LIBERTY
LIBERTY
Free conscious activity, according to Karl Marx's definition, constitutes a generic person, distinguishing him from animals, and S. itself, which people possess in each given era, is a necessary product of the historical. development: “The first people who emerged from the animal kingdom were in all their essentials just as unfree as the animals themselves; but every step forward along the path of culture was a step towards freedom " (Engels F.,. In the same place)... Despite all the contradictions and antagonisms of societies. development, it is accompanied in general by the expansion of the scope of S. of the individual and ultimately leads to the liberation of mankind from the social restrictions of S. in a classless, communist society, where "... the free development of each is a condition for the free development of all." (K. Marx and F. Engels, ibid., T. 4, With. 447) .
If the volume is human. S. can serve as a measure of societies. progress, then, in turn, its rates directly depend on the degree of S., which people have in the course of their activities.
Measure S., which in each specific historian. epoch possessed by people, by and large is determined by the level of development produces. forces, the degree of their knowledge of objective processes in nature and society, finally, social and political. structure of a given society. The S. of a person always represents only a part of S., which is at the disposal of society as a whole. And in this sense, as Lenin noted, refuting the anarchist. individualistic S.'s concept of personality, "you cannot live in society and be free from society" (PSS, T. 12, With. 104) .
Throughout the history of mankind, the struggle of people against caste, estate, class and other social restrictions of their S., in whatever ideological. she did not put on form, she was a powerful driving force of societies. progress. Over the centuries, the demands of S. and equality were mutually conditioned, although they were justified by the ideologists of different classes in different ways. On the eve of the bourgeois. revolutions in Zap. Europe and North. In America, they were proclaimed as the natural right of all people to equally enjoy the achievements of civilization and dispose of the fruits of their labor and their destiny. Under the slogan "freedom, equality, brotherhood!" the progressive led the bunk. the masses to fight against feudalism. However, these principles are impracticable in capitalist conditions. society. Estate restrictions S. Nar. masses and individuals were destroyed as a result of the bourgeois. revolutions and the subsequent struggle of the working people.
However, the limited economics became even more determined. and S.'s social framework in the antagonistic. society. Capitalist history. society has refuted the bourgeois. S. doctrine, in particular popular in the 19th century. bourgeois-liberal concept of I. Bentham and J. S. Mill, to-rye believed that max. limitation of the sphere of activity of the state, free disposal by people of their private property and pursuit by each of their reasonable interests will be accompanied by the common good and the flourishing of individual S. of all members of society.
Even in the most developed capitalist countries. countries of S. personality in means. the least remains formal, and those real rights, to-ryh bunks. the masses have achieved in the course of a stubborn struggle and are constantly being attacked by the reactionaries. imperialistic. bourgeoisie.
The objective conditions of genuine S. are realized only as a result of the elimination of the antagonistic. relations between people, generated by private property. When spontaneous processes in society are replaced by planned development, that means. least excluding unforeseen economic. and social consequences, societies. the activity of people becomes truly free and conscious. historical creativity. At the same time, in order to fully achieve individual S., the goals to-rye sets before itself each department. personality, must be consistent with the interests of the rest of the people who make up society. Equality becomes a necessary condition and social basis for individual S., and S. herself of the individual, in turn, is a way of realizing equality in practice. activities. At the same time, each member of society should have real opportunities for the all-round and full development of the abilities and talents inherent in him, free access to the experience accumulated by humanity, knowledge and other spiritual values, as well as sufficient free time to master them. A person can never go beyond his physical. and spiritual abilities, as well as historical. S. society's restrictions; however, his individual S. can be multiplied thanks to the individual S. of the other members of such a society who are in solidarity with him, and, to the extent of his abilities and knowledge, he can increasingly become the bearer of that aggregate S. that society as a whole has.
Socialist. the revolution lays the foundation for this process of liberating people in all spheres of society. It proceeds at an ever-accelerating pace along with the rapid growth of production. forces, the development of scientific and technical. revolution, improving economic. and social relations, the approval of the bunk. self-government, a general cultural upsurge and ends in communist. society. In the communist. society, "the objective, alien forces that have dominated history until now come under the control of the people themselves. And only from this moment people will begin to completely consciously create their own history, only then the social causes set in motion will have a predominant and ever-increasing measure and those consequences that they desire. This is the leap of mankind from the kingdom of necessity into the kingdom of freedom "(F. Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1966, p. 288).
In the communist. society S. will be embodied in the creation of the necessary conditions for a comprehensive harmonious. personality development. Historical necessity will turn out to be "removed" by the individual S. and, as Marx noted, under communism, beyond the realm of necessity, "... the development of human strength begins, which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only on this realm necessity, as on its own basis "(" Capital ", vol. 3, 1955, p. 833).
Lit .: K. Marx, F. Engels, Nem. ideology, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3; Engels F., Anti-Dühring, ibid., V. 20, dep. 1, ch. 11, dep. 2, ch. 2; dep. 3; him, Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of the classic. German philosophy, ibid., v. 21, ch. 4; his, The origin of the family, private property and state, in the same place, ch. 5; his, [Letters to I. Bloch, F. Mehring, K. Schmidt, G. Starkenburg], in the book: K. Marx and F. Engels, Izbr. letters, M., 1953; K. Marx, Economics and Philosophy. manuscripts, in the book: K. Marks, F. Engels, From early productions, M., 1956; Lenin V. I. What are "friends of the people" and how do they fight against the social democrats ?, Works, 4th ed., Vol. 1; his, Materialism and Empirio-criticism, ibid., vol. 14, ch. 3; its the same. State and Revolution, ibid., V. 25; On overcoming the personality cult and its consequences, in the book: The CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, part 4, M., 1960; Program of the CPSU (Adopted by the XXII Congress of the CPSU), Moscow, 1961; Program documents of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, Moscow, 1961; Fisher K., About S. man, trans. from German, St. Petersburg, 1900; Mill J.St., O.S., trans. from English, St. Petersburg, 1901; Hegel, Works, vol. 8, M. - L., 1935; R. Garaudy, S. Grammar, trans. S., M., 1952; his, Marxist, trans. from French., M., 1959; Lamont K., S. should be freedom in practice, trans. from English., M., 1958; Yanagida K., Philosophy S., trans. from Japanese., M., 1958; Apteker G., On the essence of S., trans. from English., M., 1961; Davydov Yu. N., Trud and S., M., 1962; Holbach P. Α., The system of nature ..., Izbr. Prod., t. 1, M., 1963, p. 1, ch. eleven; Hobbes T., About S. and Necessity, Izbr. Prod., t. 1, M., 1964; him, Leviathan ..., ibid, vol. 2, M., 1964, ch. 21; Communists and Democracy. (Materials of exchange of opinions), Prague, 1964; Nikolaeva L.V., S. - a necessary product of the historical. development, M., 1964; Niring S., S .: the promise and the threat, trans. from English, M., 1966; Kallen Η. Μ. ; Freedom in the modern world, N. Y. 1928; Fromm E., Escape from freedom, N. Y. – Toronto, 1941; Sartre J.-P., L "existentialisme est un humanisme, P., 1946; Acton JF, The history of freedom, Boston, 1948; Riesman D., Lonely crowd, New Haven, 1950; Walker p. G., The restatement of liberty, L., 1951; Makkeon R., Freedom and history, NY, 1952; Garaudy R., La liberté, P., 1955; him, Perspectives de l "homme, P., 1959; Dobzhansky Th. G., Biological basis of human freedom, Ν. Υ., 1956; Kahler E., The tower and the abyss, L. 1958; Adler M. J., Idea of freedom, v. 1–2, N. Y., 1958; Walliсh H., Cost of freedom, Ν. Υ., 1960; Friedman M., Capitalism and freedom, Chi. , 1962; Gurvitch G., Déterminismes sociaux et liberté humaine, 2 éd., P., 1963; Kosík K., Dialektika konkrétního, 2 wyd., Praha, 1963.
E. Arab-oglu. Moscow.
By nature, man has both the properties of continuity and discontinuity. If it is recognized that only exists, we are dealing with mechanistic. materialism. If it is recognized that there is only, we are dealing with spiritualism.
Formally, human freedom is found in freedom of choice (lat.); but real in the presence of alternatives that are also available to knowledge. The problem of freedom as arbitrariness (έκούσιον) was posed by Aristotle in connection with the nature of virtue (Nicomachean Ethics, III). Involuntary actions committed involuntarily (under the influence of natural or someone else's power) or out of ignorance (when the performer of the action cannot know about all the possible consequences). But voluntary actions are not always voluntary. Among arbitrary actions, Aristotle singles out intentional (intentional) actions that are committed consciously, by choice: a conscious action is not one that is performed only at will, since people tend to desire the unrealizable; the choice depends on the person, namely the means to achieve the goal and the ways of their use. Freedom, that is, does not consist simply in arbitrariness, but in due arbitrariness aimed at the highest.
In classical philosophy, freedom is a characteristic of an action committed: a) with knowledge and understanding of objective constraints, b) by one's own will (not by compulsion), c) under conditions of choice of opportunities, d) as a result of a correct (due) decision: thanks to reason man is able to make his choice, deviating from evil and leaning towards good.
The characterization of freedom as action in accordance with the correct and proper decision contains an important problem of raising freedom from arbitrariness to creativity. In arbitrariness and creativity, it is revealed in different ways - as negative and positive freedom. This was foreseen in the early Christian understanding of freedom as devotion to Christ - implicitly in opposition to the ancient idea of the sage's independence from external things and circumstances (see Autarchy). The Apostle Paul proclaims the calling of man to freedom, which is realized through. The distinction between negative and positive freedom was evident in Augustine's vatu freedom concept. A person is free to choose not to sin, not to succumb to temptations and desires. Man is saved solely by grace; however, it depends on his own choice whether to accept or abstain from sin and thereby preserve himself for God. An important point in the teaching of Augustine was that he asserted not only the possibility of man's independence from the carnal, but also his turning to God as the highest spiritual perfection. In Augustine's negative definition of freedom, not as arbitrariness, but as self-restraint, positive freedom was affirmed (cf. Pelagianstus). Augustine's position on this issue predetermined the discussion of the problem of freedom in medieval thought up to Thomas Aquinas, who, having perceived the Aristotelian intellectually sovereign will of the individual, subordinated the will to reason: man is sovereign in the implementation of a reasonably chosen principle of action. Arguing against Thomism, Duns Scotus asserted the priority of will over reason (both in God and in man) and, accordingly, the autonomy of a person who freely chooses the principles of action. In essence, this approach was developed in the humanism of the Renaissance: freedom was understood as the possibility of unhindered all-round development of the individual.
Pointing to the difference between negative and positive freedom, Kant saw real and value in positive freedom. Ethically, positive freedom appears as goodwill; the will, subject to the moral law, remains free as lawful and self-legislating. Solving the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity. Kant showed in the third antinomy of pure reason that freedom of choice rises above the causality of nature. Man is free as a being belonging to the noumenal world of goals comprehended by reason, and at the same time not free as a being belonging to the phenomenal world of physical causality. Moral freedom is revealed not in relation to necessity, but in how (and what) decisions are made, what actions are performed in accordance with these decisions. In Kant, this can be traced in the transition from the first practical principle of the categorical imperative to the second and in the removal of this transition in the third principle (see "Critique of Practical Reason", "Foundations to the Metaphysics of Morals"). The idea of the difference between negative and positive freedom was developed by F. V. I. Schelling, who, in a polemic with Spinoza, and especially with I. G. Fichte, showed that even the system of the basis of all that creates its own
baud, is capable only of a formal concept of freedom: the living concept of freedom, according to Schelling, consists in the fact that freedom is the ability to make a choice based on the distinction between good and evil.
In modern European philosophy, largely under the influence of the theories of natural law and in line with the ideas of liberalism (G. Greece, Hobbes, S. Pufendorf, J. Locke), the concept of freedom as the political and legal autonomy of a citizen is being formed. In this understanding, freedom is contrasted with the licentiousness and boundless independence of will. It is one thing when the will reveals itself as self-will, and another thing as self-will; in the first case, it certifies itself as capable of being an unaccountable will, in the second, as freedom that does not obey order, the understanding of which is limited only by the idea of personal independence, arbitrariness, illegality easily (“freely”) manifests itself in irresponsibility, indifference, selfishness, fraught with anarchic rebelliousness - the abolition of any law that stands above the individual, and in the long term and tyranny, that is, the unauthorized elevation of a single will to the rank of law for others. Analysis of the widespread (in different ways in different cultures) notions of freedom (identified by A. Vezhbitskaya on the basis of intercultural semantic comparisons) indicates the range of meanings and value statuses of this concept: possesses ”to“ freedom is what is good for everyone ”; b) from “freedom is the unaccountable arbitrariness of the individual” to “freedom is a manifestation of the guaranteed independence of the individual as a member of the community”.
In autonomy as civic independence, freedom is revealed negatively - as “freedom from”. The social and political-legal problem of ensuring the civil autonomy of the individual as a member of society, in principle, is solved in Europe by the bourgeois revolutions of the 17-19 centuries, during which a legal public is established, and in the USA - as a result of the abolition of slavery. In the 20th century. similar problems were and are being solved in the process of transforming various societies with totalitarian and authoritarian regimes into legal societies, closed societies into “open societies” (A. Bergson, K. Popper). But success in solving the problem of civil emancipation of a person everywhere depended not so much on the decisiveness with which the machine of oppression broke down, but on the consistency in the establishment of the legal order - a social discipline, within which not only state and public institutions guarantee the freedom of citizens (and the freedom of people as citizens enshrined in the system of rights as political freedoms), but citizens themselves guarantee each other's freedom by the proper observance of their civic obligations. The assertion of formal freedoms outside the atmosphere and spirit of freedom, outside the corresponding social and legal order, leads to an understanding of freedom as anarchy and the triumph of willful force. The inability of the individual to understand the order of freedom and to be included in it can lead to “escape from freedom” (Fromm). Thus, autonomy is expressed in: a) insecurity, that is, freedom from paternalistic tutelage, and even more so dictate from someone else's side, including from the state; b) actions based on norms and principles that people recognize as rational and acceptable, that is, corresponding to their idea of the good; c) the ability to influence the formation of these norms and principles, the operation of which is guaranteed by public and state institutions. The autonomous will is revealed as free through the curbing of self-will. In the field of law, this is the subordination of personal will to the general will, expressed in social discipline. In the sphere of morality, this is the conformity of personal will with duty. The understanding of freedom as self-control is developed within the framework of a moral and legal view of the world: everyone, striving to achieve private goals, must remain within the framework of legitimacy, that is, within the framework of recognized and practically accepted norms. Psychologically, autonomy is expressed in the fact that he acts in the confidence that others recognize his freedom and do not interfere with it out of respect, as well as in the fact that he asserts his confidence in actions that demonstrate respect for the freedom of others.
The private non-commercial international radio company Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty traces its history back to 1950. The Russian service (edition) of RS / RFE began broadcasting in March 1953 under the name "Radio" Liberation ". On March 1, 1953, a radio station called Radio Liberation began broadcasting. Its first announcer was Sergei Dubrovsky. According to the official history of the radio station, Radio Liberation was conceived by the American Committee for the Liberation from Bolshevism as an emigrant radio, the mouthpiece of the Anti-Bolshevik Struggle Coordination Center for the liberation of the homeland from the communist dictatorship. The radio station broadcast in the languages of the peoples of the Union republics of the USSR, as well as in the Tatar and Bashkir languages, while the Radio Free Europe, created at about the same time, broadcast to the countries of the socialist camp in Europe.
From the very beginning, the United States Congress provided financial and administrative assistance to the operation of the radio station. According to Soviet ideologists, members of the People's Labor Union (NTS) and other “Nazi accomplices” took an active part in the work of Radio Liberation. Radio broadcasting was conducted from Germany and, later, from the island of Taiwan (to the Asian part of the USSR): in a studio in Munich, programs were recorded on magnetic tape, then the coils were delivered to Lampertheim, where the radio transmitter was located. The Munich building, which housed the radio station, was located next to the English Garden at Oettingenstrasse, 67, and the New York branch at Broadway, 1775 ...
New - TV Channel Present Time Live
New - Radio Liberty Watch Live TV 24/7 Live
If there is no broadcast - see here:
+ Listen - Radio Liberty:
Back in 1949, the USSR leadership decided to create a jamming network for Western radio stations.
Radio Liberty (Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, RFE / RL.) Is an international non-profit broadcasting organization funded by the US Congress, which produces programs aimed at encouraging the development of democratic institutions and market economies in countries that are trying to overcome authoritarian rule, violations of human rights, enmity on ethnic and religious grounds, ensure freedom of the media.
Broadcast Radio Liberty Live Watch Online
TV Channel Present Time Live
Video recording of all Radio Liberty programs - Playlist - Update:
Video recording of all programs of Radio Liberty Ukraine - Playlist - Update:
Radio Liberty Listen Live
Broadcasting is carried out in 28 languages in 21 countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Near and Middle East. The headquarters of the organization is located in Prague (until 1995 it was located in Munich), there are also 23 regional offices. RFE / RL employs about 500 full-time journalists (about 300 of them in Prague, the rest in regional offices) and about 750 freelancers.Radio Liberty has one of the world's largest news services. In addition to broadcasting, Radio Liberty also broadcasts over the Internet and creates television broadcasts. The total audience reach is over 24 million listeners.
To maintain Radio Liberty's independence from the US government, funding is not provided directly by Congress, but through the cross-party Broadcasting Board of Governors () through grants. Also for this purpose, Radio Liberty is registered as a private corporation, according to the law, the US authorities have no right to interfere either in editorial policy or in the operational management of the radio network.
