Dublin as City of Paralysis VS Paris as City of Darkness...

The beginning of the 20th century was an era where tremendous changes took place. Industrial revolution brought about techonological advancement while Darwin’s Evolutionary Theories completely overthrew traditional scientific beliefs. Undergoing such an immense transition at the turn of the century, the focus of the modernist writings was shifted from realism to experimental techniques such as fragmentation and defamiliarization. Modernist writers were no longer interested in depicting the city using the Victorian way. In the following paragraphs, short stories from â€Å"Dubliners† written by James Joyce and an extract of the poem â€Å"La Cuve (The Vat)† by Charles Baudelaire will be discussed and analyzed to illustrate how Dublin and Paris are†¦show more content†¦The most obvious technique used is the personification of houses. In the beginning of â€Å"Araby†, the houses are described as â€Å"conscious of decent lives within them† wit h â€Å"brown imperturbable faces†. They are highly personified and this emphasizes their inert awareness and consciousness to the surroundings as if they have feelings like a character. These images are deployed to â€Å"communicate with the reader an atmosphere and impression of entrapment or stagnancy†. (Very often, the gloomy weather of Dublin depicted in the stories helps create bleakness and loneliness of the city. (Brannigan, 72) Dublin itself â€Å"is a living being devoid of passion, excitement, hope or warmth† just like every citizen living in it. (Brannigan, 73) In the first paragraph of â€Å"Two Gallants†, â€Å"grey warm evening† is repeated twice and it â€Å"had descended upon the city† as if gloomy atmostphere hangs in the mid-air. Even natural objects convey uncertainty and ambiguity. â€Å"Large faint moon circled with a double halo† which later becomes â€Å"nearly veiled† foreshadows the contigency of the o utcome of theft. The interior of little boy’s house is depicted carefully in â€Å"Araby† as well. â€Å"Air, musty from having been long enclosed†, â€Å"littered with old useless papers†, the dull house is depicted as being abandoned and isolated from the others. TheShow MoreRelatedOrganisational Theory230255 Words   |  922 PagesBrief Contents Preface List of figures List of tables Acknowledgements xiii xvii xix xx 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Introducing organization theory: what is it, and why does it matter? Modernist organization theory: back to the future? Neo-modernist organization theory: putting people first? Neo-modernist organization theory: surfing the new wave? Postmodernist organization theory: new organizational forms for a new millennium? Postmodernism as a philosophy: the ultimate challenge to organization

Qualities I Look for in My Friend Free Essays

qualities I look for in friends Friends are an indispensable factor in our live, just as a main dish in a meal. Frankly, I have a lot of friends. Yet, I don’t know whether they are sincere or just hypocritical. We will write a custom essay sample on Qualities I Look for in My Friend or any similar topic only for you Order Now Sometimes, I can’t really figure out. But still, I or should I say everyone, wishes to have friends with good qualities. According to what William Penn says:† A true friend freely, advises justly, assists readily, adventures boldly, takes all patiently, defends courageously, and continues a friend unchangeably. † Penn tries to say that a real and a good friend have a tangible qualities, which every friend look for it on his/her friend. To be honest, trusted, attentive, and funny is qualities I look for when I choose my friend. First, I want a loyal friend. Someone who is honest enough with me. I mean is just tell me frankly what they think about me that can help me to change myself into a better person. Someone who stab me in the front. Who never lie at me and never drawn a second face. An honest friend lend me the confidence when I lost. Or even can help me to do the right thing not the wrong one. The honesty is a big deal to me in the friend I will choose. Second, trusted is also important as much as honesty in my friend quality. I mean someone who keeps my secrets. Or even can be my secret. However, It is not funny but ironic when someone that I used to trust and call her ‘good friend’ leave me or betray me when I needed her the most. It is extremely painful! It might make me feel like I have taken advantage of, deceived or backstabbed. In conclusion, being my friend mean be my secret. Third, a friend should have to be attentive as well. My friend should share his/her life with me as well as I will do. A friend should never weigh the benefits before helping someone. That is super good when a good friend lends a helping hand in times of need and the extra support gives us a lift spiritually. Related to above, I want to have such a good friend like this but in order to have one, I know I have to be one. In conclusion being attentive is an important quality I ordered in my friend. Last and not least, funny friend could also be important to me. In other meaning funny but good. Someone who see me in need to smile do anything to draw it on my face. Someone who smile a real smile not fake. Moreover, being funny is an unmistakable quality in a friend. friend who tells a funny jocks could also be a good one to have. Finally, I hope my friends will be able to listen of my joys and sorrows patiently and not give any judgments or comments. In conclusion, â€Å"Friendship is a single soul dwelling in two bodies†Ã‚  according to Aristotle. So that, the qualities should be matched to make that relationship. And for me being my friend mean having qualiti es I missed, so we can complete each other. Meanwhile, Not just anyone can be called your friend. A friend has to first meet several qualifications and have many outstanding characteristics to have the honor of holding such a prestigious title. How to cite Qualities I Look for in My Friend, Papers

Political Ideology Of Socialism Management â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Political Ideology Of Socialism Management? Answer: Introduction Political theorists have come up with different explanations in trying to explain the economic system and how best can a country implement her policies. The common theories are capitalism, socialism or communism. However, in this essay, I intend to compare and contracts Karl Marx and Robert Owens article related to socialism as a political theory. Specifically, the essay identifies the argument that both authors tries to put across, that is, what is the probable reason that one can deduce from the two articles that made them write the article. Secondly, the essay elaborates similarities and differences that exist in the argument between the two articles or authors, which include but is not limited to social vision, why they believe that such a change occurs and if they suggest a moderate or a radical change. Lastly, the essay aims at analyzing which of the two arguments is the most elaborate and convincing based on historical evidence as well as its implications. Exploitation of the Working Class Both Karl Marx and Robert Owen articles try to explain how the working classes are being exploited by few who claim to own the means of production. In effect, Owen describes the rise of a class of people while Owen talks of an introduction to new ways of manufacturing that have exploited the laborer with the aim of maximizing profit (Dale, 2014). The bourgeois is a group of people that the article talks about, these are the few who have accumulated a lot of wealth by using the effort of the laborer who continues to be poorer as the resources increasingly become minimal. On the other hand, Owen believes that the government introduction of a modern way of manufacturing or rather mechanization is generating a lot of profit making the legislature to implement laws that favor an increase in productivity at the expense of the workers. In addition to that, both Owen and Marx explain how a few people that profits from the system are becoming inhuman (Bonefeld, 2011). Specifically, those who supposedly control the means of production do not have the interest of the laborer at heart unlike in the past where such a new system of production of goods never existed. How different or similar are the two arguments There exist differences and similarities between the two cases. To start with, Marx believes that the exploitation of the workers began with the introduction of private ownership of properties. On the other hand, the Owen believes that increased demand for human labor and in effect exploitation of the working class is as a result of mechanization of production (Beeghley, 2015). Another difference is the how the two authors believe the solution to the now existing problem. Marx believes that the bourgeois dominance will eventually end as a result of rebellion from the exploited working class also called proletarians. The explanation for this is that the more the beneficially of the system gets wealthier, the more they continue to aggrieve the working class, and it will eventually reach a point where the proletarians will be more aggrieved to a point they cannot hold anymore (Lichtheim, G., 2015). Thus, Marx believes that a revolution will take place one day and rectify the mess, or ra ther, the article suggests that its only through a revolution that will redress the mess. On the other hand, Owen is of the opinion that it is the government either through her policy or legislation that can rectify the exploitation (Ellman, 2014). In effect, the second author is the view that moderate action like reforms is the one to take place to save the people from exploitation. Also, while the social vision of one is for people to work willingly without dependency, the other argues that people are independent when they voluntarily work together (Owen, 1927). Lastly, the difference of the two appears to suggest that change can result to preserve status quo or as a result of emerging needs. On the similarity between the two authors, the two articles try to suggest that human nature is inherently changeable and tend to behave as per the prevailing circumstances. For instance, both articles demonstrate that the material gain that a few enjoy having made them bad and become inhuman (Selznick, 2014). Additionally, there is evidence that both authors are deductive on their main arguments. For instance, in explaining the challenges facing the working class, both authors deduce a sequence of events that will either make the working class start a revolution or why morality is better than greed and love of profit over people. The argument that is more convincing There are several historical evidence that can show between Marx or Owen, who is more convincing. Firstly, Karl Marx is right that workers exploitation still existed in the past in the form of slavery in a bid to secure cheap and enough labor for the production of goods. These include but are not limited to the trans-Saharan and trans-Atlantic slave trade.In addition to that, a revolution based on social injustice will one day take place, Russian revolution of 1917 is an example where the exploited masses or proletarian rebel against the bourgeois in a bid to avoid further exploitation (Lenin, and Chretien, 2015). Moreover, Marx ideas are evident in the contemporary society by the amount of money that the wealthiest people in the world have accumulated at the expense of the working class (Bideleux, 2014). In the USA for example, the gap between the rich and the working class is so big even though they are the one that offers labor for the creation of the same wealth. However, the Uni ted States of America, which is the largest economy in the world, and one that has the largest private property ownership, is not on the record of ever experiencing a revolt by the exploited masses. I however contradicts Marxs ideas. Owens article on the other hand is not so much convincing, historically, mechanization in the production of goods as a result of industrial revolution brought about the need for cheap labor and in effect exploitation of the working class. On the contrary, though, mechanization and the mushrooming of industry attracted people who migrated from rural areas to urban areas in search of better working conditions (Crosby, 2015). Historical evidence showing rural to urban migration demonstrates that it is not necessarily true that before mechanization there were better lives for people. Instead, people were attracted to work in factories for better lives. Therefore, but comparing the two authors, and judging by historical evidence, both past and in modern society, Marxs article is more convincing than that of Owen. As a person analyzing the two articles, several implications come out clearly. Firstly, the two articles suggest that the current economic or political system that allows private ownership of properties is not good as it creates a few class of people who become incredibly wealthy while at the same time exploiting the majority of others (Acemoglu, and Robinson, 2015). Additionally, Owen suggest that the working conditions of workers ought to be improved, avoid child labor and most importantly, provide good health and education to children before they mature enough to start working (Hoppe, 2013). Moreover, both Marx and Owen suggest why morality reigns supreme against all other personalities. Another implication of the argument is that people have become more materialistic than human. Lastly, Marx believes that people will naturally rebel or revolt when exploitation continues for too long. The reading is essential in many ways, firstly, both Marx and Owen are convincing on the current state of politics. In that, politicians are not necessarily concerned about the interest of the ordinary citizen but of the state (Balibar, 2013). Additionally, Marx gives gives a brief history and explanation of why capitalist countries and those embracing private ownership of properties have produced a class of very rich people. Moreover, his reading is useful in explaining the numerous multilateral corporations that exist in Africa which is on record for paying African a relatively low salary as opposed to what they pay in their mother countries. Lastly, even though both author are relevant and both have historical evidence that supports their argument, Marx is more convincing than Owen in many ways as stipulated above. Conclusion Therefore, both authors ideology is exploitation of the working class by the bourgeois. Marx and Owen try to show how a few dominant group is exploiting the working class which are the majority. However, the two authors differ in quite a number of ways. Firstly, Marx believes that private ownership of property is the genesis of all this mess and suggests a more radical solution to the problem to solve the mess. On the other hand, Owen suggests a more moderate way of solving the problem and believes that mechanization of production is the mother of all this mess. On the other hand, Marx article, even though there are historical contradictions that try to disapprove his article, is still more convincing than Owens article, basing on historical evidence. References Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J.A., 2015. The rise and decline of general laws of capitalism.The Journal of Economic Perspectives,29(1), pp.3-28. Balibar, E., 2013.Masses, classes, ideas: Studies on politics and philosophy before and after Marx. Routledge. Beeghley, L., 2015.Structure of social stratification in the United States. Routledge. Bideleux, R., 2014.Communism and Development (Routledge Revivals). Routledge. Bonefeld, W., 2011. Primitive accumulation and capitalist accumulation: Notes on social constitution and expropriation.Science Society,75(3), pp.379-399Answer:Answer:oppe, H.H., 2013.A theory of socialism and capitalism: economics, politics, and ethics. Springer Science Business Media. Lenin, V.I. and Chretien, T., 2015.State and revolution. Haymarket Books. Lichtheim, G., 2015.Marxism (RLE Marxism): An Historical and Critical Study. Routledge. Owen, R 1927, Observations on the effect of the manufacturing system, A new view of society other writings, Dent, London, pp. 120 129. Selznick, P., 2014.The organizational weapon: A study of Bolshevik strategy and tactics(Vol. 18). Quid Pro Books.