The ideological Department of paganotti

2Nech
We're not a religion considered a social doctrine that it is based...

We're not a religion considered a social doctrine that it is based...
More detail what is based the ideology of any religion? I was even wondering.

Ehhh...I had it figured out, has long been written to))) So all questions to miraluka, he even the wiki copy, learn)))

In General, the Qur'an set out certain rules of behavior and morality, and the construction of an individual's life based on them...

We're not a religion considered
In General, the Qur'an set out certain rules of behavior and morality, and the construction of an individual's life based on them...
You first determine what you need, and Pat write. If you do not consider religion to know what is written in the Koran is impossible.

You can safely say that your copy-paste from the Wiki correspond to reality?
And what is the reality?

miraluka
And what is reality?-here you are right,the reality to subjective pain in the temples,and what the heck someone can condemn cheto opinion,whether you like Islam,please just try to gain recruits,though, who are you yourself? interesting the position of the opponents of Islam,I'm too bored to argue,I could prove to you the fallacy,but do not want where the heroes of the Christian epikov?

And what is the reality?

well, like, objective reality, perhaps...

You first determine what you need, and Pat write. If you do not consider religion to know what is written in the Quran it is impossible

To understand the meaning of the Scriptures, you mean? I agree...That's why there are many interpretations of the Koran, and following patterns of behavior...that I did not like the copy paste Miraluka....

miraluka
11.12.09 10:46

A perfect example. Who is the Mujahid for the majority of the population? This is the cross, that cut the head of a Russian soldier. Who is the Shahid? Woman, blew herself up at school. And the essence of Jihad is to subjugate the infidels.

All this is to debunk. Normal people understand that all this is not so, though, because dealing with which no devout Muslim, we see that he is a very good person and the idea is not to convert anyone by force.

Of course, it is better to write by yourself. It attracts more and creates an atmosphere.

Well. Sachetti I passed and there was still plenty of time.
Liberalism. There are stereotypes too much no, because liberal ideology typically generates all other stereotypes. After all, liberalism is the only ideology of the modern developed world, that is only a false consciousness in society. Everything else is doctrine. So I stay more on the essence, on the basis of historical development.
Liberalism taken in the broadest sense, therefore, all sorts of neoconservatism, neoliberalism and the modern so-called social democracy - all included here. This banner, the basis of bourgeois consciousness.
To disassemble the primary source of the colossus is just not possible, so let's just analyze - how did bourgeois society, and wished liberalism. As the doctrine of this conscious has appeared at exactly the moment when began the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the feudal aristocracy. Why? Brand as a weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and most powerful, something more powerful than money of the traders and manufactures of fatties. It's like Marxism for the labor movement. And here, finding any kind of power, the bourgeoisie (shopkeepers in the result of the Great geographical discoveries made very robust design capital, the industry also started its accession, in England this was contributed to by poor sheep) and the beginning of this very class struggle. It was necessary to eliminate three main obstacles:
1) actually, the class of the feudal aristocracy, or rather his estates, localism and other preferences that are not related to capital. Which proclaimed this liberalism? Equality. Equality of opportunity and all that. This is the only way out. And that's the only reason why liberals can talk about equality - or to undermine the power of the nobility is impossible. And, of course, all this was cut selectively. Equality at first, capitalism is almost empty sound. But what to say - to this day liberalism has not provided even close to what is called equality of opportunity, although the principle of equality has expanded considerably with the development of ideology. But then - in the era of the emergence of capitalism is only the equality of the capitalists and aristocrats.
2) the Church, or rather the ideology. Very serious this fight was in England, where came forward in comparison with the other two. Well here everything is clear. The battle of ideas. Against Church fought by various methods, but always very shy, because Christianity in the future will serve as well to the capitalists, therefore, to compare the Church to the ground no hurry and not going to. For this was created by various Protestant movements. Well, in General, in this question it is useful to study the history of the English bourgeois revolution.
3) the state feudal monarchy, is a stronghold of the feudal aristocracy, the apparatus of repression in the hands of the nobles. Clearly you can trace this direction, of course, in France. A large part of the proclaimed liberalism refers to this direction. All sorts of freedom of Assembly, personal inviolability, privacy, the rule of law, democracy - all aimed at curbing the state machine of suppression. Forget about the divine nature of kings and imperatorov. All again were at the point, enough of the bourgeoisie. About true democracy did not think anybody then. Elections - enfranchised. The voices are unequal. Many of the rights and freedoms not available to other classes simply can't.
That is, as we can see in all directions of liberalism especially in the methods do not bother, integrity did not differ. He served in the suppression of feudal society the bourgeoisie moved with them, adapting for themselves - the state, Church, and social stratification.
Why? Yes, because this is all methods of class struggle, not the root ideas of liberalism. For what all was done? The answer is obvious:
1) Freedom of enterprise. Even greater expansion.
2) the Inviolability of private property. This is a limitation of state power, but much more important.
3) the Replacement of forced labor with hired labor is critical for the emergence of capitalism, but at least in our example - why was a seemingly stupid peasant reform of 1861? Yes, all the same.
These provisions were unconditional from the very beginning of capitalism. They are all, without restrictions and immediately extolled the first bourgeois regimes, if it were possible (well, not completely eliminate serfdom, feudal the aristocracy if even any power it has).
Here such here pies. Maybe even decide to th.

I myself am in NA do not rummage, but here the experts appear. And prevented the elucidation of all this is usually a discussion, always crossing in a terrible flame.

Today I saw one living there. Tried to get in contact. Like, hand to bite he did not, but to write anything intelligible, too, Temko was demolished...Does oharakterizovat his world view can't(Oh yeah, skins beat chocks, and Hitler attacked the USSR)...continue the hunt:)

It is necessary to write here. Then it will not blow, if really what will not.

Well. Sachetti I passed and there was still plenty of time.

+1. Ay, maladets. :))

the theme of the struggle of ideologies

So, since the theme of ideology was closed, I think the most appropriate to report on this issue here in the appropriate section of the forums. So, we will attempt to briefly analyze the next opus of the Stalker. As you can see, the theme itself, which Stalker has formulated in this opus is little that is written (but as always) this is another vyser in the direction of communism identified at the very beginning of totalitarianism. For example, the Stalker says "I don't think that the culprit was a Stalin. I think that the idea of the dictatorship of power is flawed.". And immediately the question: what exactly is the culprit? That was abolished workers ' control and the government is almost entirely passed into the hands of the party? Yes. The fact that communism "failed"? Obviously not. The process of social development – an objective process, and if the formation coming after capitalism, did not come, so it is not yet time. And besides, not the fact that such formation would come after capitalism, if at all, will come. Do not forget that communism is a hypothetical formation and unlike the previous is not carried out, and yet only the product of social thought, looking forward to try the contemplation of its development, and development of, a reflection of what it is.
But since the topic was still about the struggle of ideologies, we will not go into offtopic followed by afftor. So, as you might expect, the world is black and white, good and bad, of others – their etc. of Course, the positive heroes are the supporters of liberalism, negative – supporters of some very specific ideology, the essence of which is to argue for a totalitarian regime in total control of society by the secret police, the state secret police /by the German Gestapo. Probably most of all, it smacks of fascism. Both of these ideologies above was discussed in detail, and I don't see the point in having to re-assort.
The struggle of ideologies is in fact nothing but a reflection of the class struggle. Although within the same class are also possible debate. For example, who will advocate free competition, the free market, the non-interference of the state in the economy? Obviously, those who can not withstand real competition, those who put up various barriers in the economic activities, etc. That is, the small and middle bourgeois. For what is actually called liberalism in its libertarian incarnation (ancap, minarchist, etc.) Who will advocate directly or indirectly for the state, for its idealization in society for the implementation of imperialist ambitions, aspirations painting these beautiful words like "duty", "patriotism", etc. are the ones who constitute the political elite. And the more the elite is monolithic, the more resources it concentrates in its hands, the more in sight "imperstvo". The ordinary bourgeois can't compete with the power of the state machine (which is why liberasty and dislike ympertsev), but since this machine still provides the service of protection of the existing order, in which the first own the means of production, they are, ultimately, going with her to compromise (this is in particular expressed in the difference between the concepts of ancap from minarchists). That Imperial ideology is just like what the Stalker draws in black paint... But there is also a different ideological trend that represents the ultimate expression of the interests of the working class. The course also heterogeneous, but this heterogeneity in relation to its differences with the first two ideological currents, the essence of the heterogeneity on the particulars. The most important features is the unacceptability of exploitation and class oppression. And this ideology Stalker in his opus does not affect (I think for obvious reasons). In my opinion, overall, the ideological struggle in Russia is not black and white, but is a triangle, the sides of which are Imperial ideology (let's call it so), liberalism (libertarianism mainly) and left ideology. And as I have already indicated, the parties themselves are not monolithic. This is my opinion formulated on a Stalker theme.

The Stalinists.

Something fans of Stalin every year more and more..and on an Internet, on forums it can be clearly seen. I wanted to understand what these people are, how they think and do. I began to argue with them on different forums with the position that "Stalin is bad" and at the moment I typed the stats. Then there began to emerge some common features different from opponents of the Stalinists.

I call the typical response of those who believe that Stalin's role in Russian history was by far, without reservation positive. Stalin, in their opinion – a brilliant Manager and achieved excellent results. This definition is somewhat rough, but it seems in the first approximation works.

So, what I saw is typical-repetitive in their behavior/Outlook:
A279;1) the Stalinists, as a rule, quickly go out of himself and begin to write emotional posts, cursing, name-calling. Many lack just a couple of iterations of question-answer . It is often used upper case..fly..drool commemorated relatives. Because of this, they love to pester the trolls, so if the Stalinists do not know – almost certainly the first thing will be accused of trollism with or without cause. They see them under every Bush.

2) the Picture of political world order they have in mind are usually one-dimensional in one axis. On the one hand they, the patriots, Stalinists, and the other traitors-liberasty. So as soon as you say something against Stalin , immediately will be added to the "kasparysham". Then you will begin to tease "hundreds of millions of people eaten for dinner by Stalin personally". It somehow seems very witty and fun, and in any discussion with them sure POPs up a standard hitting. If you have pallavam even mention the victims of the regime, you will immediately be credited with the idea of "the tens, hundreds of millions of victims" and will be for a long time together to savor it and laugh. Stalinists love to argue with the imagination of the stupid liberas. That is, men in my head.

3) the Stalinists are very often unable to read and correctly understand the Russian text. Naturally. This is a straight epidemic among them, is very characteristic. Moreover, it is clearly not in my wording, as the Stalinists similarly unable to read a text links that lead to them, neither the text of their citations. Here is a typical example:

- argue about bad during the Soviet-Finnish war.I said that the Finns had virtually no tanks and aircraft compared to us and yet successfully defended. Stalinist POPs up and says that I don't know shit, because in December we flew just a Finnish aircraft. I give a link, where the black-white described the actions of the Soviet aviation in December (bombing and ground attack). The man responsible – in my link is no word on the direct support of the troops. (why support??), okay - I copied a quote about the attack of the Finnish positions. Comrade finally realized that screwed up and pauses. It would seem that this happens. But this is not over: the other began to argue, not realizing at all what the dispute is that the aircraft now supported by the first days of the advancing troops (as if this it was). the following fact sings – "Yes, what you explain to him, he blah-blah-blah all", etc.

And so we very often deny other people's cues that you didn't confuse your position with the position of their comrades, do not understand common phrases (e.g. don't understand what the phrase "comparable levels" means the levels may vary, but not by much), can't read his link to and recognize in it the key data (arguing how many combat-ready tanks in the Western districts of KA in 1941, the Stalinists sought Isayev article where he mentions a figure of 3.800 and calls it incorrect, but they took it as a basis, although the text Isaev results table with the calculations – in fact, of the order of 10,000.).

And here's another to consider: I write - "Stalin, Meretskov was removed from his post as commander of the Finnish operation." Say anything like that. He was not"removed" and "replaced". And the other assents – Yes, no, Stalin was not removed, operation went fine, it was the reorganization of the office.

All these kunshtyukov make controversy with the Stalinists in the continuous attempts to figure out that there they this time in my head was postponed and how to read and how they can explain anything.

4) Mythology of the Stalinists contains a logical contradiction/absurdity, which they are not able to explain.

The Stalinists do not like Khrushchev. Call it a "pigfaced". Maize A Trotskyist. Because everything bad that has surfaced about Stalin – Khrushchev's alleged lies. Don't even try to quote Khrushchev about Stalin. Or any stat. evidence uncovered under Khrushchev. It's all a lie. With the exception of the digits in 799 thousand shot in the 58th article, which was published at the initiative of Khrushchev. The figure of 800 thousand killed for what they believe is acceptable and not compromising Stalin and so it can lead and even necessary. Moreover, it was the Trotskyists, so they should be. Why Khrushchev as an active organizer of repression and at the same time a Trotskyist, he did not shoot himself, don't even ask.

In fact, in the case of Khrushchev, the Stalinist fall into a serious logical trap. I have not yet managed to find a single one that would be out of it. After all, what praise Stalin? For example, the industrialization and atomic weapons. But sorry, after all, nuclear-missile shield of the USSR was created under Khrushchev, after all, only under Khrushchev, there was a situation of real nuclear deterrent thanks to the ICBMs. The Stalinists say to that – "and Khrushchev here at all at Affairs, the bomb was invented under Stalin, and the basics of atomproma and rocket cases was laid down by Stalin, and after that everything went by inertia". Well, I say – well, Stalinist industrialization was then begun by Lenin ("Soviet power plus electrification", electrification and all that). Goes with industrialization then Stalin is not in the business, according to this logic? Eh, I ask the Stalinists? There is usually starts swearing, yelling, "yeah what to talk to him, he's an idiot". In short – this is a weakness in their position. If you ascribe to the merits of Stalin all the good that was done for him, logically, will inevitably have to praise and Khrushchev. One Gagarin is worth something! Khrushchev and the Stalinists can not praise , because then you have to agree with his anti-Stalinist course. And I don't even know how to help them..

Another fun quirk of the Stalinists have observed in the discussion of the repression/hunger/military errors. Standard Stalinist excuse – nothing to do with Stalin! It's all stupid and Trotskyists, wreckers on the ground he is screwed. But when discussing the achievements of the USSR – there is a logical question – Stalin personally fascists from the machine crumbled and Kuhlmann was or did the Soviet people did all of that and then Stalin, too, because do with it? But in typical Stalinist quietly in the head are placed two vzaimponimanie thesis:

1) Stalin defeated Hitler, created a great power and the atomic bomb (of course, not personally, and so put the case, created a state system that did it).

2) the idiocy and brutality is not the fault of Stalin, this vermin on the ground.

What I was trying to figure out why No. 2 is not a system created by Stalin – had not received a reply.

Well the last trick. The paradox, but among the Stalinists observed a lot of fans Rezun. They need to find some answers to the catastrophic beginning of world war II. Indeed, if Stalin is a genius, how come?

And as mentioned above – the Stalinists have difficulties understanding the texts, especially long ones. Still need to know that, formally, superficially Rezun praises of Stalin, calls him a wise, prudent, etc., the Red Army, technique look how beautiful praises. The Stalinists take that as a compliment, because they can't feel the context Rezun books in which the main idea is that Stalin was a Communist maniac who wanted to win at any cost world, and Hitler-friendly in fact saved civilization from the murderous Bolshevik hordes. The Stalinists of course aware that support Rezun is a terrible bad manners in the Patriotic camp. They can not understand why, but know that it is bad. But and dock failures 1941-wow with the genius of the leader as it is necessary.

So not once heard from the sacramental of the Stalinists – "in the main he's right!".

In the sense that Stalin himself was preparing the first attack, and Hitler was caught on the "swing". And so we broke it...

There is however another camp in the medium of the Stalinists, who angrily rejects Rezun, and about the beginning of the war says the following: what disaster? What are the losses? There were no losses. Neither the human nor material. All property, factories, time was taken to the East, people were evacuated. The Germans especially deeper lured into a trap. Stalin was a brilliant and to the point! That is exactly what they say seriously.

Representatives of the two camps funnier and dumber – judge for yourself.But summary is that among fans of Stalin, I still adequate debaters are not met. No. Although hope is not lost. Maybe I just had bad luck. Auuuuu!

(c) http://gosh100.livejournal.com/34334.html#cutid1

The kid obviously haven't finished school...and the audience I think it is appropriate.
That's the coolest comment on this article:

The most convincing our victories we gain over the imaginary opponent (s)

More and nothing to add.

Butthurt.

INjektion
Doubt that gosh100 didn't finish high school - read at least his articles about weapons.
Of course there is nothing more to add, you basically said nothing :)

And from the comments I like the other:

1. Any attempt to cite Stalin's hit list with the Stalinist same resolutions on them, like this here

immediately cause an uproar. Stalin in any case is not to blame for mass repression. In 30th years the country was ruled by he is not (!?), and villains-the Trotskyists, whom he destroyed their sacred and intrepid hand. Any attempt to give guidance to the obvious absurdity of this theory and also state that the personal instructions to the execution he continued to serve, and after 38 years is also ignored.

2. Stalin specify the type of shoot all the naming in the list or brought to trial and sentenced to death or for the shooting of all 138 people are to be understood purely metaphorically, figuratively, but not directly. This does not indicate the execution of these resolutions should be understood as a requirement to bring the villains to justice, and who should be justified and nothing else.

3. Stalinists LOVE to spread 800 thousand of shooting for all 25 years of Stalin's rule. Any attempt to point to numerous sources, from which it follows that in 37-38 years. for political reasons it was shot 682 thousand people also bring only a fierce anger and a howl like well, we're preparing for war!.

4. The disastrous beginning of the war was not disastrous. Stalin wisely modernized the army, the execution of high command before the war has significantly strengthened its fighting capacity, and the loss of almost the entire European part of the country was a tactical ploy. Further, the nonsense in the text.

5. Stalin never violated the laws of the USSR. Any attempt to prove the existence of the triples directly contradicted even the Stalin Constitution of 1936. call sea inadequate protests, cries and screams.

6. Introduction in the USSR in 1940. universal free education in all Universities, colleges and even high school is for the Stalinists incredible surprise and plunges them into a state of catatonia. First, they desperately twist at the temple and shout Fraud! Wasn't that. After thrusting his nose into the decision of the CPC about the introduction of universal free education, which operated until 1954., again nonsense about the need to prepare for war.

7. The thesis of the absence in the USSR of state pension under Stalin is also the Stalinists for a big surprise. It turns out that pensions were not needed...! Why you need a pension if we build the land of the Soviets! It's all nonsense and bourgeois prejudice.

8. The actual lack in the USSR, domestic private industry immediately causes a storm of links on car Victory. The fact that such a victory for 18 years there were about 250 thousand pieces (that is roughly how many cars has released the first Assembly plant of Henry Ford during the first year of operation in 1913) is also pretty annoying.

9. Khrushchev was a bully, and a Trotskyist. We flew in space not under Khrushchev and Stalin. Hydrogen bomb tested under Stalin. The satellite launched under Stalin. And pensions introduced under Stalin. And mass housing construction started under Stalin. And the first nuclear debacle also built under Stalin. Only pity that Stalin didn't know.

But in General, more and more feel the futility and worthlessness of such disputes. As they say, do not understand the blind seeing :) (C)

Of course there is nothing more to add, you basically said nothing :)
You also did not say anything. Just skopipastit the other person's opinion.

>>You also did not say anything. Just skopipastit the other person's opinion.
Because my opinion coincides with the opinion of this person of percent on 75-80, but to Express their thoughts I know not as good as he is.

Do not disgrace my *personal* research all sorts of nonsense all schizo about the imaginary schizo. We are in the subject about doctrine, not about people.