Windows of the mus·ing - Communism/thinking & value 6. Russian Empire & Serfdom in Russia 共産社會主義
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]
共産社會主義
본 시리즈는 다만 취미활동의 일환으로서 작성되었다. 이는 할머니, 할아버지들도 아시게끔 하고자 하는 의도가 포함되었다.(경제와 정치) This series got as
尊重
사람과 사람이 尊重하였다.
그 意味는 아래와 같도다.
王侯將相의 씨가 따로 있다더냐?(그로서 謙遜함의 意味를 알게 되리라)
유방이 세운 한나라는, 中國의 正統性을 가진 唯一한 나라였도다.
유방은 패군(沛郡) 풍현(豊縣)의 중양리(中陽里), 현재 중화인민공화국 강소 성(江蘇省) 서주 시(徐州市) 패현(沛縣)에서 아버지 유태공(劉太公)과 어머니 유온(劉媼)의 셋째 아들로 태어났다. 위로 형 유백·유희가 있었고 아래로 이복 동생 유교가 있었다. 유방의 출생년을 두고서는 설 두 가지가 있다.
유방의 어머니 유온이 유방을 낳기 전에 어느 연못 옆에서 깜빡 잠이 들었는데 몸 위에 붉은 용이 올라오는 꿈을 꾸고서 유방을 낳았다고 한다.[출처 필요][3] 유방의 이름인 '방(邦)'은 《사기》에는 기록되어 있지 않은데 후한의 학자 순열(荀悅, 148년 ~ 209년)이 지은 편년체 역사서 《한기(漢紀)》에 된 기록을 후세 학자들이 《사기》, 《한서》에 주석하면서 한 인용으로, 발굴된 유물 자료들로써 대체로 옳다고 간주되며, 자(字)인 계(季)는 '막내'라는 뜻이다.[4]
유방은 코가 높고 수염이 아름다워 소위 '용안'이라 불리는, 긴 얼굴에 코가 돌출된 듯한 얼굴이었으며 넓적다리에는 반점 72개가 있었다고 한다(72라는 숫자는 1년 360일을 오행사상의 5로 나눈 숫자로서 당시로서는 상당히 길한 수였다)
초기 생애[편집]
진 말기 농민 반란에 가담하기 전의 유방은 소위 '협객(狹客)'으로서, 가업은 뒷전이고 주색에 빠져 살고 있었다. 연고지인 패동(沛東)에 있던 사수(泗水)의 정장(亭長, 지금의 파출소장)으로 취임한 뒤에도 성실하게 임무에 임하지는 않았다. 이때 유방과 함께 일했던 패의 관인 중에는 휴일 유방의 패업(覇業)을 도울 소하(蕭何)와 조참(曹參)도 있었지만, 이들도 아직까지는 유방을 높게 평가하지는 않았는데도 유방에게는 사람을 끌어당기는 묘한 카리스마가 있었고 하는 일이 실패해도 주위에서 옹호해 주었으며, 술집에 들어가면 여기저기서 사람들이 모여 가게가 가득 찼고 이 시기에 장이(張耳)의 식객(食客)으로 있었다는 이야기도 있다.[출처 필요]어느 날 부역 문제로 함양에 간 유방은 그곳에서 시황제(始皇帝)의 행차를 보게 되는데 "흠, 이 세상에 사내대장부로 태어났으면 저 정도는 되어야 하지 않겠나!" 하고 중얼거렸다고 한다.[출처 필요] 이것은 항우가 똑같이 시황제의 행렬을 보며 "저 자리를 언젠가는 내가 대신해 주겠다."[출처 필요] 라고 중얼거렸다는 일화와 곧잘 대비되어 유방과 항우의 성격의 차이를 나타내는 사례로서 인용된다.
한번은 선보(單父, 산동 성) 사람인 여공(呂公)이 자신의 원수를 피해서 유방이 있는 패로 왔는데 당대 명사였던 여공을 환영하는 연회가 열리고 소하가 이 연회를 관리하게 되었다. 패의 사람들이 각각 선물과 돈을 갖고 모였는데 아주 많은 사람이 모여 자리가 부족할 지경이 되자 소하는 가지고 온 선물이 1천 전(錢) 이하인 사람은 땅에 앉도록 했다. 이에 유방이 와서 자신은 전 1만 전의 선물을 가져왔다며 여공에게 전했고 여공이 놀라 문까지 나아가 유방을 맞이하고 상석에 앉혔지만, 유방이 그런 돈이 없는 형편을 잘 알았던 소하는 "유방은 원래 허풍이 심한 사람으로 큰소리나 칠 줄 알았지 뭐 하나 제대로 이루지 못했습니다(그러니 진심으로 대하지 말라)"라고 여공에게 전했지만, 여공은 유방을 환대하면서 그 관상을 보고 자신의 딸을 유방에게 시집보내기까지 했다. 이가 바로 여치이다.[출처 필요]
아내를 맞은 뒤에도 유방의 생활은 변한 것이 없었고 여치는 친가에서 1남 1녀의 아이를 기르며 살았다. 어느 날 여치가 논에서 김매는데 지나가던 한 노인이 여치의 인상과 그 여자의 아들(후일 한 혜제)과 딸(후일 노원공주)의 고귀한 얼굴을 보고서 놀랐다. 돌아온 유방이 이 이야기를 듣고 그 노인에게 관상(龍의 觀象)을 보게 했더니 노인은 "당신이 있어서 부인과 아이들의 인상이 고귀합니다. 당신의 고귀는 말로 다할 수 없습니다"라고 일러주었고 유방은 몹시 기뻐했다고 한다. 《사기》에는 이 밖에도 유방이 천하를 잡을 것을 암시한 몇 가지의 일화를 수록하는데 이 중 유방을 붉은 용의 자식이라고 전한 일화는 한이 화덕(火德)으로 일어났다고 칭한 것과도 연결된다.
New York City
그러나, 전제정치가 그대로 유지되었기 때문에 사회구조를 바꾸는 개혁안은 철저히 배제되었고, 지식인들과 학생들은 자유주의 운동을 전개하는 한편, 사회민주당을 결성하여 사회 개혁을 요구하였다.
하지만, 당시 러시아 제국은 격동하는 시대에 황제 니콜라이 2세는 근본적인 개혁의 소리에 대해서는 귀담아 듣지 않았다. 그는 자신의 제국이 변화 되는 것을 두려워했었기 때문이다.
러일전쟁
1904년 2월, 마침내 일본 제국이 러시아 제국이 점유하고 있던 청나라의 뤼순항을 기습 공격함으로써 러일 전쟁이 발발한다. 전쟁은 치열한 공방전 끝에 예상을 깨고 일본의 승리로 끝났다. 하지만 이 전쟁은 애초에 러시아의 여론은 물론이고 일본의 여론, 미국, 영국, 프랑스 등 서방 국가들의 여론마저 러시아의 승리를 점쳤기에 이 전쟁은 러시아에게 큰 타격이었다. 이로써 국민들은 정부에 대한 불만을 폭발시킨다.피의 일요일
1905년 러일전쟁을 계기로 러시아 정교회 사제의 주도로 개혁을 요구하는 민중 운동이 일어났다. 당시 민중들은 차르의 실체를 보지 못하고 자신들의 아버지로 믿었다.1905년 1월 22일 사제 가폰 신부를 필두로 수많은 노동자와 그 가족들이 상트 페테르부르크의 겨울 궁전으로 몰려들었다. 그들은 평화와 굶주림을 달랠 빵을 달라고 하였으며, 노동조합의 설립과 근로조건의 향상들을 아버지 차르에게 요구하였으나, 차르는 그 요구에 무력 진압으로 답했다. 비무장한 시위대를 상대로 차르의 군대가 발포하였고, 달아나는 군중들을 기마대가 추격하여 학살, 이날 하루에만 3000명 이상의 사상자가 발생하였다.
이 사건을 계기로 차르에 대한 환상이 깨어지고 러시아 제국에 대한 불만이 폭발하였다, 자본가의 착취와 노동자의 인권이 존중되지 않는 열악한 근무환경에 맞선 온갖 파업 투쟁이 끊이지 않았고 1905년 5월 흑해의 러시아 전함 타우리스 공작 포툠킨의 선원들이 반란을 일으켰다가 루마니아 정부에 항복하기도 했다.
1906년 한 해 동안 100만 명이 파업을 일으켰고 농민 반란이 2600건이나 일어났다. 이에 러시아 제국정부는 불만을 잠재우기 위해 '두마'라 불리는 의회를 설치하는 등 개혁을 추진하였으나 농민들과 노동자들의 생활은 여전히 나아지지 않았다.
러시아 민중들의 생활고
이 문단은 아직 미완성입니다. 여러분의 지식으로 알차게 문서를 완성해 갑시다.
제1차 세계대전 참전
피의 일요일 사건 이후 국민들의 불만은 진정되지 않다가 1907년즈음 가서야 겨우 진정되어 갔었다. 한때 러시아에는 연평균 7%의 산업 성장화를 보이면서 위세를 떨치기도 했었다.1914년 제1차 세계대전이 발발할 무렵, 차르에 대한 불만세력이 여전하다고 여긴 니콜라이 2세는 이러한 국내의 불만을 진정시키기 위해 많은 병력을 파병하도록 선전했다.
처음에 민중들은 애국심에 불타서 제1차 세계대전에 많은 지지를 하였고, 무려 1500만 명이나 전선에 나가 지원 했었다.
국민들의 사기저하와 생활고
하지만, 지휘관들의 무능함으로 탄넨베르크 전투에서 자멸적인 대패를 초래했을뿐만 아니라, 수많은 젊은이들이 군에 지원하여 러시아의 노동력은 급격히 저하되었으며, 민중의 복지에 써야 할 국가예산이 전쟁에 사용되면서 민중들의 생활은 오늘 먹을 빵과 우유조차 없을 정도로 아주 어려워졌다.이는 러시아 제국이 얼마나 무능한가를 말해주는 증거였으며 1917년 러시아 민중들에 의해 공산주의 혁명이 일어나는 원인이 되었다.
그럼에도 니콜라이 2세 황제는 1915년부터 직접 전투지휘에 나서며 국정은 황후에 맡기고, 황후를 등에 업은 라스푸틴을 중심으로 국정도 파탄지경에 이르렀다.
The Russian Revolution was a pair of revolutions in Russia in 1917 which dismantled the Tsarist autocracy and led to the rise of the Soviet Union. The Russian Empire collapsed with the abdication of Emperor Nicholas II and the old regime was replaced by a provisional government during the first revolution of February 1917 (March in the Gregorian calendar; the older Julian calendar was in use in Russia at the time). Alongside it arose grassroots community assemblies (called 'Soviets') which contended for authority. In the second revolution that October, the Provisional Government was toppled and all power was given to the Soviets.
The February Revolution (March 1917) was a revolution focused around Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg), the capital of Russia at that time. In the chaos, members of the Imperial parliament (the Duma) assumed control of the country, forming the Russian Provisional Government which was heavily dominated by the interests of large capitalists and the noble aristocracy. The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution, resulting in Tsar Nicholas's abdication. The Soviets, which were dominated by soldiers and the urban industrial working class, initially permitted the Provisional Government to rule, but insisted on a prerogative to influence the government and control various militias. The February Revolution took place in the context of heavy military setbacks during the First World War (1914–18), which left much of the Russian Army in a state of mutiny.
A period of dual power ensued, during which the Provisional Government held state power while the national network of Soviets, led by socialists, had the allegiance of the lower classes and, increasingly, the left-leaning urban middle class. During this chaotic period there were frequent mutinies, protests and many strikes. Many socialist political organizations were engaged in daily struggle and vied for influence within the Duma and the Soviets, central among which were the Bolsheviks ("Ones of the Majority") led by Vladimir Lenin who campaigned for an immediate end to the war, land to the peasants, and bread to the workers. When the Provisional Government chose to continue fighting the war with Germany, the Bolsheviks and other socialist factions were able to exploit virtually universal disdain towards the war effort as justification to advance the revolution further. The Bolsheviks turned workers' militias under their control into the Red Guards (later the Red Army) over which they exerted substantial control.[1]
In the October Revolution (November in the Gregorian calendar), the Bolsheviks led an armed insurrection by workers and soldiers in Petrograd that successfully overthrew the Provisional Government, transferring all its authority to the Soviets with the capital being relocated to Moscow shortly thereafter. The Bolsheviks had secured a strong base of support within the Soviets and, as the now supreme governing party, established a federal government dedicated to reorganizing the former empire into the world's first socialist republic, practicing Soviet democracy on a national and international scale. The promise to end Russia's participation in the First World War was honored promptly with the Bolshevik leaders signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March 1918. To further secure the new state, the Cheka was established which functioned as a revolutionary security service that sought to weed out and punish those considered to be "enemies of the people" in campaigns consciously modeled on similar events during the French Revolution.
Soon after, civil war erupted among the "Reds" (Bolsheviks), the "Whites" (counter-revolutionaries), the independence movements and the non-Bolshevik socialists. It continued for several years, during which the Bolsheviks defeated both the Whites and all rival socialists and thereafter reconstituted themselves as the Communist Party. In this way, the Revolution paved the way for the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1922. While many notable historical events occurred in Moscow and Petrograd, there was also a visible movement in cities throughout the state, among national minorities throughout the empire and in the rural areas, where peasants took over and redistributed land.
Serfdom became the dominant form of relation between peasants and nobility in the 17th century. Serfdom most commonly existed in the central and southern areas of the Russian Empire. Serfdom in the Urals and Siberia was widely unseen until, during the reign of Catherine the Great, businesses began to send serfs into those areas in an attempt to harvest their large amount of untapped natural resources [1]
Tsar Alexander I wanted to reform the system but was thwarted in this ambition. New laws allowed all classes (except the serfs) to own land, a privilege that had previously been confined to the nobility.[2] Russian serfdom was finally abolished in the emancipation reform of 1861 by Tsar Alexander II. Scholars have proposed multiple overlapping reasons to account for the abolition, including fear of a large-scale revolt by the serfs, the government's financial needs, evolving cultural sensibilities, and the military's need for soldiers
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]
産業革命으로 인한 英國 綿織物, 毛織關聯 生産性 增加値 : 30倍 以上 增加.
産業革命으로 인하여 生産性은 1870年 基準으로, 그 以前 대비로는 30倍 이상 增加되었으나, 實質 給與, 賃金은 2倍 정도 增加되는데 그쳤다. (1770년 대비 1870년 기준치)
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