The record of efforts in reforming socialist economies for the past decade has not gone good with socialists. The “driver” of perestroika in the USSR, dubbed as a plan for renovating socialism, instead led to the pulling apart of socialist institutions and the recent attempt in building capitalism in its place. The Chinese leadership’s style, which is quite different strategy to reform socialism, has only yielded rapid economic growth, but over the past decade China’s development pathway has increasingly seemed to be one of transition to capitalism (Kotz and Weir 112). The guaranteed socialism with Chinese characteristics has come to seem like capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
The socialism model, which was pioneered by the Soviet Union, brought noteworthy social and economic progress in various countries. It made probable rapid economic development without unemployment, capitalists, and large income differences but with a great degree of social protection. However, this socialism model of Soviet had serious problems. Within the Soviet Union, both the state and the economy functioned in a hierarchical and authoritative manner. Due to this situation, the working people were hugely passive recipients of benefits, as opposed to active participants in operating the economic and political institutions in the Soviet system. Not only did this represent waving away from socialist ideals, but it came to the extent of limiting the ability of the system in promoting economic progress (Kotz and Weir 120). It was in the sense that this model of socialism was running out of steam in many countries and, therefore, restricting efforts were operational.
This part of the paper has declared that socialist reform need to restore capitalism. The experiences witnessed by Soviet Union, and China are lessons that can assist to devise a strategy in transforming the Soviet socialism into a viable system that would bring a renewed economic and social continuation while at the same moment not abandoning the key socialist values of solidarity, equality, democracy and cooperation.
Italian Fascism and German National Socialism relate with respect to the following aspects. In both scenarios, enlightenment consideration on individual rationality is forbidden and there is more emphasis on the roles of will and emotion as determining factors of individual behavior (Gregg 109). Furthermore, the general negative view of the nature of human adopted in the so-called “masses” is seen lacking, and the intellectual capacities that are necessary in understanding complicated political questions are easily prone to manipulation by different forms of propaganda.
The liberalism ideology, as well as the political institutions of liberal democracy, are disallowed. Moreover, the Marxism ideology is also rejected more strongly though, in both facets of fascism, there are some theoretical support variables for a limited form the “Third Way Corporatism” intermediate between communism and capitalism (Gregg 109).
On the differences, racialism is strongly evident in the ideology of German National Socialism but less in the ideology of Italian fascism. Considering the nature of the state, the Italian fascism ideology is analyzed in terms of theories of Totalitarianism and Corporatism. However, practically it is questionable on how the totalitarian Italian fascist political system did operate (Gregg 109). Furthermore, Italian fascism practically sided with the capitalist class much more than with the working class. However, the ideology of fascism theories of totalitarianism were disallowed and the state appeared as a vessel of promoting the survival of German race. Nonetheless, it can be argued that practically the German society would be more totalitarian than the Italian society though the limitations of the definition of totalitarian must also be realized.
Saudi Arabia relations with Iraq were tense during the early days as a result of raids done by Ibn Saud’s warriors into Iraq. Another tension came about due to the defeat of the regime of Sharifian whose heirs Abdullah and Faysal became rulers of Transjordan and Iraq. Then later, the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown and replaced by Baghdad regimes due to disputes with Kuwait as well as ideological differences with the royal family of Saudi. During the 1960s and early 1970s, Riyadh suspected that Baghdad was supporting political associations that were hostile to Saudi interest. With this scenario, Saudi-Iraqi ties were consequently being constrained, and Saudi Arabia attempted to contain the spreading of Iraqi radicalization through tightening its relations with states that distrusted Baghdad such as Kuwait, Iran, Syria and the US.
In 1974, Iraq started to temperate its foreign policies and this change greatly lessened tensions between Baghdad and Riyadh (Frank et al. 99). This was stated at the Arab summit of October 1974 and Jordan invited Iraq to keenly listen to proposals on how it could resolve its differences with Egypt, Iran, and Saudi. In return, Iraq reacted with a “charm offensive” which resulted into better relations.
In 1990 during the month of August, barely two years after Tehran and Baghdad had agreed to stop hostilities, Iraqi forces did invade and occupy Kuwait. This made Saudi Arabia react and claimed that the actions of Iraq posed a threat to its security. It did request US to assist by deploying its troops to help in confronting Iraq. Saudi leaders were at long last relieved when Iraq was finally defeated, but they ensured that the state’s relations with Baghdad were not damaged. However, since then the tensions have dramatically reduced. In 2009, Iraq was able to name its first post-war ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Consequently, in 2012 Iraqi foreign minister said that Saudi Arabia also had named its ambassador for the first time to Iraq since 1990 (Frank et al. 100).
President Obama in 2008 made a principle statement: “when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everybody” (Adern par.1). Philosophers of socialism and liberalism have visions on the same. They do not disagree on the idea that the spread of wealth around is good for everyone. In fact, the idea is explicitly expressed in the work of John Rawls, the philosopher of welfare liberalism. He proposes principles of justice one being the “Difference Principle” which claims that inequalities are allowable if only they are beneficial to the worst-off person (Adern par.2). Since various inequalities, arise from the free market and violate to this principle some wealth, therefore, should be redistributed.
Economists who are liberally minded just take for granted that economic agents are self-seeking, and they think and want people to be political agents and act in contrary to their self-interest. These economic agents pile up earthly goods on the routine plane of civil society but are saints in the “heaven” of politics. Socialists, on the other hand, think that a well-ordered society is not constituted of mass of persons who have right quantities of goods. They propose that all people must unite in bonds of fraternity, mutual respect, and regards one’s dignity. All these cannot thrive in the political schizophrenia permitted by liberalism. So the principles of justice should be part and parcel of principles of life.
The distinction between the older conservatism and fascism is attributed to liberalism. The continuation of liberalism together with industry shifted wealth from the traditional aristocracy to the fresh private hands hence creating new private interest groups with the capability of operating as political entrepreneurs. This led to the tendency towards the emergence of plutocratic class of people outside the apparatus of traditional state. Moreover, the continuation of democracy fostered plutocracy to triumph by donning the so-called populist guise and thus the paradox of elitist movement progressing under the banner of anti-elitism. A good example is the history of US of being anti-trust lawful as well as other purportedly anti-big business legislation which vigorously lobbied for big businesses (Frank et al. 98).
One of the supporting ideologies behindhand liberalism is the custom of management. The pre-summed idea that shareholders, directors, or managers are the main determining factors for the success of a corporation is not true. The conception is prevalent in the economy. All the same this deserves a great reward. However, many corporations and private enterprises run without management. In fact, the recurrent parade of “new brooms” attempting to make a name for themselves coupled with cost cutting and rapid changes, have made competent staff resign, and this demoralizes the rest. Moreover, corporations with huge income gap between managers/directors and employees have been proven to function least. Though liberal corporatism is prevalent in many corporations and enterprises, it is detrimental to such organizations.
Theocratism is a combination of circumstance, conviction and rhetoric that has shape feared the public discourse especially of US after the 9/11. It is characterized by a language of good and evil, dependence on the politics of fear, worldwide war on terrorism, vision of redemption contained in the language of transcended purpose, demonization of opponents, and political visions requiring political and cultural homogeneity which has a basis on pure intentions (Simona and Fredrick 174). Liberal nations and their associated cultures are either good or bad, and their fight is against evil axis including domestic opponents. “Those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve” (Simona and Fredrick 174).
From the above political economic discourses, the most appealing is liberalism and socialism. This is because there exists a problem which is solved at the same time. Liberals use people to gain wealth politically while socialism ensures a well-ordered society. On the other hand, the least appealing is the liberalism-fascism discourse. It aggravates the problem. While liberalism focuses on politicians, fascism transfers the public wealth into new private hands.
Kotz, David and Weir, Fred. Revolution from Above: The Demise of the Soviet System, London and New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.
Adam Kern. Liberalism versus socialism. (online) Available at:< http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/liberalism-versus-socialism/ > (Accesseon on 17th Jan, 2014).
Simona Goi and Fredrick Michael. Between Terror and Freedom: Politics, Philosophy, and Fiction Speak of Modernity. UK: Lexington Books, 2006. Print.
Frank Bealey, Richard Chapman, and Michael Sheehan. Elements in Political Science. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1999. Print.
Gregg, Samuel. The Commercial Society: Foundations and Challenges in a Global Age. Lanham,USA; Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2007. Pp. 109. Print.