Block "ECONOMY"

"Entrepreneurial activity serves not only the interests of the individual, but also society as a whole"

(S. Kanareikin)

A lot of people talked, wrote, spoke about entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activity in general. This topic is relevant at all times, since entrepreneurial activity has been one of the main sources of income for the population since ancient times. But there are very important things to know when doing business.

First of all, let's understand the concepts. Entrepreneurial activity or entrepreneurship (now most commonly referred to as a business) is an economic activity aimed at systematically making a profit (for example, by providing services or selling goods). By the word individual, the author means one person. It is compared with the whole society.

It is impossible not to agree with S. Kanareikin's statement that entrepreneurial activity serves not only the interests of the individual, but society as a whole. The author wants to say that entrepreneurship cannot exist without society, it is dependent on it, it exists at the expense of society. The more interest in the activities of the entrepreneur from the consumer, the more profit the company receives. This can be seen in the example of the Russian energy company Gazprom. There is, perhaps, no person who has never heard of her. The services of this company are used by millions of people around the world, that is, their activities are in high demand. You can also consider an ice cream stand outside. Ice cream is a seasonal product, it is popular only in the hot season. Naturally, Gazprom's profit will be higher. There are an infinite number of such examples. The dependence of the success of the enterprise on the number of consumers is obvious. That is why, before organizing his entrepreneurial activity, a person must be sure of the demand for the services provided, so that the profit is maximized.

Economic competition is not war, but rivalry in the interests of each other.

(Evin Cannan)

I agree with Alvin Cannan's statement that economic competition is not war, but rivalry in the interests of each other. The word competition means competition, rivalry for the right to be the best in something, to have something special. That is, competition is a competition, the achievement of a goal by two or more applicants. Healthy competition exists in any society, in each of its spheres. And people do not treat competition as a negative side of human relations. On the contrary, sometimes this kind of rivalry is encouraged. So why shouldn't competition be considered war?

First you need to understand what is the difference between the concepts of war and competition. War implies a struggle, military actions directed against each other, to destroy the opponent. War is always negative, destruction. Competition is the same struggle, but not with the aim of destroying your opponent (both morally and physically), but the struggle for some kind of benefit, moreover, by identifying the strongest of the rivals. Most often, competition occurs in the economic sphere. So, if two or more firms are competitors, then each of them tries to offer more favorable conditions for its customers, win their favor and get markets. If it were not competition, but war, firms would seek not to improve their products, but to destroy the rival.

Why is competition mutually beneficial? Because rivals strive to become better, increase their potential, thereby contributing to progress. Monopoly in any industry is destructive, because it does not stimulate growth, it allows you to stay in place and not move forward.

A clear example of the lack of competition in the economy is the policy of "War Communism" pursued by Lenin at the beginning of the 20th century. The absence of small and large private owners, and, consequently, of competition between them, led the Russian economy to decline.

Very often competition is used as a psychological factor. From the point of view of biology, competition - as a driving form of evolution - is inherent in every person, that is, everyone has an inherent desire to prove themselves better than a rival. Each of the competitors is trying to master the best qualities, skills, features. This has a positive effect both on the development of the personal qualities of one person, and on the improvement of production as a whole.

Summing up, I think it is safe to say that competition is not only not a war, but even an engine of development. It is largely due to this open type of rivalry that high labor rates are observed in every sphere of society, high quality production is achieved by organizations and individuals. That is, we can talk about the positive impact of competition on society.

“Each person should be given an equal right to pursue his own benefit, and the whole society benefits from this” (A. Smith)

I agree with this statement by A. Smith. It perfectly reflects the basic principle of a market economy. The main principle of a market economy is competition. And, as you know, competition is the engine of progress.

What do we mean by competition? Competition is rivalry between people for their own benefit. Competition helps to establish order in the market, which guarantees the production of a considerable number of quality goods. The higher the level of competition between sellers, the better and more profitable for us buyers.

For example, cell phones appeared on the market about fifteen years ago. Then it seemed an unthinkable luxury, and not everyone was able to afford it. But now almost everyone has a mobile phone. What is it connected with? First, with the development of new technologies. Secondly, of course, the phenomenon of competition makes itself felt clearly and, as a result, lower prices for telephones. In this case, the buyer remains the winner, and therefore the whole society wins.

Only in conditions of equal competition can we talk about the benefits of society. After all, only if all members of society receive the benefit they aspired to, then the wealth of society increases. The same point of view was held by the Italian economist Vilfred Pareto.

The desire to "grab" the best piece is at the head of the competition. Both sellers and buyers are trying to get the maximum benefit for themselves, and as a result of all these efforts, we benefit society. So Adam Smith was absolutely right in his statement and I fully support him.

“Economic freedom, social responsibility and environmental responsibility are absolutely essential to prosperity.” (Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 1990)

When I read this phrase for the first time, it was difficult for me to understand its essence. But as soon as I took it apart, I began to understand its meaning.

Let's start from the beginning: what is economic freedom? It can be described as a kind of human opportunity for the free right to choose certain conditions of life: the choice of a life path and their goals, where to direct their knowledge and skills, opportunities; free choice of the method of distribution of their expenses, place of residence, place of work. True, for all these actions he will bear personal responsibility. And all this, of course, is controlled by law.

What is social responsibility? Looking through the dictionary the meaning of the word "responsibility", we can see that the word is interpreted as a certain state, in which there is a feeling of anxiety for what has been done. That is, in general, social responsibility can be viewed as the action of an object that takes into account the interests of society, and at the same time takes full responsibility for the impact of their activities on people and society.

And the final link is a responsible attitude to environmental protection. I believe that any self-respecting person, and indeed any part of society, should be attentive to what surrounds us. Especially when it is dependent on this surrounding world.

Based on the foregoing, it becomes clear that I fully agree with the author's statement. I also believe that these three points are small but sure steps towards a long and pleasant path to prosperity. After all, only when the understanding of the preservation of nature and all that majestic that we and nature have built reaches the mind of every person, only then can we boldly assert that we are on the right track, that we are moving towards meeting our goal. And until everyone understands the importance of the problem, we will not be able to start fighting it. After all, as they say: one in the field is not a warrior.

“Trading is great! Every kingdom is enriched by merchants, and without merchants no small state can exist ... ”(I. T. Pososhkov)

I think everyone will agree with this expression. After all, trade in the modern world is one of the most popular areas of business. And not only in the modern world. She was popular before.

Crafts and trade have always developed in cities first of all. Even in ancient times, the Russian lands established their relations with neighboring states through trade. Bargaining has always been a means of enrichment: states exchanged goods that they did not produce on their own land, which they could only get abroad. Such relationships are beneficial both for one party, which purchases the product, and for the other, which sells it.

Trade is one of the surest ways to determine the level of culture of the people. If it occupies one of the most important places in the life of the people, then the level of its culture is quite high. In any country, trade plays a very important role - bringing goods to the buyer. It links producers of goods from different countries, and shows that these countries are dependent on each other.

An example is the modern world. Not a single person can do without trade, even in everyday life. We go to grocery stores every day. Each of us buys new things in stores, whether it be clothes, electronics, or even simple household items. And it is even impossible to imagine what we would do if things could not be so easily purchased in stores. It is impossible to imagine our life without trade.

The thought of I. T. Pososhkov is certainly true. States would not be so closely interconnected if they did not maintain economic relations. Trade is a big deal. Without it, countries and cities would not have the opportunity to develop.

Undoubtedly, trade is of great importance in the life of every person, and in the life of every state.

"Economics is not just the science of the use of limited resources, but also the science of the rational use of limited resources" (G. Simon)

I agree with G. Simon's statement. Economics is a really important science about the rational use of limited resources, because it teaches us how to use our financial resources more correctly, more accurately and more profitably, which are limited by many factors. Economics suggests how to overcome these factors, reduce them or exist with them and find compromises.

Economics, as a science, is very important. If not for her, we would not be able and would not know how to profitably use our financial capabilities: how to increase our capital, increase its volume, how and in what situation to save.

For example, if the financial resources of charitable foundations are spent on solving the problems of malaria, then in three years (according to scientists), 500,000 people can be saved and the problem closed. If you spend money on the prevention of AIDS, you can stop the epidemic and save later on expensive ineffective treatment of the sick. Or if we consider the rational use of financial resources from a household point of view: a mother buys herself a sweater at a sale for an amount half as much as from a new collection, and buys a shirt for her son with the remaining money. In such a situation, as they say, both the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe.

Economics is a science that studies the use of various kinds of limited resources in order to meet the needs of people and the relationship between various parties that arise in the process of managing.

Economy - a set of production relations corresponding to a given stage of development of the productive forces of society, the dominant mode of production in society.

Economics is an art, and everyone is trying to use the economy correctly and for good, but not everyone can master it. Ownership of the economy is a talent that is given to man by nature. Not everyone can masterfully manipulate numbers, formulas, lay out and compose logical chains to improve their financial picture, environment and situation; only a smart and talented person can calculate actions several steps ahead in order to avoid mistakes and not lose everything that is available at this stage.

The purpose of the economy is the use of resources in such a way as to obtain a positive or useful result: either an increase in these same resources, or the satisfaction of human needs in a rational and profitable way.

“Money either dominates its owner or serves him.” Horace.

The famous poet Horace in this statement raises the question of the influence and role of money in the life of a person and society. The problem put forward by the author is relevant in the modern world. The meaning of Horace's statement is that money can both serve a person and dominate him. If a person skillfully manages them, then in the future he will be able to increase his capital. However, money can make a person greedy and covetous if it dominates him.

Money is a commodity of a special nature, playing the role of a universal equivalent. If a person wants money to serve him, then he must be well versed in economics, know the functions of money: it can be a measure of the value of goods, a means of circulation, a means of accumulation.

Many cases can be found in history when rich nobles brought their fortune to bankruptcy, and peasants became prosperous thanks to their work.

An example of the negative impact of money on a person is Chichikov from the work of N.V. Gogol "Dead Souls". All his life he earned money, this was the purpose of his life, he ruined himself because he could not properly dispose of them.

Summing up, I would like to note that it is not money that should influence a person, but on the contrary, a person must be able to influence money, be able to use it correctly.

“The well-being of the state is ensured not by the money that it annually releases to officials, but by the money that it annually leaves in the pockets of citizens.” (I. Eötvös)

I. Eötvös wanted to say that the well-being of the citizens of any country does not depend on how much it will allocate funds to officials, who, in turn, must monitor the appropriate distribution of these funds, but on how much of the allocated money will reach and remain in the pockets of citizens .

Having mentioned the expedient distribution, we would like to believe in the honesty of our officials, as the state apparatus of executive power. Recall that the state is an organization of sovereign power in society, which has a special apparatus of coercion and the right to legislate. And the state apparatus is a system of special bodies and institutions through which the state administration of society and the protection of its main interests are carried out. So, officials should monitor the rational distribution of funds allocated by the government. But very often, unfortunately, we are faced with what we see and hear in the media, how officials steal the very money whose task is to improve any of the spheres of society. And therefore the statement made by I. Eötvös is very relevant today. Let's not forget about the money itself, or money. Money is a specific commodity that is the universal equivalent of the value of other goods or services. Functions of money: 1.Measure of value, 2.Means of payment, 3.Means of circulation, 4.World money, 5.Means of accumulation.
I agree with this quote, I. Eötvös emphasized very subtly that the state will flourish if the people prosper, but this will not be achieved if such a phenomenon as corruption takes place in modern society. Corruption (in the modern concept) is a term that usually denotes the use by an official of his powers and rights entrusted to him for personal gain, contrary to the law and moral principles. What kind of welfare of the whole state can we talk about if each of us seeks to profit at the expense of another person? We will never be able to call such a full-fledged, well-founded.
Let's turn to history, remember, the most striking example is the well-known country of Singapore, which occupies one of the leading positions in the ranking of countries with a minimum level of corruption. From 1959 to 1990, Singapore, deprived of rich natural resources, was able to solve many internal problems and made the leap from a third world country to a highly developed country with a high standard of living.
In the modern world, this list is headed by England, then New Zealand, and so on.
We come to the conclusion that if the state wants to prosper, then it needs to take care of every citizen inhabiting this country, individually, it is necessary to fight corruption and all its manifestations. It is necessary to pursue a purposeful policy in the direction of the development of the country.

"Almost all taxes on production are ultimately borne by the consumer"

(David Ricardo)

I agree with the statement of David Ricardo, since I believe that taxes on producers of goods are those taxes that contribute to the high cost of goods produced.

The essence of taxes on production is that production pays taxes to finance the state budget. The mandatory payment of taxes consists of the calculation of the tax and its payment.

Article 52 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation establishes the procedure for calculating tax. How taxes are calculated depends on costs, expenses, losses, and economic rules that determine income, value, and taxation. The taxpayer bears full responsibility for the timely and correct calculation of the amount. When calculating the amount of tax, the following elements of taxation should be taken into account:

Taxable period

tax rate

tax base

tax incentives

The payment of taxes implies that the taxpayer must pay the tax at a certain time, which is established by the state. The declaration must contain information on income, expenses and all information on production for a given period. After that, a document confirming its payment is issued.

A tax is a payment that is mandatory and free of charge, with the help of which the financial budget of the state is provided.

Production is a type of activity of an individual or organization that provides material benefits that are needed for the development of society.

A consumer is a person who wants to purchase a type of service to satisfy his needs.

Cost is the price of a good or service.

Payment is the amount to be paid.

For example, VAT leads to an increase in prices for goods, and this leads to a decrease in the production program, profits, and because of this, the state of the enterprise in the market worsens.

Since ancient times, we have known that for many years in history that the peasants, artisans, merchants and inhabitants of the colony must pay taxes to the state.

Taxes take into account the characteristics of the country and the stage of economic development of the state.

"The surest profit is that which is the result of thrift." (Publius Sir. Economics.)

Publius Cyrus - Roman mimic poet under Caesar and Augustus, a younger contemporary and rival of Laberius, by this statement he wanted to say that only the person who carefully spends his wealth can make a good profit. After all, if a person scatters his wealth, he can sink very quickly and not even notice that he has become poor. Therefore, everyone should be able to use wealth wisely.

I agree with the opinion of the author. The validity of the point of view of Publius Syra is confirmed by numerous examples from public life, personal experience and economic theory. Firstly, in economic theory there is a definition that profit is the amount of income where revenue exceeds the costs of economic activity, for the production of goods. And if this proceeds are spent carefully, then there will be more profits, and as a result, an enterprising person, at least slowly, but getting richer.

Secondly, I want to note that in the history of Russia in the 19th century, there are cases when rich nobles brought their fortune to bankruptcy in feasts and revelry, and some peasants, thanks to their hard work, and of course thrift, could even redeem themselves from the nobles.

Thirdly, I want to give an example from Dostoevsky's work "Crime and Punishment", where the heroine Alena Ivanovna, thanks to her enterprise, received a good profit, took care of it and met her old age comfortably.

I also want to note that my mother is very careful about the budget of our family. Therefore, we do not have shortages and problems in financial matters.

In modern life, people who save on needs they can live without also make a profit. These people, who don't waste money, are rational consumers. If you are not a rational consumer, there may be a situation that expenses will exceed income.

I think that the statement of Publius Syrah is relevant. I think that a thrifty person will always have prosperity, that is, profit.

“Whoever buys the excess eventually sells the necessary” (B. Franklin)

I fully agree with the words of one of the founding fathers of the United States, Benjamin Franklin. Given that in the modern world as a whole there is no shortage of goods, and new ones are also appearing. Old goods of the same type become cheaper, and people have the opportunity to purchase not only what is necessary, but also additional goods.

But it often happens that people spending money on an optional product also spends the funds that were allocated for necessary goods. To explore this topic, you need to refer to the definition of rational behavior of buyers. So, rational behavior of buyers is called such behavior, which involves first realizing the need for a purchase, then searching for information about a product or service, after evaluating possible purchase options, and finally making a purchase decision. That is, if the consumer realizes that he needs to buy, for example, food, then he is looking for a store with cheaper prices, is interested in discounts, and eventually buys what he needs.

But if the consumer realizes that while he does not need a product, for example, a new TV, but he currently has extra money, and he buys this TV, then his behavior will be irrational. Moreover, soon after buying a TV, he may need money, for example, for medicines, but he will not have them, and a person may get into debt.

Therefore, you need to make smart purchases. And if today you buy something that is not necessary, then tomorrow it may be enough for something vital.

"Palaces cannot be safe where huts are unhappy." (B.Disraeli)

I agree with the statement of Benjamin Disraeli, because the well-being of the "palaces" depends on the well-being of the "huts".

In this quote, palaces act as rich people, and huts act as poor people. This implies that when society is stratified into rich and poor, the rich cannot live in peace in a world where the poor from an unhappy life can either revolt, or simply cannot do their job efficiently. For example, if the working class revolts against the rich, then a lot of people, both workers and rich, can die. And if the rich pay little to their workers, then the workers, from exhaustion, will do their job poorly, as a result of which the rich will also receive little profit, which will affect their lives.

Benjamin Disraeli in this quote speaks of rich people as palaces, and compares poor people with huts. Rich people look just like palaces, they are as arrogant as palaces are high, they are dressed just like palaces are decorated. The poor people look like huts: they are modest, like small huts, dressed as inconspicuously as the huts are inconspicuous.

There are many cases in history when the poor could not withstand the onslaught of the rich, and a riot flared up. An example of this is the many revolutions that have taken place not only in Russia, but throughout the world. For example, the October Revolution of 1917, which began for reasons that are related to the deterioration of the situation of the people in connection with the long-lasting world war, the unresolved labor, agrarian and national issues and general dissatisfaction with the activities (rather inactivity) of the provisional government.

Conclusion:

This quote is typical not only for the time when Benjamin Disraeli lived, but even now it is quite relevant. There are a lot of companies these days. Some of which go bankrupt quickly because the people who open them don't value the workers they hire and they leave. Others, on the contrary, flourish and prosper in the economic market, because employers do not allow the complete impoverishment of their people.

Block "PHILOSOPHY"

“A child at the time of birth is not a person, but only a candidate for a person” (A. Pieron).

It is necessary to understand what meaning A. Pieron put into the concept of man. At the time of birth, the child is already a person. He is a representative of a special biological species Homo Sapiens, possessing the inherent specific features of this biological species: a large brain, upright posture, tenacious hands, etc. At the moment of birth, a child can be called an individual - a specific representative of the human race. From birth, he is endowed with individual traits and properties inherent only to him: eye color, shape and structure of the body, the pattern of his palm. Now this can be defined as individuality. Why, then, does the author of the statement call the child only a candidate for a person? Apparently, the author had in mind the concept of "personality". After all, man is a biosocial being. If biological traits are given to a person from birth, then he acquires social traits only in a society of his own kind. And this happens in the process of socialization, when the child learns with the help of education and self-education the values ​​of a particular society. Gradually, he turns into a person, i.e. becomes the subject of conscious activity and has a set of socially significant features that are in demand and useful in society. It was then that he can be fully called a man.

How can this assumption be confirmed? For example, on March 20, 1809 in Sorochintsy in the family of the landowner Vasily Gogol - Yanovsky, a son was born, baptized with the name Nikolai. It was one of the sons of the landowners born on that day, named Nicholas, i.e. individual. If he had died on his birthday, he would have remained in the memory of his loved ones as an individual. The newborn was distinguished by signs characteristic only for him (height, hair color, eyes, body structure, etc.). According to people who knew Gogol from birth, he was thin and weak. Later, he had features associated with growing up, an individual lifestyle - he began to read early, from the age of 5 he wrote poetry, studied diligently at the gymnasium, became a writer, whose work was followed by all of Russia. A bright individuality appeared in him, i.e. those features and properties, signs that distinguished Gogol. Apparently, this is exactly the meaning that A. Pieron put into his statement, and I completely agree with him. Being born, a person must go through a long, thorny path in order to leave a mark on society, so that descendants proudly say: “Yes, this person can be called great: our people are proud of him.”

"The idea of ​​freedom is connected with the true essence of man" (K. Jaspers)

What is freedom? Independence from the powers that be, which money and fame can give? Absence of a lattice or whip of an overseer? Freedom to think, write, create without regard to the generally accepted canons and tastes of the public?

This question can only be answered by trying to figure out what a person is. But here's the problem! Each culture, each epoch, each philosophical school gives its own answer to this question. Behind each answer is not only the level of a scientist who has comprehended the laws of the universe, the wisdom of a thinker who has penetrated the secrets of being, the self-interest of a politician or the imagination of an artist, but also a certain life position, a completely practical attitude to the world. And yet. From all the diverse, contradictory ideas about a person, one general conclusion follows: a person is not free. It depends on anything: on the will of God or the gods, on the laws of the Cosmos, the arrangement of stars and luminaries, on nature, society, but not on oneself.

But the meaning of Jaspers' expression, in my opinion, lies in the fact that a person does not conceive of freedom and happiness without preserving his personality, his unique, inimitable "I". He does not want to "become everything", but "wants to be himself in defiance of the universe", as the author of the famous "Mowgli" R. Kipling wrote. A person cannot be happy and free at the cost of trampling on his personality, renouncing his individuality. Truly indestructible in a person is the desire to create the world and himself, to discover something new, unknown to anyone, even if this is achieved at the cost of his own life.

Becoming free is not an easy task. It requires from a person the maximum tension of all spiritual forces, deep reflections about the fate of the world, people, about his own life; a critical attitude to what is happening around and to oneself; search for the ideal. The search for the meaning of freedom sometimes continues throughout life and is accompanied by internal struggles and conflicts with others. This is precisely where the free will of a person manifests itself, since from a variety of life circumstances, options, he himself has to choose what to prefer and what to reject, how to act in this or that case. And the more complex the world around us, the more dramatic life is, the more effort is required from a person to determine his position, to make this or that choice.

So, K. Jaspers turned out to be right, considering the idea of ​​freedom to be the true essence of man. Freedom is a necessary condition for his activity. Freedom cannot be "gifted", because unsuffering freedom turns out to be a heavy burden or turns into arbitrariness. Freedom won in the fight against evil, vices and injustice in the name of the affirmation of goodness, light, truth and beauty can make every person free.

“Science is ruthless. She shamelessly refutes favorite and habitual delusions ”(N.V. Karlov)

It is quite possible to agree with this statement. After all, the main goal of scientific knowledge is the desire for objectivity, i.e. to the study of the world as it is outside and independently of man. The result obtained in this case should not depend on private opinions, predilections, authorities. On the way to the search for objective truth, a person goes through relative truths and delusions. There are many examples of this. Once people were absolutely sure that the Earth has the shape of a disk. But centuries passed, and the journey of Fernando Magellan disproved this delusion. People learned that the Earth is spherical. The geocentric system, which existed for millennia, was also a delusion. The discovery of Copernicus debunked this myth. The heliocentric system he created explained to people that all the planets of our system revolve around the Sun. The Catholic Church for more than two hundred years forbade the recognition of this truth, but in this case, science, indeed, turned out to be ruthless to the delusions of people.

Thus, on the way to absolute truth, which is final and will not change over time, science passes through the stage of relative truths. At first, these relative truths seem final to people, but time passes and with the advent of new opportunities for a person in the study of a particular area, absolute truth appears. It refutes previously treated knowledge, forcing people to reconsider their previous views and discoveries.

An example of an essay on the topic:
A political party is a union of people who have united in order to
to get the laws they want. (Ilyin).

Political party - a public organization that fights for power or for participation in the exercise of power, the goal of which, ultimately, is to take seats in parliament and pass laws,
determining the policy of the country.
In addition to the struggle for power, any political party performs a number of other functions: expressing the interests of certain segments of the population, training and nominating political personnel, participating in election campaigns, educating loyal members, and shaping the political culture of citizens.
A characteristic feature of a democratic state is a multi-party system. There can be two parties, as in England or America, or many, as in Russia. This is determined by the traditions of the country. Parties can differ in organizational principle, in ideology, in relation to power, in the type of membership, in the mode of activity and in the scale of the political spectrum. The party is a union of like-minded people, which is the bearer of a certain ideology and which is aimed at gaining power. In order to express the interests of as many voters as possible, parties form factions. The backbone of the party is the electorate - voters who regularly cast their votes for this party in elections.
As a result of the elections, the party receives a certain number of seats in the country's parliament. The more seats in parliament, the more opportunity the party has to justify the trust of its voters and influence the adoption of laws in the country. An important role for voters is played by the personality of the party leader, because many voters, when voting, are guided not only by the party program, but also associate their expectations with the charisma of a particular leader. Representatives of political parties constitute the political elite of the country - a group of people with influence, prestige, directly involved in decision-making related to political power.
With the collapse of the totalitarian regime in the USSR and the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution, a multi-party system began to take shape in the Russian Federation. The 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaimed ideological diversity.
The modern political parties in Russia are United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Patriots of Russia, Just Russia, Just Cause, the RODP "Yabloko". The ruling party is United Russia, which for a number of years has been adopting laws in parliament that, in my opinion, contribute to the stabilization of the state and the consolidation of democratic social forces.
Extremist political parties are banned in our state.
I am not yet a member of any political party, but I like the program of the United Russia party, so I am going to support this organization in the elections.
A political party, having come to power, adopts the laws it needs, but ordinary voters help the party come to power, so everyone should take an active life position.

An example of an essay on the topic:
Progress is a movement in a circle, but faster and faster. L. Levinson.

Humanity is in constant motion. Science, technology, the human mind are developing, and if we compare the primitive and our days, it is clear that human society is progressing.
From the primitive herd we came to the state, from primitive tools to perfect technology, and if earlier a person could not explain such natural phenomena as a thunderstorm or a change of year, then by now he has already mastered space. Based on these considerations, I cannot agree with L. Levinson's point of view on progress as a cyclical movement. In my opinion, such an understanding of history means marking time without moving forward, constant repetition.
Time will never turn back, no matter what factors contribute to the regression. Man will always solve any problem and will not allow his kind to die out.
Of course, there have always been ups and downs in history, and therefore I believe that the graph of human progress is an upward broken line, in which ups prevail in magnitude over downs, but not a straight line or a circle. This can be seen by recalling some historical or life facts.
In the first place, downturns in the progress graph create wars. For example, Russia began its history as a powerful state, able to outstrip any other in its development. But as a result of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, it lagged behind for many years, there was a decline in culture, the development of the country's life. But, despite everything, Russia stood up and continued to move forward.
Secondly, the progress of society is hindered by such a form of organization of power as a dictatorship. In the absence of freedom, society cannot progress; a person turns from a thinking being into a tool in the hands of a dictator. This can be seen in the example of fascist Germany: Hitler's regime of power for decades slowed down political progress, the development of freedom and human rights, and democratic institutions of power.
Thirdly, oddly enough, but sometimes recessions in the development of society occur through the fault of the person himself, i.e. associated with scientific and technological progress. Many people now prefer communication with machines to human communication.
As a result, the level of humanity is falling. The invention of nuclear reactors is, of course, a great discovery that allows saving natural energy resources, but in addition to nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons were also created, which brought incalculable misfortunes to people and nature. An example of this is the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the explosion in Chernobyl. Nevertheless, humanity has come to its senses, realizing the real threat of such weapons: many countries now have a moratorium on the production of nuclear weapons.
Thus, the progress of the human mind and society as a whole and the predominance in history of the positive actions of people over their mistakes are obvious. It is also obvious that social progress is not an endless movement in a circle, which, in principle, cannot be considered progress,
but moving forward and only forward.

An example of an essay on the topic:
Religion is one, but in a hundred guises. B. Show.

Among the proposed statements, I drew attention to the words of B. Shaw that "Religion is one, but in a hundred guises." In understanding this issue, I agree with the author.
It is impossible to give a precise definition of religion. There are many such formulations in science.
They depend on the worldview (representation of the world) of the scientists who form them.
If you ask any person what religion is, then in most cases he will answer: "faith in God."
The word "religion" literally means binding, re-addressing (to something). Religion can be viewed from different angles: from the side of human psychology, historical, social, but the definition of this concept depends to a decisive extent on the recognition of the existence or non-existence of higher forces,
i.e. God and Gods.
Man is a spiritual being, therefore, era occupies a very important place in his life. Since ancient times, man has deified the forces of nature, plants and animals around him, believing that through them the higher forces influence his life. The magical attitude to the word and movement forced a person to strive for the development of his aesthetic (sensual) perception.
Over time, human society developed, and paganism (heterogeneity) was replaced by more developed forms of beliefs. There are many religions in the world. The question arises: why are there so many of them? And in whom to believe?
The answer to this question is obvious: people are different, they live in different conditions and different parts of the planet, they perceive the environment differently. So different are their ideas about God or Gods, about what a cult (religious veneration of any objects) should be like; many provisions of different beliefs, moral standards and rules of worship among different peoples are somewhat similar. I think this is caused by borrowing the cultures of peoples from each other.
If we consider the historical path of mankind, we can classify religions into: tribal ancient beliefs, national-state (they form the basis of the religious life of individual peoples and nations) and world (that have gone beyond nations and states, but having a huge number of followers in the world).
These are the three religions: Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. Also, beliefs can be divided into monotheistic (belief in one God) and polytheistic (worship of many gods).
Drawing a conclusion from the foregoing, a person has always needed faith as that spiritual principle that allowed him to rise above the ordinary. The choice of faith should be free and conscious for each person, because, no matter how different religions are, they are all just different forms of one thing - the elevation of the human soul.

Consider task number 29 - an essay or an essay.

To complete it for the maximum number of points (6), you must:

• reveal the meaning of one of the 5 statements;
• theoretically substantiate it;
• give examples from real life;
• correctly and logically conduct reasoning and bring concepts.

We have collected for you the best essays shared with us by graduates.

29.2 Economy

“Private property is the main guarantee of freedom, both for those who own it and for those who do not own it”- F. Hayek.

F. Hayek thinks in line with such a socially important science as economics.

He argues that private property guarantees the freedom of the one who owns it. And at the same time, it guarantees the independence of other people who are not related to this property. This means that the presence of private property in the state is the main guarantor of an economically free society.

I agree with the opinion of F. Hayek and believe that such freedom is guaranteed both by the presence of a private form and by the type of economic system of the state.

It is important to note that property is the format of the property relationship of a person or a group of people to economic benefits, factors of production. Usually they distinguish: private property (belonging to individuals and legal entities) and state property (government bodies). Ownership can be individual (1 person owns) or collective (for a group of people). Accordingly, if the population can have something in their property, this means that people have rights and freedoms. And the indicator of these freedoms of the population is the type of economic system. This term means a set of methods and rules governing economic relations in the state. I will give a classification: traditional (communal property, the organization corresponds to accepted customs and traditions), planned (state form, directive planning of the production process), market (private form, what and how entrepreneurs decide to produce), mixed (both types of ownership, but state ownership prevails, producers and consumers are economically independent, the state produces public goods and finances the social sphere).

We know from history that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had a planned economy. Entrepreneurial activity was limited to production plans. Consumers were not free: there was practically no choice in stores, sometimes especially valuable goods were issued on a first-come, first-served basis, so there was not enough for everyone; sometimes the same thing happened with food. So, it cannot be argued that in that period, under such an economic system, the population, producers and consumers, were free. And not only in the economic sphere of society.

Now, thanks to various economic TV programs, it is known that Russia has a mixed type of economy. Entrepreneurs themselves decide what to produce, they own the factors of production. And in state ownership - natural resources, cultural monuments, social institutions. This gives rise to the freedom of consumers: the choice of a suitable manufacturer, the quantity of goods. It can be argued that in modern Russia, society is economically free due to the variety of freedoms that the population has.

Thus, the presence and predominance of private property, of course, is the guarantor of the independence of society. And this is reflected in the freedom of all who own it, and others who do not have it, but can. This is largely due to the type of economy - market.

The second example of an essay on social studies that received a high score on the exam:

29.3 Sociology, social psychology

“Try to achieve fame and recognition, but not at the expense of the treasury, but at the cost of knowledge”- Anvari.

Anvari talks about the specific role of knowledge in the fate of a person.

In the pursuit of happiness, which for many is popularity and recognition, we do our best. However, the author is convinced that this should be achieved through the use of not money, but the knowledge that we possess.

The knowledge that Anvari is talking about is a collection of information about the surrounding objects and the world. This knowledge is the result of cognition - the process of spiritual assimilation by man of the material world. It is endless, lasts until the death of a person. There are many types of knowledge, but the main ones are considered: ordinary (about everyday life), scientific (concerns various sciences), religious (associated with belief in a deity). Information can be obtained through a sensual or rational form of cognition. The first type includes the stages: sensation - a conscious reflection of the individual properties of the object that affect the human senses; perception - a reflection of an object, based on how it affects the senses, in the mind; representation - the emergence of a holistic image of an object in the mind, based on its impact on the senses. The rational form includes: concept - any statement about the subject; judgment - analysis of the given statement, conclusion - conclusion about the correctness or incorrectness of a fact with a number of evidence. There are also empirical (practical) or theoretical (conceptual) methods of cognition of the world. The process of cognition is in many ways difficult, which is why all the available knowledge is so valuable. A person who possesses them, who has passed this “path” and found the truth, must use them in order to achieve fame and recognition.

As an example of the value of knowledge, I would like to cite the story of a famous chemist, D. I. Mendeleev. There is a version: the table of chemical elements was seen by him in a dream. It doesn't matter so much how the table was created, but that it was made. He was able to structure his scientific information in the field of chemistry and quantum physics, which took the form of rows and columns and is used all over the world. At the cost of his knowledge, Mendeleev opened a new path for the development of science for mankind, received world recognition as one of the greatest chemists.

In our world, there are many examples of people who have achieved fame and respect due to their intellect. For example, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, according to many experts, the results of voting and opinion polls, is recognized not only in Russia, but also abroad as the most influential person, a respected person. This would not have come true if Vladimir Vladimirovich had not studied society, its needs, and the situation on the world stage. A successful social policy is being pursued in the state and the standard of living of the population is rising. Such fame is the result of a successful foreign and domestic policy.

Thus, only through his knowledge a person achieves truly valuable fame and respect. He is singled out for having gone through a difficult process of learning and having knowledge that others do not have. Our knowledge is our strength.

We hope you have carefully studied the presented mini-essays. Do not forget about the criteria for evaluating the essay and get a good result!