Biography of Karl Marx Essay -- Karl Marx Communism Biographies essays

Biography of Karl Marx Karl Marx, the author of the Communist Manifesto, is viewed to be one of the greatest social thinkers of his time. His social, political and economical thoughts are still highly regarded today. The life of this man is stamped with many accomplishments and ideas that have been adopted by many prominent figures. As a historian, philosopher, and revolutionary, Karl Marx has helped shaped the society of the past, present and future. Karl Marx was born in Trier, Germany on May 5, 1818. He was born to Heinrich Marx and his wife, Henrietta who had a total of seven children. They were a middle class family who came from a long lineage of rabbis. However, his family was baptized Protestant in order for his dad to keep his job as a practicing lawyer.[1] At an early age, Marx’s next-door neighbor became an influential model for Marx and eventually a future father-in-law.[2] Marx’s intellectual career began in 1835 at the age of seventeen at the University of Boon where he was to study law. Not more than a year after his arrival at Boon he was arrested for drunkenness and was injured in a brawl.[3] Also at this time he became secretly engaged to his childhood sweetheart, Jenny Von Westphalen. Outraged by his actions, his father forced him to transfer and begin a more serious academic career at the University of Berlin. His father voiced his opinion in a letter to Marx â€Å" degeneration in a learned dressing-gown with uncombed hair has replaced degeneration with a drinking glass.[4] On October 22, 1837, he became officially engaged to Jenny and would ritually write her a letter telling about his life at school.[5] Shortly after his arrival at Berlin he... ...ree in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think†¦Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history.†[17] Notes [1] Peter Singer, Marx (New York: Hill and Wang, 1980), 2. [2] Allen W. Wood, Karl Marx (London: Routledge & Kegan Ltd, 1981), xii. [3] Singer,2 [4] Singer,2 [5] â€Å"A Revolutionary Thinker,† (12 March 2002). [6] â€Å"A Revolutionary Thinker† [7] Wood, xii [8] Steven Kreis, â€Å"Karl Marx,† The History Guide: Lectures On Modern Intellectual History, 10 February 2002, [9] Singer, 3 [10] Singer, 3 [11] Singer, 3 [12] Kreis [13] Wood, xiii [14] Singer, 4,5 [15] Wood, xiii [16] Wood, xiii, xiv [17] Kreis

Social Media :: Curse or Blessing ?

Social Media :: Curse or blessing ? The way I see it, it all depends on how these sites, like Facebook or Twitter, are being used. Social media itself can be abused, overused, and taken advantage of. However, the power of social media itself is probably greater than the power of any person, any novel, any ruler, or even any country. But, whether that incredible power is a blessing or a curse is also one matter to question. The power of social media can be something extremely influential. This first took a huge toll in the beginning of 2011 with the political upheaval of Egypt.The Internet's far-reaching speed combined with social media websites to create something unforgettable. The voices of Egypt stood together to overthrow the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and they spread all throughout the world. The power of social media was also noted when Mexicans turned to it for survival, not too long ago. At first, this served as a revolution. For the very first time, people's voices and opinions were coming together to form something larger than themselves. But we have to wonder, is that power too much?History has repeated itself in telling us that it becomes a problem when one voice has too much power. One only needs to look at people like Hitler, Idi Amin, and Mao Zong for proof that giving one voice too much power can sink an entire people or nation. And in Egypt, this corrupting nature of power turned itself over from the ruler to the subjects which resulted in the same horrific effect. From this, it is clear that social media has a way of lending itself to this attribute of power. Another way social media can act as a curse is through its changing the behavior of our society.Some say social media sites can lend to shorter attentions and less efficient work. Not only that, but my generation, that is, teenagers, tends to abuse social media and use it for popularity. Despite social media being a term with the connotation of connecting us, that seems t o be one thing it is doing least. People who abuse Facebook, for example, by requesting and accepting as many ‘friends' as possible, up to thousands, are giving those relationships artificial traits. Those relationships are so scattered and insignificant that many people don't even know some of their ‘friends. These thinning relationships have no such value, and are illusions of genuine relationships. In this abuse of social media, values of building relationships and making new connections, as were the intentions of social media, are taken away and transformed wrongfully. Nevertheless, many people do use social media for positive purposes, which leads me to the side of social media that is a complete blessing to this modern world. When used correctly, the benefits of social media can far outweigh some of its downfalls. Social media changes the world every day, in ways both small and large.For everyone who uses it, social media at least promotes and encourages communicat ion and lends to more modern ways of learning and communicating. Not only do they lend to more efficiency in our rapidly evolving technologically advanced society, but social media sites are also some of the best ways to positively influence people by sharing your opinions. They act as platforms for your voice. If you have great ideas or want to be heard or found, websites like Google+, Twitter, and LinkedIn can promote those good intentions.Through these sites, you can find millions of people who share the same interests as you, and start making a difference, step by step. Social media websites can operate as both curses and blessings in our modern society. The difference between it as a curse and a blessing all hangs on the shoulders of its users. You may choose to abuse the potential of Facebook, or to change the world with Twitter. The difference in your actions may be small, but the end result varies greatly, and it is up to you to decide social media's role in your life.

Casualty Figure Chart for World War 1

Despite intensive research by historians, there is no—and there will never be—a definitive list of the casualties inflicted during World War I. Where detailed record-keeping was attempted, the demands of battle undermined it. The destructive nature of the war, a conflict where soldiers could be wholly obliterated or instantly buried, destroyed both the records themselves and the memories of those who knew the fates of their comrades. Estimating the Numbers For many countries, the estimated figures only vary within the hundreds, even tens, of thousands, but those of others—particularly France—can be over a million apart. Consequently, the numbers given here have been rounded to the nearest thousand (Japan is an exception, given the low number). The figures in this, and almost every other list, will differ; however, the proportions should remain similar and it is these (represented here as percentages) which allow the greatest insight. In addition, there is no convention as to whether the dead and wounded of the British Empire are listed under this umbrella title or by individual nation (and there is certainly no convention for those regions which have since divided).   How People Died Many people expect the deaths and wounds of World War I to have come from bullets, as soldiers were engaged in combat: charges into no mans land, struggles over trenches, etc. However, while bullets certainly killed a lot of people, it was aerial artillery which killed the most. This death from the skies could bury people or just blow a limb off, and the repeated hammerings of millions of shells induced illness even when the shrapnel didnt hit. This devastating killer, which could kill you while you were on your own territory away from enemy troops, was supplemented by new weapons: humanity lived up to its horrible reputation by deciding that new methods of killing ​were needed, and poison gas was introduced on both western and eastern fronts. This didnt kill as many people as you might think, given the way we remember it, but those it did kill died a painful and hideous death. Some say that the First World Wars death toll is used today as an emotional weapon used to cast the conflict in overwhelmingly negative terms, part of the modern revisionism on the war, which may be a completely dishonest way to portray the conflict. One look at the list below, with millions dead, over a war for imperial control, is telling evidence. The vast and scarring psychological effects of those who were wounded, or those who bore no physical wounds (and dont appear in the list below), yet suffered emotional wounds, must also be born in mind when you consider the human cost of this conflict. A generation was damaged. Notes on Countries With regards to Africa, the figure of 55,000 refers to soldiers who saw combat; the number of Africans involved as auxiliaries or otherwise is likely to include several hundred thousand. Troops were drawn from Nigeria, Gambia, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Nyasaland/Malawi, Kenya, and the Gold Coast. Figures for South Africa are given separately. In the Caribbean, the British West Indies regiment drew men from across the region, including Barbados, Bahamas, Honduras, Grenada, Guyana, Leeward Islands, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and Trinidad and Tobago; the bulk came from Jamaica. The figures are cited from The Longman Companion to the First World War (Colin Nicholson, Longman 2001, pg. 248); they have been rounded to the nearest thousand. All percentages are my own; they refer to the % of the total mobilized. Casualties of World War I Country Mobilized Killed Wounded Total K and W Casualties Africa 55,000 10,000 unknown unknown - Australia 330,000 59,000 152,000 211,000 64% Austria-Hungary 6,500,000 1,200,000 3,620,000 4,820,000 74% Belgium 207,000 13,000 44,000 57,000 28% Bulgaria 400,000 101,000 153,000 254,000 64% Canada 620,000 67,000 173,000 241,000 39% The Caribbean 21,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 19% French Empire 7,500,000 1,385,000 4,266,000 5,651,000 75% Germany 11,000,000 1,718,000 4,234,000 5,952,000 54% Great Britain 5,397,000 703,000 1,663,000 2,367,000 44% Greece 230,000 5,000 21,000 26,000 11% India 1,500,000 43,000 65,000 108,000 7% Italy 5,500,000 460,000 947,000 1,407,000 26% Japan 800,000 250 1,000 1,250 0.2% Montenegro 50,000 3,000 10,000 13,000 26% New Zealand 110,000 18,000 55,000 73,000 66% Portugal 100,000 7,000 15,000 22,000 22% Romania 750,000 200,000 120,000 320,000 43% Russia 12,000,000 1,700,000 4,950,000 6,650,000 55% Serbia 707,000 128,000 133,000 261,000 37% South Africa 149,000 7,000 12,000 19,000 13% Turkey 1,600,000 336,000 400,000 736,000 46% USA 4,272,500 117,000 204,000 321,000 8% Sources and Further Reading Broadberry, Stephen and Mark Harrison (eds). The Economics of World War I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Offer, Avner. The First World War: An Agrarian Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.Hall, George J. Exchange Rates and Casualties During the First World War. Journal of Monetary Economics 51.8 (2004): 1711–42. Print.Hoeffler D. F., and L. J. Melton. Changes in the distribution of navy and marine corps casualties from World War I through the Vietnam conflict. Military Medicine 146.11 (1981). 776–779.  Keegan, John. The First World War. New York: Vintage Books, 1998.Nicholson, Colin. The Longman Companion to the First World War: Europe 1914–1918. Routledge, 2014.  Winter, J. M. Britains ‘Lost Generation’ of the First World War. Population Studies 31.3 (1977): 449–66. Print.