Radicle Perspectives in International Relations

Since the start of the 20th century, with the fall of the Qing dynasty, when China was in shambles with no industry, a corrupt government and no international presence, all the way up until today, where China has evolved into one of the strongest internationally recognized countries with a highly globalized market, the relationship between the Chinese people and its government has been debated on whether or not Chinese society is one ruled and dominated by a central government or a society where social change occurred because of bottom-up forces leading to a government for the people. China, since 1949, has been a country, which has been run by a single party state, known as the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). The CCP is organized under the basis of a central, unchallenged party governing the people by the means of communism. Throughout the past century, the CCP has dictated and maintained a rule over the livelihood of its people by monopolizing Chinese politics and penalizing those who opposed it, through central command planning and on the other spectrum, radical economic reforms at the end of the 20th century in the interest of keeping the CCP in power.

Since the market orientated economic reforms were introduced in 1978 (Khan, Hu (1997, P103) China’s economy has seen a 10% increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Per year (Vincellete, Manoel,

Nations have debated on which economic direction their country will direct its footsteps since the creation of societies. The United States, being one of the most stereotypical capitalistic nations, began as a Laissez-faire nation, but throughout the centuries America’s economic standpoint has shifted more into Socialism rather than Laissez-faire. The second largest economy in the world, China, is widely understood as being a socialist country, however, for the past years they have been inclined towards a more capitalist nation, but are still officially socialist. Socialism and Laissez-faire both have fatal flaws, but both concepts can be blended and pragmatic to the new millennium while having a positive future.

For example, according to the book titled The Party: The Secret World of China's Communist Rulers, Richard McGregor states that “The sole experience of Chinese communism for many business leaders who have invested in, and profited from, the transformation of the country into an economy that often appears on the surface to be a uniquely unbridled form of capitalism, are officials who want to do business”(45). In other words, although China is a communist country, its people support and are in favor of capitalism; therefore, the statement shows that Communist China is a capitalist economy. However, at the time of Mao Zedong who was in charge of Communist China, capitalism was not allowed, so China was not a capitalist economy, and after the death of Mao Zedong, people were on their own in order to control their businesses because there was not a leader to control the government and people. Therefore, people started to govern the economy by their own which this system was leading them more to capitalism system. McGregor mentions, “After Mao’s downfall and death, the Party went back to basics. Deng Xiaoping threw out Mao’s destructive notions and returned the party organization to its Leninist roots, as an empowered elite providing enlightened leadership to the masses”(39). When Deng Xiaoping took the Mao Zedong’s position, he went through some difficulties, and the country’s economy was

A process of neoliberal restructuring has been going on in many parts of the world in recent decades. The belief that domestic and international liberalization, privatization, and cutbacks in public spending are the route to economic success is firmly lodged, despite the absence of supporting evidence. In the 1980s and early 1990s the fastest growing economies in the world – such countries as South Korea, Taiwan, China, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia -- had institutions and policies that significantly departed from neoliberal prescriptions. The closest followers of the neoliberal agenda, such as the US since the late 1970s and the formerly Communist Party ruled states of Eastern and Central Europe since the end of the 1980s, registered economic performance ranging from poor to disastrous.

China's transition from the leadership under the iron fist of Mao Zedong to the more liberal Deng Xiao Ping gave the People's Republic a gradual increase in economic freedom while maintaining political stability. During Mao's regime, the country focused on bolstering and serving the community, while subsequently encumbering individual growth and prosperity. Deng advocated a more capitalist economic ideology, which established China as an economic force in the global community while endowing its citizens with more liberties and luxuries than previously granted.

Marxist or Radical theory- The Marxists theory was developed by Karl Marx who believed that modern capitalism had turned workers into a dehumanized mass who lived an existence that was at the mercy of their employers which led him to conclude that the character of every civilization is determined by its mode of production (Siegel, 2015, pg. 199). Richard Quinney derived the radical theory which is derived from the Marxist theory and describes how

Deng Xiaoping felt that the quickest way to build a better China was to improve living conditions immediately, to give people the level of morale they need for further development. At that time, he realized that China’s economic need to reform; he found very effective ways to reform the China’s economic. His goals were to open up the China’s market to the outside world,

On the other hand, in China, Deng Xiaoping focused on the Four Modernizations: industry, agriculture, technology, and national defense. Differing from the Gorbachev’s reform, many of the restrictions against private activities and profit incentives were eliminated, and the government encouraged everyone to work hard to receive their own benefits. The new slogan replaced the tenets of Mao Zedong thought: “Create wealth for the people.” Another success of this program was the attraction for foreign technology and capital by the government’s ability; thousands of students and specialists abroad to study capitalist techniques. Even though Deng’s program had failed to achieve a “fifth modernization” – democracy, his reform helped China make great

In International Relations, there are three major schools of thought realists, liberals, and constructivists. On one end of the spectrum there is the realists school of thought and on the opposite end is the liberal school of thought while the constructivists school of thought lies in the middle. While there are three distinct schools of thought it is not uncommon for people to believe in different parts of different schools.

. Xiaoping implemented significant change going from a centrally planned economy run by the state, towards a private entrepreneur market based economy. This transition to a new type of socialist thinking, known as the socialist market economy, proved highly successful as it allowed China to move from a nation in poverty ruled by a single person to the second largest economy in the world. A more sudden or abrupt change could have easily resulted in the fall of China’s economy, similar to what certain European countries experienced in 1991 at the end of the cold war between the super powers.

From post-1976 onwards, Deng Xiaoping and his conservative pragmatist government would bring great reform to China, which would allow her to tide over the troubles caused by the crisis in communism. Indeed, it would seem that his economic reforms were the main reason for China's survival, as opposed to political reform. Under Deng Xiaoping, action was taken to move China from a Soviet-style command economy to a more capitalist market economy. On the other hand, political reform was not as pronounced as Deng wished to retain the traditional communist style of party dictatorship.

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

Radicalism is defined as “the beliefs or actions of people who advocate thorough or complete political or social reform.” Radicalism is most often a response to something that is seen as broken. In today's world, people are weary to admit the governments of the world are broken as it is a relatively good time. There have been few wars, the world's economy has been booming. However, radicalism can still be seen in parts of the world where people are still heavily oppressed and in places where governments do not function well, such as places in the Middle East and Africa. However, if radicalism is given an opportunity, it seizes it. This was the case in early 20th century Europe. For centuries the people of Europe were taken advantage of with the feudal system, the Industrial Revolution, and constant wars. As a result of these oppressive situations, the people of Europe became disenfranchised and many immigrated to the United States to relieve themselves of the old rigid systems of Europe. However, all people have a breaking point. The poor harvests of 1788 lead to an already angry French population to revolt against the monarchy. Men such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Giovanni Gentile all sought ways to fix the problems of society in the late 19th century. Engels is quoted as saying:

Radical theory is based on the ideas and beliefs of German sociologist Karl Marx. It is based on his theoretical framework that relates with the capitalist mode within production, the state, law, criminal control, and crime (Thomas, B. 1981). There are three competing interpretations of how the previous factors are interrelated the ruling class determinists, the economic determinists, and the dialectical. In the ruling class, a mostly homogeneous group of capitalists can manipulate the state and law for its own interests. In the economic class, the functions of the state are presumed to be determined by the structure of society, not by people, who occupy positions of state power or by individual capitalists. Finally, the dialectical combine the other two