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
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.
2. Compare and Contrast Fascism in Italy and Germany
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.
3. Compare and contrast the State/Corporatist relationship in Iran to the other State/Corporatist
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
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.
Section 2: Comparison and Contrasting of Different Economic Discourses
Liberalism and Socialism
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.
Liberalism and Fascism
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).
Liberalism and Corporatism
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.
Liberalism and Theocratism
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.