Our politicians have a great influence over what the media reports as well. At times the role of the media and the influence of politicians collide. Who wins out in the end is a complicated matter and is a very hot topic at present. I will elaborate on this idea and conclude with my thoughts on the “conservatives” charge that the media in general has a very liberal bias. The word “media” can be described many different ways, in both a positive and negative light.
In the United States personal freedoms were highly valued. Citizens had maintained freedoms, opposing political parties and economic choices. However, the USSR was a classless society in which the government owned everything. Citizens living in the Soviet Union were under a totalitarian government. Citizens had no freedoms and did not pick their own leader.
Kaiser Wilhem II was an unpredictable, intelligent man with a poor judgement, hardly the kind of person you would give almost unchallenged political powers. The Kaiser's constitutional powers showed that he certainly had enough potential powers to be a authoritarian leader and i believe he fulfilled all his potential by using his power to 'ensure the constitution preserves the power of the elite' which was Bismarks main aim as the chancellor. The Kaiser could appoint and dismiss the Chancellor, dissolve the Reichstag with the consent of the Bundesrat, control Germany's foreign policy and serves as the commander of chief of the armed forces. The plethora of consitutional powers the Kaiser held clearly supports the
Marxist believe the conventional families are the foundations of capitalism it does this in many way; Private property inheritance, Marxists believe that all functions of the family are performed purely for the benefit of the capitalist system. One of the key factors determining how our society plays in to the hands of capitalism is was who inherits Private property. Engles, Marx friend and supporter, argues that a monogamous nuclear family has become essential in society as men had to be certain of the parentage of their offspring to guarantee that their legitimate heir inherit from them. In Engels eyes this made for a ‘historical defeat for the female sex’ suggesting that woman were now under men’s control and just mere of object to provide offspring to become a heir to the inheritance. Marxist altercate that woman will never receive liberation from patriarchal control with the means of capitalism and private ownership nearby.
How and why have socialists endorsed collectivism? Socialism defines collectivism on the grounds that human beings have all the capacity of human being for collective action. In this way, socialists reject the liberal idea of a self-sufficient and self-contained human creature as well as 'atomised society'. A collective, unified collection of social creatures is capable of overcoming social and economic problems by drawing on the power of the community rather than individual effort. Socialists, therefore, endorsed collectivism to strenghten the idea of fraternity - society is desired to work together while being bounded by sympathy and comradership, that are believed to symbolise the the bonds of common humanity.
The strongest aspect of this piece is that Egendorf presents the most popular opposing points and uses reputable authorities and strong logic to shred the argument, this allows you to see both sides of the argument with an understanding the fallacy of the oppositions stance. Egendorf is a tremendously popular and well known author with over three dozen books published by Green Haven Press, most dealing with social issues. Egendorf herself adds a great deal of credibility to the article. The piece was written on behalf of the Washington Working Group on International Criminal Court. “The Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court (WICC) is a coordinating group of the Washington legislative and governmental affairs offices of American non-governmental organizations committed to the cause of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Power: The Structure of Conflict Chapter 4 of Wilmot and Hocker’s Interpersonal Conflict examines the role of power in conflict by addressing common perceptions about it, how it develops, and ultimately how to balance and use it constructively to solve problems. In regards to how we generally see power, it is something that we require to influence the way we lead our lives. We need power to speak for ourselves, to control what influences us, and also to protect ourselves from perceived harm. Differing views of power are both negative and positive, and are subject to the difference in one’s orientation towards it from another’s. Power is a fundamental concept in conflict theory that attributes three perceptions of power.
Locke thought that the government’s power was best limited by dividing it up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function. This way no one branch has too much authority. This also increased the protection and preservation of mankind’s private property. In conclusion Locke's work he explains that the concepts of government power cannot possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. He also states that it was the joint power of every member of the society.
This theory was made well-liked to people by Karl Marx and Friedrich in their Communist Manifesto, 1848. So it clarifies that in Communism people will have no personal possession to the properties and the society should be equal. The people known as Anti-communists are actually defined for their position in opposition to Communism rather than their deeds and initiatives. These people say that the way of life in Communism is not accepted by anyone as a good one. Anyone alone may say that the way defined in Communism is a wrong way to lead a life and controlling life of someone living in the interior of a specific state is not correct either.
Pluralists see society as a network of competing groups and interests, none of them superior all of the time. Media organizations are seen as bounded organizational systems, allowing for an important degree of autonomy from the state and political parties. Control of the media is said to be in the hands of an autonomous managerial upper class who allow a considerable degree of flexibility to media professionals. A correspondance is seen to exist between media institutions and their audiences. Audiences are seen as capable of manipulating the media in an array of different paths and concepts.