This document provides a midterm examination submitted by a group of students analyzing the end of the Cold War through four international relations theories: realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism. It begins with an introduction on simplifying IR theory for novices. It then provides background on the Cold War between the US and Soviet Union and their competing ideologies. The analysis section examines why the Cold War happened through each of the four theoretical perspectives and provides a table summarizing them. It then analyzes the Cold War specifically through the lenses of realism, liberalism, Marxism, and constructivism in 3-4 sentences for each perspective.

1. Republic of the Philippines
Technological University of the Philippines
College of Engineering
1000 Ayala Boulevard cor. San Marcelino St., Ermita, Manila
Analyzing the Cold War and It’s End under the International Relations Theory
Midterm Examination
In
Contemporary World
BSCE- 1D
Submitted by:
Group 8
Asuncion, Rinalyn A.
Amen, Carl Vincent L.
Dulot, Maria Angeline U.
Esquierdo, Julie Anne P.
Malabuyo, Dan Erwin D.
Matiling, Janry B.
Submitted to:
Mr. Jaime Mozo Jr.
January 10, 2022

2. Introduction:
Theories allow us to constantly integrate and compete with one another's ideas. While
learning about theoretical concepts, we become bewildered as a result of this. It is critical to
simplify IR theory in order for novices to investigate the field as a whole (McGlinchey, 2017).
In this paper, we will examine the international event known as the Cold War's end through
the lenses of the four International Relations (IR) Theories.
Background:
At the end of World War 2, the cold war began when the two great superpower
countries, the United States and the Soviet Union, had a fight, but not directly. It was a battle
between their ideologies of capitalism and communism. Both have their own nuclear weapon
that symbolizes their power during those times. The superpower country together with United
Kingdom have an agreement to have a fair contribution but the Soviet Union led by Stalin
continues to spread communism throughout the Eastern Europe, making the relation of the
allied country deteriorate. Then the USA released the Truman Doctrine, in which the content
is about Soviet Union being a bad country and the USA preventing of the spread of
communism all over the world. After the release of the Truman doctrine, the America begun
to support those country who are struggling against communism.
The Soviet Union continues to strengthen the power of communism in the East. Stalin
began the Berlin blockade to stop all of the road connections with America and other non-
communist countries. But the USA responded with the Berlin Airlift, supplying Berlin for
almost a year, making Stalin stop the blockade. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) was created in 1949, bringing together the US, Canada, and most of Western Europe
in a defensive pact against the Soviet Union.
To further prevent the spread of communism, the CIA, or central intelligence agency,
was created. It has been helping countries that are under the influence of communism by
giving them funds to develop their economies, because most communist countries are
suffering from famine and corruption. The influence of the Soviet Union sparked other
communist countries like China to begin to help North Korea invade South Korea, but the

3. UN responded and helped South Korea push back the invaders back to the north. After the
death of Stalin in 1953, Nikita Khruschev became the leader, known for being outrageous in
the senate and threatening other countries with atomic bombs.
A lot more happened during the cold war, but as the quote says, "after the storm
comes calm". The two superpower countries, with their new leaders, Gorbachev of the Soviet
Union and Reagan of America, finally made a decision to end all the suffering and life
sacrificed not only to their country but others as well. Both countries agreed to destroy some
of their nuclear weapons, with each side allowing the other to check nuclear sites for their
compliance. Then Gorbachev announced that he would halve the army of the Soviet Union.
When the public realized that they would not be crushed by the union, reforms began to
appear in the eastern part of Europe. The movement influenced others to start a democratic
revolution and ousted the power of most communist governments.
Analysis:
This part will analyze and answer why the Cold War happened by applying the four
Theoretical Perspectives of International Relations. It explores how contending
interpretations of this war can add to our understanding of the causes of war and also traces
linkages among the four perspectives.
Table 1 summarizes the theoretical perspectives under discussion, beginning with
realism, which, emphasizes motives related to power, national security, and resources. By
contrast, liberalism believes in the measurement of power through state economies, the
possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms, rights, and
the like. Marxism perspective rejects the realist and liberal views and focuses only upon the
economic and material aspects such as relationships and conflicts; thus, it is materialistic in
its orientation and tends to overlook other forms of non-economic aspects of world politics.
This latter perspective, which is Constructivism, emphasizes not only the importance of
material structures but as well as the normative dimension which is associated with it, as well
as the importance of identity formation and manifestation.

4. Theory Causal/Explanatory Focus
Realism  Nuclear Arm Race
Liberalism  Democracies’ fear that dictatorships will attack them
first
 Security derives from spreading democracy and human
rights
 Fear of destruction between two nuclear weapon states
 Avoiding cruelty and atrocity
Marxism  Increasing tensions between classes of individuals
 Conflicts from the pursuit of self-interest in terms of
dialectical
 Emphasizes the fundamental structure of interstate
relations
Social
Constructivism
 Soviet Union policy
Table 1: A Summary of Theoretical Perspectives on the Cold War
Realism
Realism operates under the assumption that states are the only actors on the political
stage, also known as "statism" and "individualism." Additionally, the states work in an
anarchical system, meaning that in the absence of higher, trans-governmental, and universally
recognizable authority, no rules are applied in the international realm. The other assumption
is that politics is driven by the law of human behavior—the mix of urges like the drive for
power, the will to dominate, self-interest, and ambition. Lisinski, 2012).
According to realism, states exist within an anarchic international system in which
they are ultimately dependent on their own capabilities, or power, to further their national
interests. The most important national interest is the survival of the state, including its people,
political system, and territorial integrity. Other major interests for realists include the
preservation of a nation’s culture and economy. Realists contend that, as long as the world is
divided into nation-states in an anarchic setting, national interests will remain the essence of
international politics.

5. During World War II, The Soviet Union and the United States fought together and
became allies to defeat the alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan, also known as the Axis
powers. The Soviet Union together with the United states succeeded in putting the Axis
powers down. This accomplishment makes them the dominant states. After this tension and
misunderstanding began between the two dominant states in the international system.
Because of the absence of universal authority, all states are in conflict with each other, and it
brought competition for power. Later on, another war started between the United States and
The Soviet Union.
The Cold War started after World War II ended. The two dominant states compete for
power. American officials want to develop an atomic weapon like the one used in World War
II. It began an arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviets tested
their own made atom bomb and the United States responded by making an even more
destructive atomic weapon like the hydrogen bomb, or what they call "superbomb". The
United States and the Soviet Union how devastating their own made bomb by using it in the
ocean and in the atmosphere. It was this that provided a starting point for the evolution of the
Cold War that saw the dominance of the arms race and military competition as the main
currency in the superpower relationship.
Kissenger and Gaddis argue that it was through military competition, both
technological and direct participation, that the United States won the Cold War.
Liberalism
Liberalism, also known as "liberal internationalism," is the belief that the current
international order can bring about world peace.Rather than using brute force, such as
military action, Liberalism emphasizes international cooperation as a method of improving
the interests of each nation. Liberals believe that the costs of using force, such as financial
damage and civilian casualties, far outweigh any potential benefits. As a result, liberal
politicians frequently choose to use economic and social power to fulfill national goals.
According to liberal theories, they are influenced by states' internal characteristics,
particularly their type of government, as well as international law. The spread of democracy
and trade, as well as the conflict-resolution functions of international institutions, are critical
to global security and prosperity.

6. As with realism, the term "liberalism" comprises several related theories of
international relations. Kant and Wilson’s idealism are based on the idea that more
democracy leads to more peace, as well as the closely related concept of liberal or democratic
peace, which holds that democracies do not fight each other. As a result, "crusading liberals"
support using force to replace dictatorships with democracies as long as spreading democracy
and human rights improves the US and other democracies' national security. While mature
democracies do not fight among themselves, they are vulnerable to conflict with non-
democracies. Another explanation is that democracies are concerned that non-democracies,
which lack both transparency and governmental checks on the use of force, will be able to
exploit slower mobilizing democratic opposition by attacking initially. Democracies become
more aggressive and war-prone when they perceive threats from non-democracies because
they expect dictatorships to be more capable and willing to use deception (Russet, 1993).
Furthermore, while the war never devolved into direct conflict, the tension, as well as
the wars of aggression launched by both sides, caused this period to be perceived as a major
war. With the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the Cold War came to an end. This was
the last large-scale battle between the world's powerful states. Ideological hostility, which
was one of the primary causes of the war, was also eradicated. The United States and the
Soviet Union had opposing political systems and, behind those political systems, tried to
oppose ideological views. Because the two ideologies are so completely contrary, any attempt
to spread one will be viewed as threatening by the other. After communism fell, the only
major ideology held by a major power was liberalism. This was also ensured by the
democratization process that the former Soviet republics underwent. The collapse of the
Soviet Union also resulted in the birth, or rebirth, of fifteen independent states in Eastern and
Central Europe. Along with the weakening of communism's influence, these states adopted a
democratic system to replace the previous authoritarian system. The United States even aided
those states through this method, which, while not entirely successful, did transform the
states' ideological views and increase the liberal freedom of their people.
This democratization process played an important role in promoting and maintaining
peace. Visions of world peace have been founded on collective peace between democracies.
Kant spoke of perpetual peace, stating that one of the key proponents of peace is shared
republican constitutions among states. In this context, Kant's reference to a republican
constitution corresponds to the main idea of a democratic state: states with a freedom-based
constitution, representative government, and clear separation of powers. Thus, in accordance

7. with the concept of perpetual peace, state democratization has a positive impact on the
promotion of peace.
Due to the ideological differences between the two states, predicting the other's move
on how they will exercise their military power is more complicated. The security dilemma is
very visible between the countries involved, strengthening tensions. The chances of a war
between the two countries have also increased. As a result, democracies are expected to
maintain peace.
We also discovered that democracy and economic interdependence reduce the
likelihood of a militarized interstate conflict between two states. However, these were largely
limited to the cold war era, and that caused some to argue that the results were an artifact of
that period's bipolar configuration of alliances and interests.
From a liberal perspective, states do not use mandates to achieve their goals with
other liberal states. Liberalism acknowledges the value of freedom and human rights;
however, the use of military force may contradict these values by costing the lives and
freedom of civilians in the target state. Democracies will avoid using coercive measures
unless if it is necessary. Because of this condition, democracies are more likely to prefer
peaceful negotiations to reach an agreement. Democracies prefer soft power in influencing
other states through cultures and knowledge or smart power which is a combination of soft
and coercive power.
Liberals tend to be more pacific. It does not mean that they will not participate in a
war. As stated before, liberals believe that war must serve a purpose. A democratic state is
also very likely to promote democracy in autocratic states. In such conditions, democracy is
inclined to intervene and even launch military operations to make way for a regime change,
turning the situation into some sort of "crusade" for democracy. Such is the case with the
USA and states in the Middle East region. In its attempt to promote democracy, the USA
often interferes with foreign states affairs and it also had had occurrences where it used
military forces to achieve its objectives. A prime example of this is the 2003 US intervention
in Iraq. Despite this, it is important to note that most of the world is democratic, just like the
USA which is the hegemony in the post-Cold War period. It is also true for emerging world
powers such as China and Russia. While it may be argued that these states have a deeply
flawed democratic system, these states still hold some similarities with the current
superpower. Given that situation, the superpower has no reason to launch an attack saying it
is an attempt to spread democracy and war caused by unlikely ideological hostility. may
happen. Other countries capable of achieving great power statuses, such as India and Brazil,

8. are also democracies. Thus, peace is likely to be maintained among the great powers in the
post-Cold War era.
Prolonged trade relations cause the populations of both states to be dependent on each
other to gain income or obtain certain resources. Wars are costly, even more so if both sides'
economies are deeply connected, which is more likely to be the case between democratic
states. The more economically interdependent a state is on another, the more devastating the
impact of war will be on its economy. Therefore, to preserve their economies, democratic
states are unlikely to wage war against each other.
The will of the people in democratic states also plays a role in preserving peace.
When a state is people-driven, it is unlikely for that state to declare war unless it is for self-
preservation measures. The rationale behind this is the fact that a war is costly and requires
public mobilization. Wars will cause part of the population to be drafted. The economy will
also suffer as the state budget will mostly be spent on war efforts, and infrastructure will
likely be destroyed. Civilians end up bearing the brunt of wars, whether their state is the
victor or not.
The structure of a democratic state also makes it harder for the head of the state to
declare war. A democratic government structure also allows the population to deliver their
aspirations through multiple channels and adheres to what has been stated before; the
population is inclined to vote against war.
Despite the numerous armed conflicts, the United States is only involved in extra-
state wars in foreign lands; the only part of the US population put at risk is those who are in
the military, the combatants who are drafted. The United States, prioritizing its population’s
welfare, is unlikely to declare an interstate war that directly involves itself since doing so will
threaten the security of the population.
The international system is currently in a long peace era after the Cold War; there are
no major power wars with devastating effects. Incidentally, this era also sees the emergence
of liberal democratic states. In his essay on Perpetual Peace, Kant stated that to attain peace,
states must first be democratic. This is because the values embedded in the liberal democratic
framework actively support the promotion of peace. Various attributes and practices of
democratic states also factor into the process of maintaining peace. In an era where
democracy is the dominant system in the world, the frequency of major power wars has
diminished. Liberal states do not fight because they have little to fight about; they fight
because of the shared interests reflected in democratic institutions and open markets.

9. Marxism
Using Marxism as a framework, we may examine the causes of war in their "totality,"
which transcends the bounds of each theory of international relations and considers all
aspects of war's origins, including political, social, and economic considerations. Developed
by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxism is a social and political ideology that focuses on
the working class (Hobden and Jones, 2001). When Marxist theory is applied in conjunction
with the "three levels" of studying an individual, a nation-state, and a global system,
international relations can be examined more successfully. In the context of global conflict,
Marxism has proven to be a flexible and adaptive analytical tool, allowing it to evolve and
adapt to changing international situations as they arise. With a historical perspective on
Marxism's birth and growth, it is clear that Marxism provides an excellent framework for
analyzing the origins and causes of conflicts.
According to Marxism, society is divided into two groups: the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat. Due to the capitalist method of production, which Marxism regards as inevitable,
these two categories of people are considered inevitable. In essence, the bourgeoisie controls
the means of production, which is essentially the state's material power and economic
underpinnings, which capitalist governments represent, and so controls the ruling class.
According to communists, socialism is the ultimate aim and a revolution will be the sole
means of achieving this social progress. They believe that capitalism is a means to an end and
that socialism, rather than capitalism, is the ultimate aim. "War," for example, is the exterior
manifestation of the internal class struggle, according to Kenneth Waltz (2001), "which
makes the problem of war simultaneous with the existence of capitalist nations." According
to Marxists, several significant themes from Marxism can be applied to the current
disagreement in international politics to better understand it.
A further advantage of the concept of dialectical materialism developed by Marx and
Engels is that it provides an analytical framework for evaluating international conflict and
struggle at the individual level (Neumann, 1971). To meet human material needs throughout
history, societal upheavals have pitted one group of people against another, or even against an
entire society. To meet those demands has been the driving force behind societal upheavals.
A resource's physical security and ability to use all of its accessible resources are considered
material requirements for that particular resource. Since the beginning of time, economic
interests have impacted the activities of individuals and groups of individuals at both the
micro and macro levels, and this has continued to this day. If landowner A is required to

10. increase the size of his or her domain to increase agricultural land capacity, but peasant B
wants to continue exploiting this territory and providing for himself or herself, the two parties
will eventually come to blows with one another. Thus, Marxism considers the opposing
parties and their struggles to prelude the primary class conflict and the resultant conflict as
forerunners to all-out war and revolution. For a brief period, the Revolution of 1848 resulted
in the establishment of the Paris Commune. It serves as an early example of the perpetually
increasing tensions between classes of individuals and the conflicts that arise from the pursuit
of self-interest in terms of dialectical materialism. This premature quasi-communist
revolution serves as an early illustration of the ever-increasing tensions between classes of
humans, as well as the conflicts that arise as a result of the pursuit of individual self-interests
(Neumann, 1971).
The second application of Marxist theory is in state-level analysis, which is concerned
with how governments function. The socialist worldview, according to Vladimir Lenin's idea
of socialism, is inextricably linked to the existence of capitalist governments and their
proclivity for confrontation with other countries. According to Lenin (1915), capitalist
countries were obligated to wage war against one another in order to achieve more significant
profits and political control, culminating, in turn, in a class struggle within each state. Lenin
invented the term "imperialism" to describe this form of interstate interaction between states,
and the term is still in use today. In the same way that Thucydides had done for centuries,
Michael Doyle (1997) explains imperialism as a "rational strategy to enhance security,
prestige, and interests (trade, population, territory, and resources) when the costs of conquest
were less than the benefits of conquest." "When the cost of conquest was less than the
benefits of conquest," he says. Instead, this perspective could explain why governments
targeted and gained control of other states' resources using coercive techniques during
colonialism and annexation, according to Doyle (1997), by employing coercive measures
against them. Governments of capitalist countries have the ability to impose their rule on
other countries, allowing them to promote the economic interests of their own countries while
also increasing their political authority (Judis, 2004).Marxism's perspective on capitalism's
demand for new markets and the maintenance of its interests and existence explains the use
of force by capitalist regimes to maintain their positions and existence (Judis, 2004).
This means that Marxism is now applicable because it can be used as a theoretical
framework for evaluating international relations and conflict on a global scale, which is
beneficial. Even though there are several reasons for war to erupt in a capitalist society, the
Marxist theory emphasizes the superstructural causes of conflict, which stem from the

11. fundamental structure of interstate relations, as the primary source of conflict. While Hobden
and Jones agree that this is a problem, they believe that "the framework of the capitalist
world-economy, which governs their interaction and supremacy, constrains the ability of
these governments and classes to achieve their objectives" (Hobden and Jones, 2001).
According to Marxism, the world is divided into several established states, each of which can
handle issues without the need for a central authority. Instead, each state has an incentive to
pursue its interests, which Marxism views as the most appropriate course of action to pursue
in any given situation. The fact that the material requirements of states primarily drive these
international interests makes collisions that result in conflict an unavoidable outcome. The
United Nations has issued the following statement: Adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial
adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial adverbial
adverbial adverbial adverbialWorld system theory, created by Wallerstein, proposes that there
are three types of capitalist states in the world: a core or mature capitalist state; a semi-
peripheral or developing state; and a periphery or less-developed state. Out of the three states,
the core capitalist state is the most developed (Doyle, 1997).
These types of posturing result in conflict because the core has an invested interest in
strategically positioning itself in opposition to the semi-periphery, and the semi-periphery has
an invested interest in strategically positioning itself in opposition to the periphery. The core
has an invested interest in strategically positioning itself in opposition to the semi-periphery.
To strategically place itself in opposition to the semi-periphery, the core has financial and
other incentives to do so.
Even though socio-political and economic factors can impact the chances of war and
peace between states, these forces will always ensure conflict on some level and to a certain
extent in the world. According to Marxist theories of international relations, governments
engage in international trade as a result of the global capitalism system. As a result, countries
engage in military aggression and a reluctance to cooperate economically.
As a result, Marxism is no longer regarded as a useful analytical tool by international
relations theorists, who point to the failure of socialist countries to end capitalism's conflicts
and the absence of a global revolution, as anticipated by Marx, as reasons for this dismissive
attitude. Even though this catalytic catastrophe has not yet revealed itself, Marxist-Leninists
have always considered war and revolution vital to reaching their ultimate goal of universal
revolution (Earle, 1971). Nonetheless, Marxism as a theoretical framework is not rendered
erroneous due to these findings.

12. The Soviet Union may be remembered as a socialist experiment rather than its
successful conclusion; many Marxists may regard it as a more mature and long-lasting
version of the Paris Commune, which occurred in 1848 and lasted until the present day.
Many Marxists believe that Stalinist rule in the Soviet Union killed international
communism and any severe possibilities for a Marxist-led socialist state from the beginning.
Throughout the Soviet Union's history, Stalin's legacy of terror and bureaucratic repression
enabled leaders from Khrushchev to Gorbachev to move away from "true" Marxism through
repression, revisions, and reforms. The collapse of the Soviet Union became more likely due
to this. The events of 1917 had a significant impact on Marx's understanding of the advent of
communism. Many individuals feel that the Soviet Union was in the wrong location at the
wrong time and that its leaders were to blame for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Gorbachev broke with Leninist tradition, which "led to the degeneration of Communist one-
party control and the disintegration of the Soviet empire," according to Amos Yoder (1993).
According to him, "this degeneration of ideology had immense ramifications" since "the
communists themselves did not take their own theories seriously." It was a historical calamity
for Marxists, but it was also the beginning of something new. The significance of Marxism in
the post-Cold War era has been enhanced as a result of this new phase. According to this
belief, it is possible to see how other so-called communist-controlled countries, such as China,
have adopted the principles and lessons from the Soviet Union's defection from Marxism-
Leninism. Francois Furet (1999) is an excellent example of this point of view. Several
decades after Mao Zedong chastised Khrushchev for undermining Stalin's crimes against
humanity, the Chinese Communist Party announced that its mission was to rebuild and
promote Marxism throughout the world. According to Cheng Enfu, executive president of the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences' new Academy of Marxist Studies, the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) authorities have never been keener to develop Marxism than they
are right now. Huang (2006) claims that China continues to achieve tremendous economic
growth and has emerged as a model for development for other adjacent countries, and it has
reawakened Marxist predictions that tensions between capitalism and socialist regimes will
always exist.
According to Huang (2006), "Beijing sought to modernize Marxism by developing a
theoretical system based on the belief that this would help the advancement and
modernisation of the ideology on a global scale." If the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)
considers itself the final bastion of hope for the Marxist camp and China's engagement in
international politics rises, studying Marxism may help predict China's future path and the

13. potential for confrontation between the CCP and the West. The Cold War's legacy remains
relevant today if one does not discount Marxism's shortcomings, the modernization of the
Soviet Union's leadership's fallibility, and the Soviet Union's eventual disintegration.
Social Constructivism
For decades, two approaches to International Relations theory dominated: realism and
liberalism. These mainstream ideas had sidelined constructivism because it concentrates on
social construction rather than material construction. Constructivism is a social theory that
claims that ideational (historically and socially built) influences, not just material forces,
shape important aspects of international relations. The most important ideational influences
are those that are shared by many people; these shared beliefs shape actors' interests and
identities.
According to constructivist theories, in turn, they contend that meaningful actions and
behaviors are only feasible within an inter-subjective context that is supported by a set of
norms and consequent social practices—a "structure"—and that discourse—ideas, knowledge,
language, culture, and ideology—makes this structure possible (Hopf, 1998).
Furthermore, the unexpected end of the Cold War has sparked a controversy in IR
theory. Constructivists say that the end of the Cold War is best described in terms of ideas
and agency, citing Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's new thinking as an example. Using
the USSR's institutionalized legacy as a revolutionary state, Gorbachev acted as a
counterrevolutionary, reversing the process with his foreign policy revolution. In establishing
a new peaceful international order, he sought to promote radical decentralization,
liberalization, and the formation of a new coalition through the "second image reversed."
From 1985 to 1991, the case examines how Gorbachev's domestic goals influenced his
foreign policy.
The end of the Cold War marked a watershed moment not only for the world, but also
for those who lived in it. as well as discussions about international relations conceptsIt could
not have been expected by mainstream international relations theory. According to social
constructivists, what was ostensibly a bipolar situation between the United States and the
Soviet Union at this time was actually a binarized conflict between two different state
identities whose acts mutually reinforced each other's identities (Hopf, 2006).

14. Constructivists say that the end of the long-running competition between the United
States and the Soviet Union was due to Moscow's perception of the USSR as a "regular social
democratic great power" rather than a "communist superpower" under Gorbachev (Hopf,
2016).
With the conclusion of the Cold War, constructivism became a hot topic of discussion
in theories of international relations. Some academics, on the other hand, are critical of this. It
does not offer a comprehensive philosophy of global politics. It proposes a method of
investigation that may be used to comprehend international political economy (IPE).
Constructivism should be used in conjunction with a variety of theories from a variety of
disciplines, including sociology, comparative politics, social psychology, and others (Checkel
1998).
Conclusion:
In conclusion, realist and liberal theories, do not provide as many frameworks for
understanding these conflicts as Marxism does, and as a result, Marxism may be more helpful
as an analytical tool today than it has ever been. According to Marxism, two theories of
conflict, notably Realism and Liberalism, are naive in their assumptions when it comes to the
origins of conflict: Realists lay a disproportionate amount of focus on governmental actors
and power, whereas liberals place a disproportionate amount of emphasis on economic
cooperation and the resolution of conflict. According to Marxist theory, political decisions
are influenced by hidden realities that take into consideration social, political, and economic
issues simultaneously, as well as external factors (Hobden and Jones, 2001). The economic
phenomenon of war is a global phenomenon that, on the one hand, does harm to humanity
while, on the other hand, assisting a relatively small number of individuals. The theory of
Marxism provides a starting point for constructing an explanation of why governments go to
war and a mechanism for anticipating the causes of conflict.
In order to understand the motivations of non-state actors such as populist nationalist
groups and terrorist organizations, out of the Four Theoretical Perspectives of International
Relations, Marxist theory, which is still relevant today, can be applied. Al Qaeda, according
to John B. Judis (2004), was "the latter-day progeny of nationalist opposition to Western
imperialism," and they "had the same anti-Western and anti-Israeli sentiments as preceding

15. nationalist and socialist organizations". In recent years, the Marxist school of thought has
impacted a number of the most violent and radical political movements of our day, notably
Peru's Sendero Luminoso movement, which has a robust Marxist component. Furthermore,
what are the long-term consequences of the international recognition given to Hamas's
freshly elected officials in Palestinian territorial organizations to the Bolsheviks Hamas is a
well-known terrorist organization that may have achieved political legitimacy in the West
Bank due to the Palestinian elections. When we use Marxism as a framework for
understanding and anticipating the consequences of these forms of groups and conflicts, we
can better perceive, explain, and foresee the implications of these types of groupings and
conflicts. In order to better understand how the "War on Terror" and pre-emptive action, such
as the United States’ invasion of Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iraq, came to
be, Marxist theory might be applied to the subject.

16. Bibliography
Aditya, R., Putri, R. A. A. K., Permana, A., Novikrisna, D., Prihatini, E. S., Dewi, G. D. P., ...
& Indriani, M. The Logic of Democratic Peace Theory in the Post-Cold War Era.
Bell, Duncan. “Realism | Definition, Theories, & Facts.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 22 July
2021, www.britannica.com/topic/realism-political-and-social-science.
Britannica. “Cold War | Causes, Facts, & Summary.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 10 Dec. 2018,
www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War.
Chan, S. (1997). In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise. Mershon
International Studies Review, 41(1), 59–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/222803
Checkel, Jeffrey T. (1998) Ideas and International Political Change: Soviet/Russian
Behaviour and the End of the Cold War, New Haven, CT, London: Yale University Press.
Doyle, Michael W. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, Socialism. London
and New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Earle, E. M. (1971). Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from Machiavelli to
Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Furet, F. (1999). The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth
Century. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hobden, S., & Jones, R. (2001). Marxist Theories of International Relations. Oxford
University Press.
Hopf, T. (1998) ‘The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory’,
International Security, 23 (1), pp. 171-200.
Hopf, T. (2006). ‘Moscow’s Foreign Policy, 1945-2000: Identities, Institutions and Interests’,
in Suny, R.G. (ed.)The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 3: The Twentieth Century .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 662-705.
Hopf, T. (2016). ‘Making Identity Count: Constructivism, Identity, and IR Theory’, in Allan,
B.B., & Hopf, T. (ed.) Making Identity Count: Building a National Identity Database. New
York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-19.
Huang, C. (2006). China Taking the Lead to Energise Marxist Ideology.
Judis, J. B. (2004). Imperial Amnesia. Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace
Lenin, V.I. (1915). Socialism and War in Lawrence Freedman (1994), ed., War Oxford and
New York: Oxford University Press.

17. Lenin, V.I. (1916). Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch09.htm
Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1993). Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-
1986. The American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2938740
Mueller, Benjamin. At Cold War’s End: Complexity, Causes, and Counterfactuals. 2015.
Neumann, S. (1971). Engels and Marx: Military Concepts of the Social Revolutionaries in
Edward Mead Earle, ed. Makers of Modern Strategy: Military Thought from
Machiavelli to Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Oneal, J. R., & Russett, B. (1999). Is the liberal peace just an artifact of Cold War interests?
Assessing recent critiques. International Interactions, 25(3), 213-241.
Russett, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Saull, Richard. Rethinking Theory and History in the Cold War: The State, Military Power
and Social Revolution. 1999.
Waltz, K. (2001). Man, the State and war (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press.
Yoder, A. (1993). Communism in Transition: The End of the Soviet Empires. Washington,
DC: Taylor & Francis.