Ethics in The Office

Today in class, we watched an episode of The Office which raised certain ethical dilemmas for behavior in the workplace. Even though this show is meant to be a comedy, it is nonetheless true that some of these issues arise in real-life situations. We saw examples of everything: from manipulation of power, to having inappropriate relations with a coworker, to bullying.
What stood out to me from this episode, was the dispute between Michael and Holly on whether or not Meredith should be fired. On one hand, Michael argues that the fact that there was supposed "immunity" in the seminar is enough so that she should not be fired for her confession. Holly believes that she should not have to share her work environment with someone who is so unethical, and that she should do the morally right thing by reporting her.
While I do see Holly's point, in my opinion, the sole fact that all of the employees were promised immunity for their confessions is enough so that Meredith should not be punished for her confession. Even though her behavior is unethical, what she did was done outside of the workplace, and as such, is not her coworkers business, but her own.

The power of words

It's amazing how much of an impact words can have on an individual. By using just one word you can make someone angry to the point of wanted to fight and or kill another person. In class, Dr. J presented us with a scenario about walking into a party and randomly being called a derogatory word. Some said their first reaction would be to fight, while others thought it would be best to ignore the comment or to engage in sort of an intellectual argument in order to expose the ignorance of the person who started the altercation. The fact of the matter is that we too often let the words of other people control us. Why are certain words so powerful ? The negative words that people say often times have a greater impact on us than the positive words do. This is what keeps some of us in a weaker position than others. Letting the words of others control us will never permit true freedom.

Words

Words , they are simply sounds that we make by blowing air out of our lungs and through our vocal folds. We shape sounds using our tongue, lips and teeth. To an outsider these might be just considered sounds. It isn't until we add a personal or general definition to them that they are give meaning or power.


I believe that in a way a word might have both a general meaning and a personal meaning that everyone has. For example if we take the word punk one could define the word to mean a worthless person or one could define it as a loud fast-moving and aggressive form of rock music. When some think of the word punk they might conjure images of loud teenagers who have strayed away from the right path and have chosen to adopt a satanic lifestyle. Others when thinking of the word punk might think of young men and women who have chosen to be different and not in a bad way. They might think of brave young people who have found a way to express their emotions through music. My whole point is a word carries different feelings, emotions, and meanings to different people. As was said in class I might not think much of the word b***h when I say it but to someone else it might mean something. While when I think of the word I might think of someone who is chickening out of something another person might think of women being oppressed. Though I might not mean it that way that is how some people might take it.


Should I be aloud to say whatever I want if I do not mean offence to anyone? Should words that carry vicious hate with them in the ears of others be silenced? What if they're only said amongst people who do not take offence?

Being for itself

Humans have the freedom to redefine themselves every day. For instance, college students change their majors left and right, women change their hairstyles weekly, and children change their favorite toy daily. Who’s to say that changing up singular aspects changes a person completely? This is how I understand a “being-for-itself”. We, as people and free-minded beings, have the ability to change our minds in an instant. We are only seen and categorized as how we are at a specific time period.
We are constantly changing because we have an absolute choice of self. Our transcendence allows us to venture out and change the course of our futures. For example, a split second decision can alter the course of a person’s life whether it be long-term or simple for a moment. I can use the Michael Brown case as an example; the officer that shot him had a choice before he took action. He, however, acting in the moment without thinking of the possible outcome and ruined not only his life, but the lives of others. With the power of transcendence, we have to think how our free will may not affect us, but those around us as well. We are subjects, but the things we subject ourselves to is solely based on our decisions.

The B word!

Previously in class, we discussed words that were a little inappropriate, but quite interesting. One of the ones I found interesting was the b word. The one I can't seem to spell out. I find it interesting how in fact women use it around one another and it is alright. Well, women who are close friends. If another woman who isn't a friend uses it, it is a problem. I find it even more interesting, as we discussed, that if a man uses it, it is a huge problem. It is in fact seen as disrespectful, which I agree with. Often times when a woman is bold or even blunt, she is seen as, well...the b word. It is almost as if a woman can't have a strong personality without being labeled as that. What is even more peculiar is that if anyone calls a man the b word, it is belittling. It is seen as if he is acting like a woman. It is like he is acting weak, but when the woman is called the b word, she's being aggressive. Weird how these things work. Either way it goes, the word isn't kind and it is belittling either way...well, except if you are a women who has close friends that use that word loosely of course. Thoughts?

Mentally Free?

In class, we discussed the fact that we can change. This lesson was based on Jean-Paul Sarte. We discussed a being-in-itself, which is a kind of being such as an object. This object cannot help itself change and it stays the same. The example we used was a table. A table can't change itself into a chair even if it truly wanted to. It can only be a table. We also discussed being-for-itself. This being can change and there is flexibility to set different projects for the self. In our symposium, we made it so clear how obvious it can be for someone to be able to change. We also took it further by pointing out the fact that  it's all in the mind. For instance, the slaves weren't free physically, but they were free mentally. They were free to think for themselves. My question is, are we really  mentally free?
Sure we are free to think for ourselves, but are we mentally enslaved? Society has become a huge impact on the minds of people. Everywhere we turn, there are advertisements telling us what to wear, eat, where to live, how to look, and what to watch on television. It is almost as if they don't even give us time to think for ourselves. Everything we do, there is at least a poster board 10 feet away trying to tell us what to do. Society has in fact played a huge role in controlling especially the minds of adolescents. We barely have time to set projects for ourselves without seeing a project that society is setting up for us first. It takes a strong individual to stand on their own in a society that is constantly trying to control people. Of course people can think for themselves, but the influences that surround people are strong enough to impact the mind.

Bad Faith

In regards to the waiter who was accused of "acting in bad faith", I personally do not believe he was doing such. When it comes to a job there is a certain dress code and set of manners that every employee is expected to learn and master. The waiter is not acting in bad faith he simply doing what he is there to do, go through the motions and try to enhance the customer's experience. He is not claiming to be this happy or cheery, he is simply acting the way he must act while he is on duty in order to get by in life. Once he is liberated from the prison that is his many buttoned vest he will be free to act in any matter in which he sees fit.

The Class Struggle!

The class struggle mostly leads to dictatorship of the proletarians (the class of workers). The proletarians gain this dictatorship when they create bands and try to show power against the Bourgeoisie.  As a result, the proletarians uses a strategy to make the upper class feel guilty
for their actions because they treat them as objects and not as a mean to themselves. Hence, in most countries the middle class as  a faux-class.


Will this strategy continue to work as the Bourgeoisie find new ways to make their enterprises more efficient?

An example of this innovation will be: the usage of automatic machinery in the workplace.

Proletarian Revolution??

The last two weeks in our philosophy class, we've discussed a few philosophers. They've all had some tremendous moral arguments. In fact, i found all of them to be quite interesting, however Karl Marx stands out. His argument on capitalism being an immoral system is absolutely correct. He reduces capitalism into two classes of the bourgeoisie (owner of the mean) and the proletariat (the worker). More specific, he defines capitalism as a social, economic relation between people as oppose of it being a relation between people and things. He added that capitalism operates according to the fundamental contradiction. Meaning the proletariat contribute the most to product without profiting while the bourgeoisie distribute the product and gaining the most in the process. Marx believed that this is reason as to why people seek to abolish capitalism.  He thought their attempt to abolish capitalism was strictly based off the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat. He thought that this imbalance between the bourgeoisie and proletariat would lead to a social revolution and I agree with him. Dr. J mentioned an interesting fact about the social economic in the United States right now. She mentioned that out of 317 (current population) millions of Americans, only like 48 people are legitimate bourgeoisie. So as nasty and violent a social revolution would be, this huge gap of an economic imbalance lead me to think that a social revolution is imminent. however, i believe that it is an issue that would only resonate among to the lower class because i don't think the middle class (doctors, athletes, small business owner etc..) would necessarily join the revolution.

The Truth of Objectification?

According to Frantz Fanon, objectification occurs when a being-for-itself, or a subject, is reduced to one fact of thier existence like an object. Objects have no ability to transcend, making them beings-in-themselves. How exactly does this objectification occur? It is because in that moment that we are "being reduced", for a split second we believe what is being said about us and thus renounce our transcendence. Renouncing our transcendent ability for even a split second regresses us to the status of an object in that moment.

This is only the first step of objectification. When we are regressed to the status of an object, it means that we become something that is simply in the mode of being it. Since we view ourselves as this one piece of factisity, we by default are to our own selves viewed as nothing else. This is the true objectification.

In this mode we shun all of our other possible identities and take on one thing. Objectification happens all of the time and not always in bad situations. For example, after a game someone comes up to you and says "Wow, your a great baseball player". In that moment, do you think of yourself as a son or daughter to your parents, or a sister or brother, or a college student? No, you dont. You think of yourself as simply a great baseball player. In that moment the person gave you a compliment, you were objectified and if your like most people, the chances are you have accepted it.

Is Bad Faith Truly Lying?

I was very interested by Sartre's concept of bad faith during class this week. He described it as lying to yourself and denying your freedom to act genuinely. I didn't really agree with his interpretation of bad faith. We are all made up of many aspects, and each one doesn't define us, but that doesn't mean we are lying. I'm an athlete, a student, a brother, and a son. I may act more respectful around my parents than I do around my teammates, but I'm not lying. That is just the proper and expected behavior. My parents wouldn't like it if I was cursing all the time or anything else we do as a team. It's what is expected. In the case of the waiter, the customer expects them to be more cheerful and courteous. If they weren't the customer could accuse them of not doing their job properly. My point is that we are constantly adjusting our behavior for each situation, it's not a bad thing, just necessary.

What most struck me from our class discussion this week was Sartre's concept of bad faith, or self deception by denying one's freedom to act authentically. It is something that we do every day without realizing it--notable examples were the ones used in class of the waiter or the student. Sartre says that acting in bad faith leads us to consciously deny our own freedom, and oftentimes it is the easier route to do just that. It is, indeed, terrifying to think of the control that we have over the outcome our own lives. I genuinely believe that everything would be much easier without that control--that way, our failures wouldn't be our own. I am oftentimes, guilty of this type of self-deception, as well. For example, if I think that I did poorly on a test, then I will avoid looking at it for days, or even weeks--simply because I can't bear the burden of the fact that I am responsible for my own failures. While it is a very bad habit (I will admit), it is a relevant example of Sartre's existentialist viewpoint and the idea of self-deception.

Negritude Movement

In class today we talked about different inappropriate words people use to pretty much to describe someone different from them. And I thought it was interesting that there is a term for taking back the meaning of a word and changing the meaning of it to something positive, the "Negritude" Movement in France and the taking back of Negre for example. I think it sucks that we have these words in the first place but I think the best way to handle it is to just do away with the words altogether. Some people might be okay with the word and others may take a lethal offense to that same word. Taking back the meaning of widely used derogatory words is powerful and a big move for the group being targeted, however I think the better idea would be to use a different word and be done with the bad ones that we use now. Like Dr. Johnson said in class, "Why do you want to use the word in the first place? There are a ton of different expressions and words to use." How do y'all feel about it?

Bad Look Good Look

The example Dr.Johnson gave in class for "The Gaze" had a big meaning. About having a different impact of being watched and watching someone. You could say a difference of authority and freedom to be yourself or act proper in public. It's like wanting to act like your self at home compared to having to behave in public. The story Frantz Franon shares about being on the train and being called the "n" word by the child then it seems to have a diminishing Frantz self worth. Having a label put on yourself doesn't allow you to be yourself like you would want to be. I wouldn't see myself as just a Hispanic woman. I would see myself as a daughter, sister, and many other things. Being called illegal immigrant on the other hand would have a different affect. The way the government throws it out in the media and press makes it seem like hispanics are a burden and that we are the only ones that came to the United States. Many Hispanics on the other hand came legally or with a special reason. Yet when other people say it is more like they are stating a problem with having immigrants around not regular people that are trying to make a living. It would be like Franon being called the "n" word. It made him feel like an object being called an object instead of him being noticed as a person. Like he had no power to be able to deny that he is African American, but not the way the child saw him. The child saw him as nothing more than help, dirty, or an uneducated African American, yet Frantz Franon valued and saw himself differently that what the child saw. The impact of the word was more than being called but took on a job of identifying himself. Even though people say words don't hurt they do act as a label for people and could be taken as out of the norm in some societies.

Sarte: Vote Yes or No?

During this week in class, we have talked about various topics centering Sartre. He was a devout Existentialist, meaning that he adopted a philosophical attitude opposed to rationalism and empiricism. Existentialism stresses the individual's unique position as a self-determining agent responsible for the authenticity of his or her choices. As human beings, we are responsible for things when we decide to do something because we are always going to be saying no to a million others things in that same instance. Also, as human beings, we cannot choose not to choose. The example we used in class was based on voting. By refusing to vote, you pretty much already have. You have refused to take a stand on either side, even if you may disagree with a particular side. Essentially, by not voting against it, you have silently rescinded your right to vote and that, consequentially, puts the vote in the opposing party’s favor. We also talked about how a human being is a freedom, and no one can take that from us. Being human beings, we have certain freedoms to which we should always and forever be entitled. In the idea of the “Negritude Movement”, some people have motioned that the word “negre” should be taken out of any kind of language. The fact that there is a negative connotation associated with that word makes the attempt to remove it from the English language especially noble. The idea that the actual existence of humans is based on racism and colonialism isn’t something that we as a human race should be proud of. Anyone will bleed if cut with a knife, and anyone would die if shot in the head, so there is no reason for people to feel as if a certain race is of higher substance than another. A scenario where the “lesser” race is usually alienated from having certain powers and freedoms while the “higher” race enjoys doing basically whatever they please is not admirable in any light.

Derogatory Words

In "Black Man, White Mask" Frantz Fanon talks about the degrading aspect of racist actions. He tells a story from his past where he is on a train and a white child turns and says "look mom a dirty nigre" However this is something that happened in his past, it is still a problem in the present time. Racism is still a prominent problem and is still felt the same way as described by Fanon. He describes that when being called upon in a derogatory way you feel objectified and alienated as a person. I agree with this because when being put down by another person you feel like you are being singled out/alienated. Although Frantz's book is specifically talking about racism as the the thing that is downgrading and stereotypical, I feel that it also goes along with what was said in class today with all of the other derogatory words. It's not only race that was brought up today that have words that can be used to put someone down and single them out to make them feel less of a person. Society has changed our perception of some words over time to make them have less impact, but some people still find them very offensive. Someone in class today stated that when someone says something derogatory towards someone else, that they should ask if it made them feel like a bigger person or more superior. This comment really fits into Fanons story of looking into a key hole in a hallway and being the person being looking and then someone coming up behind you and becoming the person being looked at, where the person looking through the keyhole is the person calling someone out, then they become the person being looked at when the person that called out ask them their reasoning and if it makes them a bigger person for saying it. Over all today's class was very interesting in how very good points on the aspects of how racism and derogatory words are taken. 

Sartre - Authentic Man

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/46

I found this comic awhile ago (I remembered it when Dr. Johnson talked about the 2nd example on Wednesday) depicting Sartre and an example situation similar to the one we spoke about in class about the passive woman on a date. This comic shows Sartre casually strolling through town where he sees the couple on a date and decides to listen in. He begins to question whether or not the two are being sincere, or rather passively responding in order to be indecisive and self deceptive.

We spoke about bad faith and "lying to oneself," as well as being able to make a distinction between the "doing" and the "being" when acting sincere. Sartre believes "bad faith" is not being true to yourself and denying your own freedom, which both were doing in this situation. 

He interrupts and asks whether or not they're acting in bad faith, and the two come to realize that they were both feigning interest to avoid what they truly feel (the woman wanting to go home and the man offering to go to a party to be polite). Neither truly liked each other, but rather passively showed interest to not seem rude or off-putting. Sartre follows up and says that they should have been "authentic" all along, because if not, the couple would've pretended to be interested in each other when in reality they weren't compatible.

Situations like this occur every day, why do you think we have a habit of "bad faith," instead of always being true to ourselves? Is it better to feign interest and be polite than it is to be honest with how you truly feel? What did you think about the comic?

Bad Faith

In class, bad faith was described as lying to one’s self.  The examples of bad faith that were given by Sartre in the selection were the extremely peppy waiter, the woman on the date who is just there, and the friend pressuring his buddy to admit that he is gay. I think these are great examples of what Sartre would call “bad faith,” but I think that sometimes acting in bad faith is sort of necessary. He

What I mean by that is sometimes lying to yourself is necessary to keep yourself sane. Of course, you’re still lying to yourself, and acting in bad faith, but sanity is better than insanity, obviously.

An example of lying to one’s self to keep themselves sane would be believing that there is “someone out there for everyone.” I hear this all the time when someone is upset about being single or they just broke up with their significant other. I’ve actually been told this myself many times. Honestly, this is total bull crap. There are some people that will never find love or get married. They are just destined to be alone. Is it extremely sad? Absolutely! Would it make a person go kind of crazy or get extremely depressed? Probably. This is why I think that sometimes being in bad faith is necessary. If you are someone who is very dependent on others, or you are desperate for love, not getting that could really be detrimental to mental health. I think that sometimes we just have to tell ourselves these things, or listen to what others tell us because people who are so obsessed with finding love will spiral into a deep depression at the mere thought of being alone for the rest of their life.

Of course this is extremely sad to think about, but that’s why I think that sometimes acting in bad faith can be okay if it keeps someone from going insane.

We Act in Bad Faith?

The concept of “Bad Faith” shows how one lies to oneself. In Sartre’s examples, he shows a too-happy waiter, a passive woman on a date, and a guy trying to get his friend to come out of the closet. My question about this is: do we all act the same way as all of three of these examples do every day?

The Peppy Waiter

Okay, now most days I am not that happy. I’m usually sleep-deprived, hungry, thirsty, and/or just not in a good mood. And those words basically describe every college student. We’re worn out. However, whenever I go to the counter to order my grande white chocolate mocha at Starbucks, I plaster a huge smile on my face and pretend that I’m a morning person. Am I acting in bad faith just like the way-too-happy waiter? I believe that I am. I make myself seem happier than I am without even realizing it. (Except for now of course.) This shows me that I’ve been basically trained into lying to myself and others about being happy and smiley.

The Passive Woman

The passive woman is a hard one. All of us would like to say that we would let someone know that we’re not interested in him. However, this passiveness can be expressed in different forms. We put up with a lot of different people a day – like professors, classmates, and others. People can do pretty annoying things, so therefore, we probably let a lot of things go that we probably shouldn’t.

The Pressuring Man

I don’t know about you, but when I was little and found out a secret about my friend, I would pressure said friend into telling everyone. That’s what kids do. We can’t keep secrets. So I have a little of that pressuring man inside of me, and most of us probably do.

I just think it’s kind of weird how we all somehow act a little in bad faith daily.

Capitalism is actually pretty cool

The only reason Capitalism works is because we accept it. It's rather amazing, in my opinion. I disagree with the argument that the producers do less work for more money, and consumers do more work for less money. Why? It's simple: The producers first came up with the idea, hired all of the workers who are highly skilled in one area or another, and harnesses their abilities to make the best product for the cost of production. They also have to be intelligent in many areas of psychological thought in order to rise to the top of the market. There are millions, if not billions of new ideas and creations that are manufactured in new companies every year that are brilliant but never make it into the spotlight because the producers were not good enough at reading the public eye and playing the market. The producers' job is every bit as difficult as the producers' jobs, harder even, but for different reasons. They have to figure out the bell curve on how much the public values their product, and charge the highest amount possible while still satisfying the most number of consumers, so that people will actually buy the product. A fine balance, and only one of many that the producers must find in order to make a company succeed. It's all a mind game, and not everyone can keep up with the demanding nature of it.

Thoughts? Agree or disagree? Confused on what the heck it even means?

Weak?

In class, the "weak" were defined as the ugly, the meek, the weak in physical capability, the ignorant, the ones who seem to have gotten the short end of the stick. The "strong" were defined as all the opposites of those: the beautiful, the confident, the fastest, the strongest, the smartest, and all the rest who seem to have been born blessed by the universe.

I challenge that idea.

I don't buy it. I simply don't see the truth in that. There are too many "exceptions to the rule" to keep pretending that they are just exceptions. I refuse to believe that strength is something we are handed like a good hand is dealt in a game of Poker. I believe in the one thing that we mentioned in class the other day that makes human beings different from a table or a cat: transcendence. We have the ability to do and be anything we want to. The only thing stopping us is...us. Like Dr. Johnson said, I have the freedom to say yes at any moment to saving the starving child in Brazil, but instead I choose daily to pretend to be a student, and to say no to saving that child. But I could say yes. That is what makes us strong, in my opinion. Our decision to say yes to admitting to ourselves our own transcendence. Our decision to not simply accept how things are and say, "this is just how it is." 

For example, let's look at some well known representations of our amazing ability to transcend our circumstances: Wilma Rudolph, Stephen Hawking, and the enabled "disabled" or determined "broken" people.

This woman: weak because of her disability, or strong because of her determination? 

For those who don't know, Wilma Rudolph had polio as a child and couldn't even walk. She was told that she would have no chance of ever walking again. She refused, however, to accept this as fate, and worked with her mother and others for years on regaining control of her legs. As an adult, Wilma became the first American woman to win three gold medals in track and field during a single Olympic Games. Rudolph was considered the fastest woman in the world in the 1960s and competed in two Olympic Games, in 1956 and in 1960. How does this fit into the weak/strong idea?

It Happens

I agree that Capitalism is close to a prefect society to follow, and there are some flaws with this society.That the people on top called the bourgeoisie the producers and then the proletariats the workers.The producers of good get more out of the outcome compared to the workers who do the work. It makes sense for the producers to get the money because they got it going and they put in the tie. I also think it does not compare to the hard back breaking work the workers have to put in to get money for the the products. I feel like it would only benefit the wealthy. Having a degree would allow that person to have more money because they paid to go to college for more than ten years or so. That would be the difference between the producer and the workers. That should push the workers to get ahead in life and not stay a worker. That makes it seem like Capitalism is equal when you see the difference in the work they put in. Mark also has a good point why classes struggle and it causes violence among the classes. In many ways communist allows the rivalry of the classes allow the competition among people and allows many people to want to get ahead in life. Mark also made many good predictions for what has happened and may happen in the future. He has a good insight into what Capitalism would allow us to have and how it would affect the future. He then continuous to say the dictatorship is an out come of the struggle of the classes. In many ways there have been dictatorships that way but many class problem in the United Sates was solved by workers protesting unfair acts that were passes and fight for their rights as hard workers. It tends to happen and there are only so many ways workers can do about it, but I think the will of being the first or on top of your work is the drive America has and what's made it the United States of America.

Marx and Modern Society

Many people struggle against Marx and his ideas in common society mainly in the U.S. due to propaganda and largely the exploitative political parties that run this country. Communism has been painted as something that is evil and dirty and has been made a straw man of countless times. Karl Marx would probably say it has been an effective tool in keeping down the proletariat. As opposed to Marx’s sudden dictatorship of the proletariat it seems in most countries in the western world have been working towards a slow crawl to Marx’s ideals. Technology is allowing many people to do what they want and make a living off of it and not working for the sake of that living itself. The internet is one of the strongest drivers of this. Technology is also necessitating a move towards a more communistic society as less and less jobs are available due to automation in factories eliminating the need for labor and moving towards an environment that values people strictly for their ideas. Progressive ideas such as single payer health care and a universal basic income will allow people to work for the sake of activity itself like Marx believes separates us from animals. People will eventually not have to work to eat or to have health care. It is sad so much of the United States strongly pushes against this due to ignorance and having been misled. The bourgeoisie truly do have a firm grip on the proletariat of the United States. Marx along with Nietzsche is arguably one of the most mischaracterized philosophers ever. It is unfortunate he has been slandered by the U.S. and faced such mischaracterizations such as Cuba, USSR and China. Marx himself simply went against the grain at the time and still does though less so. He proposed ideas that when looked at truthfully are readily apparent. The workers are abused by capitalism all for the benefit of the few although this has become less obvious in modern times. One day these abuses will become visible to all and capitalism will be thrown aside for the future.

Capitalism is here to stay

Reasons why Marx philosophy doesn't apply in today's society.

Listening in class to Marx philosophy, a lot of his claims about capitalism were very debatable. The first claim that society is broken up into only two classes. Marx defines the first class, the bourgeoisie, as the people who own the means of production and the second the proletariats, the workers. Marx believes that all proletariats get the short end of the stick. They produce the most and receive the least. Because there are only two classes, Marx believes that the proletariats will get sick of being exploited, come together and overthrow the bourgeoisie, capitalism will come to an end and socialism or communism will take its place.

I believe this is false. If we dissected the working class we would see that not everyone is miserable. A lot of working class people make enough money to where they are content. For example, despite many CEOs, CFOs and managers are not the bourgeoisie producing the means of production they live happy, some even extravagant lives. They make well over the mean to be comfortable. In Marx's claim, he believes that they are not receiving the amount they put in. To be honest that might be true. A CEO of some major company might be making a mere 150 thousand while his company is making in the millions. There might be a thousand CEO that are in the same position. However, because they are comfortable and do not need any more than they are receiving there is no reason for them to come together and overthrow the bourgeoisie because they are not making the millions that the company itself is making.

Do you think Capitalism is the last stage before America goes to socialism or communism based on Marx's claims? 

This week in class, we discussed Karl Marx and his criticisms of capitalism. While I acknowledge that every system has its faults, I disagree with Marx, in that I believe that capitalism is the best option for running a society (as opposed to communism).

First, to address Marx’s proposition that distribution is inversely proportional to contribution: yes, there is a glaring uneven distribution of wealth in this country—but it will always be an economic reality that the skills of some outweigh the skills of others in terms of value. For instance, take a heart surgeon versus a fast food worker. There are a very few number of individuals that can perform what a heart surgeon can (as it takes countless years of education and hard work to get to that position), as opposed to a fast food worker (where most people can probably do the job). Therefore, the heart specialist will earn more, as their skills are in higher demand. Yes, the fast food worker may work equally as hard, but because more people can do this job, they will be paid less.  It is a harsh reality, but for progress to be made in a society, things must work this way. If not, there would be no incentive for productivity.

Secondly, the argument that the rich get richer and poor get poorer is true to some extent, but it is far worse in countries that adopt a more socialist economic policy. Take a look at Cuba, Russia, or North Korea for examples of this failed system. 

Marx Demonstrated Three Things...

This week in class, we have talked about what Karl Marx has thought about people and things in labor. He demonstrated three things in labor(which he explained as what separates us humans from the animals). The first one he demonstrated was the existence of classes is bound up with particular historical epochs. The second one he demonstrated was the class struggle necessary leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The last one he demonstrated was the dictatorship of the proletariat is only a transitional state to a class-less society. What I believe he meant by these is that the different things we do is something that the animals don't do. They let us know that we're workers and different from the rich because we do labor which is also known as a free, conscious activity. He used factors of production and relations of production to differentiate is from the animals in labor. He said that factors of production is raw materials, tools, skills, and human labor that it takes to produce things that are needed to survive. I believe that animals relate to us in this way except human labor. They use skills and tools to survive by fighting off other animals, knowing where to stay in the safe zone, and using techniques to find food. He said that relations of production is the specific way we relate to one another that are use to mold the production of our age. What I believe he meant by this is that we can only do something that we know by the level of learning. That is what I learned this week.

Start a revolution

Capitalism is still for some reason seen as a plausible way of governing a country. This fact just astounds me, yes it makes sense that people may work more efficient, but humans are living beings that have needs and deserve to be respected and the fact that people have to work to live and live to work doesn't seem like a form of respect towards us as humans. At some point, like discussed in class today, a group of proletariats will decide to rise up and go against the bourgeoisie. Once the proletariat figure out that they are the majority, and that they outnumber the bourgeoisie a revolution can begin to form. After being in capitalism for a long time, people begin to turn back into animals. This is shown in Marxs third point of the alienation of workers when the worker is alienated from his/her species being. A worker starts to feel less like a human when they work because they are being forced to work and it becomes involuntary and becomes a part of life that has to be done and is no longer enjoyed. Then the activities that make a proletariat feel more like a human are those of an animal, and have a lower pleasure but are done just because they have nothing else to do that is pleasurable. A rise up of the proletariat would be easy and well deserved due to the fact they have been abused and worked hard, and gotten little in return for what they have done, and deserve. They work harder than the bourgeoisie, while the bourgeoisie reap all of the rewards that the workers make. I see this whole thing as an unfair treatment towards the hard working lower class of people in these countries, and a revolution would be a great way to fix these problems.

Why Is the United States Considered Capitalist?

Many people in our country say that we uphold capitalist values and that we as whole are a capitalist nation. However, the United States isn’t a capitalist nation – not fully anyway. Here are some reasons why the United States could be considered capitalist, as stated by Karl Marx.

1.  The United States does operate under a fundamental contradiction. Like stated in the reasons why the class struggle becomes violent under capitalism, the United States has a system where the proletariat contributes the most but gets the least. The United States relies on the proletariat of our country. The proletariat is large; it includes the large middle and lower classes. One could even consider some of the high class as being a proletariat – the workers of our country.

2. Again under the reasons why the class struggle becomes particularly violent under capitalism, the United States has started to become a society where the poor are getting poorer and the richer are getting richer. This one is pretty self-explanatory.

These two reasons give many people a belief that we run under a capitalist economy. However, we have a mixed economy. Capitalism means that industry and trade are controlled by private owners with no regulation by the government. However, our federal and state governments control trade and have regulations about what owners can and cannot do – like monopolize companies.

2nd description of Captialism

As we were discussing Marx on class in Wednesday, we learned about some of his basic descriptions of capitalism. The first was that capitalism reduces the class struggle to only two classes (basically the haves vs. the have not's), and often the wealthier class pits the poorer class against each other so they don't rise up and revolt. The second says that capitalism operates according to the principle that the distribution of products is inversely proportionate to the contribution of products (basically saying that the poor contribute much and receive little while the "rich" contribute little much yet receive much). The third said that capitalism is an economic system that depends on the exploitation of labor. The idea that I want to focus on is the second claim - that the distribution of products is inversely proportionate to the contribution of products. Having worked in the retail industry for a few years, I would say that I have some experience in this. As a worker, I contributed a lot of my time, energy, patience, etc. to deal with keeping up the store's appearance, helping customers, conducting transfers and doing inventory. However, it didn't matter how hard I worked it seemed that it was never enough to be able to afford the really cute outfit that I put together on the mannequin (even with the employee discount), and also be able to get gas and pay the bills for that week. I'm sure though that Mr. Creek or Mr. A&F could walk into the store and buy it out without any issue yet they contributed nothing. I'm not saying that building a successful business is nothing, but when a person is not involved in the day to day aspects of running said business it is easy to say that they have contributed nothing to the success of the their business, they just sit around and collect the paycheck that is the result of proletariat workers - like myself - hard work. It does not seem fair that those that work the most receive the lease while those that work the least receive the most. I suppose the only way for a proletariat is to be happy is to become that which he despises - a bourgeoisie. Your thoughts?

The Eternal Hourglass

In Nietzsche's section there is a paragraph titled The heaviest weight. This paragraph goes to explain the story of a demon telling a person that the life he/she lives will be repeated countless times. The demon explains how every moment will be relived exactly as it occurred. Nietzsche then pokes fun at how people would react to such a scenario: some will curse the demon for such bad news, and others will take the word of the demon as one would take the words of God.

            My question now is “How would you let the words of this demon affect you?” “How would you manipulate the situation to best suit you?” “Would you continue to live as you are now or change things drastically?”

I for one would continue to live my life as I have thus far. I say this simply because I see a situation like this as something I cannot let deter the path of life I have already chosen. I cannot live life in fear of something occurring again that I did not like the first time around. One thing that I can do is choose my decisions wisely. I would think about my actions beforehand, however, I will not make every single moment of my life dreary by adding the melancholy feeling of “What If”. Another thing is that I believe that we only have one life to live. Anything afterwards is unknown, so how can we possibly be worried about something we know nothing about.

It is obvious from his other short paragraphs that Nietzsche does not have a belief in a higher power. However, for those of us that do; we have been taught that living a good life now will ensure a good afterlife. So, maybe the eternal hourglass won’t be so bad for those of us that have lived a good life that wouldn’t be so bad to experience again.

 

God

A couple of days ago Dr. Johnson said that God was dead. I personally would say that God is not dead but he is definitely dying. In the world people have begun to adapt this idea that one should do whatever one feels. The world has become a very selfish place. People claim that "I'm just looking out for number one" but the problem with the world is that everyone is JUST looking out for number one. There are different beliefs and forms of monotheism but I would say that most hold that stealing, murdering, and  basically anything that harms others is wrong. The idea of do what make you happy has been growing and is being interpreted the wrong way.
God might be dying however there are many out there that still hold onto faith and have not let God go and as long as there are people out there to spread the word and teach the next generation, God will never die.