Windows of the mus·ing - Communism/thinking & value 6. Russian Empire & Russian History 共産社會主義

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]

Windows of the mus·ing - Communism/thinking & value 6. Russian Empire & Russian History

 

 

 

 

 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 a hobby

할머니, 할아버지의 정의 : 일반 대중들, 공무원 국장급 이하, 일반기업체 과장급 이하의 삶을 살아온 60세 이상의 시골사람들.

모든 주문에 적용되어지는 그림들은, 地球人 標準體, 地球人 標準流體를 適用하는 것으로 處理規律되었다.이는 플레이아데스 規律第1條, ANA-PLEIADES규율제1조로서 처리규율되었다.

 

플레이아데스인의 자격과 지위로서 작성 기술되었다. 다만, 취미활동의 일환으로서 현실에 개입하지 않음을 원칙으로 처리규율되었다. 플레이아데스인의 명예를 훼손하는 자들은 무조건 살해토록 처리규율되었다. 후일 반드시 후회하게 되리라. bythePleiadesthesupremebeings.

 

 

 

 

공산주의(共産主義, Communism)는 자본가 계급이 소멸되고, 노동자 계급이 주체가 된 생산수단의 공공 소유에 기반을 둔 무계급 사회 조직, 공동체 형성에 관한 이론, 또는 그러한 체제를 목표로 삼는다고 주장하는 다양한 정치 운동들을 일컫는다. 경제적으로는 필요에 따라 분배받고, 능력에 따라 일하는 경제 구조로 대변된다. 공산주의 정치 운동은 역사적으로 억압받던 계급들의 해방을 주장하고, 그 해방된 주체들의 자유로운 공동체 조직 형성을 궁극적 목표로 설정했지만, 이러한 코뮨주의적 주장은, 19세기 후반 근대제국주의 시대가 도래하면서 미미해지기 시작했다.

공산주의 분파중에 제일 큰 세력을 형성한 분파인 마르크스주의는 코뮨주의와는 매우 다른 양상으로 진행되었다. 그렇기 때문에 현대에서 인식하는 '공산주의'에 대해 정확히 알려면 마르크스주의에 대해 알아야 한다. 공산주의의 라틴어 'communis'는 '함께하는'이라는 뜻이고, '공산(共産)'은 함께 소유하고 생산한다는 뜻이다.

공산주의는 주로 경제 체제라고 흔히 불리지만, 딱 경제 체제로만 구별되어있는 사상이 아니며, 정확히는 경제·정치·사회·철학·통치 체제의 모든 것을 대변하는 사상이라고 할 수 있다. 공산주의는 크게 네 가지 뜻으로 분류되는데 첫 번째로 제일 흔하게 쓰이는 의미는 마르크스주의의 학설적 이론을 통칭하여 부르는 의미로 쓰이는 것이며, 두 번째로는 하나의 이론으로 구성된 체제의 가능성이며, 세 번째로는 프롤레타리아 독재 체제를 실행하고 있는 국가의 정경체제를 부를 때 쓰인다. 네 번째는 '자유로운 개인들의 연합', 즉, 무계급 사회를 지칭하는 용어로 쓰인다. 이렇게 다양한 뜻으로 구분되는 것을 구별하기 위해서 첫글자가 소문자로 쓰여있는 'communism'은 사회주의 체제 국가의 정경체제를 가리켰고, 첫글자가 대문자로 쓰이는 'Communism'은 공산주의를 가리켰다.

 

사회주의(社會主義, Socialism)는 생산 수단의 사적 소유와 소수 관리에 반대하고 공동체주의와 최대 다수의 행복 실현을 최고 가치로 하는 공동 이익 인간관^[1] 을 사회 또는 윤리관의 기반으로 삼고^[2][3] 자원을 효율적으로 분배하며 생산수단을 공동으로 운영하는 협동 경제와 모든 민중이 노동의 대가로서 정당하고 평등하게 분배받는 사회를 지향하는 다양한 사상을 통틀어 일컫는 말이며, 또는 그 과정을 의미하기도 한다. 사회적 소유는 국가, 집단 또는 협동조합의 소유 또는 지분을 시민이 소유하는 형태가 될 수도 있다. 다양한 형태의 사회주의가 존재하며, 사회적 소유라는 공통요소를 공유할 뿐 모든 형태를 포괄하는 한 가지 정의는 없다. 정치적으로 강력하게 등장한 근대적 사회주의인 초기 사회주의는 1826년 최초로 로버트 오언에 의해 주장되었지만, 훨씬 이전인 고대 그리스의 철학자 플라톤에서부터 사회주의와 밀접한 사상이 생겨났었으며, 생시몽의 공동체주의, 토머스 모어의 기독교 평등 사상이 생겨났다. 로버트 오언은 '사회주의'란 용어를 정립화했고, 그 후 유럽 각지에서 푸리에같은 여러 공동체, 집산주의를 지향하며, 이상적인 사회를 꿈꾸는 진보적 학자들에 의해 사회주의는 발전되었다. 오늘날, 사회주의는 민주사회주의나 공산주의와 같은 뜻으로 치환되기도 한다^[4][5



국가사회주의(Nazi, 나치, 나찌, 나치스)(독일어: Staatssozialismus, 한국 한자: 國家社會主義, 영어: State Socialism)는 1862년 독일의 사회주의자 페르디난트 라살레의 저서 《노동자 강령》에서 처음으로 그 용어가 등장했고 로드베르투스 등이 1875년 독일 사회민주노동당에서 고타강령을 채택할 이후부터 주장한 것으로서 국가의 원조로 사회주의를 실현하려고 하는 사상과 운동을 말한다.
 

 국가는 계급과 정치 통제의 도구에서 상호의존적인 협회로 구성된 경제 조정의 주체가 됨으로서 전통적 의미의 국가의 정의에서 벗어날 것이라고 주장되었다

 

^{共産主義와 社會主義의 差異点(오늘의 공부)}

 

共産主義 : 생산수단, 도구(資本)를 國家가 所有한다.

社會主義 : 생산수단, 도구(資本)을 國家 혹은 集團으로서의 團體가 所有한다.
國家社會主義 : 생산수단, 도구(資本)를 국가가 조정, 통제한다(소유한다가 아니라 조정, 통제한다). 階級的, 政治的 統制管理 役割에서 벗어나서, 經濟的 主體로서 役割을 强化한다. 오늘날의 獨逸과 같은 형태의 것으로 推定되어지며, 그러하기에 오늘 날의 現代獨逸이 나치스의 理念을 充實하게 失行하고 있다고 推定되었다.(잘 모르지만 그래 보인다)

 

 

 



Bilderberg Conference

이론적으로 공산주의는 19세기 유럽의 급속한 산업화와 함께 논의되기 시작한 사회주의 정치사상에 그 기원을 둔다. 인류의 초기 사회 조직은 "고대의 공산주의"라 정의될 수 있겠으나 정치 운동으로서의 공산주의는 일반적으로 아직 형성 중인 미래의 사회 체계를 제시한다.
스스로 공산주의자라 부르는 공동체들 사이에는 상당한 견해 차이가 존재한다. 그러나 카를 마르크스(마르크스주의)와 블라디미르 레닌(레닌주의)의 사상에 근접하다고 인식되는 일련의 분파들은 20세기 초 이후 국제 정치계에서 강력한 세력으로 등장하였기 때문에 특별한 주목을 받는다.

마르크스주의 이론에서 계급 투쟁은 핵심적인 역할을 지닌다. 이를 따르면 공산주의 체제의 형성은 자본가 계급(생산수단을 소유하는 이)과 노동자 계급 사이의 계급 투쟁의 최정점이다. 또한, 자본주의 생산 방식에서 공산주의 생산 방식으로 전환하기 위해서는 이른바 "프롤레타리아 독재 또는 프롤레타리아 민주"라 불리는 과도기적 기간이 불가피하다. 마르크스가 제시한, 자본주의 사회에서 형성되는 공산 사회는 역사적으로 실현된 적이 없으므로 하나의 이론적 가능성이다. 그러나 "공산주의"라는 용어는 공산당 체제하에 있는 정치·경제적 사회를 일컫는 일에 흔히 사용된다.

흔히 공산주의의 반대를 민주주의라 칭하나, 공산주의는 정치적 민주주의와 아무런 연관성이 없으며, 공산주의의 정확한 반대어는 자본주의이다.



In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")^[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,^[3][4] and the state.^[5][6]
Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism and anarchism (anarcho-communism), as well as the political ideologies grouped around both. All of these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism; that in this system there are two major social classes; that conflict between these two classes is the root of all problems in society; and that this situation will ultimately be resolved through a social revolution. The two classes are the working class—who must work to survive and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production. The revolution will put the working class in power and in turn establish social ownership of the means of production, which according to this analysis is the primary element in the transformation of society towards communism. Critics of communism can be roughly divided into those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century communist states^[7] and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory.^[8]
Marxist communism and social democracy were the two dominant forms of socialism in the 20th century; social democracy advocates economic reform through gradual democratic legislative action rather than through revolution.

 

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]

 

 

  Кры́мская война́

 

 

 

 

 

크림 전쟁 (Guerre de Crimée; Кры́мская война́ Krymskaya voina 또는 Восто́чная война́ Vostochnaya voina ("동방 전쟁"); Kırım Savaşı)은 1853년 10월부터 1856년 2월까지 크림 반도에서 벌어진 전쟁으로, 러시아 제국이 오스만 제국, 프랑스 제2제국, 대영제국과 사르데냐 왕국이 결성한 동맹군에 패배한 전쟁이다. 전쟁의 촉발 원인은 오스만 제국이 성지에 거주하는 소수 기독교도들의 권리와 연관되어 있었다. 프랑스는 로마 가톨릭교도들의 권리를 증진시키고자 했으나, 러시아 제국은 동방 정교회 신자들의 권리를 증진시키고자 했다. 장기적인 원인에는 오스만 제국의 쇠퇴와 영국 및 프랑스의 러시아 제국 견제가 포함되어 있었다.^[6]
교회들이 각자의 다양성을 해결하고 합의에 도달하는 동안 니콜라이 1세와 나폴레옹 3세는 주장을 굽히는 것을 거절했다. 니콜라이 1세는 러시아 제국의 동방 종교회 국민들이 그의 보호에 놓여야 한다고 주장하는 최후통첩을 보냈다. 영국은 니콜라이 1세가 동의했던 절충안을 처리하고, 중재를 시도하려고 했다. 오스만 제국이 변화를 요구하자 니콜라이 1세는 이를 거절하고 전쟁을 준비했다. 프랑스와 영국의 지지를 약속받은 오스만 제국 정부는 1853년 10월 러시아 제국에 전쟁을 선포했다.
전쟁은 오늘날 루마니아의 일부인 몰다비아 공국, 왈라키아 공국이 있던 다뉴브 강 유역에서 처음 발발했다. 이곳은 1853년 7월 러시아군이 점령했던 지역으로,^[7] 오스만 제국의 종주국이었다. 오마르 파샤의 지휘 하에 오스만 제국군은 다뉴브 강을 건너 격렬한 방어전 이후 실리스트라에서 진군을 정지했다. 동부 아나톨리아에 위치한 카르스 요새에 대한 러시아 제국의 공격은 포위로 이어졌고 오스만 제국의 병력 증원 시도는 시노프 해전에서 러시아 제국 해군에 의해 부대가 궤멸되어 실패로 끝났다. 오스만 제국군의 붕괴를 우려한 영국과 프랑스는 갈리폴리에 군대를 파견했다. 이후 양국 군대는 6월에 바르나로 이동했고, 적절한 시간에 도착해 러시아군이 실리스트라를 포기하는 데 기여했다. 콘스탄차에서 소규모 충돌이 있었지만 연합군이 할 수 있는 일은 많지 않았다. 허비된 노력에 의해 좌절된 이후, 국민들의 전투 요구에 의해 연합군은 흑해의 크림 반도에 위치한 세바스토폴의 러시아 해군 기지를 공격하기로 결정했다. 확장된 준비 기간 끝에 1854년 9월 연합군은 크림 반도에 상륙했고 연이은 승전 이후 세바스토폴 남쪽 입구로 가는 길목에서 전투를 벌였다. 러시아 제국은 발라클라바 전투를 통해 반격을 시도했고 이는 격퇴되었지만, 영국 육군 병력은 이 전투 이후 크게 감소되었다. 두 번째 반격은 오마르 파샤가 이끄는 오스만 제국군에 의해 격퇴되었다. 크림 반도에서의 전투는 포위전으로 바뀌었고 양측 군대에 끔찍한 전선이 이어지게 되었다. 소규모 전투가 발트해, 캅카스 산맥, 백해, 북태평양 일대에서 벌어졌다.
세바스토폴은 11개월 간의 전투 끝에 함락되었고 중립국이 연합국의 편을 들기 시작했다. 전쟁이 이어진다면 서구의 침공이 있을 것이라는 암울하고 고립된 전망이 이어지자 러시아 제국은 1856년 3월 평화를 요구했다. 전쟁이 너무 오랫동안 이어져서 국민들이 전쟁에 반발하기 시작했기 때문에, 영국과 프랑스는 이를 환영했다. 1856년 3월 30일 전쟁은 파리 조약에 의해 종결되었다. 러시아 제국은 흑해에서 적대적인 활동이 금지되었다. 오스만 제국의 속국이었던 왈라키아 공국과 몰다비아 공국은 더 큰 자치권을 얻었다. 이 지역의 기독교도인들은 공식적인 평등권을 얻었고, 동방 정교회는 분쟁 속에서 기독교도들에 대한 통제권을 회복했다.^[8]
크림 전쟁은 포탄과 철도, 전보와 같은 현대 기술을 사용한 최초의 전쟁들 중 하나로 알려져 있다.^[9](Preface) 또한 최초로 이 전쟁은 기사와 전쟁 사진에 의해 기록되기도 했다. 경기병대의 돌격의 전설이 설명하듯, 이 전쟁은 병참, 의료, 그리고 전술적 실패와 실수의 상징이 되었다. 영국 내부에서는 플로렌스 나이팅게일에 의해 의료에 대한 전문성을 이룩함으로써 이를 해결했다.

 

 

 

 프랑스 제2제국 또는 제2제정(Le Second Empire, 1852년 ~ 1870년)은 나폴레옹 3세 통치기간의 프랑스의 정부 체제이다. 프랑스의 최후의 군주정 체제이다.

프랑스 제2제국은 대내적으로 공공사업·철도 건설·은행 사업을 비롯해 공업과 농업발전을 촉진시켰다. 대규모의 기술개발에도 열정을 쏟아 후원했으며 발명가들을 지원했다. 또 파리를 근대적으로 재건한 파리 개조 사업도 이 시기에 있었던 일이다. 대외적으로 팽창 정책을 지지하였으며, 크림 전쟁등에 참전하였다.
그러나 1870년 프랑스-프로이센 전쟁에서 패하여 폐지되었으며, 프랑스 제3공화국이 성립되었다.


The Second French Empire (French: Le Second Empire Français), officially the French Empire (French: Empire Français), was the regime of Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870, between the Second Republic and the Third Republic, in France.
Many historians disparaged the Second Empire as a precursor of fascism. By the late 20th century some were celebrating it as leading example of a modernizing regime.^[1][2] Historians have generally given the Empire negative evaluations on its foreign-policy, and somewhat more positive evaluations of domestic policies, especially after Napoleon liberalized his rule after 1858. He promoted French business, and exports. The greatest achievements came in material improvements, in the form of a grand railway network that facilitated commerce and tied the nation together and centered it on Paris. It had the effect of stimulating economic growth, and bringing prosperity to most regions of the country. The Second Empire is given high credit for the rebuilding of Paris with broad boulevards, striking public buildings, and very attractive residential districts for upscale Parisians. In international policy, Napoleon III tried to emulate his uncle, engaging in numerous imperial ventures around the world as well as several wars in Europe. Using very harsh methods, he built up the French Empire in North Africa and in Southeast Asia. Napoleon III also sought to modernize the Mexican economy and bring it into the French orbit, but this ended in a fiasco. He badly mishandled the threat from Prussia, and by the end of his reign, Napoleon III found himself without allies in the face of overwhelming German force.^[

 French Empire.

 

 British Empire

 

 

Spanish Empire

 

 

 

Portuguese Empire

 

 

 Ottoman Empire

 

The Crimean War (French: Guerre de Crimée; Russian: Кры́мская война́, translit. Krymskaya voyna or Russian: Восто́чная война́, translit. Vostochnaya voyna, lit. 'Eastern War'; Turkish: Kırım Savaşı; Italian: Guerra di Crimea) was a military conflict fought from October 1853 to February 1856^[6] in which the Russian Empire lost to an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and Sardinia. The immediate cause involved the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The French promoted the rights of Roman Catholics, while Russia promoted those of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The longer-term causes involved the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the unwillingness of Britain and France to allow Russia to gain territory and power at Ottoman expense. It has widely been noted that the causes, in one case involving an argument over a key, have never revealed a "greater confusion of purpose", yet led to a war noted for its "notoriously incompetent international butchery".^[7]
While the churches worked out their differences and came to an agreement, Nicholas I of Russia and the French Emperor Napoleon III refused to back down. Nicholas issued an ultimatum that the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire be placed under his protection. Britain attempted to mediate and arranged a compromise that Nicholas agreed to. When the Ottomans demanded changes, Nicholas refused and prepared for war. Having obtained promises of support from France and Britain, the Ottomans declared war on Russia in October 1853.
The war started in the Balkans in July 1853, when Russian troops occupied the Danubian Principalities^[6] (part of modern Romania), which were under Ottoman suzerainty, then began to cross the Danube. Led by Omar Pasha, the Ottomans fought a strong defensive campaign and stopped the advance at Silistra. A separate action on the fort town of Kars in eastern Anatolia led to a siege, and a Turkish attempt to reinforce the garrison was destroyed by a Russian fleet at Sinop. Fearing an Ottoman collapse, France and Britain rushed forces to Gallipoli. They then moved north to Varna in June 1854, arriving just in time for the Russians to abandon Silistra. Aside from a minor skirmish at Köstence (today Constanța), there was little for the allies to do. Karl Marx quipped, "there they are, the French doing nothing and the British helping them as fast as possible".^[8]
Frustrated by the wasted effort, and with demands for action from their citizens, the allied force decided to attack Russia's main naval base in the Black Sea at Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula. After extended preparations, the forces landed on the peninsula in September 1854 and marched their way to a point south of Sevastopol after the successful Battle of the Alma. The Russians counterattacked on 25 October in what became the Battle of Balaclava and were repulsed, but at the cost of seriously depleting the British Army forces. A second counterattack, at Inkerman, ended in stalemate. The front settled into a siege and led to brutal conditions for troops on both sides. Smaller actions were carried out in the Baltic, the Caucasus, the White Sea, and in the North Pacific.
Sevastopol fell after eleven months, and neutral countries began to join the Allied cause. Isolated and facing a bleak prospect of invasion from the west if the war continued, Russia sued for peace in March 1856. This was welcomed by France and Britain, as the conflict was growing unpopular at home. The war was ended by the Treaty of Paris, signed on 30 March 1856. Russia was forbidden to host warships in the Black Sea. The Ottoman vassal states of Wallachia and Moldavia became largely independent. Christians there were granted a degree of official equality, and the Orthodox Church regained control of the Christian churches in dispute.^[9]:415
The Crimean War was one of the first conflicts to use modern technologies such as explosive naval shells, railways, and telegraphs.^{[10](Preface)} The war was one of the first to be documented extensively in written reports and photographs. As the legend of the "Charge of the Light Brigade" demonstrates, the war quickly became an iconic symbol of logistical, medical and tactical failures and mismanagement. The reaction in the UK was a demand for professionalisation, most famously achieved by Florence Nightingale, who gained worldwide attention for pioneering modern nursing while treating the wounded.
The Crimean War^[11] proved to be the moment of truth for Nikolaevan Russia. Its humiliating outcome forced Russia’s educated elites to identify the Empire’s problems and recognize the need for fundamental transformations aimed at modernizing and restoring Russia’s position in the ranks of European powers. Historians have studied the role of the Crimean War as a catalyst for the reforms of Russia’s social institutions: serfdom, justice, local self-government, education, and military service. More recently, scholars have also turned their attention to the impact of the Crimean War on the development of Russian nationalistic discourse.





 

 

 

 

 

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]

1. Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined
2. Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action
3. Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action^[1]
4. 
   

摩(마)訶(하)般(반)若(야)波(바)羅(라)蜜(밀)多(다)心(심)經(경)

觀(관)自(자)在(재)菩(보)薩(살) 行(행)深(심)般(반)若(야)波(바)羅(라)蜜(밀)多(다)時(시) 照(조)見(견)五(오)蘊(온)皆(개)空(공) 度(도)一(일)切(체)苦(고)厄(액)
관자재보살(관세음보살)이 반야바라밀다(부처님의 지혜)를 행할때 오온이 모두 비어 있음을 비추어 보시고 하나이자 전부인 온갖 괴로움과 재앙을 건넜다.
舍(사)利(리)子(자) 色(색)不(불)異(이)空(공) 空(공)不(불)異(이)色(색) 色(색)卽(즉)是(시)空(공) 空(공)卽(즉)是(시)色(색) 受(수)想(상)行(행)識(식) 亦(역)復(부)如(여)是(시)
사리자여, 물질이 공(空)과 다르지 않고 공이 물질과 다르지 않으며 물질이 곧 공이요, 공이 곧 물질이다. 느낌, 생각과 지어감, 의식 또한 그러하니라.
舍(사)利(리)子(자) 是(시)諸(제)法(법)空(공)相(상) 不(불)生(생)不(불)滅(멸) 不(불)垢(구)不(부)淨(정) 不(부)增(증)不(불)減(감)
사리자여, 이 모든 법은 나지도 않고 멸하지도 않으며, 더럽지도 않고 깨끗하지도 않으며, 늘지도 줄지도 않느니라
是(시)故(고) 空(공)中(중)無(무)色(색)無(무)受(수)想(상)行(행)識(식) 無(무)眼(안)耳(이)鼻(비)舌(설)身(신)意(의) 無(무)色(색)聲(성)香(향)味(미)觸(촉)法(법) 無(무)眼(안)界(계) 乃(내)至(지) 無(무)意(의)識(식)界(계)
그러므로 공 가운데는 색이 없고 수 상 행 식도 없으며, 안이비설신의도 없고, 색성향미촉법도 없으며, 눈의 경계도 의식의 경계까지도 없으며
無(무)無(무)明(명) 亦(역)無(무)無(무)明(명)盡(진) 乃(내)至(지) 無(무)老(노)死(사) 亦(역)無(무)老(노)死(사)盡(진)
무명도 무명이 다함까지도 없으며, 늙고 죽음도 늙고 죽음이 다함까지도 없고
無(무)苦(고)集(집)滅(멸)道(도) 無(무)智(지) 亦(역)無(무)得(득) 以(이)無(무)所(소)得(득)故(고) 菩(보)提(리)薩(살)陀(타) 依(의)般(반)若(야)波(바)羅(라)蜜(밀)多(다)
고집멸도도 없으며, 지혜도 얻음도 없느리라. 얻을것이 없는 까닭에 보살은 반야바라밀다를 의지하므로
故(고)心(심)無(무)罣(가)碍(애) 無(무)罣(가)碍(애)故(고) 無(무)有(유)恐(공)怖(포) 遠(원)離(리) (一(일)切(체)) 顚(전)倒(도)夢(몽)想(상) 究(구)竟(경)涅(열)槃(반)
마음에 걸림이 없고, 걸림이 없으므로 두려움이 없어서 뒤바뀐 헛된 생각을 멀리 떠나 완전한 열반에 들어가며
三(삼)世(세)諸(제)佛(불)依(의)般(반)若(야)波(바)羅(라)蜜(밀)多(다) 故(고)得(득)阿(아)耨(뇩)多(다)羅(라)三(삼)藐(먁)三(삼)菩(보)提(리) 故(고)知(지)般(반)若(야)波(바)羅(라)蜜(밀)多(다) 是(시)大(대)神(신)呪(주) 是(시)大(대)明(명)呪(주) 是(시)無(무)上(상)呪(주) 是(시)無(무)等(등)等(등)呪(주) 能(능)除(제)一(일)切(체)苦(고) 眞(진)實(실)不(불)虛(허)
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(고)說(설)般(반)若(야)波(바)羅(라)蜜(밀)多(다)呪(주) 卽(즉)說(설)呪(주)曰(왈)
이제 반야바라밀다주를 말하리라.
揭(아)諦(제)揭(아)諦(제) 波(바)羅(라)揭(아)諦(제) 波(바)羅(라)僧(승)揭(아)諦(제) 菩(모)提(지) 娑(사)婆(바)訶(하)（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