Marxist Framework of Poverty in the UK

Marxist Framework of Poverty in the UK Poverty is generally understood to mean a condition in which people are deprived in some way, such that they lack the basic requirements for sustaining well-being, and ultimately, life. These basic requirements are understood as such things as food, water, shelter (as may be understood, for example, in a developing country context) or access to education or political power (as might be understood, for example, in the context of a developed nation). Poverty is an absolute within itself, as people are termed to be in poverty, but poverty can also be understood in relative terms, when, for example, poverty of different resources is considered: poverty of education is obviously not as fundamental a level of poverty as poverty of food, for example, as, obviously, without food, a person would die, but a person can manage to live without education, even if this would mean a life of continuing poverty, through lack of opportunity. Poverty can be measured in many different ways, and indeed, there are many indicators of poverty, which are used to assess year-on-year changes in poverty. Obviously, as with definitions of poverty, measurements of poverty are relative, with different measures being used in developed vs. developing nations, for example, or between nations of the developed, or developing, world. In general, one overall measure of poverty which has gained ground in recent years is the income inequality scale, which shows that income inequality has, recently, worldwide, become less of a problem, with the world becoming more equitable in terms of income levels across the world’s nations. This does not belittle the problems of poverty, however, as poverty is still a major issue that the world has yet to deal with in a satisfactory manner. As with the definitions and measurement of poverty, the causes of poverty are many and varied, with environmental and geographical factors creating poverty in many developing countries, and with disease and lack of natural resources also causing poverty in these regions. Indeed, it is difficult to attribute one cause to poverty in any situation, especially poverty in developing countries. In developed nations, however, poverty is perhaps best understood as a product of society’s failure to act to avoid the situation, and, as such, policies are in place to prevent poverty in these situations[1]. It is a moot point, however, amongst politicians, social workers and philanthropists as to how far policies can actually prevent poverty, and, indeed, some people suggest that current policies do not go far enough to act to prevent poverty. The effects of poverty are, again, many and varied, with poverty leading, ultimately, to death, in many developing nations, and with poverty leading to lack of opportunity and social exclusion in developed nations. In developed nations, policies are in place to avoid such poverty, such as subsidised housing, education and health care[2], although these are not always effective, as we have seen, leading to undesirable effects, such as crime (Jones, 2001; Muncie, 2004). It is hypothesised, for example, that in extreme poverty situations, people turn to crime in order to provide basic necessities, and this has been supported by much original research on the subject (see Muncie, 2004). The next section of the paper will look at levels of poverty in the UK, and following this, the paper will then proceed to assess poverty in the UK from a Marxist viewpoint. Poverty in the UK is still at shockingly high levels, with the problem seeming, on the face of it, to be mainly caused by low pay levels; indeed, it is suggested by recent research that in low-income households, both members of the family need to work in order for the family to earn enough to cover basic expenses[3], and that, of these low income families, many are at a disadvantage in terms of receiving health care and the achievement of minimum educational standards. It seems, also, that this trend, rather than decreasing, is actually increasing, with the number of families claiming children’s tax credits increasing year-on-year and the proportion of workers classed as ‘low paid’ increasing year-on-year[4]. It is shocking, therefore, to see that much of the UK, and a large proportion of the children living in the UK, live in poverty. This is despite the fact that policies have been in place for many decades to try to curtail, and avoid altogether, the issue of poverty. As we have seen, however, these policies are often not effective, and can take years to come to fruition, by which time a new generation of infants have grown up in poverty, leading to what is known as ‘the poverty trap’. We have seen, therefore, how successive UK governments have attempted to deal with the issue of poverty: by creating policies to deal with each ‘strand’ of poverty individually, and not attacking the whole problem of poverty as a whole. This leads on to thinking about how Marxists understand poverty, which is essentially in a more holistic, if idealistic, manner. Marxists do not make any distinction between class, poverty and disadvantage; for Marxists, members of any class, they argue, can fall into poverty through unemployment, for example, and that, as such, ‘the poor’ can be best be viewed as part of a continuum from those in society who have a lot of material wealth to those who do not. This definition using the idea of a continuum, however, stands in direct contrast to the situation of class inequality which, obviously, Marxists attempt to fight against by their calls for equality in society, for all. Perhaps the issue of poverty can be best understood in terms of the dependency theory of Marxists: this theory suggest, essentially, that lifting the poor out of poverty is not enough, they need to be given tools to be able to sustain themselves out of poverty. True Marxists would add that this can never be achieved under a capitalist system, as this system is built to achieve successes at the expense of the failure of others; as such, poverty is a consequence of the capitalist system, and something which Marxists fight against, in their search for equality, or, rather, in terms of poverty, in their quest for a situation in which underdevelopment is not an option. Assessing poverty in terms of a purely socio-political approach as we have done, and then within the framework of Marxism as we have also attempted, provides two different frameworks with which to understand the issue of poverty. One framework aims to treat poverty as something that can be solved by implementing policies and by watching those policies take effect, the other attempts to understand poverty as a societal achievement, which can only be solved by changing the very foundations of society. Social workers are some of societies most valuable professionals, who, in concert with families, teachers, and the police can put children, and families, back on track before they reach an irreversible moment in which damage has been done which cannot be corrected. Children are valuable members of society, and it is the responsibility of all society to look after them: perhaps this is what Marx was implying when he talked of societal equality. Children deserve equality of opportunity, in terms of access to basic requirements, and, above these, to health care and education and information provision. Without these basic requirements, without basic care, children live in poverty. It is a travesty that in this day and age there are many children who live in poverty in the UK, but with the approach outlined here applied on a daily basis by social workers, it is hoped that poverty will soon be a thing of the past, at least in the UK. References Best, S. (2005) Understanding Social Divisions, London, Sage Cree, V. E. (2000) Sociology for Social Workers and Probation Officers, London, Routledge. Dominelli, L. (1997) Sociology for Social Work, London, MacMillan Glennerster, H. et al. (2004). One hundred years of poverty and policy. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Iceland, J. (2003). Poverty in America. A Handbook of the University of California Press. Jones, S. (2001) Criminology, Trowbridge, Cromwell Press Layder, D. (2005) Understanding Social Theory, London, Sage Muncie, J. (2004) Youth and Crime, 2nd edition, London, Sage, Ritzer, G. (2000) Sociological Theory, London, McGraw-Hill 1 Footnotes [1] A recent book by Glennerster et al. (2004) entitled One hundred years of poverty and policy, provides a review of the effects and ramifications of policy on poverty in the UK. [2] Although the nation that sees itself as ‘the most developed’ on Earth, the United States, offers none of these poverty-reducing schemes, and indeed, poverty in the United States is on the increase, and reaches disturbingly high levels. See Iceland (2003) for further details. [3] See the report Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK, 2006 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. [4] Again, according to the report Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK, 2006 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Coca-Cola Essay

Coke has been the leader in the soft drink industry for decades. Coke has a strong customer loyalty base, while appealing to new customers through effective marketing. In recent years, the soft drink industry has changed with consumers becoming more health conscious. With the consumer market changing, soft drink sales have dropped and the demand for healthy drinks are in demand. To be able to make up the difference of the drop in sales, Coca-Cola needed to come up with some innovative new products and marketing strategies that would appeal to a new market of the beverage industry. In the last decade, PepsiCo. has gained leverage on Coca-Cola, because Pepsi made beverages that appealed to the changing consumer market. In two thousand-four, Pepsi owned fifty-two point three percent of the market in China after Coke produced a plant there (SinoCast, 2004). Coca-Cola has faced struggles in the past decade due to the lack of effective marketing and new product development. The individuals that were making the decisions for Coca-Cola were focusing on their best seller Coke and Diet Coke, and discovered that two products were not enough to keep the corporation running. When using the PESTEL analysis, the first key component is to do an environmental scan (Finch, 2012). PESTEL is an acronym known as the six environmental factors which are the framework (Finch, 2012). The six environmental factors are political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal (Finch, 2012). The PESTEL analysis is based upon understanding forces and trends and can pertain to any given industry (Finch, 2012). Coca-Cola did not do any environmental scan, and solely relied upon the traditional beverages and marketing that Coca-Cola had always used. oke 2. PepsiCo not only began to distribute health conscious beverages, such as juices, teas, coffees, and water they also began distributing snack foods. PepsiCo has even implemented a relationship with schools which incorporates responsible advertising practices, like offering healthy foods and beverages. PepsiCo also became a member of the International Food & Beverage Alliance, which has to be met by certain stan dards in food and beverage distribution. The proper execution of the PESTEL analysis is a tool that would give PepsiCo an advantage as it delves in market penetration, market development, and product development. The PESTEL analysis would confirm market trends, and internal and external factors, which would allow the organization to do more specific research and create the ability to make adjustments in order to reflect a gain in the industry. The PESTEL analysis is the answer as to how PepsiCo had the ability to act on a changing market and fully benefit from the changing market. A decade ago Coca-Cola began its struggle in the beverage industry, when reality hit Coca-Cola made adjustments, offered new products and adapted to the market. Five years from now, Coca-Cola has to remain competitive by changing with the market, and producing products that appeal to the current consumer interest. Not only will Coca-Cola have to be creative with products, marketing is also another challenge. Marketing has changed with technological advances, today marketing is more than a television commercial, or a billboard there are now various channels and strategies in hich to reach and appeal to consumers. Coca-Cola is known for sticking to traditional marketing and product, which has eventually put them behind their competitor. Technology is utilized in many different forms and will continue to increase as technology is an ever changing industry. Technology is a tool that should be utilized it can be cost effective and reach a new market segment. The weakness of the beverage industry is that consumers continue to become more health conscious, even down to the ingredients that make the food or beverage they are consuming. There have been studies done that lead researchers to believe that aspartame causes cancer. There are studies that lead researchers to believe that Splenda in large and prolonged quantities can also lead to cancer. These ingredients are commonly used in different types of beverages that are distributed by various companies. With the recent studies of various ingredients, the government controls food and beverage production which also means that everything has to be made public knowledge (on a label). The strengths are that of which Coca-Cola has the ability to produce beverages that appeal to the health conscious consumer. The investment into new products will allow Coca-Cola to remain competitive and appeal to new consumers as well. Along with new beverages, Coca-Cola should also explore new avenues in to growing markets and invest in them. With the financial power that Coca-Cola the investment to tap into new frontiers. There are many opportunities for growth given that marketing and product development are the focus of the future of the company. oke 4. The future of Coca-Cola relies upon the decision to continually evaluate the six major factors into success and future success of any business. Frequent environmental scanning is necessary to execute the analysis of how and what changes need to be made. With the constant adjustments to product development and marketing strategies in place to accompany the changing times, it enables the best utilizations of products and marketing.

History of enlightenment Essay

(1) Newtonian theory vs. Einstein and Heisenberg The Newtonian theory refers to the work of one of the earliest scientists known as Isaac Newton who stated that, the laws of nature (gravity) controlled the stable movements of objects and also maintained the delicate balance that holds things firmly to the ground. However, since then this theory has been subjected to many conflicting philosophical views and opinions that have either challenged or supported it. The emergence of Albert Einstein and his genius in physics, for instance, gave way for heated debates about the credibility of the Newtonian theory of natural law and gravity. Albert Einstein in his proposed theory of relativism helped to extend Newtonian dynamics to include motion at speeds of approaching than that of light. This new additional clause on the initial theories of gravity saw the revolutionary perception of the effect of motion on gravity. The new findings led to the disputation of the absoluteness of Newtonian theory in that, Einstein discovered some faults that made the Newtonian theory incomplete and questionable. Einstein was able to learn that some elements such as time, mass, energy, space, and even matter are not necessarily absolute in themselves, they can therefore be measured or altered by a person depending on the nature of his/her study variables. [Nick Strobel, 2001] Warner Heisenberg later emerged to add his findings on what he called â€Å"quantum† mechanics that described motion on a subatomic scale. In his findings Heisenberg, asserted that the universe was full of uncertainties that made it not an obvious phenomenon to ever understand. â€Å"The more precisely the position is determined the, the less precisely the momentum is known at this instant, and vice versa† The work of these two scientists heralded the genesis of new studies that sought to provide insights on initially abstract theories, the Newtonian one included. [Mr. Edmondson, 2000] (2) Social Darwinism and Hitler The theories of social Darwinism, provided for a healthy competition among individuals, groups, nations, and the global world as a whole for purposes of achieving social evolution amongst human societies. Social Darwinism is a derivative from the Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Natural selection according to Darwin is the process of speciation in populace that is brought about by competition between individual mortals for limited resources a phenomenon called, â€Å"survival for the fittest†.   [Johnson, D. Paul, 2008] In his book, â€Å"Main Krampf† Hitler expresses acknowledgement of both the principals of social Darwinism and natural selection, this he exhibits by asserting that the world should be classified to people’s ancestry, a classification that will involve with some people being placed on higher classes than others, he quoted the example of Germany Aryans as more superior than the blacks, Jews, and gypsies as belonging to a lesser class. Again, Hitler is seen as acting beyond the dictates of social Darwinism or even the principal of natural selection with his racial attitude towards the Jews whom he accuse of abetting racial dilution tactics in order to bring about equality. His perception of social Darwinism and natural law was about the political, social, and economic struggle between the mainstream Aryans and the minority Jews. His racialism attitudes led him to the gassing and brutal murdering of millions of Jews as a way of satisfying his own â€Å"social Darwinistâ €  theory. [Mein Kampf, 1939] (3) Sigmund Freud vs. John Locke According to john Locke, â€Å"self† is the conscious thinking thing which is in itself reasonable or conscious of pleasure and pain and proficient of cheerfulness or melancholy, and so is concerned for itself, as far as that awareness extends. In other words to him self is a character awareness and self thoughtful awareness that is fixed in the body.   [Locke, Essay, 1997] In his work â€Å"some thoughts concerning Education† he indicates it is education that fills the rather â€Å"empty human mind†, by asserting that out of the ten men he meets with nine of them are what they are, morally upright or morally rotten, useful or not, good or evil, chiefly due to their education. [Locke, Some Thoughts, 1996] Further he argued that little and almost insensible impressions we make when we are young having lasting impacts to ourselves simply due to the fact that they were the foundations of the self. [Locke, Some Thoughts, 1996] On the other hand Sigmund Freud differed vehemently with Lockean theory in that he argued that human beings behavior is controlled largely by their unconscious minds. He argued that the understanding of conscious thoughts and behavior is determined by revisiting the unconscious mind. He developed â€Å"repression† as key factor that determined unconscious, out of belief that far many people repress painful memories into their unconscious minds. He further clarified that the very process of repression took place within an individual’s conscious mind but rather in the unconscious one, and therefore many people are unaware that is happening on them. [Barlow DW, Durand VM, 2005] Finally Freud stubborn stance on the unimportance of both education and treatment to the alleviation of violence or suffering can be attributed to his changing of the system of unconsciousness and modeling it into the concept of Ego, super-ego, and id.   Super ego is ability to psyche ones morals and not taking in to account circumstantial morals situations, while Id was derived from William James early works. It is in light of this that Freud vehemently disputed the notion that the success of the population relied on education.   [Barlow DW, Durand VM, 2005] Freud model of mind has been a great challenge to the enlightenment model of rational agency which then was a core element in modern philosophy.

Biography of Molly Pitcher, Heroine of the Battle of Monmouth

Molly Pitcher was a fictitious name given to a heroine, revered for taking her husbands place loading a cannon in the Battle of Monmouth, June 28, 1778, during the American Revolution. The identification of Molly Pitcher, earlier known in popular images as Captain Molly, with Mary McCauly, didnt come until the centennial of the American Revolution.  Molly was, at the time of the Revolution, a common nickname for women named Mary. Much of Mary McCaulys story is told from oral histories or court and other legal documents correlating with some parts of the oral tradition. Scholars disagree on many of the details, including what her first husbands name was (the famous husband who collapsed and whom she replaced at the cannon) or even whether she is the Molly Pitcher of history. The Molly Pitcher of legend may be completely folklore or may be a composite. Molly Pitchers Early Life Mary Ludwigs birthdate is given on her cemetery marker as October 13, 1744.  Other sources suggest her birth year was as late as 1754. She grew up on her familys farm. Her father was a butcher. She is unlikely to have had any education and was likely illiterate.  Marys father died in January of 1769, and she went to Carlisle, Pennsylvania to be a  servant to the family of Anna and Dr. William Irvine.   Molly Pitchers Husband A Mary Ludwig married a John Hays on July 24, 1769. This may have been a first husband for the future Molly Pitcher, or it may have been a marriage of her mother, also named Mary Ludwig as a widow. In 1777, the younger Mary married William Hays, a barber, and an artilleryman. Dr. Irvine, for whom Mary was working, had organized a boycott of British goods in response to the British Tea Act in 1774. William Hayes was listed as one helping with the boycott. On December 1, 1775, William Hays enlisted in the First Pennsylvania Regiment of Artillery, in a unit commanded by Dr. Irvine (also called General Irwin in some sources). A year later, January 1777, he joined the 7th Pennsylvania Regiment and was part of the winter camp at Valley Forge. Molly Pitcher at War After her husbands enlistment, Mary Hays first stayed in Carlisle, then joined her parents where she was closer to her husbands regiment. Mary became a camp follower, one of the many women attached to a military camp to take care of support tasks such as laundry, cooking, sewing, and other tasks. Martha Washington was another of the women at Valley Forge. Later in the war, another woman was present as a soldier in the army. Deborah Sampson Gannett enlisted and served as a man under the name Robert Shurtliff. In 1778, William Hays trained as an artilleryman under Baron von Steuben. The camp followers were taught to serve as water girls. William Hays was with the 7th Pennsylvania Regiment when, as part of George Washingtons army, the Battle of Monmouth was fought with British troops on June 28, 1778. William (John) Hays job was to load the cannon, wielding a ramrod. According to the stories told later, Mary Hays was among the women bringing pitchers of water to the soldiers, to cool the soldiers as well as to cool the cannon and soak the rammer rag. On that hot day, carrying water, the story told is that Mary saw her husband collapse — whether from the heat or from being wounded is not clear, though he certainly was not killed — and stepped in to clean the ramrod and load the cannon herself, continuing until the end of the battle that day. In one variation of the story, she helped her husband fire the cannon. According to the oral tradition, Mary was nearly hit by a musket or cannonball that sped between her legs and ripped her dress. She is said to have responded, Well, that could have been worse. Supposedly George Washington had seen her action on the field, and after the British retreated unexpectedly rather than continuing the fight the next day, Washington made Mary Hays a non-commissioned officer in the army for her deed. Mary apparently began calling herself Sergeant Molly from that day forward. After the War Mary and her husband returned to Carlisle, Pennsylvania. They had a son, John L. Hayes, in 1780. Mary Hays continued to work as a domestic servant. In 1786, Mary Hays was widowed; later that year, she married John McCauley or John McCauly (various spellings of names was common in a society where many were not literate). This marriage was not successful; John, a stonecutter and a friend of William Hays, was apparently mean and did not adequately support his wife and stepson. Either she left him or he died, or he otherwise disappeared, about 1805. Mary Hays McCauly continued to work around town as a domestic servant, with a reputation for being hard-working, eccentric and coarse. She petitioned for a pension based on her Revolutionary War service, and on February 18, 1822, the Pennsylvania legislature authorized a payment of $40 and subsequent annual payments, also of $40 each, in An act for the relief of Molly MKolly. The first draft of the bill had the phrase widow of a soldier and this was revised to for services rendered. Specifics of those services are not noted in the bill. Mary Ludwig Hays McCauly — who called herself Sergeant Molly — died in 1832. Her grave was unmarked. Her obituaries do not mention military honors or her specific war contributions. The Evolution of Captain Molly and Molly Pitcher Popular images of Captain Molly at a cannon circulated in the popular press, but these were not tied to any specific individual for many years. The name evolved into Molly Pitcher. In 1856, when Marys son John L. Hays died, his obituary included the note that he was a son of the ever-to-be-remembered heroine, the celebrated Molly Pitcher whose deeds of daring are recorded in the annals of the Revolution and over whose remains a monument ought to be erected. Connecting Mary Hays McCauly With Molly Pitcher In 1876, the American Revolution centennial sparked interest in her story and local critics in Carlisle had a statue of Mary McCauley created, with Mary described as the Heroine of Monmouth. In 1916 Carlisle established a three-dimensional representation of Molly Pitcher loading a cannon. In 1928, on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Monmouth, pressure on the Postal Service to create a stamp showing Molly Pitcher was only partially successful. Instead, a stamp was issued that was a regular red two cent stamp depicting George Washington, but with a black overprint of the text Molly Pitcher in capital letters. In 1943, a Liberty ship was named SS Molly Pitcher and launched. It was torpedoed that same year. A 1944 wartime poster by C. W. Miller depicted Molly Pitcher with a ramrod at the battle of Monmouth, with the text Americas women have always fought for freedom. Sources John Todd White. The Truth About Molly Pitcher. in The American Revolution: Whose Revolution? edited by James Kirby Martin and Karen R. Stubaus. 1977.John B. Landis. A Short History of Molly Pitcher, the Heroine of Monmouth. 1905. Published by the Patriotic Sons of America.John B. Landis. Investigation into American Tradition of Woman Known as Molly Pitcher. Journal of American History 5 (1911): 83-94.D. W. Thompson and Merri Lou Schaumann. Goodbye Molly Pitcher. Cumberland County History 6 (1989).Carol Klaver. An Introduction into the Legend of Molly Pitcher. Minerva: Quarterly Report on Women and the Military 12 (1994) 52.