Recordatorio:
El examen del tema: Martin Luther King
y el movimiento de los derechos civiles,
será el miércoles, 26 de enero de 2011.
El repaso estará en la libreta con fecha
del 21 de enero de 2011.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Isaac Newton
Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 [OS: 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727])[1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian, and is considered by many scholars and members of the general public to be one of the most influential people in human history. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin for "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy"; usually called the Principia), published in 1687, is probably the most important scientific book ever written. It lays the groundwork for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws, by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation; thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution.
Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope[7] and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound.
In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.
Newton was also highly religious. He was an unorthodox Christian, and during his lifetime actually wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics, the subjects he is mainly associated with.
Idealism
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that experience is ultimately based on mental activity. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism, in which the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence. Epistemological idealists (such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction). In literature, idealism refers to the thoughts or the ideas of the writer.
In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism as opposed to dualism and pluralism. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.
Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the school of platonism.
In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism as opposed to dualism and pluralism. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.
Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the school of platonism.
Communism
Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a stateless and classless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[1]
In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals.[2][3]
The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by Communist parties, regardless of the type of economic system they preside over.
In Marxist theory, communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely-associated individuals.[2][3]
The exact definition of communism varies, and it is often mistakenly used interchangeably with socialism; however, Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the way to communism. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to the policies of states run by Communist parties, regardless of the type of economic system they preside over.
Socialism
Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3] A socialist society is characterised by a free association, which is not based on wage labour. It is organized on the basis of relatively equal power relations, self-management, collective decision-making and adhocracy rather than hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization in the economic and political systems.
As an economic system, socialism is a system of production and allocation based on the direct production of use-values by allocating economic inputs, the means of production and investment through planning to directly satisfy economic demand.[clarification needed] Economic calculation is based on either calculation-in-kind, some physical magnitude or a direct measure of labour time.[4][5][clarification needed] Output for individual consumption is distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on individual merit or individual contribution.[6]
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Some currents of socialism advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, arise spontaneously. They advocate direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives.
Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), who coined the term socialisme, advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[7] Saint-Simon, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production that results in instability and cyclical crises of overproduction.[8][9]
Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism[citation needed], combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[10]
As an economic system, socialism is a system of production and allocation based on the direct production of use-values by allocating economic inputs, the means of production and investment through planning to directly satisfy economic demand.[clarification needed] Economic calculation is based on either calculation-in-kind, some physical magnitude or a direct measure of labour time.[4][5][clarification needed] Output for individual consumption is distributed through markets, and distribution of income is based on individual merit or individual contribution.[6]
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Some currents of socialism advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, arise spontaneously. They advocate direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives.
Modern socialism originated from an 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private property on society. Utopian socialists such as Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), who coined the term socialisme, advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[7] Saint-Simon, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx advocated the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy of capitalist production that results in instability and cyclical crises of overproduction.[8][9]
Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development, such as Marxist-Leninists, have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism[citation needed], combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[10]
Capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies.
There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[2] There are a variety of historical cases to which the designation is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[3] Some define capitalism as where all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely where merely "most" are in private hands —while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system where production is carried out to generate profit, or exchange-value, regardless of legal ownership titles. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.[4]
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[5][6] Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor and class.[7] There is general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth.[8] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.[7]
Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe,[9] although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[10][11][12] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[12] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[3] Today the capitalist system is the world's most dominant form of economic model.
There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor how the term should be used as an analytical category.[1] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[2] There are a variety of historical cases to which the designation is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[3] Some define capitalism as where all the means of production are privately owned, and some define it more loosely where merely "most" are in private hands —while others refer to the latter as a mixed economy biased toward capitalism. More fundamentally, others define capitalism as a system where production is carried out to generate profit, or exchange-value, regardless of legal ownership titles. Private ownership in capitalism implies the right to control property, including determining how it is used, who uses it, whether to sell or rent it, and the right to the revenue generated by the property.[4]
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights.[5][6] Most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor and class.[7] There is general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth.[8] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies.[7]
Capitalism, as a deliberate economic system, developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe,[9] although proto-capitalist organizations existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[10][11][12] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[12] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[3] Today the capitalist system is the world's most dominant form of economic model.
National Communism
policies based on the principle that in each country the means of attaining ultimate communist goals must be dictated by national conditions rather than by a pattern set in another country. The term, popular from the late 1940s to the 1980s, was particularly identified with assertions by eastern European communists regarding independence from Soviet leadership or example.
The Yugoslav communist leader Josip Broz Tito first brought National Communism into direct confrontation with Soviet aims when he attempted to pursue an independent foreign policy. Soviet-Yugoslav tensions mounted until, in 1948, Tito's party was expelled from the Cominform (Communist Information Bureau). After that, purges and executions reminiscent of those that Joseph Stalin had conducted in the Soviet Union in the 1930s took place throughout eastern Europe with the goal of eradicating “Titoism” in party ranks. Tito himself, a popular national leader, however, managed to defy Stalin and remain in power despite a Soviet military and economic blockade of his country.
The slight domestic liberalization of the Soviet regime that followed Stalin's death in 1953 raised hopes for a parallel liberalization in eastern Europe. That year the liberal communist Imre Nagy took power in Hungary and instituted reforms that constituted a marked retreat from socialism. His National Communist program returned retail trade and craft industries to private enterprise, made possible the dissolution of collective farms, de-emphasized industrial investments while increasing agricultural investments, and instituted an official policy of religious tolerance. In 1955 the Soviets restored cordial relations with Tito's Yugoslavia. In the mid-1950s the Soviets began to seek eastern European support in their growing struggle with China to maintain a preeminent position in the communist world. Nations alienated by any Soviet stifling of National Communism could shift their support to China.
Nevertheless, when in 1956 Nagy, who had lost his party and state posts in 1955 and regained them after a popular uprising, attempted in Hungary to restore his anti-Soviet regime in a coalition with noncommunists, Soviet troops occupied Hungary. The National Communist János Kádár, who was prepared to be less hostile to the Soviets than Nagy had been, assumed party and state control. Soviet-Yugoslav relations cooled once more when Tito failed to support Soviet actions in Hungary; he did not attend a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Moscow in 1957. In the years after 1956 the idea of a polycentric communist world won the support of the Italian Communist Party. In Spain, too, after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, the resurgent Spanish Communists turned to what they called “Eurocommunism,” a variety of National Communism.
Copyright © 1994-2009 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. For more information visit Britannica.com.
The Yugoslav communist leader Josip Broz Tito first brought National Communism into direct confrontation with Soviet aims when he attempted to pursue an independent foreign policy. Soviet-Yugoslav tensions mounted until, in 1948, Tito's party was expelled from the Cominform (Communist Information Bureau). After that, purges and executions reminiscent of those that Joseph Stalin had conducted in the Soviet Union in the 1930s took place throughout eastern Europe with the goal of eradicating “Titoism” in party ranks. Tito himself, a popular national leader, however, managed to defy Stalin and remain in power despite a Soviet military and economic blockade of his country.
The slight domestic liberalization of the Soviet regime that followed Stalin's death in 1953 raised hopes for a parallel liberalization in eastern Europe. That year the liberal communist Imre Nagy took power in Hungary and instituted reforms that constituted a marked retreat from socialism. His National Communist program returned retail trade and craft industries to private enterprise, made possible the dissolution of collective farms, de-emphasized industrial investments while increasing agricultural investments, and instituted an official policy of religious tolerance. In 1955 the Soviets restored cordial relations with Tito's Yugoslavia. In the mid-1950s the Soviets began to seek eastern European support in their growing struggle with China to maintain a preeminent position in the communist world. Nations alienated by any Soviet stifling of National Communism could shift their support to China.
Nevertheless, when in 1956 Nagy, who had lost his party and state posts in 1955 and regained them after a popular uprising, attempted in Hungary to restore his anti-Soviet regime in a coalition with noncommunists, Soviet troops occupied Hungary. The National Communist János Kádár, who was prepared to be less hostile to the Soviets than Nagy had been, assumed party and state control. Soviet-Yugoslav relations cooled once more when Tito failed to support Soviet actions in Hungary; he did not attend a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in Moscow in 1957. In the years after 1956 the idea of a polycentric communist world won the support of the Italian Communist Party. In Spain, too, after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, the resurgent Spanish Communists turned to what they called “Eurocommunism,” a variety of National Communism.
Copyright © 1994-2009 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. For more information visit Britannica.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)