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.
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

relationships
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).
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.

Works Cited
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.

24