How Much Did Stalin Deviate From Marxism?

How Much Did Stalin Deviate From Marxism? Joseph Stalin can be, and has been, interpreted in many different ways; a sadistic terrorist who revelled in the misfortune and pain of his subjects, an egotistical dictator whose every action served to promote his own self-interests, the political servant of Vladimir Lenin, and the man who translated Communism into practical terms. Despite this being a political and ideological study, in the case of Stalin it becomes impossible to consider his interpretation of Marxist-Leninism and his consequent leadership style without judgement of his character. The influence of his personality upon his leadership can be said to a primary motivation for many of the decisions which have been made, including the impact of his tumultuous home life with regards to his wife and children, his desire to assert himself as a credible and important man which was perhaps inspired by his feelings of neglect from his father, and the increasing loneliness that came from his intense paranoia and fear of those a round him. In an ideological sense, Stalins policies are indeed deviations from those which Lenin himself might have implemented, however yet again this may be as a consequence of the differing personalities of the two leaders. This study will aim to assess Stalinism as an ideology up to 1938, the end of The Great Terror and question whether it indeed deviated from Marxist-Leninism, whether it was instead a practical implementation of Communism in which communism principles ran through the core, or whether it was a whole different ideology, brought to power on a false platform of Communism. In order to make such assessments there must be a standard set of what Marxist Leninism is. In the same way that Stalin could be said to have interpreted Marxist-Leninism, Lenin interpreted Marxism. Thus Marxist-Leninism forms a filtered version of Marxs original theories. The key principles of Communism in Marxist terms, as laid out in the Communist Manifesto, written in 1847 by Karl Marx, are as follows; abolition of private property, progressive or graduated income tax, abolition of all rights of inheritance, confiscation of the property of all emigrants, centralisation of credit, national bank and an exclusive monopoly, centralisation of communication and transport, extension of centralisation of factories and production by the state, cultivation of waste-lands and the improvement of the soil, equal liability of all to work, combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, free education and religion and nationalities will be superseded by the principle of community.   [1]  Following on from this, Lenin proposed that the proletariat can successfully achieve revolutionary consciousness only under the leadership of a party of professional revolutionaries  [2]  , thereby reversing Marxs order of economics over politics  [3]  , where aims are achieved with internal democratic centralism, wherein policy decisions are agreed via democracy and every member must support and promote the agreed party policy, essentially a dictatorship of the proletariat government  [4]  . Lenin agrees with Marxs ideas concerning nationalism and religion, citing them as part of the false consciousness instilled by the bourgeoisie in facilitating exploitation. It was under Lenin the notion of a dictatorial state and a class war came about, marked changes from Marxs own ideologies. As Lenin said, One cannot be a revolutionary Social-Democrat without participating, according to ones powers, in developing this theory [Marxism] and adapting it to changed conditions.   [5]  Thus whilst Marxism heavily influenced Leninism, the latter is a distinctly different adaptation, arguably one which made the October revolution in 1917 possible. Stalinism as a term came to be, in light of one of Stalins associates claim, Lets replace Long Live Leninism with Long Live Stalinism!  [6]  Whilst Stalinism has been said to refer to a style of governance, key principles wherein the supposed deviations from Marxist-Leninism can be found include, economic policy, collectivisation, use of violence, the rise of bureaucracy and the development of the personality cult. Deciphering what Lenin or Marx would have done is impossible, and indeed the term Marxist-Leninism was coined and used by opposing political groups within 1930s Russia as the ideology which they stood to defend. Regardless, this study aims to assess the extent to which Stalinism and the key principles of his rule up to the end of The Great Terror were informed by Marxist-Leninism theology. The new economic policy (henceforth NEP) brought forth by Lenin in 1921, was dramatically overhauled through Stalins wave of economic reforms in the early 1930s. Known as the Great Turn, this saw a total transformation of agricultural and industrial economic handling within Russia. However despite initially provoking criticism from Trotsky and other members of the Left Opposition, who felt a more internationalist approach to revamping the economy would be appropriate, Stalin and Bukharin had been supporters of the NEP, stating that they believed that it was patriotic and would further Soviet influence and impact in the international system  [7]  . The reasons for Stalins apparently hypocritical U-turn may on some levels simply be practical responses to crises and yet can simultaneously be interpreted as Stalins first foray into the development of Stalinism. The NEP had secured the rights of individual peasants to sell their products freely, whether to private traders or to state agencies. Whilst the state controlled all large enterprises, such as factories, mines and railways, small private enterprises (those employing fewer than 20 people) were allowed. The requisitioning of farm produce was in turn replaced by a tax system and the peasants were free to sell their surplus, albeit at a state-regulated price  [8]  . The NEP had been Lenins attempt to ensure the survival of the Communist state following War Communism which had been implemented from 1914 to 1921, to coincide with World War 1 and the Russian Civil War, and to try and rebuild Soviet production to its pre-1914 levels. It is undeniable to regard the NEP as a concession of key communist values, and indeed Lenin himself saw it as a strategic retreat  [9]  . This development of a relative mixed-economy was justified as a form of state capitalism, the last stage of capitalism before socialism evolved.  [10]  The Grain Crisis of 1928 was arguably the impetus for Stalin to revoke the NEP. As more peasants began consuming their own goods, as opposed to purchasing the overpriced ones which the small private enterprises were producing, (Peasants controlled 3,140,000km ², divided into 25 million holdings, producing 85% of the food, but consuming 80% of what the grew  [11]  ), a 2 million ton shortfall of grain occurred in 1928. Requisitioning was launched, leading to a higher expected rate of industrialisation and as a consequence higher agricultural production as more grain was required to feed a growing industrial work force and to pay for imports of machinery through exportation. Collectivisation was escalated beyond the levels of Sovkhozes encouraged during the NEP era. There can be little doubt that revoking the NEP was a deviation from Lenins aims, however questions must be asked about the purpose of such a change, whether Stalin ever supported the policy and to what extent was his ultimate rejection of the NEP was in keeping with Communist principles. The purpose of the change is in practical terms a reaction to the Grain Crisis, arguably caused by the greed of the kulaks. However the forced requisitioning opened the doors to other more revolutionary forms of governance. The persecution of the bourgeois and the kulaks intensified as Stalin encouraged the blaming of them for the short fall in grain and consequent economic situation. Enterprises across the board became subject to greater instruction and supervision as the state steadily expanded state capital accumulation thus developing a forced rate of industrialisation. The internal party regime was further tightened and show trials were resumed against surviving leaders of rival parties. An offensive began against every kind of nationalist tendency. The boundaries of cultural expression were drastically reduced and organised religion became the object of violent assault  [12]  . In his initial input in attempts to rectify the grain crisis, Stalin provided a route for an esca lated governmental involvement, thereby centralising the Russian state, marginalising and persecuting minority groups, and increasing industrialisation expectations. As Service says, Although agriculture had been the focal point of Stalins initiative in January 1928, he associated himself with a much larger agenda Industry, schooling, urban construction and socialist indoctrination were to be prioritised. The state was to become more penetrative and the traditional attachments to religion and nationhood were to disappear. Whether Stalin ever really supported Lenins NEP is essentially questioning whether Stalin intended manipulate the situation in the way that he did. Speaking out in support of the NEP he claimed Either we do it, or we shall be crushed, referring to the need to compete with western industrial levels. It is highly plausible, particularly given his industrial drive which remained for the entirety of his leadership, that Stalins belief that industrial supremacy superseded any economic compromises which may need to be made in order to achieve this. When the NEP wasnt proving to be as successful in producing an industrially prosperous nation, merely bringing it back from the poverty line, a change in strategy would seem to be an appropriate step. However, Stalin lived for Bolshevism  [13]  and the NEP was seen by many to be an interim measure  [14]  regardless. His support for the NEP was probably not due to the dubiously capitalist elements or the relinquishment of state control, b ut through a devotion to Lenin and belief in his ability to lead, the fact that supporting the NEP established him as part of the inner circle along with Bukharin, and therefore casting aside Trotsky and other detractors, was likely to have been an additional benefit of expressing his support for this policy. The NEP could not have been classified as a policy borne from strictly Communist principles, defying abolition of private property and centralisation of factories and production by the state elements of the Communist manifesto. This particular policy is a practical compromise of communist principles, deemed necessary in order to rescue the failing economy. In many ways, this may seem to suggest that communist economic management principles are conducive to a successful economy, with capitalist elements used as a rescue method. However, upon Stalins intervention in 1928, and the subsequent Five Year Plans, which projected capital goods were to increase by 161% and consumer goods by 83%, expectations which were surpassed, the opposite is thus suggested. The question whether a state directed economy or a free-market produce the most successful economy is one which is virtually impossible to answer, given the instability, and varying contributing factors to the economy in question. Howev er, the NEP, whilst not strictly adhering to Communist principles, and thus irritating the Left Opposition and other strict factions of the Communist party, undeniably rescued the economy in the wake of War Communism, whether it could have been saved in another way is a different question, yet the NEP remains a practical concession which arguably must have been made in order to go on to implement other aspects of Communism. As Lenin said, We are taking one step backward to later take two steps forward. The notion of collective farming had existed since the Russian Revolution, yet it was under Stalins rule, and in reaction to the Grain Crisis, that collectivisation as a policy really took hold and was implemented on serious levels. The unpopularity which requisitioning of the apparent missing grain had had led to a lower grain production, primarily due to hoarding and illegal transfers. By November 1929, the central committee had elected to implement accelerated collectivisation in the form of kolkhozes and Sovkhozes. A primary example of the escalation which Stalins ending of the NEP allowed, collectivisation was in principle in keeping with the Communist ideal. However, the manner in which it was done, and the consequences which unfolded after and the subsequent management must be evaluated in terms of whether the actions taken were deviations from Marxist-Leninism, or the implementation of a long held policy. The Communist manifesto states that cultivation of waste lands improvement of the soil equal liability for all to work [and] agricultural armies are a key part in communism, similarly the 1919 party programme specified that all the working masses without exception must be induced to take part in the work of state administration  [15]  . Whilst collectivisation was not specifically mentioned, the idea of complete state ownership of the land with all agricultural workers working together for a common goal remained prevalent. The Kolkhoz charter, produced in 1930, establishes the kolkhoz as a form of agricultural production cooperative of peasants that voluntarily unite for the purpose of join agricultural production based on collective labour and goes on to assert that the kolkhoz is managed according to the principles of socialist self-management, democracy and openness, with active participation of the members in decisions concerning aspects of internal life  [16]  . This pro jected utopia appears to be similar to the one which Lenin himself advocated, as Grant says Lenin always advocated the collectivisation of agriculture gradually and by voluntary means. But he never entertained the mad idea that millions of scattered peasant holdings could be forced to collectivise overnight at gun-point. Collectivisation was to take place through example. The peasant was to be convinced by patient argument and through the setting up of model collective farms and the introduction of the latest modern technology, tractors, fertilisers, electricity and schools  [17]  . However, by the end of 1928, the number of collective farms was only at 33,300, with only 2.3% of sown area in collective use. Following Stalins policy of forced collectivisation this figure rose to 85,900 collective farms, and 33.6% of sown area in collective use by 1930  [18]  , and by 1938 there were 242,400 collective farms and 99.8% of sown area in collective use  [19]  . However, a key element of the kolkhozes was the voluntary nature of them, and in order to achieve such figures, Stalin embarked on a policy of forced collectivisation, leading to estimated figures of 4 to 10 million deaths due to the poverty which ensued and the violence used to maintain this. The utopia spoke of in literary works couldnt have been more different to the manifestation of collectivisation under Stalin. Despite the high prediction levels, the first four years of forced collectivisation failed to produce, and there was indeed a fall in agricultural production which in turn led to famine. Bad production, combined with drought and arguably as a consequence of severe animosity towards the policy meant that Stalin and the authorities only persisted to increase the use of violence, implementing more grain seizures and further blaming of the class kulaks for every shortfall. In July 1929, it was official policy that terror should be avoided and that kulaks as well as the majority of peasantry ought to be enlisted in collective farms. By December 1929 Stalin announced that kulaks should be banned from becoming collective farm workers.  [20]  Stalin himself prior to this announcement had condemned the class as a whole in Pravda in November of that year saying Now we have the opportunity to carry out a resolute offensive against the kulaks, break their resistance, eliminate them as a clas s and replace their production with the production of kolkhozes and Sovkhozes Now dekulakisation is being undertaken by the masses of poor and middling peasant masses themselves who are realising total collectivisation. Now dekulakisation in the areas of total collectivisation is not just a simple administrative measure. Now dekulakisation is an integral part of the creation and development of collective farms. When the head is cut off, no-one wastes tears on the hair.  [21]  . Two months after this chillingly brutal article, the Politburo approved the liquidation of kulaks as a class. Estimates suggest that about a million kulak families (totally around five million people) were sent to the forced labour camps, or the Gulags as they were more commonly known  [22]  . Due to the kulaks only making up 1-2% of the Soviet population, and being increasingly hard to identify, the Soviet government began to cut off food rations to other social classes, particularly those where ther e was some degree of collectivisation, for example in the Ukraine. This policy can be linked to the Holodomor famine, which has repeatedly been linked to suspected genocide towards the Ukrainian people, or in a more pragmatical way, as a consequence of the economic policies implemented. The Ukraine was not alone, with the Soviet Union as a whole suffering from a famine in 1932-3. Widely negated as anti-communist propaganda, and denied even in western media at the time, the cycle of forced collectivisation and relinquishment and requisition of crops, poor pay (by 1946, 30 percent of Kolkhoz paid no cash for labour at all, 10.6 percent paid no grain, and 73.2 percent paid 500 grams of grain or less per day worked  [23]  ), hoarding which then led to a shortfall of grain production, which then instigated another requisition of grain. In an attempt to prevent the hoarding, the Law of the Spikelets was enacted on August 7, 1932, and confiscation of unlimited amounts of grain from pea sant households was allowed. Taking food was considered theft of socialist property and could result in punishment by death, or a ten-year prison sentence. Even children could be shot for picking up leftover grain in the fields. 125,000 sentences were passed for this particular offence in the bad harvest period from August 1932 to December 1933  [24]  . The corruption and brutality of the Soviet government extended beyond human lives, with the prices paid for produce hardly changing between 1929 and 1953, meaning that the State did not pay even one third of the cost of production, charging wholesalers 335 rubles for 100 kg of rye, but paid the kolkhoz roughly 8 rubles. The business of collectivisation proved to be a massive money-making experience for the Soviet government, and one which looked set to continue to prosper, for the State at least, for a great many years. As until 1969, all children born on a collective farm were forced by law to work there as adults unless they we re specifically given permission to leave, which as is to be expected, was very rarely. Despite the October revolution aiming to release the peasants from the hold of the bourgeoisie, a system of neo-serfdom existed, where the Communist bureaucracy replaced the former landowners. As Trotsky criticised, In these conditions an exaggeratedly swift collectivisation took the character of an economic adventure  [25]  . Whilst Trotsky should be expected to criticise Stalin, Service agrees predominantly with Trotskys assertion; social and ideological goals would also be served through mobilisation of the peasants in a cooperative economic enterprise which would produce higher returns for the State and could serve a secondary purpose of providing social services to the people. Thus, the policy of collectivisation and the devastation which it reaped struggles to be seen as merely a practical implementation of the collectivisation policy spoken of by Marx and Lenin. Indeed, the voluntary n ature of the initial policy hadnt produced much support, but the manner in which this support was forced upon the Soviet people, produced even less. The brutal nature of the policies and punishments and lack of acknowledgement of the effects forced a wedge between the peasants and the Soviet government. The utopia depicted within the Marxist-Leninism ideal of collectivisation, and whilst this may have not been achievable in practical terms, Stalins alternative, deviated so much from the basic principle of what collectivisation is that it became unidentifiable. It wasnt enough to simply apply an outcome to achieve the utopia, the philosophy and methods, i.e. the voluntary nature, had to be broadly shared amongst the Soviet people. As it was, the lack of this fundamental practice turned the whole policy into a variant of the serfdom which Communism strove to eliminate and thus undermined the notion of Stalinism being a practical implementation of Marxist-Leninism ideas. The key issue within collectivisation was the replacement of the old bourgeoisie with the bureaucrats of the Soviet government. The rise of bureaucracy was clearly an issue, as there was an increase in the difference between the living standards of the working class and the upper layers of the bureaucracy in particular  [26]  . Comprised primarily by the poor economic state of the working class in consequence of collectivisation, yet the bureaucrats acquisition of wealth furthered this gulf, the Soviet state began to represent the antithesis of what Marx and Lenin had proposed. Whilst it is generally acknowledged that those at the top of the party benefited financially and personally from their role, potentially leading to corruption and manipulation of their own purpose, it becomes interesting to see how such an issue developed. As early as 1920, Lenin said that ours is a workers state with bureaucratic deformations  [27]  , hauntingly similar parallels can be drawn with the policy of collectivisation. Issues which were around, and in some cases encouraged, during Lenins time, found themselves becoming colossal under the reign of Stalin. Whether the bureaucratisation of the party apparatus was simply an extension of Lenins own leadership, whether it would classify as a deviation or whether it was indeed a wholly new policy, must be examined. The Leninist programme for 1917 included the following points regarding state and bureaucracy: the discontinuance of the police and the standing army, abolition of the professional bureaucracy, elections for all public positions and offices, revocability of all officials, equality of bureaucratic wages with workers wages, the maximum of democracy, peaceful competition amongst parties within the soviets and abolition of the death penalty. As the Italian revolutionary Berneri says prior to his death in 1937, Not a single one of these points in this programme has been achieved.  [28]  Whilst Berneri was heavily critical of Stalin as a leader and so his judgement may be impacted by his own dislike for the man, several elements of the Leninist programme were undeniably ignored, or at least undermined, by the actualities of Stalinist bureaucracy. In a speech in 1931, Stalin spoke of the happy life of the people of the Soviet Union. At this time the workers living standards were sub-sta ndard, and the wages of the workers remained depressed throughout the 1930s, despite the colossal gains of the first two Five Year Plans. Yet the happy life was a reality for millions of officials in the state and Communist party; they lived very well. In addition to the other privileges of provisions and lodgings, a new network of closed distributors was established and restaurants were reserved for the use of high Communist or non-Party officials. Then special state shops were set up for their exclusive use. In these shops one could buy anything and everything but at prices no worker could afford  [29]  . This development created an upper class in a state where there was to be no class divisions, with Lenins maximum of democracy aimed to prevent such a sector developing. Lenin saw that the existence of wage differentials was a survival of capitalism that would tend to disappear as society moved towards socialism. The development of the productive forces would be accompanied by a general improvement of living standards and the inequalities would tend to decrease.  [30]  Despite the chasm of difference between Lenins envisaged state and Stalins realisation, Lenin himself admitted that the state he lead did include bureaucratic deformations. However the deformations were trivial compared to the tiered state which formed in consequence of Stalins encouragement. His dictatorship style of leadership, which allowed him to weed out the members of the Party which disagreed with him allowed him to create a circle of peers who were able to reap the benefits which collectivisation and industrialisation allowed. The crux of the argument rests within the debate of whether Marxist-Leninism was ever a foreseeable policy and whether there was an alternative Communist state than the one which Stalin oversaw. Several key historians claim that Stalins actions were the inevitable continuation of Leninism and there is some evidence to support this. Richard Pipes declares Stalinism the natural consequence of Leninism, as Stalin faithfully implemented Lenins domestic and foreign policy programmes  [31]  . Edvard Radzinsky similarly acknowledges that Stalin, as he claimed himself, was the real follower of Lenin  [32]  . Robert Service, whilst on the whole condemning the extent of Stalins rule concedes that personally he remained devoted to Lenin and his rule and conserved and reinforced the Leninist regime and this was reflected in Stalins whole-hearted attempts to elevate the memory of Lenin to somewhat of a deity and his development and insistence of Marxist-Leninism. It was under Stalins cont rol which the notion of a Marxist-Leninist ideology was popularised. Indeed the Civil War measures implemented by Lenin introduced the idea of the Red Terror and developed internment camps, Lenin was the instigator of Article 58 in 1927 which condoned the arrests of those suspected of counter-revolutionary activities. The autocratic system within the Communist party was too developed by Lenin  [33]  . Lenins ban on factions within the Russian Communist party and introduction of the one-party state in 1921 allowed Stalin to get rid of his rivals easily. In many ways, Stalin can be seen to have utilised Lenins tools; the exclusion of alternative ideologies from public life was strengthened, instruments of dictatorship, terror and a politicised judiciary were furthered with Stalins reliance upon the Gulags and trails of political competitors, such as Bukharin and Trotsky. The states economic control, whilst substansial since the Civil war, was tightened dramatically In particular, the notion of continuing the despotism evident in the earlier Soviet period, the brutal nature of the fighting within the Civil War and October Revolution providing prime examples, is clear in the use of terror as a method of control in the first two decades of Stalins rule. However there are significant criticisms saying that Stalins deviations disfigured Marxist-Leninism beyond recognition. As Roy Medvedev says one could list the various measures carried out by Stalin that were actually a continuation of anti-democratic trends and measures implemented under Lenin in so many ways, Stalin acted, not in line with Lenins clear instructions but in defiance of them. Likewise, Isaac Deutscher, in his biography on Trotsky claims that only the blind and deaf could be unaware of the contrast between Stalinism and Leninism  [34]  . A more modern criticism comes from Graeme Gill, Stalinism was not a natural flow-on of earlier developments; it formed a sharp break resulting from conscious decisions by leading political actors  [35]  . The totalitarian perspective that the negative facets of Stalinism were inherent in Communism from the start is perpetually undermined by attempts to distance Stalinism from Leninism; Trotsky

The Iran-Contra Affair :: American America History

The Iran-Contra Affair The tangled U.S. foreign-policy scandal known as the Iran-contra affair came to light in November 1986 when President Ronald Reagan said yes to reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran. He said that the goal was to improve relations with Iran, not to get releases of U.S. hostages held in the Middle East by terrorists (although he later agreed that the arrangement had in fact turned into an arms-for-hostages swap). People spoke out against dealings with the hostile Iranian government all over the place. Later in November, Att. Gen. Edwin Meese discovered that some of the arms profits had been used to aid the Nicaraguan "contra" rebels at a time when Congress had prohibited such aid. An Independent special prosecutor, former federal judge Lawrence E. Walsh, was appointed to investigate the activities of persons involved in the arms sale or contra aid or both, including marine Lt. Col. Oliver North of the National Security Council (NSC) staff. Reagan appointed a review board headed by former Republican senator John Tower. The Tower commission's report in February 1987 criticized the president's passive management style. In a nationaly televised address on March 4, Reagan accepted the reports judgement without serious disagreement. Select committees of the Senate (11 members chaired by Democrat Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii) and the house of representatives (15 members, headed by another Democrat, Lee Hamilton of Indiana) conducted televised hearings in partnership from May to August. They heard evidence that a few members of the NSC staff set Iran and Nicaragua policies and carried them out with secret private operatives and that the contras received only a small part of the money. Former national security advisor John Poindexter stated that he personally authorized the diversion of money and withheld that information from the president. William J. Casey, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who died in May 1989, was implicated in some testimony. His testomony still remained in doubt. Clearly however, the strange events shook the nation's faith in President Reagan and ruined U. S. prestige abroad. Special prosecutor Walsh continued his investigation. On March 11, 1988 Poindexter's forerunner as national security advisor Robert McFarlane pleaded guilty to criminal charges of witholding information from Congress on secret aid to the contras. A year later, Peter McFariane was fined $20,000 and given two years probation. On March 16, 1988, a federal grand jury indicted North, Poindexter, and two other persons on a number of

Rob Parsons -Promote Not Promote

This report presents an independent analysis addressing the insights for important management issues associated with performance appraisal and performance management in the Capital Market Services of Morgan Stanley. The analysis will be focused on identifying the major problems, analyzing the situations, and making feasible and thorough recommendations for the board of Morgan Stanley to improve the existing situations. 2. Problem Statements. Rob Parson was a star producer in the Capital Market Services Department who had been recruited from a competitor two years ago and had generated substantial revenues since joining the firm.I would like to address more specific and surface problems for this situation as follows: 2. 1 Problem 1 -Rob Parson's Performing Issues. Parson's success at generating business was offset by performance reviews from internal co-workers that painted him as a poor fit in the firm's collaborative culture. Parson's performance issues had been making his two immed iate supervisors, Paul Nasr, the senior managing director in early 1996 and Gary Stuart, the just promoted managing director in early 1997 faced the dilemma whether to promote Rob Parson as managing director. 2. Problem 2 -Rob as Irreplaceable Staff. Stuart felt certain that Parson would leave the firm if he was not promoted in 1997. This would mean losing a valuable employee and a star producer and creating an empty seat in an area important for the firm's business. Morgan Stanley needed Parson to attain the firm's strategic business objectives and even Stuart felt strongly that Parson would be impossible to replace. 2. 3 Problem 3 – Little consensus for the 360-degree evaluation process The purpose of 360-degree evaluation is to emphasize teamwork, cooperation, and cross selling.However, there was little consensus on what the 360-degree evaluation actually meant in practice since its implementation in 1993. 3 Issues / Problem Analysis. It is doubt that the 360 degree perfor mance evaluation process at Morgan Stanley yield data that were valid and reliable. It is critical to figure out whether the 360 degree performance management system well aligned with Morgan Stanley's strategic objectives. It is also important to verify the two performance evaluation results and bjectively induce the implications so that Gary or the board could effectively manage the situation. 3. 1 Not a real 360 degree performance review @ Nasr's time. The performance comment â€Å"raw data† including the quantitative, qualitative, and anecdotal — none of which is perfectly consistent from the 360 process. It is doubt that raters knew how to effectively participate in the process and the Paul knew how to use the data. There was no indication of rater's interaction with Parson and how each rater's rating contributed to the average scores shown on Summary of Performance Ratings.The arithmetic average for the collage average score is 3. 6, how ever the overall rate is a t 2. 8. It seems that quiet a number of Parson's supervisor and colleagues were admiring his cross-selling skill but it was hard to tie to the result of Downward Average 3. 0 and colleague Average of 3. 7. What were the criteria to evaluate item 4A in the Summary of Performance Ratings. -Team Player Skill and how the comments from Parson's supervisors and colleague tied to the average rating.Rater Parson E's comments in the â€Å"Development Recommendation† sections did not include concrete example but just stating rather subjective observations and feelings. The rates were not interpretable and there was no scale identification for the rates. What a 2. 0 different was from a 4. 0 average score? What were the benchmarks? There was no explicit indication of management's expectations for Parson, such as specific sales target and customer satisfaction index that are measurable and be able to described in concrete terms.It seems that there was no prior communication of the expect ations of the key performance indicators with specific values to Parson. There was no attempt to think deep the unique qualities of Parson that bring him to achieve excellent business sales. There were no indications of key success factors for Parsons that would link to the performance evaluation process. There was inherited bias from Nasr that he treated Parson harsher because he wanted to show to everybody in Morgan Stanley that he would not treat a subordinate who was hired from his previous life better. . 2 Improved 360 degree performance review @ Gary's time In early 1997 during Gary Stuart's time – A â€Å"revised† performance review â€Å"raw data† including the quantitative, qualitative, and anecdotal was come up in different ways. The process had been improved when compared with the last year exercise in the following ways: Indication of involvement from each rater and excludes the ratings from evaluators who had limited interaction with Parson when com ing up with average score in every performance criteria to ensure fair evaluation.Indication of rating scale from 1-6 and with interpretations for each rating. However, there is no in-depth explanation on how to define Top 10%, Top 20% and Top 50% etc. Each rater provided a rating with corresponding comments and valid examples for each performance requirements category Elimination of the â€Å"Team Player† rating which was previous seen as a subjective and board term. However, the review showed an extraordinary amount of Parson's progress on the team player front by examples. The overall rating from downward and colleague at 5 and 5. respectively which is in the category of Outstanding -Top 20% It was mentioned by Stuart that he need to deal with the politics in the firm, it is time to think of whether Parson was confronting the culture or he a gear to help the firm to change some of the rooted culture. 3. 3 What are the alternatives? After illustrating the underlying causes of the problems, we have to consider whether the efforts Parson had made were sufficient to be promoted, promoting Parson would mobilizing a lot of support from within the firm. The main alternatives are as follows: * Be prepared to search Parson # 2 for replacement and fire Parson. No to promote and increase payment for Parson and let him tender his resignation. * Promote Parson to the managing director and further motivate and develop his weak area. 4 ;Solutions and Recommendations. Morgan Stanley changed its corporate strategy to focus on being a â€Å"one-firm† firm, the use of the 360 degree performance evaluation procedures at Morgan Stanley has been designed to reinforce the change in culture which is now emphasizing teamwork, corporation, and cross selling. The firm should reward those who acting in accordance with the mention notions as well as great business generators.The main purposes of carrying out an efficient 360 degree performance assessment in Morgan Stanley are to develop, to manage and to pay ;amp; promote. The effectiveness of the performance assessment did affect the job satisfaction of Parson and the organization effectiveness. Therefore, it is critical to come up with a fair judgment for Parson, review and improve for any loop holes in the existing performance assessment process. I would like to recommend promoting Parson to the managing director, further motivating, rewarding and developing his weak areas.It was hard to compare the results from 2 consecutive years because it is meaningless to use some misleading or ill-defined rates from @ Nasr's time and compare to a more representative set of result this year. However, the revised process in the recent year provided more sensible data, it is worthwhile to focus on the review result of this year as decision making base. The Summary of Performance Ratings and Distribution showed that nearly all (except 33% of his supervisor rate 3 for leadership and management skills) Parson's s upervisors rated 4 to 6 for all 4 perspectives include the Overall Downward.These implied most of the Parson's higher up did recognize Parson's contributions. It should be easier to mobilize a consensus on Parson Promotion this year. The management needed to reconsider the motivation elements and to come up with a through career development plan for Parson rather than just focus on using the review result as a promotion justifications. Actions Plans: * A constructive and through feedback session to be held by Stuart with Parson and mentioned that he will be promoted to the managing director on condition that Parson need to further improvement on certain areas from leadership and management skills.Quote concrete example for his weak areas. * Make sure a detail job specifications (expectations) and key performance index for the managing director position be in placed. To communicate management's expectation to Parson clearly. * To carry out after promotion review with Parson in three months time and make sure he will still be in good shape after his promotion. * Stuart has to tender a promotion recommendations report to the management with support and firm tone that Parson is ready to promote based on this year's performance assessment results. * To involve those being rated in the development of the rating scheme.Continuous to carry out performance appraisals training to make sure all the staff understands the logic behind. To fine tune the process with more specific definition for each of the ratings. In conclusion, with proper implementations, a 360 degree performance assessment process can provide a more accurate assessment of an employee's performance and help eliminate accusations of favoritism. It will definitely lead to continuous learning, team building, growing self-confidence and improved productivity. I look forward seeing a more constructive and productive team lead by Parson in the coming future.

Future of Food Essay

In the passed couple of decades, the foods we deem to be natural or of the Earth are instead Genetically Engineered. The term Genetically Engineered does not mean that the entire vegetable or food is fake but rather means that there is at least one genetically modified ingredient in the food that is sold all over stores, which raises a great health concern for many people. In the feature production of the documentary known as The Future of Food looks at how modern day technology has changed the food we consume and the effects it can have on our health. In watching this film about all the advancements that science has come to in the world with the food being eaten everyday, both the positive and negative effects of all those technological changes, its only right to think of the countries that barely have enough food in general or the people who are losing their livelihoods because of the advancements created by science in first world countries. A first world country like the United States has not only a great amount but also lots of variety of nutrition; however, even this is still not enough to â€Å"satisfy† such a wealthy nation because steps are still being taken to continue to â€Å"improve† nature. Projects were done that helped produce corn in all kinds of different colors and creating bigger than normal sized strawberries. A question seems to arise, is all this technological advancement necessary? Are we as a society taking unnecessary measures to â€Å"fix† something that is natural and worked since the beginning of time? In the medical world, many health problems have been examined where food and nutrition were identified as partial contributors to the problem. This film helped in explaining how enzymes are used to knick corn DNA and how foreign DNA was then presented into the corn cell walls. Consuming the genetically modified corn caused allergic reactions and stirred a health concern about labeling genetically modified foods. In my particular opinion it should be the people’s right to know whether the food they’re ingesting has been altered genetically or tempered with from its natural state. Nevertheless, this does not belittle the question as to why it is necessity to alter the food in the first place. In order to formulate a ground based opinion I need to weigh the positives and negatives. Natural food always has the benefit of being â€Å"natural,† however, genetically engineered foods sometimes has the advantages of looking more appealing, tasting better and/or having a longer lasting flavor. I have experienced this first hand I have grown a distaste to certain organic foods simply because they just didn’t taste nearly as good as those that are genetically engineered even though the organic foods were supposed to be fresher and of course natural. This certain taste for food could just be that I got too used to the taste of all the preservatives that go into foods. It’s interesting how I got used to chemically preserved foods and genetically engineered tastes that overtime became the good tasting ones while the healthier ones were rejected by my taste buds. Another benefit is that genetically engineered foods end up being cheaper because they have a greater resistance to environmental conditions that would normally spoil the unaltered form and are also made in quantities not given the same attention organic foods are given to be fresh and ripe. Being that they are made in greater quantity, they are available for more people for cheaper prices, becoming the food of choice. The question would be, are the quantities made and the decrease in prices good enough to outweigh the negative effects of genetically engineered food? Another point and question would be why do many countries still remain unfed and continue searching for methods to feed their fast growing populations if these genetically engineered foods are produced in such a surplus manner? Keeping the advantages of genetically engineered foods in mind, there are definitely several noteworthy disadvantages too. An advantage was the surplus of food, however, how is it a benefit if such foods are harming the body? Some would agree that it is better to feed and raise a healthy smaller sized population with natural, unaltered forms of food than to infect a large population and have them suffer from the repercussion caused by the food they had consumed. Also, most people that are not keeping up with this field of work do not know that there are these bodies that have consumed the modified foods for such prolonged time periods and have overtime probably developed immunity to the side effects the modifications can have. In these genetically engineered foods the DNA is altered, and just as changes in human DNA lead to disorders, consumption of foods with altered DNA may have the same fatal effects. Certain genetic modifications can even go as far as cause cancers and brain and organ damage. A huge disadvantage that most people do not notice, especially those who live in urban areas, is that due to the production of the genetically altered foods a lot of farmers have been put out of jobs. These farmers are not needed as much anymore because more crops can be made for cheaper and therefore they no longer make as much money on each crop they plant and sow as they once did, as was shown in Central American countries. Now days, while technology could be helping the economy by decreasing the price of foods for people, it is also harming people who depended on the unaltered food to bring them income. The U. S. economy and industry is choosing quantity over quality, which is not beneficial to our health but instead just our wallets. I believe that its not fair for people not to know what is in their foods and usually people don’t seek food that can hurt them, therefore, it was crucial that the â€Å"Genetically Engineered Right to Know† act get passed. It would allow people to know what they are consuming from the labels on the foods and therefore prevented conditions that could’ve risen from individuals allergic to a modified substance. The Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration is supposed to be on top of the foods produced and their effects. Nevertheless, it seems that genetically modified foods don’t cause enough of a significant threat in order for them to take action and stop the advancement, rather than promote it and seek ways to improve it. What would bring this matter to a flashing red alert? Though I admitted that genetically altered food does taste better, I still do not agree with the fact that I am consuming and enjoying the taste of unhealthy food. People often look for the most ripe fruits and healthy looking vegetables when they go shopping, but for a lot of produce these bigger fruits and vegetables end up being the modified ones. Though I personally have only been able to see the advantages of these foods, I realize that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of having genetically modified foods. From a realistic point of view, being a student on a low budget it would be unpractical for me to purchase anything but the cheap genetically altered food. Looking even at the bigger picture, many individuals and families have the same outlook I do. Therefore, many people may be against the genetic modification of food, yet not much course of action will be taken. People are comfortable with their life styles, making the cases and effects of modified foods not seem like such a big deal. This shows that the wrong approach is probably being taken to bring this to significant awareness. To promote foods that are not going to be altered, there needs to be ways to produce the same great quantities and keep prices affordable under the economic conditions of the country and the budget of the average American Family. It was crucial to pass an act that will help identify the genetically engineered goods but still it is not sufficient enough to solve the issue at hand. This matter is truly a very controversial issue, containing both pros and cons; therefore, we as a government and a knowledgeable society we need to take a stand and incorporate more ideas in to solving this domestic problem.

Personality Theorists

Personality Theorists Joseph M. Fowler27 Apr 04Personality TheoriesJudy PowersMelanie Klein (1882 -1960):She started the shift in emphasis away from studying innate biological instincts and towards relations between people. She described how, primarily because of anxiety over aggressive impulses, children split objects and feelings into good and bad aspects in an effort to retain good ones as part of the self while getting rid of bad ones by projecting them onto others. Splitting of an object image into opposites in the internal world of fantasy permits children to treat the internalized object as clearly good or bad while continuing to trust and love the actual external person who is an intricate combination of both. Children attempt to keep the good feelings and project the bad feelings onto others. Eventually, the split between the nurturing and the frustrating mother becomes the starting point of a child's concept of "good me" and "bad me".Defies Astronomers theoriesThis spitting can often cloud a chi ld's subjective and objective perception and lead to distortion with other people.Our personality is shaped by our relationships with significant others in object relations theory. She thinks that we begin life with certain predispositions but with not real sense of self or identity. Through interactions with significant others, we take into ourselves parts of others and begin to build a self-structure.Klein was also more interested in the reality of the "inner world" than that of the " outer world" Her preference has resulted in that object relations theory has been helpful in understanding psychotherapy and the interest in object relations has become particularly important as a framework for understanding some syndromes that have become a part of our popular clinical literature.Margaret Mahler (1897 -1985):In object relations theory, human development is a lifelong process of emerging out...

If You Cant Find the Stories You Want to Read, Write Them Yourself

If You Cant Find the Stories You Want to Read, Write Them Yourself If You Can't Find the Stories You Want to Read, Write Them Yourself Shaz Kahng features in the first season of Reedsy's self-publishing podcast, Bestseller. She has worked as a research scientist, a global consulting partner, a builder of e-businesses, a brand strategist, and has led teams in several male-dominated industries. When she noticed that strong female business leaders were missing from both her career and modern fiction, she decided to fill the gap. In this article, she talks about the struggle to traditionally publish a novel deemed "market-unfriendly," and how self-publishing has given her control over her bad-ass female characters. 3) That being said, remember the importance of professionals A critical aspect of bringing my book to life was designing a compelling cover that would stand out. For that, I was fortunate enough to connect with Reedsy cover designer, Mark Thomas. I provided a design brief to Mark with the objective of having a visually striking but simple cover that conveyed the idea of the story. I did have an idea in my mind of what the cover might look like, but as we went through the design process, Mark offered up several intriguing concepts and we ended up with something far different and far better than I could have imagined. With Reedsy, I felt like I was building my own publishing team with great talents like Mark, and I absolutely enjoyed our collaboration.4) Consider all the benefits of self-publishing After speaking with other authors of self-published books (some of whom were traditionally published first), two main benefits were touted: control over your content and every aspect of how your book comes to market, and speed - it’s certainly way faster than traditionally published books. #Selfpub tip: know your target market better than anyone. The Closer has only been out for about a month, but it has gotten stellar reviews from people who are not even related to me, and I’m happy to report that my book sales have been very strong. I’m optimistic about the novel’s potential, but most importantly: I was able to bring it to the world in the way I wanted, allowing me to rebel against the traditional path and the suggestions that would have diminished the quality of my book. Self-publishing let me keep my vision intact, control my content and cover, and allowed me to get The Closer to market quickly.The Closer is available in paperback and on Amazon Kindle.Please share your thoughts, experiences, or any questions for Shaz Kahng in the comments below!

Arizona State Museum building located in the University of Arizona Essay

Arizona State Museum building located in the University of Arizona - Essay Example This will take into consideration of the context, audience and the visual impact. I hope to comprehend and convey to the reader how this type of building is designed and the type of collections of the building employ the use ethos, pathos, and ethos. Audience : My audience will be the teacher of my English class. He has in depth comprehension of rhetorical appeals, in this regard I must present my argument using the accurate knowledge of rhetoric. I am obliged to avoid advocating and generalizing. Context: My paper will be one of the papers that my teacher will read this assignment, so I have to be insightful and creative in my analysis. I have to make arguments in order to grab his attention. Outline Introduction: I plan on using my introduction to establish my own ethos as well as describe the the structure and design of the building that is being analyzed. I will describe my experience in and outside of the Arizona State Museum building which will help the reader to understand tha t I had the opportunity to analyze the building at is significance in the University of Arizona. ... Introduction When we think about teaching rhetoric and critiquing rhetorical acts, we base out thoughts on text and artifacts that are primarily oral or written. Nonetheless, our day to day experiences are saturated with the rhetorical invocation that move beyond the written word to visual. The objective of this essay is to explore the multi – modality of the rhetoric and illustrates how we think about the rhetoric on a wider perspective. The arguments regarding architecture particularly invoke this focus that deals with the nature objects, spaces and artifacts (Rosteck 45). This case study looks at one specific building known as Arizona State Museum building in order to show how this type of rhetoric takes place. Despite the distinct content of the building, the visual, textual and experimental are all used mimetically. This means that multi- model rhetoric on this site imitates the form a function of a natural history museum in order to persuade its visitors of its legitimac y. The Arizona State Museum building is the oldest and the largest anthropology museum located in the southwest region of the campus was established in 1893 by the Arizona Territorial Legislature. This building is the state’s official permitting agency for archeology and paleontologist projects. This is one of the oldest research units at the University of Arizona. It is known for hosting numerous researchers around the world and allow them to use the collection to expand their frontier of their knowledge in enthology, ethnohistory and archeology. The museum resides among several buildings. Most of these buildings look similar as they are made of stone colored concrete slabs and reflective