Radio News - Monday Recording (unfinished)

iPad Media Analysis

On April 3rd 2010, Apple unleashed a Tablet PC on the US. The iPad appeared to be a hybrid between a netbook screen and an iPhone, but this is not just any old piece of equipment; it changed the way we communicate, the way we received and digested information - it was a revolution for the undesirable Tablet market.

Weighing in at 680 grams the original iPad was portable, and with a glossy black finish, it was also sleek and sexy. It came pre-loaded with Apple’s already successful ‘App Store’, a digital service where you can purchase applications to use on the software, which can also be used to show off to your friends and family. It’s touchscreen display was easy to use and very user friendly due to the many ‘pinch’ and ‘swipe’ commands that allowed you to effortlessly zoom in and out on a webpage, and also switch between applications. With the 1GHZ A4 processor it easily outpaced it’s opponents but it also allowed other technologies to be built in such as the ‘Accelerometer’ which incorparated tilting and shifting into the basic functions of the device. A camera on the back of the device allowed consumers to film and photograph special moments. The jump between ‘generations’ from iPad1 to iPad2 further improves these specifications, with the ipad 2 including a front-facing camera and a faster A5 processor, all bunged into a thinner overall package.

The specifications for the iPad tell the story of it’s creation.

Technological determinists will argue that it’s the advancement in technology that drives society to become more portable. The creation of the iPad has driven us to act how we do. They will say that the fact that we can fit the iPad into our bags and easily carry it is the reason that we do it, not because it’s essential equipment. Another argument that they would use is that the reason we want something instantly is due to the fact that technology has driven us to be that way, it’s brought impulse purchases and digital media into the limelight, giving birth to a new, instantaneous form, of human nature. The iPad fits this model perfectly as music, films and applications are nothing more than just a tap away, especially with the 3G model which allows you to use cellular networks to download applications and view the internet.

Liberals will argue that the creation of the iPad has lead to a more free and democratic society. The fact that we can access any information, at any given time, on applications such as the Safari browser gives people more freedom than large desktop PCs gave them. They will laud the 3G model as a huge success as, when used with social applications such as Facebook and Twitter, it allows people to report news on the move, news that may be surpressed by the Government if they were to give it to media agencies. A recent example of this is the leaking of information via WikiLeaks, an organisation set up by Julian Assange, which spread through social network mediums. Liberals would argue that this is a victory for New Media as they are hard to censor.

Another theory is the Free Market Theory, the idea that technology is driven by the financial market and corporate organisations. This looks like it applies to the iPad. Since it’s release, companies such as HP and Blackberry have released tablet PCs with a different operating system, one that also incorporates an application store with similar products. This competition also makes Apple release newer, upgraded versions of the iPad. Rumours persist that the iPad3 offers a higher resolution display. The current technology market race is similar to the Cold War era Space Race, with companies trying to better each other to reach technological supremacy.

The final theory is the Conflict Theory of History which suggests that social and economic conflicts make people buy into technology. They would argue that in order to be accepted into society people need the latest, best and sexiest technology. The iPad2 fits the billing here; with it’s soulful and sleek design it’s certainly a piece of technology to take down the red carpet. It costs a lot of money, making it a symbol of perceived social status. The iPad also looks better than it’s competitors and the streamlined, curved, cornerless design makes it look like the future has appeared in your hands. Social Conflict theorists will argue that, due to these features, the iPad epitomises their beliefs.

To conclude, it’s clearly not one thing that has driven the history of the iPad, but a mixture of at least four separate entities. One thing’s for sure: they will continue to improve the device’s future.

The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx - Seminar Paper

To fully understand the concept of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, we first have to understand the man himself. A staunch empiricist with an anti-Capitalist agenda, Marx was a follower of Hegel and thoroughly believed in his Dialectic Formula of 'Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis.' To go into more detail on this and apply it to Marx, the thesis is the problem that needs solving and in the case of Marx's philosophy this is the Bourgeoisie's exploitation of the working classes, or as he dubs them, the Proletariat. The antithesis is always going to be the opposing force and thought of the thesis - Marx's antithesis is the rise of the Proletariat against their current social injustices. So, what of the synthesis, the outcome of this social class struggle? Well, according to Marx it's a concept called 'Socialism', a pit-stop if you like, on the road to Communism. In Socialism society has become more equal, the Proletariats have taken control and are starting to use the weapons of the Bourgeoise, be they production methods or machinery, to create a world where everyone is equal. In a Socialist state, capital is spread out in what acts like a State bank and then shared equally between all members of society. Everything is centralised to the State.

One of Marx's main ideas is his theory of history (or stage theory) which has both a beginning and a natural end, making Marx's approach to history teleological. The first stage is 'Primitive Communism' which is effectively a stone age society where all property is shared, people hunt and gather food, and the leader of tribes (not society) is determined by strength and respect. The second stage of Marx's theory is 'Slave Society' where the ideas of both class and state first surface. In this developing society, those in the highest class exploit the lower classes and make them slaves, working in awful conditions for only basic rewards in food and shelter. You could argue that this is a mirror of the society that Marx is hoping to abolish. Following the collapse of this 'Feudalism' emerges where a monarch heads the state and the aristocracy enforces laws and legislations on the peasantry. Feudalism also overlooks the development of Nations with their own characteristics. Eventually this gives way to 'Capitalism', the society in which we now live where profit margins determine whether a business succeeds or fails, and also determines your class. The scourge of Marx and his disciples. Now we enter hypothetical land where Marx attempts to predict what happens next. His first step into the future takes us to 'Socialism', a society where machinery and capital are all centralised to the State. Finally, we advance to 'Communism', a Stateless, Propertyless and Classless Utopia where everyone is free to act and do as they please, there are no laws or boundaries. The people of society work for each other. In the Communist Manifesto (which we will now explore), Karl Marx outlines what he feels needs to be done to advance to Socialism from Capitalism, and eventually hit the natural end: Communism.

In the very first line of Chapter One - Bourgeoisie and Proletariats, Marx states that history is full of class struggles and goes on to cite various examples including the freeman and the slave, guild-master and journeyman and lord and serf. Marx insists that the current struggle in society is between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. In short, the Bourgeoisie are the ruling classes - the factory owners, the land owners, the people at the top of the tree dictating through legislation and wages what those beneath them can do. The Proletariat are the people they suppress, the working class man living a tough life to keep his family fed and watered, and also trying to power their way past endless competition for jobs, inevitably hitting a glass ceiling at every opportunity they get to better themselves and the conditions they live in.

Marx says that this is social injustice was caused by the Industrial Revolution which runs in tandem with the growth of the Bourgeoise society. This approach is understandable, especially from a Marxist perspective as he was a technological determinist, someone who believed that the growth of technology drives society forward, something that the Revolution gave an abundance of evidence for. The growth of factories and machinery certainly thrusted factory owners into the big-time. Further evidence of Marx's technological determinist approach comes from his suggestion that competition drives the bourgeoisie to create new production methods, as if they don't they could fall behind their rivals. In a view that is typical of Marx, he says that this machinery costs money so the labourers are paid less and less.

"In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation." In this quote Marx unleashes a devastating attack on the treatment that the Bourgeois society hands out to Proletariats, making them work for long hours on low ages to satisfy their own greed for capital, without a second thought for the hell that they put their labourers through. Proletariat are created at the same pace as capital, the more money a factory owner has the more labourers he can employ. However, competition for jobs is rife as the work on offer is unskilled. Due to advances in machinery, the work of the skilled proletariat is severely reduced to the extent that they now become simple button-pressers. A simple job equates to a low, simple wage. But with the Proletariat outnumbering the Bourgeoisie, any unrest will be hard to quell.

Marx claims that by mass-producing goods and products, and by sourcing materials from around the world, they are creating a society in their own image, but it's a market-model that will lead to their inevitable downfall. "The conditions of Bourgeois society are to narrow to comprise the wealth created by them." Here Marx is saying that once you've created a market there's only a certain amount of people it can appeal to. To remedy this the Bourgeoisie must continue to exploit both current and new markets, creating a crisis on a larger scale when they run out of ideas again, at which point they will be destroyed by their own weapons.

Wielding these weapons, he states, are the Proletariats. The exploited, the Underdogs. As a group they have never had it easy - Marx states that their battle with the Bourgeoisie starts as early as birth and they can only take so much repression. Their impending revolution starts off with individuals rising in factories, followed by the entire factory and in their wake the towns and cities. Factory by factory, they destroy the machinery and head back to their skilled jobs with the Bourgeoisie safely destroyed.

Although not yet unionised, the proletariat start by attacking the enemies of their enemy, gaining small victories for the Bourgeoisie, who'll then employ and exploit more people, without the knowledge that they are nurturing the army of their demise. As the amount of competition reduces, the bourgeoisie will have to tempt a workforce with better wages than their competitors. With more workers at their disposal, the Proletariat will unionise and occasionally revolt for better working conditions. From here the Bourgeoisie will start fighting with their foreign rivals and will drag their workers into the battle, giving them an education and a step into the political circuit that they can later exploit for their own doings. As the inward fighting amongst the Bourgeoisie becomes too much history will repeat itself and more and more will defect to the revolutionary Proletariat movement, similar to the aristocrats unifying with the nobility. As this process continues the Bourgeoisie in each country will be defeated and they will become incompatible with the society they once ruled as their kind of exploitation will no longer be tolerated. The Bourgeoisie will have dug their own graves.

Chapter Two - Proletariats and Communists looks at the alignment between the two groups of people. Marx quickly says that the Communists will never form an opposing party to the revolutionaries, but that they do have differing interests in that the they represent the Proletariats of every nationality and that they will continue to represent the feelings and interests of the movement as a whole. In this, Marx is effectively saying that Communists are just at a more advanced stage than the current group of Proletariats and are not an entirely different group of people. Eventually, the Proletariat will become them. The aim of the Communists, he says, is to form a large class out of the Proletariat and use them to overthrow the Bourgeoisie, before leading them on a political conquest. On the subject of politics, the Communists are against the outcome of the French Revolution in which all feudal property was repossessed, as it were, by the Bourgeoisie. The Communists aim to abolish all private property and hand it over to the State. At this stage the machinery is at it's most advanced stage, so the State could use it to create a better, more equal society for everyone, not just the select few and the elites.

Marx argues that a Capitalist is someone who has a social status in production, which, in this case, will be those who are the factory owners and their managers. These people are the ones who gain from Capitalism, not those who they are exploiting who are only trying to earn an honest living and provide for their families. Capital in itself is a social power, you can use it to buy things to heighten your social status, to show off to your friends and tell the world you have money. Wage labour is not capital as you cannot do anything with it other than live off the bare basics. The average of wage labour is the minimum wage, leaving no space to save for anything or create a better lives for their families. You can now understand what Marx meant when he said that the battle with the Bourgeoisie starts at birth. At this stage, Communists don't want people to stop earning property or money, they want to abolish the 'miserable character' of it which only lets people live as much as the Capitalist society allows them.

The next quote I am taking from Marx highlights how he feels the Bourgeoisie have manipulated people to think the way they do: "The selfish misconception that induces you to transform the eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property - historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production - this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you." The passage of thought that you need money to live and you must work for a living has been passed down for generations and implanted into your mind as if it were natural.

Next, Karl Marx goes on to reply to some criticisms that have been flung at Communism, interestingly that the aim of Communists is to abolish families from society. Marx responds to this saying that Communists want to abolish Capitalist families, the ones that rely on money to enjoy their lives and don't count love and happiness as being fruitful, the families who only gain pleasure through Capitalist means. The ideal Communist family appreciates the people around them more than their possessions and they seek to keep it that way. Also, they won't exploit their children in workhouses in order to gain money.

Another criticism that Marx attacks is that Communists seek to abolish countries and nationality. Marx says that you can't take from someone what they don't have - working men don't have a country to identify themselves with as they don't have an individual identity. He claims that there will now be a nation of Proletariats all pulling in the same direction on the road to Communism, and then counters the argument by stating that by creating a worldwide market the Bourgeoisie are destroying nations with trade.

At the end of the chapter the Manifesto states that for the revolution to be successful ten individual steps must be fulfilled:

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

• This means to take away all private land from it's owners and giving it back to the people. A farmer will no longer have to pay rent on his land, but instead will have to give a percentage of his crops to the State.

2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

• The more money you earn the more you pay back to the State. This helps keep everyone on an equal footing.

3) Abolition of all right to inheritance.

• When someone dies their property and belongings goes back to the State. If you inherit a large piece of land it will go to the State and be divided equally between people. Again, this keeps the system equal.

4) Confiscation of property from emigrants and rebels.

• Once you leave the country you will lose your land, you will also lose it if you rebel against the State in any way.

5) Centralise credit in the hands of the State, a national bank.

• The state looks after the public's money.

6) Centralise communication and transport to the State.

• Now all modes of communication and transport are State run to stop the development of entrepreneurs.

7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; cultivate wastelands and improve soil.

• Creates larger production factories to feed the nation and gives those in agricultural areas better land to farm.

8) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industry armies, especially for agriculture.

• Everyone will have to work, no matter how high up the chain you are. Farmers will now have more people working the land, enabling them to grow more crops.

9) Combine agriculture with manufacturing, no distinction between town and country, equal distribution of people over the country.

• There will be a wider spread of manufacturing and agricultural grounds across the country, with more people across the country no land will be wasted.

10) Free education for all children in public schools. Get rid of children's factory labour as it is and mix education with practical skills and industrial production.

• This creates an equality that did not exist before, one that allows everyone of a certain age access to education, whilst still learning the ropes of the machinery in order to prepare them for helping the push towards Communism.

Now we press on to Chapter 3 - Socialist and Communist Literature, a chapter that is split into three main segments.

Part One - A) Feudal Socialism explores the idea that Feudalism and Socialism can be mixed. "Half-lamentation [sorrow/grief], half lampoon [satirical/irony], half echo of the past, half menace of the future, at times witty and incisive criticism, striking the Bourgeoisie to the heart's very core; but always ludicrous in effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern society." A scathing criticism from Marx who clearly feels that for it's all it's huff and puff, Feudal Socialism is seen as too much of a comedic figure to blow down the Bourgeoisie. The idea seems deadly but a feudal society could not logically work with Socialism as they are entirely different entities.

Section B of Part One briefly analyses Petty-Bourgeois Socialism, an idea that sees shop owners and small factory owners cast into the Proletariat by their competition. These are the people who can't keep up with the advancements in technology and end up getting left behind. They become replaced by overlookers and bailiffs as they lose everything they have.

The final section of Part One concerns itself with German, or "True", Socialism. Here German's lined their ideas up with those that were spewing out of post-Revolution France, for example, under criticism of the reliance of the economy on money they would write 'Alienation of Humanity'. They felt that the true values of human society were being over-ran by Capital, leaving those without it feeling alienated from society as a whole. Believers of this form of Socialism say that it gets an opportunity to confront Bourgeois politics with Socialist demands as they're against that form of government and also against Bourgeois freedom of the press, Bourgeois laws and legislation and Bourgeois liberty and equality, all of which reflect nothing but the interests of the few who have power. Absolute governments saw this as a scarecrow towards the threat that the Bourgeoisie pose, and with the German state mainly consisting of the Petty-Bourgeoisie the true Bourgeois can destroy that class, then this form of Socialism will take them out too.

Part Two - Conservative, or Bourgeoise, Socialism looks at a form of Socialism that was an attempt the Bourgeoisie made to keep their society on top by amending some of the social grievances, a plan for which they had two systems:

1) The Socialist Bourgeoisie want the advantages of the current system but without the unrest that cause threats of revolution. To eliminate this they would have to eliminate the Proletariat which would mean eliminating cheap labour and improving conditions. This does not effect the labour 

2) The second system would involve knocking down any revolutionary movements within the Proletariat by improving the conditions for them. This does not involve abolition of their methods of production, as that would need a revolution and there's still no effect on the relations between capital and labour, but it does open the doors for free trade for the working class, along with protective duties for them and prison reform. This was a Bourgeois society for the working classes.

Part 3 deals with Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism, the first attempt at revolution from the Proletariat which failed due to underdevelopment and the fact that the correct conditions for revolution were yet to be produced. This group would reject any form of conflict and would rather do their job quietly, however, nobody hears a quiet revolution so this goes some way to explaining why this movement failed so emphatically. They attacked every principle of society, feeding the working class with plenty of ammunition which they did not use, and the ideas they came up with stunk of Utopia and did not seem possible, but they did aim to address issues that were only just being raised, including social unrest.

The final chapter of the manifesto is short and sweet, explaining the different political parties that Communists aligned themselves with to keep their plight relevant and take down the ruling classes in each independent nation. Marx's final words in the manifesto "WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!" is an incredible call to arms, an aim to drag the Proletariat out of the factories and fight for their freedom. As Rousseau said "man is born free, and forever in chains," well now it was time to shake off those shackles.

It goes without saying that the Communist Manifesto is one of the most important and revolutionary social writings in history, but when it got the chance to shine it was as the catalyst as the failed Soviet Union which attempted to speed up Marx's stage theory by creating a Proletariat from scratch. Despite this, the Union went on to name Marx as a 'Honorary Russian' even though the the fact remained that he'd never stepped foot in the country. Karl Marx will have to wait patiently in his London grave for the Manifesto to get a second bite of the cherry, and whose to say it won't if society crumbles again? Me, that's who. People won't be happy to give up their possessions and authority for absolute equality, they won't be happy that everything they worked to achieve was for nothing. This is why no matter how often Capitalism fails it will always be patched up.

Notes on the Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx

Here are my notes that will form the crux of my seminar paper on Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto:

Chapter 1 - Bourgeois and Proletarians

-Marx instantly notes that history is full of class struggles

-Freeman + Slave, Guild-Master + Journeyman, Lord + Serf ----- Oppressor and Repressed

-Bourgeoisie (ruling class) and Proletariats (workers) in a constant struggle against each other

-Links the growth of the Bourgeoisie with the industrial revolution and growth of manufacturing to meet high-demands. Factory owners were oppressing their workforce more and more, pushing the two classes further apart in terms of wealth and worth. Lower classes that have existed for centuries were being “pushed into the background.”

-The bourgeois exploit the proletarians for money and demand, creating free trade: “In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.”

-Bourgeoisie can’t exist without ever-changing production methods which keep them ahead of their competitors. This means paying cheaper wages to the proletariat and thus causing them further social decline.

-They create products that are purchased around the globe, eradicating the need for local produce and goods.

-By using materials from remote places, the bourgeoisie force those nations into civilisations, creating a world in it’s own image.

-Suggests that the bourgeoise society will destroy itself through over-greed and over-production. “The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them.” Remedy this by exploiting current markets and conquering new ones, which Marx says will lead to a bigger crises when it happens again. Eventually the bourgeois will run out of ideas and be killed by it’s own weapons.

-Marx argues that “wielding these weapons” are the proletariat. The proletariat are ‘produced’ at the same rate capital (money) is produced. Due to the growth of machinery, the proletariat are needed for less skilled jobs (pressing buttons etc), so even the most skilled face competition for the simplest of jobs, as anyone could do them. Simple jobs = low, simple wage.

-”Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist.” Labourers become like soldiers, and as the lowest rank, are effectively slaves to the bourgeois.

-Modern industry forces tradespeople, shopkeepers, handicraftsmen and peasants into the proletariat as they cannot compete with the large scale manufacturing and cheap prices.

-Proletariat stages of development:

Birth - struggle begins with bourgeoisie

Individuals rise first, then workpeople of factory, then operatives of the trade, then locality; all against the bourgeois that are exploiting them

Attack the machinery, the factories and then leave their jobs and go back to their skilled trades with the bourgeois destroyed

-Not unionised yet, so the prol’s attack the enemies of their enemies, gaining victories for the bourgeois, allowing them to expand and increase the number of prol’s. These will become soldiers against the borg’s. They become more concentrated as a unit. Borg’s in direct competition with each other are forced to compete on rising wages in order to attract workers. Trade unions are created due to clashes between borg’s and prol’s, who then act together to push up wages and occasionally revolt. People power. Fights between the classes.

-Bourgeoise drag the prol’s into their own battles against foreign borg’s, aristocracy and other borg’s who hold back industry. This gives the prol’s both education and a step up into the political arena which they can later use against their rulers.

-As borg’s inward fighting becomes violent and destructive, as history suggests (nobility to bourgeoisie), parts of the borg will merge with the revolutionary class, the prol’s. The forces of revolution continue to grow and outnumber the borg’s.

-The prol’s of each country must overcome it’s own borg’s before it can progress.

-Borg’s no longer compatible with society as nobody will stand for the conditions that they have had forced on them any more. Whole foundation of society falls out from under the feet of the borg’s who created it as they no longer have anyone to work for them or produce goods, machines can’t operate themselves. Modern industry creates the borg’s grave-diggers. It’s fall and the victory of the prol’s are equally inevitable.

Chapter 2 - Proletarians and Communists

-Communists don’t form any opposing parties to the prols, they have the same interests as the prols, but differ in that:

-They point out common interests of the prols among every nationality

-In every stage of the battle against the Bourg they represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

-Commies are the advanced version of working class parties in every country and are the driving force behind the revolution

-Aim of the Communist: form prols into a class, overthrow the borg, conquest of political power by the prols

-The anti-French Revolution

-FR abolished all feudal property in favour of bourg prop

-Commies abolish bourg property

-Abolition of private property (in it’s most advanced state of machinery)

-A free for all

-Wage labour doesn’t create property for labourer, but capital instead.

-Capital exploits wage-labour

-Property atm is based on antagonism of wage-labour

-Capitalists have a social status in production. Someone working to afford food isn’t a Capitalist, those who do the exploiting are.

-Capital is a social power

-Average of wage-labour is minimum wage which is enough to create a bare existence, therefore that’s all it can reproduce. No space for someone to save money and create a better life for themselves and their family.

-Communists don’t want to change people earning/gaining property, they want to abolish the ‘miserable character’ of it, that means the labourer only exists to increase capital and can only live so far as the interests of the ruling class allow them.

-In a Commie society accumulated labour is a way to “widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer”

-”The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property - historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production - this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you.” You’ve been manipulated to think the way you do.

-Abolish the borg/capitalist family!

-Based on capital

-Vanish along with capital

-Stop exploitation of children by their parents (sending them to work)

-Replace home education with social

-Rescue education from the ruling class

-Who turn children into “articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”

-Bourg’s are unfaithful

-Take each other’s wives

-Communists are reproached to abolish countries and nationality

-Marx defends this and says you can’t take from someone what they don’t have;

working men don’t have a country.

-The proletariat is national, but first must rise to the leading class of a nation.

-A nation of prols but not nation as in borg, nation as in a world-wide class

-Nationalities are being shunned aside by the borg as commerce and the world- market expand.

-Rise of the prols will make this happen further, united action is needed for the proletariat to take control

-10 measures to ensure a switchover happens:

1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes

-Give all private land back to the people

1. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax

• The more you earn the more you pay the state, keep everything more equal

1. Abolition of all right of inheritance

• If someone dies it goes to the state

1. Confiscation of property of emigrants and rebels

-If you don’t come from there and don’t behave lose stuff

1. Centralise credit in the hands of the state, national bank

-The state looks after money

1. Centralise communication and transport to the State

• All these means are state controlled to stop personal monopolies

1. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; cultivate wastelands and improve soil

• Improve means of mass production and give better land to farm

1. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture

• Everyone has to work, use machinery in agriculture

1. Combine agriculture with manufacturing, no distinction between town and country, equal distribution of population over the country

• Wider spread, everyone working together for the cause of the State

1. Free education for all children in public schools. Get rid of children’s factory labour how it is and mix education with industrial production

-Creates equality that wasn’t there before

Chapter 3 - Socialist and Communist Literature

Part I

1. Feudal Socialism

-”Half lamentation [sorrow/grief], half lampoon [satirical, ridicule, irony], half echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core; but always ludicrous in effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.”

-A effort to attract the working classes together by the aristocracy to take over the bourgeoisie, but the working classes see their crest of arms and laugh them off

-Feudalists say that their mode of exploitation was different to the bourg, but forget that the circumstances and conditions that they exploited under are old and no longer exist. Forget that the bourg are their society’s own offspring.

-Aristocracy find faults with the fact that bourg creates a revolutionary prol, so they join the bourg in politics to try to pin them down

1. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

-Shop owners, Factory management etc. in modern, fully developed civilisation, hurled into the prols by competition

-Development of modern society makes them disappear and replaced by overlookers, baliffs and shopmen

C. German, or “True”, Socialism

-German’s lined up their ideas with those that had sprung from the French Revolution, eg. under the criticism of economic function of money they wrote ‘Alienation of Humanity’, and under criticism of bourgeoise State they wrote ‘dethronement of the Category of the General.”

-Represented the requirements of truth; not prols, but Human Nature, Man “who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.”

-”True” Socialism gets opportunity to confront political movements with Socialist demands

-against representative government

-Against bourg competition

-Bourg freedom of press

-Bourg laws and legislation

-Bourg liberty and equality

-Telling masses that they have nothing to gain but everything to lose against the bourg movement

-Absolute governments saw this as a ‘scarecrow’ towards the threat of the bourg

-German State was made of petty-bourg class, to keep this class would only keep things the same in Germany, nothing would change. Bourg (industrial and political supremacy) can destroy this class, allowing “True” Socialism to kill both with one hit.

Part 2 - Conservative, or Bourgeoise, Socialism

-Attempt to amend social grievances to keep the existence of the bourg society

-Economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, cruelty to animals groups etc etc. Two systems:

-1. Socialist bourg want advantages of modern social conditions without struggle and dangers that come from it. Want current state of society without revolutionary and disintegrating elements. Bourg with no prols. Prols become worthless as must remain in boundaries of society without hateful ideas aimed at the bourg

1. Knock down revolutionary movements in the working class, instead changing material conditions of existence (economically) would be more of an advantage. No abolition of bourgeois relations of production, which can only be done by revolution. Don’t affect the relations between capital and labour, but lessen the cost, simplify admin work of bourg government.

-Free trade for benefit of working class, protective duties for working class, prison reform for working class. Bourgeoise for the benefit of the working class

Part 3 - Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism

-First attempts of prol to gain own means failed due to undeveloped prol, absense of economic conditions that hadn’t been produced yet.

-Socialists of this kind feel superior to class antagonisms. Improve condition of everyone in society, appeal to society at large, preference to ruling class.

-Reject all political and revolutionary action to achieve their ends in a peaceful way

-Attack every principle of Society, yielding valuable materials for the working class.

-Very Utopian ideas attacking problems that were just cropping up

-Abolition of distinction between town and country

-Family

-Industries for account of private industrials

-Wage systems

-Proclamation of social harmony

-Convert functions of state into superintendence of production

-Ongoing modern class struggle developing and taking shape, these attacks on it lose practical value and justification. The ideas are revolutionary but disciples are now reactionary, trying to reignite class antagonisms

Chapter 4 - Positon of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

-Work for the future by allying themselves with other parties, all against the current social and political order of things

-Chiefly working with Germany as they have the most advanced prol

-WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

16th September 2000 - Recording

This is my recording of an earlier blog post for my radio assignment:

The History of Newspapers

Allow me to take you back in time to a period where news barely existed beyond your own village, and a time where it felt hard to be unified with your Nation because talking about Newcastle was about as alien as discussing events in Spain. This was what England was like before the wider spread of news - if village papers existed the biggest stories going would involve two foxes and twelve chickens, hardly the media thrill-ride that exists today. Plus, with no phones to hack you couldn't even listen to the farmer's sexy voicemails.

Before the Gutenberg Printing Press was invented in 1487 there were a few false-starts to the spread of news; the Roman Empire had a news sheet in the form of the Acta Diurna and similar ideas were employed in 8th Century China, with news sheets being the main focus again. Mass production of these was incredibly hard as they were handwritten, and even if thousands could be produced to satisfy the dedicated readers, by the time they were all written up it was three weeks later. Even then, old news was bad news.

After a period of roughly 800 years the printing press changed everything; from Germany to England, from Belgium to Portugal, Europe was being swept by a new form of news, a form that could be mass produced and delivered nationwide. In fact, you could argue that easier access to news helped spearhead the improval of roads and transportation methods, allowing your rural village in Cornwall to be connected to large cities such as Manchester and London, uniting the Nation as a collective noun and allowing people to claim that they are from England as opposed to just Wessex or Hertfordshire. The spread of news was revolutionary on a number of levels.

However, just because the spread of news was now free, it hardly meant that the press in itself was free. In the 15th Century Henry VII enacted state controls to "curb lewd and naughty matters" from coming out in the press. If the MP's of the time had spent their expenses on dirty prostitutes the news would not have spread due to censorship. Bad news is awful news in this case as you couldn't say anything about it in case it had a devastating effect on the King and his power.

Another way the State controlled the media was through taxation, or, more to the point, Stamp Duty. For every paper that was sold a certain ammount had to be paid to paid to the government. This figure kept increasing over a number of years, eventually leading the newspapers to out-price a great deal of consumers. This coincided with levels of social unrest around the time of the Civil War, so it could be seen as a way of controlling those who could read the news, the social elite who had the government's interests in both their minds and their pockets.

Inevitably, the rise of the printing press saw the spread of new ideas. Religions could now use the new technology to spread the words of their various gods and beliefs to a whole new audience. This is evident in the rise of the Jedi Council. Along with this, the 18th and 19th Centuries saw a new power emerge: the radical press. Unhappy with the government for taxing newspapers, members of the public took matters into their own hands and started to print leaflets and booklets broadcasting anti-government views with low production and distribution costs, allowing the working classes to look through the windows of government and witness their social injustice. Understandably, these developments did not sit well with the government who started to clamp down hard on the radicals spreading propaganda.

Over the coming century the decline of the radical press was inevitable; liberal reforms were passed through government that eventually lead to the abolishment of stamp duty in 1856, with printing tax abolished in 1853. Technological innovations such as steam presses, telegraphy and quality paper paved the way for industrial and commercial groups to create mass markets, tailoring their own publications for specific target audiences across the country. Of course, the better technology allowed more publications to enter the market and on a smaller time-frame. Weekly publications and daily publications were becoming common. The ramifications of this are still felt today - the main newspapers with the largest audiences started to attract advertising revenue which would help towards the production costs, effectively sidelining the radicals who had to dilute their political agendas and turn to crime and smaller issues in order to attract readers. This is an early form of tabloidisation.

In 1896 Lord Northcliffe became the first of many press barons. He held proprietorial power over the Daily Mail and was able to control everything from the stories that went into the paper and it's extreme political agenda. During the 1930's the paper famously handed it's support to the Nazi party in Germany, running the headline 'Give a cheer to the black shirts.' Over the coming years many others would use their publications to spread their own views on developments within the public interest.

Rupert Murdoch is the latest and most significant of these, his own rise to power is interesting in itself but what I'm concerned with is his influence on the world of newspapers. In 1987 he relocated his newspapers to Wapping in London, putting many people out of work who could not make the commute. By producing papers in Wapping he was significantly cutting production costs and was thus increasing his profit margins. The world of news has developed into one that revolves around money. More recently the competition for stories lead journalists at Murdoch's News of the World to hack the phones of people in dire situations and celebrities in an attempt to get some gossip. The ongoing Leveson Enquiry into Media Ethics has seen this notable newspaper close and put many others under scrutiny.

So what next for the newspaper industry? Nobody knows. So far we have the emergence of tablet computers and phones that allow you to download copies straight to your device, usually with a monthly subscription fee to make up for money lost on the physical copy. But the more mobile and technological aware we become the smaller we'll want our news to be. Social networking sites such as Twitter allow people already on the scene of a breaking news story to give their own account of events.

If this is the way journalism's going then it's important to be one step ahead of the game. Tweet me, message me, follow me. @GarraTweets

Radio - Winchestonians and their Opinions on the Coalition Government

This is my edit of a radio assignment to get the public's opinion on, well, anything really!

Adu Qatada: The New Face of Morrisons?

Here's an interesting image for all you media law moguls and also something that's fairly defamatory towards Morrisons: alleged hate-mongerer and central figure in a high-profile deportation case, Abu Qatada, pictured in The Sun carrying a Morrisons bag.

Obviously the bloke has to do his shopping somewhere, but this is hardly the image that Morrisons would use to promote themselves, especially when they have Gary Barlow wailing on their adverts while 'cheeky-chappies' Richard Hammond and Andy Flintoff chat about quiche and fresh meat. In fact, all this image does is show that one of the most hated individuals in the country chooses to shop there above ASDA and Tesco. Much to Morrisons' dismay, it doesn't even give a reason why; there's nothing here saying that Qatada was quoted describing Morrisons as the cheapest choice (largely due to the fact that that would be a lie, and what reason does he have to lie?), nor does it say that they employ the friendliest people (which they do).

So, in my eyes, this image is defamatory towards the supermarket chain.

Before I explain why, let me quote myself and remind you all on what's needed for something to be considered defamatory and libellous:

"For an act to be considered libel it must match up to the three stages of it:

1. A defamatory statement must be made involving one of:
• Ridicule: Just like laughing at someone in the playground for having one testicle, ridicule is where you mock someone over how they look like, their actions or their beliefs.
• Hatred: This is trying to rally hate against an individual - for example, Jade Goody was touted as the most hated person in Britain. Ironically, the same publications portrayed her as an angel when she was dying of Cancer. Don't get me started on this though, I've written an extensive argument on the subject in the past and it gets me riled up every time I think about it.
• Contempt: Basically, the statement must lower the claimants public standing or discredit their trade/profession for contempt to be involved.
2. The defamatory comments must be published in a particular form and be permenant:
• Radio and TV broadcasts, newspapers and websites, are all forms of publications that can be used in a libel case as they are all published to a third party (the public) and are all permenant as they are all recorded in one way or another.
3. There must be positive identification:
•  A libel case cannot be brought by the whole of France if you claim that all French people stink of garlic, as you cannot libel an uncorporated association. In a defamation case the person must be identified in order to be defamed against. There are various forms of positive identification, but the ones most likely used in court reports are:

• Name
• Age
• Residence
• Occupation
• Photo"

Now, taking part 1 into account, this image doesn't necessarily create any ridicule. I might poke fun at Morrisons and laugh at who their customers are, but their rivals are highly unlikely to as they would quite like the business themselves, just not the photographic proof to go with it. Tesco might even pop up and say that he shops there too and produce an image, and good for them if they choose to.

Nobody will turn round and say "I'm not shopping where people like him choose to," as that would be absolute nonsense, the likelihood of them carefully selecting the same store as Qatada is incredibly low, so this image isn't really going to stir any hatred towards Morrisons. However, it could lower the public standing of the company and cause contempt as, as I mentioned earlier, it ruins the image that they want to promote. They want celebrity personalties such as Richard Hammond and Andy Flintoff representing them because they come across as nice people - your neighbours, the bloke you work with, the man on the street who notices you've dropped a tenner and gives it straight back to you, NOT someone who is accused of stirring hate towards the Western World whilst living off the benefits it produces.

So with the content dealt with we move on to parts 2 and 3. The Sun chose to run this image on page 26 of their February 8th 2012 publication. The word 'publication' itself should tell you that this has been published, so that's that out of the way, and both Morrisons and Adu Qatada are identified in the photo so that's part 3. Voila, a full house. Defamation.

In the words of Blue - "I rest my case."

HCJ - Notes on Hegel and Schopenhauer

HEGEL

• Logic and Metaphysics are the same
• Reality is self-contradicting
• Parimenides - The One is spherical
• Sphere suggests boundaries and that more exists beyond them
• To suppose that the universe is spherical is to say that there's more beyond it, although the universe is all encompassing. Contradictory.
• Mr. A is an uncle is reality. Can't say that Universe is an uncle as an uncle is someone with a nephew. Can't say that Mr. A being an uncle is all of reality as the universe is not an uncle.
• 'The Absolute is pure being' - we assume that it just is without any qualities being given to it
• 'The Absolute is nothing' - The union of being and not being...'The Absolute is Becoming' - There has to be something that it becomes. Views of reality develop to correct everything that we assumed was right from undue abstraction, by taking something finite and limited as if it were a hole. Like saying that a polo is a full mint, even though it has a hole.
• Self-Knowledge
• Starts with sense perception - Awareness of the object
• Through criticism of the senses it becomes subjective.
• Sub-conscious - Subject and object are no longer distinct.
• 'Reason is the conscious certainty of being all reality.'
• The separate person may not be real but his participation in reality makes him so.
• More rational - Participation increased
• The Absolute Idea
• Similar to Aristotle's god
• Thought thinking about itself - Absolute cannot think of anything but itself as it is everything
• Pur thought thinking about pure thought - All god does all day anyway.
• 'The unity is consequently the absolute and all truth, the Idea which thinks itself.'
• Time process
• Less to more perfect - Getting better with time (Logical & Ethical)
• Historical development of The Spirit
• The Orientals - 'One' is free
• Greeks and Romans - 'Some' are free
• Germans - 'All' are free
• Shows development of freedom
• Freedom
• Democracy - Some are free
• Despotism - One is free
• Monarchy - All are free
• Definition of freedom according to Hegel - No freedom without law, freedom means to obey the law
• America is the land of the future
• Anything important needs a war
• No state in America at this point as there's no divide between rich and poor.
• Political philosophy
• Glorification of the State
• Reformation
• 'The state is actually existing realised moral life.'
• Possess spirituality through the state
• Philosophy of Law
• State is the reality of moral idea
• The state is rational in and for itself
• Individual wouldn't be a member of the state if it's laws existed just for him
• As it is the objective spirit, individuals have objectivity, truth and morality in so far as they are members of the state
• Each state is an individual and individual
• War is good as we take seriously the vanity of temporal goods and things

SCHOPENHAUER

• Will is wicked and has no fixed end
• Suffering is essential to all life and increased by knowledge
• Pursue futile ends - Soap bubble, blow it nice and big yet we know it'll burst
• No such thing as happiness
• Unfulfilled wishes only bring pain
• Less we exercise will the less we suffer
• Good man will go against nature and will
• Practise chastity
• Voluntary poverty
• Fasting
• Self-torture
• Satan drives will, NOT God
• Will is superior to knowledge

Introduction to Public Affairs

HCJ - Notes on Cobbett's Rural Rides

Successful Interviews - A Checklist on how to Interrogate a Foe

Introduction to Radio