Analysis of Early Urban Societies Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Analysis of Early Urban Societies - Assignment Example According to (Wilsons, 14) most people moved to cities seeking jobs. The majority of those who moved to cities were from smaller communities considered minority. The migrants came from within America and from other surrounding continents such as Africa and Asia. Those from Africa were mainly from western and northern African countries. On the contrary, those living in the cities from majority groups found a reason to move back to the suburbs because of the introduction of new methods of farming. The new farming methods included the use of machines that enabled them to plow large sections of land over a short period of time, the use of fertilizers that increased productivity and the implementation of new farming techniques that ensured the conservation of land. The use of machines, however, had a negative impact on the employment of the African Americans who were working in the in the farms since they were replaced by the machines. The technology was introduced in farming and this made it a very lucrative (Henderson & Thisse, 65). It led to the rapid development of both the urban cities and the rural towns which were now growing due to the farming. This movement of the opposites had a big impact on the social, political and economic aspects of the society. The government has a very limited base for its revenues because the majority of people in the cities who were better financially had moved to suburbs. The city was hence left with a large a population that was less qualified and less productive. This left those in cities jobless because majority depended on majorly on those who left for low paying jobs. The people who were their employers and had professional qualifications had left for the suburbs. Poverty and desperation among the unemployed youth led to an increase in criminal activity in the cities (Wilsons, 23) Â  

Haas and Flower Reading Response Essay Example for Free

Haas and Flower Reading Response Essay â€Å"If readers construct the meaning of texts, how does information transmission work?† Through constructing the meaning of texts, a reader can interpret and summarize chunks of writing into something that is already processed by the reader. Personally, I know that if I begin reading a piece of text that I have never researched or learned in the past, obviously I cannot make an information transmission. On the other hand, when I read a piece of material that Ive learned in the past, it helps me to fully interpret and think critically on the topic. If a reader can complete a create a connection between past learning and the newer topic, the reader can construct a personal judgment or opinion. The readers thesis is then developed and the reader can fully absorb and accomplish what is a â€Å"good read.† â€Å"What kinds of knowledge did you bring to this article that helped you make sense of it?† The information I brought to the article was really a collection of teachings I received through high school. The knowledge to re-read text if I dont fully comprehend the authors point. Also the ability to stop and evaluate the text to figure out what Haas and Flower were trying to explain. I received fairly intensive English courses in high school, from which I was able to transmission my past lessons to the text Haas and Flower presented. Without trying to sound repetitive, I was able to pick apart phrases of the text that I simply didnt understand, even by rereading, and use the context to help make snese of the wording Haas and Flower use.

WAN Protocols Case Essay Example for Free

WAN Protocols Case Essay WAN Protocols are the standardised method of sending data between computers. The protocol will determine how the data is compressed, the error checking to be used, how the sending device will indicate that all data is sent, how the receiving device will declare its received everything. The WAN protocols are found in The Internet Protocol Suite. They are shown below in the diagram showing where they lie in the 4 layer TCP/IP Model. Sometimes, the TCP/IP protocol will be extended to include the physical layer also, but this is fairly uncommon and all protocols will work over all medias. Just like the OSI model, each protocol must pass the data down the layers to send out information and then send up the layer to receive information. So for example, the File Transfer Protocol will pass its data down to TCP which will pass it down to IT, which will pass it down to Ethernet which will place it on a physical media such as coaxial cable. To receive the data back, it must travel back through the stacks back to FTP. Each of the protocols on each stack will have its own set of tasks that it must carry out before sending the data on. Using this set group of protocols ensures that computers are capable of communicating between each other and therefore allows compatibility across devices. It is only when manufacturers stray away from these set protocols that compatibility problems will occur. Figure 1 The Protocols and their Relationship with the TCP/IP Model The OSI Model The TCP/IP Protocol suite does not directly map to the OSI model as TCP/IP relies on four layers and the OSI model uses 7. The top three layers of the OSI model map straight to the Application, Presentation and the Session layers of the TCP/IP Suite. Most of the protocols mentioned on this information sheet are found at the application layer of the OSI model; FTP, HTTP, SNMP, Telnet are all found here. The transport layer, containing UTP and TCP is the same on both models. The network layer is the actual Internet Protocol, as well as a few older alternatives such as X.25. The data link layer is the same and are the protocols controlling the actual transfer onto the physical line which is the physical layer that does not appear on the TCP/IP model as it does not care about the physical hardware. The TCP/IP Model squishes the top three layers of the OSI Model onto a single layer. Figure 2 Protocols and their Relationships with the OSI Model Evaluation of Protocols Almost all of the protocols of the past couple of decades are still in use in one way or another. Many have gained popularity as they surpass the capabilities of their older equivalents and some are a lot less common than they used to be. As the uses of WANs become more complicated, so must the protocols being used to provide the services expected. In general, older versions of protocols have been phased out and replaced by updated versions with new capabilities for the WANs they are placed on. HTTP is the standard method of transferring all sorts of webpage across the web. To do this it must reach across to servers to ask for data and then present it using whatever protocol the page is displayed in. For example, a HTML page must be displayed in HTML. A page linking to a zip file will require an unzip based program to handle it. FTP is an unsecured method of transferring files across the network. It is not considered a good method for secure documents to be sent as any security that has been added can very easily be decrypted and the contents can easily be viewed. All information sent along with the file, for example: passwords or destination are not encrypted and are sent in standard text. This means that anybody with access to the network could pull the file down and check its contents. It sends the file without checking with the other computer if the entire file has been received. Some clients will add an extra level on top of the FTP file that can calculate and check for file completion but this has to be enforced by both clients and is infrequently used. FTP is not really suitable for regular business situations. FTP replaces Simple File Transfer Protocol. Telnet is a method of connecting two computers together via a remote connection. Usually, the connection is aimed at a headless server. Once the connection is established using Telnet software, the user has access as though they are in front of that computer. SSH has vastly replaced Telnet because of its security problems across networks that are untrusted. Telnet is frequently used in troubleshooting situations where the required software is not available on both computers. Telnet is generally not used so much by businesses anymore as it has been superseded by SSH in most secure network situations. SMTP is a text based protocol where everything in the email is bundled together and sent. The email is sent to a remote server which pushes the email down to the specific DNS. It relies on DNS to find the correct domain name for the recipient and then filters to find the correct username at that domain. As it is a push protocol and not a pull protocol like POP3 or IMAP, it usually requires other protocols to work alongside it. SMPT does not however, have a successor and is considered a staple protocol in the TCP/IP Protocol family. SNMP is the network management protocol. It relies on a systems being managed by other systems. A piece of software called an agent runs on the user computers and this sends information back to the managing systems via SNMP. The system is designed to monitor available resources and to keep a check on how the users computers are acting. When this protocol was first developed i.e. SNMPv1, its role was simple just to simply monitor the network. It included no security or integrity to ensure that the data being requested was from the correct computers and hadnt been tampered with in transit apart from an unencrypted password and so was constantly criticized for its security problems. SNMPv2 improved slightly on this issue, and enhanced security was also added. The ability to talk between two managing systems also added the ability to check the integrity of the data being sent as it was possible to check past behaviour against new behaviour. The newest version, SNMPv3 which was released in 2004, adds this extra layer of security for managements piece of mind. This means that it is the securest version to date and is therefore considered industry standard with all old versions being deemed obsolete. NNTP is the standard protocol for reading and posting Usenet submissions. The last update was in 2006 and this further improved the protocol and ensures that it stays the standard method of accessing newsgroups. This protocol is popular with the types of businesses that require access the news posting sites these are particularly popular with computing based businesses. The IMAP protocol is capable only reading and so is not a viable alternative. X.25 is a packet switching protocol that predates IP. It is still found in situations where an extremely reliable system is required such as EPOS systems that allow businesses to take debit and credit cards. It is also popular in the developing world where it the cheapest and most reliable method of connecting to the internet. It is much slower than IP as it requires all of its packets to be received before moving the packets again. IP is the current industry standard packet switching method and was designed in 1981. It is a network level protocol that splits data into packets, addresses them and sends them forward. IP works closely with TCP to ensure that the data packets are received correctly as it sends the packets without ensuring they are received. All other protocols will work through IP as it converts upper layer data into packets. IPv4 is the current version in use, but users are being encouraged to move towards IPv6 as it allows more addresses to be used.

Evaluating The Theory Of Socialist Economy Politics Essay

Evaluating The Theory Of Socialist Economy Politics Essay If one wants to examine the experience of socialist economies of the twentieth century, one need must examine the socio-economic meaning of the term socialism. This ought to be subject to a scientific analysis, primarily with respect to increasing problems in the socialist countries and to discussions and reform efforts that have been underway at various points in time over the last century in those countries. In this context, the analysis in the essay must restrict the notion of socialism to that of a social system whose characteristics have been molded both by specific theoretical works and by practical political, legal and economic institutions and measures in socialist countries. This has to be limited a little further and the essay will therefore primarily focus on the socialist economic system and its crucial connection with the political system. Proceeding from this framework, this essay shall first deal with the theoretical and practical evolution of the general basic charact eristics that are typical of the socialist economic system. Subsequently, it will examine the economic results or rather the recurring deficiencies caused by the socialist system. This will then lead to a detailed analysis of how these deficiencies may have had their earliest roots in errors contained in the very theory that was the starting point of communist practice. The genesis of the socio-economic meaning of the term socialism has its roots in theoretical works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. How this concept has satisfied the fundamental criteria of the development of socialism in the course of its practical realization in Soviet Union, China, Yugoslavia, Cuba and other socialist countries must be examined, and whether it has resulted in the socio-economic development expected by the above-mentioned theorists. After the shock and disillusionment from the collapse of the Eastern bloc, the disasters of neoliberal economic policies, East and West, have given new urgency to rethinking the socialist alternative to capitalism. Whatever one says about the feasibility of socialism, however, at some point the collapse of `actually existing socialism has to be explained. The centrally planned economy was certainly successful for a period, based on extensive growth with ample supplies of labour power and raw materials. The system collapsed when it attempted to shift toward a more intensive mode of growth. Permanent consumer goods shortages and the alienation of workers sealed its fate. In attempting to broaden the debate on the feasibility of socialism, the essay shall embark with the origin of the concept in Marx. To begin with, it must be made amply clear that the term socialism refers to the social system which Marx referred to as the first and last phase of communism  [i]  . Marx inferred the characterization of this lower form from the historical necessity of the development of communism, and from the fact that communism would directly emerge from capitalism and would be therefore characterized by capitalism for a relatively long time- the first phase. Marx and Engels substantiated the historical necessity of the development of communist society by saying that capitalism would increasingly impede the further development of productive forces and only new economic and social conditions, that is, socialist conditions, would cause productive forces to evolve at a substantially faster rate than they could under capitalism. This historical materialist perspective gave rise to the fundamental criterion for the development of the socialist economy also held by Lenin. He was convinced that the expropriation of capitalists would result in an immense extension of social productive forces and in a higher degree of labour productivity. Following the nationalization and redistribution of land consequent upon the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, a brief period of workers control was realized in the Soviet Union. However, state ownership and control of industry and financial institutions were rapidly extended, along with a ban on private trade, and the whole economy moved towards an economy in kind, a moneyless economy. These eventualities could again be traced back to Marxs conceptualization of socialism as an associated set of producers. In modern capitalist society, according to Marxs analysis, the social relations of production, which establish the framework of a distinct mode of life, are constituted by the capitalist ownership of means of production and by wage labour; and the essence of the socialist alternative had always been the transformation of private ownership into so cial ownership which Marx expressed by referring to a future society of associated producers. This associated mode of production  [ii]  was not treated in the socialist literature of the nineteenth century as having only an economic significance, but as a vital element in the constitution of a new form of society in which individuals would no longer be dependent upon the dominant minorities, but would be able to develop freely in a social environment which they took a full and equal part in creating. Socialism, therefore, was meant to obviate its fundamental opposite, capitalism, by substituting social ownership of the means of production for their private ownership. Market relations would have to be eliminated, and production as a whole would have to be oriented towards future developments of demand with the help of economic planning. Direct social labour on the part of the working population would result in a faster growth of labour productivity than under capitalism. This preoccupation with rapid increase in economic growth had its genesis in several factors. The advent of socialism in countries which were for the most part economically backward, agrarian and peasant societies, and the perceived need for extensive and rapid industrialization was the first of these. Next, the rapid post-war expansion of organized capitalism, characterized by large-scale state intervention, partial planning and very high rates of growth and the need for socialist countries to compete effectively with capitalism in the provision of high material levels of living ensured that an extraordinary stress was laid on rapid economic growth through industrialization. Lenin also pointed out that the economy is something like a giant enterprise owned by the people, who are represented by the socialist state. The activity of all the parts, the overall production by all enterprises, as well as the distribution of the means of production and the labour force among them would have to be determined with the help of one single overall plan. Although Lenins shift towards the New Economic Policy (NEP) resulted in the reintroduction of market relations in the economy, it did not change the idea of substituting systematic planning for market relations in socialism. Lenin justified the reintroduction of market relations on the strength of the existence of private producers, chiefly farmers, during the transition to socialism.  [iii]  The old bourgeois producers had to be transformed in the new socialist economy. This could be done by socializing the populace, an act which needed active state-intervention. Stalin, however, understood economic retention of market relations only in terms of formal commodity- money relations, and eliminated market mechanisms. During Stalins rule, some characteristic features of the socialist economic system developed, whose theoretical reflections bordered on being dogmas. According to him, the means of production must not be in private ownership. Rather they must be in state ownership to a decisive extent. The development of production must not be determined by market mechanisms. Rather, it must be fixed with the help of central plans. Prices must only be retained for the exclusive purposes of formal planning and calculation. They must, however, be fixed by a central state authority and must not be changed by enterprises in accordance with market conditions. Such and further fundamental dogmas were meant to preclude the reappearance of capitalist ownership and the re-emergence of economic anarchy, while ensuring the fast, effective and proportionate development of socialist production determined by pla nning. The communist parties began to label such a system organized along such economic lines as real socialist. However, not one of the objectives ever aimed at by a socialist development process was reached. This was not chiefly a consequence of subjective mistakes made by party and state leadership with regard to economic policies, rather, it was the result of defects inherent in the conceptualization of the system, which had already been embodied in Marxist-Leninist theory. In comparison with capitalist production, socialist production in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia suffered from several deficiencies which caused them to lag behind. The production showed a lower degree of efficiency than a free-market system. The production grows in a predominantly extensive manner while its intensive growth (through technological progress and the qualitative development of the production factors) is absolutely inadequate. Here, there is an assumption at work which is evidently a capitalist construct- that of measuring productivity by taking recourse to such accepted yardsticks as GDP (Gross Domestic Produc t) rates. The GDP rates are a criteria adopted by intensively capitalist countries to measure productive economic growth, not the ideal parameter to judge the growth in a country with accepted socialist status. Nevertheless, if the material levels of living in the socialist and capitalist countries be taken as a uniform criterion, the socialist nations do demonstrate the relative inefficiency of the state to meet these needs on parity with capitalist countries. Another set of deficiencies in the socialist economies of the twentieth century concerns the nature of production. Production was not sufficiently geared to demand; on the one hand it produced quantities of non-required goods, while on the other, it did not satisfy concrete demand to any large extent. Moreover, production supplied few high quality and fashionable consumer goods, and the technological standards of capital goods were far behind those of capitalist countries. The proportion of consumer goods in production was substantially smaller than Western free-market economies. The official economic theory or more accurately, the ideological propaganda of the USSR and Yugoslavia, as well as of other socialist countries, ignored or concealed these economic defects for years. They only worked with the fast growth rates of production volumes in the initial years, overlooking the losses in efficiency which were increasing from the beginning. Ever since its inception, the planning system prevented a highly efficient investment development, not only because of slow technological progress, but also because it rendered impossible a selection of the most profitable investment projects which are numerous in a free-market economy. Central investment planning and the allocation of investment funds is affected by means of a primitive accounting of input and output without, crucially, an optimal profitability selection.  [iv]  Most important, however, is the fact that the planning system from the start prevented consumers from influencing the development of productio n through the market and from assessing the performance of individual enterprises with the help of market selection. Both in the free-market and in the planned economy systems, lack of balance between supply and demand is inevitable with regard to certain commodities. In a free-market system, however, producers are compelled to overcome these imbalances as soon as possible if they are to achieve profits rather than sustaining losses. In a planned economy system, the extent of the imbalance is substantially greater, and is overcome considerably slowly- if at all. It is at this crucial juncture that one needs to realize that there is a great difference between those societies in which the greater part of productive resources are publicly owned and central planning has a major role, and on the other hand, the societies in which there is only limited public ownership and planning and the construction of a socialist economy involves some extension of planning in diverse forms, along with restrictions on market mechanisms.  [v]  It is the former group of countries that includes the Soviet and Yugoslavian experience that this paper posits as a contrast to the latter Chinese experience with socialism. Even within the group of socialist countries in Eastern Europe (Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) there are important differences arising from distinctive economic, social and cultural conditions, which are revealed in a very different course of post-war development. Two socialist countries in the last century undertook a fundamental and complete restru cturing of the economy- Yugoslavia (where the phase of centralized management was very brief, and hence provides a contrast of sorts to the Soviet experience) and Hungary. The economic system that Yugoslavia adopted provided the model for several economies. The theoretical framework which the Yugoslav is based on is clearly formulated by Horvat who, after rejecting the eclecticism of a mixed economy, continues: We wish to preserve essential consumer sovereignty because socialism is based on the preferences of individuals who control the society. We also wish to preserve the autonomy of producers, since this is the pre-condition for self-management. When these are taken together, we need a market. But not a laissez-faire market. We need a market that will perform the two functions just stated, neither less or more. In other words, we need the market as a planning device in a strictly defined sphere of priorities and planning as a precondition for an efficient market in order to increase the economic welfare of the community.  [vi]   Yugoslav society, thus, unlike Soviet socialism, was constantly caught in a dilemma between the plan and the market, which not only reflects the unclearly defined principles and aims of economic policy, but also is a manifestation of the actual balance of forces in society; that is to say of the clash between advocates of centralized planning and those who uphold the absolute validity of market laws. The dilemma is irreconcilable and the question which remains to be explored is whether the Yugoslav experience demonstrates that there are formidable difficulties in achieving the integration of planning and markets in any regime of public ownership, or more broadly, in a socialist society. In considering this crucial question, one should remember that for two decades the Yugoslav system functioned quite effectively, producing high rates of economic growth and an impressive development of social and cultural life. The turning point, as it were, came, theorists believe, with the rise in o il prices and the Western recession of the early 70s. It may also be argued that the subsequent economic decline was due in large measure to the failure of planning to deal effectively with the consequences of these events, and in particular with the massive growth of external indebtedness. It is certain, therefore, that the economic development of Yugoslavia and other socialist societies had been adversely affected by the their close links with the capitalist world, and by the failure of policy-makers to take a due account of the cycle of growth and recession in capitalist societies which is, after all, at the heart of Marxist economic analysis. As Golubovic claims, Socialism with markets is here to stay  [vii]  . The countries in Western Europe, which could be labeled Socialistic or tending towards being socialist, faced problems which were very different from those faced by socialist ones. Nevertheless, some issues were of common concern, highlighting certain universal facets of a socialist economy as it took shape in the twentieth century. The common concerns were centered on the particular forms which public ownership of productive resources, and economic planning should take in the future. In these countries the movement towards socialism got retarded by the advent of conservative governments. And, going by the experience of Yugoslavia one would imagine that treading a middle path between plan and market was indeed the only way to go for countries claiming to be socialist. The Chinese experience with socialism, however, not only contrasts with the Yugoslav experience, but it seems to be hinged on lessons learnt from the experience of the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalins rules. The Chinese and the Cuban methods alert us to Marxs central issue: the proletariat must not only change the relations of society but in the process change itself. Here, the present analysis calls for a contrast between the Soviet and Chinese experiences. The Cuban experience shall be scrutinized later. The October Revolution proved the validity, under conditions existing in Russia in 1917, of the first half of the Marxist-Leninist theory of transition to socialism. The industrial proletariat was able, under resolute revolutionary leadership, to overthrow the bourgeois regime which had come to power in the erstwhile February revolution. However, with regard to the second half of the theory- the capacity of the proletariat to lead the way in the construction of socialism- the Russian experience is at best inconclusive. One must remember that small to begin with; the Russian proletariat was decimated and dispersed by the four years of bloody civil war, hunger and chaos which followed th e revolution. The Bolshevik government was forced to rely on the erstwhile antisocialist bureaucratic administration, overrun as it was with problem of survival and economic recovery. Under the circumstances, revolutionizing practice tending to produce socialist human nature almost totally disappeared. Instead the reconstituted and expanded proletariat which came with forced industrialization was repressed and atomized, deprived of all means of self-expression, and terrorized by an omnipresent secret police. The notion that abolition of exploitative private property in the means of production ushers in an essentially classless society which, given a sufficient development of the forces of production, will evolve in a harmonious way towards communism is exploded once and for all through the Soviet experience. As Nicholas Poulantzas points out, in a society divided into classes, the relations of production consist of a double relation which encompasses mens relations to nature in material production- economic ownership and possession. The first of these relations, that of economic ownership, is the real economic control of the means of production. In the socialist countries, formal, juridical ownership of the means of production belong to the state, which is held to be the peoples state, but real economic control rests in the hands of the directors of enterprises and the members of the party apparatus.  [viii]  Socialist ownership by the whole people has degenerated into ownership by a privileged stratum. It is a privileged stratum- what Charles Bettelheim has called a new state bourgeoisie  [ix]   which controls the means of production and thereby decides how the fruits of production are to be utilized. This unholy collusion at the highest levels of governance killed the revolutionary urge of the proletarians who had effected the revolution a decade back (1917). While the Russian experience thus throws light on the positive side of constructing revolution (a real revolution of the proletariat), it does provide devastating proof of the impossibility of infusing seemingly socialist forms with genuine socialist content unless the process, as Marx delineated, goes hand-in-hand with the formation of socialist human beings.  [x]  It also alerts us to the undesirable effects of bureaucratization that took the wind out of the sails of the socialist regime. A different choice of means could have yielded drastically contradictory and possibly, favorable, results f or the Soviet Union under Stalinist rule. More equality and fewer privileges to the bureaucracy, lesser incentives for the erstwhile bourgeois class, more trust and confidence in the masses, greater inner party democracy are some factors which could have been the steering principles of a course which could have ensured the survival of socialist Soviet Union. It wasnt just these negative lessons from the Soviet experience that impelled the Chinese to pioneer a different path to the construction of socialism. The situation and the proletarian background in China formed the basis of these differences. For one thing, the Chinese proletariat, though smaller than the Russian counterpart, was never plagued by economism. This is explained by Mao who wrote, Since there is no economic basis for economic reformism in colonial and semi-colonial China as there is in Europe, the whole proletariat, with the exception of a few scabs, is most revolutionary.  [xi]  Moreover, the prolonged civil war in China, combined with the war against Japanese invaders fostered a vast growth in both size and the maturity of the revolutionary forces, while a much shorter period of civil war and resistance to foreign invaders in the Soviet Union seriously weakened the revolutionary forces there. The result was China was much more socialised, in as much as the people were more imbued with the ideals of socialist revolutionary fervor than in Russia. When one has to evaluate the Chinese experience, it may well be stated at the outset that its most important contribution to the advance of Marxist thought was to suggest an alternative to the Soviet and east European experience with socialism. In the first years after they came to power, the Chinese Communists set out to follow the Soviet model of collectivization of farms but soon discovered that it put demands on the agricultural sector which could not be met. In the 1920s the Russians decided to squeeze the needed surplus out of the peasants, with the fearful consequences of a decimated and atomized proletariat. This option did not even exist for the Chinese. With a reordering of priorities under Maos regime, industry was to be geared to the needs of agriculture and developed not only in the cities but especially in the countryside, beginning the process of introducing the peasantry to modern technology. This meant the capital needed to develop the Chinese economy was to come from a general increase in the productivity of the Chinese labour force. This in turn, required a vast and historically unprecedented innovation in the form of the agricultural communes and the introduction of a Chinese version of the Green Revolut ion. The economy thereafter worked really well by world standards: China became essentially self-sufficient in agricultural production; and industry developed, in terms of both rapidity and geographical distribution. In recent decades China has opened its economy to foreign investment and to market-based trade, and has experienced strong economic growth. It has carefully managed the transition from a planned socialist economy to a market economy, officially referred to as the socialist market economy, which has been likened to capitalism by some outside observers. As a result, centralized economic planning has little relevance in China today. The current Chinese economic system is characterized by state ownership combined with a strong private sector of privately owned enterprises that generate about 70% of GDP.  [xii]   The Cuban experience with socialism was also illuminating as it highlighted the role of national integrity, nationalization of the populace and the cultivation of the spirit of patriotism in the masses as prime factors leading to a socialist revolution along the lines Marx postulated (1986). The revolutionary government under Fidel Castro found socialism to be the most viable means for freeing Cuba from domination by capitalist countries, guaranteeing in a way Cubas sovereignty. The mission also involved mobilizing and educating the populace even as anti-capitalist changes were vibrant in the party apparatus (again, as in Marx, the ideal ground for a socialist revolution and consolidation of the means of production after the revolution was the party apparatus). Socialism, through the Cuban alternative, has been demonstrably shown to be a process that is premised on unleashing the power of the people, who learn how to change themselves under circumstances and able leadership.  [xiii ]  This consensus and subsequent legitimization of the Cuban state has been shaped by the revolutionary, patriotic and political behavior of the masses. The power of the state is, in the Cuban experience with socialism, shown to be the one with appropriate means to produce change. The way there are deficiencies as with any other socialist regime but these are being tackled in Cuba are paradigmatically different. The debates with respect to deficiencies in Cuba do not reflect the need to replace the regime, but the need to improve it by deepening its ideals and the socialist project. This desire to stand by the ideology of socialism is what sets the Cuban experience apart from all others. It was thereby shown, through the Chinese experience, and the ideologically successful (not equally economically successful, however) Cuban experience that the Soviet and East European experience with socialism, far from being an embodiment of the laws of socialism, was merely one possible path to economic development and as history has demonstrated, one which is in irreconcilable contradiction with the requirements of a socialist transition to communism. Nevertheless, it was only after the creation of the first socialist society in 1917 consequent upon the Bolshevik revolution that central planning (with the concomitant, unintended consequence of bureaucratisation) came to occupy a central place in the definition of the socialist economy. The importance of the Bolshevik revolution is thus paramount. The optimum mix of planning and markets, however, has not been demonstrated neatly by any socialist economy till date. Yugoslavia came close but the dilemma whether to opt for a centralized plan or market mode was irreconcilable to say the least, as demonstrated in the essay. This general sense of disillusionment with the origin and evolution of socialist economies in East Europe has given rise in the countries burdened with it to search for new models of a socialist economy. The chief factors contributing to the disillusionment were probably three: the increasing recognition that a socialist organization of production would be not more but much less productive than private enterprise; an even clearer recognition that, instead of leading to what had been conceived as greater social justice, it would mean a new arbitrary and more inescapable order of rank than ever before; and the realization that, instead of the promised greater freedom, it would mean the appearance of a new despotism. A significant development, hence, was the presentation of the decentralized model whereby the decisions regarding current economic operations would be largely decentralized while the government would retain control over new investment.  [xiv]  This model constituted a p artial departure from Marxian socialism (For in Marxs terms, market socialism is a contradiction in terms), since it allowed some elements of the market to slip into the regulation of current production. Nevertheless, the problems involved in restructuring the socialist economies are multiform and complex. What assumes pre-eminence in such a remedy is not the question of ownership or the excessive promotion of competition, but the decentralization of economic decision-making by giving enterprises greater independence in a controlled environment of market relations. Developing new, indirect modes of planning the economy as a whole have to be devised simultaneously. Economic changes in a socialist economy are thus closely bound up with political manouevres. Political reforms are necessary which require for their success the holistic socialization of the populace, a new spirit of individual enterprise, responsibility to production and administration. Public ownership of the major productive resources is essential for the construction of a socialist economy and then a socialist society. This is so because on one hand is the need to eliminate domination by a capitalist class or a privileg ed bureaucracy as a necessary precondition of classlessness; and on the other hand is the need to extend democratic participation as widely as possible, which is simply another aspect of classlessness or egalitarianism. The postulation of participation in decision-making, however, is accompanied by a controversy concerning the conflict between goals of participation and efficiency. This is primarily with regard to publicly owned enterprises concerning their efficiency and ability to innovate, which is related in most discussions to the question of incentives for both management and workers. This criticism is not totally fair for two reasons. Firstly, it should be amply clear that what is being dealt with is a relative inefficiency  [xv]  and that too not in all cases, as this essay has demonstrated. Moreover it is a fact universally acknowledged that socialist countries as a whole (with a few exceptions) were very successful in the earlier periods in achieving rapid industrializ ation and major technological innovation in some spheres. The central message of the paper is that there is no single ideal model of socialism. Once capitalism is overturned and there is public ownership of the means of production, people will be free to choose democratically among a variety of models of socialist organisation of the economy- as has demonstrably happened in the countries chosen for analysis. Options could range from the completely centralised state rationing of all products (Stalinist Russia) to market socialism (Yugoslavia and later China) with an integral role for money. But a socialist society could also opt to let the full product of peoples labour accrue back to them (Early China after the revolution and Cuba), taxing workers appropriately in order to effect redistribution and investment. Or it could allow only part of the total product to accrue directly to workers, at th

The Importance of Recycling Essay -- Green Energy Recycle Persuasive

You know when you’re walking down the street, drinking your bottled soft drink or water; as you go to throw the bottle away in the trash, have you notice how many of the items in the trash are recyclable. Current reports show that about 80% of the trash that is thrown away is recyclable. Recycling is the third â€Å"R† of the three â€Å"R’s†: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. Recycling is defined as taking a product or material at the end of its useful life, and turning it into a usable raw material to create another product. According to Ivanhoe Broadcast News, each year the average American family throws out 2,460 pounds of paper, 540 pounds of metals, 480 pounds of glass and 480 pounds of food scraps. In conclusion the average American throws away more than 1,200 pounds of trash per year, far more than people in most other countries. I personally think that it is ridiculous how unaware and careless people are that they can’t throw an item into a diff erent container, so it can be recycled. To a certain extent it is not just the publics’ fault; I personally believe that the government should set up and take control of the situation. Instead of sitting around as the world becomes more polluted. I believe there are many ways that we can improve this system. For example: technology and electronics are a huge part of our culture and society. The â€Å"fast paced† nature of technology creates products that become outdate very quickly. Electronics not containing lead or mercury are very much recyclable. However, instead of recycling, people just throw these items away, not thinking ... ... anything to help, we as a nation need to step up and support the cause. It is our future, so we must make something out of it. Words Cited Good Will statistics: http://www.wheremostneeded.org/2007/06/corprate_thinki.html By â€Å"blog† Broadcast News, Ivanhoe. â€Å"Re-using and recycling is beneficial.† News 8 Austin 06 August2006. Cell phone statistics: http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/cell_phone_culture.htm By James Katz Alumin Statistics: http://www.chymist.com/alum.pdf By David A. Katz Organic material statistics: http://www.co.allen.in.us/images/stories/Purdue%20CES/Horticulture/ach125.pdf By Allen E. Boger

Functionalist and Marxist Approaches to Education and Economy Essay

Functionalist and Marxist Approaches to Education and Economy Functionalist and Marxist perspectives differ considerably in the way they view the relationship between education and the economy. Both perspectives agree that the educational system provides society with certain functions, but they disagree about the purpose of these functions and more importantly who benefits from them. Functionalists see the educational system as providing a positive educational experience, which benefits the children and society. Whereas, Marxists claim that the system oppresses and harms people, and that it only benefits the powerful. Functionalists believe mass formal education is an essential part of industrial society, and that the expansion of industrial economies brings a corresponding expansion in the educational system. They also see the introduction of mass education in Britain during 1870, as a response to the increasing demand of industry, for a literate and numerate workforce. Many Functionalists, such as Durkheim, claim that education performs two central functions, which relate to social cohesion and the division of labor. Durkheim (1961 'Moral Education') argued that education transmits the norms and values of society to the next generation. It therefore reproduces social solidarity, which according to functionalism, is needed in order for society to exist. Durkheim offered an explanation of how social solidarity is reproduced by the educational system. He said that school creates a miniature model of society, where the child interacts and cooperates with other pupils whilst following a set of fixed rules. In this way, the ch... ...basic level, on some sort of conspiracy between employers and teachers. To conclude, the Functionalist perspective views education as a vital part of society, which turns pupils into model citizens and has a positive impact on the economy and society as a whole. Education also produces a diverse workforce, in a way that is fair to everyone, and it compliments the requirements of the economy perfectly. The Marxist perspective views education as a part of society that is vital for the ruling class, because it reproduces the unequal distribution of wealth and power, by turning working class pupils into conformist workers. It therefore sees education as an ideological tool, used by the upper classes to exploit the working classes. Ref: Haralambos and Holburn (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (fifth edition)

hacker crackdown :: essays research papers

THE HACKER CRACKDOWN Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier CONTENTS Preface to the Electronic Release of *The Hacker Crackdown* Chronology of the Hacker Crackdown Introduction Part 1: CRASHING THE SYSTEM A Brief History of Telephony / Bell's Golden Vaporware / Universal Service / Wild Boys and Wire Women / The Electronic Communities / The Ungentle Giant / The Breakup / In Defense of the System / The Crash Post- Mortem / Landslides in Cyberspace Part 2: THE DIGITAL UNDERGROUND Steal This Phone / Phreaking and Hacking / The View >From Under the Floorboards / Boards: Core of the Underground / Phile Phun / The Rake's Progress / Strongholds of the Elite / Sting Boards / Hot Potatoes / War on the Legion / Terminus / Phile 9-1-1 / War Games / Real Cyberpunk Part 3: LAW AND ORDER Crooked Boards / The World's Biggest Hacker Bust / Teach Them a Lesson / The U.S. Secret Service / The Secret Service Battles the Boodlers / A Walk Downtown / FCIC: The Cutting-Edge Mess / Cyberspace Rangers / FLETC: Training the Hacker-Trackers Part 4: THE CIVIL LIBERTARIANS NuPrometheus + FBI = Grateful Dead / Whole Earth + Computer Revolution = WELL / Phiber Runs Underground and Acid Spikes the Well / The Trial of Knight Lightning / Shadowhawk Plummets to Earth / Kyrie in the Confessional / $79,499 / A Scholar Investigates / Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Electronic Afterword to *The Hacker Crackdown,* New Years' Day 1994 Preface to the Electronic Release of *The Hacker Crackdown* January 1, 1994 -- Austin, Texas Hi, I'm Bruce Sterling, the author of this electronic book. Out in the traditional world of print, *The Hacker Crackdown* is ISBN 0-553-08058-X, and is formally catalogued by the Library of Congress as "1. Computer crimes -- United States. 2. Telephone -- United States -- Corrupt practices. 3. Programming (Electronic computers) -- United States -- Corrupt practices." 'Corrupt practices,' I always get a kick out of that description. Librarians are very ingenious people. The paperback is ISBN 0-553-56370-X. If you go and buy a print version of *The Hacker Crackdown,* an action I encourage heartily, you may notice that in the front of the book, beneath the copyright notice -- "Copyright (C) 1992 by Bruce Sterling" -- it has this little block of printed legal boilerplate from the publisher. It says, and I quote: "No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information address: Bantam Books." This is a pretty good disclaimer, as such disclaimers go. I collect intellectual-property disclaimers, and I've seen dozens of them, and this one is at least pretty straightforward.