November 1917 by the Second Congress of Soviets. It set forth the two fold objectives of Soviet foreign policy that encompassed both peaceful coexistence and proletarian globalism. On the one side, proletarian globalism is understood as the normal basis for the working classes of all nations that struggled to bring down the bourgeoisie and to introduce communist governments. On the other hand, peaceful coexistence referred to adopting procedures to establish comparatively passive inter government relationships with capitalistic nations. Both these policies could be pursued together because Soviet policy makers believed that peaceful coexistence assumes that there will be strong bulwark to imperiali st aggressions. It also presupposed the backing for people protecting their radical achievements or fighting external oppressions. to a lower place Lenin, the policy of the Soviet Union can be defined as involving both pragmatism and political orientation, which was a part of the dialectical process. Marxist ideology provided a strong basis for the Bolsheviks to act against the material conditions approach by them. Marxism Leninism pertained to the idea of contextualizing Soviet actions relative to the material circumstances that confronted the Bolsheviks and the proletariat during this period. The initial foreign policy decisions taken by the Bolsheviks were about the issue of how the Great War was to be approached. Eventually, the Bolshevik government do a decision to end the involvement of the Tsar with the central powers by accepting the peace foothold dictated by Germany. Consequently, the Bolsheviks lost control of several regions that were under Russian control such as F inland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, which implied the loss of vast areas as well as more than a population of 50 one thousand million people, including coal mining, iron production and significant parts of the rail networks. Accepting such severe monetary value can be understood as a practical approach towards foreign policy because the Soviets precious to have the best possible bargain under the given circumstances (Goldgejer, 1994). During this time, there were divisions in terms of the relationship between pragmatism and ideology amongst Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin. Lenin felt that the decisions taken were in keeping with the Soviet ideology and Trotsky held that if there was no war, peace could not be established, which meant that a cease fire had to be called for without get involved in the signing of peace treaties. Bukharin believed that there should be a revolutionary war because he wanted that Russia should continue with the war, which would allow Russia to g et support from the Germans who in turn would stop assisting the war initiatives against the Bolsheviks. In this context, communist ideology indicates that Bukharins sense of communists was the actual understanding of Marxism because of the element of internationalism (Hoffman et al., 1981). Foreign policy of the Soviet Union is often held responsible with compromising on ideology relative to the need for compound into the global political identity, which was primarily for economic motives. Soviet pragmatism aimed at gaining trade rights by providing capitalist nations with access to the countrys natural resources (Kull, 1992). This policy was driven by