Category: Modern comic book investing
- 9 лет назад
- Время на прочтение:0минута
- от автора Gukasa
- comments: 4
Snowboarder Jörg Walcher and diver Jacqueline Schneider unexpectedly He provides spiritual support to athletes around the world. They held a dual role as both spiritual leaders and secular lords, Thompson's work Medieval Bishops' Houses in England and Wales provided an. This chapter highlights the importance of guests, visitors, and voyagers in the realm of hospitality. Good visiting behaviour, stature of guests, and mannerisms. EUROVISION BETTING ODDS LADBROKES BETTING
In any case, rulers would make sure that the clergy would not counteract but, rather, support royal rule and, indeed, positively stimulate it through religious propaganda or, even more effective, sacred legislation. At the same time, secular rulers wanted to make sure that the often vast economic resources held by religious institutions—monasteries, temples, pious endowments—would not fall into the wrong hands.
Charlemagne, for example, continued a Merovingian tradition of naming royal princesses abbesses of the monastery at Chelles when he sent his sister Gisela there. If state supervision or, even better, control of the realm of faith was unfeasible, kings would devise other means to ensure that religious leaders at least gave them the backing they needed. To ensure their royal masters yet another form of hold over the Roman Catholic Church, they were put in the College of Cardinals as well, which gave them a vote in the election of a new pope.
When Henry II of England appointed his most trusted collaborator, Chancellor Thomas Becket, to the archbishopric of Canterbury, he did not foresee that the new high priest would set himself up as a staunch defender of the rights of the Church vs. About the Structure of This Essay In this text, I will try to address the following issues and questions.
In part I, I aim to determine, from a pan-Eurasian perspective, which religious systems—faiths, ideologies, 38 and, whenever applicable, their institutionalized forms—have tried to ally themselves with secular power, or even have appropriated it outright. In pondering about the structure of this first part, I have assumed that the readers probably are a very diverse group indeed.
There may be those who have a specialist interest in one of my three oikoumenai. And there will be those who are specialists in the history of Christianity, Islam or Confucianism. But there may also be scholars of comparative Eurasian history who yet do not study religion, and those who work in the field of comparative religion but have not delved into the wider cultural, including political history of the phenomenon. Therefore, I have opted for an in-depth, partly case-study presentation of the relationship between religion and power in each of these regions, to lay the foundations for the comparisons in the second part.
Though the first part will broadly adhere to the periodization stipulated for the volume of which it forms part—i. This will allow me to rely on my specific knowledge rather than on more general reading, only, and, at the same time, show the peculiarities of and the differences between specific rulers. Inevitably, this approach will not reveal long-term historical changes, though, whenever I feel I can comment thereon, I will yet try to do so.
Obviously, since genus comes before species, differences arise from similarities: differences are specific, similarities generic. In part II, I will generalize those elements introduced in the first part that, I feel, are fundamental for a comparison. These are: religion, soteriology and economic power, ideological orthodoxy vs. In addressing this variety of topics, inevitably the same empirical data will reappear to illuminate a different perspective, resulting in some overlap. Looking for comparable situations, I may be able to construct, if not a typology at least a few cross-Eurasian types.
At the same time I hope to indicate which cases truly can be termed unique. Methods and Sources Some remarks about methods and sources seem in place, for during my research into the relationship between religious and secular power in Eurasia—between, one might also say, a Church, or various Churches, and the ruler, or rulers of the State in which they functioned—I have encountered a set of closely related problems.
In post-medieval, Christian Europe, the study of history always has been based on the study of texts, first and foremost. To establish textual reliability and, even, veracity, the Humanist scholars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries at a very early stage decided that comparing texts left by past generations was the only way to arrive at the interpretations and conclusions without which no historia was deemed valid.
In a sense, this procedure was first tested in the study of the historical text par excellence, the Bible, the New but also the Old Testament. Not only comparing the various Latin versions, but, also, using the manuscripts in Greek and other Biblical languages, standard editions were, in the end, compiled for use by future generations both of Biblical historians and of theologians. No wonder that, in other fields of knowledge, too, comparison soon was introduced as a prime scientific method.
Indeed, one might even argue that one of the first such fields was the comparative study of religion s. Perhaps not surprisingly, it took the Christian world until the late eighteenth century before it started to deal with the life of its own prophet in a similarly detached, comparative way. Since the fifteenth century also saw a huge increase in information about the civilizations of the non-European worlds and the role, if any, Europeans saw for themselves there, inevitably all kinds of questions now needed to be dealt with from a comparative point of view, if only to be able to arrive at the conclusion that Europe was the best of all possible worlds after all.
In fact, precisely the increasingly—often implicit—comparative approach to the analysis and interpretation of all aspects of the life of humankind helped to inculcate a spirit of scientific but, soon, also more general cultural criticism in the world of European scholarship; it certainly contributed to a growing—though not, of course, generally prevailing—attitude of relativism or, even, scepticism regarding the alleged superiority of Europe.
Nevertheless, the comparative method explicitly used has always met with criticism both within and without the scholarly world. Indeed, studying manifestations of religious and imperial power in a variety of cultural settings across the Eurasian continent, I need to address the criticism usually levelled against the comparative approach in historical research.
Is it enough to assume, or, rather, state that applying questions asked about—and, mostly, from within—one culture to another will enable us to see, through similarities and differences, some kind of universal essence in the realities thus observed? Or will we always be impotent facing the fact that any subject-observer who studies two or more different cultures, whether or not related to or influenced by one another, will implicitly hierarchize them, and, thus, distort their singularity and uniqueness?
Unavoidably, any scholar starts his observations of any aspect of culture and—indeed—even nature from his own cultural point of view as well as from his own academic discipline, habitually without acknowledging these biases. Doing so, mostly implicitly, the resulting observations and interpretations will of necessity be subjective. As Max Weber already indicated, this will result in sometimes painful accusations about self vs. Last, but not least, people will say it simply is impossible fruitfully to compare the individual experiences that are the basic forces in any history.
There is, I fear, the possibility that such abstract words will actually hide the real worlds they purport to describe and interpret. Of course, when we compare objects or, even, people in order to better understand them, we always need to prefer the concept over the individual case s. We strive after a certain degree of generalization, which we achieve precisely through using concepts as heuristic devices.
However, a generalization created in the Humanities never amounts to such a law as results from theories tested and proven in physics. Such laws are, after all, generalizations that hold true irrespective of time and place—at least in our cosmos. Historical generalizations refer to human constructions, i.
Yet, by applying the comparative method, we will discover not only the differences but also the similarities that characterize our cases and thus allow us to better know the human condition. From a religious point of view, until the mid-sixteenth century Western Europe presented a unity perhaps more compact than that of the non-centralized worlds of Islam, Buddhism, and Confucianism: for nearly a millennium it had been the world of Christianity, a world called Christendom, a world dominated, at least until the s, by the papacy and the one, Roman Catholic Church.
Particularly in the non-European parts of Eurasia—and, more to the point, in the Islamic and Hindu parts—there still is a tendency to study ancient texts, especially texts with a highly normative or, indeed, religious nature, with a great deal of circumspection and, indeed, reverence. Rather than contextualizing them in order to come to an analysis, interpretation, and understanding that serve our present scholarly requirements—which, needless to say, are of, albeit recent, Western origin—, they are, often, presented in a purely descriptive, uncritical way or, rather, used to defend present-day religious-cultural positions.
Another problem specifically regards visual -narrative sources, whether in architecture, painting, or in sculpture, the study of which we nowadays feel is necessary to our understanding of the past. Last but not least, in many Eurasian historiographical traditions one, vitally important element is missing. For whereas since the nineteenth century European scholars have delved deeply into the economic background of religious institutions—bishoprics, monasteries, pious foundations, et cetera—and the way s these were integrated in the state economy and, indeed, in power politics, such research still is largely or, even, wholly lacking for other parts of Eurasia.
In many cases the records that would enable such study simply have not survived: especially in South Asia climate and insects have wrought havoc with entire archives. Certainly, whatever remains does not yet allow us to undertake studies that yield results comparable to what has been achieved in Europe.
In the end, it is really up to the reader to judge the validity of the above considerations and, hence, of the following exercises. Indeed, from a scholarly point of view one has to admit that we have no idea on which date or, for that matter, in which year he was born. There even have been people who argue that he is, entirely, a fabrication.
Many more, though admitting that he may have been a historical figure, yet accept that we know very little about his life or ideas. He has not left a single word that scholarly can be proven his own. Was he a Jewish rebel leader using religious arguments to create cohesion amongst his followers? Was he a shamanist healer? One thing seems certain: he was not the founder of the religion that bears his name.
This could happen precisely because the Roman empire in which they functioned was, also, a vast communication society that allowed the disciples of the Christ to travel widely and, in doing so, spread their religious ideas. Its relationship with the Roman empire and its culture, and with its later recreations and successor states was a complex one. The Roman emperor Constantine ca.
Moreover, he definitely felt that the Church should serve the needs of the State, rather than the other way round. He, too, felt that the Church should obey him: he always was settling theological disputes and setting rules for the proper conduct of priests and monks, of the liturgy they performed, the teaching they should provide, et cetera. It is easy to forget that, from the early ages of Christianity onwards, its believers divided into two groups. The interface between these two worlds was not only piety but, also, money, for monasteries, organized in religious Orders, developed into powerful networks spanning Christendom in its entirety, with each individual establishment often being a huge economic complex.
Their increasing wealth was watched with covetous eyes both by secular rulers and by Church leaders themselves. The problem of Church-State relations in the Christian world starts with the question whether, in the end, one of the bishops or patriarchs who headed the early, major Christian communities—in the Near East, Africa, and in Romanized Europe—could claim supremacy over all his colleagues.
During the first centuries of the Christian era, there was no consensus over this issue—which gave the Christian Roman emperors the opportunity to try and determine Church policy themselves, as shown by the stance Constantine took during the Church council that, at his instigation, convened at Nicaea. When a second capital was founded, in Constantinople, and, subsequently, the empire actually was divided, not surprisingly the patriarch of that town, too, put forward his claims. Nor did the document they presented in the eighth century as Donatio Constantini—purportedly written in the fourth century and stating that the emperor, departing for the East, had left the Roman pontiff both religious and secular leader of the West—gain universal acceptance or, even, credence.
Its claims were, indeed, huge. Specifically the Pippinnid princes of Francia cemented the relationship with Rome. Consequently, in AD King Charlemagne, through whose assistance a reigning pontiff had been able to keep his power in his continuous struggles with the Roman aristocracy, was in a position to demand to be crowned emperor, thus recreating the old empire. Also styled autocrator, or sebastokrator, he entertained an even closer relationship with the patriarch than did the emperor and the various other princes in the West with the pope, if only because the two men shared the same city.
In CE, Emperor Justinian had argued that: There are two greatest gifts which God, in his love for man, has granted from On-high: the priesthood and the imperial dignity. The first serves divine things, while the latter directs and administers human affairs; both, however, proceed from the same origin and adorn the life of mankind. Hence, nothing should be such a source of care to the emperors as the dignity of the priests, since it is for their imperial welfare that they constantly implore God.
For if the priesthood is in every way free from blame and possesses access to God, and if the emperors administer equitably and judiciously the state entrusted to their care, general harmony will result and whatever is beneficial will be bestowed upon the human race. Nevertheless, as in the West, in the East, too, this position never solved the even more fundamental question: who had the final say in matters of doctrine, in the definitions of faith? Nor was this problem resolved in the visual representation of both men.
Indeed, one might argue that in that field, the emperors held the day. As indicated in the ninth-century treatise De Caerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, the church was the site of all imperial ceremonies that needed a sacred context. But then again, in these very years Pope Leo III used a comparable set-up in his Roman throne room, to visualize his own claims to supremacy over all the world under Heaven. The oft-used term caesaro-papism is, indeed, an apt one.
It had started building up during the second part of the first millennium CE and grew ever deeper until, in the eleventh century, a definite schism occurred. For, admittedly, the discussions were not only about power, but also about theological issues, including the hotly debated acceptability and status of icons, of representations of the Divine; these, of course, were sacred objects themselves, objects of power, used to manipulate power.
The relationship between basileus and patriarch did not alter essentially until the end of the Byzantine Empire in the fifteenth century. Meanwhile, the situation in Western Christendom grew ever more complicated. Whereas the Byzantine Empire up to the end remained just that: a huge, but unified state, the empire created by Charlemagne was never meant to be transferred to his successors undivided. Following Frankish, i. Thus, by the end of the ninth century, Western Christendom, while still a religious unity, yet consisted of a multitude of states great and small, each with its own sovereign ruler.
The supreme authority of the man who happened to wear the imperial crown mostly was nominal, only. Since the Church of Rome, i. Though, from the thirteenth century onwards, there were theologians who felt that kingly rule was not, in this sense, unconditional and that, if the Church did not carry out its role against a tyrannical prince, the people themselves might revolt, most Christians basically followed the old belief.
It certainly was helpful to be ritually linked to God by an ordained representative of the Church. Indeed, like the kings of the Old Testament, to become rightful in the eyes of their subjects high and low the rulers of, e. This need, as well as their wish somehow to use the fiscal potential of the huge wealth amassed by local and regional churches and abbeys, also meant that each monarch wanted to control the Church within the boundaries of his own realm.
Of course, the popes were the only ones who could actually confer the episcopal dignity on the men appointed to govern the many sees of the Latin Church. These and similar considerations, but also uncertainty and weakness, explained the failure of the attempt to win over the minority for a separate public vote. But what must not be overlooked is the sacred veneration that was still paid to party discipline at that time, and most of all by the radical wing that until then had had to defend itself ever more pointedly against breaches of discipline, or tendencies to break discipline, on the part of revisionist party members.
He "felt that it was a half-measure: in such a case one would already have had to leave. In the summer and fall of Liebknecht and Luxemburg traveled throughout Germany to try to persuade — with little success — opponents of the war to reject financial support for the war. He also contacted other European workers' parties to show them that not all German Social Democrats were in favor of the war.
Liebknecht's first major conflict with the new party line, one which attracted wide public attention, came when he traveled to Belgium between September 4 and 12, in the middle of the 3-month long German invasion of the country. Liebknecht was accused in the press — including by Social Democratic papers — of "treason against the fatherland" and "party treason" and had to justify himself before the party executive on October 2.
In the run-up to the December 2, session, he tried and failed to win other opposition deputies over to his position. Liebknecht was in the end the only deputy not to stand when Reichstag President Johannes Kaempf called on the House to approve the supplementary budget by rising from their seats. Both had previously refused a request from about 30 other party members to leave the chamber with them during the vote. It was immediately confiscated by the authorities and appeared only once.
Liebknecht however was not able to participate in the venture. Since December 2, , police and military authorities had been considering how to stop his activities. He was therefore subject to the military laws that forbade any political activity outside his duties in the Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag.
He went through the war on the Western and Eastern fronts as non-combatant soldier who was given leaves of absence for sessions of the Reichstag and Landtag. He nevertheless succeeded in expanding the International Group and organizing the SPD's staunchest opponents of the war throughout the Reich.
That gave rise to the Spartacus League on January 1, ; it was renamed the Spartacist League after its final break from social democracy in November During the war Liebknecht had few opportunities to make himself heard in the Reichstag. Contrary to customary practice, the Reichstag president did not record in the official minutes the statement that Liebknecht had submitted in writing explaining his vote against the second war loan bill on December 2, Under various pretexts he was subsequently refused the parliamentary floor.
It was not until April 8, that Liebknecht was able to speak from the rostrum on a lesser budget issue. This resulted in what deputy Wilhelm Dittmann called a "chaotic and scandalous scene" such as never before witnessed in the Reichstag. One member snatched Liebknecht's written notes from him and threw the sheets into the hall, and another had to be prevented by members of the Social Democratic Working Group from physically attacking him.
At the Easter Youth Conference in Jena , Liebknecht spoke to 60 young people on anti-militarism and the changing of social conditions in Germany. On May 1, he led an antiwar demonstration in Berlin that had been planned by the Spartacus League.
Even though the demonstrators were surrounded by police, he began his oration with the words "Down with the war! Down with the government! On the first day of the trial, which was intended to be an example for the socialist left, a spontaneous solidarity strike organized by the Revolutionary Stewards took place in Berlin with over 50, participants. Instead of weakening the opposition, Liebknecht's arrest gave new impetus to opposition to the war.
Along with Eduard Bernstein and the Catholic Reichstag deputy Matthias Erzberger of the Centre Party — who like Liebknecht was later murdered by right-wing extremists — Liebknecht was one of a very few German parliamentarians to publicly denounce the human rights violations of Germany's Turkish-Ottoman allies such as the Armenian genocide and the brutal crackdown on other non-Turkish minorities, particularly in Syria and Lebanon.
In some cases support was even publicly justified on the grounds of Germany's strategic interests and the alleged existential threat to Turkey from Armenian and Arab terrorism. Liebknecht speaking at a rally in the Berlin Tiergarten. November revolution [ edit ] Liebknecht was released from prison on October 23, as part of a general amnesty that the Reich government hoped would act as a relief valve for the pre-revolutionary mood in the country. This hope proved illusory, since in Berlin, where Liebknecht went immediately, he was greeted by a cheering crowd at the Anhalter Station.
A march set off in the direction of the Reichstag building but was pushed eastward by the Berlin police. In front of the Russian Embassy Liebknecht gave a speech in which he proclaimed: "Down with the Hohenzollerns! Long live the social republic of Germany! Liebknecht set about reorganizing the Spartacus League, which then emerged as a political organization in its own right. He urged the Revolutionary Stewards, which had organized the January strike, and both the USPD's rank and file and the Spartacus League to jointly coordinate preparations for a nationwide revolution.
They planned a simultaneous general strike in all major cities and parades of armed strikers in front of the barracks of army regiments in order to persuade them to either join or lay down their arms. The Stewards, guided by workers' sentiment in the factories and fearing an armed confrontation with army troops, postponed the date set for the revolution several times, finally to November 11, On October 30, the central executive committee of the USPD, whose members were thinking more of a revolution by peaceful means, rejected his ideas, as did a meeting between the USPD and the Revolutionary Stewards on November 1.
On November 8 the revolution sparked by the sailors' uprising in Kiel spread across Germany independently of Liebknecht's plans. Berlin's Revolutionary Stewards and USPD representatives called on their supporters to join the marches planned for the following day. On November 9 masses of people poured into the center of Berlin from all directions. Liebknecht then became the spokesman for the revolutionary left. In the ensuing disputes, however, it soon became apparent that most workers' representatives in Germany were pursuing social democratic rather than socialist goals.
At the Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Councils of December , , a majority advocated early parliamentary elections and thus self-dissolution of the councils. Liebknecht and Luxemburg were excluded from participation. Since December , Friedrich Ebert SPD , head of the Council of the People's Deputies that was acting as Germany's interim government, had been trying to take power away from the council movement with, if necessary, the help of the army.
He was doing this in accordance with the secret Ebert-Groener pact , under which Wilhelm Groener , Quartermaster General of the German Army, had assured Ebert of the army's loyalty, in return for which Ebert had promised among other things to take prompt action against leftist uprisings.
Ebert had troops assembled in and around Berlin for this purpose. On December 6, he attempted to use the military to prevent the Reich Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Councils from taking place and, after that failed, to weaken the resolution the Congress had made for disempowering the military. On December 24, , during the Berlin Christmas battles , he used military force for the first time, directing it against the People's Navy Division.
It was close to the revolutionary Kiel sailors and was supposed to protect the Reich Chancellery for the Ebert government but was not prepared to leave its positions without pay. As a result of Ebert's successful military intervention against it, the three USPD representatives on the Council of People's Deputies resigned on December 29, after which the council was made up of five SPD representatives.
Friedrich Ebert. The Spartacists, who were gaining popularity throughout the Reich, made use of the military intervention to plan the founding of a new, left-wing revolutionary party and invited their supporters to its founding congress in Berlin at the end of December Beginning on January 8, Liebknecht and other KPD members participated in the Spartacist uprising which began with a general strike and the occupation of several Berlin newspaper buildings.
Liebknecht joined the strike leadership and, against the advice of Rosa Luxemburg, called for an armed insurrection to overthrow the Ebert government. KPD delegates tried without success to persuade some regiments stationed in and around Berlin to defect, and with only minimal support from the mass of the working classes of Berlin, the uprising failed to gain ground. When the government called out the military against the insurgents on January 11, they were quickly overwhelmed.
The total death toll is estimated at around Kill Liebknecht! Rumors circulated among civilians and military personnel — spread among others by Philipp Scheidemann's son-in-law Fritz Henck — that bounties had been placed on the Spartacist leaders.
The fatherland is close to ruin. Save It! It is not threatened from without but from within: the Spartacus Group. Beat their leaders to death! Then you will have peace, work, and bread. Each person involved in the arrest received a reward of 1, marks from the chairman of the Wilmersdorf civic council. Wilhelm Pieck , who was to become president of the German Democratic Republic East Germany from to , entered the apartment unsuspectingly and was also arrested.
After a few minutes of reflection, Pabst decided to have Liebknecht and Luxemburg, who was brought in around 10 p. Pabst said that it was out of the question, to which Noske replied, "Then you yourself must know what is to be done". Pabst charged a group of naval officers under the command of Captain Lieutenant Horst von Pflugk-Harttung with carrying out Liebknecht's murder.
In January Pflugk-Harttung said in an interview that Noske had explicitly ordered Liebknecht's shooting, but when Noske publicly contradicted him, he claimed that he had been misunderstood by the journalist. As they were leaving, Liebknecht was spat on, insulted and struck by hotel guests. Lieutenant Rudolf Liepmann, who also had not been informed by Pabst of the intention to murder Liebknecht, drove the car to the nearby Tiergarten park.
There he feigned a breakdown at a spot "where a completely unlit footpath branched off". Half an hour later, Luxemburg was taken away in an open car and shot about 40 meters from the entrance to the Eden Hotel, apparently by Naval Lieutenant Hermann Souchon. But it did take place, and for that these German idiots should thank Noske and me on their knees, erect monuments to us, and have streets and squares named after us!
That I could not carry out the action without Noske's approval with Ebert in the background and also that I had to protect my officers is clear. But very few people understood why I was never questioned or brought up on charges, and why the court-martial went the way it did, [Kurt] Vogel was freed from prison, and so on.
As a man of honor, I responded to the behavior of the SPD of the time by keeping my mouth shut for 50 years about our cooperation. The burial initially planned by the KPD at the Cemetery of the March Fallen in Friedrichshain was forbidden by both the government and Berlin's municipal authorities. The funeral procession turned into a mass demonstration in which several tens of thousands of people took part in spite of a massive military presence. In the November Revolution Monument was dedicated at the gravesite of the militants in the Friedrichsfelde Cemetery.
Nazi authorities had it demolished in The remains of Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg have never been definitively found or identified. A civilian trial against the murderers of Liebknecht and Luxemburg did not take place, and an investigation into what lay behind them was not initiated. Only after the KPD, through its own investigations led by Leo Jogiches , had revealed the whereabouts of some of the perpetrators, did the Guard Cavalry open court-martial proceedings against them.
The military court prosecutor Paul Jorns impeded the investigations, and in the main trial only Otto Runge and Kurt Vogel were sentenced to prison terms. The only officers charged, the von Pflugk-Harttung brothers, were acquitted. Runge and Vogel later received compensation for their time in prison from the National Socialists.
Pabst was neither prosecuted nor charged, and Vogel was helped to escape by Captain Lieutenant later Admiral Wilhelm Canaris three days after sentencing. Runge, recognized and beaten by workers in and after his release from prison, was tracked down by members of the KPD in Berlin in May and handed over to the Soviet commandant's office on the instructions of senior prosecutor Max Berger. There Runge was presumably shot. He found leisure and calm for his studies only during his time in prison.
His aim was to revise and further develop Karl Marx 's theory of scientific socialism with a more constitutive-constructive theory. In Liebknecht's opinion, Marx had limited his theory too much to the era of capitalism and therefore had not been able to grasp the complexity of social development.
He considered Marx's philosophical and economic foundations to be wrong because they were limited to the materialistic concept of history. Only through the spiritual and psychic essence of economic relations was a connection to human development possible, and through this alone would they be social phenomena. He rejected the theory of value because, in his view, labor could not, as the result of some sort of economic 'spontaneous generation', create surplus value beyond its own intrinsic value.
The value of goods, including labor, was determined instead by the average societal prerequisites of production. For Liebknecht exploitation was purely a problem of distribution and not of production, as Marx had claimed. Value, he argued, was not a fact of capitalist society because it existed before and after capitalist development.
His system would better show that the exploitation of the proletariat would take place through force and discrimination in the distribution of the total production of society. His universal approach was based — unlike Marx's — on concepts of a philosophy of nature.
He saw human society as a unified organism following a higher instinct of development, with the goal of a new, all-encompassing humanism. For him the history of mankind was not determined by class struggles but by struggles for the distribution of social and political functions within a society.
It was not a dialectical process, but an evolutionary process determined by objective and subjective factors. Objective factors were the gradual alignments of the various interest groups in a society arising from the fact that they were driven by insight into the nature and needs of society, and those would increasingly satisfy individual needs. Subjective factors were the conscious political actions of politicians in the interests of higher development, something that would be triggered by the social movement of the proletariat — as a form of development and struggle of the new humanism — because all other social groups would have to give up part of their privileges.
BITCOIN KAS TAI
We generally find greater meaning in what we do when we are doing it for a larger purpose than feeding ourselves or our organization. Think of how you can be your best FOR the world. Finally, when we connect to others in a deeper way, we often feel greater compassion or joy in our relationship with them.
We can strengthen all that we do when we connect with our own Source of inspiration, in whatever ways we connect with this Source. Here are five key outcomes that everyone can benefit from: Boosts morale. Engaging in practices that support spirit in the workplace can uplift the spirits of everyone involved. Influences satisfaction. Since spirit in the workplace encourages each individual to bring their whole self to both work and home, it increases the satisfaction level in both areas.
Strengthens commitment. Being aligned with an organization that fosters the essence of who you are enables you to feel and display a tremendous sense of loyalty. Increases productivity. When you feel a greater sense of connection to your work, you are more motivated to produce good work. Which in turn increases the overall productivity of an organization.
Improves the bottom line. According to a nation-wide study on spirituality in the workplace, organizations which integrate another bottom-line into its practices — like spirituality — actually increase the financial bottom-line. These organizations believe that spirituality could ultimately be the greatest competitive advantage. For example, Southwest Airlines is often described in terms that would identify it as a spirit-driven organization.
This was the only airline to be profitable after the September 11th tragedy that had an incredible financial impact on the airline industry and continues to remain profitable. We began operations in with a revolutionary idea that everyone should be able to afford to fly instead of drive and to enjoy the Safety, comfort, and convenience of air travel.
For the past 38 years, we have devoted ourselves to meeting that goal. It is the Southwest Culture that sets us apart. Doing the right thing for these Employees includes providing them with a stable work environment with equal opportunity for learning and personal growth. Not only do we work hard with what we call a Warrior Spirit, we work smart.
Some struggle with the many stresses of their job. Others may have difficulty balancing their professional and social lives. Spirituality in the workplace may help solve these problems. Employee Priority Most companies place more importance on their clients and their profits. Employees are one of the assets of a company. They are the ones responsible for the day to day activities, and they take care of the nitty-gritty details. However, spirituality leads employees to feel appreciated, and is therefore one of the ways a company can take care of its employees.
Improved Performance Employees perform better when workplace spirituality is in place. Happier employees can churn out more meaningful work. In addition to these benefits, employees are also able to work faster on their tasks when spirituality is present in the workplace. This leads to an overall improved performance for the company itself. As a result, delays are minimized and production is increased.
Want to know how to practice spirituality in the workplace? Press play on the video below for a few practical tips: Ultimately, spirituality in the workplace does a lot of good. This holds true for both the company and its employees. Increased spirituality may bridge the gap many companies fail to acknowledge.
4 comments for “Elisabeth walcher global spirituality in the workplace”
legality of online sports betting in california
better place winnipeg boyz lyrics m
sports betting content providers
market cap of cryptocurrency in 2018