What did Gorbachev mean by the new political thinking in foreign Essay

What did Gorbachev mean by the new political thinking in foreign policy Was it compatible with Marxism-Leninism - Essay Example The new political thinking initiated by the Gorbachev regime in the former Soviet Union brought in tremendous changes in the foreign policy of the country. Perestroika was considered as the opening of the Russia to world and in turn the world to the Russia. Gorbachev’s new foreign policy was characterised by the ‘free will’ to put an end to arms race, which was materialised as the freezing of nuclear tests in august 1985, the general disarmament plan in January 1986, agreement on the elimination of medium range nuclear missiles in 1987, large scale military cuts and pulling out from Afghanistan in 1989. However, Gorbachev miserably failed not only in democratising the regime but also in preserving it. The compatibility of Gorbachev’s policies with Marxism could only be determined with relations to what we consider as the central tenets of Marxism. Still, along the Gramscian lines, it is possible to argue that the Soviet Russia undergone a phase of passive r evolutions under the (non)leadership of Gorbachev. From a Marxist perspective, the Soviet Foreign policy had de-ideologised by the 1960s itself. The Gorbachevian reforms at the realm of foreign policy tried to get the foreign policy out of the irrational fears of cold war era. Gorbachevian Reforms and the New Political Thinking Many people think that the structural reforms undertook by Gorbachev was a response to the growing economic crisis Soviet Union faced in the 1980s. However, such a viewpoint does not consider the fact that many countries that are substantially poorer than Soviet Union have not undergone any systemic changes. Certainly, Gorbachev tried to modernise the economy and introduced new management techniques which are capitalistic in essence to unfetter production. However, perestroika needs to be understood as more about political reforms than economic reforms. Ironically, Gorbachevian reforms have many similarities with the austerity programmes usually adopted in ca pitalist countries. Gorbachev’s new political thinking was basically defined in terms of the need for an integrated world wherein both the Soviet Union and the West must try for the de-militarisation of the planet. Tsygankov argues that â€Å"by aiming for the West’s support and recognition, it inserted itself into the arena of the Western modernity of nation-states, making it increasingly difficult to discourage the Soviet ethnic republics from embarking on nationalist projects† (2006, p. 47). Here, the point is that the ideals of new political thinking such as world integration, enhanced cooperation with the West, greater autonomy for the ethnic nationalities were not compatible with the reality of an aggressively imperialist-capitalist West, especially under conservatives such as Regan and Thatcher. Remarkably, Gorbachev as a Soviet leader â€Å"found his main base of support not in the party, military, or industry, but in the liberal intelligentsia† ( English, 2000, p.195). As an ambitious leader, Gorbachev actively sought Russia’s broad shift towards the West in general and the Europe in particular. The goal of perestroika was â€Å"to modify the relations of production and prevent social upheaval† but it ended up in â€Å"opening the door to the influence of capitalism, fragmenting the heterogeneous Soviet elite, and enabled an opposition linked to global neoliberalism to emerge which utilised the nascent Russian state as a mechanism for advancing systemic transformation† (Simon, 2010, p. 431). In brief, Gorbachev’s so-called reform policies necessarily ended up in the consolidation of the Russian ruling elites and the transfer of state powers to itself. Importantly, Gorbachev did not have a concrete policy of either economic regeneration or political transformation. Kenez is of the view that â€Å"Gorbachev believed in the possibility of reforming communism in

The Importance of Strategic Management and its Key Elements Essay

The Importance of Strategic Management and its Key Elements - Essay Example Strategy is formed at both corporate level (what industries/markets should we operate in) and business unit level (in what segments should we compete - and how). In their research, Strategic Management: Awareness, Analysis and Change, they focus on corporate level strategic considerations. The pace of change has significantly increased in recent years and the competitive arena has enlarged, driven by, for example, larger international corporates with an appetite for new markets, reduced barriers to international trade, and technology. It is possible to say that it will be difficult to apply these strategies because they focus on the process of strategy and analysis of the environment but do not involve recommendations and clear structure of strategy development. Thompson & Martin (2005) summarize some of the key shifts' in strategic management. Both researches state that the structure of the industry will significantly effect the profit potential of the business operating in that industry. The strategy and actions of a business operating in the industry may improve or destroy the industry structure. Each business (and the relevant decision takers) must recognize and evaluate the impact, short term and long term, of actions taken on the overall industry structure and attractiveness. The resource based view of the firm is currently the dominant conceptual paradigm in strategic management, and as such would appear to offer great potential to the study of the modern organization (Dobson & Starkey 2004; Gardiner, 2005). It argues that under certain conditions a firm's unique bundle of resources and capabilities can generate competitive advantage (Cole, 1998). There are also related schools of thought that focus on the development of dynamic capabilities and knowledge as drivers of competitive advantage. Curiously, there has been little explicit attention given to the resource based view of the firm in the literature, though Pittengrew et al (2000) are recent exceptions. "The multi-business firm has the potential to create the efficient sharing and transfer of core competences across divisions so that the divisions can accommodate new strategic management tools" (Pittengrew et al 2000, p. 21t of the reason for this is again the level of analysis. The resource based v iew implicitly assumes that resources and capabilities are developed and held in a monolithic firm, whereas the reality in the organization is that some are likely to be held at a firm level while others are held at a corporate level. Thus, rather than simply analyzing corporate-level resources in terms of their potential for competitive advantage, the issue is more one of combining or leveraging them on a global basis. Strategic thinking is defined as the positioning of the firm vis--vis its competitors and its customers, and with regard to its underlying resources and capabilities. For Whittington (2000), strategy is about how those two components are brought together. The organization is a value-adding unit. Thus, it is important to realize that many of the customers and even competitors will be other units within the