<u>Answer:</u>
The three aspects of present day business that I can name and have their roots in exchange works on amid the medieval times are:
- <em>Production/Consumption. </em>
<u>Explanation:</u>
<em>The dealing framework was dispensed with, a financial framework in view of open rivalry in a free market was made.</em>
Organizations that delivered merchandise and enterprises for clients and built up solid connections among them. Furthermore, the large scale manufacturing and utilization of these products and ventures.
Therefore, The three facets of modern business are capitalism, Marketing, and Production which have their <em>origin in trade practices during the Middle Ages.</em>
I think is president lyndon B. johnson because he fear that he not make it and that scare him alot... abit
Answer:
The Rhode Island city of Providence has a nearly 400-year history integral to that of the United States, including significance in the Transatlantic Slave Trade and the American Revolutionary War by providing leadership and fighting.
<span>Scholars now call this the
New Comedy and it began somewhere in 323 BC. This type of comedy did not deal
with political matters and instead was more like modern comedy shows. These comedies
dealt with everyday things like marriage and love problems. The most prominent
writer of the New Comedy was Menander. His maybe well known and most preserved
play is “Dyskolos”.</span>
This chapter, which analyses the theories of cultural action which develop from antidialogical and dialogical matrices, will make frequent reference to points presented in the previous chapters, either to expand these points or to clarify new affirmations.
I shall start by reaffirming that humankind, as beings of the praxis, differ from animals, which are beings of pure activity. Animals do not consider the world; they are immersed in it. In contrast, human beings emerge from the world, objectify it, and in so doing can understand it and transform it with their labor.
Animals, which do not labor, live in a setting which they cannot transcend. Hence, each animal species lives in the context appropriate to it, and these contexts, while open to humans, cannot communicate among themselves.
But human activity consists of action and reflection: it is praxis; it is transformation of the world. And as praxis, it requires theory to illuminate it. Human activity is theory and practice; it is reflection and action. It cannot, as I stressed in chapter 2, be reduced to either verbalism or activism.
Lenin's famous statement: "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"1 means that a revolution is achieved with neither verbalism nor adtivism, but rather with praxis, that is, with reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed. The revolutionary effort to transform these structures radically cannot designate its leaders as its thinkers and the oppressed as mere doers.
If true commitment to the people, involving the transformation of the reality by which they are oppressed, requires a theory of transforming action, this theory cannot fail to assign the people a fundamental role in the transformation process. The leaders cannot treat the oppressed as mere activists to be denied the opportunity of reflection and allowed merely the illusion of acting, whereas in fact they would continue to be manipulated—and in this case by the presumed foes of manipulation.
The leaders do bear the responsibility for coordination and, at times, direction—but leaders who deny praxis to the oppressed thereby invalidate their own praxis. By imposing their word on others, they falsify that word and establish a contradiction between their methods and their objectives. If they are truly committed to liberation, their action and reflection cannot proceed without the action and reflection of others.
Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to the praxis of the dominant elites, for they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leaders decisions—a dichotomy reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elites. Revolutionary praxis is a unity, and the leaders cannot treat the oppressed as their possession.
Manipulation, sloganizing, "depositing," regimentation, and prescription cannot be components of revolutionary praxis, precisely because they are components of the praxis of domination. In order to dominate, the dominator has no choice but to deny true praxis to the people, deny them the right to say their own word and think their own thoughts. He and she cannot act dialogically; for to do so would mean either that they had relinquished their power to dominate and joined the cause of the oppressed, or had lost that power through miscalculation.
