Word meditation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Word meditation - Assignment Example Clearly not. In this sense then, awake means me are alert and paying attention to something. One might argue then that being awake does not depend on the person who is awake, but depends on the person or thing originally said person must pay attention to. Generally, we’re all awake for the Rolling Stones, or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, but we’re not always so awake for that 6am mathematics lecture, or grandma’s stories about how great it was to live in Ireland. Awake can be a verb – one can awake; and it can be an adjective – he is awake. However, these descriptions don’t always mean the person is awake from sleep. One can awake from past memories, or awaken from a dream. Here’s a quandary – can we be awake in a dream? I know I’ve had dreams where I’ve definitely been more attentive than during math class, dreams about flying or swimming a mile below the Atlantic Ocean, am I then more awake during these dreams than when I zoning out during math lectures? In this regard being awake is a much more complicated process than people originally realize. One not only has to be awake – meaning they are conscious – but they have to be conscious of being conscious in a way. They have to be so entirely conscious that there is no way they could possibly be unconscious. But then one must ask, is it possible to be too awake? Can one be so awake that they are no longer awake and just, well, Ià ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure what they would be then, but definitely not

Career Management System Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Career Management System - Essay Example The various common elements of the career management system are examined for planning and shaping the career path of employees. The organizational growth chart is important incentive for the employees to work hard to achieve higher professional status within an organization (Gutteridge & Leibowitz, 1993). The possible career options and avenues of personal and professional growth within the firm help employees to plan their future growth. Thus, organizations need to develop clear career ladders for the workers that they might seek to advance their career. The organizational policies and procedures are critical paradigms that help create an environment of constant motivation for the employees to work with high commitment. The internal job search and facilities provided within organizational to the employees need to be constantly communicated across the workforce. Compensation, career moves, eligibility for new job or promotion etc. are important issues for workers who strive for growth to achieve their ambitions and career related objectives. Thus, strategies and policies must include the changing nature of the society that is increasingly becoming multicultural and focus more training and development of human resource to meet the challenges of the global competition. Organizations need to create facilitating environment of constant learning. It not only helps to nurture high standard of ethics and quality work but it also helps employees to acquire new skills that would add value to their core competencies leading to higher performance. Most importantly, improving skills and gaining knowledge provide workers with cutting edge competition that helps them to meet the challenges with new vigor and motivation. The networking across the community helps to create new job opportunities for not only new job aspirants but also for the

Conflict between Science and Religion Essay Example for Free

Conflict between Science and Religion Essay There have been numerous dissensions between science and religion. The central belief that the earth was the center of the universe prior to the presentation of the Copernican system was held in the primacy of man in the scheme of things, as designed by the will of God. The presentation that the earth was not the center of the universe was met with criticisms. The objections were not helped when it was found that our solar system is not even at the center of the universe but rather located in a spiral arm of the Milky Way Galaxy—one in a cluster of some two dozen galaxies, an infinitesimal part of a universe composed of millions of galaxies. One can only imagine how the religious sector reacted on the principle that our own Milky Way Galaxy is not even close to the center of the vast space of the universe. Conflict between science and religion climaxed when in 1859, Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution from natural selection in his work â€Å"On the Origin of Species† which was met with criticisms. The idea that God has not created man and placed him in the Garden of Eden was seen as an insult to Biblical teachings. Even today, evolution is a subject vigorously debated by those who support the theory and antievolutionists, especially those who call themselves creationists. Evidences show, however, that evolution indeed exists and continue to exist. The long evolutionary journey of species has even left its imprints upon the embryo of the individual organism. Despite conflicts between science and religion and an apparent steady movement away from religion, Arnold Toynbee held that man will turn from materialism to technology back to religion and spiritual values. For some time each religion will maintain its identity and minister to its own adherents, but as they are faced with a â€Å"shrinking† world, a positive tolerance will replace their traditional fanaticism.

The Marxist critique of capitalism

The Marxist critique of capitalism Marx critique of capitalism has been, and in certain respects, remains important in the development of global economies. Marxs critique of capitalism stems from his view that capitalism is a wonderful innovation, but immorally exploitative. Therefore the Marxist critique of capitalism aims to justify this point and provide an alternate form of economic and political system. Yet does Marx succeed in providing an effective critique of capitalism? Or has the collapse of the Soviet Union and mass global capitalism bring with it the end of official, public discourse about Marxism? Or has the recent financial recession rejuvenated the Marxist critique of capitalism? These questions require answers in order to reach a conclusion on whether the Marxist critique is accurate and still applicable to capitalism. Marx critique of capitalism has not only had an impact on the discipline of philosophy and economics, but also an impact upon the globalised world. Marx was a character influenced by the prominent writers of his time, most notable Fredrich Hegel. Marx began his academic writings with a critique of Hegels theory of the Spirit and continued to criticise Hegels idea that the state is above civil society. In 1884 Marx began to apply his philosophy to the analysis of economic life. Marx wrote in the Paris Manuscripts Religion occurs only in the realm of the consciousness, but economy alienation is that of real life; it transcendences therefore covers both aspects(Hughes 2003 :). Marx was critical of economic doctrines of his day, arguing that they confused a particular historical situation for the natural, universal condition of humanity. Marx argued that political economist theories failed as they assumed the actual fact of capitalist production, rather than seeing it as one particular a nd historically specific form of production (Hughes 2003 :). Marx idea of capitalism is a historically specific mode of production, in which capital is the means of production. For Marx this production cannot be defined by technology, but in the way production is owned or controlled, and by the social relationships between each individual characterised by the process of this production. This suggests that social and historical development can be explained in means of economic and class factors. In the eyes of Marx economic factors are based on the idea of exchange, and that exchange in capitalism takes form in the exchange of property. Private property is an essential feature of capitalism. Marx critiques the capitalist notion that the notion of Private Property is the rational system for Exchange. Marx stresses that private property is only maintained in capitalist societies by an elaborate system of laws supported by the power of the state (Hughes 2003 :). For free market capitalist such as Adam Smith it is the acquisition of private property that motivates people to produce wealth, but this acquisition will bring about the breakdown of genuine social relationships (Hughes 2003 :). Why does Marx believe this? The answer Marx gives is a logical one; ones persons ownership of an object denies its benefits to another creating conflict and producing fierce competition over resources*. Marx explains that in the case when property is actually the product of anothers work, it becomes human alienation. In such a scenario under capitalism, labour is effectively reduced to a mere commodity and work becomes depersonalised*. In this view workers efforts enrich and empower those who oppress them, the capitalist, alienated from their product and processes of their labour and ultimately, from themselves as creative and social beings* (Heywood). Marx believes that humans are unique in that we have the capacity to control the environment and create wealth from it. Examples of humans efforts exemplify this point; humans have built houses instead of sheltering in caves, constructed dams to produce hydro electricity. These are to name a few examples were humans have changed the environment to benefit general welfare. Activity of work has a special significance essential to human beings, yet under the conditions of alienated labour this is denied. The capitalist argument that private property motivates is rendered by Marx as simply a consequence of alienated labour. Alienated Labour is important in understanding Marx critique of capitalism, yet more central to Marx critique of capitalism is class struggle. Marx views the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles (Marx and Engels 1985:79). In a capitalist society division arises from the existence of private property. There is division between the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production, and the proletariat, a class of labourers who live only so long as they find workthese labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity (Marx and Engels 1985:83). In previous and contemporary societies this division is evident. Institutes such as universities reinforce these divisions, for example Oxbridge caters to those more bourgeoisie and polytechnics cater to those proletariat in society. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, not only by economic power through the ownership of wealth, but by also wielding political power. The bourgeoisie, since establi shment of modern industry, has established exclusive political sway in form of a modern representative state. The state is a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie (Marx and Engels 1985:83). For Marx the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is one of irreconcilable conflict, in that the proletariat is necessarily and systematically exploited under capitalism*. Marx believed that labour is the only real source of wealth. Capital itself; land factories, ports, railroads, etc.; represents simply stored labour, since it was, at some point, constructed by wage employees (website objectivistcenter.org).Thus in search of profit the capitalist extract this surplus value by paying the workers less than the value of their labour*. As a result unstabliluty defines capitalism, as the proletariat cannot be permanently reconciled to exploitation and oppression (Heywood 2007:56). Marx believed that the oppression inbuilt into capitalism consequently means that it will be its own grave digger. Marx believed that a serious crisis of overproduction will bring forth a proletarian revolution. The revolution against bourgeoisie goes through stages of development. Firstly, class struggle against the Bourgeoisie is not targeted against Bourgeois conditions of product but against the individual who exploits the individual member of the Proletariat; or it may take the form of attack on the means of production, for example smashing machinery**notes. But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more (Marx and Engels 1985:89). This allows the proletariat to form a class, an identity, a collective consciousness. The ever-expanding union of workers forms one character and this mobilizes into a national struggle; the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Marx proclaimed that this proletarian revolution was inevitable, beginning with the seizure of the means of production, the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to contain a counter-revolution and then the eventual peaceful transition to socialism. Marx argued that eventually class antagonism would fade and a fully communist society would come into existence and the proletarian state would wither away. A communist society would eradicate all private property; all property would be owned in common by all. It would be a classless society. Commodity production would be replaced by one of production for use geared to the satisfaction of genuine human needs* heywood. With this Marx argues, The prehistory of man would come to an end, allowing human beings for th e first time to realise their full potential (Heywood 2007:57). Marx writings have developed major ideas which have come to be regarded as the foundations of Marxist thought. Nonetheless Marx political and economic critique on capitalism has come under scrutiny from a variety of academics. A problem with Marx critique is the adoption of the labour theory of value. Marx refusal to accept anything other than the theory that humans are the only source that can add value to raw materials leads to complications. If only humans can add value then what of automated machines that produce value or at the minimum cooperate with humans to create value. If we were not to diverge from Marx argument, it must be concluded that no value is added by such machines. Therefore machines that produce uranium enriched nuclear power providing electricity for millions would have added no value. To conclude this would be illogical as such machines do add value, as they benefit human wellbeing. Further, sheer physical force and labour are of no use if not directed. Amanda Bissell argues that though it is true that labor is needed to construct factories, but throwing a 100 directionless men into a lot with some steel girders, tools and their muscle and with no plan, no blueprint, or leadership will not yield anything that contributes meaningful to production (website as of before). Capitalist provides such direction. Marx inability to understand private property as indispensible to human freedom further weakens his critique of capitalism. Marx critique of capitalism would place the ownership or the control of capital in the hands of those whom hold political power*. Marx solution to capitalism would thus combine economic and political power, the two major sources of power. Louis Kelsos in his Critique of Karl MarxsDas Kapital highlights that If the factory owners of the nineteenth century, having political influence but not unlimited political power, were in a position to exploit the workers, the bureaucrats of the twentieth century in a socialised state, possessing both unlimited economic and political through ownership of the instruments of production, are infinitely better equipped to exploit workers and other non-bureaucrats (Website one with three critiques). The exploitation of a socialised state is illustrated by the Soviet Union. The crumbling of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the swift collapse of the Soviet Union that followed was viewed as a global triumph for free market capitalism. The rise of Neo-liberal economic policies in the 1970s changed the international economic, social and political landscapes. Neo-liberal economic policies have earmarked the monetary union in Europe and the continued growth of Japan and the emergence of South Korea and Singapore as economic forces. Both these factors lead academics to cite that Marxism is dead, that Marxism is no longer a viable theory, or politics for the present age (whither Marxism). Francis Fukuyama in his acclaimed End of History argued that Marxism failed in that it sought to promote in extreme form of social equality at the expense of liberty, by eliminating natural inequalities through the reward not of talent but of need, and through the attempt to abolish division of labor (Fukuyam 1992:273). For Fukuyama free market capitalism provides the perfect trade -off point between liberty and equality. Fukuyama argument is a compelling argument. Over the latter half of the twentieth century capitalism has changed significantly from the capitalism that Marx critiqued in the ninetieth century. Marx in his critique of capitalism makes no reference to the States economic, or its social and political role. Trade unions emerged in the twentieth century as an important and recognised party in the wage bargain. In the ninetieth century trade unions did have not have such an importance on the political and economic factors in the capitalist society. Similarly under capitalist systems universal suffrage has been achieved, allowing all influence on matters of the economy, even at some small level. Universal suffrage has allowed for the rise of social democratic parties across Europe, whose policies have sought to address the redistributive inequalities experienced in capitalism. Welfare systems, social housing and social unemployment relief are to mention a few of the redistributive measures taken by socialist democratic parties. Neo-Marxists express an alternative argument regarding the collapse of Soviet Union and its effects on Marxism. The conditions for the proletarian revolution to occur and for communism to be established, were different from those economic and social conditions of early twentieth century Russia. Marx believed that the revolution would occur in an industrial nation like Britain, a nation with both national and global industry. Russia was not an industrialised nation to this extent in the early twentieth century, and therefore a Marxian communist society was never established under the Soviet Union. Kellner points out, Marxism has been traditionally a theory of class, one which defines the concept of class based on different power groupings. The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed can ultimately be traced to the corruption and bureaucratisation of it ruling class. It never overcame the problem of alienated labour (Magnus and Cullenberg 1995:4). Zhang Longxi in a similar vein views comm unism under the Soviet Union as dead, but Marxism as a theory is very much alive (Magnus and Cullenberg 1995:5). After examining the Marxist critique of capitalism it can be concluded that the critique of capitalism was a critique of ninetieth century capitalism, which can no longer apply to contemporary capitalism. Capitalism for the most part of the twentieth century has evolved to meet the needs of popular demand. Class antagonism is not the same as Marx described, there is no longer a fierce class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, class de-alignment has taken hold of Western capitalist societies. Neo liberalism has become dominant throughout the globe. It is no longer just Western Capitalist societies that have adapted the neo-liberal free market approach to economics but also developing countries. Despite inequality still arising within free market capitalism, opportunity is also created. Free trade allows for growth and increases a nations prosperity. The recent global financial crash has propelled Marxs critique back to the forefront of political debate. Yet capitalis m still prevails, but what occur from its failings are new developments to these failings created by capitalism. Obama healthcare package in the United States, a traditional strict free market capitalist society, is evident to this fact. Marx critique of capitalism thus underestimated the ability for capitalism to restructure itself. Bibliography Ryner, J. (2000) Capitalist Restructuring, Globalisation and the Third Way: Lessons from the Sweedish model, London; Routledge Magun, B, Cullenberg, S. (1995) Whither Marxism? Global Crises in International Perspective, London; Routledge Heywood, A. (2007) Foundations in Politics, Basingstoke; Palgrave Macmillan Marx, K, Engels, F. (1985) The Communist Manifesto; with an Introduction by A.J.P Taylor, London; Penguin Fukuyama, F (1992) The End of History and The Last Man, Harmondsworth; Penguin Hughes, J. (2003) Understanding Classical Sociology, London; Sage Publications Websites http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm http://objectivistcenter.org/cth1298-Marxs_Surplus_Value_Theory.aspx The Marxist Critique Of Capitalism The Marxist Critique Of Capitalism Marx critique of capitalism has been, and in certain respects, remains important in the development of global economies. Marxs theory stems from his view that capitalism is a wonderful innovation, but immorally exploitative. Therefore the Marxist critique of capitalism aims to justify this point and provide an alternate form of economic and political system. Yet does Marx succeed in providing an effective critique of capitalism? Or has the collapse of the Soviet Union and mass global capitalism bring with it the end of official, public discourse about Marxism? Or has the recent financial recession rejuvenated the Marxist critique of capitalism? These questions require answers in order to reach a conclusion on whether the Marxist critique is accurate and still applicable to capitalism. Marx critique of capitalism has not only had an impact on the discipline of philosophy and economics, but also an impact upon the globalised world. Marx was a character influenced by the prominent writers of his time, most notable Fredrich Hegel. Marx began his academic writings with a critique of Hegels theory of the Spirit and continued to criticise Hegels idea that the state is above civil society. In 1884 Marx began to apply his philosophy to the analysis of economic life. Marx wrote in the Paris Manuscripts â€Å"Religion occurs only in the realm of the consciousness, but economy alienation is that of real life; it transcendences therefore covers both aspects† (Hughes 2003 :). Marx was critical of economic doctrines of his day, arguing that they confused a particular historical situation for the natural, universal condition of humanity. Marx argued that political economist theories failed as they â€Å"assumed the actual fact of capitalist production, rather than seeing it as one particular and historically specific form of production† (Hughes 2003 :). Marx idea of capitalism is a historically specific mode of production, in which capital is the means of production. For Marx this production cannot be defined by technology, but in the way production is owned or controlled, and by the social relationships between each individual characterised by the process of this production. This suggests that social and historical development can be explained in means of economic and class factors. In the eyes of Marx economic factors are based on the idea of exchange, and that exchange in capitalism takes form in the exchange of property. Private property is an essential feature of capitalism. Marx critiques the capitalist notion that the notion of ‘Private Property is the rational system for Exchange. Marx stresses that â€Å"private property is only maintained in capitalist societies by an elaborate system of laws supported by the power of the state† (Hughes 2003 :). For free market capitalist such as Adam Smith it is the acquisition of private property that motivates people to produce wealth, but this acquisition will bring about the â€Å"breakdown of genuine social relationships† (Hughes 2003 :). Why does Marx believe this? The answer Marx gives is a logical one; ones persons ownership of an object denies its benefits to another creating conflict and producing fierce competition over resources. Marx explains that in the case when property is actually the product of anothers work, it becomes human alienation. In such a scenario under capitalism, labour is effectively reduced to a mere commodity and work becomes depersonalised. In this view workers efforts enrich and empower those who oppress them, the capitalist, alienated from their product and processes of their labour and ultimately, from themselves as â€Å"creative and social beings† (Heywood 2007:56). Marx believes that humans are unique in that we have the capacity to control the environment and create wealth from it. Examples of humans efforts exemplify this point; humans have built houses instead of sheltering in caves, constructed dams to produce hydro electricity. These are to name a few examples were humans have changed the environment to benefit general welfare. Activity of work has a special significance essential to human beings, yet under the conditions of alienated labour this is denied. The capitalist argument that private property motivates is rendered by Marx as simply a consequence of alienated labour. Alienated Labour is important in understanding Marx critique of capitalism, yet more central to Marx critique of capitalism is class struggle. Marx views â€Å"the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles† (Marx and Engels 1985:79). In a capitalist society division arises from the existence of private property. There is division between the bourgeoisie, the owners of the means of production, and the proletariat, â€Å"a class of labourers who live only so long as they find workthese labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity† (Marx and Engels 1985:83). In previous and contemporary societies this division is evident. Institutes such as universities reinforce these divisions, for example Oxbridge caters to those more ‘bourgeoisie and polytechnics cater to those ‘proletariat in society. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class, not only by economic power through the ownership of wealth, but by also wielding polit ical power. The bourgeoisie, since establishment of modern industry, has established exclusive political sway in form of a modern representative state. The state is â€Å"a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie† (Marx and Engels 1985:83). For Marx the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is one of irreconcilable conflict, in that the proletariat is necessarily and systematically exploited under capitalism. Marx believed that labour is the only real source of wealth. Capital itself; â€Å"land factories, ports, railroads, etc.; represents simply stored labour, since it was, at some point, constructed by wage employees† (http://objectivistcenter.org/cth1298-Marxs_Surplus_Value_Theory.aspx 24/03/2010).Thus in search of profit the capitalist extract this surplus value by paying the workers less than the value of their labour. As a result instability defines capitalism, as the â€Å"proletariat cannot be permanently reconciled to exploitation and oppression† (Heywood 2007:56). Marx believed that the oppression inbuilt into capitalism consequently means that it will be its own grave digger. Marx believed that a serious crisis of overproduction will bring forth a proletarian revolution. The revolution against bourgeoisie goes through stages of development. Firstly, class struggle against the Bourgeoisie is not targeted against Bourgeois conditions of product but against the individual who exploits the individual member of the Proletariat; or it may take the form of attack on the means of production, for example smashing machinery. But with the development of industry the â€Å"proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more† (Marx and Engels 1985:89). This allows the proletariat to form a class, an identity, a collective consciousness. The ever-expanding union of workers forms one character and this mobilizes into a national struggle; the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Marx proclaimed that this proletarian revolution was inevitable, beginning with the seizure of the means of production, the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to contain a counter-revolution and then the eventual peaceful transition to socialism. Marx argued that eventually class antagonism would fade and a fully communist society would come into existence and the proletarian state would wither away. A communist society would eradicate all private property; all property would be owned in common by all. It would be a classless society. Commodity production would be replaced by one of production for use geared to the satisfaction of genuine human needs. With this Marx argues, â€Å"The prehistory of man would come to an end, allowing human beings for the first time to realise their full potential† (Heywood 2007:57). Marx writings have developed major ideas which have come to be regarded as the foundations of Marxist thought. Nonetheless Marx political and economic critique on capitalism has come under scrutiny from a variety of academics. A problem with Marx critique is the adoption of the labour theory of value. Marx refusal to accept anything other than the theory that humans are the only source that can add value to raw materials leads to complications. If only humans can add value then what of automated machines that produce value or at the minimum cooperate with humans to create value. If we were not to diverge from Marx argument, it must be concluded that no value is added by such machines. Therefore machines that produce uranium enriched nuclear power providing electricity for millions would have added no value. To conclude this would be illogical as such machines do add value, as they benefit human wellbeing. Further, sheer physical force and labour are of no use if not directed. Amanda Bissell argues that â€Å"though it is true that labor is needed to construct factories, but throwing a 100 directionless men into a lot with some steel girders, tools and their muscle and with no plan, no blueprint, or leadership will not yield anything that contributes meaningful to production† (http://objectivistcenter.org/cth1298-Marxs_Surplus_Value_Theory.aspx 24/03/2010). Capitalist provides such direction. Marx inability to understand private property as indispensible to human freedom further weakens his critique of capitalism. Marx critique of capitalism would place the ownership or the control of capital in the hands of those whom hold political power. Marx solution to capitalism would thus combine economic and political power, the two major sources of power. Louis Kelsos in his Critique of Karl MarxsDas Kapital highlights that â€Å"If the factory owners of the nineteenth century, having political influence but not unlimited political power, were in a position to exploit the workers, the bureaucrats of the twentieth century in a socialised state, possessing both unlimited economic and political through ownership of the instruments of production, are infinitely better equipped to exploit workers and other non-bureaucrats† (http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm 24/03/2010). The exploitation of a socialised state is illustrated by the Soviet Union. The crumbling of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the swift collapse of the Soviet Union that followed was viewed as a global triumph for free market capitalism. The rise of Neo-liberal economic policies in the 1970s changed the international economic, social and political landscapes. Neo-liberal economic policies have earmarked the monetary union in Europe and the continued growth of Japan and the emergence of South Korea and Singapore as economic forces. Both these factors lead academics to cite that â€Å"Marxism is dead, that Marxism is no longer a viable theory, or politics for the present age† (whither Marxism). Francis Fukuyama in his acclaimed ‘End of History argued that â€Å"Marxism failed in that it sought to promote in extreme form of social equality at the expense of liberty, by eliminating natural inequalities through the reward not of talent but of need, and through the attempt to abolish division of labor† (Fukuyam 1992:273). For Fukuyama free market ca pitalism provides the perfect trade-off point between liberty and equality. Fukuyama argument is a compelling argument. Over the latter half of the twentieth century capitalism has changed significantly from the capitalism that Marx critiqued in the ninetieth century. Marx in his critique of capitalism makes no reference to the States economic, or its social and political role. Trade unions emerged in the twentieth century as an important and recognised party in the wage bargain. In the ninetieth century trade unions did have not have such an importance on the political and economic factors in the capitalist society. Similarly under capitalist systems universal suffrage has been achieved, allowing all influence on matters of the economy, even at some small level. Universal suffrage has allowed for the rise of social democratic parties across Europe, whose policies have sought to address the redistributive inequalities experienced in capitalism. Welfare systems, social housing and social unemployment relief are to mention a few of the redistributive measures taken by socialist democratic parties. Neo-Marxists express an alternative argument regarding the collapse of Soviet Union and its effects on Marxism. The conditions for the proletarian revolution to occur and for communism to be established, were different from those economic and social conditions of early twentieth century Russia. Marx believed that the revolution would occur in an industrial nation like Britain, a nation with both national and global industry. Russia was not an industrialised nation to this extent in the early twentieth century, and therefore a Marxian communist society was never established under the Soviet Union. Kellner points out, â€Å"Marxism has been traditionally a theory of class, one which defines the concept of class based on different power groupings. The fact that the Soviet Union collapsed can ultimately be traced to the corruption and bureaucratisation of it ruling class. It never overcame the problem of alienated labour† (Magnus and Cullenberg 1995:4). Zhang Longxi in a similar v ein views communism under the Soviet Union as dead, but Marxism as a theory is â€Å"very much alive† (Magnus and Cullenberg 1995:5). After examining the Marxist critique of capitalism it can be concluded that the critique of capitalism was a critique of ninetieth century capitalism, which can no longer apply to contemporary capitalism. Capitalism for the most part of the twentieth century has evolved to meet the needs of popular demand. Class antagonism is not the same as Marx described, there is no longer a fierce class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, class de-alignment has taken hold of Western capitalist societies. Neo liberalism has become dominant throughout the globe. It is no longer just Western Capitalist societies that have adapted the neo-liberal free market approach to economics but also developing countries. Despite inequality still arising within free market capitalism, opportunity is also created. Free trade allows for growth and increases a nations prosperity. The recent global financial crash has propelled Marxs critique back to the forefront of political debate. Yet capitalis m still prevails, but what occur from its failings are new developments to remedy the failings created by capitalism. Obama healthcare package in the United States, a traditional strict free market capitalist society, is evident to this fact. Marx critique of capitalism thus underestimated the ability for capitalism to restructure itself. Bibliography Desai, M ‘Marxs Political Economy, in T.Bottomore (eds) (1981) Modern Interpretations of Marx,Oxford; Basil Blackwell Fukuyama, F (1992) The End of History and The Last Man,Harmondsworth; Penguin Heywood, A. (2007) Foundations in Politics,Basingstoke; Palgrave Macmillan Hughes, J. (2003) Understanding Classical Sociology,London; Sage Publications Maun, B, Cullenberg, S. (1995) Whither Marxism? Global Crises in International Perspective,London; Routledge Marx, K, Engels, F. (1985) The Communist Manifesto; with an Introduction by A.J.P Taylor,London; Penguin Ryner, J. (2000) Capitalist Restructuring, Globalisation and the Third Way: Lessons from the Sweedish model,London; Routledge Websites Centre for Economic and Social Justice (2010) ‘Louis Kelsos Critique of Karl MarxsDas Kapital http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/almostcapitalist.htm Objectivist Centre (2010) ‘Marx Surplus Theory of Value http://objectivistcenter.org/cth1298-Marxs_Surplus_Value_Theory.aspx

Hysteria and the Consequences of Mass Paranoia in The Crucible Essay

The Crucible Effectively Demonstrates the Development of Hysteria and the Consequences of Mass Paranoia. Discuss this with Reference to the Play and the Time in Which it is Written. 'The Crucible' was written in 1952 by Arthur Miller and was first performed in 1953. It is about a village called Salem in America, set in the 17th century, where a suspicion of witchcraft and association with the Devil has arisen. This theme of accusation and paranoia is comparable with the period of McCarthyism in the United States of America, where many people were accused of communism and anti-Americanism. The play was written at about the same time as the events in the 1950s and in many ways reflects the villagers' anxiety towards their situation. The community of Salem is a strongly religious one and the villagers all attend the Christian church. The minister is the most important person in the village, as he holds a high position in their religion, therefore he is expected to give a good example. The village is surrounded by forest and the nearest town is a few miles away. This creates a strong bond in the community as each individual has to work hard in order to endure the trials of being part of an isolated society. The playwright shows the setting and era in the style of the characters' speech - it is in the fashion of late 17th century American, when the play is set. The Caribbean slave, Tituba, also has her speech modified to suit the Barbados dialect: "My Betty be hearty soon?" is the opening line of the play. The first act starts in the house of Reverend Parris, where Parris is praying, in a confused state, for his unconscious daughter. Tituba, his slave, enters and the ensuing 'conversation' reveals that... ... has an easier job creating the right effect for each scene, so it is more believable for the audience and they have a better understanding of it. The Crucible demonstrates how easily people can be manipulated by belief, and how belief in something can effectively blind people, making them think irrationally. The characters are plausible and consistent, and the audience can see how they develop throughout the play. All the events are believable (if not probable) and the language used is convincing as 17th century American. The audience can empathise with the characters, particularly with John Proctor, as they see early on the problems he has and understand the dilemma he faces in Act IV. I think the play should be thought of not as a piece of drama, but as a piece of literature illustrating how people's trust can be exploited to an individual's advantage.

O’Connor’s Mission Essay -- Literary Analysis

It is a given that Flannery O’Connor is one of the most recognized southern female writers. This is mostly due to the pure religious content and reality in her writings. One of those stories, â€Å"A Good Man Is Hard to Find,† is one that combines her love of religion with her personal experience. It is a story on which its simple beginning tricks the reader, and its complex ending brings both questions and tears. What looks like just a field trip vacation turns into an unnecessary massacre for the purpose of understanding both religion and the human race. In â€Å"A Good Man Is Hard to Find,† O’Connor is able to leave impressions of her life on the location, characters, and scenes by the use of her love of religion and life experiences. Most of her life, Flannery O’Connor traveled around the United States, yet most of her life was spent in a place near Milledgeville, Georgia (May 17). On this detail, we can infer that it was no coincidence that she picked Georgia as her starting location for the story. It was a town she knew best, and could certainly describe to the perfection any places that she would’ve wanted to add. In the case of the story, O’Connor only describes one place, The Tower, and a little restaurant inside it where the family dines in. â€Å"The tower was a part stucco and part filling station and dance hall set in a clearing outside the Timothy† (O’Connor 302). Deferring from this description, O’Connor must have been in that place at least ten times; because a person who has never been to Georgia could never know what The Tower, its location and the Timothy were, nor would they have been able to guess on such a place. O’Connor included some of her l ife settings in order to make the story’s setting more realistic and credib... ...ically with â€Å"A Good Man Is Hard to Find,† Flannery O’Connor shows her biography to the world, and keeps her identity hidden while making a realistic story that we can all learn and ponder about. Works Cited "Flannery O’Connor." Georgia Literary Festival. Georgia College and state University, 12 Dec 2000. Web. 27 Mar 2012. . Magee, Rosemary M. Conversations with Flannery O'Connor. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi, 1987. 5-10. Print. May, Charles â€Å"Career, Life, and Influence† Critical Insights Flannery O'Connor. 1st edition. Salem Press, 2012. 3-22. Print. O’Connor Flannery â€Å"A Good Man Is Hard To Find† The Norton Introduction To Literature. Shorter 10th ed. Booth, Alison, and Kelly J. Mays. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Co Inc., 2010. 299-310. Print.

Dove Evolution of brand Essay

In 2007, Unilever’s Dove was the world ‘s number-one â€Å"cleansing â€Å" brand in the health and beauty sector. Dove Competed in all categories like cleansing bars, body washes, hand washes, face care, hair care, deodorants, anti-perspirants, and body lotion.Their competitor are P&G (Procter and Gamble’s) ivory, KAO’s Jergens, Beiersdorf’s Nivea. The first Dove Product â€Å"Beauty Bar† was launched in 1957 with campaignâ€Å" Dove Soap doesn’t dry your skin because it’s one-quarter cleansing cream†. Dove positioning their product to functionality superiority product. It’s can no longer be accepted because functionality meant different things in different categories Dove was tapped to become master brand in 2000, Dove entries in all personal categories and Dove become masterbrand. To build masterbrand needed to do something different. Dove do a process of exploratory market research, consultation with experts, conversation with women, and message testing led to â€Å" The Campaign for Real Beauty†. Now Dove success become masterbrand under the title of The Dove Campaign for Real Beauty. Dove success giving a single identity to the wide range health and beauty products. Dove also organizing for brand management to support this champaign. Read Also:  Ideas for an Exploratory Essay Question & Analysis 1. What is brand in the definition of Dove ? Answer : Based on Merriam-Webster, Dove is a. a small wild bird that is related to pigeons b. a gentle woman or child c. a person who does not want war and does want peace Dove is a symbol for peace, love and honesty. Dove Brand definition is a soap that give you real beauty because its more gentle than another soap so it would not dry out your skin the way soap did. So people does not worries about dry skin if used it because it was not technically soap at all. It is milder than soap-based bars. 2. What does Dove’s market positioning in the 1950s? What is its positioning in 2007? Answer : In 1950’s The first Dove product, called a beauty bar was launched in 1957. It was positioned upon its function as a superior product that doesn’t dry out the skin the way soap did. It was marketed through a mix of marketing communication tools like the Television, print media and bill boards. The advertising message was â€Å"Dove soap doesn’t dry your skin because its one-quarter cleansing cream† which was illustrated with photographs that showed cream being poured into a tablet. The advertising aspired to project honesty and authenticity, preferring to have natural looking women testifying to Dove’s benefits rather than stylized fashion models. In 2007 Dove become a Masterbrand, its name is used for all beauty bar category in Unilever, such as deodorants, hair care products, facial cleansers, body lotions, and hair styling products. The old positioning of Dove is focus on functional superiority and it can no longer be accepted because functionality meant different things in different categories. After a process of exploratory market research, consultation with experts, conversation with women, the positioning of Dove is â€Å"The campaign for Real Beauty†. The campaign begin with using ordinary people in supermodel contexts and for books of nudes featuring plain-looking models. The result was the so-called Tick-Box campaign. In this campaign, billboards were erected and viewers were asked to phone 1-888-342-DOVE to vote on whether a woman on the billboard was â€Å"outsized† or â€Å"outstanding.† The next campaign  were known internally as the Firming campaign because they promoted a cream that firmed the skin. They featured six â€Å"real† women cheerfully posing in plain white underwear. The company wanted the ads to â€Å"change the way society views beauty† and â€Å"provoke discussion and debate about real beauty.† The next step in the campaign was particularly controversial. At a Dove leadership team offsite meeting, an effort was made to engage executives in the idea behind The â€Å"Campaign for Real Beauty† by filming their own daughters discussing their self-esteem challenges. Stage four of the Real Beauty campaign involved not an advertisement, but a film. The resulting digital film was known as â€Å"Evolution†. Given its unusual length, television was not an option, and in October 2006 the film was posted to YouTube and within three months, it had been viewed three million times. 3. How did Unilever organize to do product category management and brand management in unilever before 2000? What was the corresponding structure after 2000? How was brand meaning controlled before 2000 and how is it controlled at the time of the case? Answer : Before 2000, within a product category the firm often offered multiple brands, each led by a brand manager. In effect, each brand operated as a separate business, competing with its siblings as well as the products of other firms. A staff of brand assistants executed the policies of the brand manager. Each brand manager was charged with the responsibilities of a general manager in relation to the brand, including design of strategy, delivery of profit targets, and power over many of day-to-day marketing decisions such as advertising and target promotions that were needed to achieve profitability. In 2000, Unilever began to split responsibilty for a brand between two groups, one charged with development of the brand and the other charged with building the brands in specific markets. Brand Development was centralized and global in scope. Brand Building was decentralized according to the major geographic regions in which Unilever operated. Before 2000, brand meaning controlled by Brand Manager, but at the time of case brand meaning idea is created by Brand Development but bringing to life by Brand Building. 4. Spend a little time searching blogs, using Google search, and any social media, to get a sense of what people saying about Dove today. What does this discussion contribute to the meaning of the brand? Facebook Dove Indonesia have 23.027.326 Fans Followers Dove Indonesia : 19.4K Yes, people is feel the real beauty of themselves by using Dove. Dove makes the Real Beauty. Recommendation In the Future dove must be have line extension product such as cosmetic product, to enlarge their category product, but must have same positioning with their campaign â€Å" For Real Beauty† The position must be stand for a point of view Dove can enlarge their business to retail shop (cosmetic shop) to sell all dove product and communicated their brand. To organize Brand Management, Dove under Unilever must maintain split responsibility between Brand Manager and Brand Development.