text:
Николај I Павлович (; Гатчина, 6. јул 1796 — Санкт Петербург, 2. март 1855) био је руски император од 1825. до 1855. године. Био је истовремено краљ Пољске од 1825. до 1831. и велики кнез Финске од 1825. до 1855. године.

Младост

Николај је рођен у Гатчињском дворцу у Гатчини. Био је син великог кнеза, а касније и цара Павла и војвоткиње Марије Фјодоровне. Пет месеци након рођења Николаја, умрла је његова баба Катарина Велика и његови родитељи постају цар и царица. Николај је био млађи брат Александра I Павловича Романова, који је наследио оца на престолу 1801. године. Имао је и брата Константина Павловича. Риасановски пише да је Николај био "најзгоднији мушкарац у Европи", али и шармер који је уживао у женском друштву. Године 1817. оженио се Шарлотом од Пруске (1798—1860) која је примила православље и ново име Александра Фјодоровна. Александар је 1825. године изненадно умро од тифуса. Почетак Николајеве владавине обележен је тзв. побуном декабриста.

Побуна декабриста

Александар је, наиме, остао без мушког наследника, па је круна требало да пређе на његовог брата Константина (пољског краља) који је тада био у Варшави. Константин се, међутим, пре пет година одрекао права на престо у корист трећег брата, Николаја. Александар је документ о одрицању чувао у тајности; за њега су знали само Аракчејев, Голицин и патријарх Филарет. Николај је знао за документ, али није смео да се прогласи царем, већ је круну понудио свој старијем брату. Константин ју је поново одбио. Док су ове поруке путовале саоницама по пространствима Руског царства, Северно друштво настојало је да искористи конфузију да изврши преврат.

До устанка декабриста дошло је 26. децембра 1825. године. Завереници, на челу са пуковником Трубецким, позвали су царску гарду да одбије да положи заклетву новом цару. Затражили су уставно уређење. Одазвало им се 800 војника Московског пука, а до краја дана још 2000 војника других пукова. Збуњени цар Николај послао је команданта Петрограда, генерала Милорадовича, да умири масе. Млади официр Каховски пуцао је на њега и смртно га ранио. За то време, Трубецки, који је посумњао у успех, склонио се у кућу аустријског амбасадора. Побуњеници су остали без вође. Цар је скупио храброст и у сумрак је наредио артиљеријским јединицама да отворе ватру на побуњенике. После другог плотуна настао је метеж. Неколико стотина устаника је убијено. Тиме устанак декабриста није био угушен јер је у Украјини још увек деловало јужно друштво под Пестељем. Након његовог хапшења у Украјину је стигла вест о догађајима у Петрограду. Трупе украјинских побуњеника поражене су код села Коваљевка. Устанак је тиме угушен, а цареве репресалије биле су сурове; петорица најистакнутијих вођа покрета било је обешено. Никола је због побуне декабриста стекао трајну фобију од револуција. Цела његова тридесетогодишња владавине биће посвећена борби против револуција која ће кочити развој и друштвени преображај Русије.

Унутрашња политика

Русија је у периоду владавине Николаја претежно аграрна земља. Индустријализација тече успорено, али тековине индустријске револуције ипак продиру у Русију 1830-их година. У овом периоду напредује руска трговина; унутрашња и спољашња. Главни предмет размене су аграрни производи (житарице и сточарски производи). Број становника убрзано расте. Половином века он је достигао 68 милиона. Најбрже расте сеоско становништво што доводи до аграрне пренасељености чак и у огромној Русији. Буржоазија је, насупрот племству, у успону. Битну улогу у друштву игра и интелигенција. Међутим, далеко најмногољуднији део становништва је сељаштво. Цар је покушавао да ублажи њихово незадовољство, али да истовремено и не окрњи интересе већ угроженог племства. Зато реформе од 1825. до 1855. године нису довеле до неких резултата. Нешто блажи Николај је био у земљама где је племство било претежно пољске националности (Украјина, Литванија, Белорусија). Између 1801. и 1861. године руска статистика забележила је преко 2000 мањих и већих сељачких побуна. Око 1150 их је било само у последњих десет година овог периода. Мање покрете гушила је полиција или саме спахије, док је веће феудалне побуне гушила војска. Године 1834. долази до првог штрајка радника; они се понављају 1842. и 1849. године. Под утицајем Јулске револуције у Француској, у Пољској је 1830. године дошло до избијања устанка након чијег гушења је цар укинуо пољски устав и распустио Сејм.

Николајева владавина представља врхунац апсолутизма у Русији. Управна власт била је строго централизована. Најважнију улогу имала је Царска канцеларија која је подељена на 4, касније на 6 одељења. Најважније је било одељење за законодавне и за управне послове, познатије као "Треће одељење Царске канцеларије", које се бавило свим важнијим унутрашњим питањима државе. У надлежности Трећег одељења била је војска, полиција, цензура, жандармерија. Контролисао га је сам цар. Цензура је била немилосрдна и примитивна; сам цар је понекад цензурисао дела (нпр. Пушкинова дела).

Две су реформне мере довеле до корисних резултата током владавине Николаја. Прва је финансијска реформа министра финансија Канкрина. Ригорозном штедњом он је смањио државне расходе, а 1839. године увео је монетарни систем и промет. У целој земљи установљен је јединствени курс сребрне рубље као основне новчане јединице. Друга реформа односи се на законодавство, односно доношење "Потпуног збогника руских закона у 51 књизи". У њој се нашло 36.000 различитих законских текстова.

Руска револуционарно-демократска мисао развија се 1840-их година. Револуционари врше снажан утицај на омладину. Бројни су млади интелектуалци (нпр. Фјодор Достојевски) који воде жучне расправе о приликама у Русији и њеној будућој судбини. Они се окупљају у стану Петрашњвског (отуда назив "петрашевци"), али су откривени 1849. године. Многи су послати у прогонство у Сибир. Сличну судбину имало је и друштво "Ћирила и Методија" основано у Кијеву од стране украјинског писца Тараса Шевченка. Русија је на прагу друге половине 19. века и даље пропадала у феудалном систему.

Спољна политика
На међународној сцени европске политике у периоду од 1815. до 1848. године доминирају три проблема: борба против револуција, спољне интервенције у унутрашње послове других земаља и источно питање.

Руско-турски рат

Руско-турски рат, вођен од 1828. до 1829. године изазван је кризом у Грчкој. Заштита политичких права султана није могла бити трајна политика руског цара због тежње ка мореузима и топлим морима. Александар је 1821. године ултимативно тражио од султана да прекине са покољем хришћанског становништва. Тражи интервенцију великих сила. Преговори су вођени неколико година. Руска влада предала је султану 1826. године нов ултиматум; да у Влашкој и Молдавији врати стање од пре 1821. године и обезбеди поштовање 8. тачке Букурешког мира (услед чега је са Милошем Обреновићем султан склопио Акерманску конвенцију). За Грчку је тражена широка аутономија. Русима се придружују и Британци. Махмуд мора да попушта. Неприлике у самој земљи (борба са јаничарима) приморале су га на то. Турска војска није била довољно јака због распуштања јаничарског реда. Међутим, султан није хтео да преговара о грчком, већ само о српском питању. Велике силе склапају Лондонски уговор о заједничком притиску на Порту. Када је султан одбио да изврши наредбе заједничка англо-руско-француска флота напала је египатску. У бици код Наварина 1827. године муслиманска флота је уништена. Турци и даље не прихватају предају. У Грчкој је за председника 1827. године изабран руски штићеник, генерал Каподистрија. Французи су истерали Ибрахим-пашу са Пелопонеза, а Руси објављују султану рат. Руси продиру до Једрена. Султан сада тражи мир. Он је потписан у Једрену септембра 1829. године. Влашка и Молдавија сачувале су аутономију, Русија се проширила на мање области, Милошу Обреновићу је издат хатишериф о аутономији.

У првим годинама Николајеве владавине вођен је Четврти руско-персијски рат. Николај односи победу. Јеревански клаганат и Нахичевански каганат припали су Русији. Шах је био обавезан да плати русији ратну одштету, у висини од 20.000.000 рубаља у сребру и тонама злата царске ризнице, морао је дозволити слободно пресељавање тј. кретање својих јерменских поданика, на новоосвојену руску триторију без икаквих препрека. Можда је још важније било то што је, шах пристао, да Русија једина добије искључиво право држања морнарице у Касписком мору, као и то да руски трговци могу трговати било где, где они желе у Персијском царству без икаквих проблема. Уз ово шах се обавезао да амнестира сво становништво, дотада иранског Азербејџана које је помагало Русима у рату. Укратко речено, овим мирвним гуговором коначно и трајно је уздрман до тада доминантни британски положај у Персији, што је означило нову фазу у Великој игри између царстава. Чиме је дугорочно било обебеђено припадање целог Кавказа Руском царству.

Источно питање

Турски султан Махмуд се потом морао суочити са неприликама на истоку. Египатски намесник Мехмед Алија, који је након протеривања Француза средио прилике, реорганизовао управу и војску по европским узорима и унапредио привреду земље, затражио да се његовом поседу припоји Сирија, односно Пашалук Дамаск. Наиме, султан је обећао Мехмеду и његовом сину Ибрахиму Кандију (Крит) и Мореју (Пелопонез) за помоћ у рату против грчких устаника. Ове територије ушле су у састав нове грчке државе, те је египатски намесник тражио обештећење. Мехмед је заузео Сирију војском, али се ту није зауставио већ је кренуо ка Киликији. Из Киликије је преко Мале Азије продирао равно ка Цариграду. То је изазвало интервенцију Руса који су заштитили Цариград. Руска интервенција довела је до мешања европских сила уз чије посредовање је склопљен мир у Кјутаји 1833. године којим је Мехмеду Алији припала Сирија. Тиме је завршена прва египатска криза. Русија није хтела проћи без добитака већ је Порти наметнула тајни уговор у Ункјар-Искелесију. Русија се обавезала да ће и убудуће султану слати помоћ уколико му је потребна, а султан да ће у случају рата Русије са великим силама затворити Дарданеле и Босфор за стране бродове. Уговор је закључен на 8 година и представља врхунац руског утицаја у Турској. До друге египатске кризе дошло је почетком 1839. године када је султан покушао да поврати Сирију, на наговор Британаца. Ибрахим-паша је, међутим, тешко поразио султанову војску код Нисиба на Еуфрату, а флота је прешла на страну Мехмед Алије. Султан је баш тада умро, а наследио га је малолетни Абдул Меџид (1839—1861). Поново се мешају велике силе које су сазвале Лондонску конференцију. Француска је била на страни Мехмед Алије, док су остале силе биле на страни младог султана. Мехмеду је наметнуто да се задовољи Египтом и Сиријом (на доживотно уживање), али да мора вратити све остале поседнуте територије и убудуће редовно плаћати данак. Уследио је Дарданелски уговор којим је потврђено старо турско правило да Босфор и Дарданели остају затворени за све стране бродове у стању мира. Тиме је ликвидиран Ункјар-Искелески споразум. Новембра 1839. године султан је донео Хатишериф од Гилхане којим је свим поданицима Царства гарантовао личну, правну и имовинску безбедност и прихватио је правило Хабеас Корпус Акта (прогласио незаконитим хапшење без одлуке суда). Ове реформе нису довеле ни до каквих резултата у Османском царству.

Руси, Аустријанци, Пруси и Енглези склапају 1840. године Четворни споразум о одбрани османског интегритета. Споразум је уперен против Француске. Резултат је скапање Лондонског споразума, познатог и као Дарданелски уговор о мореузима. Он представља озбиљан пораз Руса. Након склапања споразума долази до француско-аустријског зближавања. Метерних има француску подршку у ликвидацији Краковске републике 1846. године. Интервенцију против швајцарских устаника спречиће избијање револуција 1848. године.

Устанак у Пољској

На Бечком конгресу је извршена нова подела Пољске чији је највећи део, заједно са Варшавом, припао Русији, а мањи делови Аустрији и Пруској. На руским деловима формирана је краљевина на челу са Константином, млађим братом цара Александра I и старијим братом цара Николаја. Пољска је добила релативно либералан устав и широку унутрашњу аутономију. Имала је свој парламент (Сејм) са два дома: представничком скупштином и Сенатом. Руска влада убрзо почиње да крши права Пољака гарантована уставом. Најпре се престао одржавати Сејм (1820—1825), а када се коначно састао, цар је затражио да се опозиционари избаце из њега. У Пољској расте либерална и тајна револуционарна опозиција. Револуционарну опозицију предводе Кошћушко и Домбровски који се сматрају наследницима јакобинаца. Они траже нове реформе, пре свега аграрне. Јулски догађаји у Француској подстакли су избијање устанка у Варшави 29. новембра 1830. године. Устаници су брзо овладали градом и формирали привремену владу на челу са грофом Адамом Чарторијским. На чело владе дошли су племићи који су одбијали поделу земље те је дошло до разлаза са сељацима. Цео терет је пао на пољску војску која је бројчано била много слабија од руске. Руски генерал Паскјевич предводи офанзиву царске војске која је септембра ушла у Варшаву. На хиљаде емиграната бежи на запад, пре свега у САД. Један од познатијих емиграната био је и Фредерих Шопен. Репресалије су биле сурове. Укинут је устав, аутономија је готово потпуно укинута.

Учешће у гушењу Мађарског устанка

Мађари су крајем августа 1848. године коначно раскинули са Бечом. Јелачић је септембра започео напад на Мађарску. Мађарску војску предводио је адвокат Лајош Кошут који је октобра 1848. године именован председником комитета за одбрану Мађарске. Мађари постижу успехе. Али, чим је успоставио ред у Бечу, Виндишгрец је кренуо на Мађарску. Јануара 1849. године заузео је Пешту и потукао Мађаре код Каполне. Мађарску војску предводило је малобројно племство. Априла 1849. године проглашена је независност Мађарске у Дебрецину. Побуњеничка војска ослобађа Пешту. Аустријској војсци су у помоћ пристигли Руси. Пред Русима, мађарски побуњеници су капитулирали код Вилагоша 13. августа. Поново је успостављено јединствено Аустријско царство. Кошут и остале побуњеничке вође беже у Османско царство. После гушења устанка Мађара и Пољака прозван је жандаром  Европе.

Кримски рат

Две су силе, након гушења револуција из 1848. године, испољиле изузетан интерес за источно питање; Аустрија и Русија. У Аустрији је завладао страх од могућих покрета на Балкану те је целокупна аустријска источна политика након 1849. године усмерена на одбрану статуса кво на Балкану и против било каквог напада на интегритет Османског царства. Између 1870. и 1875. године у Аустрији ће бити изграђен читав мит о револуционарној опасности која јој прети са истока. Интереси источне политике Руске империје били су сасвим супротни. Она је сматрала да је након револуција Европа исцрпљена и неспремна да брани Турску. Једино је Британија могла пружити неки отпор, али се Русија уздала у чињеницу да Британија у континенталне ратове никада не срља сама. Ипак, покушала је да за своје планове издејствује сагласност Енглеза. Циљ јој је био да издејствује верско-политички протекторат над свим хришћанима у Турској, какав је миром у Кучук-кајнарџију добила над Влашком и Молдавијом. То је Николај поменуо приликом своје посете Лондону 1844. године, и поново после револуција 1848. године, али га Британци нису прихватили. Русија је сматрала да Британија није спремна да због Турске енергично реагује војском, те се одлучила за рат. Кримски рат највећи је рат у периоду између Наполеонових ратова и Првог светског рата.

Повод је нађен у питању права над светим местима у Палестини. Наполеон III Бонапарта је након крунисања за цара 1852. године навалио на Порту да призна Французима право заштите над овим местима, желећи неки брзи спољнополитички успех. Слаба Турска морала је прихватити. Сада су Руси од султана тражили право заштите над свим хришћанима у Османском царству. Охрабрен ставом осталих великих сила, султан је одбио захтев. Русија је на то, 1853. године, послала трупе да окупирају Влашку и Молдавију. Порта је Русији објавила рат и започела операције на Дунаву и Кавказу. Руси, наравно, односе победе. Слом Турске био је на видику исте године кад је рат започео. Њена флота у Црном мору је уништена. Султану су у помоћ прискочиле велике силе; најпре Француска и Британија, које Русији објављују рат 1854. године. Рат се претворио у европски. Енглези су у њему били решени да се "боре до последњег Француза". Русија је приморана да повуче трупе из Влашке и Молдавије. Тамо су привремено ушли Аустријанци. Наполеон им је нудио да објаве Русији рат, а да за узврат након победе добију Дунавске кнежевине, али Беч то није смео прихватити. Године 1855. савезницама се придружила и Сардинија. Камило Кавур је желео да се искористи међународним конфликтом како би подигао углед своје државице.

Најважније операције вођене су на Криму по чему је рат и добио назив. Француско-енглеско-турске трупе су се искрцале на полуострво након што су претходно успеле да разбију Русе код Алме. Најјаче војно упориште Руса овде је био Севастопољ кога су они претворили у готово неосвојиву тврђаву. Бранили су га адмирали Корнилов и Нахимов. Опсада Севастопоља трајала је месецима, а савезнице му ипак нису могле прићи. Ипак, инфериорност руске у односу на западне армије у овом рату дошла је до изражаја. Севастопољ се предао након 349 дана опсаде, септембра 1855. године. Кримски рат завршен је након Николајеве смрти.

Смрт
Николај је умро 2. марта 1855. године у Зимском дворцу у Петрограду. Прехладио се, али је одбио медицински третман. Умро је од упале плућа. Сахрањен је у катедрали Петра и Павла у Петрограду. Спекулисало се и да је извршио самоубиство.

Породично стабло

Породица

Супружник

Деца

Напомене

Референце

Литература

 Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825–1855 (1967)
 Жак Годшо, Револуције 1848, Београд, Нолит (1971)
 Чедомир Попов; Грађанска Европа (1770—1914), Завод за уџбенике (2010)
 Ј. В. Тарле, Историја новог века, Научна КМД, Београд (2008)

Спољашње везе

 Николај I Павлович
 Преци и Потомци Николаја Павловича

Рођени 1796.
Умрли 1855.
Руски императори
Романови
Витезови подвезице
Краљеви Пољске

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
A Schelling For Your Thoughts
Jordan Schelling has worked for the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, USA Today Network and MLB.com
5 things to know about new Brewers GM David Stearns
September 22, 2015 Jordan Schelling	Comments off
Formally introduced Monday by the club, David Stearns will become the Milwaukee Brewers' ninth general manager on Oct. 5.
Stearns served as Houston Astros assistant GM under Jeff Luhnow over the last three seasons, which saw the club go from a franchise-worst 51-111 record in 2013 to becoming a playoff contender this season. As Stearns' arrival ushers in a new era of baseball in Milwaukee, here are five things to know:
1. Youngest GM in Major League Baseball
Born after the Brewers' only World Series appearance, the 30-year-old Stearns is MLB's youngest GM. Stearns' hiring reflects a trend toward younger general managers, with Theo Epstein and Jon Daniels each having been 28 when they took over the same positions for the Boston Red Sox and Texas Rangers.
Other GMs younger than 40 include: Farhan Zaidi (Los Angeles Dodgers), A.J. Preller (San Diego Padres), Milwaukee native Jeff Bridich (Colorado Rockies), Matt Silverman (Tampa Bay Rays), Alex Anthopoulos (Toronto Blue Jays) and Daniels.
Seven players on the Brewers' 40-man roster are 30 or older: Cesar Jimenez (30), Nevin Ashley (31), Matt Garza (31), Ryan Braun (31), Adam Lind (32), Francisco Rodriguez (33) and Kyle Lohse (36). Brewers manager Craig Counsell, 45, was in high school when his new boss was born.
2. Ivy League background
As a 2007 Harvard graduate, Stearns follows another trend in baseball GMs. He is one of seven Ivy League GMs in MLB, joining Daniels, Silverman, Luhnow, Bridich and Preller. Brewers owner Mark Attanasio, with degrees from Brown University and Columbia Law School, also has an Ivy League background.
While Stearns said Monday that he wasn't sure there's a correlation between Ivy League education and GM qualifications, it seems to connect with the trend toward analytics within the sport. Stearns suggested that it may have more to do with business acumen and he's probably right, but it clearly doesn't hurt to have that Ivy League background.
3. He's done this before
The Brewers are in the middle of rebuilding, a process with which Stearns has experience.
When he arrived in Houston in 2012, the Astros were in the middle of three straight 100-loss seasons, as Luhnow gutted the team for a complete rebuild. The Astros focused heavily on rebuilding the young core of their team and it worked, faster than anticipated. Projected as contenders in '16 or '17, the Astros have been one of baseball's biggest surprises this season.
Stearns' experience with rebuilding in Houston should pay dividends for the same process in Milwaukee. While there's no guarantee the Brewers will enjoy the same sort of success in rebuilding the roster and stocking the farm system with talent, Stearns should have some knowledge on how to do it. Equally important, he should be comfortable with the difficult process and won't shy away from favoring long-term value over short-term success.
4. Extensive MLB experience
Despite his young age, the Brewers were highly impressed with Stearns' experience, and with good reason.
While attending Harvard, Stearns interned with the Pittsburgh Pirates' front office. After graduating, he worked in the baseball operations departments for the New York Mets and the Arizona Fall League. Stearns followed that with three years in the Commissioner's Office, assisting clubs with contract negotiations, the salary arbitration process and draft signings.
Stearns went from New York to Cleveland, where he was the Indians' director of baseball operations. After a year there, he moved into his role as assistant GM for the Astros. Youth and experience are valued commodities, and Stearns has plenty of both.
5. Grew up a Mets fan
Speaking of the Mets, Stearns knows a little about them as well. If nothing else, that should give him a sense of what it's like to go decades without winning a World Series.
Having grown up in New York City, Stearns grew up an "enormous" Mets fan. He toldESPN's Buster Olney that some of his greatest baseball memories involved riding the 7 train from Manhattan out to Shea Stadium in Flushing, N.Y. He "fell in love with the game" there and "wanted to do anything I could to stay involved for as long as I could."
Stearns, a self-described "all-field, no-hit shortstop" growing up, chose Kevin Elster as his favorite player in the late '80s and early '90s. Among his most memorable games at Shea Stadium is Sept. 21, 2001, the first game following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Aaron Henry Alcides Escobar Baltimore Orioles Baseball Basketball Big Ten Bo Ryan Bret Bielema Buck Showalter Carlos Gomez Casey McGehee Chicago White Sox Chris Maragos Chris Narveson Corey Hart Dave Bush Delmon Young Denard Span Detroit Tigers Doug Davis Football Francisco Liriano Glen Perkins Hockey Houston Astros J.J. Watt James White Jason Bohannon Jason Kubel Jay Valai Jim Thome Joe Girardi Joe Maddon Joe Nathan John Axford John Clay John Moffitt Jonathan Lucroy Jon Leuer Jordan Taylor Justin Morneau Keaton Nankivil Ken Macha Kevin Slowey LaTroy Hawkins Los Angeles Dodgers Major League Baseball Manny Parra Michael Cuddyer Miller Park Milwaukee Brewers Minnesota Twins Montee Ball NCAA Tournament New York Yankees NFL Draft Ozzie Guillen Pittsburgh Pirates Prince Fielder Randy Wolf Rickie Weeks Rick McWane Ron Gardenhire Ryan Braun Scott Baker Scott Tolzien St. Louis Cardinals Tampa Bay Rays Target Field Trevon Hughes Trevor Hoffman Tsuyoshi Nishioka Wisconsin Wisconsin Badgers Yovani Gallardo
Jordan's Twitter
So excited for this. twitter.com/TomPelissero/s… 1 week ago
Welcome to the list! There are only 137,866 people ahead of you. https://t.co/bCYnAP0mL9 4 weeks ago
Jonathan. Taylor. Touchdown. https://t.co/piMfZ6L1Im 4 months ago
If you wrote a script for the #AmFamChamp with Steve Stricker and Jerry Kelly in a playoff, no one would believe it. 6 months ago
Time to bring this back for another year... #Packers' open training camp practices, including Family Night, as ann… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 7 months ago
Hey, @axios, you know Milwaukee is not Minneapolis, right? Those are two different cities. https://t.co/Iro5W58fkX 8 months ago
Remember when Ryan Braun told us we were witnessing greatness with Christian Yelich? That was 9 home runs ago. 9 months ago
When it's halftime and the @NFL ad is the highlight of the #SuperBowl. https://t.co/Nbmh0EKvmy 11 months ago
Boston, Badgers, Business and Banter
Bringing Hollywood to Bratland
Hangin' With Haggy
Jimmy and the Jets
Odd Man Rush
The Other B.S. Report

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


I like to draw sci-fi/horror kinds of things, because real life is boring and dull. The characters come from my mind, and they live in the Gworf world which I created. This world exists a long time after humans were extinct. Earth became larger and everything started to evolve quickly.


text:
Jump Into Manga with Lilli (Part 1)
bookpeopleatx	bookseller, recommendations, staff reviews, Uncategorized	 February 3, 2021 February 11, 2021
Bookseller Lilli F. joins us on the BookPeople blog for a limited series that focuses on manga and various sub-genres that full under that wide umbrella!
The genre "Manga" is a very broad category, so I'm here to help you narrow it down a bit with genres within manga as a whole. This post is going to focus on the genre Shōnen, which is a genre typically classified as a fighting or action-based anime, but extends past that definition in many cases.
Bookseller, Lilli F.
Typically, Shōnen focuses themes of friendship and characters coming together to combat some
enemy that often seems unbeatable. It is a genre for the hopeful and those who want to experience edge-of-your-seat action paired with characters you want to root for. Shōnen is often long-running, but some series span only a few volumes, so reading Shōnen does not always mean a long time commitment.
Shōnen is the most widely circulated genre of manga, popularized by the weekly publication of Shōnen Jump in Japan. Series including One Piece, Haiyku!!, Demon Slayer, and The Promised Neverland started out on Shōnen Jump before publishing their own volumes as the series progressed.
This is just a brief introduction to the genre via a few of my favorite manga series that fall into this category! I hope that one of these catches your interest!
Kimetsu no Yaiba: Demon Slayer: Completed, 23 volumes
This manga follows the tale of Tanjiro, who comes home one day to discover that his family has been slaughtered and his only surviving sister has been turned into a demon. From here, he is set upon the journey of joining the Demon Slayer Corps, whose mission is to eradicate demons entirely, all the while seeking a cure for his sister.
This manga is action-packed and has a wide cast of characters for you to root for throughout its twenty-three volumes. It also has an anime that premiered in 2020 with massive success, so if you watched that, this is your chance to get ahead of the story.
All of the talk around this manga and anime created real history in 2020. The last volume of the series hit a record of 2,855,000 copies sold within its first week of printing. And that was just in Japan! The 23rd volume has yet to be released in print in the United States, though you can still get your hands on the English translation of volumes 1-19 in print here. The rest of the series is set to be released in the US by August of this year.
I read this series at the beginning of quarantine after watching the first season of the anime and finished everything that had been released within a single day! It was an absolutely addicting read, and I doubt I could have put it down even if I wanted to. I highly recommend taking a look at this series, especially if you have been wanting more Demon Slayer content while waiting for the movie to debut!
Shōnen is the most widely circulated genre of manga.
One Piece: Ongoing, 97 volumes
Luffy is on a mission to become the King of the Pirates. He and the rest of the Straw Hat Pirates travel across the East Blue, the Grand Line, and into the New World during one of the longest-running manga series of all time.
There's adventure and danger around every corner, and as you travel with them through treacherous waters time and time again, it feels like you have become one of the crewmates yourself.
Although the length of this manga is rather intimidating, there is something to be said about a story that is so compelling that millions of people continue to read it after all of this time.
Jujutsu Kaisen: Ongoing, 15 volumes
When Yuji Itadori and his friends stumble across a maleficent relic, he is plunged head-first into a world of curses and Jujutsu sorcerers. He suddenly is attending a new high school for Jujutsu sorcerers in training, while balancing the fact that the Lord of Curses is now a part of him. The darker moments of this manga are balanced out by hilarious characters that come together to create an altogether irresistible story.
This series has been wildly popular since its debut, and even more so now that the anime has started airing this past year. It's a great opportunity to start reading a series that everyone is talking about.
Mob Psycho: Completed, 16 volumes
From the author who wrote One Punch Man, another wildly popular Shōnen manga, Mob Psycho centers around the middle-schooler Mob, who wields massive amounts of psychic powers. This story is hilarious and heartwarming, and has a vibe very unique among other Shōnens, since the main character is rather put out by his own abilities.
This series is also fabulous to look at while you read, with a stunningly unique art style that perfectly matches the tone of the work.
My Hero Academia: Ongoing, 26 volumes
Izuku Midoriya is a powerless kid in a world of superheroes. In this superhuman society, 80% of the population has abilities called "quirks," and with the emergence of these powers, super villains and heroes appeared. Even though Midoriya has no powers, he wants nothing more than to be a superhero, like his idol All Might. In a twist of fate, Midoriya comes face to face with his hero and starts on his path to becoming a true hero.
This series is so much fun! Though the stakes are high later on in the series, it focuses on the lives of students whose aims are to become pro heroes after they graduate. The series takes a look at the actual implications that a superhuman society would have, and though it has dark moments, told from the perspective of students there is an overarching feeling of hope that permeates this whole story.
Though there are many, many more series that fall under this category, I hope that this gives you a place to start exploring the genre! Whether you like long stories that you can lose yourself in for days, or prefer stories that you can eat through in a day, Shōnen is a genre that truly has something to offer everyone.
You can explore these titles and others like them in this list featured on BookPeople's site now. And stay tuned for Part 2 where Lilli F. drops more manga knowledge for you.
manga 101
mob psycho
Shōnen
Published by bookpeopleatx
Books and socks!	View all posts by bookpeopleatx
Published February 3, 2021 February 11, 2021
Previous Post Is that Love in the Air? No, it's Books!
Next Post Virtual Event Replay: Lisa B. Thompson & Kiese Laymon
2 thoughts on "Jump Into Manga with Lilli (Part 1)"
Pingback: Jump Into Manga with Lilli (Part 2) – BookPeople
Pingback: Valentine's Day Reading: Enemies to Lovers! – BookPeople


text:
Q: C++ library for HTTP requests - XML, JSON, CSV I'm looking for a C++ library that make HTTP requests and turn data from/in XML, JSON, CSV. I'm kinda new to this subject and i really need your opinion.

A: Take C libraries that I had been used for example:

*

*HTTP: libcurl

*XML:libxml2

*JSON:cjson

*CSV:libcsv

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Ritual 1.0
May 27, 2018	/ Juraj Katalenac	/ Essay
Praxis: an attempt at ruthless criticism
Yugoslav socialism was a unique political experiment, not just because it said 'no' to Stalin in 1948 and implemented a system of workers' self-management, but because of the uniqueness of the 'left opposition' and the critique of the political elite that emerged there. Unlike countries behind the 'Iron Curtain' Yugoslavia had a higher level of tolerance for political criticism – especially when it came from intellectual circles or opposition within the League of Communists.[1] When Aleksandar Ranković, head of state security service and prominent unitarist retired the space for free expression expanded, allowing cultural movements such as Yugoslav Black Wave cinema[2], and the new wave and underground music scenes to flourish [3]. There were obviously limits to this tolerance though. The League did not tolerate movements and initiatives that emerged in response to the realities of work life, such as workplace and other class-based struggles.
The emergence of the philosophical journal Praxis (1964-1974) and the Korčula Summer School (1963-1974) was an important political development as it was effectively the 'left opposition' within Yugoslavia. It was seen by some in 'the west' as exotic because few of its essays were translated and published in English. For this reason, a lot of 'mist' surrounds it. For example, Wikipedia and Marxist Internet Archive contain a lot of misinformation. The Memory of the World archive tried to rectify this by uploading most issues of Praxis and other miscellaneous material. However, the language barrier remains as their 'international editions' did not include the vast bulk of the content produced and published by them.
In this essay I will present their story and explain why they were and remain an important development in history of Yugoslavia and their successor states.
WHAT WAS PRAXIS?
Praxis was an academic journal published by Croatian Philosophical Society (HFD). Its founding members were: Branko Bošnjak, Danko Grlić, Milan Kangrga, Danilo Pejović, Gajo Petrović, Rudi Supek and Predrag Vranicki[4]; all members of HFD and professors at Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb. Danilo Pejović left the Editorial Board in 1966 because he joined the Croatian nationalist fraction within the League, and in the years that followed the Editorial Council expanded. The first issue of Praxis was published in 1964 and the last one in 1974.
The first public appearance of the entire editorial board of Praxis (Student Centre, Zagreb, end of 1964). From left to right: Rudi Supek, behind him (obscured from view), Branko Bošnjak, Gajo Petrović (editor-in-chief), Danilo Pejović (editor-in-chief), Predrag Vranicki, Milan Kangrga, Danko Grlić; far right (with back turned): the director of the Student Centre, M. Heremić, next to him, Antun Žvan.
In the first issue they explain their positions and set out their goals. This issue focused solely on the concept of practice/praxis, through which they elaborated their critique of Yugoslav socialism, statist dogma, and the lack of an academic and/or political critique. In their introductory text, "Why Praxis?", they stated how they want a journal:
"that would not be philosophical in the sense according to which philosophy is just one of the special areas, one scientific discipline, strictly separated by the rest of them and from the problems of everyday human life. We want a philosophical journal in the sense that philosophy is the thought of the revolution, ruthless criticism of all that exists, a humanist vision of the human world and as an inspirational force for revolutionary activity."[5]
What lay behind the notion of "ruthless criticism" was the idea that nobody has the right to a monopoly of criticism and thought. Or in other words they should be willing to freely and openly criticize socialist development, or the lack of it, in Yugoslavia. For them, it was primarily the task of Marxists to critically discuss the problems of their country, with an emphasis on socialist internationalism, and a strong rejection of nationalism of any kind. To this end, they stated that the:
"problems of Croatia today cannot be discussed separately from the problems of Yugoslavia, and the problems of contemporary Yugoslavia cannot be isolated from the big questions of the contemporary world. Neither socialism nor Marxism are something strictly national, so Marxism cannot be Marxism, or socialism – socialism, if we enclose ourselves in narrow national frames."[6]
They stated, they were not interested in "preserving the truth" and "conserving Marx", but in a broader discussion that would enable non-Marxists to participate too.
Right away in their introductory text, "Why Praxis?", they state that the positions presented in articles published in the journal belong exclusively to authors and not to editorial staff as a whole as they were not an ideologically homogenous group.
In his book, Practice/Truth (1986), Gajo Petrović wrote that the mission of Praxis was to liberate Marx from "Stalinist silts" to reveal and revive, and to further develop his authentic thoughts. For them the concept of praxis was a central concept of Marx's thought, which is why they refer to it as a philosophy of practice. The primary concern of this philosophy was the human as a being of practice. According to Petrović, when talking about practice, Marx did not think about man's economic and political activity, politics of some 'socialist' government or political party, but rather:
"Practice as a specifically human way of being that distinguishes man from any other being. It is through free creative activity that man creates and shapes himself and his human world and the historical activity that results from this force."[7]
Furthermore, Petrović states in several places in their introductory text that Praxis see Marx's thought as the "thought of the revolution." According to which they understand the meaning of revolution in the right way – revolution is not just the highest form, but the essence of the practice.
KORČULA SUMMER SCHOOL
Aside from the journal they also organized the Korčula Summer School. The idea for both, the journal and the summer school, originated in a symposium, 'Progress and Culture', held in Dubrovnik in 1963, where Western academics, such as Erich Fromm, Henri Lefebvre, and Lucien Goldmann participated. The following year the first issue of Praxis was published and the first Summer School was held. Important contributions to the summer schools ended up in Praxis, and some would appear in its international edition.
Jürgen Habermas (Korčula, 1968).
The international members of Praxis's Editorial Council and permanent participants of the Korčula Summer School were: Kostas Axelos, Alfred J. Ayer, Hans Dieter Bahr, Zygmunt Baumann, Norman Birnbaum, Ernst Bloch, Thomas Bottomore, Umberto Cerroni, Robert S. Cohen, Marvin Farber, Eugen Fink, Erich Fromm, Lucien Goldmann, André Gorz, Jürgen Habermas, Erich Haeintel, Agnes Heller, Leszek Kolakowski, Karel Kosik, Henri Lefebvre, Lucio Lombardo Radice, György Lukacs, Serge Mallet, Herber Marcusce, Stefan Morawski, Enzo Paci, Howard L. Pasons, David Riesman, Ivan Varga, Marx Waroffsky, Kurt Wolff, Georg Henrik von Wright, Aldo Zanardo and Julius Strinka.[8] Obviously others also participated in the summer school and wrote for the journal too. This is not intended as an exhaustive list.
Luka Bogdanović explained in his paper, "Why Praxis? Or about historical origins of Praxis journal" that "Praxis and Korčula Summer School became a place of meeting, confrontation and exchange between philosophers from the East and the West."[9]
Korčula Summer School was conceived as:
"The professional training of people employed in high and middle schools, various institutes and social organizations as well as in journalism, in the disciplines of philosophy and sociology.
The exchange of scientific experiences and thoughts in all areas of activity in the country,
The exchange of thoughts and experiences between foreign and domestic scientists and experts in the domain, and the trends, of philosophical and sociological thought in Europe and the World, so that everyone would be in step with the substantial flows of thought in the world and aware of the newest literature in that field of work."[10]
Thus, the Korčula Summer School had an academic character from the outset. We can see this in the themes of the Summer School, too:
"1963 – Progress and Culture (Dubrovnik), 1964 – The Point and Perspectives of Socialism, 1965 – What is History? (…), 1967 – Creativity and Enlightenment, 1968 – Marx and Revolution, 1969 – Power and Humanity, 1970 – Hegel and Our Time (…), 1971 – Utopia and Reality, 1972 – Freedom and Equality, 1973 – Essence and Boundaries of Civil World, 1974 – Art in the Technological World."[11]
After 1974 the Summer School was banned by the "Stalinist bureaucracy".[12] According to Kangrga, the Council of Korčula received a decree from the 'state level' to ban the summer school, and not allow any further activity of this type in their town. The Council accepted this decision even though they expressed their concerns, through private not public means, about the loss of out of season tourists.
Herbert Marcuse (Korčula, 1968).
Even before the first issue of Praxis was published, the individuals that made up its core constituted an 'opposition', within Yugoslavia, and especially the Socialist Republic of Croatia. Many of these people were involved in writing for and publishing the Views journal (1952-1954), edited by Rudi Supek. This journal published a number of interesting and noteworthy texts, such as Gajo Petrović's "Philosophy in USSR from October Revolution to 1938" (1952), or Milan Kangrga's "Problems of Ideology" (1953) – which outlined many of the ideas that would define Praxis. The early seeds of Praxis can be seen in Bogdanić's use of Kangrga's quote: "Praxis (…) is not just industry, experiment, economy, production, but the totality of human existence, totality of his manifestation, his substantially determination."[13]
The first issue of Praxis set the agenda for what would follow. It warned about the discrepancy between the proclaimed theory and existing practice. It said that philosophers need to engage in practice and criticism instead of just writing about purely abstract subjects.
Texts published in the second issue of Praxis were attacked during the 8th Congress of the League in 1964. In particular Miroslav Pečujlić along with Gajo Petrović, Mihailo Marković, Boris Ziherl and Maks Baćae came under fire for their comments in a discussion about role of the philosopher-communist in criticizing politicians. And when 1968 happened, as it did elsewhere, it gave birth to a critical and radical student movement.[14]
Students at Korčula Summer School (Korčula, 1968).
The 1968 student protests in Belgrade were the biggest revolt against the government in the history of socialist Yugoslavia. On 2 June 1968, students, who were trying to reach the city assembly to give them their demands, clashed with the police. In their document, "Resolution of student protests", they stated that the problems they wanted addressed were "social inequality, unemployment, existence of strong bureaucratic forces and bad situation on Yugoslav universities."[15] Their demands were "firm action against enrichment in un-socialist way, reduction of managerial cadre without adequate qualifications, and the employment of young experts, the democratization of all social and political organizations, especially the League, equal participation of students in university bodies, and free access to university."[16]
Events in Zagreb were inspired by events in Belgrade. Students started to gather in, student dormitories on 3 June to express their support for what students in Belgrade were doing and demanding. The movement in Zagreb culminated with a protest on 5 June at the Student Centre. League members, as well as professors, such as Vanja Sutlić, Gajo Petrović and Milan Kangrga addressed the protest. Students demanded to hear the opinion of the latter two. In his autobiographical book Smugglers of their own lives (2002), Kangrga recalls that he appealed to the students to behave in a 'civilized' way and in accordance with their social status because "we are not a rabble, we are the academics."[17] He urged the students not to protest outside but to stay within the walls of the Student Centre and discuss. He was afraid that if students go outside they would get beaten up by the police. He stated that their demands were fully justified.
Svetozar Stojanović, Praxis member from Belgrade, spoke about in 1968 Praxis had to decide whether it was going to live up to its theory and put it into practice.[18] Unfortunately most of members of Praxis remained uninterested in these events. In Zagreb, only Petrović, Kangrga and Mladen Čaldrović showed some interest, but that was not enough, especially when you consider the role Petrović played in pacifying students on behalf of Pero Piker, the Secretary of the City Council. We can say that in Zagreb, Praxis was on the same side as the League: against the rebellious students. Unlike them, Praxis's Belgrade associates were equal participants and they participated on their own initiative.
To conclude, in the heat of 1968 Praxis decided to put its theory before political practice, even though their ideas, criticisms and demands were in line with those of the students and they had tried to put them into practice. In the pages of Praxis in the next few issues they tried to avoid conflict with the government by analyzing student movements and the 'New Left' around the World, by not mentioning what happened in Yugoslavia. This was a pragmatic move. According to Klasić, if they had participated in the student movement or advocated its ideas it would have meant the end of their journal. Also, there was one incident that year at Korčula Summer School which demonstrated a chasm between the students and the professors. A group of students, led by Šime Vranić, visited Korčula Summer School and decided to write revolutionary slogans on the walls of Korčula's houses. This angered the town council, and they threatened to cancel the Summer School which resulted in Praxis condemning the students.
Korčula 1968.
CRITIQUE OF YUGOSLAVIA
A Croatian nationalist movement known as 'the Croatian Spring' emerged in 1971 demanding greater liberalization of the economy and the political system. This movement occupies a central place in contemporary Croatian nationalist identity and mythology.
From the outset Praxis took a strong anti-nationalist stance and this is why they did not support the 'Croatian Spring' movement, or any other nationalist movement within Yugoslavia, nor did they support unitarian/centralist forces. This episode pushed Praxis to deepen their critique of Yugoslav society and socialism. In Praxis #3-4, published in 1971, they explored what they called the 'Moment of Yugoslav socialism', in which they present a multifaceted – economic, political, cultural and philosophical – critique of Yugoslavia. Some of the essays in this issue were also published in issues 5 and 6 that year, and some were translated into French and English, and published in the 'international edition'.
Praxis did not have an 'ideological line' that they all agreed on and defended. Different writers adopted different perspectives and attitudes to the questions and topics of the day. The diversity in opinion and freedom of expression was a defining feature of the journal. Thus, we will examine the most representative and important positions staked out in 'their' multifarious analysis and critique of Yugoslavia.
Rudi Supek wrote that self-management along with the Non-Aligned Movement[19] proved to be the most efficient instruments of Yugoslav socialism. He presented a critique of statist socialism that was simultaneously minimalist and maximalist. Minimalist in that he points to the 'way of socialism' in Yugoslavia, in distancing itself from the negative aspects of socialism in other countries; and the pluralist approach to Marxist analysis of political and social affairs. The maximalist critique centered on the claim that statism is rooted in Marx's theory of the withering away of the state and his theory of alienation, which is in reality workers' self-management. That the principle of self-management is not wrong in itself but what is wrong is the fact that it is not developed enough and integrated into the wider social system. It is not Marxist, according to him, but democratic-liberalism or Proudhonism.
According to him, workers' self-management became the "theme of the day" in the movement, with left intellectual circles and amongst the 'progressive' liberal bourgeoisie because: a) the development of modern sociology and social-psychology led to discovery of the "human factor" in the production, and by extension without Marxism it came to the conclusion that workers' should participate in the decision making process at the enterprise level; b) the trade unions have through collective agreements got a right to participate in decision making processes in their enterprises; c) the creation of an "intellectual proletariat" through the growth of the third sector, and "enterprise unionism" and self-management became a vehicle for democratization and "normalization" of economic management; d) there is a need for an alternative to statist socialism; e) highly developed countries with a strong tradition of statism and centralization need to find a 'way to socialism' via participatory and direct democracy; f) the idea of workers' self-management is a threatening and offensive force in developed countries that calls for action instead of waiting for liberation to come via the Second and Third World, and; g) the Marxist or socialist intelligentsia quickly became aware of the power of self-management.[20]
The contradictions of Yugoslav self-management, according to Supek, were: a) it allowed some self-managing organizations full autonomy, which in a market economy led to inequality in income and other inequities; b) the total freedom of market commodity money relations (there was an ideology about "socialist commodity money relations" and "socialist market"); c) a spirit of bourgeois liberalism – individualistic and "atomistic" understanding of social organization – prevailed; d) this type of political democracy shaped the economic life of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia combined horizontal self-management in the economic sphere with vertical statist power structures, which is why the system of self-management was dependent on the authority of the state.
Ljubomir Tadić, on the other hand, emphasized the ambivalence of the workers' movement and revolutionary socialist theory toward the state, which he saw as deeply rooted in Marxism itself. He pointed out that unlike Marxism, anarchism had a clear anti-statist attitude from the beginning.
The problems of Yugoslavia, according to him, were: a) the internal organization of society and state, i.e., the relationship between centralization and decentralization, and; b) the classical question of state form. In addressing the latter point he made use of the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Aristotle. Tadić's response to this was federalism, with its principle of freedom. Central to this principle was the belief that more freedom ought to be reserved for that smaller collectives than the larger ones.
Tadić concluded that Proudhon's theory of "workers' democracy" is only possible in a decentralized society. Proudhon developed the idea of mutualism, i.e. the idea of justice understood as mutuality, exchange, a middle point with a balance.[21] In a "workers' democracy" politics is a consequence of the economy.
The political consequence of mutualism is federalism. A political federation arises out of industrial and agricultural association, which is why workers have no need for the state and ought to accept the principle of competition. In this schema competition is an expression of the spontaneity of the society, a sign of its dynamism. It should not be destroyed but balanced. The "power of decentralization" is founded on the principle of ownership, according to which the principle of justice (mutuality), which conflicts with the power in the state in the form of "monopolies and the concentration" of capital.[22]
In an essay entitled, "Bureaucratic Socialism", Gajo Petrović distinguishes between three different conceptions of socialism. The first one sees socialism as a social system that negates capitalism. Linked to this understanding of socialism is a second conception that sees it as the movement that creates socialism. The third conception is distinguished from the previous two in that it is a theory that probes the possibilities for advancing socialism. In this way, it is a theoretical accompaniment to the first and second conception. "Bureaucratic socialism" only understands the first conception, and for Petrović a bureaucrat is a "man who independently of his own 'subjective' beliefs and individual characteristics belongs to the social layer whose 'objective' social position is defined by his relationship to the 'bureau.'"[23] Petrović points out that the bureaucratic view of socialism is systematized in Stalin's "canonization" of socialism as the "lower phase of communism", that ought to come into existence after a period known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat." This "canonization" provides us with the following 'scheme':
capitalism → dictatorship of the proletariat → lower phase of communism (socialism) → higher phase of communism (full communism)
The roots of this 'scheme' laid out in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme and later developed by Lenin and others. Petrović critiques this theory for singling out the dictatorship of the proletariat as a period between capitalism and socialism:
"[The] Dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed a dictatorship of the proletariat, only if it is already the beginning of socialism and communism. (…) If the dictatorship of the proletariat is understood as a special transitional period, which is neither capitalism nor socialism, it can be understood as a period of unlimited terror and violence."[24]
What is the essence of communism? Petrović wrote, according to Marx, communism is the "creation of practical humanism." For Petrović, communism is a transitional society from capitalism to humanism. Communism is as communist as it is humanist:
"According to Marx communism is the 'reintegration or return of the man to himself', [the] 'abolition of man's self-alienation'. And the abolition of alienation means 'the return of man from religion, family, state to a human, i.e. social, existence'. Communism, therefore, is not just another socio-economic formation, it is the abolition of the primacy of the economic sphere and catches human life in its fullness."[25]
In his presentation of 'communism', he mentions Lassalleau who thought that distribution according to "work" is "just". He compares it to the position of Marx and Engels, who thought that the principle of distribution according to work done belongs to bourgeois society, in its search to impose a universal measure on the different types of work done, so that despite its formal equality it represented a violation of rights and inequality. Moreover, Petrović is perfectly aware that in the first phase of socialist development it will be impossible to abolish the injustice that is distribution according to work, but he believes later the conditions for transcending narrow bourgeois right and the fulfilment of principle of distribution according to needs will be realised.
In comparison to Tadić and Petrović who theoretically and philosophically criticized the 'present state of things' in Yugoslavia, Veljko Cvjetičanin tackled the concrete problems of Yugoslav socialism. The Yugoslav economy experienced a gradual slowdown in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to the growth of all shapes of consumption and unemployment (the economy needed to grow by 9% per annum in order to absorb the new work force). The pressures this placed on the economy risked crashing, especially when you consider the role debt played. Income derived from work fell in response to this, as more than 30% of income was accrued outside of work time. All this led to greater social stratification; the ruling middle class that occupied positions in the administration of the society were on the rise, while the working-class was in decline. The situation was even worse for the rural population that made up 45% of the population.
The gap between economic performance and social reality caused an ideological crisis. It was harder and harder for Yugoslav socialism to perform the integrative role it once did, once commercialization started to take root. The resulting erosion of Yugoslav socialist ideology and identity allowed nationalism to emerge in the creeping void created by this.
Praxis put a lot of faith in self-management as a process that could develop socialism in Yugoslavia, and in the rest of the world too. If we go back a little bit to Praxis 2, from 1964, Mihajlo Marković wrote that:
"True self-management presupposes the existence of rational, socialized, humane personalities that understand the wholeness of the social process, and are aware of the relative connections of personal, group and general interests and adhere to certain ideals of human purposefulness."[26]
Furthermore, he claims under-developed societies do not possess such a population, which is why a revolutionary elite is needed to motivate the masses (even by force), to ensure "progress". That same elite should shift its attention to the realization of self-management and slowly abolish itself. It is worth noting here that Svetozar Stojanović also had a conception of a 'statist class' in the sense of a ruling class that opposes the working class.[27] However, in case of Yugoslavia, Stojanović had no problem admitting that "there is no real evidence that the historical process of the withering away of the state and the transcending of politics as an alienated power dominated by professional groups started"[28], and continued, "it is really naive to believe that the state would die out while the Party ruled."[29] The political crisis of 1960s and 1970s was rooted in an inability to radically "destalinize".
Praxis also published a critique of this issue of the journal written by Stipe Šuvar, a prominent Croatian politician, and it appeared in Praxis 5 (1971). Šuvar wrote that the reform of the League could not come to fruition if self-management did not function as a relationship of production.[30] According to him, self-management had conquered minds, but failed as a relationship of production. This was, of course, because of the limits of the self-management: an under-developed material basis; the lack of a self-managed structure for productive workers and others; the failure to integrate self-managed economic units; the tendency for the rule of elite instead of the rule of the masses; and the discrepancy between self-management in work organizations and in the political system[31]:
"In our country the working class still does not have economic power, that power belongs to these social forces and social layers, which are according to their way of life, place in the social division of labor, share in division of social wealth, not only separated from the class but often objectively opposed."[32]
All that Yugoslavia needed was to push self-management harder, and system would correct all its flaws.
The League did not look kindly upon the critical issues of Praxis published in 1971, especially not with the political changes that were happening in the background – such as the growth of nationalism. After long philosophical and political debates, media attacks and 'conversations' with prominent local leaders of the League, Praxis had to give up and stop publishing. However, they retained their university jobs, they were not prosecuted, or imprisoned. They stopped publishing the journal because the League stopped funding it – which was until then funded out of public funds.
FALLOUT OF… EVERYTHING
There is a lack of information about the activities of certain members of Praxis after they stopped publishing it. We do know that on April 1981, Praxis International was published in Oxford. This was mainly the work of the 'Belgrade faction'. Only Supek supported it. However, the rest of the Praxis, with Kangrga being the most vocal about it, disagreed with publishing the journal with the same or a similar name because it reduced the chance of Praxis being published again, anytime soon, in Yugoslavia.
The 'core crew' of Praxis in Zagreb mostly retreated into everyday life, once their financial support was withdrawn, and got on with their university jobs. Some of them continued to write for other publications, but not in the way they wrote for Praxis. Petrović and Supek died in 1993. Kangrga remained politically active in the 1990s. In 1997 Feral Tribune published a book of his essays and newspaper columns called Outside of historical events: documents of one epoch in which he openly criticized the authoritarian regime of then president Franjo Tuđman and his Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ). Feral Tribune also published his autobiography Smugglers of their own lives in which he presented the story of Praxis journal, but also his own sharp criticism of both Yugoslav and 'post-Yugoslav' (i.e. Croatian and Serbian) political elite, nationalism and his ex-colleagues and comrades. Of course, just like every autobiography this book ought to be taken with a 'pinch of salt', as it descends into the rants of an old man at times. In the book he also states that he was a supporter of the Socialist Workers Party (SRP), a tiny party led by Stipe Šuvar, based around Yugonostalgia. However, it is important to emphasize Praxis vanguard status as an intellectual force that promoted pro-European Union (neo)liberalism, as opposed to Croatian nationalism. This is especially true of the second generation of Praxis, with authors such as Žarko Puhovski.
Unlike Kangrga who remained a strong critic of both Croatian and Serbian nationalism, Serbian Praxis members went in other directions.
Ljubo Tadić was one of the founding members of Democratic Party (DS) in December 1989. His son Boris Tadić served as Serbian president from 2004 to 2012. On February 3, 1990s, Mićunović, another founding members of DS, and he were installed as its president. In 1996, he formed another party – Democratic Centre. Trivo Inđić was the Assistant Federal Minister for Education and Culture of the Federative Republic of Yugoslavia[33] from 1992 to 1994, and the ambassador of the FR Yugoslavia to Spain from 2001 to 2004. He became the political advisor to Serbian president Boris Tadić in 2004. Mihailo Marković was one of co-authors of the notorious 'SANU Memorandum'[34] and was one of the main supporters of the Serbian nationalist politics of Slobodan Milošević. Svetozar Stojanović served as a special adviser to former FR Yugoslav president Dobrica Cosić (1992-1993). He was one of the main critics of Milošević's politics and participated in October 2000 overthrow of his regime. Later on, Serbian president Vojislav Koštunica appointed him to the Council for Foreign Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia.
A sad, but not so unexpected, end to this story.
So, "why is Praxis important?"
For me, personally, they were a really important discovery in my intellectual 'coming of age', opening a lot of doors. Their discussion and writing styles were different and unique to each author but they all shared a common characteristic: intellectual curiosity, openness, respect and the ability to 'agree to disagree'. Furthermore, all of them were authentic intellectuals that were not limited to their contributions to Praxis but also numerous other publications, academic and non-academic, numerous books, and translated and edited the most important authors of their time. They were a bridge between the East and the West and kept the flame of intellectual life and discussion alive. A flame which has long since been extinguished, with mediocrity taking its place. They also presented their own critique of Yugoslavia, a 'left' one, that is incredibly important.
However, they suffered from various contradictions and problems – like we all do.
First of all, they limited themselves to an abstract critique and academic activity. Despite Stojanović's call for them to "put their theory into practice", Praxis sided with the League in 1968 in order to secure its existence, and this fear of their own existence pushed them away from a wider political engagement. This was partially because they viewed themselves as a 'socialist intelligentsia' and did not see potential for change without their involvement as such – as an 'intelligentsia', an elite. Which is why they took care not to jeopardize their own social position.
Furthermore, while their critiques were a 'thorn in the side' of a lot of Yugoslav politicians and the League itself, they were really outdated and shallow at the level of Marxist-Humanism. Here I have no intention of getting drawn into the most overrated and useless discussion of Marxist academia, Structuralism vs. Humanism, but I just want to compare the works of Praxis with the works of the more well-known Marxist-Humanists such as Raya Dunayevskaya and C. L. R. James. While Praxis criticized Yugoslavia for being 'statist and a bureaucratic socialism', following the theories developed by Bruno Rizzi, whereas the work of Raya Dunayevskaya developed around the same time probed deeper and paved the way for a more rigorous and Marxian critique. Once again, it is not really important what theoretical interpretation of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia you subscribe to, it is more about the fact that their analysis did not go as far as others of their period and remained loyal to the economic and political co-ordinates of workers' self-management developed by Edvard Kardelj and Boris Kidrič following the 'Tito-Stalin split'. Of course, Praxis was aware of Dunayevskaya and James' works as they corresponded with them and exchanged books, and Dunayevskaya even wrote for Praxis. Furthermore, she even developed a kind of a friendship with Marković, a friendship which ended with his nationalist turn.
Their theoretically limited and shallow critique of Yugoslavia advocated similar solutions from different standpoints were published in Praxis. These included calls for a multiparty system and political liberalization, and to deepen workers' power within the system of self-management. However, they never questioned the nature of self-management as such, or the nature of Yugoslav economy which was characterized by market relationships and exchange value.
Their calls for a multiparty system were a product of their own limitations, i.e. them being 'socialist intellectuals'. They were university professors, and the majority had a deep and abiding interest in German classical idealism. This fascination with philosophers such as Hegel brought them to the Marxist-Humanist camp, but also helps explain their theoretical limitations and the policy solutions they advocated as well as the emphasis they put on the individual rather than social class. Or in Stojanović's words: "In the center of Marxist-Humanism is not the man (realist and collectivist deformation of Marxism) but the individual."[35]
These limitations shaped their political lives in turbulent 1990s. Since they were opponents of nationalism, a majority joined the (neo)liberal camp, some of them remained loyal to the left in the shape of modernized Western European social-democracy, while some of them embraced the nationalism of their new state out of a fear of 'the nationalism of others'. An outcome that is incredibly tragic when you consider they were left wing intellectuals in a 'socialist' country that sought to grasp the issues of their day. They provide an important window into the intellectual and political discussions of their era.
Praxis was an attempt at 'ruthless criticism', a critique that was destroyed by its own limitations.
[1] The League of Communists of Yugoslavia was the name of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia after its Six Congress in 1952. Name was changed because of new narratives of workers' self-management and an emphasis on withering away of the state.
[2] Yugoslav Black Wave is an umbrella term for Yugoslav moves made between late 60's and early 70's that were characterized with dark humor and critique of Yugoslavia. For those who are interested more I would recommend book Surfing the Black: Yugoslav Black Wave Cinema and Its Transgressive Moments by Gal Kirn, Dubravka Sekulić and Žiga Testen (Jan van Eyck Akademie, 2011).
[3] Yugoslav punk and new wave music was well known for its critique of Yugoslavia. For example, punk band Paraf made a song called "Goli Otok" after Yugoslav gulag for Stalinists and songs which were making fun of Yugoslav slogans and police, while hardcore punk band UBR made song called "Revolution is a whore" with the lyrics: "Revolution is a whore / dictatorship of the proletariat is lie and Utopia."
[4] Milan Kangrga. Šverceri vlastitog života: Refleksije o Hrvatskoj političkoj kulturi i duhovnosti. (Split: Kultura & Rasvjeta, 2002), 31.
[5] "Čemu Praxis?" Praxis 1, 1964, 4.
[6] Ibid. 5.
[7] Gajo Petrović. Praksa/Istina. (Zagreb: Kulturno-prosvjetni sabor Hrvatske "Kulturni radnik", 1986), 33.
[8] Kangrga 86.
[9] Luka Bogdanić. "Čemu Praxis? Ili o historijskom porijeklu i mjestu Praxisa". in: Aspekti praxisa i refleksije: Uz 50. obljetnicu, ed: Borislav Mikulić and Mislav Žitko. (Zagreb : Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu, 2015), p. 26.
[10] Kangrga 347.
[11] Ibid. 349-50.
[12] Ibid. 350.
[13] Bogdanović 31.
[14] See Fredy Perlman's "Birth of a Revolutionary Movement in Yugoslavia" for an interesting take in English.
[15] Hrvoje Klasić. Jugoslavija i svijet 1968. (Zagreb : Ljevak, 2012), 123.
[18] Klasić 208.
[19] Non-Aligned Movement is the name for group of states that stood against block division during the Cold War up to the present day. It was formed in 1961 in Belgrade and Yugoslavia played a leading role in its creation and politics.
[20] Rudi Supek. "Protuvuriječnosti i nedorečenosti jugoslavenskog samoupravnog socijalizma"; Praxis 3-4 (1971): 350.
[21] Ljubomir Tadić. "Radnička klasa i država"; Praxis 3-4 (1971): 449.
[23] Gajo Petrović. "Birokratski socijalizam"; Praxis 3-4 (1971): 487.
[26] Mihailo Marković. "Socijalizam i samoupravljanje"; Praxis 2 (1964): 172.
[27] Marcel Van der Linden. Western Marxism and the Soviet Union. (Leiden-Boston : Brill, 2007), 202.
[28] Stojanović, Svetozar. "Od Postrevolucionarne diktature ka socijalističkoj demokratiji." Praxis 3-4 (1972): 385.
[30] Stipe Šuvar. "Tri riječi o 'Trenutku jugoslavenskog socijalizma'" Praxis 5 (1971): 678.
[33] The Federative Republic of Yugoslavia is the name that Serbia and Montenegro used after the breakup of Socialist Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Later, the country was renamed Serbia and Montenegro (SiCG).
[34] The Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts ( SANU Memorandum) was a draft document produced by a 16-member committee of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts from 1985 to 1986. Document protested against decentralization which was leading to disintegration of Yugoslavia and discrimination of Serbs by the new Yugoslav constitution. It also claimed that development of Serbia was eroded by support of other parts of Yugoslavia. This document was denounced for its Serbian nationalism and many authors and scholars see it as key moment in the breakup of Yugoslavia.
[35] Svetozar Stojanović. "Slo,oda i demokracija u socijalizmu" Praxis 2 (1964): 204.
Previous Post "Every Noise Has A Note": New Music and Leftist Radicalism
Next Post Sugarcane Stalinism: State-capitalism and Development in Cuba
CategoriesEssay
TagsMarxism-Humanism Praxis Yugoslavia
Written by:Juraj Katalenac
Juraj Katalenac (Osijek, 1990) is the world's number one Rosa Luxemburg fan, heavyweight Slavsquatting champion of the Non-Aligned world, writer and a member of Ritual's Editorial Board. In his free time, he eats ice-cream with his chickens, cries at Future's songs and makes sure all deadlines regarding Ritual are respected. Yeanknow?


Gianluigi Buffon, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are the final three candidates for the UEFA Men's Player of the Year Award.
The award will be presented at the 2017/18 UEFA Champions League group stage draw in Monaco on August 24th.
According to UEFA press release, the shortlist of three players was selected by a jury comprising the 80 coaches of the clubs which participated in the group stage of the 2016/17 UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League, along with 55 journalists selected by the European Sports Media (ESM) group, representing each of UEFA's member associations.
UEFA's Men's Player of the Year Award recognises the best players, irrespective of nationality, playing for a club within the territory of a UEFA member association during the past season. Players are judged on their performances in all competitions – domestic, continental and international.
The UEFA Men's Player of the Year award complements four new positional UEFA Champions League awards, which will crown the best goalkeeper, defender, midfielder and forward of the 2016/17 Champions League season. These awards will also be presented during the group stage draw on 24 August.
The following day, the 2016/17 UEFA Europa League Player of the Season award will be presented at the competition's 2017/18 group stage draw in Monaco. Three players, all from last season's title-winners Manchester United, have been shortlisted – Zlatan Ibrahimović, Henrikh Mkhitaryan and Paul Pogba.
Previous articleHow would Carlos Bacca's move to Villarreal impact Milan's finances?


text:
Q: Software installation, no package after succefull sudo make install I think this is general question about software installation in Ubuntu (20.04) and I don't understand some obvious things.
I need: "CMake 3.17 or higher is required". In repos and software app versions are older, so the only way I have found is to download and install it from the developers site. I succesfuly run
./configure
make
sudo make install

but there are still no package cmake in the system (like, after sudo apt-get install cmake). All the guides on packages installation stop at this step and don't mention what to do after you pass sudo make install. The repeat of this command is says that everythin is up to date.

A: The configure–make–make install procedure does not create a Debian package (*.deb) which can be managed by APT.
The result of the configure–make–make install procedure are files installed to /usr/local. When you call which cmake on your machine now, you should get /usr/local/bin/cmake as opposed to /usr/bin/cmake installed by APT. And if you run cmake --version (with the default contents of the PATH environment variable), you should get the version number of your self-compiled version. If your version is working correctly, you can even uninstall the packaged version (apt remove) and continue using your version.
If you want to create a Debian package, there are various guides, you can also check How to create a .deb package from compiled source files? for an automated solution.


text:
Feature: Debating the "God" Construct
INSIGHT: Weekly Blog Recap
New Episode: The Way of the Mister (Quickey): Faith
OUR NEXT SCIENTIFIC EXPLORATION TOUR
Learn about the future of life on our blue planet
Join us October 11, 2015 from 9am–6pm for a 2-hour cruise out of Long Beach Harbor, led by experienced and knowledgeable Aquarium of the Pacific educators to look for whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions, and other marine life. Hear Dr. Donald R. Prothero lecture on "The Sixth Extinction in the Oceans" about the future of life on the Blue Planet. Explore incredible exhibits of marine life at the Aquarium of the Pacific. See fish and other marine life from all over the Pacific, as well as a shark lagoon, penguins, seals, sea lions, sea otters, a pool where you can pet a ray, an aviary where you can feed lorikeets, and see a life-sized replica of a blue whale. We hope to see you all for a wonderful day by the ocean!
Order the print edition
Order the digital edition
In this week's eSkeptic, Dave E. Matson critiques Douglas J. Navarick's article "The 'God' Construct: A Testable Hypothesis for Unifying Science and Theology," which appeared in Skeptic magazine 20.3 (2015). If you havent yet read that article, you may want to read it first, then come back here and read Matson's challenge (below), followed by Navarick's response.
Debating The "God" Construct
by Dave E. Matson
Douglas Navarick has obviously given some thought to "The 'God' Construct," but the howlers I encountered robbed it of any credibility. For example: "Abiogenesis must be considered speculative considering that every cell ever observed has come from another living cell."
I have yet to hear anyone in the science of abiogenesis claim that a living cell could appear naturally from scratch without benefit of prior cells! Given the complexity of even the simplest prokaryotes, such a claim would be preposterous. The goal of abiogenists is to recover the long pathway that eventually led to the first cells. If that is no longer possible, then the hope is to discover workable pathways. Navarick's demand that abiogenists produce a living cell from scratch, comparing that to the failure to find compelling evidence for ESP, demonstrates a profound ignorance of abiogenesis. Yes, cells come from cells even as cats come from cats. However, the conclusion that cats cannot credibly come from non-cats (based on the observation that every single cat studied traces to a prior cat) is absurd in the light of evolution. Here we have a perfect analogy to Navarick's attempt to discredit abiogenesis! Abiogenists will never witness a cell arising naturally from scratch; we will never observe evolution producing a cat from scratch. Neither predicts as much. Either path is a long, winding story!
Navarick derides abiogenesis for lacking a mechanism. In fact, there are plausible mechanisms now being sketched out. One can hardly expect all the bugs to be ironed out at this early stage; it's a difficult field. Plausible mechanisms, complete with problems, are all that any science has to work with in exploring new areas. Do not confuse plausible mechanisms (with their inevitable problems) with "no mechanism in sight."
The reason for keeping a supernatural deity out of science is that God is an ad hoc story that is compatible with everything and, therefore, explains nothing! Opening the door to supernatural "explanations" of any kind, which by definition cannot be investigated by the laws of nature—the only tool box we have—would turn science into a debating society unable to settle anything. We need not be dogmatic. If we observed a swimming pool that froze solid after the last person left, and became usable the instant someone jumped in, we might reasonably call it a "supernatural" event! However, we can't even assume that such an event had a cause (let alone an intelligent, living cause) since that falls back on natural principles that might not apply to a supernatural event. Even if a supernatural event could somehow be certified, it could never be a part of any scientific explanation. It would forever be an isolated, odd-man-out fact sitting in a corner by itself. Any demand that scientific explanation include the supernatural is, therefore, totally wrong-headed.
Navarick's minimalist construct of God is "A force that operates through and independently of natural laws." Natural law is our best verification, within an appropriate range of measurement, as to what nature actually does. It is supported by countless laboratory experiments that are often done with unimaginable accuracy, and many experiments are conducted under extreme conditions. These experiments and measurements are done by highly trained observers who follow each others' work in scientific journals, who are inclined to check the more interesting results by duplicating the experiments. To claim that a force exists that is not bound by natural law is to throw out the best attested facts in the world in favor of rank speculation! If Navarick's unclear statement does not advocate the occasional suspension of natural law, then he must shear God of his super-powers. God then becomes another fixture in the natural world.
In reply to Stenger's statement that there is no reason to assume that life could not have come from non-life, Navarick adds "But there is also no reason to assume that life could not have come from a supernatural source." With every bit as much evidence, namely zero, we could have said "There is no reason to assume that life could not have come from a hair-brained Easter Bunny with magical powers!" Logically possible, I suppose, along with Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot, but hardly credible. Yet, if the Easter Bunny idea had an army of apologists refining it for two thousand years, if it were a part of everyone's upbringing, it would have been the respectable story and God the silly one. In that sense the supernatural is not a legitimate alternative; it commands no more evidence than our hair-brained Easter Bunny. Countless apologetic works—complete with the usual errors, plus huge amounts of wishful thinking and cultural acceptance—do not establish scientific credibility. Presently, after we subtract the wishful thinking, and the naive thinking, scientific evidence for God is no better than that for a hair-brained Easter Bunny who possesses magical powers.
The "assumption" that abiogenesis will eventually show how life emerged from non-life should be seen as a practical conclusion rather than a philosophical dictum. Scientists who seek a career in abiogenesis do so precisely because the evidence is so suggestive, virtually begging for scientific explanations to connect the dots. These guys are not running on dogmatic gas despite some careless statements! They are motivated by evidence, evidence strong enough to risk a career on.
In sum, current problems in abiogenesis cannot be taken as support for a supernatural "alternative." At present, to the extent that it is even a coherent concept, the supernatural is not a credible alternative at all. Evidentially—as in "zip"—it is on par with our hair-brained Easter Bunny sporting magical powers. Insightful theologians will often admit that God must be taken on faith, and science can't run on that kind of faith. Therefore, trying to unify science and theology is like trying to unify apples and oranges. If they are squeezed together to such an extent that you can no longer tell the difference, then we no longer have apples and oranges. We have a mess!
Dave E. Matson, a navy veteran and former programmer for Hughes Aircraft Company, graduated from San Diego State University in mathematics, his enthusiasm for the sciences almost supplying enough credits for an additional degree. Another major interest took in the study of Christian apologetics and creationist arguments which led to various informal publications scattered about the Internet, a study that gave him some feeling for epistemology (how we know). In recent years a continuing study of the sciences (introductory university textbooks—fat, serious, and still fun) with morning tea went hand in hand with photographing wild flowers throughout Southern California. Occasionally, Mr. Matson will drag out his ancient telescope (Celestron 5″) to view some event, usually with a few friends, and he is always good for a vigorous game of chess.
Abiogenesis: Hypothesis or Doctrine?
by Douglas J. Navarick
Matson's objections to my article are based largely on misinterpretations of it and a gross oversimplification of the "God" construct, confusing it with stock conceptions of the supernatural and failing to recognize its potential for integrating diverse lines of research and for suggesting new insights. Listed below are my replies to Matson's objections.
1. Complexity of chemical precursors. Matson writes, "Navarick's demand that abiogenists produce a living cell from scratch, comparing that to the failure to find compelling evidence for ESP, demonstrates a profound ignorance of abiogenesis." I never demanded that researchers produce a living cell from "scratch." As shown in the second row of the table in my article, I considered evidence for the revival of dead cells. The level of chemical complexity that researchers started from was irrelevant. What mattered was creating life out of nonliving matter. The source of this misinterpretation may be that for the first row of the table, creating a living cell from chemicals, I highlighted the famous line of research beginning with the Miller-Urey experiments on producing amino acids from inorganic chemicals. However, the next row of the table, never mentioned by Matson, shows that I intended to include the broadest possible range of chemical precursors to life.
As for the ESP comparison, the evidence for ESP is arguably even stronger than that for abiogenesis. For ESP the evidence ranges from non-existent to weak (Daryl Bem's studies: statistically questionable and many failures to replicate but something may be there) whereas for abiogenesis the evidence is, for now, simply non-existent.
I have not attempted to "discredit" abiogenesis as Matson claims. My goal has been to challenge the treatment of abiogenesis as an unassailable doctrine and return it its former status as a testable hypothesis as conceptualized by the originator of the term, Thomas H. Huxley, in a presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1870:
And thus the hypothesis that living matter always arises by the agency of pre-existing living matter, took definite shape; and had, henceforward, a right to be considered and a claim to be refuted, in each particular case, before the production of living matter in any other way could be admitted by careful reasoners. It will be necessary for me to refer to this hypothesis so frequently, that, to save circumlocution, I shall call it the hypothesis of Biogenesis; and I shall term the contrary doctrine—that living matter may be produced by not living matter—the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.1
Biogenesis can be refuted by a demonstration of abiogenesis. What would it take to refute abiogenesis, or at least make it seem less plausible? If no contrary evidence was possible—if 100 more years could pass without a demonstration of abiogenesis and yet it remained as believable as ever—then clearly it would be functioning as doctrines do in religions, as sources of comfort for the faithful, insulated from the harsh realities of empirical testing. It seems to be serving that function now. Calling abiogenesis a "practical conclusion rather than a philosophical dictum" does not make it any less a doctrine.
2. Building the "God" construct, one empirical step at a time. Matson writes, "the supernatural is not a legitimate alternative; it commands no more evidence than our hair-brained Easter Bunny." My article shows how the "God" construct can be elaborated in the same way as any construct in science, by adding properties to it based on empirical evidence. The initial statement of the construct was simply,
A force that operates both through and independently of natural laws.
The evidence (not proof) against abiogenesis implies that this force is also creative; it makes things. In addition, the evidence against multiple genesis events discussed in my article implies that random processes may not have been responsible for producing the first living cell. The alternative to random in this context would be willful. So a tentative, more elaborated version of the "God" construct could be stated as follows:
A willful, creative force that operates both through and independently of natural laws.
Each property is tied to empirical observations and subject to falsification.
In addition, the "God" construct makes stronger predictions than the widely accepted, materialist alternative: The "God" construct predicts that efforts to create a living cell, no matter how sophisticated, will fail. Researchers doing these studies may be working on "plausible" ideas about the underyling mechanisms but no one could predict that any particular mechanism would work.
The same strong predictions apply to searches for shadow life on earth (weird organisms that came from a different genesis event than all known organisms) and searches for life elsewhere in the universe, including SETI, newly rejuvenated by a $100 million grant from Russian physicist and entrepreneur, Yuri Milner, for a 10-year multifaceted project called Breakthrough Listen. If after 10 years of Breakthrough Listen projects there was still no evidence for life beyond earth, how should those 10 years of negative results be interpreted, as evidence of absence or as absence of evidence?
In item 5, below, I will propose an additional property for the "God" construct based on empirical evidence, transcendence. It's a crucial step because it serves to distinguish between chemical and non-material characterizations of life.
3. Cats from non-cats = ? Matson's next paragraph about the cats coming from non-cats constructs bizarre analogies to make an unnecessary point. The disagreement Matson is expressing is with an argument I didn't make. I did not suggest that the only acceptable evidence for abiogenesis would be to reconstruct the convoluted molecular pathways that supposedly led to the first living cell. Any strategy that created life out of non-life would settle the issue.
4. A multiplicity of ideas about mechanisms. Matson writes, "Navarick derides abiogenesis for lacking a mechanism." What I actually said was that there was "no clearly established mechanism." If, as Matson suggests, researchers have plausible ideas about underlying mechanisms, then we are not yet at the stage where there is a clearly established mechanism.
5. The next step: Is life an emergent or transcendent property of cells? Life is generally seen as an emergent property of the structures and biochemical reactions that make up living cells and not the product of any specific parts of the whole.2 Emergent means that a phenomenon depends on the relationships that exist among a set of elements. For example, in psychology there is the famous phi phenomenon that Gestalt psychologists used to support their principle that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts." When two lights are turned on and off in rapid alternation, they are perceived as one light moving back and forth and not as two blinking lights. In our world of perception, 1 blinking light + 1 blinking do not equal 2 blinking lights. The appearance of movement is an emergent property of the temporal relationship between the two flashes of light.
For living cells, the "God" construct suggests a non-material alternative to emergence—transcendence. It is suggested here that life may be an add-on to the cell, an independent property that acts as a catalyst and allows biochemical reactions to occur without itself participating in those reactions. Life precedes the reactions; it does not result from them.
Is the transcendence principle just one more instance of the "rank speculation" that some see as part and parcel of any concept of the supernatural? Consider the following evidence.
Cryopreservation is a process of preserving living cells and tissues by freezing them in a way that keeps them structurally intact, i.e., prevents ice crystals from forming that could damage the cell wall. A wide variety of cells is routinely preserved in this manner, including fungi, bacteria, stem cells, oocytes, sperm cells, and embryos. All or most biochemical activity ceases in cryopreservation but the cells remain alive. As stated by D. E. Pegg3 in an article on the methodology of cryopreservation, "Unprotected freezing is normally lethal…#8221; but by adopting appropriate procedures "cooling can be used to produce stable conditions that preserve life." Cells that remain alive in the absence of biochemical activity are evidence that life is not a product of, or equivalent to, biochemical activity. As the cell is thawed, the pre-existing property of life enables biochemical activity to resume. It is in this sense that life acts as a catalyst for the cell's biochemical reactions. In light of this evidence, we may further elaborate the "God" construct as follows:
A willful, creative force that transcends material reality and operates both through and independently of natural laws.
From a quote in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Kirschner, M., Gerhart, M., & Mitchison, T. 2000. "Molecular 'Vitalism'." Cell, 100, 79–88.
Pegg, D. E. 2007. "Principles of Cryopreseveration." Methods in Molecular Biology, 368, 39–57.
Douglas Navarick is an experimental psychologist and Professor of Psychology at California State University, Fullerton. He regularly teaches courses in Introductory Psychology and Learning and Memory. Since the 1970s Navarick has published research articles on choice behavior in pigeons and humans and is currently investigating how we make intuitive moral judgments.
Tony Ortega's Scientology Book Tour
Jim Lippard reports on the ongoing book tour of a prominent critic of the Church of Scientology.
Read the Insight
I Had a Skeptic Win
Guest author John Rael discusses his criticism of claims by comic and actor Patton Oswalt, and Oswalt's unexpectedly gracious response.
The Way of the Mister (Quickey): Faith
Even the Religious have given up on Faith!
WATCH EPISODE | DONATE | SUPPORT | FOLLOW | EXPLORE | RENT


text:
Essential_medicines
Essential medicines
Essential medicines, as defined by the World Health Organization are "those drugs that satisfy the health care needs of the majority of the population; they should therefore be available at all times in adequate amounts and in appropriate dosage forms, at a price the community can afford."
The WHO has published a model list of essential medicines. Each country is encouraged to prepare their own lists taking into consideration local priorities. At present over 150 countries have published an official essential medicines list. The WHO List contains a core list and a complementary list.
The core list presents a list of minimum medicine needs for a basic health care system, listing the most efficacious, safe and cost-effective medicines for priority conditions. Priority conditions are selected on the basis of current and estimated future public health relevance, and potential for safe and cost-effective treatment.
The complementary list presents essential medicines for priority diseases, for which specialized diagnostic or monitoring facilities are needed. In case of doubt medicines may also be listed as complementary on the basis of consistent higher costs or less attractive cost-effectiveness in a variety of settings.
The compilation of an essential medicines list enables health authorities, especially in developing countries, to optimize pharmaceutical resources.
The list is important because:
it forms the basis of national drugs policy in many countries, both developed and developing (e.g. South Africa, Eritrea).
governments refer to WHO recommendations when making decisions on health spending.
What is the Correct Way to Check Repeatability in Balances?
1 Essential medicines: theory and practice
3 Cost-to-benefit ratio
4 Number of drugs
Essential medicines: theory and practice
The original 1977 WHO definition of "essential medicines" was that they were 'of utmost importance, basic, indispensable, and necessary for the healthcare needs of the population'.[1] The concept was mentioned in one of the ten points of the 1978 Alma Ata Declaration on primary health care.
The difficulty of putting this into practice is reflected in the rather longer and more categorical 2002 definition:
'Essential medicines are those that satisfy the priority health care needs of the population. They are selected with due regard to public health relevance, evidence on efficacy and safety, and comparative cost-effectiveness. Essential medicines are intended to be available within the context of functioning health systems at all times in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality and adequate information, and at a price the individual and the community can afford. The implementation of the concept of essential medicines is intended to be flexible and adaptable to many different situations; exactly which medicines are regarded as essential remains a national responsibility.'[2]
The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines has been updated every two years since 1977. The current version, the 15th list, dates from March 2007.
The constituents of the list remain controversial. The list is divided into two sections:
Core medicines that are efficacious, safe, and cost effective medicines for priority conditions.
Medicines that are efficacious, safe and cost effective, but that are not necessarily affordable, or for which specialized healthcare services are required.
Cost-to-benefit ratio
Cost effectiveness is difficult to define and is the subject of fierce debate between producers (pharmaceutical companies) and purchasers of drugs (national health services).
Number of drugs
The number of drugs has nearly doubled, from 186 in 1977 to 320 in 2002. The range has increased substantially over the years and now includes antimigraine drugs, antidotes, and antineoplastic drugs.
Department of Essential Drugs and Medicines
Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Essential_medicines". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.
https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Essential_medicines.html