NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Essay 3 Being a materialist, Karl Marx considered social struggle as a major mechanism of historical change and development. According to Marx social relations regarding the production and its main factors divide people into groups with a common situation and common economic interests. Thus, these groups can be called classes only potentially. They become classes through forming a social consciousness and establishing political movement, which represents the classes objectives and interests. Each class tends to be dominant to secure its position in society. Marx's analysis of modern society identifies a number of classes, including the feudal nobility, the peasantry, and the petty bourgeoisie.
However, Marx considered the antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the principal class struggle, which will be determinative for the historical future of modern society. Characterizing both classes, Marx asserts that bourgeoisie are those who privately own the means of production and live from the profits and interest on capital. By the same definition, the proletariat is the class of wage-laborers hired and exploited. The bourgeoisie creates productive forces, which constitute the foundation of modern society. However, as Marx affirms the control of production factors by the bourgeoisie leads to concentration of power and capital in the hands of less number of people. Therefore, the potential of productive forces to serve humanity will be actualized only after the change in social order.
According to Marx's ideas, the proletariat is the only class that is able to change it. In order to support his ideas theoretically, Marx introduces the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a forceful use of state power by the working class against the enemies during the transformation from capitalism to communism. Michael Parenti agrees with Karl Marx concerning the class division of society. Moreover, Parenti admits that the principal criteria for this division is the material factor. Additionally, this material factor is the main cause of class struggle in the society.
As wealth concentrates, so poverty increases. The accumulation of wealth is at a record level, and so is the spread of poverty (Parenti, 1997). According to Marx the final outcome of social struggle is the world revolution of the proletariat. However, Parenti asserts, that Marx's predictions about revolution have not materialized. He failed to distinguish between a revolution that is necessary and a revolution that is possible (Parenti, 1997). According to Parenti in advanced capitalist society there has been no successful proletarian revolution.
While working class was developing, the capitalist state and culture also experienced such a development to maintain their hegemony. According to Karl Marx the struggle between two antagonistic classes is supposed to be a major driving force for the society to develop and experience progress. On the contrary, Parenti argues that class conflict cannot be observable in modern society due to the certain reasons. He claims that social science hardly can indicate how the social order is organized and whose interests prevail. Therefore in the end, according to Parenti, modern society fails to associate social problems with the socio-economic forces that create them (Parenti, 1997) References Michael Parenti, 1997. The Increasing Relevance of Marxism.
New Yorker, 2 / 7 Essay 4 According to Penguin English Dictionary monopoly is identified as exclusive ownership or control of commodity or market, through legal privilege, command of supply, concerted action, etc (Penguin Dictionary, 897). Traditionally, the concept of monopoly belonged exclusively to the matter of economics. Generally speaking, economists have developed a complicated body of theory to explain why the behavior of a monopoly firm differs significantly from that of a competitive firm. A monopoly company, like any other business, confronts two forces: it is always seeking for a demand conditions for its service or product, and it faces production restraints in terms of supply of resources and labor to produce. The ultimate objective of every company is to gain profit and if circumstances are pleasant to maximize it. However, the major difference between a monopoly firm and one in a competitive industry is that the monopoly will have greater control over the price it charges for its product.
This is how economists understand an issue of monopoly. During last decades the concept of monopoly became different in a way. The current trends in American media industry show that media, including press, TV and radio, but not limited to, is not as independent as it has been believed and considered one of the foundation of American democracy. With the increase of private ownership, the majority of media outlets have been concentrated in the hands of a few companies. Therefore, for the present period media can be considered as a monopoly. One of thew most important trends in this issue is that a circle of media owners is getting to be narrower in the light of continuous mergers and acquisitions.
From the viewpoint of society, monopoly leads to effects that are negative, comparing to those resulting from economic competition. In economic aspect, general, monopoly results in a smaller output of goods or services, and also in prices that are often higher than those in competitive industries. Considering the peculiarities of media monopoly, the price policy is stable, however, the quality of media is getting worse year after year. In survey after survey, Americans report that they want publications to feature more hard, reliable news. Yet with every passing year, the amount of advertising goes up and the amount of throwaway entertainment (comics, crossword puzzles) goes up but hard news continues to drop.
There are more lifestyle sections and more inserts having to do with home and fashion, subsequently encouraging people to spend their money on these things. Ben. H. Bagdikian in his book Media and Monopoly points out, that it was that gray area fluff, part entertainment of interest to readers but mostly light material designed to create a buying mood as bait for more advertising (Bagdikian, 1997). When a shortage of newsprint forced papers to cut their folios, they cut newsboy advertising. During last years advertising ruined the public image of media, and brought billion dollars to its budgets.
Millions of Americans are impacted by the media every day. Contemporary media has many negative effects on society. In my opinion as well as from personal experience, misinformation and labeling as its continuity may be considered the most important. In his article Media Monopoly Manipulation Michel Parenti justify labeling as a major method to misinform and manipulate the audience.
The US government and federal bodies are often described using terms stability, the presidents firm leadership, a strong defense, and a healthy economy, while to describe news from the Third World it is common to use such labels as leftist guerrillas, conspiracy theories, inner-city gangs, civil disturbances, and hardline (Parenti). The analysis provided by Ben Bagdikian, Parenti, and many other critics urge the society, at least its conscious part to rethink the trends in media and society as well during last decades. The moral decay of media, society and future generation is inevitable, if things will remain unchanged. References: Penguin English Dictionary, 2000. Penguin Books web political archive. Media Monopoly Manipulation Ben H.
Bagdikian, 1997. Media Monopoly. Beacon Press. Essay 7 Penguin English Dictionary explains ideology as s systematic body of concepts, or a manner of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture. However, Cooper expands more about a concept of ideology, claiming that ideology is a coherent world view that determines how arguments will be received and interpreted. The common sense of the world view provides the basis for determining what is good, bad, right, wrong, and so forth (Cooper, 1989).
On the contrary, propaganda is defined as dissemination of ideas and information for the purpose of inducing or intensifying specific attitudes and actions. Therefore from both definition one might notice that ideology obtains its status through the means of propaganda. The purpose of the latter is to achieve acceptance of the propagandists ideology by the people. Propaganda materials may incorporate such elements of ideology as references to preexisting struggles and past situations, current frames of reference to value systems, and future goals and objectives. Propaganda, dissemination of ideas and information for the purpose of inducing or intensifying specific attitudes and actions. Because propaganda is frequently accompanied by distortions of fact and by appeals to passion and prejudice, it is often thought to be invariably false or misleading.
This view is relative, however. Although some propagandists may intentionally distort fact, others may present it as faithfully as objective observers. Propaganda may be disseminated by or for individuals, businesses, ethnic associations, religious organizations, political organizations, and governments at every level. Thousands of special-interest groups disseminate propaganda. Among such groups are patriotic and temperance societies, fire-prevention and traffic-safety committees, leagues promoting conservation or the prevention of cruelty to animals, labor unions, and, of course, media monopoly. One of major peculiarities of propaganda is its usage, especially in media.
For instance, focusing on leaders thoughts media often involves repeating the government line without comment, thereby allowing journalists to claim neutrality as simple conduits supplying information. Edward S. Herman in his article Propaganda model revisited argues that propaganda model still seems a very workable framework for analyzing and understanding the mainstream media (Herman, 1996). According to Herman points out five filters, through which every information must pass to be utilized for shaping media choices. Regarding the US propaganda system, Herman affirms that it lies in its ability to mobilize an elite consensus, to give the appearance of democratic consent, and to create enough confusion, misunderstanding, and apathy in the general population to allow elite programs to go forward (Herman, 1996). References: Edward S.
Herman, 1996. Propaganda model revisited. Monthly review, July F. Cooper, 1992.
Analysis of propaganda. Essay 2 George Orwell, in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, wrote down significant in terms of their importance lines: Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory.
Reality control, they called it: in Newspeak, doublethink (Orwell). Then he added, Even to understand the word doublethink involved the use of doublethink (Orwell). The significant relevance of doublethink likely eludes most readers of Nineteen Eighty- Four. Evidence that in particular doublethink has received lax and insufficient attention from millions of Orwell's readers comes in the form of the unwitting neologism, doublespeak. Somehow, perhaps because of the expression double talk, readers have conflated Orwell's Newspeak with Orwell's doublethink to make doublespeak, a word which Orwell never used in Nineteen Eighty-Four, so doublethink comes down into common colloquy and oratory as the supposedly Orwellian doublespeak. But doublespeak is a mere offshoot in meaning from Newspeak, a mere subset of the abuse of language - disingenuous, manipulative, often internally contradictory meanings in politicized words and phrases. (Doublethink produces instances of doublespeak. ) An understanding of doublespeak is useful, but the idea is not nearly as profound as doublethink, missing most of Orwell's subtle point.
Doublethink refers to resolving contradictions which (otherwise) cannot be resolved, by keeping at least two alternate versions of something in mind at once, remembering only the approved one in any circumstance. One does not experience cognitive dissonance unless one fails at proper doublethink, in which case raw discomfort, almost physical pain, may be experienced. Other psychologically important Orwellian Newspeak neologisms, such as crimes top, black white, and good think, are contained within doublethink. From crimes top to black white to good think, Orwell describes the process as more and more instinctive. Orwell explains doublethink most explicitly in the following passage: Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated (Orwell).
The most important thing we can now do with Orwell's concept of doublethink is to apply it to our own subtle daily discomfort which leads to forgetting. It is difficult to contemplate the full extent of what goes on that we know should be changed, so we ignore even what we know. It is difficult to think of the extent of misery which is experienced in this world if not in our own lives; of the injustice, and of the misinformation and lies. It is especially difficult to even learn about most of it, for its sheer breadth and depth.
The worst is the depth; to know that unbounded monstrosities are committed in the name of the established order and are nonetheless not even common topics of conversation, much less grounds for immediate rebellion against that order - that is painfully unbelievable. If a shocking number of these and a great many lesser but similar acts are the work of those in power over us directly and indirectly, it is difficult to continue to see the situation as evidence shows it: that much of the worst is done by those who are supposed the best, and that in value the high is really often the low, and that the things on which people expend so much energy and attention are really unimportant. References: George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Free research essays on topics related to: productive forces, nineteen eighty four, george orwell, modern society, karl marx
Research essay sample on Nineteen Eighty Four Karl Marx
