Windows of the mus·ing - Communism/thinking & value 7.Bolsheviks
Windows of the mus·ing - Communism/thinking & value 7.Bolsheviks
共産社會主義
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.
元本來的地球人的朴鐘權을 위하여, 純金 80kg(1次 : 30kg, 2次 : 50kg)을 보냈음에도 불구하고 1次 30kg은 大統領 박정희가 가로채었으며, 2차 50kg은 도무지 소식이 없으므로, 이에 대하여 플레이아데스 聯邦 檢察廳에 告訴處理規律되었다. 관련자 전원을 중벌에 처하도록 처리규율되었으며, 大統領의 地位에 있는 자로서, 말을 한 것에 대하여 지키지 아니하는 사람들에 대해서도, 太陽系的靈團 및 關聯檢察廳에 告訴處理規律되었다.이에 重罰에 처하는 것으로 處理規律되었다.BYTHEANA-PLEIADESTHESUPREMEBEINGS, BYTHEPLEIADESTHESUPREMEBEINGS的.
The proletariat (/ˌproʊlɪˈtɛəriət/ from Latin proletarius "producing offspring") is the class of wage-earners in an economic society whose only possession of significant material value is their labour-power (how much work they can do).[1] A member of such a class is a proletarian.
In Marxist theory, a dictatorship of the proletariat is for the proletariat, of the proletariat, and by the proletariat. On the Marxist view, this will endow the proletarian with the power to abolish the conditions that make a person a proletarian and, thus, build communism.
프롤레타리아(독일어: Proletarier)는 사회적으로 하위 계급의 일원, 프롤레타리아트(독일어: Proletariat)는 하위 계급을 일컫는다. 피지배 계층이라는 의미를 강조하기 위해 무산 계급(無産階級)이라는 용어를 사용하기도 한다. 원 의미는 로마 제국 당시 군에 입대시킬 자신들의 아들(라틴어: proles, 자식) 이외에 부를 소유하지 못하는 무산계급들을 비하하는 의미로 사용되었으나 그 후 카를 마르크스가 사회학적인 용어로 도입하였다.
마르크스는 프롤레타리아란 "자기 자신의 생산 수단을 갖고 있지 않아서 살기 위해 부득이 자신의 노동력을 판매해야 하는 현대 임금 노동자"라고 했다.[1] 그리고 이런 노동자 계급을 프롤레타리아라고 부른다. 또, "프롤레타리아"와 "프롤레타리아트"에 대응하는 용어로는 성 안의 사람이라는 뜻을 가진 프랑스어에서 유래한 부르주아(bourgeois, 계급의 일원) 와 부르주아지(bourgeoisie, 계급)란 용어가 사용된다
bourgeoisie 부르주아지.
안전하고 윤택한 성안에서 사는 사람(상위계층,상류계층)이라는 의미로서 프랑스로부터 유래된 단어라고 하였다.
프랑스어로 ‘성(城)’을 뜻하는 bourg에서 유래한다. 부를 축적한 계급은 안전하고 윤택한 성내에 살고 그렇지 못한 계급은 위험하고 척박한 성외에서 살았으므로 생긴 명칭이다. 이 유래를 좇아 부르주아는 자본가 계급을 뜻하게 되었고 반의어는 무산자를 뜻하는 프롤레타리아이다.
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]
Collective Farm Celebration – Plastov 1937
산업혁명으로 인한 생산성 증가 효과 : ABOUT 30배 ~ ABOUT 200배
산업혁명으로 인한 일인당 수입증가 효과 : ABOUT 2배.
(산업혁명이전 GDP 3,000US$( 영국기준) ~ 산업혁명이후 GDP 7,000US$(영국기준)
양차세계대전 영향 : 양차세계대전이후 가파른 GDP 상승세(서유럽과 미국에 국한)
산업혁명이전 대비 생산성 증가폭 : AD1970YEAR 기준 MAX 200배 생산성 향상.
산업혁명이전 대비 GDP 증가폭 : AD1970YEAR 기준 MAX 7배 증가.
(ABOUT 3,000US$ -> ABOUT 20,000US$)
産業革命 以前의 平均的 GDP 추세
ABOUT : 1,000US$ ~ 3,000US$(現在의 中進國 水準値)
産業革命以前에도, 삶의 질이 그다지 낮지는 않았을 것이라는 推定이 可能하다.
Holland Tours
Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin and Lev Kamenev
The Bolsheviks, originally also Bolshevists[1][a] or Bolsheviki[3] (Russian: большевики, большевик (singular), IPA: [bəlʲʂɨˈvʲik]; derived from bol'shinstvo (большинство), "majority", literally meaning "one of the majority"), were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction[b] at the Second Party Congress in 1903.[4] The RSDLP was a revolutionary socialist political party formed in 1898 in Minsk in Belarus to unite the various revolutionary organisations of the Russian Empire into one party.
In the Second Party Congress vote, the Bolsheviks won on the majority of important issues, hence their name.[5] They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[c] The Bolsheviks, or Reds, came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). With the Reds defeating the Whites and others during the Russian Civil War of 1917–1922, the RSFSR became the chief constituent of the Soviet Union (USSR) in December 1922.
The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov, were by 1905 a major organization consisting primarily of workers under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary working class of Russia. Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism.
볼셰비키(러시아어: большеви́к 볼셰비크 [bəlʲʂɨˈvʲik][*], 문화어: 볼쉐비크)는 블라디미르 레닌이 인솔한, 러시아 사회민주노동당의 분파이다.
1903년 러시아 사회민주노동당이 2차 전당대회에서 다수파인 볼셰비키와 소수파인 멘셰비키가 분열함으로써 탄생하였다. 폭력에 의한 혁명, 철저한 중앙집권에 의한 조직 통제를 주장하였다. 이 특징은, 그대로 후신인 소비에트 연방 공산당 (소련 공산당) 으로 인계되었다. 러시아 내전 종전 후에도 소련을 포함한 유럽 내에서 실질적·형식적으로 꾸준히 공산당 지지자를 가리키는 용어로 쓰였으며, 스탈린 사후부터 이 명칭은 소련 내에서 공식적으로 폐지된다.
1903년에 러시아 사회민주노동당에서 분열돼 나온 다수파(多數派)이다. 분열의 원인은 당원 자격문제인데, 레닌 등은 당원은 당의 일정한 기관에 속하고 언제나 당의 지휘 명령에 복종하며 노동 계급의 전위(前衛)인 자에 한하여야 한다고 주장하였다. 1906년 스톡홀름에서 연합대회가 열리고, 1907년에 런던 대회가 개최되었으나, 국회에 대한 의견 차이 때문에 멘셰비키와 분열된 후 1912년 독립적인 당(黨)임을 선언하였다.
제1차 세계 대전 때는 멘셰비키가 조국 방위를 주창했음에 대해 볼셰비키는 전쟁을 하기보다는 노동자 계급의 해방과 공산주의 혁명에 전념해야 한다고 주장하였다. 또 프롤레타리아 독재를 수립하기 위하여 자본가와의 타협과 기회주의를 배격하고 국제적으로 수정공산주의(修正共産主義)와도 대립했다.
1917년 2월 혁명 당시에는 소비에트내에서 극소수(極少數)에 속했으나, 4월 레닌의 귀국과 더불어 세력이 증대하였다. 7월에 수도 페트로그라드를 중심으로 일어난 무력시위에 애초에는 반대했으나 시위가 시작되자 참가했다. 공산주의자들은 이를 두고, 볼셰비키가 유혈사태를 막아 때이른 봉기로 수도가 고립되고 혁명이 실패할 것을 막았다고 평가한다. 이후 대대적인 반(反)볼셰비키 캠페인으로 일시 열세(劣勢)로 떨어졌으나, 8월말 코르닐로프 반란을 전기(轉機)로 하여 10월에는 20만 명의 당원으로 팽창하여 정권을 획득하는 데 성공하였다. 1918년 3월 급진공산주의파(急進共産主義派)를 눌러 독일과 단독강화(單獨講和)를 맺고 당명(黨名)을 러시아 공산당이라 했다. 그 후 국내전(國內戰)시대에는 혁명의 성과를 지키는 데 노력하는 한편, 밖으로는 1919년 제3인터내셔널을 조직하여 공산주의의 수출을 시도하였다. 1921년에는 네프(신경제정책)를 실시했다. 1926년에 전연방공산당(全聯邦共産黨), 1952년 소비에트연방공산당으로 개명하였다.
The Mensheviks (Russian: Меньшевики́)[1][2] were a faction in the Russian socialist movement, the other being the Bolsheviks.
The factions emerged in 1903 following a dispute in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) between Julius Martov and Vladimir Lenin. The dispute originated at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, ostensibly over minor issues of party organization. Martov's supporters, who were in the minority in a crucial vote on the question of party membership, came to be called Mensheviks, derived from the Russian word меньшинство (minority), while Lenin's adherents were known as Bolsheviks, from большинство (majority).[3][4][5][6][7]
Despite the naming, neither side held a consistent majority over the course of the entire 2nd Congress, and indeed the numerical advantage fluctuated between both sides throughout the rest of the RSDLP's existence until the Russian Revolution. The split proved to be long-standing and had to do both with pragmatic issues based in history, such as the failed Revolution of 1905 and theoretical issues of class leadership, class alliances and interpretations of historical materialism. While both factions believed that a proletarian revolution was necessary, the Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate, and more positive towards the liberal opposition and the peasant-based Socialist Revolutionary Party.[8][9
1903년, 제2회 러시아 사회민주노동당 대회에서 분열되어 나온 율리우스 마르토프에 의하여 통솔된 분파이다. 당을 구성할 때 소 부르주아적인 인텔리, 모든 파업자, 시위운동자에게도 입당을 허락해야 한다고 주장하였다. 이는 입당 자격에 대해 엄격한 기준을 요구하던 레닌 일파인 볼셰비키와는 상반되는 주장이었다. 볼셰비키는 이들을 조직의 해체, 당규율의 파괴, 기회주의, 인텔리적 개인주의 찬미의 시인 등을 선동하는 반혁명적 집단이라고 규정하였고 곧 멘셰비키와 볼셰비키는 갈라지게 된다.
국회에서는 입헌민주당(카데트)과 제휴를 주장했으며, 제1차 세계 대전 시에는 조국방위주의(祖國防衛主義) 입장을 취하였으며, 2월 혁명 때에는 사회혁명당과 함께 임시정부에 참가하여 카데트와 연립정부를 조직하였고, 볼셰비키의 급진 노선에 반대하여 이른바 '임시정부 헌법 내에서의 개혁'을 내세우며 비합법적 혁명 운동의 폐지를 주장하였다. 1917년 10월 볼셰비키 정권이 출현하자 일부는 러시아 백군에 가담하는 등 맹렬한 반혁명운동을 전개하였다. 1927년 이후에는 해당주의(解黨主義)를 주창했다.
Noe Zhordania, Menshevik leader and Prime Minister of Georgia
- 소비에트 연방에서 볼세비키가 권력을 장악한 이유는, 아마도, 멘세비키가, 현실을 잘못 판단하고 있다는 결론적 추정에 의한 것일 것이다. 우리가 보는 바로는, 현대 자본주의 체제 국가에서 제공되어지는, 사회보장제도는, 공산사회주의 혁명과 맞물리는 결과들로서, 아마도 共産社會主義가 없었다면, 社會保障制度 및 福祉制度는, 오늘 날 이렇게 발전하지는 못했을 것이라는 개인적인 의견이다. 영국이 GDP 5,000US$ 시점에서 사회보장제도를 시작한다. 그러나 우리가 보건대 그 시기는, 러시아의 볼세비키 혁명(AD1919YEAR)을 전후로 한 것들이다. 그렇다면, 西歐 資本主義 社會에 福祉制度를 등장시킨 원인적 결과는, 共産社會主義 革命과 無關하지 않으리라.
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
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
搖之不動의 不動의 4大 强國(美國, 英國, 러시아, 中國, 1943年 基準) RUSSIA는, 칭기즈칸을 제외하고는, 敗北한 적이 없는 나라로서 强大國 중에 强大國이라 할 것이다.
오늘의 공부.
Roman Empire
프롤레타리아, 부르조아지라는 단어는 이상하게도 禁忌視되어지는 單語로서, 매우 불온하고 언짢고 불길하고 재수없고 밥맛없는 단어로서 인식되었다.(資本主義 經濟體制下의 國家)
프롤레타리아 : 프롤레스(라틴어, 로마帝國 시대의 用語)로서, 시쳇말로 불알 두쪽외에는 가진 것이 없는 거지로서의 下層民들을 의미하는 單語라고 하였다.
proletariat 프롤레타리아.
In Marxist theory, a dictatorship of the proletariat is for the proletariat, of the proletariat, and by the proletariat. On the Marxist view, this will endow the proletarian with the power to abolish the conditions that make a person a proletarian and, thus, build communism.
마르크스는 프롤레타리아란 "자기 자신의 생산 수단을 갖고 있지 않아서 살기 위해 부득이 자신의 노동력을 판매해야 하는 현대 임금 노동자"라고 했다.[1] 그리고 이런 노동자 계급을 프롤레타리아라고 부른다. 또, "프롤레타리아"와 "프롤레타리아트"에 대응하는 용어로는 성 안의 사람이라는 뜻을 가진 프랑스어에서 유래한 부르주아(bourgeois, 계급의 일원) 와 부르주아지(bourgeoisie, 계급)란 용어가 사용된다
bourgeoisie 부르주아지.
안전하고 윤택한 성안에서 사는 사람(상위계층,상류계층)이라는 의미로서 프랑스로부터 유래된 단어라고 하였다.
프랑스어로 ‘성(城)’을 뜻하는 bourg에서 유래한다. 부를 축적한 계급은 안전하고 윤택한 성내에 살고 그렇지 못한 계급은 위험하고 척박한 성외에서 살았으므로 생긴 명칭이다. 이 유래를 좇아 부르주아는 자본가 계급을 뜻하게 되었고 반의어는 무산자를 뜻하는 프롤레타리아이다.
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]
산업혁명으로 인한 생산성 증가 효과 : ABOUT 30배 ~ ABOUT 200배
산업혁명으로 인한 일인당 수입증가 효과 : ABOUT 2배.
(산업혁명이전 GDP 3,000US$( 영국기준) ~ 산업혁명이후 GDP 7,000US$(영국기준)
양차세계대전 영향 : 양차세계대전이후 가파른 GDP 상승세(서유럽과 미국에 국한)
산업혁명이전 대비 생산성 증가폭 : AD1970YEAR 기준 MAX 200배 생산성 향상.
산업혁명이전 대비 GDP 증가폭 : AD1970YEAR 기준 MAX 7배 증가.
(ABOUT 3,000US$ -> ABOUT 20,000US$)
産業革命 以前의 平均的 GDP 추세
ABOUT : 1,000US$ ~ 3,000US$(現在의 中進國 水準値)
産業革命以前에도, 삶의 질이 그다지 낮지는 않았을 것이라는 推定이 可能하다.
러시아 제국은 정부의 무능을 드러낸 패전의 영향으로 제 1차 러시아 혁명(피의 일요일)을 겪는다.
전쟁에서의 패배는, 매우 심각한 영향을 주는 것으로 추정되었다. 전쟁의 결과는 때로 一國의 國運을 左右하는 것으로 생각되었다.
러일전쟁에서의 패배 : 러시아 革命 誘發의 한가지 原因.
베트남 전쟁에서의 패배 : 美國民들을 無力感과 敗北感 속에 몰아 넣었다.
Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin and Lev Kamenev
The Bolsheviks, originally also Bolshevists[1][a] or Bolsheviki[3] (Russian: большевики, большевик (singular), IPA: [bəlʲʂɨˈvʲik]; derived from bol'shinstvo (большинство), "majority", literally meaning "one of the majority"), were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) which split apart from the Menshevik faction[b] at the Second Party Congress in 1903.[4] The RSDLP was a revolutionary socialist political party formed in 1898 in Minsk in Belarus to unite the various revolutionary organisations of the Russian Empire into one party.
In the Second Party Congress vote, the Bolsheviks won on the majority of important issues, hence their name.[5] They ultimately became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[c] The Bolsheviks, or Reds, came to power in Russia during the October Revolution phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and founded the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). With the Reds defeating the Whites and others during the Russian Civil War of 1917–1922, the RSFSR became the chief constituent of the Soviet Union (USSR) in December 1922.
The Bolsheviks, founded by Vladimir Lenin and Alexander Bogdanov, were by 1905 a major organization consisting primarily of workers under a democratic internal hierarchy governed by the principle of democratic centralism, who considered themselves the leaders of the revolutionary working class of Russia. Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism.
볼셰비키(러시아어: большеви́к 볼셰비크 [bəlʲʂɨˈvʲik][*], 문화어: 볼쉐비크)는 블라디미르 레닌이 인솔한, 러시아 사회민주노동당의 분파이다.
1903년 러시아 사회민주노동당이 2차 전당대회에서 다수파인 볼셰비키와 소수파인 멘셰비키가 분열함으로써 탄생하였다. 폭력에 의한 혁명, 철저한 중앙집권에 의한 조직 통제를 주장하였다. 이 특징은, 그대로 후신인 소비에트 연방 공산당 (소련 공산당) 으로 인계되었다. 러시아 내전 종전 후에도 소련을 포함한 유럽 내에서 실질적·형식적으로 꾸준히 공산당 지지자를 가리키는 용어로 쓰였으며, 스탈린 사후부터 이 명칭은 소련 내에서 공식적으로 폐지된다.
1903년에 러시아 사회민주노동당에서 분열돼 나온 다수파(多數派)이다. 분열의 원인은 당원 자격문제인데, 레닌 등은 당원은 당의 일정한 기관에 속하고 언제나 당의 지휘 명령에 복종하며 노동 계급의 전위(前衛)인 자에 한하여야 한다고 주장하였다. 1906년 스톡홀름에서 연합대회가 열리고, 1907년에 런던 대회가 개최되었으나, 국회에 대한 의견 차이 때문에 멘셰비키와 분열된 후 1912년 독립적인 당(黨)임을 선언하였다.
제1차 세계 대전 때는 멘셰비키가 조국 방위를 주창했음에 대해 볼셰비키는 전쟁을 하기보다는 노동자 계급의 해방과 공산주의 혁명에 전념해야 한다고 주장하였다. 또 프롤레타리아 독재를 수립하기 위하여 자본가와의 타협과 기회주의를 배격하고 국제적으로 수정공산주의(修正共産主義)와도 대립했다.
1917년 2월 혁명 당시에는 소비에트내에서 극소수(極少數)에 속했으나, 4월 레닌의 귀국과 더불어 세력이 증대하였다. 7월에 수도 페트로그라드를 중심으로 일어난 무력시위에 애초에는 반대했으나 시위가 시작되자 참가했다. 공산주의자들은 이를 두고, 볼셰비키가 유혈사태를 막아 때이른 봉기로 수도가 고립되고 혁명이 실패할 것을 막았다고 평가한다. 이후 대대적인 반(反)볼셰비키 캠페인으로 일시 열세(劣勢)로 떨어졌으나, 8월말 코르닐로프 반란을 전기(轉機)로 하여 10월에는 20만 명의 당원으로 팽창하여 정권을 획득하는 데 성공하였다. 1918년 3월 급진공산주의파(急進共産主義派)를 눌러 독일과 단독강화(單獨講和)를 맺고 당명(黨名)을 러시아 공산당이라 했다. 그 후 국내전(國內戰)시대에는 혁명의 성과를 지키는 데 노력하는 한편, 밖으로는 1919년 제3인터내셔널을 조직하여 공산주의의 수출을 시도하였다. 1921년에는 네프(신경제정책)를 실시했다. 1926년에 전연방공산당(全聯邦共産黨), 1952년 소비에트연방공산당으로 개명하였다.
The factions emerged in 1903 following a dispute in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) between Julius Martov and Vladimir Lenin. The dispute originated at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP, ostensibly over minor issues of party organization. Martov's supporters, who were in the minority in a crucial vote on the question of party membership, came to be called Mensheviks, derived from the Russian word меньшинство (minority), while Lenin's adherents were known as Bolsheviks, from большинство (majority).[3][4][5][6][7]
Despite the naming, neither side held a consistent majority over the course of the entire 2nd Congress, and indeed the numerical advantage fluctuated between both sides throughout the rest of the RSDLP's existence until the Russian Revolution. The split proved to be long-standing and had to do both with pragmatic issues based in history, such as the failed Revolution of 1905 and theoretical issues of class leadership, class alliances and interpretations of historical materialism. While both factions believed that a proletarian revolution was necessary, the Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate, and more positive towards the liberal opposition and the peasant-based Socialist Revolutionary Party.[8][9
국회에서는 입헌민주당(카데트)과 제휴를 주장했으며, 제1차 세계 대전 시에는 조국방위주의(祖國防衛主義) 입장을 취하였으며, 2월 혁명 때에는 사회혁명당과 함께 임시정부에 참가하여 카데트와 연립정부를 조직하였고, 볼셰비키의 급진 노선에 반대하여 이른바 '임시정부 헌법 내에서의 개혁'을 내세우며 비합법적 혁명 운동의 폐지를 주장하였다. 1917년 10월 볼셰비키 정권이 출현하자 일부는 러시아 백군에 가담하는 등 맹렬한 반혁명운동을 전개하였다. 1927년 이후에는 해당주의(解黨主義)를 주창했다.
교조적 경제주의
마르크스주의 혁명론에 있어서 카를 카우츠키와 같은 교조적 경제주의 입장을 취했다. 이들은 카를 마르크스의 단계론을 소극적·숙명론적으로 해석하여 2월 혁명이 성공한 시점에서, 혁명적 당이 부르주아의 공세에 대비를 하지 않아도 자본주의가 발전하면서 시간이 지나면 저절로 사회주의 혁명이 발생할 것이라고 믿었다. 이들이 가진 혁명에 있어서 소극주의는 러시아 공화국 임시정부에 의한 사회주의자 탄압이 실질적으로 개시됐음에도 불구하고 계속 이어졌으며, 결국 혁명의 방해 세력으로 작용됐다.[1] 이들은 동시에 자본주의 발전으로 인한 계급투쟁 의식은 전-지구적으로 이미 러시아에도 영향을 주기 때문에 초기 자본주의인 러시아에서 바로 사회주의 국가를 세울 수 있다는 볼셰비키의 주장에 반대했으며, 노농동맹론과 전쟁 중단도 반대했다- 소비에트 연방에서 볼세비키가 권력을 장악한 이유는, 아마도, 멘세비키가, 현실을 잘못 판단하고 있다는 결론적 추정에 의한 것일 것이다. 우리가 보는 바로는, 현대 자본주의 체제 국가에서 제공되어지는, 사회보장제도는, 공산사회주의 혁명과 맞물리는 결과들로서, 아마도 共産社會主義가 없었다면, 社會保障制度 및 福祉制度는, 오늘 날 이렇게 발전하지는 못했을 것이라는 개인적인 의견이다. 영국이 GDP 5,000US$ 시점에서 사회보장제도를 시작한다. 그러나 우리가 보건대 그 시기는, 러시아의 볼세비키 혁명(AD1919YEAR)을 전후로 한 것들이다. 그렇다면, 西歐 資本主義 社會에 福祉制度를 등장시킨 원인적 결과는, 共産社會主義 革命과 無關하지 않으리라.
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