Avraham Barkai asserts that, the growth and sustainability of the German economy was based on unique combinations of short-term anticyclical intercessions. These were coupled with preconceived ideological guidelines tasked in establishing new socioeconomic orders in the country. National Socialist Party was therefore being led by powerful ideologists and economists who were not very substantive. During the great economic depression, immediate dictatorship measures were therefore implemented. They comprised of concepts copied, adapted and imitated from the previous contemporary economic theories and philosophies. This however did not hinder the Nazi’s from achieving and sustaining power in Germany. They strived and ensured economic frameworks with new, distinctive, and unique methods, postulates, and institutions were formulated and implemented (Avraham 28).
The Nazis further led to modernization in Germany. The National Socialist developed a rule supporting the revolutionaries in support of defeat and collapse of Third Reich. The author therefore believes reactionary ideologists implemented political-based and Nazis’ concepts to achieve individual-based social, economic, and modernization dynamics. As a result, he focuses on scholarly written economic models in attempts to affirm that, preconceived political concepts played a key role on the pragmatic inventiveness and rearmament of economic policies in Germany. For example, the author asserts ideological objectives pursued by Nazi regime yielded pragmatic and urgent preparations for war. This did not motivate the major parts of German’s production capacities that were idle. Instead, economic experimentations especially within the agricultural sector persisted without major contributions as the country did not rely on economic priorities until full employment was achieved. This further affirms that, Hitler was an ignorant leader who did relied on dictatorship style of leadership to appeal to Germans. Thus, the German socioeconomic and political ideologies under the National Socialist regime led Nazi to achieve and retain power. This further led to Germans pursuing socioeconomic and political modernization (Avraham 91).
Stephen Blank authored a report claiming that, internal pathologies rendered Russian security measures precarious. This led to Russia being regarded as inherently unpredictable, potentially dangerous, and capable of attacking its neighbors to achieve and sustain socioeconomic and political powers. The author therefore strives to affirm that, Russia is catalogued as a nation with defected social, economic, and political ideologies. Thus, global nations including United States should rely on the warning indicators in order to avoid associating and relating with Russia. For example, United States believes Russia faces fundamental issues allied to socioeconomic instabilities due to poor governance and high levels of insecurity (Stephen 4).
The country’s inability to formulate and implement policies global States can assess and utilize to predict the future therefore hinder socioeconomic and political developments. Thus, Russia’s instabilities and unpredictability should be a warning. More so, analysts from various global nations should affirm Russia is a risk society. They should therefore avoid associating with the country as a precaution to prevent ‘unduly’ surprises. Global nations can however diversify the risks in order to develop a greater understanding of the actual and predetermined challenges triggering risks from associating with Russia (Stephen 9).
The author therefore authored this article as a warning. Blank believed the report ought to be utilized by United States to avoid the nation’s army and government systems facing contingency risks due to establishing and retaining relations with Russia. Instead, United States should acknowledge Russia’s social, economic, political, and military ideologies may be obliged to confront especially in the future. Thus, they differ from ideologies within the United States army, military and government systems. As a result, United States should avoid or prevent from relating and embracing Russia’s unforeseen policies in order to preserve its sovereignty and continue purposely serving the citizens (Stephen 48).
Jan Prybyla authored a book to argue that, policies achieving economic modernization and prosperity in China were adopted from the Soviets. Although they were adjusted to suit economic structures in China, they led to intersystem transformations. For example, they led to transformation of the market system. However, the market system continued to be subject to political hazards in the country. This did not hinder the transformations from achieving marketization and materialization factors that played a key role in finding alternatives to form Chinese market and economic associations. The associations were also formed outside China in regions like Taiwan and Hong Kong (Jan 64).
They further attributed to socioeconomic and political reforms. For example, Chinese market systems led to formation of economic and political forces. The forces changed the political make up of China which attributed to removal and/or dissolution of monopoly power of Communist party. The author therefore strives to affirm that, Chinese economic system made up of compatible, integrated, and interactive institutions transformed until they were legally protected. Consequently, analytical theories and economic ethics evolved to achieve socioeconomic orders in China ensuring the transformed systems were identified as qualified, compatible, and consistent institutions. This further guaranteed the institutions were capable of meeting and fulfilling citizens’ social, economic, and political needs which were mainly allied to stability, growth, and consistency. Thus, land, labor and capital as well as entrepreneurship competed in changing and enhancing private and public socioeconomic and political efficiencies in China (Jan 77).
Avraham Barkai, Stephen Blank and Jan Prybyla author different reports in attempts to achieve and sustain socioeconomic and political growth and development. However, the authors rely on diverse facts that played part in achievement of sovereignty within Germany, Russia, and China. They fail to apply modernized socioeconomic and political policies to educate the reader on measures to adopt and implement to ensure these aspects continue to grow and develop.
For example, Avraham should acknowledge Germany is no longer under the leadership of Hitler. More so, current and modern leaders have been striving to ensure Germany heals from the poor and dictatorial leadership styles it was under during the Nazi regime. As a result, the article should acknowledge that, Germany is globally recognized as a sovereign nation with the ability to achieve social, economic, and political growth, expansion and sustainability without implementing forceful, threatening, and intimidating policies.
Stephen on the other hand should acknowledge that, Russia may be regarded as a risk society. However, it is also endowed with various socioeconomic resources United States can benefit from to strengthen the army, military and government systems. Although the author cautions against associating with Russia, he should affirm the country should neither be ignored nor disregarded. Instead, global nations should combine efforts towards helping Russia in addressing and resolving the contingency risks. This will guarantee global regions achieve socioeconomic and political survival and growth without competition leading to wars and fights.
Lastly, Jan claims China’s socioeconomic and political growth is based on socialists practice. This is true as it can be proven based on the fact that socialist systems ensuring citizens’ needs are addressed. However, the author should have also noted that, internal performance norms were also developed as techniques to suppress individuality to sustain political, economic, and social powers among community members.
Based on the articles, it is evident China has adopts the best political economy. This is because China relied on political procedures mainly fueled by the Communist Party to make sure the citizens believed, had faith, trust, and confidence in a stable socioeconomic future. The country therefore developed from a performance-based and legitimate socioeconomic and politically implicated period monitored by other global and super powerful nations for emulation. Thus, the stunning socioeconomic growth and political developments were fueled by unpredictability, governance, and leadership styles that were supportive.
Ultimately, the authors ought to have acknowledged that, social, economic, and political aspects in a country vary depending on various factors including leadership, amount of powers and influence vested in the leaders, types of policies implemented, and political periods in each country among others. Thus, they should have avoided focusing on a single aspect likely to affect socioeconomic and political growth. Instead, they ought to have discussed political, social, cultural, religious, environmental, and economic ideologies as they greatly influence levels of growth and development allied to socioeconomic aspects in individual global nations.
Avraham, Barkai. Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory and Policy. Comparative Socio-Economic Systems, Yale University, 1990. Print.
Jan, Prybyla. The Political Economy of Development in Communist China: China and the Market. Scranton Pennsylvania International Textbook Company, 1970. Print.
Stephen, Blank. Politics and Economics in Putin’s Russia. The United States Army War College Press. 2013. Print.