Sample Essay About Why Work As A Substitute Teacher

Sample Essay About Why Work As A Substitute TeacherOne of the most difficult assignments that you may find yourself asked to do is a sample essay about why work as a substitute teacher is a good idea. It is often a matter of differentiating yourself from your colleagues by offering an alternative view of the job.The great thing about this assignment is that it is not so much about how you have answered a question about a particular subject in the past, but rather what you believe and why you believe it is a good idea. In this essay you will have to show that there are many different sides to the job. No matter whether you will be teaching kids or adults you will have to show the possibilities of doing so.One very interesting aspect of this is the fact that it can relate both to your current state of mind as well as your skills and knowledge. You should think of your area of interest and how it can best benefit your current career. You will also want to think about your skill set and how these will be relevant to the role. If you have a good education you can also offer examples of how you have used it to excel at the position you are applying for.One significant skill that you need to have is that of researching and thinking outside the box. You will be allowed to use words that you would normally avoid in a standardized test. These could include poetry, novels, essays, paintings, stories and movies. They could also include humor or wit in a way that your writing is clever and shows your unique style of writing.The important thing is that you will be able to show how this one essay will greatly benefit your application. It will show the perspective that you can provide that will help you explain why it is worth trying. People love to see someone who makes a difference to them.Tsample essay about why work as a substitute teacher This can be a very special project, but it can be done if you know how to go about it. Make sure that you write the paper quickly and don't spend too much time on grammar or spelling. Don't worry too much about what you will be saying if people see it because everyone will get the gist of it anyway.One of the best things about this is that it can be a great way to show how you have progressed in your career. People will look at this and say, 'Wow, he must have really liked his job before.'

How LG Electronics Manages Technology and Innovation

Sandels Analysis of Utilitarianism and Libertarianism

Sandels Analysis of Utilitarianism and Libertarianism The United States is experiencing a social crisis. The problem is characterized by young students armed with handguns, corporate greed and families caving in because of financial difficulties. Sandel a legal expert asserted that the American public must reinterpret concepts of liberty, prosperity, equality, and human rights.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Sandel’s Analysis of Utilitarianism and Libertarianism specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More He said that it is not enough to simply develop a framework that will protect the welfare of the majority. There is a desperate need for people of diverse backgrounds to work together. Sandel said that American citizens must learn sacrifice in order to achieve true equality. Before going any further it must be understood that the present is a mere byproduct of the decisions and actions made in the past. The current state of the social and moral landscape of the United Sta tes of America can be understood through the study of American history. By doing so, one can understand the meaning and value of liberty, prosperity, equality, and human rights. It is also important to point out that the belief system used to interpret these concepts is the result of nation building. This is the process that came about after the dramatic transformation of the United States from a former colony to an independent nation. It is therefore important to point out the circumstances that led to the creation of the U.S. political system that incorporated the principles of utilitarianism and libertarianism. In other words, it is not enough to simply view these concepts as a means to develop a framework for creating laws and political decisions. These concepts must be understood in their proper context. Therefore, liberty must be understood in relation to experience of the Americans living in the colonies as they asserted their independence against the British Empire. Equality and human rights must be understood in the context of the national struggle to break free from tyranny. Prosperity must be understood in the pursuit of the American Dream. Utilitarianism It is now time to figure out the basis for the policies enacted to promote liberty, equality, human rights, and prosperity. There are two major frameworks used by lawmakers and political leaders.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The first one is utilitarianism and the second one is libertarianism. John Stuart Mill’s interpretation of utilitarianism contributed greatly to the discussion on how to develop the correct framework for policymaking purposes. He pointed out, that there is a much better way to develop guidelines that can help society deal with social issues. John Stuart Mill said that â€Å"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as t hey tend to produce the reverse of happiness† (Mill 1). This theory is generally known in legal circles as utilitarianism. In the utilitarian framework a correct decision can be achieved if the end goal is the creation of happiness. It must not be interpreted as a self-indulgent mindset even if it seeks to eliminate pain, discomfort, and other negative feelings. It must be understood from the point of view of John Stuart Mill. He clarified that there must be a standard and this standard: is not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character (Mill 7). Sandel understood the core principle of utilitarianism and made t he remarks: â€Å"One way of thinking about the right thing to do, perhaps the most natural and familiar way, is to ask what will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people† (Sandel 9). But this legal expert was quick to make a counter-argument â€Å"that maximizing utility, or collective happiness, may come at the expense of individual rights† (Sandel 9). This assertion is a valid point especially if one considers the tendency of the majority to create laws that ignores the welfare of the minority. Libertarianism Utilitarianism provided a clear goal and that is the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number of people. However, one can find several weaknesses in this argument. It is therefore important to address a problematic issue of utilitarianism which is the creation of a standard that oversimplifies social issues. Thus, the concept of libertarianism was introduced as an alternative view. Libertarianism addresses the need to clarify the imp ortance of human rights. According to Sandel:Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Sandel’s Analysis of Utilitarianism and Libertarianism specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Libertarians are best known as advocates of free markets and critics of government regulation. Underlying their laissez-faire stance is the idea that each of us has a fundamental right to liberty – a right to do whatever we want wit the things we own, provided we do not violate other people’s rights to do the same (Sandel 49). The high value given to liberty explains the reason why a clarification was made regarding the source of these ideas. It must be pointed out that the libertarian’s point of view was heavily influenced by historical events. Libertarianism is the assurance that the tyranny of the elite can no longer be repeated in the future. But in the 21st century the fear of oppression from a monarchy is no longer a re levant issue. In fact, liberty is now seen as an indirect cause to some of the problems faced by many Americans today. This negative consequence is the result of the misuse of liberty, especially if viewed from the clause stating that every American citizen has the right to do whatever he wants to do. It is easy to abuse liberty, even if one adds limitations, such as the idea that everything is feasible as long as the person does not violate the rights of others. Citizenship, Sacrifice and Service Liberty is important especially when viewed in countries where a dictator rules. Liberty is precious especially after a recent declaration of independence. But liberty can be counter-productive if citizens of the State have become self-centered in their pursuit of happiness. The best example is the use of liberty to exploit legal loopholes. The damaging effect of liberty can be seen in the way it was used to bend rules in order to exploit people. Sandel argued that the citizens of this nat ion must have a strong sense of community. It must incorporate the highest ideals of utilitarianism and libertarianism. In other words this country must work towards policies that will benefit the greatest number of people without trampling individual rights. It is not as improbable as one would think but it would require a change in mindset concerning the importance of liberty, prosperity, equality and human rights. Sandel made an important observation when it comes to the pursuit of the good life. He was correct to assert that there is nothing wrong with the need to create a good life. But the disturbing development in 21st century America can be traced to the lack of a sense of community. Thus, individuals tend to work on their own without regard to others. The inability to form meaningful relationships with diverse groups of people intensified the development of elitist thinking. Furthermore, there is also the increasing addiction to the idea of privatization. The idea of privat e property is one of the most enduring and important legacies of the founding fathers. They strived hard to provide individual citizens the right to have their own property. Therefore, they can live like kings in their own domain. However, there are many instances when privatization can lead to selfish behavior.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More It is high time to understand that privatization has limits. A person must not build his own kingdom and create a barrier that separates him form the rest of the community. It will not take long before that person experiences the sting of isolation. This person may succeed in creating an oasis in a city torn by violence and poverty. But what will be the effect the moment he steps out of his cocoon? There are many incidents wherein rich people get killed from mugging and other violent acts. In other words, this person has to work really hard in order to create slice of heaven on Earth, in order to insulate himself from the outside world. The unintended consequence is the need for the ordinary person to work like a slave in order to achieve happiness. In the past children were happy with toys that they can make on their own. Today, a typical American child cannot be happy unless his parents bring him to a toy store selling expensive items. When he grows up and become a teenager, his a ppetite for expensive toys remains the same. He will then pressure his parents to buy video games and other items that can cost hundreds of dollars The desperate desire to acquire more wealth in order to buy things that they do not need has driven men and women to do things that they would regret later in life. In many cases business leaders are forced to bend the rules in order to increase the profit margins of their respective companies. The best examples were the erring companies that went bankrupt after the government indicted them because of irregularities. The story of Enron and WorldCom is a reminder that America requires a transformation from within (Fusaro Miller 10). Inequality and Solidarity Sandel also made an important contribution when he said that it is not only important to respect individual human rights and support the desire of people to pursue happiness. He said that it is also important to work together as one people. Sandel circles back to his original positio n that people need to have a sense of community. It is important ingredient in order to attain sustainable economic growth. Sandel also said that it is of critical importance to eradicate inequality. However, Sandel proposed that it is not enough to simply create laws that free them from bondage of slavery and segregation. It is not enough to uphold the law. People of all race, creed, and color must come together in solidarity. Sandel said that if society cannot solve the problem of inequality then the gap between rich and poor widens. Sandel made an effective argument regarding the evils of inequality. He said that if the gap widens between rich and poor, then, there is no hope to rehabilitate broken institutions like the public school system. It is interesting to note the rapid decline of what was once considered as a bastion of quality education was not caused by a weak economy but the result of neglect. It is the direct result when influential people stopped sending their childr en to private schools. At first glance the decision of the rich to send their children to private schools is a mere expression of their right to choose. They believe that sending their children to private schools ensures a bright future. Using principles gleaned from utilitarianism and libertarianism, this decision is perfectly within their rights. But upon closer examination, it will be revealed that the self-imposed isolation by the country’s elite resulted in the overall decline of social institutions. The explanation is so simple but requires the brilliance of Sandels mind to make it obvious to the general public. The failure to interact with other members of society on the basis of social status prevents influential people to see the problems that plague society. More importantly, the barrier that exists between social classes prevents the rich and powerful to help those who are in need because they are unaware of their plight. Conclusion Sandel made a convincing argumen t regarding the need to go beyond the principles of utilitarianism and libertarianism. He said that even if one combines the best ideas from both schools of thought, it is not enough to deal with the problems that have caused the deterioration of American society. Sandel’s proposal is so simple but it is highly unlikely that Americans will embrace it. Sandel said that people must have a sense of community. According to him, it is not enough to know liberty, prosperity, equality and human rights. Sandel said that people of diverse social backgrounds must come together. This proposition can be achieved if rich and poor continue to find ways to interact with each other. In this way the general public becomes aware of the problems that affect everyone and they can work together to find a solution to a particular need. Fusaro, Peter and Ross Miller. What Went Wrong at Enron: Everyone’s Guide to the  Largets Bankruptcy in U.S. History. New Jersey: John Wiley Sons, 2002. Print. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, Mar. 2011. Web. https://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm. Sandel, Michael. Justice: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Financial Statment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Financial Statment - Essay Example Aside from liabilities, stockholders’ equity can also be used to finance a business. The accounting equation (assets = liabilities + stockholders’ equity) must always balance. As such, funds for new assets must come from one of liabilities or stockholders’ equity but not both. Unlike the balance sheet, the income statement provides a snapshot of how productive a business is at any given time. An income statement is usually used for a fixed time period, either one month or one year. The income statement contains two main categories: revenues and expenses. Revenues are any funds that come into a business, while expenses are anything that goes out. The key purpose of an income statement is to find out the net income of the business. This is calculated by subtracting expenses from revenues. Investors are concerned with the net income of a company because it can show if a business is profitable or not. The retained earnings statement is linked to the income statement in that the net income is added to the retained earnings statement. From this amount, some of the net income is paid out to shareholders as dividends. However, in most circumstances, a company would retain a significant portion of its net income in order to reinvest it in the business. Investors are interested in the retained earnings statement of a company because it can tell them how committed the company is to its long-term growth. Finally, a statement of cash flows is primarily used to show where cash came from and how it was spent. There are three main activities where cash can be derived from: (1) operating activities, (2) investing activities, and (3) financing activities. Investors are concerned with the statement of cash flows because they want to see how a company chooses to spend its cash. Also, a company that has very little cash on hand is perhaps not a wise one to invest in. Comparative statements can be completed for any of the

Integrated Marketing and Communication Term Paper

Integrated Marketing and Communication - Term Paper Example However, depending on the context and environment in which the business is operating, different interpretations of IMC have evolved. IMC has gained importance from both academic researchers and corporate decision makers. According to academic scholars, the concept of IMC cannot be defined with the help of any rigid definition. An in depth understanding of the various ways of marketing communication would be useful in explaining the huge utility of this term in the present business context and the marketing activities made by companies all over the globe (Drummond & Ensor, 2005). Integrated marketing communications The procedure followed in integrated marketing communications refers to a series of activities made by companies in succession to one another. These activities are â€Å"the strategic analysis, choice, implementation and control of all elements of marketing communications which efficiently, economically and effectively influence transactions between an organization and its existing and potential customers, consumers and clients† (Panda, 2007, p. 524). ... This applies to any category of corporate organization that deals with any kind of product or service. Companies can however, customize each individual process of this entire system according to the marketing objectives and production goals of the organization. For all the years since 1950, companies have used this concept of marketing communications as an all inclusive notion of marketing that acts as an envelope to all the different levels of marketing activities and communication of the companies. However, the technique of integrating these varied functional areas strategically into the functioning of the companies differs from company to company. The approach is unique to the pattern of resource allocation made by the company and also its position and status relative to its competitors (FitzGerald, 2000). In this paper the concept of integrated marketing communications has been critically evaluated and the different elements of this process have been studied in order to device a single strategy for marketing communications. The prime aim of this strategy would be to allow companies to achieve customer satisfaction by following IMC. It would help companies to identify target audiences from the markets and frame the most appropriate strategy to communicate with them. Companies generally use multiple channels of communication. In order to generate best results, the strategy developed through the IMC process should be consistently used while executing each of all the communication functions made by the firm (FitzGerald, 2000). IMC Strategy & Plan Every organization runs its business with a three-fold objective; increasing market share, maintaining competitive advantage over the current rivals of the company and

The 1848 Revolutions In Europe

The 1848 Revolutions In Europe The fall of Napoleon marked the beginning of a new era for Europe. The people had witnessed 25 years of warfare. Old boundaries had been eliminated or altered. New political and social systems had arisen. New ideas and opinions had spread throughout Europe. The history of Europe after 1815 is therefore characterised by a struggle between revolutionary and reactionary forces. The struggle would, however, not be conducted merely in the political arena. A new economic factor was evolving in European life, namely the Industrial Revolution. Europe would therefore move in new directions, unheard of only a century earlier. European Society in 1815 Despite their widespread acceptance amongst certain sectors of the European population, the ideals of the French Revolution and the political settlements dictated on greater Europe by Napoleon Bonaparte could not entirely eradicate the institutions of the Old Order. The monarchies were far more deeply rooted for that. Indeed, after Napoleons final defeat, the people of Europe were weary of warfare and tended to look upon the monarchy as a symbol of unity and peace. The reactionary monarchies tended, therefore, to retain the support of the Church, the nobility and the great land-owners. In France the Revolution had attacked the Church quite as much as it had done the royal houses and the nobility. The fall of Napoleon tended, therefore, to be regarded as a victory for the Catholic Church. Because the Church was one of the more powerful forces in restraining the powers of the Revolution, it was natural that every effort would be made after 1815 to restore the Church to its traditional position. The Church therefore became a rallying point for reaction and the forces of continuity. In 1815 Europe generally was merely on the verge of the Industrial Revolution. Land therefore remained the chief source of wealth. As a result, landowners continued to be one of the paramount figures in determining social status and political power. On the other hand, because of the nationalisation of land belonging to both Church and aristocracy, a new landowning class had come into existence. This was particularly so in France. In essence, however, although differing considerably from the older order of landowner, the new class modelled itself on the old and remained extremely conservative. The widespread longing for peace created the atmosphere in which reactionary governments were able to introduce repressive measures against the revolutionary forces. Britain, for instance, (arguably the most liberal of states) brought in measures suspending individual rights and freedoms, prohibiting public gatherings and introducing press censorship. Similar proclamations were issued in France and Germany in 1819. Suppression by military force, use of secret police, control of universities and press censorship became the order of the day throughout Europe. The process of urbanisation had already long started in Europe. With the sudden evolution of the Industrial Age, however, a new industrial proletariat was suddenly created, totally different to the conservative agricultural community. These were people who had an axe to grind because often they had been rendered unemployed by that very revolution. They would therefore be ready followers of any radical political philosopher which promised them better conditions. There was also the new and steadily growing class of industrial bourgeoisie who were using their wealth and power to press for the abolition of obsolete laws and demanding greater political recognition. The New Political Philosophies New political philosophies were taking root during this period: Liberalism, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism. One must also be careful not to confuse the liberalism of 1815 with democracy. Liberalism was the political system advocated by the wealthy financiers, merchants and industrialists who formed the backbone of the bourgeoisie. The movement aimed at breaking the political monopoly of the landed nobility. Liberal thinkers urged that birth was not the criterion of political power. Power had rather to depend on land-ownership, intelligence and education. The liberals were certainly not in favour of universal franchise. They did, however, believe in a free economy (laissez faire). To achieve this, they advocated limiting the activities of the state, especially in the economic field. Democrats, on the other hand, believed that political equality was a basic principle. Universal franchise was the basis for this political equality. The democrats therefore tended to be the political rallying ground of the lower classes, especially the petit bourgeoisie. As such they were feared by conservatives and liberals alike. Socialism at the beginning of the 19th century derived its inspiration from Rousseau and the ideals of the French Revolution. While the liberals stressed liberty and the democrats equality, the socialists stressed fraternity. As a result, socialists tended to be regarded as anti-national in character. The socialists were mainly interested in problems of poverty and social inequality which they blamed on the capitalist system of private ownership and production. Since socialism aimed at overthrowing the existing order, it threatened the liberals, the democrats and the conservatives. The nationalism of 1815 must not be confused with the nationalism of the 20th and 21st century. First, it was less militant than modern nationalism. It tended to focus on loyalty to the king rather than on loyalty to the state. It was also more cultural than political. Nevertheless, the Napoleonic Wars had given nationalism a new turn. The French armies had been national rather than mercenary. Napoleon had therefore given his people the desire for national prestige. His conquests in Europe, on the other hand, fostered a national desire amongst the conquered nations to resist. Nationalism, rather than any other political philosophy, would in fact become one of the greatest threats to the European state system after 1815. Why were there so many Revolutions in 1848? Introduction The revolutions of 1848 were the most widespread in the history of Europe. They directly affected France, Germany, Prussia, the Austrian Empire (F-G A P), various Italian states, Moldavia and Wallacia. They also indirectly affected Switzerland, Denmark, England, Spain and Belgium. Of all the European states, only Russia was unaffected. Two aspects draw our attention. First, the immediate course of the revolutions where the drawing up of democratic constitutions was the order of the day. Second, the fact that by 1850 all the revolutions had collapsed into nothing and hard-nosed reaction appeared to triumph. To understand both these aspects, one needs to understand the forces underlying both the revolutions and militating against them. Conditions Underlying the Revolutions The conditions which triggered the 1830 uprising were still there in 1848 but were more widespread. Liberalism and nationalism were growing apace. Yet two new forces were fermenting just then, namely socialism and communism. Each of these forces, when harnessed and working with the others, would serve to drive the old order into retreat. But, if and when they pulled against each other, the old order could come back with full force and in alliance with one or other of these very forces to suppress the rest. The Radicals (from the Latin radix meaning root) desired to cut things to the root. They desired a complete reconstruction of the laws, law-courts, prisons, poor relief, municipal organisation and state constitution. On the continent the majority of the radicals were republicans who were generally drawn from the class of intelligentsia such as students, writers, university professors and lawyers. On the fringe were the socialists who saw the existing economic system as aimless, chaotic and unjust because too much economic power was in the hands of the capitalists. They generally believed in the right to be employed and wanted the nationalisation of essential institutions like banks, factories, the land and transportation. On the far fringe were the communists. These were a group of Germans who coined the name communism for their movement during the 1840s. The name was then adopted in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to differentiate their beliefs from general socialism. A glance at the society of the day would indicate that there were factions within it, each wanting its own particular goal. Each would initially enter into alliance with the other to gain a concerted drive towards its objective. But, when it was seen that the other was either going too far or not far enough, then the alliances would break and new alliances would be forged. At the top end of the political/class structure was the government itself which was distrustful of any movement which might seek to destabilise Europe and bring about the chaos of 1789. Below the government were the aristocrats and landed gentry who were also essentially conservative (reactionary). They feared the philosophy of the masses because it could mean that they would lose everything as the result of a successful revolution. Then there were the wealthy merchants and industrialists (bourgeoisie). They were intent on a transfer of power from the aristocracy to themselves. Their desire was for a constitutional monarchy which would favour them in some form of a qualified franchise. Below the bourgeoisie were the petit bourgeoisie. Most vociferous here were the lawyers who desired greater equality before the law which would benefit their own businesses. They therefore formed the backbone of the democratic movement. The poorer bourgeoisie were generally democratic, wanting the franchise to be extended at least as far as themselves as a guarantee of liberty and equality. The academics at the universities, especially those in Germany, also desired constitutional reforms to bring about equality and justice for all. It had to be done, however, in an orderly and civilized fashion and not in such chaos as had happened in France in 1789. The university students (revolting at the best of times!) they owned nothing and had little to lose by revolution, they tended to favour forms of socialism. The urban artisans were at the forefront of the economic suffering. It was they who stood to lose most by the industrial revolution. They were therefore the most radical group in the revolutionary climate, producing most of the socialists and communists. The proletariat had little to lose but much to gain from socialist revolts. They had little loyalty or sympathy either for the aristocracy or the monarchy. It was from this group that the convinced republicans would emanate. The country peasants, on the other hand, desired little more than freedom of movement and freedom from serfdom. They were essentially conservative, deeply religious (superstitious), loyal to their aristocratic overlords and fearful of revolutionary excesses. At the bottom of the pile were the growing numbers of poor and unemployed. They had little to lose by revolution but everything to gain. They would therefore rally behind any leader who promised them security of employment. The religious pull was always very strong. Although many of the lawyers, university students and proletariat claimed that religion was merely the opiate of the masses, most of the population were still bound by the dictates of the Church. The Church in turn preached order, submission to authority and an afterlife where true freedom would be attained. Although the masses might temporarily be caught up in anti-religious hysteria and rioting, their loyalty to the cause could not be sustained. Economic conditions were critical. With the absence of trade-unionism, most workers were prepared to accept their lot in life as long as the economic climate was favourable. An economic depression, on the other hand, produced escalating unemployment and job insecurity. Economic Conditions The period from 1815 to 1848 was marked by significant economic fluctuations. Initially (1815-1818) there was a post-Napoleonic War depression in which the economies of all countries except France went into recession. The early 1820s saw an upswing in economic fortunes but another recession accompanied the 1830 revolutions. Although the 1830s were generally prosperous years, a major recession descended on Europe during the 1840s. The industrialisation was making significant inroads into the European states, especially France and Germany. It was accompanied, however, with gross exploitation and increasing unemployment. Urbanisation was therefore on the increase and the cities became centres for the unemployed masses. Poverty led to destitution, with an accompanying increase in the crime-rate. The ruling classes and the elite bourgeoisie appeared indifferent to the plight of the people. Any political philosophy which promised change would therefore be supported by the masses. The recession of the 1840s was also accompanied by a major crop failure. The potato crop throughout Europe was destroyed by blight in 1845. This was followed by a bad harvest of cereals, leading to inflated prices and a drop in spending power. Conditions became progressively worse in 1846 and 1847. It is estimated that about one-fifth of the population of Paris was unemployed in February 1848 when the revolution occurred. Circumstances in Germany were similar. There was also general disillusionment over the political conditions throughout Europe. The defeat of Napoleon in 1815 had been heralded as the triumph of reason and stability. The governments which were thereupon installed promised constitutions to their people but by the 1840s the constitutions were either not forthcoming or the rulers had regressed into new forms of oppression. A person born in 1815 would be over 30 years of age by 1848 which meant that the young people knew nothing of the hardships of the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic campaigns. On the contrary, the stories had now become legends of a glorious and romantic past, in contrast to which the contemporary rulers were not only oppressive but boringà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  as well. Pupils of year 9 are requested to please be prepared for the History test based on these notes (pages 1 à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬ 6 only) and explanations in the class. The test will be held on Monday 27th July, 2009. Why did the Revolutions of 1848 fail? Revolutionary Outbreak When the revolutions did break out in 1848, however, they were entirely spontaneous with no organisation whatever. The revolt in Paris erupted by the banning of the Reform Banquet. Revolts then spread rapidly the length and breadth of Europe: 22 February in Paris, 12 March in Vienna, 17 March in Berlin, thereafter in Rome, Venice and Milan that same month. There was no unity of purpose or in planning. The very rapidity appeared to take the governments by surprise. The fact that the revolts were so sudden and so widespread meant that the governments were caught napping. They lacked policy rather than the power to suppress them. In all cases, the armies remained intact but were not initially used simply because the governments needed time to review the situation. Tensions between Protagonists This very lack of planning and unity of purpose would also serve to tear the revolutions apart. The wealthier bourgeoisie wished to see an end to state interference in the economy so that a policy of laissez faire could operate. The socialists, on the other hand. wanted to see a new constitution which would allow more state interference in the economy so as to bring about an equal distribution of wealth and opportunities. The small communist element wanted to see the end of the state altogether and the introduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat so as to prevent both the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie from ever being able to seize power again. Each of these three groups feared the other. The bourgeoisie desire social order as the pre-requisite for economic growth but saw the socialists and communists as destroyers of that social order. The socialists wanted a new social order that would destroy capitalist monopolies but believed that the new order could be brought about through reform of the existing state. The communists believed that the existing state could not be reformed at all but could only be overthrown. Added to this were the disagreements over the question of the nationalities. A feature of Europe of the 1840s was the lack of national states. The Habsburg Empire consisted of Germans, Magyars, Czechs, Slavs, Italians and other assorted peoples. Prussia consisted of Germans, Poles and Slavs. Italy was a miscellany of small states with no cohesion. Nationalists within these states wanted not only new constitutions but also the creation of national states. If they were to have their own way, the existing states of Europe would be carved up. Italy, for example, could only be united into a nation state if Lombardy and Venetia were taken from Austria. Hungary could only become a nation state if the Habsburg Empire was destroyed. The Poles could have had a national state only if both Prussia and Russia were destroyed. Germany could become a nation state only through the destruction of the Habsburg (Austrian) Empire and the incorporation of parts of Prussia. At the same time, those very nationalists could not agree with one another. Magyar nationalists wanted a Magyar state of Hungary which would incorporate the other minority groups and thereby suppress their nationalist ideals. German nationalists wanted the incorporation of the whole of Prussia which would deny national rights to the Poles. Communist groups, on the other hand, had no desire for any nation states at all but believed that the proletariat of all nations must be united. They were therefore advocating the creation of a stateless society. The disunity of objectives then allowed the armies, which had not been overthrown, to intervene and suppress the revolutions. The Habsburg Empire, first to respond, used nationalistic squabbles as the pretext to suppress the entire movement. The Prussian King then gained courage and used the insurmountable political confrontations to pull the rug from under the revolutionaries feet. In Italy there was no agreement as to whether the new national state would be formed under the Pope, under the King of Sardinia or would be a simple republic. In the end the nation state wasnt formed at all. In France the revolt was essentially a Parisian affair, dominated by the socialists. Discord in the ranks of the revolutionaries, however, allowed Louis Napoleon to seize control and impose yet another dictatorship and empire. The New Philosophies The 1848 revolutions, though so wide-spread, had little of lasting value to show. Only a handful of countries gained constitutions. France had adopted universal franchise but it was not a lasting democracy because Louis Napoleon quickly established a popular dictatorship. In Prussia, Germany, Austria and Italy the pre-1848 conditions were soon restored. For Germany particularly this was a tragedy. It meant that a future German Empire would be created not on the foundations of liberalism and democracy but on Prussian militarism. Prussia would soon embark upon major expansion, using her military might to defeat both Austria and France. That in turn would set imperialism in motion which would ultimately end in the Great War (1914-1918), the 2nd World War (1939-1945) and finally the Cold War (1945-1990). As in France in 1789, the real winners in 1848 were the peasants. They were emancipated in most countries except Russia and would maintain their liberty even after the collapse on the revolts. Yet the peasants were essentially conservative and, having gained freedom, would become another element in the support of the reactionary governments. The failure of the revolutions led to the evolution of new attitudes throughout Europe. Romanticism, the backbone of revolutionary idealism, had failed and was now discredited. After more than half a century of struggle, the ideals of liberalism and nationalism seemed to be no closer than before. The governments felt more secure and could afford to be reactionary. The economic depression of the 1840s eased (it was ironically already easing in 1848 when the first revolts took place) and ushered in a period of relative prosperity. Realism A new philosophy therefore came to dominate Europe which based itself on realism rather than romanticism. The Age of Realism had therefore been born. It was similar to the Age of the Enlightenment but encompassed a far greater spread of the population. The emphasis in Realism was on science, not only for understanding nature, as in the Age of the Enlightenment, but to understand humankind itself. It therefore gave rise to two new sciences: psychology and sociology. Religion also came under renewed attack because of its unscientific nature. Indeed, the radicals went as far as to claim that religion was the invention of the aristocrats and bourgeoisie for the sole purpose of keeping the proletariat subservient. Religion, Karl Marx would say, was simply the opiate of the masses. Politically, the failed revolutions ushered in the politics of realism, known generally by its German term realpolitik. For the people, this meant giving up utopian dreams and relying on the hard work of honest governments. For the governments it meant giving up ideologies and working pragmatically for the best interests of the state, without scruples and without natural alliances. War now became a natural means to gain objectives. War was neither glorious nor romantic. It was not an end in itself but it was certainly a useful tool in the hands of the statesman. (The Prussian statesman, Otto von Bismarck, was a convinced advocate of realpolitik, as is seen in his policies.) Rise of Communism Another philosophy also began to grow as a result of the failed 1848 Revolutions. It became known as Marxism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both worked in England but became caught up in the radical Communist League in 1844. During the revolutions in Germany the Communist League became a vociferous voice working for radical ideals. It was for this group that Marx and Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto (published in January 1848) as a guiding document for their future action. But there was still no philosophy of Marxism which would only become a major force in the 1870s after the publication of Das Kapital in 1867. The foundation of Marxist ideology was the French Revolution of 1789 which Karl Marx believed (a) had been successful and (b) had been a revolution of the bourgeoisie. He believed therefore that, if the bourgeoisie could attain success in a revolution, then the proletariat could do the same. Marx also believed that the French Revolution had left unfulfilled promises. It had promised liberty, equality and fraternity for the masses. It had, however, only provided these for the bourgeoisie. The proletariat had therefore been left in a condition of exploitation. Marx saw in the failed 1848 revolutions a major source of concern. First, the revolutionaries had worked with no real objective. Second, much of the concern had been over the creation of national states. Both Marx and Engels believed therefore that the great revolution of the proletariat had to be systematically worked for, with clear guidelines of action. Nationalism could have no place in this revolution. Instead, all workers in all countries had to be united in the common goal of overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Hence their battle-cry: Workingmen of all countries, unite! All things are in a state of movement and evolution. All change comes through a clash of antagonistic elements. Every event therefore happens in a sequence and never due to accident. History cannot therefore happen in any way different from the way it has happened. Ideas, claimed Marx, could not change society but ideas stemmed from altering material conditions. These economic conditions determine such things as religion, law, government philosophy, etc. According to Marxist philosophy, therefore, historical development evolved in the following pattern. Material conditions gave rise to economic classes. Agrarian conditions gave rise to feudalism and mercantilist conditions gave rise to capitalism. Each class then develops an ideology suited to its needs. Class conflict is then inevitable and happened in France in 1789. But, as the bourgeoisie developed as a class, the antithesis became inevitable: the development of an antagonistic proletariat. The more a country becomes capitalist, the more it becomes proletarian. Ultimately capitalism leads to monopolies whereby capitalists eat each other. The conflict that then ensues leaves the field clear for the revolution of the proletariat. Such a revolution is inevitable. Moreover, it will eventually lead to a classless society. But there is always the danger of a counter-revolution in which the bourgeoisie regain control. To prevent that, the proletariat need to establish an interim dictatorship of the proletariat. Ultimately, however, the state would simply disappear as it would no longer be necessary except as an organisational or facilitating vehicle. The great revolution nevertheless had to be planned and fought for. The natural antagonism between the capitalists and worker had to be fostered. It was a war, said Marx, and there could be no negotiations and compromises. Capitalism could not be reformed; it could only be overthrown. The problem, as far as Europe was concerned, was that the workers were not united. They were also not prepared to sink their all into a continual class war. Indeed, many of the workers were fundamentally conservative. More dangerous was the fact that religion still played a major factor. Another major problem, said Marx, was the fact that the decades after 1848 were generally prosperous ones during which worker salaries had been gradually raised. As a result, the worker failed to see the government as the enemy which was to be overthrown at all costs. The aim of the dedicated communist was therefore to remind the worker continually of his fundamental loyalties: to work incessantly to bring about the revolution of the proletariat. It is probable that Marxism would have died a natural death had it not been for the great catastrophe of international war in 1914. The economic structure was creating a more prosperous working class which would naturally have killed off communism. The Great War would change all that. The war would bring about two periods of major depression, the first from 1918 to 1923 and the second from 1929 to 1935. Furthermore, Russia collapsed during the war, allowing the radicals to take control. From Russia, then, the idea of exporting communism as a means of destabilising the international community saw Marxism become a potent threat of the 20th century. But thats another story.

Path-Goal Leadership Theory Essay -- Path-Goal Leadership Theory

Path-goal theory deals with the leader's style to motivate followers, to accomplish set goals (Northouse, 2010). The path-goal theory is simply the implication that a leader works with an individual to establish a goal. The leader does this by individual motivation to achieve the proposed goal, while working through obstacles that may hinder achieving that goal (Whitener, 2007). The basic assumption of path-goal theory is that the following motivates subordinates: the capability to perform the work, their efforts will result in a certain outcome, and the payoff will be worthwhile (Whitener, 2007). The path-goal theory is a pragmatic approach that the leader uses to motivate the followers to achieve the set goals. The path-goal theory is derived from the expectancy theory and contains four types of leadership behaviors: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented (Whitener, 2007). Directive leaders provide clear task instructions, timeline for task completion, and standards of expectancy and how to accomplish the task (Northouse, 2010). Supportive leaders are friendly and approachable, treat followers as equals, and attempt to make the work pleasurable for the follower (Whitener, 2007). A participative leader shares decision making with followers and integrates their suggestions and feedback into the task goals (Northouse, 2010). Finally, achievement-oriented leaders challenge followers to achieve excellence by encouraging them to work at the highest level of achievement possible (Northouse, 2010). However, each of the behaviors can be used individually or collectively as different situations call for different behaviors (Whitener, 2007). Follower characteristics describe how an individual will interpret ... ...ality, it is my belief it will prove also efficient. By automating the asset tracking processes, our people will be freed up to think and plan as opposed to do and react. In addition, our management will have the accurate and timely information they need to make strategic and tactical asset procurement, tracking and retirement decisions. Works Cited CSC. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.csc.com/global_alliances/alliances/32254-sap Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (customized 4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc. Whitener, J. K. (2007). Year of wonders: The wonder of leadership. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(2), 214-222,226-230,234-235. from ABI/INFORM Global.