Abstract
SOVIET writers on the economic consequences of general and complete disarmament unanimously express the traditional Soviet doctrine that disarmament is a problem capable of eventual resolution, that no other matter is of more importance to the future of world peace and security and that implementation of measures of disarmament will yield economic results so advantageous that mankind will enter a new era of economic and social well-being.' Much more significant, however, is the tenor and overall attitude of recent Soviet studies of this question. Perhaps in no other area of international relations have Soviet specialists addressed themselves to a current problem with similar freedom from the outworn slogans and cliches of party ideology that have seriously detracted from their scholarly work in the past. This refreshing objectivity would be welcome in many fields of endeavor, but particularly in the area of disarmament, where disillusionment and disappointment in concrete advances have recently occasioned great loss of interest among political scientists of all nations. Soviet writers on disarmament no longer honor the contention that militarization and defense spending are essential to the prosperity and even the survival of the capitalist system (though Western capitalists are said to perpetuate the arms race to reap colossal profits from defense procurement and military production). It is now customary among the Soviets to cite militarization as the greatest obstacle to sound economic growth in the West and to characterize defense procurement 1A representative example of Soviet optimism concerning the resolution of the problems of disarmament in N. Arkadiev, Razoruzhenie-put' k miru, Moscow, 1958, pp. 53-62.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call