Name the types of political systems that differ in political regimes. 8. How do totalitarian and authoritarian political regimes differ from each other? 9. What are the basic principles and values of a democratic political system? What are its advantages over other types of political systems? What are the contradictions of democracy? 10. Name the main changes in the Russian political system in the 1990s. What hinders the development of democracy in Russia?
During a social studies lesson, the teacher explained to students the differences between the Constitution and other legal acts. Compare the Constitution and any otherlegal act. Select and write down the serial numbers of the similarity traits in the first column of the table, and the serial numbers of the differences in the second column. 1) mandatory performance
Please tell me how nationalism, fascism, Nazism, and racism differ from each other. I know the definition of these concepts; I don’t need definitions.They just told me that these words are synonyms, but there is one fine line between them and they are different? so what is this line? What is the difference?
1) A characteristic feature of an industrial society is:a) widespread use of non-economic coercion to work,
b) weakness and underdevelopment of democratic institutions
c) the predominance of collective consciousness over individual
d) predominance of black ownership
2) The essence of the problem of “North” and “South” is:
a) depletion of natural resources
b) the gap in the level of economic development of regions of the planet
c) organizing a network of international terrorist organizations
d) increased cultural diversity
3. rational knowledge as opposed to sensory:
a) expands knowledge about the world around us
b) forms a visual image of the object
c) is carried out in the form of sensations and perceptions
d) uses logical reasoning
4. What distinguishes commercial farming from natural farming?
a) tools are used
b) material costs per unit of production increase
c) products are produced for sale
d) there is a division of labor
5. On what basis are the words highlighted: tribe, clan, nationality?
1) joint activities
3) general life
2) general goals
4) common interests
A. works as a teacher. In addition to lessons, she organizes holidays, quizzes, excursions, and hikes with her students. A. is manifested in his actions
1) social role
3) social structure
2) social conflict
4) deviant behavior
Are the following statements about ethnic groups true?
A. Ethnic groups have an inherent cultural identity.
B. Any ethnic group strives to create its own statehood.
1) only A is correct
3) both judgments are correct
2) only B is correct
4) both judgments are incorrect
A sign of state sovereignty is
1) dominance in the international arena
2) the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other states
3) the supremacy of state power within the country
4) the right to alienate neighbors’ lands
Newspapers often contain information about the political life of society. Read excerpts from articles by journalists covering politics. Which one contains information about democratic elections?
1) “The elections held in the country recorded the unconditional support of citizens for the only presidential candidate.”
2) “The elections were held in a closed environment; opposition candidates did not have the opportunity to speak in the media.”
3) “International observers were not allowed to attend the elections held in the country.” 4) “Citizens had the opportunity to get acquainted with different programs and make a real choice in an alternative environment.”
Are the following statements about political parties true?
A. Political parties represent the interests of various social groups before the state.
B. Only political parties can nominate political leaders and create programs for the development of the state and society.
1) only A is correct
3) both judgments are correct
2) only B is correct
4) both judgments are incorrect
“There is no comrade according to taste,” this proverb, which arose during the existence of the USSR, is firmly entrenched in the minds of our citizens. Its essence is accessible and understandable to everyone, because a person is a jug - filled with completely different knowledge, memories, outlook on life and value guidelines.
The concept of individualism was first used in philosophy and it is translated as the presence of each person’s own social, political and moral worldview. The emphasis here is on personal freedom and human rights.
Open individualism is an open view of the undoubted superiority of the individual. It can also be characterized as a philosophical point of view, according to which a person is one and only and there is no other person the same. The phenomenology of this term is that a person, continuously developing as a person, finds himself in different conscious bodies and at different times. As stated earlier, adherents of rugged individualism oppose the suppression of the individual by political and social institutions. The individual, as it were, opposes himself to society, and this opposition is presented not to a specific social system, but to the entire society as a whole.
Individualism and egoism
This problem has existed for a very long time and, as a result, is affected by many philosophical movements. Individualization of being leads a person to a separate existence of his own self, separately from the opinions of others. Reflection as the main tool of self-knowledge allows us to systematize many individual values. R. Steiner spoke out in defense of the individual, because he believed that decisions can only be made in isolation, and only then does public opinion grow from this. In nihilistic philosophy, to which Nietzsche considered himself, egoism was viewed exclusively from a positive point of view. Now it will be difficult for us to agree with the greatest thinkers of that time, since the very essence of the problem in general has changed. This happened due to the change from a positive interpretation of egoism, as a character quality that helps to form as a person, to a negative one.
Indeed, individualism can develop into its extreme - egoism, egocentrism, just as the active position of an individual in the state can develop into authoritarian behavior, but this in no way acts as an indicator conducive to the identification of such concepts.
The principle of individualism was first formed in the 19th century by a representative of the French intelligentsia, scientist and politician Apexis de Tocquipe. He was the first to introduce such a definition of individualism as a natural reaction of the individual to political despotism and authoritarianism in government.
Views and ideas:
The rights, responsibilities and values of the individual are primary in relation to the whole society, and the individual acts as their direct bearer. In general, this principle is focused on protecting human rights in the self-organization of his private life, on his self-sufficiency as a member of society and his ability to withstand various external influences. In conclusion, we can say that any society is a collection of individuals who take responsibility not only for their own actions, but also for the actions of the people around them.
Individualism- a special form of worldview that emphasizes the priority of personal goals and interests, the freedom of the individual from society.
That is, individualism is, first of all, the style of behavior of an individual in a team and society. But if such a style of behavior in the human environment becomes widespread, then there will be neither collectives in the full sense of the word (that is, associations of people connected not only by business, but also by communal ties), nor society itself as a single whole.
The following two are called the basic signs of individualism:
the primacy of personal goals. Individualists often experience a discrepancy between personal and group goals, with personal goals coming first and group goals remaining in the background;
independence of individual actions. Although an individual is always a member of various social groups and organizations, a person with an individualistic psychology is highly autonomous from them and is able to act successfully without recourse to their help.
Collectivism- this is the principle of social life and activity of people, manifested in the conscious subordination of personal interests to public ones, in comradely cooperation and mutual assistance. (Dictionary of Foreign Words, published by “Russian Language”, Moscow, 1982)
That is, collectivism is, first of all, a principle of social life, a principle of organizing society, its structuring. This is a principle in which, ideally, a member of a team, when faced with a dilemma: “public interest” or “personal”, makes a choice in favor of the public. Collectivism is the willingness to sacrifice personal good for the sake of the common good.
Haha. It seems to me that “pleasant hours” are pleasant mainly for you and your uncontrollable polygamy)
Pedestrians ischo, animals!!1
Aliis inserviendo consumor
No, not very bad, but not very good either. It's just that every person is selfish to some extent.
Only if it is HEALTHY selfishness))
Being a categorical altruist is also not good
I don’t even know how.
This is one of my bad character traits.
I have 2 states,
1. then I want to take care, help, think about my loved ones
2. then you immediately categorically want to give a damn about everything
I'm generally a person of mood and sometimes it's difficult with me...
Selfishness is in the genes, it is almost impossible to fight it...
Nowadays you have to be selfish to achieve something
Jealousy is the synthesis of certain hormones in the brain of a person or animal. This is a natural phenomenon, it is instinctive. It is known that every living creature wants to preserve its species over time, i.e. continue to exist after death. In this case we are talking about the genetic preservation of the individual. First, the creature chooses a partner with whom it can have the best offspring, then it protects the partner. And if there is a danger that the partner will want to produce offspring with another creature, jealousy appears. In this case, we are talking about preserving one’s genetic structure at any cost; these are the laws of nature, including those inherent in humans. Jealousy is common to all living beings. There are modified forms of jealousy, but the original essence is the same - defining oneself above others and, on the basis of this, preserving it in subsequent generations. The strongest usually have priority.
no) love must subdue selfishness) and in general, where there is selfishness in a relationship, there is no love, because you need to give a person a lot of time, effort, nerves and other things and without demanding or expecting anything in return))) tested for practice)))
Systematization and connections
Foundations of philosophy
Dialectics
Social philosophy
Philosophical creativity
Sociology
The theory of the rationality of egoism, expressed in individualism, was invented by capitalist lackeys to justify their miserable desire to eat and sleep at the expense of others, placing all the hard work on the shoulders of the proletariat, and this is very easy to prove by considering individualism itself as a concept with a huge number of contradictions.
Individualism(French individualisme, from Latin individuum - indivisible) - a moral, political and social worldview (philosophy, ideology), which emphasizes individual freedom, the paramount importance of the individual, personal independence within the framework of the constitutional legal order. Individualism opposes the idea and practice of suppression of the individual by society or the state. Individualism is the opposite of collectivism and its varieties. (Wikipedia).
Word individual the underlying word individualism, translated from Latin as indivisible, just like the Greek word atom.
In Marxism, the concept of individual is adopted to designate a person taken outside of his opposite, outside the collective. Bourgeois philosophy absolutizes this concept, convincing that each individual is so unique that, practically, it cannot be socialized except through law, i.e. compulsion. Marxism views the individual as an individual person, whose basic properties are predetermined by the entire system of social relations. Today there is no individual who would reinvent his language, his arithmetic and algebra, who would rediscover Newton's laws. The only thing an individual can do today is to invent a new religion, but not the idea of God himself. It's already been invented. A modern individual has to study for many years in order to master anything from the arsenal of knowledge accumulated by humanity, and literally only individual individuals can say a new word in science, technology or art.
From this it is already clear that individualism cannot be a “social” or “moral” worldview, since both of them imply the influence of society on the individual, his close connection with society, in fact, with what "individualism" fights in every possible way. Individualism can only act as a philosophy speculatively, as the ability of an individual to think in general, ignoring positive social experience and, in no case, can be a science, since such a philosophy is always based on the idealistic (in the form that considers the value of the individual above the value of society) understanding the essence of ongoing events or things, and real science stands, at a minimum, on an experimental basis, and ultimately, on a materialistic position.
Individualism can be, and is, used by political movements, such as liberalism. But this trend is as shaky as the foundation of the philosophy of individualism itself is poor, because it implies the freedom of the individual from any social influence. That is why modern specific bourgeois parties, standing for the ideology of individualism, manage to break into power only after the essentially same party in power has discredited itself. An organization that preaches individualism and calls on inveterate individualists to unite around a common idea, which cannot exist for individualists by definition, cannot be in any way sustainable. And the CPSU degenerated and degraded as the question of self-financing and the use of commodity-money relations to stimulate the builders of communism took root in its ideology.
And the idea that individualism presupposes "...individual freedom...and personal independence within the framework of the constitutional legal order", wherein “individualism opposes itself to the idea and practice of suppressing the individual by society or the state”. Individual freedom and personal independence have always been present, even during the times of slavery; by the way, law also appeared then; moreover, the state itself arose precisely when the need arose to conquer new territories with new slaves, as well as to protect the loot. And only a minority of slave owners had the right to dispose of individuals, regardless of the individual’s opinion. And even under capitalism, throughout the entire working day, the individual either completely submits to the will of the owner, or is the first to become homeless.
The only scientifically based ideology for the formation of collectivism, the fundamental interest of all working people, is communism and, if we take into account that individualism is used by capitalists, then the opposition of individualism to collectivism must be considered as one of the components of the class struggle, in this case, capitalists with the proletariat
igorkby, January 19, 2017 - 23:16Comments
And under capitalism, throughout the entire working day, the individual either completely submits to the will of the owner, or is the first to become homeless
a pessimistic view and where such a rigid set of states comes from - either “undividedly submits” or has flown out. You may offer your ass on demand, but you shouldn’t demand the same from others. Do you want to go to the scoop again?
Marxism views the individual as an individual person, whose basic properties are predetermined by the entire system of social relations.
A typical mistake of a “Marxist” of the Khrushchev era. Individualism and collectivism (egoism and altruism) are not predetermined by the system of social relations, but have deep biological genetic roots. No matter how you build a system of social relations, be it communism or Christianity, the animal instincts of competitive evolutionary struggle will not disappear anywhere.
Vyacheslav Sovka
animal instincts of competitive evolutionary struggle will not disappear anywhere.
A statement that has not been confirmed in reality. Where have you seen competition in nature? And what do you consider competition? What do you consider animal instincts and what do you consider human instincts?
Where have you seen competition in nature? And what do you consider competition? What do you consider animal instincts and what do you consider human instincts?
Judging by these questions, the author is completely unprepared for his topic. And all because he puts classical Marxism in first place, while Marxism is the synthesis of all sciences, which Marx and Engels insisted on. In the 21st century, subject to the laws of dialectics, the works of Marx and Engels fade into the background, remaining the foundation of modern Marxism. And the achievements of the natural sciences and, first of all, biological ones in the paradigm of Darwinism come first, since they finally in the history of mankind made it possible to reveal the true materialistic philosophical essence of man. Finally, humanity has the opportunity to give a scientific, philosophical, materialistic definition of man instead of the false religious biblical one. There is no need to explain further that Darwinism is that link in the chain, in Lenin’s words, by grasping which Marxism can pull out the entire chain of centuries-old problems of mankind.
I will answer the question briefly. Any question about man and human society is explained by the theory of evolution of Charles Darwin and its interpretation reflected in the works of Marx and Engels. I recommend that all philosophers, humanists and Marxists proceed from this. According to the theory of evolution, nature is evolution, and evolution is natural selection, and natural selection is competition. And the author's question sounds strange. It turns out that the author does not know life, although the main commandment of Marxism is life is struggle or competition. Competition is visible everywhere in nature and society. This is the law of evolution, of nature; way of life of living matter to feed on living matter, eliminating or pushing aside competitors. When the Bolsheviks were asked what life is, they answered; life is a fight.
Vyacheslav Sovk.
You advise me to turn to the works of Darwinists and naturalists, well then let me also advise you to read the work “Mutual Aid as a Factor of Evolution” by such a Russian naturalist as P. A. Kropotkin.
As the name suggests, he considered “mutual assistance” to be a factor of evolution, and he believed it not in vain, not unfounded, since he was a scientist. In this small book, he gave a huge number of facts that completely refute the existence of competition in nature.
If struggle or rivalry between species is not denied, this does not mean that they are necessarily competition.
The very concept of “competition” arose precisely in the process of relationships between traders; who gave the right to transfer the relationship between traders, resulting in competition, to nature? Competition is not just rivalry, but certainly a clash, and all with one goal - to gain profit! Only in this case it’s trade! And when considering competition as a concept, one should start from its basis. If we talk about trade, then the task of the merchant is to absorb competitors, destroying their business, often along with them. That is, the ultimate goal of any competition is the destruction of all competitors by one. If there was competition in nature, it would invariably come to the conclusion that only one species of animal would remain on the planet.
Moreover, if we start competition now in this remaining species, then among its representatives one should stand out, which will ultimately destroy everyone around it in order to undividedly rule the territories and resources.
There is no such thing in nature, you don’t read enough naturalists, otherwise you would know that Darwin did not consider competition and struggle of species to be the basis of their existence, he spoke about struggle, but always with the caveat that this must be understood correctly.
"although the main commandment of Marxism is life is struggle or competition"
What are you saying? You have studied Marxism very poorly, forgive my frankness. Marx considered competition to be a product of capitalist relations; he wrote Capital about this.
Speaking about the struggle between opposites, between the proletariat and the capitalists, so here too, this struggle must be understood correctly. If there is no capitalist or proletarian, there will be a struggle, or as you say, competition? No! So it turns out that by destroying the conditions for the emergence of capitalists, society is able to get rid of competition. So it turns out that competition is unnatural.
Instincts are a purely biological concept, instincts are always animal, they are a physiological reaction of a biological organism. In addition to and in contrast to animal instincts, man is also controlled by reason. This is a separate topic and I’ll refer anyone to my works.
No. This is not an answer! I’m not sending you to my works, but I’m working here, writing down my thoughts in messages. If you worked on this, then you can summarize and briefly present it.
So what are instincts, and how do they appear?
"Mutual assistance as a factor of evolution"
Altruism also exists in nature and occupies a significant place
BUT altruism is always at the level of individuals - some individuals of a species sacrifice their ability to reproduce for the sake of others. We must not forget that altruism exists only among identical individuals at the level of genes; there is no altruism. Moreover, the more primitive the organism, the more altruism there is, since there is more similarity. It’s not for nothing that people call each other brothers - this is an attempt to somehow remove the difference in genotypes at the level of illusion
For you and me and for the philosophy of health, it is much more important to restore the truth, to cross out the equal sign between the concepts of egoism and individualism, to cleanse individualism from the dirt of the vices attributed to it and no less immoral, dubious virtues.
Perhaps my statement may seem strange to some, but the identification of egoism with individualism suits everyone today: both supporters of authoritarian collectivism and defenders of “democratic” egoism. The first present individualism as a contrast between the base selfish interests of an individual and the interests of the entire society and, on this basis, suppress the individual. The latter manipulate the slogan of individual freedom, attributing to it the most disgusting manifestations of hypertrophied egoism.
But what is the situation in reality? Let us return to the origins of the word “individualism”. It is based on the concepts of “individual”, which denotes a person as a separate person among other people, and “individuality”, meaning the characteristics of character and mental make-up that distinguish one individual from another. Thus, individualism can be seen as the desire of an individual to acquire his own individuality and express it through individual actions and deeds. But only. It is not difficult to notice that individualism acquires a negative connotation only if they try to artificially combine it with egoism. In reality, there is nothing in common between them: if egoism came to us from the primitive past and poisons our present, then individualism as the worldview of Homo sapiens has not yet fully taken place, since society as a whole has not yet reached the level of consciousness necessary for this. But this does not mean that we can only patiently wait for better times to come. Individualism is good because it allows an individual today, now, to develop in himself the traits of a person of the future - a Homo sapiens, and therefore spiritually, mentally and physically healthy. The philosophy of health and the entire System of Natural Health are based on this belief, since no one except ourselves will preserve our health or return it if it is lost. This is evidenced by the experience of tens of thousands of my students and followers, who have learned to live in harmony with nature, to subordinate their behavior and lifestyle to its immutable laws.
