Windows of the mus·ing - Communism/thinking & value 3. House of Romanov 共産社會主義
House of Romanov
독일인들은, 예전에도 말했듯이, 일반적인 보통의 지구인들과는 좀 달라 보였다.
북구유럽의 신화에 등장하는, 오딘ODIN과 토르THOR는 어딘지 모르게 다른 세상을 상징한다. 獨逸人들의 발음은, "니벨룽겐"이라는 단어가 암시해주는 무언가 다른 세상을 기억하게 하는 듯 하다.
共産社會主義, 國家社會主義의 本鄕이 獨逸이라는 사실은 時事하는 바가 있다 할 것이다.
우리가 성장하던 무렵, 朴正熙 政權 時代의 思想들은, 共産主義를 惡魔시했으며, 蛇蝎보듯 했으며, 무섭고 두려운 存在로서 刻印시켰으며, 불가촉적인 恐怖의 대상체들로 묘사되었는바, 현재도 한국의 자본가들과 정권들에 의하여 그렇게 인지되도록 조작되었는바, 다만, 실제적 사실들은 그렇지는 않을 것이라는 추론하에 이 시리즈를 연재해 본다. 우리는 그러한 推定을 獨逸로부터 推論해낼 수 있었던 듯 하다.
국가사회주의 독일 노동자당(國家社會主義獨逸勞動者黨, 독일어: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 나치오날조치알리스티셰 도이체 아르바이터파르타이[*], 약칭 NSDAP 엔에스피디[*])은 1919년부터 1945년까지 존재했던 독일의 정당이다. 일명 ‘나치’(Nazi), ‘나치스’(Nazis), ‘나치당’으로도 부른다.
나치는 반유대주의, 반공주의, 전체주의, 인종주의, 군국주의를 중점 정책으로 내세웠으나, 이러한 이념과 사회주의를 절충한 게 논란이다. 제1차 세계 대전의 평화협정인 베르사유 조약에 강력히 반대해서 폭넓은 지지를 얻었으며, 이른바 인종본질주의 ‘아리아인’, ‘게르만인’이나 ‘독일인’ 우월주의를 주장하였다. 당 정책은 25개조 강령에 잘 드러난다.
국가사회주의 독일 노동자당은 '나치'(독일어: Nazi [ˈnaːtsi], 단수 및 접두사) 또는 '나치스'([ˈnaːtsis], 나치의 복수형)라는 이름으로 부르기도 하는데, 이 나치라는 줄임말을 널리 사용하고 있다.[2]
당명의 Nationalsozialistisch를 ‘국가사회주의’(國家社會主義)로 번역하느냐 ‘민족사회주의’(民族社會主義)로 번역하느냐에는 논란이 있다. 독일어 단어 ‘Nation’은 국민, 국가 또는 민족을 뜻하는 낱말이다.
한편, 사회주의라는 말의 어원은 그 나라의 공장, 토지, 농지, 기업 등의 생산수단의 소유권을 자본가들이 소유하느냐, 국가가 소유하느냐, 당이 소유하느냐에 따라 자본주의와 민족사회주의와 볼셰비즘으로 분리되며 히틀러는 이 중 공장 등의 생산수단을 국가가 소유할 것을 분명히 하였으므로 민족을 아무리 그 정당강령에서 중요시하였다하더라도 사회주의라는 단어를 나치즘에 사용하려면 민족사회주의로 번역을 하는 것이 사회주의라는 정의에 부합한다고 보는 주장도 있다.[누가?] 이는 마르크스의 이론에 의한 중간단계로서의 국가가 소유권을 가지는 사회주의 이론에도 부합한다.
‘제3제국’(das Dritte Reich, [das ˌdʁɪtʰə ˈʁae̯ç])이라는 표현은 아돌프 히틀러가 신성 로마 제국을 제1제국, 1871년 통일의 결과로 수립된 독일 제국을 제2제국이라고 부르고 자신이 수립한 나치 독일 체제가 독일 국민의 세 번째 제국으로서 천 년을 갈 것이라고 주장한 이후 사용되었다. 물론, 히틀러가 천 년 동안 지속될 것이라고 호언장담을 했던 제3제국은 12년 4개월 밖에 유지되지 못했다. 나치즘(영어: Nazism)은 나치의 사상 체계 및 그들이 수립한 전체주의 체제를 뜻하는 것으로 혼용되어 사용된다.
共産社會主義와 로마노프 왕조.본 시리즈는 다만, 취미활동을 목적으로 작성되었다. This series got asa hobby.
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "Rule by 'People'") is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.[1][2] "Rule of the majority" is sometimes referred to as democracy.[3] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.
The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[4] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city-states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. The English word dates back to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
According to American political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[5] Todd Landman, nevertheless, draws our attention to the fact that democracy and human rights are two different concepts and that "there must be greater specificity in the conceptualisation and operationalization of democracy and human rights".[6]
The term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[7] The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[8] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[9]
的的及的的徧的的浹的的李健熙的的及的的徧的的浹的的庶子的的及的的徧的的浹的的이서현的的及的的徧的的浹的的洪羅喜的的及的的徧的的浹的的李在鎔的的及的的徧的的浹的的李健熙的的及的的徧的的浹的的無條件的的及的的徧的的浹的的殺害的的及的的徧的的浹的的除去的的及的的徧的的浹的的消滅的的及的的徧的的浹的的持續的的及的的徧的的浹的的處理的的及的的徧的的浹的的恒久的的及的的徧的的浹的的處理的的及的的徧的的浹的的永久的的及的的徧的的浹的的處理的的及的的徧的的浹的的永遠的的及的的徧的的浹的的處理的的及的的徧的的浹的的무한(無限) 반복(反復)的的及的的徧的的浹的的處理的的及的的徧的的浹的的諸一切的的及的的徧的的浹的的ether醚的的及的的徧的的浹的的體的的及的的徧的的浹的的無關係的的及的的徧的的浹的的dependence (up)on的的及的的徧的的浹的的Pleiades的的及的的徧的的浹的的su·preme的的及的的徧的的浹的的being的的及的的徧的的浹的的Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "Rule by 'People'") is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting. In a direct democracy, the citizens as a whole form a governing body and vote directly on each issue. In a representative democracy the citizens elect representatives from among themselves. These representatives meet to form a governing body, such as a legislature. In a constitutional democracy the powers of the majority are exercised within the framework of a representative democracy, but the constitution limits the majority and protects the minority, usually through the enjoyment by all of certain individual rights, e.g. freedom of speech, or freedom of association.[1][2] "Rule of the majority" is sometimes referred to as democracy.[3] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.
The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[4] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city-states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. The English word dates back to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
According to American political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[5] Todd Landman, nevertheless, draws our attention to the fact that democracy and human rights are two different concepts and that "there must be greater specificity in the conceptualisation and operationalization of democracy and human rights".[6]
The term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[7] The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[8] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[
A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.[1][2][3]
In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2][better source needed] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.[8]
As of 2017[update], 159 of the world’s 206 sovereign states use the word “republic” as part of their official names – not all of these are republics in the sense of having elected governments, nor is the word “republic” used in the names of all nations with elected governments. While heads of state often tend to claim that they rule only by the “consent of the governed”, elections in some countries have been found to be held more for the purpose of “show” than for the actual purpose of in reality providing citizens with any genuine ability to choose their own leaders.[9]
The word republic comes from the Latin term res publica, which literally means “public thing,” “public matter,” or “public affair” and was used to refer to the state as a whole. The term developed its modern meaning in reference to the constitution of the ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 B.C. to the establishment of the Empire in 27 B.C. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats and wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
Most often a republic is a single sovereign state, but there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics, or that have governments that are described as “republican” in nature. For instance, Article IV of the United States Constitution "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government".[10] In contrast, the former Soviet Union, which described itself as being a group of “Republics” and also as a “federal multinational state composed of 15 republics”, was widely viewed as being a totalitarian form of government and not a genuine republic, since its electoral system was structured so as to automatically guarantee the election of government-sponsored candidates.[
The term originates from the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as "republic" (or similar terms in various western European languages).[citation needed]
The term politeia can be translated as form of government, polity, or regime and is therefore not always a word for a specific type of regime as the modern word republic is. One of Plato's major works on political science was titled Politeia and in English it is thus known as The Republic. However, apart from the title, in modern translations of The Republic, alternative translations of politeia are also used.[12]
However, in Book III of his Politics, Aristotle was apparently the first classical writer to state that the term politeia can be used to refer more specifically to one type of politeia: "When the citizens at large govern for the public good, it is called by the name common to all governments (to koinon onoma pasōn tōn politeiōn), government (politeia)". Also amongst classical Latin, the term "republic" can be used in a general way to refer to any regime, or in a specific way to refer to governments which work for the public good.[13]
In medieval Northern Italy, a number of city states had commune or signoria based governments. In the late Middle Ages, writers such as Giovanni Villani began writing about the nature of these states and the differences from other types of regime. They used terms such as libertas populi, a free people, to describe the states. The terminology changed in the 15th century as the renewed interest in the writings of Ancient Rome caused writers to prefer using classical terminology. To describe non-monarchical states writers, most importantly Leonardo Bruni, adopted the Latin phrase res publica.[14]
While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the states of Northern Italy, which were not monarchies, the term res publica has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. The term can quite literally be translated as "public matter".[15] It was most often used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire.[16]
In subsequent centuries, the English word "commonwealth" came to be used as a translation of res publica, and its use in English was comparable to how the Romans used the term res publica.[17] Notably, during The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell the word commonwealth was the most common term to call the new monarchless state, but the word republic was also in common use.[18] Likewise, in Polish the term was translated as rzeczpospolita, although the translation is now only used with respect to Poland.
Presently, the term "republic" commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right.[
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]
Economists, political economists, sociologists and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,[9] obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation, and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism.[10][11] The extent to which different markets are free as well as the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning.[12]
Market economies have existed under many forms of government and in many different times, places and cultures. Modern capitalist societies—marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages, and a capitalist class which owns the means of production—developed in Western Europe in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution. Capitalist systems with varying degrees of direct government intervention have since become dominant in the Western world and continue to spread. Over time, capitalist countries have experienced consistent economic growth and an increase in the standard of living.
Critics of capitalism argue that it establishes power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of the majority working class and their labor; prioritizes profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and is an engine of inequality, corruption and economic instabilities. Supporters argue that it provides better products and innovation through competition, disperses wealth to all productive people, promotes pluralism and decentralization of power, creates strong economic growth, and yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefit society
The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and it dates back to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"—also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries in the sense of referring to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest.[24]:232[25][26] By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and it was frequently interchanged with a number of other words—wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.[24]:233
The Hollandische Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.[24]:234 In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788,[27] six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792).[26][28] In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times.[29] Samuel Taylor Coleridge, an English poet, used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823).[30] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term "capitalist" in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term "capitalist" in his 1845 work Sybil.[26]
The initial usage of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour").[24]:237 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the "capitalistic system"[31][32] and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Capital (1867).[33] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Capital, p. 124 (German edition) and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2,600 times in the trilogy The Capital. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term "capitalism" first appeared in English in 1854 in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where he meant "having ownership of capital".[34] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the phrase "private capitalism" in 1863.
The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."[2] The phrase "the rule of law" refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.
Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings.[3] John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. "The rule of law" was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers; for example, Aristotle wrote: "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens".[4]
The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges.[5] In this sense, it stands in contrast to a monarchy or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law.[citation needed] Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and monarchies, for example, because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it.
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of philosophy called axiology.[2]
Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[1]
觀自在菩薩 行深般若波羅蜜多時 照見五蘊皆空 度一切苦厄
관자재보살(관세음보살)이 반야바라밀다(부처님의 지혜)를 행할때 오온이 모두 비어 있음을 비추어 보시고 하나이자 전부인 온갖 괴로움과 재앙을 건넜다.
舍利子 色不異空 空不異色 色卽是空 空卽是色 受想行識 亦復如是
사리자여, 물질이 공(空)과 다르지 않고 공이 물질과 다르지 않으며 물질이 곧 공이요, 공이 곧 물질이다. 느낌, 생각과 지어감, 의식 또한 그러하니라.
舍利子 是諸法空相 不生不滅 不垢不淨 不增不減
사리자여, 이 모든 법은 나지도 않고 멸하지도 않으며, 더럽지도 않고 깨끗하지도 않으며, 늘지도 줄지도 않느니라
是故 空中無色無受想行識 無眼耳鼻舌身意 無色聲香味觸法 無眼界 乃至 無意識界
그러므로 공 가운데는 색이 없고 수 상 행 식도 없으며, 안이비설신의도 없고, 색성향미촉법도 없으며, 눈의 경계도 의식의 경계까지도 없으며
無無明 亦無無明盡 乃至 無老死 亦無老死盡
무명도 무명이 다함까지도 없으며, 늙고 죽음도 늙고 죽음이 다함까지도 없고
無苦集滅道 無智 亦無得 以無所得故 菩提薩陀 依般若波羅蜜多
고집멸도도 없으며, 지혜도 얻음도 없느리라. 얻을것이 없는 까닭에 보살은 반야바라밀다를 의지하므로
故心無罣碍 無罣碍故 無有恐怖 遠離 (一切) 顚倒夢想 究竟涅槃
마음에 걸림이 없고, 걸림이 없으므로 두려움이 없어서 뒤바뀐 헛된 생각을 멀리 떠나 완전한 열반에 들어가며
三世諸佛依般若波羅蜜多 故得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 故知般若波羅蜜多 是大神呪 是大明呪 是無上呪 是無等等呪 能除一切苦 眞實不虛
삼세의 모든 부처님도 이 반야바라밀다를 의지하므로 최상의 깨달음을 얻느니라. 반야바라밀다는 가장 신비하고 밝은 주문이며, 위없는 주문이며, 무엇과도 견줄 수 없는 주문이니, 온갖 괴로움을 없애고 진실하여 허망하지 않음을 알지니라.
故說般若波羅蜜多呪 卽說呪曰
이제 반야바라밀다주를 말하리라.
揭諦揭諦 波羅揭諦 波羅僧揭諦 菩提 娑婆訶（3）
'아제아제 바라아제 바라승아제 모지 사바하'（3）
(Gate Gate paragate parasamgate Bodhi Svaha:가테 가테 파라가테 파라삼가테 보디 스바하)
가자, 가자, 피안(彼岸)으로 가자, 피안으로 넘어가자, 영원한 깨달음이여的的及的的遍的的民主主義的的及的的遍的的
독일인들은, 예전에도 말했듯이, 일반적인 보통의 지구인들과는 좀 달라 보였다.
북구유럽의 신화에 등장하는, 오딘ODIN과 토르THOR는 어딘지 모르게 다른 세상을 상징한다. 獨逸人들의 발음은, "니벨룽겐"이라는 단어가 암시해주는 무언가 다른 세상을 기억하게 하는 듯 하다.
共産社會主義, 國家社會主義의 本鄕이 獨逸이라는 사실은 時事하는 바가 있다 할 것이다.
우리가 성장하던 무렵, 朴正熙 政權 時代의 思想들은, 共産主義를 惡魔시했으며, 蛇蝎보듯 했으며, 무섭고 두려운 存在로서 刻印시켰으며, 불가촉적인 恐怖의 대상체들로 묘사되었는바, 현재도 한국의 자본가들과 정권들에 의하여 그렇게 인지되도록 조작되었는바, 다만, 실제적 사실들은 그렇지는 않을 것이라는 추론하에 이 시리즈를 연재해 본다. 우리는 그러한 推定을 獨逸로부터 推論해낼 수 있었던 듯 하다.
국가사회주의 독일 노동자당(國家社會主義獨逸勞動者黨, 독일어: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 나치오날조치알리스티셰 도이체 아르바이터파르타이[*], 약칭 NSDAP 엔에스피디[*])은 1919년부터 1945년까지 존재했던 독일의 정당이다. 일명 ‘나치’(Nazi), ‘나치스’(Nazis), ‘나치당’으로도 부른다.
나치는 반유대주의, 반공주의, 전체주의, 인종주의, 군국주의를 중점 정책으로 내세웠으나, 이러한 이념과 사회주의를 절충한 게 논란이다. 제1차 세계 대전의 평화협정인 베르사유 조약에 강력히 반대해서 폭넓은 지지를 얻었으며, 이른바 인종본질주의 ‘아리아인’, ‘게르만인’이나 ‘독일인’ 우월주의를 주장하였다. 당 정책은 25개조 강령에 잘 드러난다.
국가사회주의 독일 노동자당은 '나치'(독일어: Nazi [ˈnaːtsi], 단수 및 접두사) 또는 '나치스'([ˈnaːtsis], 나치의 복수형)라는 이름으로 부르기도 하는데, 이 나치라는 줄임말을 널리 사용하고 있다.[2]
당명의 Nationalsozialistisch를 ‘국가사회주의’(國家社會主義)로 번역하느냐 ‘민족사회주의’(民族社會主義)로 번역하느냐에는 논란이 있다. 독일어 단어 ‘Nation’은 국민, 국가 또는 민족을 뜻하는 낱말이다.
한편, 사회주의라는 말의 어원은 그 나라의 공장, 토지, 농지, 기업 등의 생산수단의 소유권을 자본가들이 소유하느냐, 국가가 소유하느냐, 당이 소유하느냐에 따라 자본주의와 민족사회주의와 볼셰비즘으로 분리되며 히틀러는 이 중 공장 등의 생산수단을 국가가 소유할 것을 분명히 하였으므로 민족을 아무리 그 정당강령에서 중요시하였다하더라도 사회주의라는 단어를 나치즘에 사용하려면 민족사회주의로 번역을 하는 것이 사회주의라는 정의에 부합한다고 보는 주장도 있다.[누가?] 이는 마르크스의 이론에 의한 중간단계로서의 국가가 소유권을 가지는 사회주의 이론에도 부합한다.
‘제3제국’(das Dritte Reich, [das ˌdʁɪtʰə ˈʁae̯ç])이라는 표현은 아돌프 히틀러가 신성 로마 제국을 제1제국, 1871년 통일의 결과로 수립된 독일 제국을 제2제국이라고 부르고 자신이 수립한 나치 독일 체제가 독일 국민의 세 번째 제국으로서 천 년을 갈 것이라고 주장한 이후 사용되었다. 물론, 히틀러가 천 년 동안 지속될 것이라고 호언장담을 했던 제3제국은 12년 4개월 밖에 유지되지 못했다. 나치즘(영어: Nazism)은 나치의 사상 체계 및 그들이 수립한 전체주의 체제를 뜻하는 것으로 혼용되어 사용된다.
共産社會主義와 로마노프 왕조.본 시리즈는 다만, 취미활동을 목적으로 작성되었다. This series got as
The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[4] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city-states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. The English word dates back to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
According to American political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[5] Todd Landman, nevertheless, draws our attention to the fact that democracy and human rights are two different concepts and that "there must be greater specificity in the conceptualisation and operationalization of democracy and human rights".[6]
The term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[7] The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[8] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[9]
The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[4] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is generally considered to have originated in city-states such as Classical Athens and the Roman Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. The English word dates back to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
According to American political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protection of the human rights of all citizens; a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.[5] Todd Landman, nevertheless, draws our attention to the fact that democracy and human rights are two different concepts and that "there must be greater specificity in the conceptualisation and operationalization of democracy and human rights".[6]
The term appeared in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία, aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[7] The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class, until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[8] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[
A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a “public matter”, not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy. It is a form of government under which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.[1][2][3]
In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2][better source needed] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.[8]
As of 2017[update], 159 of the world’s 206 sovereign states use the word “republic” as part of their official names – not all of these are republics in the sense of having elected governments, nor is the word “republic” used in the names of all nations with elected governments. While heads of state often tend to claim that they rule only by the “consent of the governed”, elections in some countries have been found to be held more for the purpose of “show” than for the actual purpose of in reality providing citizens with any genuine ability to choose their own leaders.[9]
The word republic comes from the Latin term res publica, which literally means “public thing,” “public matter,” or “public affair” and was used to refer to the state as a whole. The term developed its modern meaning in reference to the constitution of the ancient Roman Republic, lasting from the overthrow of the kings in 509 B.C. to the establishment of the Empire in 27 B.C. This constitution was characterized by a Senate composed of wealthy aristocrats and wielding significant influence; several popular assemblies of all free citizens, possessing the power to elect magistrates and pass laws; and a series of magistracies with varying types of civil and political authority.
Most often a republic is a single sovereign state, but there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are referred to as republics, or that have governments that are described as “republican” in nature. For instance, Article IV of the United States Constitution "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government".[10] In contrast, the former Soviet Union, which described itself as being a group of “Republics” and also as a “federal multinational state composed of 15 republics”, was widely viewed as being a totalitarian form of government and not a genuine republic, since its electoral system was structured so as to automatically guarantee the election of government-sponsored candidates.[
The term originates from the Latin translation of Greek word politeia. Cicero, among other Latin writers, translated politeia as res publica and it was in turn translated by Renaissance scholars as "republic" (or similar terms in various western European languages).[citation needed]
The term politeia can be translated as form of government, polity, or regime and is therefore not always a word for a specific type of regime as the modern word republic is. One of Plato's major works on political science was titled Politeia and in English it is thus known as The Republic. However, apart from the title, in modern translations of The Republic, alternative translations of politeia are also used.[12]
However, in Book III of his Politics, Aristotle was apparently the first classical writer to state that the term politeia can be used to refer more specifically to one type of politeia: "When the citizens at large govern for the public good, it is called by the name common to all governments (to koinon onoma pasōn tōn politeiōn), government (politeia)". Also amongst classical Latin, the term "republic" can be used in a general way to refer to any regime, or in a specific way to refer to governments which work for the public good.[13]
In medieval Northern Italy, a number of city states had commune or signoria based governments. In the late Middle Ages, writers such as Giovanni Villani began writing about the nature of these states and the differences from other types of regime. They used terms such as libertas populi, a free people, to describe the states. The terminology changed in the 15th century as the renewed interest in the writings of Ancient Rome caused writers to prefer using classical terminology. To describe non-monarchical states writers, most importantly Leonardo Bruni, adopted the Latin phrase res publica.[14]
While Bruni and Machiavelli used the term to describe the states of Northern Italy, which were not monarchies, the term res publica has a set of interrelated meanings in the original Latin. The term can quite literally be translated as "public matter".[15] It was most often used by Roman writers to refer to the state and government, even during the period of the Roman Empire.[16]
In subsequent centuries, the English word "commonwealth" came to be used as a translation of res publica, and its use in English was comparable to how the Romans used the term res publica.[17] Notably, during The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell the word commonwealth was the most common term to call the new monarchless state, but the word republic was also in common use.[18] Likewise, in Polish the term was translated as rzeczpospolita, although the translation is now only used with respect to Poland.
Presently, the term "republic" commonly means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity or divine right.[
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]
Economists, political economists, sociologists and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,[9] obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation, and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism.[10][11] The extent to which different markets are free as well as the rules defining private property are matters of politics and policy. Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning.[12]
Market economies have existed under many forms of government and in many different times, places and cultures. Modern capitalist societies—marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages, and a capitalist class which owns the means of production—developed in Western Europe in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution. Capitalist systems with varying degrees of direct government intervention have since become dominant in the Western world and continue to spread. Over time, capitalist countries have experienced consistent economic growth and an increase in the standard of living.
Critics of capitalism argue that it establishes power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of the majority working class and their labor; prioritizes profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and is an engine of inequality, corruption and economic instabilities. Supporters argue that it provides better products and innovation through competition, disperses wealth to all productive people, promotes pluralism and decentralization of power, creates strong economic growth, and yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefit society
The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and it dates back to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"—also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries in the sense of referring to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest.[24]:232[25][26] By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and it was frequently interchanged with a number of other words—wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.[24]:233
The Hollandische Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.[24]:234 In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788,[27] six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792).[26][28] In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times.[29] Samuel Taylor Coleridge, an English poet, used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823).[30] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term "capitalist" in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term "capitalist" in his 1845 work Sybil.[26]
The initial usage of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labour").[24]:237 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels referred to the "capitalistic system"[31][32] and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Capital (1867).[33] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Capital, p. 124 (German edition) and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2,600 times in the trilogy The Capital. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the term "capitalism" first appeared in English in 1854 in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where he meant "having ownership of capital".[34] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the phrase "private capitalism" in 1863.
The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as: "The authority and influence of law in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes."[2] The phrase "the rule of law" refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.
Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain, and in the following century the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings.[3] John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. "The rule of law" was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers; for example, Aristotle wrote: "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens".[4]
The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and judges.[5] In this sense, it stands in contrast to a monarchy or oligarchy where the rulers are held above the law.[citation needed] Lack of the rule of law can be found in both democracies and monarchies, for example, because of neglect or ignorance of the law, and the rule of law is more apt to decay if a government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it.
Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concerns matters of value, and thus comprises the branch of philosophy called axiology.[2]
Ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime. As a field of intellectual inquiry, moral philosophy also is related to the fields of moral psychology, descriptive ethics, and value theory.
Three major areas of study within ethics recognized today are:[1]
- Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
- Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
- Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action[1]
觀自在菩薩 行深般若波羅蜜多時 照見五蘊皆空 度一切苦厄
관자재보살(관세음보살)이 반야바라밀다(부처님의 지혜)를 행할때 오온이 모두 비어 있음을 비추어 보시고 하나이자 전부인 온갖 괴로움과 재앙을 건넜다.
舍利子 色不異空 空不異色 色卽是空 空卽是色 受想行識 亦復如是
사리자여, 물질이 공(空)과 다르지 않고 공이 물질과 다르지 않으며 물질이 곧 공이요, 공이 곧 물질이다. 느낌, 생각과 지어감, 의식 또한 그러하니라.
舍利子 是諸法空相 不生不滅 不垢不淨 不增不減
사리자여, 이 모든 법은 나지도 않고 멸하지도 않으며, 더럽지도 않고 깨끗하지도 않으며, 늘지도 줄지도 않느니라
是故 空中無色無受想行識 無眼耳鼻舌身意 無色聲香味觸法 無眼界 乃至 無意識界
그러므로 공 가운데는 색이 없고 수 상 행 식도 없으며, 안이비설신의도 없고, 색성향미촉법도 없으며, 눈의 경계도 의식의 경계까지도 없으며
無無明 亦無無明盡 乃至 無老死 亦無老死盡
무명도 무명이 다함까지도 없으며, 늙고 죽음도 늙고 죽음이 다함까지도 없고
無苦集滅道 無智 亦無得 以無所得故 菩提薩陀 依般若波羅蜜多
고집멸도도 없으며, 지혜도 얻음도 없느리라. 얻을것이 없는 까닭에 보살은 반야바라밀다를 의지하므로
故心無罣碍 無罣碍故 無有恐怖 遠離 (一切) 顚倒夢想 究竟涅槃
마음에 걸림이 없고, 걸림이 없으므로 두려움이 없어서 뒤바뀐 헛된 생각을 멀리 떠나 완전한 열반에 들어가며
三世諸佛依般若波羅蜜多 故得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 故知般若波羅蜜多 是大神呪 是大明呪 是無上呪 是無等等呪 能除一切苦 眞實不虛
삼세의 모든 부처님도 이 반야바라밀다를 의지하므로 최상의 깨달음을 얻느니라. 반야바라밀다는 가장 신비하고 밝은 주문이며, 위없는 주문이며, 무엇과도 견줄 수 없는 주문이니, 온갖 괴로움을 없애고 진실하여 허망하지 않음을 알지니라.
故說般若波羅蜜多呪 卽說呪曰
이제 반야바라밀다주를 말하리라.
揭諦揭諦 波羅揭諦 波羅僧揭諦 菩提 娑婆訶（3）
'아제아제 바라아제 바라승아제 모지 사바하'（3）
(Gate Gate paragate parasamgate Bodhi Svaha:가테 가테 파라가테 파라삼가테 보디 스바하)
가자, 가자, 피안(彼岸)으로 가자, 피안으로 넘어가자, 영원한 깨달음이여的的及的的遍的的民主主義的的及的的遍的的
댓글
댓글 쓰기