Military Review

Political educational program

42
Article No. Zero



Earlier, I published on this site an article on the concepts of socialism and capitalism. The accumulating contradictions are pushing me to revert to the possibilities of the article as a lecture chair.

Likbez always, like any lecture, is a rather boring event, but without an understanding of the terms we can lose the main thing - our language. Let this article give an understanding to those who are not sure of their positions. I will try to describe some concepts from my point of view. Of course, if I am wrong, the reader may indicate a discrepancy. The purpose of these articles is to bring the readers' brains, including the author, into order. Since the institution of Marxism-Leninism received a black mark, in 90-s, an educational vacuum in the political sphere was formed in our country. Without in any way questioning the erudition of my reader, I will begin.
Political educational program

Help: wiki

Historically, the concept of "literacy" arose as a reduction of the "liquidation of illiteracy" - the state program of Soviet Russia, which was initiated by the decree of the Council of People's Commissars "On the Elimination of Illiteracy in the RSFSR" of December 26 of 1919. According to him, the entire population of Soviet Russia from the age of 8 to 50 years, who could not read or write, was obliged to learn to read and write in native or Russian (optional). The people's commissariat of education was granted the right to involve all competent persons in the training of illiterate people on the basis of labor service. The decree also provided for the creation of schools for overgrowths, schools for orphanages, colonies and other institutions.

Democracy "on the fingers"


To firmly know and understand the term "democracy", it is not enough to hear a lengthy explanation of the "power of the people." Democracies have existed since the days of the caveman, they were simply expressed in different ways. The modern concept of "democracy" has nothing to do with democracy, for example, the slave system. Yes, yes, do not be surprised, for the first time the term "democracy" was heard in free Greece, in which more than half of the population were slaves! In which women, for example, did not have the right to vote. Nor did criminals, the military, the poor, children, and even some segments of the population, who are called “lumpens”, also had this right. Here is such a wonderful "democracy."



Help: TSB

Democracy (Greek demokratía, literally - democracy, from demos - people and krátos - power), a form of political organization of society based on the recognition of people as a source of power, on its right to participate in solving public affairs and giving citizens a wide range of rights and freedoms. D. in this regard serves primarily as a form of state.

D.'s differences as a form of the state from its other forms (despotism, autocracy, open military dictatorship, etc.) are: official recognition of the principle of the subordination of the minority to the majority; equality of citizens, the presence of broad political and social rights and freedoms, the election of the main organs of the state, the leading role of elective representative bodies in the system of state institutions, the rule of law, etc.


After that, porridge arises in the head. The United States is talking about democracy, Europe is shouting about tolerance, but really it is the other way around: the US authorities assume the use of this democracy only for its citizens. And that, apparently, in order to "democratic" use special. funds in the fight against objectionable. Until listening to phones, tracking and checking unreliable citizens. In Europe, “gays” are attacking education, the media in order to change the existing majority opinion.

So what is this phantom - DEMOCRACY? Let's understand "on the fingers." Imagine you met a friend in a cafe. We sat, talked and quietly went home - this is a manifestation of democracy. You have satisfied your needs without straining each other, and just went your separate ways. Now the situation is more piquant: you came to a cafe with a girl (or boyfriend). We sat, drank coffee, the guy paid for the coffee and you broke up. And then what to do? After all, both dissatisfied left (and maybe even satisfied - it does not matter). As Vladimir Volfovich once said: “And the guy paid for it!” But this, of course, is a special case. As soon as the third character appears, politics arises. You do not just have to drink coffee, but also to talk with two interlocutors. And if the question arises in this way: where to go after the cafe, then that very form of statehood is included - elections. Two people will convince the third in the correctness of their decision. Either the person will be separated from the choice of those two, or will accept their point of view. I think this is fair, and you? So democracy is the choice of the majority! Democracy has existed at all times and has always been the engine of social development. Even among the slaves there was a “democracy”.

Democracy and authority

Help: wiki

Authority (him. Autorität, from the Latin. Auctoritas - "power, influence") - in a general sense: the value and based on the value or with him combined power; in the narrow - the influence of mental, inducing respect, delivered by the possession of excellent and recognized power or outstanding and recognized wisdom, knowledge, virtues. The influence of the individual, based on his position, position, status, etc.

The authority consists in recognizing the subject (carrier) of outstanding achievements, knowledge, skills, abilities, his special position in society, their significance for humanity, for a particular object, the sphere of social life, science, and based on this non-violent influence. carrier on one or another object, causing a certain historically changing form of the subordination of actions and thoughts of people to the provisions and norms arising from the attitudes of the subject.




Imagine you have a cow rested, and the food is over, if you leave, the calf can not stand the cold and die, and if you do not move, the cow can die. What to do? And everything is very simple - to ask a neighbor to buy food at the market - he still goes there. This is called "delegation of authority." In order to solve problems without being directly present at the place of their solution, a delegate is needed. The delegate should certainly be an authority for you. You do not trust the purchase of food to a person who last time drank your money, but did not buy food.

In this sense, a certain number of the population delegates its powers to the delegate, who embodies their desires in concrete laws, purchases and other activities, whether it be road construction or city improvement. Now the reader will simply tear me into small pieces - they say what you chew, and so everything is clear!

And I guys do not understand! I vote for a candidate with a request to build a subway in my city, and he builds a summer house with my money. I say: I need protection from bandits, and he himself is a gangster. I say, I need my child to be smart, strong and able to change the world, and he is taught where to steal, and that Stalin is bad. I shout: “My children and children of my children should not be gay anymore”, but they answer me: you do not have enough tolerance, and “gays” are just like everyone else, only tortured by the persecution of hetero-fascists. Everything is perverted as soon as a society of "money-dependent" appears.

Here money controls the levers in order to make more money. In order to achieve the democratic principle of power, only one thing remains: to exclude money from power. Actually, this principle already existed and proved its viability - democratic centralism.

Help: TSB

Democratic centralism is a form of government (along with federalism, autonomy, and bureaucratic centralism), based on the necessity of deciding the higher authorities for subordinate bodies in the election of all bodies and their subordinate accountability. Under democratic centralism, all parliamentary decisions are binding on all local councils, while local councils themselves are elected by the people; Cabinet decisions are also binding on local administrations, with local administrations being elected by local councils and accountable to both local councils and the cabinet or higher local administration. Examples of democratic centralism are Italy (since 1947), Poland, Norway, Portugal, the FER, and centralism is declared in the DPRK, the PRC, the NRW, the Lao PDR, declared in the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, the SRR, the USSR.




Oh, again, I seem to have gone too far. And they will try to break me up with the phrase: “Isn’t it right with us?” I’ll answer - not so! We do not report to anyone for anything. They report to the authorities, but not to the voters! In extreme cases, write: did so much, on the social. programs spent so much, so many roads built - that's all the information. Moreover, the sovereignties declared by Mr. Yeltsin undermined the principle of central authority. Now a lot of laws enacted at the local level are refuted by federal laws in court. At DC such is impossible, because the adoption of such laws is impossible. In the USSR, this principle worked really. Higher accountable to the lowest to the fullest and theft from the treasury very much punished - not just a prisoner for a month, but up to the ultimate penalty. Because stealing or taking bribes was extremely risky.

Liberalism


Help: TSB

Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of every person the highest value and establishes them as the legal basis of social and economic order. At the same time, the possibilities of the state and the church to influence the life of society are limited by the constitution. The most important freedoms in liberalism are the freedom to speak publicly, the freedom to choose a religion, the freedom to choose one’s representatives in fair and free elections. In economic terms, the principles of liberalism are the inviolability of private property, freedom of trade and enterprise.




Here, the brain begins to explode completely: if democracy is the power of the majority, then where is liberalism? Indeed: liberals shout about democracy, forgetting that this very democracy is its enemy! Because if the majority decides that everyone must believe in God, then a violation of this rule is a crime against society! If democracy forbids pedophiles, the principle of liberalism will be violated. Democracy and liberalism are antipodes!

Tolerance


Help: wiki

Tolerance. (from the Latin. tolerantia - patience) - a sociological term for tolerance to a different worldview, lifestyle, behavior and customs. Tolerance is tantamount to indifference! It also does not mean adopting a different worldview or lifestyle, it is about presenting to others the right to live in accordance with their own worldview.

Tolerance means respect, acceptance and correct understanding of other cultures, ways of self-expression and manifestation of human individuality. Under tolerance does not mean a concession, condescension or indulgence. The manifestation of tolerance also does not mean tolerance for social injustice, renouncing one's convictions or giving in to another's convictions, as well as imposing one's convictions on other people.




Everything. The brain finally exploded. In the first case, tolerance means that you should not give a damn about what your neighbor is shitting on your head. In the second, it looks more noble: you can step aside. Then what falls from above will not touch you. But the principle of democracy is the power of the people! And not a tolerance for vulgarity and violation of your traditions and principles of the existence of this society. And here you are - you have to endure! Again not democratic somehow. Conclusion: and tolerance is the opposite of democracy.

So what do modern democrats mean when they put these incompatible concepts together? But what ... Imagine: a child comes up to dad and asks:

- Dad, can I ride a bike?

- Of course, son, just do not fall on the road.

Mom on the threshold:

- Where are you, son?

- Skate, my dad allowed.

- You will not go anywhere until the lessons are done!

Upset baby goes to his room. And here it dawns.

He goes to daddy again. Dad asks in surprise, that this child does not roll, but the child says - now, now, and when he returns, he tells his mother that his father sent him outside. As a result, the scandal between the parents, and the son has nothing to do with it. That's what this porridge is for. So that those in power could plunder their own population with impunity, referring to tolerance, liberalism, and sometimes even democracy from head to toe.

Democracy is the power of the MAJORITY over the minority, and not vice versa, and let geyropeytsy, oligarchs, tolerastov, and the like, do not intimidate you. Power should not be bought, bribed, but only delegated! As it was 30 years ago. In our “bear”, “unenlightened”, “forgotten god”, tragic, authoritarian, totalitarian, but such a great homeland - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!

Author:
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. smel
    smel 26 December 2013 07: 18
    +11
    A PLUS. In detail, annoying, but fairly described.
    But tolerance - rather mental illness reminds
    1. bomg.77
      bomg.77 26 December 2013 07: 29
      +10
      Democracy and liberalism are the antipodes!
      Thanks to the author! hi The conclusion is unexpected, but true. From this conclusion, it turns out that the saying "In troubled waters to fish" is very appropriate.
      Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of each person as the supreme value and establishes them as the legal basis of social and economic order.
      Our priority is society, not egoism, and therefore liberalism does not take root.
      1. Asgard
        Asgard 26 December 2013 09: 07
        +5
        Dmitry BRAVO! Sensibly, Briefly, essentially with pictures)))) images
        Many on this topic get a long, boring, one-sided ....
        The topic is fully disclosed and leaves no interpretation.
        You do not have a case with a sister named Brevity (Mildness, Kratia))) ???
        I would gladly delegate my authority)))))
        To you (both))))
        1. dddym
          26 December 2013 15: 23
          +2
          thank you :) I also embroider a cross :)))
          1. Mature naturalist
            Mature naturalist 27 December 2013 13: 42
            0
            It is written well, but the author has forgotten or simply does not know from his youth that there were two concepts not described in the article in the USSR: "nomenclature" and "blat".

            So the phrase: "Power should not be bought, bribed, but only delegated!" - this is a theory, but in practice 99.96% of voters voted for a single and indestructible bloc of communists and non-party people, who delegated their powers to a list approved by the district committee, city committee, regional committee and other party committees.
            1. dddym
              27 December 2013 18: 11
              0
              the author of 44 of the year was both nomenclature and blat - certainly! However, this nomenclature did for the country more than the current leadership dozens of times. And about the blat so now the blat in general in all areas. Now even a dachshund is in place in the Zak meeting, and even in the City Council. And you can even become a governor with money and connections. And try to find a decent job in the company without fawning and without connections. I did not parse these terms since the article was devoted to another.
              1. Mature naturalist
                Mature naturalist 27 December 2013 19: 12
                0
                Quote: dddym
                the author is 44 years old

                2013 - 44 = 1969
                1982 (Brezhnev's death) - 1969 = 13 years - a pioneer, because joined the Komsomol from the age of 14
                I envy!
                1. dddym
                  27 December 2013 19: 41
                  -1
                  I was a Komsomol member and I entered there consciously
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. dddym
              27 December 2013 18: 39
              0
              At first I wanted to reveal the topic of blat and nomenclature in the post - however, it is clear that it cannot be conveyed in this way. I have to write another article. About blat and nomenclature.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Ivan.
        Ivan. 26 December 2013 22: 40
        0
        Quote: bomg.77
        Our priority is society, not egoism, and therefore liberalism does not take root.

        Our priority, at least, was justice and other values ​​bequeathed to us by our ancestors and Christ.
        Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of each person as the supreme value and establishes them as the legal basis of social and economic order.

        And this is the priority of pleasures (desires of the body) over the essence (the soul created or born by God) and is the only "commandment" of antichrist. We can say that liberalism is the temptation of the soul by the serpent.
    2. a52333
      a52333 26 December 2013 07: 45
      +6
      I am gnawed from time to time by a contradictory thought: money is evil. Those. it seems impossible without them, but where they are at the forefront - do not expect good. So an interesting situevina turns out: you can't do without them, you strive for them without sparing your efforts and time, but when they appear, you do not become happier. Closer to the topic: in the USSR, they were not at the forefront, and it was even shameful to strive for them. I don’t know how to call our modern system democracy or an authoritarian state, but our "beloved" TV tirelessly spurs us on to this run for money, making us less happy. Moreover, this applies not only to an individual person, but also to an entire enterprise: a farmer (agro-industrial holding) stuffs his products with chemistry in order to get more and faster, etc.
      I am sorry that it’s not entirely on the topic of the article, just the theme inspired.
      1. dddym
        26 December 2013 08: 03
        +4
        The power of money has nothing to do with democracy at all.
        1. Ivan.
          Ivan. 26 December 2013 23: 09
          0
          Quote: dddym
          The power of money has nothing to do with democracy at all.

          I would not say that under certain conditions they easily replace the majority. No wonder there is an expression "the power of money", "money is power and power is money."
      2. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 26 December 2013 11: 18
        +1
        Quote: a52333
        A contradictory thought gnaws at me from time to time: money is evil
        And evil, as you know, is always lacking ...

        Money is the equivalent of the value of goods, labor services - anything.
        There is nothing wrong with them as long as they do not turn into a financial instrument (loan interest), and the resulting negative is directly proportional to the adequate level of guarantees: the lower the level of guarantees, the less its compliance with modern conditions, the higher the desire to have money like An airbag means less selectivity in how to make money.

        There is still commonplace greed and eagerness, but this is already from the sphere of psychiatry.
      3. Ivan.
        Ivan. 26 December 2013 23: 04
        +1
        Quote: a52333
        I am sorry that it’s not entirely on the topic of the article, just the theme inspired.

        Why off-topic? Everything is interconnected! Money is not evil, "money", under certain conditions, introduces into temptation, and therefore it is in our life, and the goal is simple: to realize that dark part of oneself that enters into temptation, to realize and fill with light.
        We must realize that God is not interested in what we live in pleasure, the goal of mankind is growth towards God and obstacles, temptations push us to this and the tools of achievement also have this love, meditation, awareness.
        As some say, for Ukraine to reunite with Russia, it needs to pass the temptation of the European Union, otherwise it will not get rid of Wishlist. But the European Union is possible to fall and disappear if you hesitate.
        1. a52333
          a52333 27 December 2013 19: 05
          0
          To the money. (how nice it is to write from a computer, not from the phone) it’s like an ax, chopping wood in one hand to kindle fire and warm it, in others ....
          The knife is also an example. Someone pays for the education of children with money, someone hires a killer and accepts payment for drugs.
    3. Sunjar
      Sunjar 26 December 2013 08: 13
      0
      Quote: smel
      But tolerance - rather mental illness reminds


      I do not quite agree with you. I will explain below

      Since the author asked in advance, in which case he should be amended or challenged, I will express my opinion.

      I will begin with tolerance itself and just in the form in which it is indicated by the author. Please note that the very definition of tolerance and its signs most correctly existed in its concept in the hated liberals, pederasts, and democrats of the USSR. And in general, for the most part, this applies to the entire history of Russia. After all, it was our Motherland around itself and within itself that gathered such a huge number of nationalities, peoples, nationalities that other states did not even dream of. Collected in total, not through violence, genocide, the replacement of the indigenous population with their own, without destroying a foreign culture, but even vice versa, with the preservation of both peoples and their culture, starting with the gene pool, ending with culture, history and local languages. No country has ever had such a thing. But at the same time, all our peoples were able to rally around a common goal and worldview. All of us are united by a craving for justice, truth-truth and a craving for knowledge of science, being, nature, and the Russian language is the bond to all this. It is language that puts images in what is happening around us: phenomena, processes, etc. Therefore, first of all, our peoples are trying to divide among themselves, to defame a common history for all of us, to eradicate knowledge of the Russian language, both in other republics, and even in Russia.

      As for the so-called democracy, liberalism is a hedgehog with them. All this is just an illusion of the presence of all this, because through tolerance not the majority carries its will, but rather the minority, dictates its own conditions. Which contradicts both democracy and liberalism, when there is neither freedom of speech, conscience, religion (after all, Christianity does not accept homosexuals, it seems to me that they will surrender my faith soon if things go further), or submission to the will of the majority. It was said about communism that this is utopia, but democracy is no less a utopia, but just an illusion.

      Just as when the majority chooses something, that is how it should happen. Perhaps this is true, but here is a personal example from life. We thought we were somehow fun with our company, but where would we go looking at night (summer is all the same)? And the majority chose one dubious bar, and the minority (me and another friend of mine) doubted the correctness of the choice and refused to make this decision. As a result, the rest of the majority in this bar got sides, but on the contrary, we spent this time in good health. Here the conclusion suggests itself that sometimes even the majority is mistaken, and especially when he has no brains to figure out whether the decision is really right.

      Lastly, I will write that in a totalitarian scoop under the bloodthirsty Stalin, for the beginning, prices were reduced (two or three times), and as for the election, there could be a general gathering of any manager from his place if he does not cope with his duties or is engaged in garbage what. And it doesn't matter who he is: a deputy, a plant director or anyone else. I reinforce with an example from life in the city of Perm at the Velta bicycle plant, at one time one director was removed at the request of the factory workers, the other was pressed for delaying his salary, that he had to pay everyone right away, from two or three directors, after checks there were heart attacks. And all this was happening closer to the collapse of the USSR. So much for democracy and all that.
    4. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 26 December 2013 08: 34
      +1
      Quote: smel
      A PLUS. In detail, annoying, but fairly described.
      But tolerance - rather mental illness reminds

      I support, tolerance and liberalism - destroys and corrupts society.
    5. Shurale
      Shurale 26 December 2013 10: 42
      +2
      Tolerance
      the absence or weakening of the response to any adverse factor as a result of a decrease in sensitivity to its effects. For example, tolerance to anxiety manifests itself in raising the threshold of emotional response to a threatening situation, and externally in endurance, self-control, and the ability to endure adverse effects for a long time without reducing adaptive capabilities.

      In a word, we are accustomed to various new threats and is more tolerant until the degree of threat becomes fatal. I think the tolerance that they are trying to instill in us will destroy us ....
    6. Ivan.
      Ivan. 26 December 2013 22: 25
      0
      Quote: smel
      A PLUS. In detail, annoying, but fairly described.
      But tolerance - rather mental illness reminds

      Well no! This is just a form of masochism!
      Democracy is the power of the MOST over the minority,

      Not exactly the same either: the majority’s power OVER the minority is not exactly democracy, democracy is rather a peaceful settlement of minority interests in the majority’s position, otherwise I don’t understand the difference with slavery! In other words, democracy is an instrument that regulates the interests of the minority in relation to the majority in a peaceful way, or more simply it is the priority of the majority over the minority as a result of a preliminary mutual agreement.
      I will say this: if it’s not wisdom, a trick will appear, but so that everything would not slide into chaos, they came up with a law! bully
  2. makarov
    makarov 26 December 2013 07: 21
    +6
    In fact, in ancient times, a free man with the rights of a slave owner, and the right of an advisory vote at the veche, and the right to be elected was considered a democrat.
    In the ancient city-states, the supreme legislative, executive and judicial powers were vested in the assembly, which included all citizens. This was possible because the population of these cities rarely exceeded 10000, and women and slaves did not have political rights. ..Platon in the eighth book of "The State" argues that excessive democracy inevitably entails tyranny. According to Plato, democracy is the power of envious poor people. Aristotle saw democracy as the rule of the majority of poor citizens in the interests of this majority alone. He considered democracy to be one of three distorted political regimes.
    What is now perversely called "democracy", we-witnesses see with our own eyes.
  3. Silkway0026
    Silkway0026 26 December 2013 07: 22
    +7
    verily, the best is the enemy of the good ....

    and as soon as this whole bastard managed to convince us that they have the best? !!

    if only now to draw the right conclusions from previous mistakes.
  4. andrei332809
    andrei332809 26 December 2013 07: 26
    +6
    I do not want to live in democracy. i miss socialism crying
    1. Shurale
      Shurale 26 December 2013 10: 50
      +5
      I miss you too ...
    2. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 26 December 2013 11: 23
      +1
      Quote: andrei332809
      I do not want to live in democracy. i miss socialism

      So one without the other does not exist laughing
  5. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 26 December 2013 07: 26
    +7
    Here the brain begins to explode completely: if democracy is the power of the majority, then where does liberalism?

    Liberalism is a way to make oneself meaningful with shouts of democracy.
    1. bomg.77
      bomg.77 26 December 2013 07: 36
      +5
      Quote: JIaIIoTb
      Liberalism is a way to make oneself meaningful with shouts of democracy.
      Our clowns confirm your thesis laughing
  6. demotivator
    demotivator 26 December 2013 07: 32
    +3
    The article is definitely a plus.
    "... the principle of democracy is the rule of the people! And not tolerance for vulgarity and violation of your traditions and principles of the existence of this society."
    It was remarked very correctly - what kind of tolerance can there be in a true democracy? Here, as in that joke: "You, either put on your panties, or take off the cross."
  7. Lk17619
    Lk17619 26 December 2013 07: 32
    0
    To figure out what kind of system we have ???)))) Not destiny ....... We in Russia (in particular) now have anarchy and the unwillingness of the majority to do something. And so if it turns out what kind of autocracy (and not personality) of a minority, and very small. For me personally, the best form of government is dictatorship. Although it all depends on the personality. But .. under the dictatorship, the country has always prospered, if the person did not cope with the management, it was usually destroyed in the shortest possible time. And if all this is applied to Russia. Now, for a short period of time, we need to arrange an ordinary democracy, destroy the "elite" and make another elite that would become a dictatorship. That's where it is.
  8. borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 26 December 2013 07: 33
    +2
    from the Don.
    Article +. What the hedgehog understood, it became clear and HERE!
  9. saag
    saag 26 December 2013 07: 45
    +2
    Quote: borisjdin1957
    To understand what kind of system we have ???)))) Not fate ......

    Yes, what is there to understand., It’s capitalistic of course, and with local characteristics, if you are late in the capitalist Western company after 18.00, the inspector can expel you because it is overtime, and the company did not force you to work overtime, but you can pay through the court to demand, but the company does not need such a haemorrhage, and then they will indicate to you your inability to organize your work process in the time allotted to you, in short, service inconsistency. Another thing is a local company, there you can be forced to work overtime, and without paying overtime, just hinting that there are a lot of people who want to take your place
    1. Lk17619
      Lk17619 26 December 2013 08: 05
      +2
      I do not agree that we have capitalism. I can’t even come up with a name for this system. In capitalism, they somehow care about slaves so that they do not die, but we have some kind of genocide of the entire Russian-speaking population. So you need to come up with a new name.
      1. dddym
        26 December 2013 08: 14
        +1
        oh, they don’t care about slaves under capitalism:) All achievements in the social sphere and labor laws are the result of a bloody war between capitalists and trade unions and also socialists. Capitalism, for example, in England, did not disdain to use child labor in mines by paying penniless salaries with safety violations, when dozens of teenagers died daily. And only after a huge number of strikes, child labor was banned. Capital has one God - surplus value!
        1. Lk17619
          Lk17619 26 December 2013 08: 21
          0
          Here it is necessary to look at what period of time this capitalism was. I judge about him at the present time. Western capitalism has a lot of excesses, but it worries about its flock somehow. But nodding passed, this is not the case ... For me about England and the United States: when they invented the hydrogen bomb, Stalin was offered to make a new strait on them on the northern continent of America. I. Stalin, and I would simply drown an island with naglosaksami. And believe many on earth, it would become easier to live.
  10. saag
    saag 26 December 2013 08: 10
    0
    Quote: Lk17619
    I do not agree that we have capitalism. I can’t even come up with a name for this system. In capitalism, they somehow care about slaves so that they do not die, but we have some kind of genocide of the entire Russian-speaking population. So you need to come up with a new name.

    Yes, it was all in the West, in the 19th century in the same Britain or America, then the trade unions appeared and it became not so bad, but they fought for it
    1. Lk17619
      Lk17619 26 December 2013 08: 24
      0
      It turns out Russia is going through anew 19th century ????
  11. igordok
    igordok 26 December 2013 08: 11
    0
    The erroneous opinion that democracy is the power of the majority.
    Politia (Greek πολιτεία) as a concept has three main meanings:

    1. Majority power
    2. A form of public administration in which, according to Aristotle, the majority rules in the interests of the common good. This form of government combines the best aspects of the oligarchy and democracy, but is free from their extremes and shortcomings. (See Athenian polity.)
    3. This concept is also used (by analogy with English polity) to denote a political unit of any level (political organization of a particular society), that is, it is used as a generic term for such concepts as “independent community”, “chiefdom”, “tribe”, "state". A policy can mean either a given state, the totality of citizens of a particular country, or the totality of institutional forms and processes by which this country is governed. In a broad sense, polity is another name for the political system. It is usually used when they want to give a designation of the political organization of a society, free from the analytical connotations of the term “system” or from metaphysical, legal or territorial connotations of the term “state”. He often appears in discussions about the forms or typologies of political systems, especially when the aim is to classify political systems in their entirety, rather than specific institutions, groups or political subsystems within a given society.

    Democracy is the way in which a well-organized minority governs an unorganized majority.
    Vasily Rozanov

    Society is divided into two large classes: those who work to live, and those who live to make others work.
    C. Raiberti

    In democracy, the majority rules, and the minority always indicates where to turn the steering wheel.
    Lawrence Peter

    A minority often becomes a majority because it gets out of bed and votes.
    Lawrence Peter
  12. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 26 December 2013 08: 13
    +2
    Article +++++++++! I can understand what is written here. Vasya Pupkin can understand, because he reads and has not forgotten how to think. But it is impossible to explain to the rams what is happening around and how it is called in reality! Because they received their portion of "bread" in the form of a glass of vodka on the Maidan or a greasy twenty unsupported green "greens" from the hands of some thieving bureaucrat - and they serve only what they are ordered to do. They received - they have to work. They will say: say black and white - they will speak. They live, sorry, I exist HERE AND NOW. And they don't need to think. Think for them.
    Tomorrow exists only for me, for those who go to the library, for those who say to some sheep spitting on the sidewalk that it is impossible to do this, but does not pass by, etc. on a list that is against today's realities and based on at least some values.
    For me people have long been divided into "rams" and people. That's just the cunning and weak-willedness (tolerance) of some sheep makes it sometimes impossible to distinguish them from people incredibly small.
    And everyone becomes that mass of people in which the majority of those who are not thinking imitate the minority of smart people. real democratic masses. Moreover, liberal and tolerant, and easily managed. After all, most of them ...
    Sad ...
  13. iv-nord
    iv-nord 26 December 2013 09: 08
    +2
    Great article. All on the shelves laid out.
  14. marxlight
    marxlight 26 December 2013 09: 25
    +3
    I support the author! Everything is chewed and extremely clear. The points over i are placed. Things are named after their own names.
    Let those who try to maritane with concepts now go to the forest. You can poke their nose here, there is no need to prove anything because one continuous logic.
  15. Yarosvet
    Yarosvet 26 December 2013 12: 09
    -1
    Democracy and liberalism are antipodes

    Here the author is mistaken: democracy is the power of the people, which consists of free citizens.

    The unit in this system is a citizen with his rights and freedoms (for which very often you first have to fight for it, but the unit is always liberal).
    Having around itself a society consisting of the same citizens with the same rights and freedoms, the citizen is forced to negotiate with them (social contract), and when problems arise concerning the whole society, collectively, by majority vote, decide on how to eliminate them - this is how it appears democracy.
    And democracy, in turn, always leads to socialism.

    There are no contradictions between democracy, liberalism and socialism - they only complement each other, permanently prevailing depending on the situation. Another thing is that what they are trying to pass off as liberalism today is not liberalism in reality. The modern type of "liberalism" should rather be called neoliberalism - in essence it is a kind of fascism.
    1. Yoshkin Kot
      Yoshkin Kot 26 December 2013 13: 05
      0

      do not use the term fascism, for it is muddy, use the more understandable term national-socialism! and you will be happy laughing
  16. Yoshkin Kot
    Yoshkin Kot 26 December 2013 13: 04
    0
    adults like uncles am and believe in ideologies
  17. Luzhichanin
    Luzhichanin 26 December 2013 20: 10
    +1
    Well done, plus, so easy to read and understand about the complex!
  18. corn
    corn 26 December 2013 20: 57
    0
    Even with reference to TSB, there are only three types of government: unitary state, federation, and confederation.
    Democratic centralism is a way of governing.
    If the author wants to put his brains in order - his right (I am tolerant), and if he wants to obscure strangers - then study, and not duplicate ignorance.
    I’ll tell you the effect of the principles (who are interested - there are only four of them: 1. election, 2. periodic reporting, 3. submission of the minority to the majority, 4. mandatory implementation of decisions of a higher authority) of democratic centralism:
    The first course of the military academy. The wife of one of the student officers writes a complaint that the husband does not want to live with her and does not take her to St. Petersburg. They are assembling the primary party meeting. Representatives of the academy party committee are demanding the expulsion of the officer from the party. Party meeting (1 officers, those who entered the academy from positions no lower than major) makes a decision to reprimand the officer. According to the principle of democratic socialism, the leadership of a higher party organization cancels the reprimand and imposes a more severe penalty - exclusion (the result is the expulsion of the officer from the academy).
    Everything would be fine, but.
    3rd year (same, ibid.). The officer-listener with friends arranges a drunken brawl. A cart from the commandant’s office and the police comes to the academy. They assemble the primary party meeting. Representatives of the academy’s party committee demand a severe reprimand. To the question of the officers who remembered the first course, why not an exception, is this a lesser offense than the desire to divorce ?, we get the answer - but they spent a lot of money on it.
    He gave an example only to show that everything can be perverted.
    1. dddym
      27 December 2013 05: 04
      -1
      Yes, of course there were excesses - and there is no ideal system of state structure, however, if we are talking about justice in decision-making at the party bureau, then let's recall the current justice. Of course, to distort everything. But what is closer to you - landing for a show trial or exclusion from the party? If you carefully read the article, then you should have noticed that I described these principles in the certificate. There was no need to describe them again.
  19. corn
    corn 27 December 2013 20: 18
    0
    I now realized that you, dddym, are the author.

    Auto RU
    You quoted TSB
    "... In this regard, D. acts primarily as a form of state.
    Differences of D. as a form of state from other forms ... "

    On the issue of state form.
    The set of external characteristics that determine the procedure for the formation and exercise of state power, the administrative-territorial structure, is the FORM of the STATE (or the form of organization of state power), i.e. democracy is not a form of state.

    Your comment
    "If you read the article carefully, you should have noticed that I described these principles in the help. There was no need to describe them again."
    In a flock I read carefully.
    In your quote from TSB (as a reference).
    "Democratic centralism is a form of state structure (along with federalism, autonomy and bureaucratic centralism), based on the obligatory decision of the higher bodies for the subordinates, when all bodies are elected and accountable to their subordinates.", The principle of subordination of the minority to the majority is absent. this is the power of the MAJORITY over the minority ... "(Your quote at the end of the article).

    I don’t see any connection between the party bureau and the court, because the court deals with crimes, and the party bureau with misconduct.

    Therefore, your brain explodes.

    And the last remark, if you undertake to discuss such serious topics, then I repeat: I LEARN, as the great Lenin bequeathed. A person who has a general secondary education must know that when writing to one person you are written with a capital letter, especially if You proclaimed "The purpose of these articles is to put the brains of readers ... in order."
    1. corn
      corn 27 December 2013 23: 21
      -1
      If someone didn’t like something in my comment, you can write here, for general review, you can write in a personal, I won’t publish honest pioneer and I won’t keep evil.
      And so this is a GAV from the gateway, a well-educated dog does not bark idle and barks itself and warns of the inadmissibility of some actions.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. dddym
      28 December 2013 07: 08
      0
      Yes, it’s easy - only I don’t teach, but I express my opinion, but for some reason you decided that you can teach me ...
      As for the court, there used to be a "moral code of the builder of communism", in this connection there was a certain moral standard of a citizen, now it is not there and the functions of the party bureau then are now taken over by the social protection bodies, and some functions are taken over by the courts. For example, the removal of children from disadvantaged families. Today, a social worker independently and individually decides who is worthy to raise a child and who is not.
      As for the reference, if you want to challenge an article from TSB, you should contact TSB publishers, possibly through a court.
      Determine if I have the right to reason on any arbitrarily complex topics, provide me if you decide that you know more - prove and do not engage in demagogy. Now go and learn a little yourself - basic politeness and respect for the interlocutor. As bequeathed V.I. Lenin.
      And yes, I didn’t set a minus, because I decided not to respond to your attack - based on emotions.
      1. corn
        corn 28 December 2013 21: 15
        +1
        Do not distort: ​​"The purpose of these articles is to put the brains of readers ... in order" (excerpt from the article) is more similar in meaning to the desire to teach someone than the desire to "learn", that is, self-education.
        If I quote someone’s quote in support of my thoughts, I will answer, not the owner of the quote.
        After the release of TSB, a lot has changed, and the quote from TSB is not the ultimate truth.
        1. dddym
          29 December 2013 12: 32
          -1
          do not distort it - prove and not repeat the same thing. As a mantra, repeat: "he teaches, but TSB is not the truth." Demagoguery is not proof!
  20. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 29 December 2013 16: 38
    +2
    Dear author, by the nature of the article it is very clear that you are not a professional, but an ordinary man in the street. In this regard, it is very strange that you call your article an educational program. You must agree that the elimination of illiteracy, including political illiteracy, is a process closely related to such a concept as "socialization", which must be done by professionals. Why would it not be more appropriate to name your article, for example, "Notes / Thoughts on Democracy"?

    However, I fully approve and support your striving for the set problem, but I still consider it necessary, forgive me for being rude, to somewhat correct the flow of your thoughts. You speak of democracy as the power of the overwhelming majority of the population over the minority, which introduces a certain dichotomy into all of the subsequent presentation. This kind of democracies existed only in ancient times + a few examples from modern times (mainly Italian states). All of today's democracies have nothing to do with those democracies due to the fact that the liberal concept you mentioned has transformed this concept (to the great horror of the founding fathers). Democracy today is when the rights of minorities are guaranteed by the majority, so the majority rules, but does not rule. "the freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins" hence the roots of all those "excesses" that we observe in Western countries. The Soviet Union also had democracy, as was repeatedly emphasized in all constitutions, and the institutions of elections (albeit without choice) were given decisive importance as a factor in the formation of a free communist personality. Try to push off from this, it is very curious to see what conclusion this will lead you to. Good luck to you anyway!
    I can recommend very interesting literature that will help you trace both the evolution of democracy, the political regime, and how domestic and foreign scholars relate to today's democracy (moreover, the latter often lack mythical views or stereotypes on the current state of democracy, but they are very clearly written and positive and negative traits, although they unfortunately do not offer any panacea, which in principle does not detract from their contribution). If you are interested in such materials please write in a personal.
    1. dddym
      29 December 2013 20: 01
      -2
      The modern concept of "democracy" has nothing to do with democracy, for example, the slave system
      This is from an article ...
      I don’t even want to argue with you professionals - you could call it differently if this name does not suit you.
      If the majority makes its choice, it is democracy, and even if it makes the majority the norm, minority rights are the same as democracy. But is violating the will of the people a democracy? And the will of the people, if you remember, was to save the USSR. And Zhirinovsky and not Yeltsin should have won the election. So is it a democracy? But did the people allow the guarantee of the rights of the minority of which you speak? So what is democracy? Do not you think that in this case it is more of a dictatorship and not a democracy?
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 30 December 2013 10: 02
        0
        Bingo, to the point. But in order to console you, I want to assure you that in the most "democratic" country in the world, in their own opinion, the United States, the situation is completely similar, remember at least Bush's second presidential election. For me, France and Italy are still the most democratic states among the large capitalist countries of the West (elections there are really unpredictable), but even there the majority is the guarantor of the rights of the minority. To the question of whether the people allowed this very guarantee, I will answer that "yes" (at least in the West), since it was a kind of bonus to the main law, from the point of view of European inhabitants, to the right of free entrepreneurial activity. This implies a question of a completely different order, the question of the social system / social relations, which, in fact, let me echo Marx again, and determines everything else (base-superstructure). For Western states, where capitalist relations matured on the humus of the heritage of the Greco-Roman regulatory and legal culture, the emergence of liberalism, which eventually began to dictate its conditions, was an objective result of their evolutionary development (both social and industrial), I emphasize THEM evolutionary development. Therefore, for them, today's models of democracy are organic components of three whole spheres: economic, social and legal. This path is completely different for us, but nobody cares about it, because it is the West (being limitless in its egoism) that is a kind of trendsetter in the interpretation of what is evil and what is good. Here's a situevina.
  21. Dante Alighieri
    Dante Alighieri 29 December 2013 17: 13
    +2
    Dear author, by the nature of the article it is very clear that you are not a professional, but an ordinary man in the street. In this regard, it is very strange that you call your article an educational program. You must agree that the elimination of illiteracy, including political illiteracy, is a process closely related to such a concept as "socialization", which must be done by professionals. Why would it not be more appropriate to name your article, for example, "Notes / Thoughts on Democracy"?

    However, I fully approve and support your striving for the set problem, but I still consider it necessary, forgive me for being rude, to somewhat correct the flow of your thoughts. You speak of democracy as the power of the overwhelming majority of the population over the minority, which introduces a certain dichotomy into all of the subsequent presentation. This kind of democracies existed only in ancient times + a few examples from modern times (mainly Italian states). All of today's democracies have nothing to do with those democracies due to the fact that the liberal concept you mentioned has transformed this concept (to the great horror of the founding fathers). Democracy today is when the rights of minorities are guaranteed by the majority, so the majority rules, but does not rule. "the freedom of one ends where the freedom of the other begins" hence the roots of all those "excesses" that we observe in Western countries. The Soviet Union also had democracy, which was repeatedly emphasized in all constitutions, and the very institution of elections (albeit without choice) was given decisive importance as a factor in the formation of a free communist personality. Apparently, this model is much closer to the origins, however, unfortunately, it is precisely this model that is unacceptable for modern Western states, because the model of political dominance of the majority generates, in the understanding of the libertarians, here almost like according to Marx, coercion and segregation (expressed in the state distribution of surplus products), which in turn leads to the voluntary refusal of people (due to absurdity in a planned economy) from the main liberal right: the right to freedom of entrepreneurial activity, which society again voluntarily delegates to the state. For liberals, whose political and philosophical teaching is based on the foundations of Protestant ethics, which proclaimed the cult of individualism, this is simply not acceptable.

    Try to push off from this, it is very curious to look at what conclusion it will lead you to. Good luck anyway!
    I can recommend very interesting literature that will help you trace both the evolution of democracy, the political regime, and how domestic and foreign scholars relate to today's democracy (moreover, the latter often lack mythical views or stereotypes on the current state of democracy, but they are very clearly written and positive and negative traits, although they unfortunately do not offer any panacea, which in principle does not detract from their contribution). If you are interested in such materials please write in a personal.