Capitalism FTW.

Oh boy CAPITALISM. It had to come to this.
All of those who do not know what capitalism is you've came to the right spot.
"Capitalism is generally considered by scholars to be an economic system that includes private ownership of the means of production creation of goods or services for profit or+ income the accumulation of capital competitive markets, voluntary exchange, and wage labor." Wikipedia is so simple at explaining things -_-

This is what capitalism basically means in simple terms: An economic system where things can be bought (such as property or products) by an individual or a group of people, not by the government. This also includes that people can work for money in order to buy things they need such as food. Sounds good right? Well there are some negative things about it.
 Let’s go over the pro’s and con’s, shall we?
Some of the positive things include that it creates competition in the country. It encourages people to work very hard to achieve wealth and prestige. I mean, face it, it’s the only modern economic system that is successful. It provides endless opportunities for all and the individual is in charge of their own life and what they can buy and how much money they could be paid according to how hard they work and etc etc.
Although it is proven to be successful, it is also proven to be terribly unfair. What about those people who weren’t fortunate enough to have parents who did not teach them how to succeed or encourage them to attend school? Capitalism does not provide a safety net for that; it just says “Too bad, fix it yourself” and holds you accountable for your life decisions.

I like capitalism. Even though it is unfair, it is the only thing that works. You’re on your own; work hard, get a good job, and live your life the way you want it. Thanks for reading! Do YOU like capitalism? If so, are your reasons similar to mine? Please leave a comment below! Stay tuned for next week’s blog, you happy bloggers! 

Oh Globalization, How I Love You

'Ello! Happy EASTER, everyone! Thanks for joining in this week's blog. Everyone has heard of globalization at least once in their lives but what is it? And is it good or bad for our planet??

SWell I'm glad you asked! (kinda) Globalization basically has to do with the distribution and trade of goods and services from country to country in order to increase the global relationships of cutlure, people, and economic activity.

But is it a good thing? SOUNDS LIKE IT!

It creates a lot of jobs for employees, it creates better relationships between countries that can benefit the entire world. It promotes global trust and it has increased the speed of travel, communication, and information accessibility through the internet!

But, yes it does have some problems. It causes the high class to get richer and the lower class to get poorer. So it isn't really benefiting necessarily everybody in the world; just the rich people.

HOWEVER, stay with me. I think that globalization is still a very good thing that happened to the world because  it is clear that the pro's outweigh the con's. Although, it does make the lower class even poorer and causes them to work under bad conditions, I believe that countries have advanced due to this.

But what is your opinion on this? Comment in the section below!

Thank you and keep coming back for next week's blog! :D

Being Rational in Sociology? HARDLY.

Heyyy all of you awesome bloggers! This week's blog will be covering the positivist and interactionist approaches and which one better suits sociology.

Interview!

The positivist approach has to do with more rational thinking. It uses quantitative data such as statistics and hard-core facts. Whereas the interactionist approach uses interviews and people's behaviors to figure out the way they act in society. This, in my opinion, provides better methods at gaining a deeper knowledge of sociological issues because sociology is not about the hard-core facts, being rational, and depending on certain equations and statistics. It is a social science that uses no other evidence than questionnaires, interviews, and discussions with people. This allows the sociologist to deeper understand the person within and why they act a certain way in society or what role they serve. Quantitative data alone is simply not enough to let a researcher or sociologist understand these things. 

What do you think? Interactionist or Positivist? Leave a comment below! Thank you! :D

Why am I in poverty?

Hello fellow bloggers and friends!

In this week's blog topic we are going to discuss poverty and how the culture came about. Are you born poor? Do others make you poor such as the elite? How does it work?

Well it all comes down to about 3 theories.

Numero UNO. The Marxist view on the culture of poverty relates to the theory of the elite dominating the poor ones. So basically the theory states that the reason one is poverty is due to the elite controlling the country and the wealth of the economy. This actually makes sense in my opinion but I agree with another theory as well. 

Which brings us to Numero DOS. There is this cycle that people believe puts them into poverty no matter what. Once one is born into a low-class family, one is bound to be poor because they don't have enough money to create something of themselves (i.e. go to college, get a well paying job) and don't have a successful role model's footsteps to follow in the family. I believe this 100% because you see it everywhere. However, there are some instances where it is not the case.

So, Numero TRES. This theory states that people can enter and leave poverty at any time. It kind of cancels the second theory I explained but it is also true. Although some people are destined to be in poverty when they are born and for the rest of their lives because of their poor families, there are some cases where people could achieve their goals and be successful through hard work in school and life.

Aaand that's it folks! Please comment and tell me if you agree!!! YOU'RE AWESOME. :D

The Elites think they're ALL THAT... Oh, wait a minute.

Hello, all you fellow bloggers! From the title of the blog, you can already tell what I am going to be talking about. The Elites and how they affect the popular culture.

Well, first, before we get to the fun stuff, let me give you a bit of background knowledge on the elites and who they really are. They're extremely rich and looked up to. But they're a part of the minority. And this is when you ask, "But why, oh great Denitsa, are they capable of influencing the majority, the Popular Culture, when they are just a small group of people? Why do we care?" Hmm, what a great question indeed!

The reason why we care is because of the media and other institutions we follow. You see, this 'small group of people' has the money and power to control the media and basically what is "in" and what is "out".

The popular culture follow the music, the fashion, and the art of the elite because that is what is popular.

So, yes, we as the majority (because let's face it, most of us aren't filthy rich), look up to this High Culture and follow the common trends made by them.

That may sound offensive since I know most people say that their styles are original and they listen to original music that isn't mainstream, then you're all just freakin hipsters. And hipsters right now are "in". So congrats on being mainstream.

Comment! ;D (yes, I just had to add that hipsters comment at the end...can you blame me?)

Symbolic Interactionism!

Hello all you fellow bloggers! I'm not too fond of this blog topic this week mostly because of this theory. Just to give my opinion on it, I don't particularly like symbolic Interactionism. It was just the worst to understand at first... I mean just look at its definition: " a sociological theory that places emphasis on micro-scale social interaction to provide subjective meaning in human behavior, the social process and pragmatism." Thanks a lot for putting in simple terms, Wikipedia. -_-
Anyway, it basically means the symbols people use to interact with each other. Some symbols are words, rules, roles, etc.
There is a debate going about whether symbolic interactionism is a social science or of it pertains to psychology. I believe it Is a part of sociology because sociology discusses relationships within society and why people act the way that they do. Symbolic interactionism fits that because It discusses the interactions of individuals through these symbols and the way they act towards others.
Other opinions? Tell me what YOU think in the comment section below please!
THANKS! :)

Functionalism kicks Marxism's butt.

Yep, it says it all in the title. This week's blog will be about all these sociological theories. Two in particular-- Functionalism and Marxism. When it comes down to choosing which theory does a better job at explaining how society operates, the answer is clear. FUNCTIONALISM.

For those of you who don't know, functionalism is the theory that institutions provide societal functions to people in society. Basically, it makes it so that everybody has a function. For example, I am a student, daughter, sister, cousin, etc. Wouldn't you all say that functionalism withstands our rapidly changing society more so than Marxism? I assume that most people reading this are attending school. So, one of your roles/functions you have is being a student DUE TO the institution of education/school. Other institutions include the media, the government, religion, education, etc. 

Functionalism also goes on to explain socialization early in the childhood stage, which is also correct and seen in today's world. That theory basically states that children are socialized by human contact when they learn the norms and values of society, such as their family and social groups in school and outside of school. It is said that prolonged interaction with adults is needed in order for one to become human. 

Marxism is just some idea that Marx believed will happen but still hasn't. He believed that class struggles will end when the proletariat will dominate over the bourgousie due to inequality in society, and then a classless society will emerge. This sounds to good to be true, and nowhere near does it describe how today's society operates. 

What do you think? Is functionalism a better theory than Marxism in describing the society we live in today? Submit your opinions in the comment section below!

Thanks guys! I don't even have to tell you to "Stay AWESOME" anymore. You're too AWESOME for that.