Monday, April 13, 2020
Why lie to the history books Review Essay Example
Why lie to the history books Review Paper Essay on Why lie to the history books To learn how to choose, it is necessary not only to read a lot, we must also be able to distinguish between science and ideology, or else an illusion impossibility of scientific knowledge the result of the triumph of ideology over science in a single mind. In science and ideology there are common: both this knowledge is given in the system, two kinds of systematic consciousness, but the system of scientific knowledge aimed at establishing the truth and ideology to protect the interests of (groups of) people. That is why it is wrong that Mukhin object of protection has long vanished is not Stalin, but in the interests of the class, that group of people, material interests are represented by Stalin at the very top class supreme bureaucracy (the so-called decision-makers), the nomenclature or otherwise (to use a more accurate scientific terminology) politaristov. Modern Russian politarizm enjoys the ability to mimic their ideology as science, to issue its own system of scientific knowledge. It is this and claim all ideologues. Their joint interest to discredit the scientific knowledge per se. For example, identifying a plurality of views and pluralism of truths. every ideology boast reasonable true and embellishes it profitable lie true, if you do not have in mind a scientific ideology. Scientific ideology is possible when society there are people who are interested in a simple question, but what was really? However, it happens not always. the mass believes myths about the famine and gulags but this is not the myths. Here, for example, the work of historians pros: pay attention to the conclusion there. Or thats gulag, and more. Why lie to the history books Review Essay Example Why lie to the history books Review Paper Essay on Why lie to the history books I probably would have noticed immediately 1) YI Semenov: no common ownership of the means of production was not in our society. I absent in it, and the distribution principle: from each according to ability, to each according to his work. In other words, our society was not socialist in any sense of the word. No socialism we had not, it was not his, and no country in the world. Society, which we persistently called socialist, in fact, or have been, or still are still politarnymi. Listed a little sign of communism, which was not possible to build a really, but to call it socialism signs completely dare not. If we take socialism as a coupling medium between capital and communism, we must realize that in socialism such features as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs are in bud. Before society eat these conditions provide for work, must undergo a long process of nationalization. This is firstly. Socialism on the entire planet does not work, it must run in slowly, and then in the socialist countries should have trade relations with the capitalist countries. This is just one more aspect of slowing down the appearance of signs described by Semenov, you forgive, but he wrote illiterate nonsense. As for contemporaries of Stalin, so everything is very simple; were talking about the ideological war that was then, so the representatives of both sides of his contemporaries combined status or even witnesses, but the information they provide is absolutely contradictory. I am referring to the fact that not a few contemporaries of Raskolnikov, his mouth shut. There is a little book from the same series of mystery 37go year, it is called Stalins Testament. On its back is written a little anecdote: After the death of Stalin left two envelopes, one says to open at a difficult time, the other To be opened at a critical time. There comes a difficult time, and opened the first envelope, there is written: Bring down all on me. There comes a critical ti me, it opened the second envelope and is written in it: Do as I do. Why lie to the history books Review Essay Example Why lie to the history books Review Paper Essay on Why lie to the history books It seems that you do not is aware that is socialism, not to mention how to write frantically about Semenov, saying, ignorant stupidity well, well, well actually funny! about the author of Economic ethnology (a link to the electric version Heres a list of his scientific works -.? Not ashamed?) a man for the first time disclosed the full range of existing and existing forms of exploitation of man by man (and a half dozen note can immediately call at least half a dozen?). No, I am far from simple links to authorities and is ready to do without them. But there is the view that, at least, deserve close attention. And you its not just lack of tact, it is immediately obvious, and bad faith, but excuse me Your will return and a real nonsense. And now, in fact. Socialism is not determined by the combination of features remember how Hattabych old man was trying to create a phone booth in the image and likeness but somehow did not work. So it is with definitions they should work! Th e meaning and essence of socialism, precisely on the classics, Marx, including socialist ideas, ranging from the 19th century, first of all, the implementation of the principle of social justice (and this is the most current Western idea until now, the center of speculation and lies all the authorities and ideologies), which in the language of the economic theory of socialism a classless society, that is, one in which the means of production are owned by society, not the state. Thats about it and lied, and lying Stalinist propaganda (and it is clear why the death of his reeks of such a theory, or rather, with the subsequent dying off = falling asleep all the state functions assumed by the Companys control, in the language of orthodoxy the dictatorship of the proletariat remember Lenins opinion about it ? Forgot?). Therefore impossible demagoguery about the socialist state of this nature can not be (in ME and Lenin). State is politarnaya forms of private property, including pe ople, reaching to the slaves in the Gulag (this is just a scientific truth from the 20th century). Corporate Ownership nomenclature is precisely private property in accordance with its definition. Semenov wrote about the socialist principle of distribution according to work, as an economist, as a researcher and expert on pre-class and early class economies (though it is something to take the sense and think that it is not likely, but is something you do not understand ). What is behind it quite clearly the impossibility of class relations, including politarizma this is where the bureaucracy robs the people and fattening, portraying servants of the people, under the guise lied about the public property, humanism and justice. And you wonder inserted on demand, but by the way, this principle has already proved its necessity and effectiveness of one of the existing types of economic relations in the primitive state. Stalinist state works because liberally lubricated with blood, but the current level of production and technology completely eliminates this shovels mode of production, hence the vital need to destroy a huge parasitic superstructure over society, called the state. Socialism immediately on the planet will not work, who told you? In general, how do you ponabrali all this confusion about socialism, the impossibility of historical science, truth, etc. Stalinist blyagi? Just trouble, I must say. And remember, you have a large inflated and this is in the best case. And in my opinion, the destruction of the global class relations between the two countries is possible only once and everywhere, and hence it is clear that capitalism and politarizm two sides of the same coin and the fate they will have a common a quick death, either with mankind or separately if the latest smart enough. And yet to me the most lovely of the covenants of Stalins contemporaries, an honest man to kill Stalin he wrote with his blood on the walls of the chamber shortly befor e the death of Artur Artuzov, I hope you know who this is? If not would highly recommend steeper any fiction.