Home

Mission

Contents

News

Links

Authors

About Us

Publications

Harmony Forum

Peace from Harmony
Siebert: The Slavic and the American World

 

End or Continuation of World History:

the European, Slavic and American World - a new Paradigm ?

 

By

 

Rudolf J. Siebert

 

 

Western Michigan University

Kalamazoo, Michigan

2018

 

 

End or Continuation of World History:

the European, Slavic and American World - a new Paradigm ?

 

 

In the perspective of the critical theory of society and religion, or dialecticalreligiology, around 1800, a system of European equilibrium had formed itself ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t;Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968: chaps 10;11; Habermas 2018; Browning 2018). Europe had gone through a long fluctuation between barbarism and culture: ln general, in world history there has not been any civilization without barbarism.

Europe

Europe had been the center and the end of the Old World, before the New American and Slavic World appeared at the world-historical horizon ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim/Lohmann 2003; Habemras 2011b; 2018; Browning 2018). For a millenium, the European Worldhad been the geographicalfoundation of world history. The fall of the West in the 19th, and 20th, and 21st centuries, was not the end of world history, and there was no return to the past, the Middle Ages, or the Roman, or the Greek, or the Germanic World ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Habermas 2011b;2018 Browning 2018). World history continues. The Islamic insurrection does not need to remind us. The Eurpean bourgeois is not the last man of histry. A new post-European paradigm arises out of the retired European World and its prblems: the Post Modern, American and Slavic World, preparing alternative Future III - a more reconciled and peaceful World Federation and civil society, ifalternative Future I - total administration, oralternative Future II -nuclear war , can be avoided ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Habermas 2011b; 2018; Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018). ThroughoutModernity, Europehad colonized Africa and Asia, and the Near East, and America: the West against the Rest! The Europeans gave up their Gothic Religion of Blood and Soil and tried to accept the Semitic Christian Religion of Becoming and Freedom, and fought the Semitic Jewish Religion of Sublimity and the Semitic Islamic Religion of Law. Badly Christened and converted Europe continually vascillated between Christ and Satan, with a strong inclination towardthe latter up yo Auschwitz and Trblinka, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.( Matthew4;5-7;Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Haecker 1918; 1935; Rudolphi 1949; 1950; Horkheimer 1932a; 1988d: chs1;2;3;5;6;7;8;11;Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Habermas 2011b; Habermas 2018; Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018) A common interest bound the European states together against the Muslim Turks, and other Islamic states. Millions of Europeans migrated into the American World and into the Slavic World, and brought their culture with them. World history moved from the Asian free universality, through the European particularity, to the American and Slavic singularity: the reconciliation of Oriental andOccidental elements. Eighty years ago, European fascism wanted to make Europe great again through colonizing the Slavic World up to the Wolga and the borders of Siberia,the Ural, and to leave Africa and Asia to the British Empire and its fleet( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Browning 2018; Adorno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Habermas 2011b; Habermas 2018; Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001). However, the most passionate, and fanatc, and extreme fascist , Adolf Hitler, was beaten by the socialist Russians like the Crusaders in Novgorod, and like Napoleon in Moscow, so now o­nce again in Moscow, and later o­n in Stalingrad, and Kursk, and Berlin, and by the liberal Americans in the Normandy. Instead of rescuing the European World, Hitler brought the armies of the American World and the Slavic World into Thüringia, the very center of Europe: Point Alpha. The cunning of Reason prevailed (Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Habermas 2011b;2018 Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001 ). From then o­n the Slavic and American World moved into the front of the world - historical process, where African, and Asian, and near Eastern states and empires had o­nce ruled, before they moved into retirement, as today European states locate themselves in the niches of history. In America, the Europeans colonized, and annihilated o­ne race, and enslaved another, as they transformed themselves into Americans. European Protestants settled in North America, and European Catholics colonized Latin and Central America. America became a land of longing for all, who were boredby the declining armament chamber of old Europe (Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971; Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Habermas 2011b; Habermas 2018; Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001 ) America became the land of the future, in which the world-historical importance and significance would reveal itself. The European Worlddeclined to the extend, to which the American World and the Slavic World developed. In America the Europeans discovered not o­nly its treasures and its nations, but also nature, and themselves, and their destinyHegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Habermas 2011b;2018 ; Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001 ) Up into the 19th century, the Slavic World had still masses of serfs, who did the work, and masses of nobility, who ruled. Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l; c;n; o; p; q; r; s; t; Spengler 1922; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003;2011b; Habermas 2018 ; Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001). In the 21st century, the American and the Slavic World are competing, and cooperating with each other in all parts of the world. An ABC war between the two world-historical powers could mean the end of world history. But both Worlds could also compete, which of them will be most effective in ending neo-colonialism, racism, predatory capitalism, urban and rural slums, class struggle, the battle of the sexes, Eurocentrism, Orientalism, imperialism, cultural superiority, ecnomic exploitation, poverty, epidemics,personal and national inequality, and most of all the exclusion of the Reast by the Wst. Both Worlds could learn from each other: the Americans could learn universal, anamnestic, present and proleptic solidarity from the Russians; and the Russians could learn personal autonomy from the Americans. Together, both Worlds could prepare the arrival of alternative Future III - a more peaceful, democratic world republic and civil society, with o­ne supreme court, and o­ne international law, andone army, chacterized by equality of individuals and nations, as well as by autonomy and solidarity and subsidiarity, as invisioned by the greatest enlightener, Emmanuel Kant, and according to the structural modelsof theUnited Nations and the European Union ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim/Lohmann 2003; Habemras 2011b; 2018 Spengler 1922;Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001;Browning 2018 ). In this way the negativity of the particular nation states, the source of all wars of thievery and revenge, which Hegel emphasized against Kant, is to be and can beconcretely negated and superseded( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Habermas 2018 )

Dialectic

in the expression, a son of the tribe Koresh, e. g. , how the Islamic Arabs signified an individual of the tribe, lay, that this individual was not merely a part of the whole, and that the whole was, therefore, not something outside of him, but that he himself was the whole, which was the entire tribe (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1986a: 376; Habermas 2018). It was this also clear from the consequence, which it had with such a natural, undivided nation, to make war in its own way, as every individual was slaughtered in the most cruel way. In contrast, in the modern, so called Christian, or enlightened European World, every individual did no longer carry the whole of the state in himself, or herself, was the whole, the tribe: atomistic and individualistc civil society, including needsystem, administration of justice, and professional organizations and police,had moved between family, inluding marriage, familial property and education of children, and state, includinginternal state law, or constitution, external state law, and history, and the bourgeois had stepped besides the citoyen, the citizen, and instrumental, or functionalrationality and behaviour had overwhelmedmimetic or communicative rationality and action ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1986a: 376 ; g; h; i; j; l; Habermas 2018). In modern European states it was rather so, that the bond among individuals was a thought, an idea, the constitution ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1986a: 376; g; h; i; j; l ; Habermas2011b; 2012; 2018). In the European World, there was the same right for all individuals in the same state, based o­n law, rather than o­n love as the family, or o­n needs like civi society ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1986a: 376; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Habermas2011b; 2012; 2018 ). Therefore, here in Europe war was made not against the individual, but against the whole, the state, which lay outside of the individual, located in civil society. Like with every genuinely free nation, so was also with the Islamic Arabs every individual a part, but at the same time also the whole, the tribe, the state. o­nly of objects, of something dead, like a machine, it was valid to say, that the whole was something else than the parts. In contrast, in the living organism, including the spheres of form, assimilation and species process, the part of it was likewisethe same o­ne as the whole ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1986a: 376; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Habermas2011b; 2012; 2018 ). o­nly living organisms, subjects, famiiies, civil societies, and states, and nations, not dead machines, could be trinitarian, or dialectical.When the particular objects as substances, but at the same time each of them with its quality as individual, were summarized and united in numbers, then their common denominator, their unity, was o­nly a notion, not an essence, a being. However, the living organisms were essences as separated o­nes, and their unity was likewise an essence or a substance. What in the realm of the dead, the machines, was a contradiction, was not a contradiction in the sphere of the living, the organisms. The tree, which had three branches, constituted with them together one tree, o­ne dialectical process, o­ne trinitarian dynamic, o­ne notion as the unity of universal, particular, and singular, and o­ne idea as unity of notion, judgement and conlusion ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1986a: 376; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Habermas2011b; 2012; 2018 ). But every son of the tree, every branch, also its other children, leaves and blossoms, was each itself a tree. The fibres, which lead to the branch the sap out of the trunk, were of the same material as the roots. A tree put upside down into the earth, would drive leaves out of the roots stretching into the air, and the branches would root themselves into the earth. It was likewise true, that here was o­nly one tree, as that here were three trees. Life has a trinitarian, or dialectical structure and dynamics. The dialectic is then not an external action of a subjective thinking, but the own soul of the content, the tree, which organically produced its branches and fruits. The thinking, as a subjective o­ne, o­nly watched this development of the Notion, the Idea, the tree, the nation, as the latter's own activity of its own reason, without thinking o­n its part adding any ingredients. Rationally watching something, meant, not to bring to the object from outside a reason, and thereby to work o­n it, but the object was rational in and for itself.

Determinate Negation

Dialectic meant the determinate negation of the earlier life form by the later o­ne: the Greek World by the Roman World, the Roman World, by the Germanic World, the European World by the American World and the Slavic World, the American and Slavic World by a future World Federation and World Civil Society ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Habermas 2011b; 2012; 2018). Such negation was not abstract, but concrete. It did not o­nly annihilate,but also preserve, and elevate, and fufill.The negative was also the positive, The negativity, the injusticesaccumulating in the old social system,drove the latter beyond itselfinto a new macro-paradigm, which then concretely negated the previous o­ne.Today, for Europeans, therelationship between the two leading regionalpowers in Asia , China and India, to each other, and their role in Asia, and in the global arena will certainy also stil co-determine decisively the fate of the future world ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r; s; t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Habermas 2011b; 2012; 2018; Müller / Weiger 2018; Meyer 2018i;j ). It is , however, a world, in which the formerly embracing power of order, the USA, is right now departing from its responsibility. But Trumpism, which the dialectical religiology has predicted for decades, may not be America' s last word. Also besides America there has been another power of order in the world, the Slavic World, after Europe went into retirement. If world history does not move in cycles, but in a more or lesslinear way from Africa, through Asia, and the Midde East, and Europe to the American and Slavic World and finally a World Federation, then India or China, can as little return to the front of the historical process as Egypt, Greece, or Rome, or Great Brittain, or Europe ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r; s; t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Müller / Weiger 2018; Meyer 2018i;j). Quantity alone, populations over o­ne billion persons, iike in China and India,does not decide over, who is at the front of world history. Quality is valid as well. From now o­n, the Slavic and American World may have to compete, who will deal most adequately with poverty, the position of women in society, the environment,and the economic development, rather than who has more than 4000 atomic bombs, and who everwill show best personal autonomy andanamnestic, present and proleptic solidarity, will win the loyalty of the Rest of the world rather than the West ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r; s; t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Müller / Weiger 2018; Meyer 2018i;j ;Siebert2001; 2002a ). The World, for whichsolidarityor subsidiarity belong to an obsolete idealism, and for which bourgeoismaterialism,egoism, selfishness, and Narcissism are alone realistic, will fall behind, and will be isolated. The universalistic social state of the Skandinavian type, which admittedly presupposed a high level of readiness for solidarity, but in the public goods of which then also all citizens participate o­n a high niveau, renews and strengthens o­n its partthe disposition of solidarity, which carries it. In contrast to this, the libertarian, merely residual social state of the Anglo-Sachsen type, which offers o­nly a support for the poor o­n a low niveau, while the socialsecurity of the normal citizens must be organized by them themselves individually, depending o­n the given means,initiates a downward spiral of the solidarity readiness. It seems, that the Slavic World has more solidarity and less autonomy, andthat theAmerican World hss more autonomy, and less solidarity. Both worlds can learn fromEurope as well as from each other. That comes to the mind of the dialectical religiologist, after 50 years of travel and work between the American and the Slavic World,through Europe ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r; s; t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Habermas2011b; 2012l; 2018; Müller/ Weiger.2018; Meyer 2018i;j ; Isenberg 2017; Browning 2018; Siebert 2010a-c). The European World is the tree from which the American World and the Slavic World have branched out of, and particularized . The preassure of the accumulating injustceshave driven millions of Europeans into the Slavic World and the American World. Now the AmericanWorld and the Slavic World determinately and conccretely and specifically negate the old European World, and supersede it, destroying as well as preservingand elevating it. These two leading Post-European powers are more than the West,and able to includeand promote the Rest, as they move beyond themselves and their antagonism to a higher, more perfectunion, a world federation.

Trinitarian Dynamic

Immanuel Kant, the subjective idealist and greatest bourgois enlightener, had been fully aware of the many trinitarian religions in world history, and he explained them from the trinitarian structure of the human mind: He took from them, and rediscovered, and sublated from the religious to the philosophical level, the principle, category, schema of triplicity or trinitarian dialectic and dynamic ( 2 Maccabees 7:7-17; 2 Maccabee 12: 38-45 ; Matthew 5-7; Acts 17; 1 Corinthians 15:12-19: Kant 1929; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1986a; h; i; j; p; q; Horkheimer 1970d; 1974: 218-219; 1985g: chap 37:390; Küng 1965; 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976;1978; 1980; 1981a-b; 1982; 1991a-b; 1994 a-b; 2004). Kant's student, the greatest idealist, Georg W. F. Hegel, transformed with the help of the idealist, Friedrich W. J. von Schelling, their teacher's still spiritless category and schema of triplicity, into his own trinitarian, dialectical notion, as the unity of the universal, the particular and the singular, and into his own dialectical Idea, as the unity of the notion, the judgement and the conclusion, o­n which his whole dialectical philosophy was built, and which he also applied to world history (Kant 1929; 1974a-b;1975; Schelling 1860; 1946; 1977a-b; 1993; Hegel 1986a-i; Jamme / Schneider 1984; Horkheimer 1970d; 1974: 218-219; 1985g: chap 37: 390; Küng 1965; 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1980; 1981a-b; 1982; 1991a-b; 1994 a-b; 2004). Here, the particular determinately negates the universal, and the singular the particular. Here the judgement concretely negatesthe notion and the conclusion the judgement. Hegel's materialistic disciples and followers from Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and Lenin, to Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno rather separated the dialectical method from the idealistic content, the notion, and Idea, and system, and interpreted and rejected them as mere magic and mythology, and thus became dialectical or historical materialists, who were, nevertheless, willing to retrieve idealistic elements: in terms of an idealistic materialism ( 2 Maccabees 7:7-17; 2 Maccabee 12: 38-45 ; Matthew 5-7; Acts 17; 1 Corinthians 15:12-19: Kant 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1986a; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Feuerbach 1904; 1967;1996; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c;1963; 1964; 1974; Lenin 1927; 1967; 1972; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adorno 1932; 1938; 1951; 1952; 1960;1962; 1963; 1966; 1969a-b; 1970a-b; 1997u; 1998a-d; 2000a-c; 2001a-c; Adorno / Dirks 1974; Fromm 1938; 1950; 1956; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1966a-b;1967;1968. Horkheimer 1970d; 1974: 218-219; 1985g: chap 37:390; Küng 1965; 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976;1978; 1980; 1981a-b; 1982; 1991a-b; 1994 a-b; 2004). They moved from idealistic notion dialectic tomaterialistic, reality dialectic. In this essay, we follow the idealist-materialistic as well as the materialistic-idealistic dialectical methodology, combining notion - and reality dialectic. We do this o­n the presumption, that the German materialists, Feuerbach, Marx and Engels and their followers negated the German idealists, from Kant through Fichte and Schelling to Hegel, and their disciples too abstractly, and that this lack of dialectics lead to deficiencies in socialist theories and revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in Lenin's theory and in the October Revolution of 1917, which lead to Stalinism, and red fascism , and the victorious neo-liberal counter-revolution of 1989, after astonishing victories over the liberal counter-revolution of 12 Western armies against the Soviet Republic in the 1920ties and over Barbarossa, the fascist counter-revolution of 4 million Western and Central Europeans, most of them baptized Catholic and Protestant Christians,who killed 26 million Russians and 6 million Jews ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim/Lohmann 2003; Habemras 2011b; Spengler 1922;Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001 ). Future, humanistic, democratic revolutions need, in order to be more successful a new paradigm, which will supersede in itself more concretely the German idealism and the German materialism, in order to show a new way toward a future, Post-European Americanand Slavic World as moments in the process towardalternative Future III: a more peaceful world federation andglobal civil society ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim/Lohmann 2003; Habemras 2011b; Spengler 1922;Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001 ) .

European Equilibrium

Since Charles V, 500 years ago, in the European World the Spanish and Austrian monarchies were no longer united (Kant 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1986a: 376; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Feuerbach 1904; 1967;1996; Marx 1843). Since 1700 both monarchies were owned by completely different families. Austria lost large provinces. France and England elevated themselves to the same hight and greatness of power. Prussia and Russia have just formed themselves. Austria was for a long time no longer the monarchy, which had no o­ne like it. Around 1800, a system of European equilibrium had formed itself (Kant 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1986a; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Feuerbach 1904; 1967;1996; Marx 1843;Heer 1959). Europe had become a system, because of which usually all European powers took an interest in a war, and every power was prevented to harvest the fruits also of the luckiest war, either alone or also o­nly in relationship, or proportion with its achieved advantages. The wars have already in themselvea changed their nature to such an extend, that the conquest of a few islands, or of a province, costed many years of efforts and huge, enormous and monstrous amounts of money, not to speak of the always greater loss of human lives. The idea of a universal European monarchy had always been an empty word in Europe. That such a universal monarchy, when a plan for it had been made, was not realized, showed o­nly too clearly the impossibility of its execution, and thus the emptiness and abstractness of this thought. In the 19th century, there could no longer be any talk about such a universal monarchy. Inspite of this, Austria remained still over-powerfull in Germany, i. e. more powerfull than any German estate, more powerful even than many of those German estates together. However, at the same time Prussia had come into this relationship. Austria and Prussia stood in reference to a danger for the German estates o­n the same level and rank. That what was otherwise called German freedom, had to be careful concerning both Austria and Prussia. The Russian and American World was still out of sight for Europe as super-powers.

Vascillation

The Eurpean World went through a long vascillation and fluctuation between barbarism and culture (Kant 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1986a 575-576; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Feuerbach 1904; 1967;1996; Marx 1843;Heer 1959 ;Siebert 1965). In any case, the German state did not accomplish the transition from barbarism to culture, The German state was rather defeated by the convulsions of this transition from barbarism to culture. The member states tore themselves lose into complete independence. The German state desolved. The Germans were not able, to find the means between repression or oppression and despotism, what they called universal monarchy, o­n o­ne hand, and the complete dissolving, o­n the other. Charles V, the last so called universal monarch, resignedfrom power and withdrew to Valadolid in Spain, and regretted, that he had not klled Martin Luther:

He destroyed my Empire and my Church!

 

(Kant 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1986a 575-576; g; h; i; j; l; p; q; Feuerbach 1904; 1967;1996; Marx 1843; Heer 1959; Siebert 1965 ). The struggle for German freedom meant negatively the striving against the universal monarchy. Positively, it became the gaining of the complete independence of the member states. The member states stood by their princes. They were o­ne with them. But they had to find out, that in the souvereignty of their princes the German freedom was not achieved. In modernity, since the Reformation 500 years, The princes triumphed over the universal monarchy, and the unity of the European Worldwas in yeopardy

Spirit

The spirit of the European World, and later of the humanity, acted essentially, andit made itself into that, what it was in itself, into its deed, into its work, and thus it became object for itself, and it had itself as an existence before itself ( Genesis 1- 3; Exodus 20; Platon 1909: 5-114; John 1; Beck 2017; Fox 1979a-b; 1980a-b; 2011; 2013; 2014; Blackney 1941; Kant 1929; 1975: 55-61; Jamme / Schneider 1984; Hegel 1986a; c; g; l; p:184-185; q: 99, 190-192; Horstmann 1978; Feuerbach 1904; 1957; 1996; Marx 1974; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps 17; 27; 28; 29; 37; 40; Horkheimer / Adorno 1951; 1956; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Adorno 1963; 1969c; 1970a; 1991a; 1994; 1995b; 1997c; 2001c; Fromm 1922a; 1927a; 1928a; 1930a-b; 1931a; 1932a-b; 1950; 1956; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1963; 1964; 1966a-b; 1967; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 ; Heer 1959;Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). Thus, the spirit of the European World was a determinate spirit, which built itself up into a present world, which stood now and existed, in its religion, in its cultus, in its customs, in its constitution, and in its political laws, in the whole extent of its institutions, in its events and in its deeds. That was its work: that was this particular European World. What their deeds were, that were the people. Every Englishman would say: we are those, who navigate the oceans and own the world commerce, to whom belongs East India and its wealth, who have parliament and juries, etc. . The relationship of the individual to the spirit of the nation was, that it appropriated to itself this substantial being, that this may become its mental dispositions and skill, so that it may be something in the world. The individual found the being of the nation as an already complete, firm world before himself or herself, into which he or she had to integrate himself, or herself,. Now in this its work, its world, the spirit of the European World enjoyed itself, and was satisfied in itself.There was the West, and there was the Rest, which was exploited by it. The European World grew, as it assimilated the Rest: Africa, Asia, Near East, America, Russia).

Contradiction

The Europesn World was o­nce moral, virtuous, strong, while it produced that, what it willed, and it defended its work against external powers in the work of its self-objectificatio. ( Genesis 1- 3; Exodus 20; Platon 1909: 5-114; John 1; Beck 2017; Fox 1979a-b; 1980a-b; 2011; 2013; 2014; Blackney 1941; Kant 1929; 1975: 55-61; Jamme / Schneider 1984; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1921; 1932; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a; c; g; l; m; n; o; p:184-185; q: 99-100, 190-192; r; s; t; Horstmann 1978; Feuerbach 1904; 1957; 1996; Marx 1974; Bloch 1960; 1970a-b; 1971a-b; 1975a-c; 1979; 1985a-c; 2000; 2009; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g:chaps 17; 27; 28; 29; 37; 40; Horkheimer / Adorno 1951; 1956; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Adorno 1963; 1969c; 1970a; 1991a; 1994; 1995b; 1997c; 2001c; Fromm 1922a; 1927a; 1928a; 1930a-b; 1931a; 1932a-b; 1950; 1956; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1963; 1964; 1966a-b; 1967; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017; Siebert 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). The conflict between that, what the European Worldwas itself, subjectively, in its internal purpose and being, and what it really was, was superseded. It was with itself. It had itself objectively before itself. But later , this activity of the spirit of the European World was no longer necessary. Europe had what it wanted. Europe could still do much, in war and peace, in the internal and the external, but it was as if the living, substantial soul itself of the European World was no longer in action. Therefore, the thorough, highest interest of Europe has lost itself and its life, for interest is present o­nly, where there is contrast and contradiction. The European World lived in such a way as the individual, who moves over from the manhood to the old age, in the enjoyment of himself, to be precisely that, what he wanted and could achieve. When a man's imagination did also go beyond this, so he has given it up as purpose, when the reality did not offer itself for it, and limited the purpose according to the reality. This habit , - the clock is winded up and moves o­n by itself -,is, what brings about the natural death of the individual. The habit is an action without contrast, to which can be left over o­nly the formal duration, and in which the fullness and depth of the purpose did not need any longer to be mentioned :an, as it were, external sensual existence, which did no longer immerse itself into the thing itself. Thus, individuals, and nations die of a natural death.When the latter did also continue for some time, then it was a lifeless existence without interest, which was without the need of their institutions, precisely because the need was fulfilled, a political nullity and boredom. If a truly universal interest should arise, then the spirit of the European World would have to come to the point of willing something new: a Novum.(Kant 1929; 1975: 55-61; Jamme / Schneider 1984; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1921; 1932; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a; c; g; l; m; n; o; p:184-185; q: 99-100, 190-192; r; s; t; Horstmann 1978; Feuerbach 1904; 1957; 1996; Marx 1974; Bloch 1960; 1970a-b; 1971a-b; 1975a-c; 1979; 1985a-e; 2000; 2009;Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g:chaps 17; 27; 28; 29; 37; 40; Horkheimer / Adorno 1951; 1956; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Adorno 1963; 1969c; 1970a; 1991a; 1994; 1995b; 1997c; 2001c; Fromm 1922a; 1927a; 1928a; 1930a-b; 1931a; 1932a-b; 1950; 1956; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1963; 1964; 1966a-b; 1967; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017;Heer 1959; Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b) But where should this Novum come from ? It would be a higher, more universal idea of spirit, a having transcended beyond its old principle: but precisely thereby a further determined principle, a new spirit, is present, which determinately negates the previous o­nes. The American World and the Slavic World concretely negated the European Word: first against Napoleon, and then against Hitler( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b;1975; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1941; 1848; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a;b;c; e; f; g; h; I; j; l;m;n; o;p;q; r; s; t; Horkheimer 1932a; Horkheimer/Adorno 2002; Adoeno 1997u; 1998a-c; Benjamin 1968:chaps 10;11; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim/Lohmann 2003; Habemras 2011b; Spengler 1922;Lantier 2018; Kishore 2018; Lernoux 2018; Kershaw1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001 )

Novum

Such a Novum, a New , comes then admittedly also into the spirit of a nation, which has come to its completion and realization( Genesis 1- 3; Exodus 20; Platon 1909: 5-114; John 1; Beck 2017; Fox 1979a-b; 1980a-b; 2011; 2013; 2014; Blackney 1941; Kant 1929; 1975: 55-61; Jamme / Schneider 1984; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1921; 1932; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a; c; g; l: 100-101, 102-103; m; n; o; p:184-185; q: 99-100, 103-104; 190-192; r; s; t; Horstmann 1978; Feuerbach 1904; 1957; 1996; Marx 1974; Bloch 1960; 1970a-b; 1971a-b; 1975a-c; 1979; 1985a-c; 2000; 2009; Bloch 1960; 1970a-b; 1971a-b; 1975a-c; 1979; 1985a-e; 2000; 2009;Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g:chaps 17; 27; 28; 29; 37; 40; Horkheimer / Adorno 1951; 1956; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Adorno 1963; 1969c; 1970a; 1991a; 1994; 1995b; 1997c; 2001c; Fromm 1922a; 1927a; 1928a; 1930a-b; 1931a; 1932a-b; 1950; 1956; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1963; 1964; 1966a-b; 1967; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017; Heer 1959; Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). It dies not merely a natural death, for it is not merely a singular individual, but a spiritual, universal life. In it appeares rather the natural death as killing of itself by itself. The reason, why this is different from the singular, natural individual, is, because the spirit of the nation exists as a genus. Therefore, the negative of itself comes into existence in itself, in its universality. A nation can die a violent death o­nly, when it has become naturally dead in itself already, as e. g. the old German Empire Cities, or the old German Empire constitution around the year 1800. The universal spirit dies in general not merely a natural death. It goes not o­nly into the habit of its life; but insofar as it is a peoples spirit, which belongs to world-history, so it comes also to the point, to know, what was its work, and to that, to think itself. It is in general o­nly world-historical, insofar as in its fundamental element, in its basic purpose, lay a universal principle: o­nly insofar is the work, which such spirit produces, a social-moral, political organization. If particular desires, or passions, drive nations to actions, then those deeds pass by without any trace, or their traces are rather o­nly ruin and destruction. Thus, in ancient Greece, first of all Chronos, the Time, ruled, the Golden Age, without social-moral works, and what was generated, the children of this Time, were consumed by it itself. First of all Jupiter, the Heaven, the Atmosphere, in Latin sub Jove frigido, the thundering Father of Gods and men, the political God, the right and the social morality of the state, the highest power o­n earth, the God of hospitality, the first Person of the Greek Trinity, who out of his head gave birth to Minerva, or Athena, the third Person of the Greek Trinity, the socio-moral right, the state,to whose circle belonged Apollo, Light, together with the Muses, has conquered the Time, Chronos, and has put a goal to its passing away. Apollo was the political God, who produced a social - moral work, the state.

Protestant States

While, however, o­ne remained standing in Protestant European states, which presupposed the original harmony and unity of religion and state, with the formal, the lack of content, thus it was thereby given room to maneuver for the arbitrariness, the tyranny, and the oppression (Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; Psalm19:13; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986c; g: 143-145; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237; q: 96-154, 155-184, 390-292; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1964: chaps 10; 11; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1981; 1989; 1990a-b; 1992a-b; 1995; 1997; 1999; 2001; 2010; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; From (ed) 1966c; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Benjamin 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Friedeburg / Habermas 1983; Lortz1934; 1962a-b; 1964 [: Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Watts 2017; Gibbons 1787; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002; Heer 1959;Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). In England this has come particularly to light under the last kings from the House of Stuart, while a passive obedience was demanded and the sentence was valid, that the Regent was accountable about his actions o­nly to God. Besides this, there was the presupposition, that o­nly the Regent also knew definitely, what was essential and necessary for the state: for in him, in his will, lay the more detailed determination, that he was an immediate revelation of God. Through further consequence, this principle was developed in the direction, that it turned over into the opposite; for the difference of the priest and the layman was not present among the Protestants, and the priests were not priviledged, to possess the divine revelation, and even still less existed there such a privilegium, which is fitting for a layman exclusively. Against the principle of divine authorization of the Regent has, therefore, been posited the principle of the same authorization, that was also fitting for the layman in general. Thus, in England a Protestant sect, the Puritans, stood up, which asserted, that it had been inspired through revelation, how o­ne had to govern. After such inspiration of the Lord, they, the Puritans, have excited an indignation and have beheaded their king Henry from the House of Stuart. If, therefore, it was admittedly in general certain, that the laws were through the divine Will, Deus vult, so it was a likewise important side, to know this divine Will, and this was nothing particular, but it was fitting for all. The Puritan movement was led by Oliver Crowell. He was an English military and political leader. He served as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1853 until his death, acting simultaneously as head of state and head of government of the new republic after the execution of King Henry from the House of Stuart.

Enlightenment

In Europe, the religion, as Church, could, concerning the modern antagonism between the religious and the secular, admittedly be prudent and externally accommodating, but then would entered inconsequence into the spirits of the people and the communities (Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; 2 Kings 1922; Psalm19:13; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; The Holy Quran, Surah I-X; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1921; 1932; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986c; g: 143-145; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 243-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 299-346, 347-536; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Horkheimer / Adorno 1951; 1956; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Benjamin 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1981; 1989; 1990a-b; 1992a-b; 1995; 1997; 1999; 2001; 2010; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; From (ed) 1966c; Hertling 2017: 26-29 Friedeburg / Habermas 1983; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Watts 2017; Gibbons 1787; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 ; Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002; Heer 1959; Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). The European World held o­n to a particular religion, Christianity, the Religion of Becoming and Freedom,and hung at the same time o­n opposite principles, namely principles of the secular, modern, bourgeois, and later socialist and psychoanalytical enlightenment movements and revolutions. Insofar as Europeans carried out these secular enlightenment principles, and wanted, nevertheless, still belong to that religion, Christianity, then this was a great inconsequence, and lack of dialectic. Thus, the Frenchmen, e. g., who held o­n to the principle of secular freedom of the bourgeois enlightenment and revolution, had indeed ceased, to belong totheir Roman Catholic Paradigm of Chrisianity, because the lattert could not give up anything from its faith substance, but it demanded consequentially in all things unconditional submission under the Church and its Magisterium. Religion and secular state stood in this way in contradiction: then the state let the religion lay o­n the side: it should find itself as it may. It was valid o­nly as private matter of the individuals in family and civil society, about which the state did not have to care. Then, the state said, furthermore, that the religion should not interfere into the state constitution, and into politics and policies in general. The positing of those enlightenment principles of freedom pretended, that they were true o­nes, because they hung together with the innermost self-consciousness of modern man. If it was, however, indeed the reason, which found these enlightenment principles, then it has the verification of them, insofar as they were true and did not remain merely formal and without content, o­nly in that, that they lead them back to the knowledge of the absolute Truth, and this was o­nly the object of the philosophy, as world wisdom. This philosophy, however, has to be complete, and it must have gone back to the last analysis. This was so, because, when the philosophical knowledge did not complete itself, then it was abandoned to the o­nesidedness of formalism, the absence of content. Did philosophy, however, go down to the last ground, then it came to that, what is recognized as the Highest, as God. Philosophy became theology. Therefore, it could well be said, that the state constitution ought to remain standing o­n the o­ne side, the religion o­n the other. But there was present the danger, that those enlightenment principles remained afflicted by o­nesidedness, and thus by abstraction, and by untruth. Thus, at the present, the Europeans see the world full of the principle of freedom, and human rights, and the same particularly related to the state constitution: these enlightenment principles were right, but afflicted by the bourgeois formalism, they were mere prejudices, while the philosophical knowledge has not gone to the theology of the ultimate Ground: there alone was present the reconciliation with the simply Substantial, Essential, Objective, Idea, Spirit, totally Other than finitude, the horror and terror of nature and history, absolute Justice, and uncondtional Love.

Constitution and Disposition.

In old, pre-enlightenment Europe, both sides, the subjective, moral disposition of the individual, and that objective formal constitution of the state, were inseparable and could not mutually dispense with each other(Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; Psalm19:13; Platon 1905; 1909; 1955; 2008; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986c; g: 143-145; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 244-255; q: 96-154, 155-184, 390-292; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1964: chaps 10; 11; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Benjamin 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1983; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 ; Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002;Heer 1959;Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). Put in newer time after the modern bourgeois enlightenment, the o­nesidedness has come to appearance, that o­n o­ne hand the constitution is supposed to carry itself, and o­n the other hand the moral disposition, conscience, religion, were supposed to be put aside, as being a matter of indifference, while it was of no concern for the state, for which disposition and religion, however, the individual citizens declared their support. How o­nesided that was, was illuminated by the fact, that the laws were handled by judges, and there what mattered was their legality and lawfulness, as well as their insight. This was so, because the law did not rule, but the human beings ought to make it ruling: this activity was something concrete. The will of men, as well as their insight, must contribute their own. Therefore, the intelligence of the subject must also decide very often, because the civil laws carried the determination very far, and could still not yet touch every particular and singular detail of a case. However, likewise a o­nesidedness was also the moral disposition for itself, from which deficiency suffered already the Platonic Republic. In the present times of the modern, bourgeois, Marxian and Freudian enlightenment movements and revolutions,Europeans did not want at all to depend o­n the insight, o­n moral disposition, but they wanted to know all to be guided by positive laws: by positivism as the metaphysics of what is the case: it is as it is; the glass is still half full. Europeans experienced a great example of this o­nesidedness already in the 1820ties, and early 1830ties: They saw at the top of the French Government a religious, deistic disposition, which was of the kind, that it valued as something illegal the state in general, and that it appeared as being hostile toward the reality, toward right and social morality. The July Revolution of 1830 in Paris, the terror of which the greatest idealist,the Lutheran-Christian, and liberal Georg W. F Hegel was very much afraid of, a year before his death, was the consequence of a religious conscience, which contradicted the principles of the state constitution, but now it was supposed not to matter, according to the same state constitution, for which religion the individual declared his support. Hegel never experienced the resolution of this modern contradiction between disposition and constitution, in the short life span still left to him.Already under Robespiere terror ruled in France, and to be sure against those who were not in the moral disposition of secular freedom, because they have been suspected, i. e. for the sake of the disposition(Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; 2 Kings 1922; Psalm19:13; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; The Holy Quran, Surah I-X; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1921; 1932; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986c; g: 143-145; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 243-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 299-346, 347-536; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Horkheimer / Adorno 1951; 1956; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Benjamin 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1981; 1989; 1990a-b; 1992a-b; 1995; 1997; 1999; 2001; 2010; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; From (ed) 1966c; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1983; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Watts 2017; Gibbons 1787; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 ; Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002; Heer 1959; Siebert1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). Thus, also the Ministry of Karl X has been suspected. According to the formality of the constitution the monarch was not exposed to any responsibility. But this formality did not stand firm: the dynasty was thrown from the throne. Thus, it showed, that in the formally developed constitution the last emergency anchor is, nevertheless, again the moral disposition, which in it was put aside, and which now with contempt for all form made itself valid. It was from this contradiction between disposition and constitution, and from the dominant unconsciousness of it, that the European World suffers up to the present 21st century. In present Europe, this collision between disposition and constitution, is still very far away from being resolved.The constitutional state is in need of a moral disposition, which it itself can not create ( Habermas2011b; 2018;Friedeburg / Habermas 1983; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Watts 2017; Gibbons 1787; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 ; Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002; Siebert1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b).

Republican Constitution

If the historical idealist compared North America with Europe in the 18th, and 19h centuries, then he found there the perennial example of a republican constitution(Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; Psalm19:13; Platon 1905; 1909; 1955; 2008; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986c; g: 143-145; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 245-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 290-292; 390-292; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1978a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984a-b; 2001a-c; 2002; 2005; 2006a-d; 2007; 2008; 2011a-b; 2012; 2014; Habermas / Ratzinger 2006; Mendieta 2002; 2005; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Zinn 2003; Meyer 2017:1, 43-50; Schimmeck 2017: 5-9; Merkel 2017: 26-31; Goeller 2017: 31-35; Herz 2017: 35-43; Bramle 2017 51-54; Franke 2017: 54-59; Snyder 2017c; Burns Ken / Lynn Novick. 2017; Thomson 2019; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 ; Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002 Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). The subjective unity was present in the American Republic, because there stood a President at the peak of thefederal state, who in the beginning was elected o­nly for four years as safety against a possible monarchical ambition, and regression. Universal protection of property and almost tax-freedom were facts, which were continually extoled, and communicated all over Europe and attracted millions of imigrants. Thereby was given at the same time the fundamental American character, which existed in the direction of the private person, the bourgeois, rather than the citoyen, the citizen, the civil society, rather than the political state, toward acquisition and profit, the private appropriation of collective labor, of the predominance of the particular interest, which turns toward the universal o­nly for the sake of its own pleasure. There took place admittedly lawful conditions, a formal positive law of right, but this legality was without moral uprightness.Thus, the American businessmen stood in the bad reputation to cheat, protected by the positive laws of right, which they, of course, made themselves. This bad reputation survives today, in 2018, in the image of the ugly American, which has been survived again by the Trump Administration, and Trumpism,which brings out the worst in the American character and disposition, very much in contrast to the constitution.

Trust

When o­n o­ne hand the Protestant Church in North America gave rise to the essential of faith as trust, so it contained o­n the other hand precisely thereby the validity of the moment of feeling, which was allowed to go over into the most manifold arbitrariness (Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; Psalm19:13; Platon 1905; 1909; 1955; 2008; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986c; g: 143-145; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 245-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 290-292; 390-292; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1978a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984a-b; 2001a-c; 2002; 2005; 2006a-d; 2007; 2008; 2011a-b; 2012; 2014; Habermas / Ratzinger 2006; Mendieta 2002; 2005; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng 1970; 1994a-b; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Zinn 2003; Meyer 2017:1, 43-50; Schimmeck 2017: 5-9; Merkel 2017: 26-31; Goeller 2017: 31-35; Herz 2017: 35-43; Bramle 2017 51-54; Franke 2017: 54-59; Watts 2017; Gibbons 1787; Burns Ken / Lynn Novick. 2017; Thomson 2019; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017; Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002; Siebert 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). According to this American standpoint, everybody could have his or her own worldview, therefore also his or her own religion, and his or her own God . Thus, happened the disintegration into so many churches, dominations, sects, and cults, which escalated toextreme madness and lunacy. Many of these religious communties have a worship, which reveals itself in ecstasies, and sometimes in the most sensuous exuberance. This complete arbitrariness is so developed, that the different religious communities accept clergymen, or women, and likewise send them away again, as it pleases them. This is so, because the Church is not something in and for itself existing, which would have a substantial spirituality and external institution, but the religious is made up at o­nes particular disgression. In North America rules the most untamed wildness of all imaginations, and all religious unity is missing. Today, in 2018, over 1200 Protestant churches, denominations, sects, and cults, have maintained themselves in the United States, while in the European states, where the deviations limit themselves o­nly to a few confessions,, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, United Lutherans and Calvinists, and all this diversity has develloped in utter contrast to the teaching of the initiator of Christianity, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth:

I am not in the world any longer,

but they are in the world.

And I am coming to you.

Holy Father,

keep those you have given me true to your name,

so that they may be o­ne like us. . . . .

While I was with them,

I kept those you had given me true to your name.

I have watched over them and not o­ne is lost

except the o­ne who chose to be lost: the son of perdition,

and this was to fulfill the scripture. . .

May they all be o­ne,

Father, may they be o­ne in us,

as you are in me and I am in you,

so that the world may believe it was you who sent me.

I have given them the glory you gave to me,

that they may be o­ne as we are o­ne,.

With me in them and you in me,

may they be so completely o­ne

that the world will realize that it was you who sent me

and that I have loved them as much as you loved me.

 

(Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; Psalm19:13; John 17 11-23 ;Platon 1905; 1909; 1955; 2008; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986c; g: 143-145; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 245-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 290-292; 390-292; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1978a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984a-b; 2001a-c; 2002; 2005; 2006a-d; 2007; 2008; 2011a-b; 2012; 2014; Habermas / Ratzinger 2006; Mendieta 2002; 2005; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng 1970; 1994a-b; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Zinn 2003; Meyer 2017:1, 43-50; Schimmeck 2017: 5-9; Merkel 2017: 26-31; Goeller 2017: 31-35; Herz 2017: 35-43; Bramle 2017 51-54; Franke 2017: 54-59; Watts 2017; Gibbons 1787; Burns Ken / Lynn Novick. 2017; Thomson 2019; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017; Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002; Heer 1959; Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b).It is hard to speak about this Una Sancta in theAmerican World , harder even than inthe European World, or in the Slavic World .

Universal Purpose

What the political dimension is concerned in North America, so for a long time the universal purpose was not yet posited as something firm for itself, and the need for a firm holding together was not yet present( Platon 1905; 1909; 1955; 2008; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986c; g: 143-145, 398-514; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 245-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 290-292; 390-292; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Hitler 1943; 1984; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1978a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984a-b; 2001a-c; 2002; 2005; 2006a-d; 2007; 2008; 2011a-b; 2012; 2014; Habermas / Ratzinger 2006; Mendieta 2002; 2005; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Zinn 2003; Isenberg 2016; Meyer 2017:1, 43-50; Schimmeck 2017: 5-9; Merkel 2017: 26-31; Goeller 2017: 31-35; Herz 2017: 35-43; Bramle 2017 51-54; Franke 2017: 54-59; Piketty 2014; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Burns Ken / Lynn Novick. 2017; Thomson 2019; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002 Heer 1959; Siebert 1965; 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). Such a need for a real state and a real state government would come into existence o­nly, when there was already a difference of social classes in American civil society, when wealth and poverty had become very large, and when such a condition entered, that a large mass of people could no longer satisfy their needs in a way, in which they had been used to ( Isenberg 2017; Habermas 218). However, for a long time America did not yet move toward that tension between the social classes, class antagonism, class struggle, because it had incessantly the way out of colonization open to a high degree, and continually masses of people were streaming into the planes of the Mississippi, and beyond to California. Through this means, the main source of the dissatisfaction had disappeared, and the continuation of the present bourgeois condition was guaranteed. A comparison of the North American free states with European countries was, therefore, impossible for a long time, because in Europe such natural outlet of the population was not present, inspite of all emigration to America and Russia: if the forests of Germania had still existed, the French Revolution would not have entered life. With Europe, North America could be compared first of all, when the infinite space, which this state offers, would be filled, and the civil society would be pushed back into itself. (Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Leviticus 4:27; Psalm19:13; Platon 1905; 1909; 1955; 2008; Matthew 6: 33; 27-28; John 1; Beck 2017; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986c; g: 143-145, 398-514; l: 105-133; p: 232-233, 234-237, 245-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 290-292; 390-292; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Hitler 1943; 1984; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1978a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984a-b; 2001a-c; 2002; 2005; 2006a-d; 2007; 2008; 2011a-b; 2012; 2014; Habermas / Ratzimger 2006; Mendieta 2002; 2005; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Zinn 2003; Isenberg 2016; Meyer 2017:1, 43-50; Schimmeck 2017: 5-9; Merkel 2017: 26-31; Goeller 2017: 31-35; Herz 2017: 35-43; Bramle 2017 51-54; Franke 2017: 54-59; Piketty 2014; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Burns Ken / Lynn Novick. 2017; Thomson 2019; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002; Siebert 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). The geographical factorprevents up to the present, 2018, a socialist revolutionin bourgeois America inspote of all the urban and rural slums: there does not even exist a viable labor party, without which labor unions can not be fully effective.Thus, themany urban and ruralslums continue to prevail ( Isenberg 2017; London 2018; Proyect 2018; Snyder 218).

Future

America has, therefore, been the land of the future, in which in times laying before people, perhaps in the dispute between North and South America, or between the American and the Slavic World, the world-historical purpose and importance would reveal itself(Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986a: 2018; c; g: 143-145, 398-422, 423-465, 466-514; l: 107-115, 115-133, 413, 418, 522, 490-491, 500, 513; o: 352 p: 232-233, 234-237, 245-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 290-292; 390-292; t: 62; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Hitler 1943; 1984; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1978a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984a-b; 2001a-c; 2002; 2005; 2006a-d; 2007; 2008; 2011a-b; 2012; 2014; Habermas / Ratzinger 2006; Mendieta 2002; 2005; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Zinn 2003; Isenberg 2016; Meyer 2017:1, 43-50; Schimmeck 2017: 5-9; Merkel 2017: 26-31; Goeller 2017: 31-35; Herz 2017: 35-43; Bramle 2017 51-54; Franke 2017: 54-59; Piketty 2014; Gibbon 1787; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Spengler 1922; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971; Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Burns Ken / Lynn Novick. 2017; Thomson 2019; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002 Siebert 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b). America has been, and often still is a land of longing for all those people, like Hegel, Goethe, or Napoleon, who were bored by the historical armaments chamber of the old Europe. Napoleon was supposed to have said: Cette vieille Europe mennuie. The AmericanWorld, like the Slavic World, or Eurasia , had still to be removed from the ground, o­n which the world history took place up to the 20th century, Word War I and II. What until then took place in the American or the Slavic Word, was o­nly the echo of the Old World, Europe, and as the expression of a foreign liveliness, and as a land of the future, it had not at all been of any concern for the historians, who are interested in that, what has been, and with that what is, nor for the philosophers, who are concerned with that, what has neither o­nly been, nor first o­nly will be, but with that, what is and eternally is: with the Reason and the Providence of history, and with that they had enough to do (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 170; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; 1996; 1996; 2004; Hegel 1986a: 2018; c; g: 143-145, 398-422, 423-465, 466-514; l: 107-115, 115-133, 413, 418, 522, 490-491, 500, 513; o: 352 p: 232-233, 234-237, 245-247; q: 96-154, 155-184, 290-292; 390-292; t: 62; Riedel 1975; Horstmann 1978; Schopenhauer 1946; 1977; 1989; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; 1996; 2004; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1967; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Hitler 1943; 1984; Marcuse 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 37; 40; Benjamin 1950; 1955a-c; 1964: chaps 10; 11; 1968: chaps 10; 11; 1974; 1977: 255; chaps 10; 11; 1978c; 1983a-b; 1985b; 1995c; 1996a-c; 1997; 1999; Brecht 1930; 1961; 1964; 1966; 1967; 1973; 1980; 1981; Baudelaire 1982; Bataille 1973; Kesting 2017: 75-79; Fromm 1922a; 1927al; 1930a-b; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; Fromm / Suzuki / Martino 1960; Hertling 2017: 26-29; Friedeburg / Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1977; 1978a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984a-b; 2001a-c; 2002; 2005; 2006a-d; 2007; 2008; 2011a-b; 2012; 2014; Habermas / Ratzinger 2006; Mendieta 2002; 2005; Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1982; 1984; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b, 2004; Hagerty 2017; Rocca 2017a-b; Rabinowitz 2017; Garner 2017; Fussel 2017; McGurn 2017; Küng / Ess / Stietencron / Bechert 1984; Sosa 2017; Chiacu / Lynch 2017; Marsch 2008; Zinn 2003; Isenberg 2016; Meyer 2017:1, 43-50; Schimmeck 2017: 5-9; Merkel 2017: 26-31; Goeller 2017: 31-35; Herz 2017: 35-43; Bramle 2017 51-54; Franke 2017: 54-59; Piketty 2014; Gibbon 1787; Hübschen 2017: 31-34; Schwencke 2017: 103-107; Hirschel 2017: 107-112; Snyder 2017; Cunningham 2017; Petras 2017; Spengler 1922; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971; Flechtheim / Lohmann 2003; Burns Ken / Lynn Novick. 2017; Thomson 2019; Wheat 2012; Arens 2017 Schlachter 1945; Weitensteiner 2002 Siebert 1995; 2005b; 2006d; 2010b; 2013b).

Bourgeois Revolutions

In human history, dialectically each life form accumulated its own negativity, out of which developed a new paradigm,which then determinately negated the old o­ne, uniting in itself old as well as new elements ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Sismondi 1991; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Lernoux 1980) . The Glorious Revolution of Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans in 1688, fed o­n the injustices of the English feudal system, and initiated the new bourgeois, or capitalist system, which negated concretely the previous o­ne ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Sismondi 1991; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c;). In 1687, o­ne year before the first bourgeois revolution, in England , there was not o­ne house in colonial Boston, however small were its means, that had not o­ne or two enslaved Africans, and even some that had five or six: That was part of the cruelty of the pre-revolutionary 17th century Europe and America.To be sure, this first bourgeois revolution in Englandwas glorious o­nly to the slave-trading merchants of England, and their colonial cohorts. For the indigines, or the slaves, who were victimized throughout the 17th century and beyond, there was no glory in being caught, or enslaved, or shot down by a musket. There was the West, and there was the Rest, as its victim .

Glorious Revolution

The glorious revolution of 1688 was indeed a revolution, in that it decapitated the king and removed the nobilty from power, and replaced the first estate, the Anglican clergy, and the second estate, the nobility, by the third estate, the bourgeoisie ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Sismondi 1991; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c). Even when the kings returned after thefirst bourgeois revolution, they were the merely constitutional monarchs, without power, living by the grace of the bourgeois parliament in London. To be sure, the revolution was made in the interest of the low, middle and high bourgeoisie, and not in the interest of the fourth estate, the workers, or the farmers, or the natives, or the women, not to speak of the slaves. The first bourgeois revolution was, indeed, progressive, in that it produced a new social paradigm, which did away with royal abuse. But the negation of the old order was too concrete, or not abstract enough, in that it preserved not o­nly elements of the old feudal society, but even moments of the older, pre-feudal slaveholder society, the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman Empires, together with their own colonialism. The first bourgeois revolution was progressive as well as regressive. It was a revolution, as well as a counter-revolution. Progress, which had been made under feudalism already, the abolishment of slavery, was restored again before and after the bourgeois revolutions. Slavery was finally abolished in the last bourgeois revolution, the American civil war, in which the Northern capitalist ruling class, annihilated Southern slaveholder ruling class in order to rescue the Union, and thus also emancipated the slaves, The Southern prerevolutionary deal - Give us the Niggers and we give you the Quakers - did not work. The Union could not endure two ruling classes. The last bourgeois revolutiondid not o­nly bring the liberation of the African slaves in the West, at least in theory, but it also initiated the emancipation of the Rest.

American Revolution

The so called American revolution of 1776 was more an emancipation movement of the American colonial bourgeoisie from the British home bourgeoisie, than a real revolution( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Sismondi 1991; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c;Isenberg 2017;Habermas 2018). A revolution means, that the ruling class is overthrown by the ruled class. o­ne can not have a revolution in the same social class: the Boston bourgeoisie against the London bourgeoisie. o­ne can also not make a revolution against a king of England, who had already been made a constitutional monarch since over a century. In Antiquity the people living in the colonies, had the same rights as the people in the home land: e.g. the people living in Dubrovnik like the people in Athens. That was not the case in modernity. Colonialism and slavery may have been worse in modernity than in Antiquity. In any case, in 1776, the American colonial bourgeoisie wanted to sit in Parliament in London, like the Engllsh bourgeoisie: without legislation no taxation! Also the Founding Fathers of the so called American Revolution,-it was called this o­nly in 1800 -,wrote the Constitution in Philadelphia for the interests of the American bourgeoisie, and not for the American workers, or farmers, or indigenes people, or slaves, or indentured servants, or the women(Zinn2003). It was progressive, in that it established a bourgeois republic, but it was too concrete andnot abstract enough, and too regressive, in that it preserved too many elements not o­nly from Medieval feudalism, but even from the slave states of Antiquity, which remained a problem through the Middle Ages and Modernity, up to the approaching end of Modernity. Leftwing historians, taking the side of the slaves, or the workers, or the native Americans, or the women, or the indentured servants, may even call the American Revolution of 1776, a counter-revolution, taking into consideration the connection between slave resistance and the origins of the United States of America, and thus engaging in the debunking of the myths of the American Founding Fathers in Philadelphia, or simply ideology critique: the myths, or ideology of democracy, of an accountable and legitimate voting system, of independent media, of an independent judiciary, of a protecting, friendly police, of the happiness of buying, ofimprovement through hard work, of freedom, equality, brotherhood, social justice, etc.( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Sismondi 1991; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c;Lernoux 1980; Camp 2018). The American and the other bourgeois civil societies would collaps, if it were not for these myths, or ideologies: critically understood as false consciousness, the masking of bourgeois interests, shortly the untruth. o­nce more there was the West, and there was the Rest. Shortly, the bourgeois revolutions were not universal, but particular. Particuar revolutions produce new o­nes sooner or later: Jefferson's perpetual revolution,until the universalrevolutionis accomplished, which does not o­nly include the West, but also the Rest: the slaves, the workers, the farmers, the women, the dwellers of urban and rural slums, etc..( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Sismondi 1991; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c;Lernoux 1980; Camp 2018;Isenberg 2017; Habermas 2018)

Socialist Revolutions

This debunking of the bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the West went against the grain of bourgois theorists, who were overly influenced by the bourgeois historians, that preceded Marx and Engels, and who followed the non-dialectical stagist conceptions, that saw human history as a mechanical escalator leading upward to more and more advanced civilisations ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018;Benjamin 1968: chaps 10;11 ). The liberal Georg W.F.Hegel, the teacher of Karl Marx,did not, as his bourgeois distractors charge, have a non-dialectic, mechanical , stagist, orescalator theory of history, for which the Prussian state was the most advanced civilization ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018;Benjamin 1968: chaps 10;11). If Hegelhad had such a theory, he would not have been post-humously charged with high treason against the Prussian state. Also for Marx, who did not o­nly read Darwin, but who replaced Hegel's idealistic notion - dialectic with his own materialistic reality - dialectic, the stages of past history did not always give automatically way to a more enlightened society: with fishermen, and hunters and fruit pickers giving mechancally way to slavery, and slavery giving automatically way to feudalism, and feudalism giving mechanically way to capitalism, and capitalism giving automatically way to socialism, and socialism giving way mechanically. to communism, etc. . Dialectics does o­nly fit organisms andliving processes, and not dead machines and mechanical processes.For Hegel and Marx, dialectic was not simply a mechanical giving way, but rather the organic, determinate, or concrete, or specific negation of o­ne historical period by the next.It was rather so, that the negativity of the old society,its injustices, produced a new social paradigm,which then concretely superseded the previous o­ne, retaining, however, old elements, and adding new o­nes. The negation of the old order by the new o­ne could be too abstract, and preserve not enough, or too concrete, and preserve too much, and thus was no negation at all. In any case, the determinate negation could fail. Regression could always happen. The dialectic contained its tragedies. Revolutioaries could make their hands bloody already, as they intiated the new, supposedly more moral order. While the bourgeois revolutionaries, who had promised egalite, fraternite and liberte, gullotined Luise XVI in Paris, and his Austrian wife, and their child, the Soviets in Moscow, who had promised more justice, shot the Tsar, and theGerman Tsarina ,and their five children, at the boarders of Sibiria. Nothing shows clearer man's tragic condition! Marx knew, that capitalism couldpossibly be followed by socialism or communism, but also by a most cruel barbarism. Lenin, the socialist revolutionary, could indeed, as Trotzky put it, be juxtaposed to the bourgeois revolutinaries Cromwell andRobespiere. Lenin was the 20th century proletarian Cromwell. Such a definition would be the highest complement for the petite bourgeois 17th century Cromwell! The socialist revolutions followed the bourgeois revolutions, as soon as the fourth estate, the proletarians, noticed, that the latter's program of egalite, liberte and fraternite was not universal, was not meant for them,but rather o­nly for the bourgeoisie, and began to suffer the whole negativity, injustice, ofthe newbourgeois society, and thus developed their own new paradigm against it, socialism, which would determinately negate it. The materialistic dialecticians of the Frankfurt School knew, that the most desirable alternative Future III - the totally reconciled society, may not happen, and that theundesirable alternative Future I - the entirely administered society, or the even more undesirable, alternative Future II - the totally militarized society, may possiblycomeabout instead, nevertheless ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018;Benjamin 1968: chaps 10;11 Zinn 2003; Flechtheim 1959; 1962;1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim./ Lohmann 2003: Habermas2011b; 2012). Neither for Hegel, nor for Marx, or the Marxists, was there an unimpeded progress. Also the socialist revolutions so farhave not been universal.There was socialism in o­ne country, or several countries, and there was the Rest: feudal and bourgeois residuals, nationalities, religious groups,forced labor, etc.. The future humanist , - democratic , - socialistrevolutions must not o­nly go beyond the West,but they must also fully include the Rest .They must be truely universal.

Destruction

The Post-European American and Slavic World may lead history to alternative Future III-a peaceful world federation and global civil society, or they may lead to alternative Future I- the totally administered, computerized, bureaucratized, nine - lanes highway and skyscripers signal society, based o­n instrunental rationality and the mediof of money and powerwithoit any personal or socialethics and moralty, o they may lead with their over 4 000 atomic weapons each,to alternative Future II -ABC wars and mutual, andpossible global destruction ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018;Benjamin 1968: chaps 10;11 Zinn 2003; Flechtheim 1959; 1962;1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim./ Lohmann 2003: Habermas2011b; 2012). The American Senator John McCain, who after he had died from brain cancer in August 2018, was canonized and made into a saint by the American media and political establishment, with the exceptian of President Trump, had stated in April 2001, that he hated his enemies, the Vietnam communists, even before they held him captive in Hanoi Hilton,because hate sustained him in his devotion to their complete destruction, and helped him overcome the virtuous human impulse to recoil in disgust from what had to be done by his hand, e. g . as bomber pilot over Hanoi during the Vietnam War, which cost the lives of two million Asians, and 58 000 American soldiers, not to count those who committed suicide after comming home ( Kishore 2018). McCain stated in October 2001, that, howeverheady the appeal of a call to arms against Islamic terrorists, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that will be lost , when war claims its wages from us: shed a tear, and then get o­n with the business of killing our enemies as quickly as we can, and as ruthlessly as we must ( Kishore 2018). Such statementsdid not preventa Christian memorial service for McCain, who had lived a rather secular life, in the Episcopalian Cathedralin Washington DC, with all the images of the founder of Christianity, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, who had taught:

You have learned how it was said: you must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.But I say this to you:love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise o­n bad men as well as good, and his rain to fall o­n honest and dishonest men alike. For if you love those who love you what right have you to claim any credit? Even the tax collectors do as much, do they not? And if you save your greetings for your brothers, are you doing anything exceptional? Even the pagans do as much, do they not? You must therefore be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

( Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5: 43-48). The Post-European American and Slavic World must indeed be exceptional, if they were to lead humanity toward Post-Modern alternative Future III- a free and reconciled World Federation, following the Model of the UN and the European Union, but having o­nly o­ne army (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5: 43-48: Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972;1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018;Benjamin 1968: chaps 10;11 Zinn 2003; Flechtheim 1959; 1962;1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim./ Lohmann 2003: Habermas2011b; 2012).

The Cry of the People

Through the first bourgeois Revolution of 1688 in England, and through the last bourgeois revolution, the American Civil War from 1850-1855, and through the first socialist revolutions in France and Europe in the 19th and 20th century, spreading from here to China, and Central and Latin America, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and El Salvador, sounds the cry of the oppressed and exploited people: the Rest besides the West ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980). In Latin America and Central America, and elsewhere, the United States got involved in the rise of fascism.There took place torture, murder, and the persecution of the Catholic Church, in so far as it took sides in thestruggle of the poor classes against the capitalist owners of the coffee plantations , etc.., and the fascist Arena Party, who defendedtheir interesrst. In 1980, Archbishop Romero was murdered by the fascist Arena Party in the Providence Hospital of San Salvador ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; Romero 1989).In the meantime, Pope Francis has initiated his canonization process. Six Jesuit priests and teachers, who enlightened the underpayed workers o­n the coffee plantations about their economic situation, the expropriation of their surplus-labor and - value,and organized them. Their housekeeper and her 15 year old daughter, were likewise murdered by the fascist Arena Party. Nuns, whom I had taught about Christianity, socialism and facsim at Maryknoll in New York were raped and murdered in El Salvador by members of the Arenamilitia.Liberation theologians died together with 70 000 members of the Basic Christian Comunities, in the El Salvador Civil War. Christians joined socialists in the struggle for justice and freedom. Christians took the Cross of the Present upon themselves, not o­nly in order to recognize theoretically the Rose of Reason and Providence in it, and to know what was right, as Hegel had suggested, but also in order to break their chains, and practically pluck the flowers of liberation and redemption, and initiate a new paradigm out of the terrible injustices of the old system, in order to determinately negate it, as Marx had demanded ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Marx 1843; 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; Romero 1989). For Hegel and Marx, the negative, the injustices and all their suffering, was also the positivve, the beginningof alterntaive Future III - a free and just society. There happened the apocalyps of the settler colonialism.There appeared the white supremacy in Europe, and America, and Africa, and Asia . Since the 17th century capitalism spread from Europe to North America and the Caribbean. There was a connection between slavery and the origins of capitalism, transcending feudalism. There developed the genocidal tendencies of Dutch and British colonialism. There happened the ethnic cleansing ofthe Munsee Indians from New York State in the 17th century. Slavery in North America can not be understood without allusions to indigenes or native peolpes, or Indians .There took place finally Barbarosa, Adolf Hitler's long march with 4 million Europeans into the Soviet Republic , in order to colonize it from Leningrade, through Moscow, to Kiev , and up to the Wolga, which cost the lives of 26 million Russians and 6 million Jews, before it was stopped inStalingrad, Kursk and Berlin, by the great dialectician, General Chukov.The Rest was rescued from the genocidal o­nslaught bythe West

Slavery and Colonialism

According tomaterialisthistorians, in overthrowing theEnglish Crown through the first bourgeois revolution in 1688, Olver Cromwell helped at the same time to foster the growth ofbourgeois slavery and colonialism ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c;Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003). What was good for the West, was a disaster for the Rest.While many bourgeois historians havepointed out the scorched earth attack o­n Catholic Ireland carried out by Cromwell'sProtestant Roundheads, the apocalypse of settler colonialism shines a light o­n the depravities visited o­n African slaves, who were never entitled to witeness . This was a gift to the Irish in a world, where race would replace the Christian Religion of Becoming and Freedom as a dividing linebetween the blessed and the damned, the West and the Rest. Under the petite bourgeois revolutionary Cromwell , England engaged in o­ne war after another to dislodge the Spanish and Dutch from the Caribbean . If Barbados andJamaica evoke profitable ocean cruise comercials today, in 2018,these islands were o­nce sources of massive capital in the 17th century, especiaally through the suger plantations, that had a symbiotic relationship to English colonies in the North, some of whichturned into the United States of America a century later. Like the role of cotton in the industrial revolution of the 18th century, sugar was essential to the mercantile capitalism of the 17th century.At the time of Cromwell, from 1640 to 1660, British ships pured into theports of Barbados and Jamaica, to deliver African slaves, while the sugar cane they planted and harvested was turned intoothercomodities, including rum, being so marketable in Boston, New York, and London. To exploit the riches of the sugar colonies and the slave trade, that made it possible, a bourgeois tradingmonopoly,called ironically enough The Royal Adventurersof England, was formed . As the East India Company was to the plunder of Asia, so was this intended to pick Africa apart like a vulture. Inspite of the Roundhead revolution against the English Crown , royalist merchants were eager to rely o­n Cromwell's military to dispose of Dutch and Spanish rivals in the Caribbean. The historical materialists were scetpical toward the Roundhead revolution. It was a revolution, nevertheless, if also not a socialistic o­ne, but a bourgeois o­ne.In the 20th century, the European fascist states, tried to colonize and enslave Russia, as the British and the Dutch and the Spanish had done to Asia, and Africa, and America, just being several centuries too late,and therefore having to fail. Russia was rescued from European fascism by its socialist revolution of the 20th century. The revolutionary class struggles in the West had no advantage for the Rest of the world: to the contrary.

Restoration

After Oliver Cromwell's death, the English monarchy was restored and fully committed to the mercantile capitalist agenda of the borgeois politicians, it had o­nce considered mortal enemies ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c;Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003).In a partnership with the Royal Adventurers, King Charles II promised 30 acres to any aspiring colonist to help settle Barbados and Jamaica. That promise was never kept to freed slaves in the South. Two hundred years laterBourgeois New Englanders flocked to Barbados and Jamaica to take advantage of the offer. Between the two islands , Jamaica was much more attractive, since Barbados had been wracked by slaves upheavels, small and large, for decades. The Rest was not always passive and silent as it was plundered by the West.Some bourgeois whites fled Barbados for the more tightly garrisoned Jamaica, while others went to the mainland, especially to Souh Carolina.While King and bourgeoisie cooperated in the West, the Rest, the slaves, freed or unfreed, in Barbados, or Jamaica, or Souh Carolina, had to pay the price. In Barbados at least, the Rest , the slave revolutions, pushed back against the West: theKing andthe bourgeoisie alike.

Philosophy of Capitalism

South Carolina epitomized the contradiction between the Westand the Rest in the 17th century, in which exemplars of the capitalist, so called democratic English republic regarded slavery as a property right, won through Oliver Cromwell's petite bourgeois revolution.( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003). The Royal Adventurers of England had been transformed into the Royal African Company, that retained its worst features. It was led by the Duke of York, whose name was bequeathed upon the Island, called New Amsterdam, seized from the Dutch earlier in the 17th century.Among the chief investors inthis trade monopoly was John Locke, who served as the secretary to the Board of Governors in South Carolina..Locke expressedthe purpose of hisphilosophical enterprise in words, which could also be found in the philosophical work of Immanuel Kant, thesubjective idealist, and greatest bourgeois enlightener ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b: 269, 304, 314, 376, 394-39,; c; d: 431,. e. f. g; h: 380; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r; s; t: 69-70; 203, 204, 205, 206; ; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003).The bourgeois, Kantian philosohy can be seen as an extensionof the Lockean philosophy of liberalism. Locke and Hume have as the primordialand fundamental empiricists immersedthe philosophizing into the material finitude and subjectivity.They tried to explain the world from the standpoint of the material, sensuous subject. They tried to derive materialstically the thought out of the immediately given of the world of appearances . For Locke, as for all empricists, thinking hadonly the meaningof abstraction andformal identity.Locke's thought, that we abstract the true from experience, was a most trivial o­ne. Locke, Spinoza and Leibniz constituted the metphysics of the time . Locke and Leibniz disputed over the inborn ideas. According to Locke, the singular was the first, out of which the universal was formed.Lockeand Leibniz,both standing for themselves and opposed to each other, made the singular into the principle. Locke carried furtherthe thought ofFrancisBacon, who alsostarted from experience and induction ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b: 269, 304, 314, 376, 394-39,; c; d: 431,. e:406; . f. g; h: 380; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r:132; s; t: 69-70, 74-119 , 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 311, 214, 219, 221, 290, 303; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003).Locke elevated against thestiff and rigid unity of the Spinozistic Substance the singularities of the perception into the Universal . For Locke the finite knowledge was the first.Locke was concerned with knowing the universal, the general ideas, the representations in general. For Locke, the truth had o­nly the meaning of the agreement of the human perceptions withthe things. Locke's philosophy was very honoredin bourgeois , capitalistic Europe . It was still in the 19th century and beyond the philosophy of the English, and the French, and the Germans. Locke taught, thatthe universal representation, the true, the knowledge, rested o­n experience.The dialectical representation was left behind: the truth in general. Locke's philosophy was particularly directed againt Cartesius. Locke held o­n, against Aristotle,to the representation of the soul as a contentless tabula rasa. All knowedge was grounded in experiences, which were first of all sensations. Locke held o­n to appearances. Locke gave up completely the purpose of philosophy proper.There could be nothing more superficial than Locke's derivation of the ideas from experience, and sensations, and appearances . The ideology of the Frenchmen contained nothing else. Locke was far back in the historyof knowledge: further than Plato. Locke has no idea of the seculative, the dialectical. Locke's empirism is the metaphysics of the representationsin his time It is the philosophy of the West against the Rest: - the colonized, and the slaves, and the workers.

Negroe Slaves

Locke, the father of liberalism, has been attributed as the author of theSouthCarolina Constitutin, that stipulated:

Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negroe slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c;Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003).There is no doubt, that Locke considered chattle slavery to be permissible, despite the case he made against slavery in his Second Treatise o­n Government, which was likely directed against the Ottoman Türks, who were in the habit of enslaving white people. The liberal Locke was the quintessential philosopher of capitalism: a system defined as based o­n free wage labor rather than forced labor. The evidence gatheredtogether in The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism indicates that the 17th century was not exactlythe great leap forward, a liberal escalator theory of history was predicated o­n ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b: 269, 304, 314, 376, 394-39,; c; d: 431,. e:406; . f. g; h: 380; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r:132; s; t: 69-70, 74-119 , 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 311, 214, 219, 221, 290, 303; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003). In any case, a leap for the West, was not yet a leap for the Rest ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b: 269, 304, 314, 376, 394-39,; c; d: 431,. e:406; . f. g; h: 380; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r:132; s; t: 69-70, 74-119 , 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 311, 214, 219, 221, 290, 303; 2004; Benjamin 1968: chaps10; 11; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003).

Consolidation

The glorious revolution of 1688 was nothing less than the consolidatio of a mercantile capitalism, that allowed the United Kingdom to rule the world : the Rest in the name of the West ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b: 269, 304, 314, 376, 394-39,; c; d: 431,. e:406; . f. g; h: 380; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r:132; s; t: 69-70, 74-119 , 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 311, 214, 219, 221, 290, 303; 2004; Benjamin 1968: chaps10; 11; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003). Even if bourgeois Parliament was preferable to absolutist rule by family dynasties, the costs imposedon the Rest, particularly Africa, Asia, Near East and America, made the notion of unqualified progress sound shallow and hollow. In the 17th and 18th centuries, when the state power swung back and forth like a pendulum between bourgeois merchant traders and the English Crown, this was a moment when the pendulum was stuck in the midde. King William and Queen Mary became the monarchs, but o­nly as the first of the constitutional monarchies that have ruled up to the present day, 2018. From the glorious revolution of 1688, conflicts grew between the British slave owners in Parliament and the English counterparts in the newAmerican World, until 1776 erupted. The slavetraders in the American colonies resented the power of the Royal American Company, to dictate the terms of trade. As the West grew, it swallowed , and assimilated, and consumedthe Rest, as much as possible.

Open Markets

These free slave tradersin the New World , the AmericanWorld, were for free markets, even if the comodity being bought and sold, were unfree Africans ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b: 269, 304, 314, 376, 394-39,; c; d: 431,. e:406; . f. g; h: 380; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r:132; s; t: 69-70, 74-119 , 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 311, 214, 219, 221, 290, 303; 2004; Benjamin 1968: chaps. 10; 11; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003). The British and the American bourgeosiefought over hardly glorious stakes . Both sides could agreeon the importance of enslaving Africans, and the prosperity thereby generated. Homeland and colonial bourgeosiejust quarreled about ,who should be in control in the West over the Rest.One bourgeois propagandist in London in 1687 was gloating about the growing greatness of the distant North Amrican colonies. These North American colonies had already arrived at a stature so considerable, that it could easily attract the emulation of the neighbourig Spanish or Portugese potentates.The Golden Peru, this pacesetter by some measures, was hardly affording so great a treasure to the Catholic Spanish Crown, as these most flourishingsugar plantations in Barbados and Jammaica particularly produced to the Protestant Crown of England. ThisProtestant Crown also had no Dominican Las Casas, who would stir its conscience, by describingthe misery and physical weakness of the natives. But even Las Casas went to the Indian Council in Spain, notonly to complain about the physical weakness of the orignal Americans , the falsely namedIndians, but he also recommended the Africansas their replacemet, because of their stronger backs, which were better for busines. It did not matter for the West, Catholic or Protestant,which part of he Rest, Africans ororiginal Americans,was enslaved , as long as they increased the treasure, to be appropriated and robbed.

Liberty

The London bourgeosie had takenJamaica in 1655, 33 years before the petite bourgeois, glorious revolutionof Oliver Cromwell, at a time, when sugar began to boom, which meant a need for more African slaves ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b: 269, 304, 314, 376, 394-39,; c; d: 431,. e:406; . f. g; h: 380; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; q; r:132; s; t: 69-70, 74-119 , 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 311, 214, 219, 221, 290, 303; 2004; Benjamin 1968: chaps10; 11; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003). By 1672, 16 years before the first bourgeois revolution, the Royal African Company had been organized to fill the breach, but in the following decade it was seen asbeing inadequate tothe task at hand.This meant deregulation of this hateful business, which meant reducingthe powers of the British Crown, which dominatedthe Roal African Company. This platant money and power grab by the bourgeoisie, by the merchants, was dressed in thefinery ofliberty and freedom of the West, rather than the Rest, as the first bourgeois revolution was conceived by Cromwell in a crass andcrude act of staggering hypocrisy, which nevertheless bamboozeled generations to follow, including those who styled themselves as radical. Whoever takes seriously the connection between settler colonialism,the roots of slavery. white suremacy and capitalism in the 17th century, North America and the Carebean, will be guaranteed to treat the term bourgeois-democratic revolution with great sceptcism. He will identifythe bamboozeled radicals as those members of civil society, who have believed for generations, that the values of the bourgois revolution,freedom, equality and brotherhood for all had never been intended for all peoplein the West, not to speak of the ReastIt was not a universal revolution, liberating the West and the Rest. As today the West plunges deeper into the neatherworld of monopoly- and oligopoly- capitalism in its death throws, before it is determinately negated by a new post-modern macro paradigm, it does beome clear . that the o­nly genuine revoltion in human history will be a universal o­ne, whichis carried out, to end class society, and to createa new o­ne, basednot o­nly o­n the redistribution of wealth, but also o­n genuine recognition and respect for all human beimgs, whatever their skin color, gender, sexual preference, or ethnicity. The alternative is barbarism, orglobalmutual annihilation.\

Global System

According to Rene Wadlow, President of the Association of World Citizens, and to Vladislav Krasnov, a Russian, who emigrated from the Slavic World into the American World, the present Global System of the United Nations is not equipped, to deal with todays risks in 2018 ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018). It is no longer fit for the purpose, to deal with 21st century problems andrisks. We urgently need fresh new thinking. According to Vladislav Krasnov, other aspects of culture are also cooperative and global. For example, Japanese woodblock printers influenced the French Impressionists. The nonviolent tradition of Shelly, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela is international. Culture is cooperative. It is not competitive. Global cultural cooperation can lead us to alternative Future III -a sustainable and peacefulworld society. Our almost miraculous modern communications media, if properly used, can give us a stable, prosperous and cooperative future society, instead of barbarism a la Adolf Hitler.Alan Bullock stated:

Je mehr ich über Hitler lerne, desto schwerer fällt es mir, ihn zu erklären.

( The more I learn about Hitler, the more difficult it is for me, to explain him).

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a; b; c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hitler 1943; 1986; Kershaw 1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001),

Emil Fackenheim agreed:

Es wird niemls eine angemessene Erklärung geben. . . Je näher man der Erklärbarkeit kommt, desto mehr merkt man, dass nichts Hitler erklärbar machen kann.

( There will never be an adequate explanation. The closer o­ne comes to the explainabilty, the more o­ne notices, that nothing can make Hitler explainable ).

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hitler 1943; 1986; Kershaw 1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001),

However, Yehuda Bauer argues to the contrary:

Hitler ist im Prinzip erklärbar; das bedeutet aber nicht, dass er erklärt worden ist.

( Hitler is explainable in principle; that however does not mean, that he has been explained).

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hitler 1943; 1986; Kershaw 1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001),

In 1985, a Holocaustsurvivor from Auschwitz remembered:

Er ( Hitler ), ist mir auf viele Fragen eine Antwort schuldig.

( He ( Hitler) owes me an answer to many questions).

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hitler 1943; 1986; Kershaw 1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001),

According to Albert Einstein, who provided the scientific presupposition for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wrote in a letter about Fritz Haber, the Jewish Noble Laureate, who launched the Age of Chemical Warfare, and inventor of Cyclon B, the insectocide, with which many Jews were gassed by the fascists,

that he was forced to experience all the bitterness of being abandoned by the people of his German circle, a circle that mattered very much to him, even though he recognized its dubious acts of violence.It was the tragedy of the German Jew: the tragedy of unreqitted love.

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hitler 1943; 1986; Kershaw 1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001; Charles 2005).

For the historian Heinrich August Winkler,

how it happened that Hitler came into power was still in 2000 the most important question of nineteenth-and twenties-century German history, if not of all German history,

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hitler 1943; 1986; Kershaw 1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001;Winkler. 2000; Range 2016).

According to the journalist and publisher Gabor Steingart,

Auschwitz was a German wound that never heals.

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hitler 1943; 1986; Kershaw 1985; 1987; 1991; 1999; 2001; Steingart. 2015; Adorno 1997u; Range 2016).

In the view of the dialectical religiology, with AdolfHitler the alienationof the West from the Rest reachedits utmost extreme. Fascism mustnever return. The West and the Rest must become reconciled.

Russia

According to Rene Wadlow and Vladislav Krasnov, in the Slavic World,or Eurasia, o­n the 15th of August 1992, Georgian troops had moved into Sukumi, the capital of the self-proclaimed independent State of Abkhazia ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018). The Abkhaz claims for independence rested o­n the brief period of independence between the end of Tsarist Russia in 1917 and the Soviet conquest of 1922, when Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan were consolidated into the Republic of Transcaucasia. The Republic of Transcaucasia existed to 1936, when it was again divided into Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan by the 1936 USSR Constitution. During the Stalinist period, Stalin, who was a Georgian, encouraged ethnic Georgians to move to Abkhasia, so that at the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Abkhaz were a minority of some 20 per cent of the 300,000 inhabitants of Abkhazia. The demise of the Soviet Union generated an unstable environment throughout the Caucasus, of which the two wars in Chechenya have been the bloodiest examples. Political structures and economic practices, that had long conditioned the lives of the population were quickly undermined and long-suppressed nationalistic aspirations were unleashed. Ethnic incompatibility was central to the hostility, that followed between many different communities, coupled with political and economic struggles. In August 1992, after early victories of the Georgian forces, the Abkhas received aid from Chechen and Russian volunteers, who drove back the Georgian troops. This fighting, which lasted 13 months, led to the expulsion, or flight, of ethnic Georgians. The population of Abkhazia was cut in half. In May, 1994, a quadripartite agreement was signed in Geneva among representatives of Georgia, Abkhazia, Russia, and the United Nations. In August 2008, there was a remake of the Abkhasia film. o­n the 7th of August 2008, Georgian armed forces moved into the separatist republic of South Ossetia and then into Abkhazia. South Ossetia had also declared its independence from Georgia at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union. South Ossetia had first asked in 1989 to be joined with North Ossetia, but this was not accepted at the time. In August 2008, there were Russian troops available in North Ossetia for speedy reaction. The Russian troops moved quickly in support of the South Ossetians, many of whom had been given Russian passports. There was brief, but violent fighting. There was a refugee flow of Georgians living in South Ossetia toward Georgia, and of South Ossetians toward North Ossetia. Russia recognized the independence of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, o­n 26 August 2008. The Abkhazia-South Ossettia outcome has led some Westerners to quote the advice of Lord Palmerston in an earlier Crimean crisis:

The policy and practice of the Russian Government has always been to push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go, but always to stop and retire when it met with decided resistance.

 

( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018).What seems certain now after the recognition of the Independence by Russia and of a decade of independent life is that South Ossetia will not be reintegrated into the Georgian State. The breakup of the USSR has left a series of mini-states, economically fragile, potentially manipulated by more powerful States. They are unlikely to be reintegrated into their former State, even if promised a good deal of autonomy.

Interdependence and Cooperation

According to Rene Wadlow, and theAssociation of World Citizens, and Vladislav Krasnov, our time will be remembered some day as the strange epoch, during which the economic, ecological and scientific interdependence of our planet burst into the open, and yet there are new political divisions being made (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018). The world, therefore, finds itself in the throes of two contradictory currents:

1.a potent, deep-seated tidal wave toward interdependence, and

2.the final carving out of the planet into new States.

Thus, we must deal with the issue of new States born of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union: Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagrono-Karabakh, South Ossetia, and Transnistra. The Association of World Citizens has proposed forms of asymmetrical federalism, or con-federal forms of administration. At o­ne time, Rene Wadlowthought that there could be a possibility of creating a Pan-Albanian cultural union, grouping Albanians in Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia, while at the same time having a autonomous Kosovo still within Serbia. Wadlow had proposed the model to different people involved in the Kosovo negotiations, but the idea went nowhere. Governments like clear-cut and simple solutions. o­ne is independent or not, as o­ne is pregnant or not. Made in War is the mark of origin stamped upon many States.Heracleitosstated long ago not o­nly

panta rei,

(Everything flows),

but also

polemos pataer panton,

( War is the father of all things).

Hegelagreed in hisdialectical Science of Logic,and Philosophy ofLaw, and Philosophy of History (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980; Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018). The states' sizes, their shapes, their ethnic make up are the results of wars. There are virtually no frontiers today, that are not the result of wars: world wars, anti-colonial struggles, annexations by victors, wars against indigenous populations, wars of revenge, and wars of thievery. However, modern weapon technology, the most advanced murder weapons, ABC bombs, and global rocket delivery, have made Heracleitos's and Hegel's wartheory highly problematic, and even obsolete. Flexibility, compromise and cooperation are necessary to find mutually acceptable forms of government. There is a need for political creativity. These virtues are admittedly often in short supply. Thus, we need to encourage cooperative and associative methods of problem-solving, ways of thinking about new institutions and practices. Wadlow and his Association and Vladislav Krasnov,work particularly for peaceful cooperation between the Slavic World and theAmerican World .World history continues. According to the dialectical religiology, the Slavic and the American World can, with the help of cooperative and associative methods of problem-solving, create a non-violent, universal re-volution, or better still, pro-volution, and a new macro-paradigm, in which the West and the Rest are reconciled in direction of alternative Future III - apeacefulworld federation, and productive and solidary,global civil society, if they will be able, first of all,to prevent togetherFuture I - the totally administered, burocratic, computerized, technocratic, signal society, rehearsed already by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, and Future II - ABC wars, prepared already by World War I with 10 million casualties, and World War II with 70 million victims ( Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim /Lohmann 2003).A re-ligion, or better still pro-ligion, which understands anddefines itselfas longing for the totally Other than the horror and terror of nature and history, for perfect justice, and for unconditional love, and the hope, that the murderer shall not triumph over the innocent victim, at least not ultimately, could be the very foundation of such a non-violent, universal re-volution, or pro-volution, carried out bythe AmericanWorld andthe Slavic Worldwith the consent,and the help, and in the name of the West and the Rest (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; 1970a-d; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Flechtheim 1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971;Flechtheim /Lohmann 2003).The scientific, technological, political, military, economic, ecologicalinterdependenceand cooperation of our planet became dramatically manifest, when o­n Thursday, Ocober 11, 2018,. the Soyuz rocket emergency landing happened In Kazakhstan (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hodge/ Smith-Spark October 11.2018 ). NASA astronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Alexey Ovchinin were in what NASA director Jan Pridenstine described as good condtion after surviving an emergency landing,after a booster failure o­n a Russian Soyuz rocket o­n Thursday. NASA and Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, pledged a thorough investigation after the aborted launch of a Russian Soyuz rocket. The Soyuz MS-10 spacecraft launched from the Balconur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan to the International Space Station at 4.40 a.n. EDT, Thursday, October11,2018( 2.40 p.m. in Balconur ), carrying Americanastronaut Nick Hague and Russian cosmonaut Alexey Ovchinin. Shortly after launch, there was an anomaly with the booster, and the launch ascent was aborted resulting in a ballistic landing of the spacecraft.Search and rescue teams were deployed to the landing site.Hague and Ovchini were out of the capsule, and were reported to be in good condition They were transportedto the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Star City, Russia, outside of Moscow. NASA was working closely with Roscosmos to ensure the safe return of the crew. A thorough investigation into the cause of the incident will be conducted by both agencies. Bridenstine was gateful,that everyone was safe. Kenny Todd, International Space Station Operations Integration Manager, said a Russian investigation commission will be taskedwith trying to understand exactly what happened, and what recovery efforts are needed in order to get flying again.NASA will also ivestigate. Todd told reporters, that his agency expects to hear some details o­n the Russian investigation over the next few days from their Russian colleagues. Todd and his agency felt confident, that their Russian colleagues will figure out, what is going o­n. The rocket was transporting in a six hour flight Hague and Ovchinin from the Balkonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan for a six months stay o­n the International Space Station. NASA currently depends o­n Russian Soyuz launch systems to ferry crew members to the station.Collabration between the the US an dRussian spaecagencies has largely steered clear of geopolitical controversies. Bridenstine stated, that the Russian=American relationship and cooperation was strong, and whatever happens terestrially, the partners have always been able to keep space exploration, and discovery and science separate from whatever terrestrial disputes there may be.What the partners got to do was to getto very dispassionately allow the investigation to go forward without speulation, without rumor, without inuendo, without consporacy. NASA and Roscosmos said, search - and rescue- teams responded quickly to retrieve the crew members, whose spacecraft parachuted to Earth in an emergency landing in Kazakhistan.Commander Alexander Gerst tweeted from the Space Station , that thanks to the rescue force of 1000SAR professionals the two astromauts were fine.The incident showed him, a member of the European Space Agency, what an amazing vehicle the Soyuz is., to be able to save the crew from such a falure. Spaceflight was hard! But the astronauts and cosmonauts must keep trying for the benefit of human kind (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hodge/ Smith-Spark October 11.2018; Gerst 2018). According to NASA, the Expedition 57crew members o­n the International Space Station are working o­n hundreds of experimentsin biology, biotechnology, phsyical science and Earth science. Dialecticians say: The negative is the positve!! (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; Hegel 1869; 1921; 1932; 1941; 1948; 1949; 1952; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 376; b; c; d. e. f. g; h; i; j; l; m; n; o; p; qr;s;t; 2004; Horkheimer (ed) 1932; Horkheimer/ Adorno 2002; Adorno 1997u; 1998a;b;c; Proyect 2018; Horn 2018; Lernoux 1980;Zinn 2003; Krasnov 2018; Hodge/ Smith-Spark October 11.2018; Gerst 2018).The recent space incident shows, that the American World and the Slavic Worldcan be flexible, and can make compromises, and can be creative, and can practice a cooperative and associative methodology to solve problems, in the promotion of Mir, or Peace

 

References

Adorno, Theodor W. Ob nach Auschwitz noch sich leben lasse:Ein philosophisches Lesebuch. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1997u.

_____.Das Problem des Idealismus. Stichworte zur Vorlesung 1953/54, Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, 5. Munich. 1998a.

_____. Geschichtsphilosophischer Exkurs zur Odyssee. Frühe Fassungen von Odysseus oder Mythos und Aufklärung, Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, 5. Munich. 1998b

_____. Metaphysik. Begriff und Probleme. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1998c

Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. New York:Schocken Books. 1968.

Bloch, Ernst.Thomas Münzer:Als Theologe der Revolution. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.1960;

_____. . A Philosophy of the Future. New York: Herder and Herder. 1970a;

_____.Man o­n his Own: Essays o­n the Philosophy of Religion. New York:Herder

and Herder. 1970b,

_____. . On Karl Marx. New York: Herder and Herder.1971a

_____. . Im Christentum steckt die Revolte. Zürich: Verlag der Arche 1971b

_____. . Experimentum Mundi, Frage, Kategorien des

Herausbringens, Praxis. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag.1975a

_____. . Der Geist der Utopie. Frankfurt a. M. : Surhkamp Verlag 1975b

_____. . Über Methode und System bei Hegel. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag.1975c.

_____.Tübinger Einleitung in die Philosophie. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag. 1979.

_____.Erbschaft dieser Zeit, Erweiterte Ausgabe. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag.1985a.

_____.Naturrecht und menschliche Würde. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag.1985b

_____.Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag. Vol. I.1985c

_____.Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag. Vol. II. 1985d.

_____. . Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag. Vol. III 1985e

_____.The Spirit of Utopia. Stanford:Stanford University Press 2000.

_____.Atheism in Christianity. London:Verso .2009

Browning, Christopher , R, The Suffocation of Democracy. The New York Review of Books 2018 .- https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/10/25/suffocation-of-democracy/

Camp,Lee. American Society Would Collapse If It Weren' for These 8 Myths. In Source: Truthdigt

Flechtheim, Ossip K. Sozialistischer Humanismuseine dritte Position. In the Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik. 14 (9):625634. 1959

_____. . Humanismus und Menschenrechte In the Frankfurter Hefte; Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik. September 31/9:27-34. 1962

_____. Die Neue Linke in der Neuen Welt In the Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik 18 (XX):148150. 1963

_____. 1966. Widerstände gegen Abrüstung. In the Frankfurter Hefte, Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik. July 21/7:455-464. 1966

_____. Futurologie:Der Kampf um die Zukunft. Köln:Verlag. Wissenschaft und Politik. 1971;

Flechtheim, Ossip K. and Hans-Martin Lohmann. 2003. Marx:Zur Einführung. Hamburg:Junius Verlag.

Gerst,Alexander.@Astro.Alex .,2018.

Habermas, Jürgen.Zur Verfassung Europas. Ein Essay. Berlin :Suhrkamp Verlag.2011b

_____. The Crisis of the European Union. A Response. Cambridge:Poliry Press, 2012

______Philosopical Introductions.Five Approaches to Communicative Reason.Cambridge: Polity Press 2018.

Hitler, Adolf.Mein Kampf. Boston:Hiughtion Mifflin Comoany 1943

_____. Secret Book, introduced. by Telford Taylor, Translated by Salvator Attanasio. New York:Grove Press. 1986

Heer, Friedrich.Die Dritter Kraft. Der Europäische Humanismus zwischen den Fronten des konfessionellen Zeitalters. Frankfurt amMain : Fiacher Verlag 1959

Hegel, Georg W. F. Lectures o­n the History of Philosophy. London. 1869

_____. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Leipzig: Philosophische Bibkiothek Band 124. 1921

_____. Werke. Especially: Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Berlin. 1932

_____. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophy. Zweiter Band. , in : Sämtliche Werke. Stuttgart;. Glockner. Band 18. 1941

_____. Christianity: Early Theological Writings. New York: Harper Torchbooks. 1948.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. In Sämptliche Werke, herausgegeben von H. Glockner. Stuttgart. Band 11. 1949.

_____. Phänomenologie des Geistes Hamburg :Verlag Felix Meiner. 1952

_____. Wissenschaft der Logik. StuttgartBad Cannstatt:Friedrich Frommann Verlag. 1964

_____. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt Friedrich Frommann Verlag. 1965

_____. The Phenomenology of Mind. New York :Harper and Row. 1967.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1969.

_____. Jenaer Schriften. Berlin:Akademie Verlag. 1972

_____. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Frankfurft a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1976

_____. System of Ethical Life (1802 and 3) and First Philosophy of Spirit (Part II of the System of Speculative Philosophy 1803 and 4). Albany:State University of New York Press. 1979

_____. Frühe Schriften. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986a;

_____. Jenaer Schriften 1801-1807. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986b

_____. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986c.

_____. Nürnberger und Heidelberger Schriften 18081817. Frankfurt a. M. : Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986d.

_____. Wissenschaft der Logik I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986e;

_____. Wissenschaft der Logik II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986f,

_____. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts oder Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundriss. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986g

_____. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag 1986h.

_____. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986i.

_____. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften III. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986j.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986 l

_____. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986m.

_____. . Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986n.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik III. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986o.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986p.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986q.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986r.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986s.

_____. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie III. Frankfurt a. M. 1986t

______2004. Philosophy of History. New York : Barnes and Noble. Hegel, G. W. F. Frühe Schriften. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag. 1986a. 2004

Hodge,Nathan / LauraSmith- Spark.Soyuz rocket emergency landing.In World:Africa/Americas/Asia/Australia Europe/Middle East TNK.U.S.Edition / CNN / October 11, 2018 .

Horkheimer, Max. ( ed). . Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. München: Kösel Verlag. 1932a

Horkheimer, Max / Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment:Philosophical Fragments, ed. by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr [ed. ] Translated by Edmund Jehcott. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press. 2002

Horn,Gerald.2018.The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism: the Roots of SlaveryWhite Supremacy, and Capitalism in the 17th Century North America and the Caribbean. New York: University Press

Isenberg. Nancy, White Trash,The 400 -Year UntoldHistory of Class in America.New York Penguin Books.2017.

Kant, Immanuel. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. New York:St. Martins Press. 1929.

_____. Zum Ewigen Frieden. Düsseldorf:Drei Eulen Verlag. 1946;

_____. Schriften zur Anthropologie, Geschichtsphilosophie, Politik und Pädagogik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhramp Verlag. 1968;

_____. 1970. On the Foundation of Morality:A Modern Version of the Grundlegungen. Bloomington, In:Indiana University Press. 1970.

_____. Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam. 1974a

_____. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt a. M; Suhrkamp Verlag. 1974b

_____. Was ist Aufklärung? Aufsätze zur Geschichte und Philosophie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 1975

Kershaw, Ian. . The Nazi Dictatorship. New York .1985;

_____. The Hitler Myth. Oxford.1987

_____. Profiles in Power: Hitler. London.1991;

_____. Hitler. 1989-1934. Hubris. New York :W. W. Norton and Company.1999

_____. Hitler. 1936-1945 Nemesis. New York :W. W. Norton and Company.2001

Kishore, Joseph. The Canonization of John McCain: Media, political establishment turn warmonger into saint,In Source: www.wsws.org.Septembere 1. 2018.

Lantier, Alex,2018.Amid NATO threates ,Russia launcheslargest war games since World War II. From Source: www.wsws..org.

Lernoux.Penny Cry of the People/. Garden City. New York: Doubleday and Company.1980

London, Eric.What is 'Our Decracy.'? From Source : www.wsws.org. 2018.

Lortz, Joseph.Katholischer Zugang zum Nationalsozialismus. Second edition. 1934

______ Die Reformation in Deutschland. Band I. Vorraussetzungen. Aufbruch. Erste Entscheidungen. Freiburg:Herder.1962a

_____.Die Reformation in Deutschland. Band II. Ausbau der Fronten. Unionsversuche. Ergebnis. Freiburg:Herder. 1962b

_____.Geschichte der Kirche. Münster:Verlag. Aschendorff. 1964

Marx, Karl. o­n the Jewish Question. In Deutsch-Französische Jarbücher. Braunschweig 1843

______Zweiter Entwurf zum Bürgerkrieg in Frankreich. New York:The Modern Library. 1871

_____. Capital:A Critique of Political Economy. New York:The Modern Library. 1906

_____. Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Berlin:Dietz Verlag. 1951

_____. Die Frühschriften. Stuttgart:Alfred Kröner Verlag. 1953

_____. Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. Translated by T. B. Bottomore, Foreward by Erich Fromm. New York:MacGraw Hill. 1956

_____. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomnie Buch I. Erster Band:Der Productionsprozess des Kapitals, Berlin:Dietz Verlag. 1961a

_____. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomnie Buch II:Der Zirkulationsprozeß des Kapital. Berlin:Dietz Verlag. 1961b

_____. Das Kapital:Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Buch III, Dritter. 1961c

Band:Der Gesamtprozess der kapitalistischen Produktion. Berlin:Dietz Verlag.

_____. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York:International Publishers. 1963

_____. Early Writings. Translated by T. B. Bottoe. New York:McGrawHill Book Company. 1964

_____. A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right. ;Introduction in Karl Marx, Early Writings. London:Penguin Books. 1974.

Meyer, Thomas. 2018i. Editorial.In Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/62.

________2018j.Solidarität-Plädoyer für eine Renaissance.In Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/62.

Müller, Michael/Hubert Weiger.2018.Laudato Si': Oeko-Encyklika zwischen Aufbruch undVerdrängung. In Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte 2/8/65

Proyect,Louis. 2018.Slavery and the origins of Capitalism. In Source:www.Counterpunch.org.

Sismondi, J.C.L. Simonde, de . New Principles of Polotical Economy.Of Wealt in its Relation to Population. New Brunswick ( USA): Translation Publishers

Siebert, Rudolf,J.Die Anthropologie Michael Heldings, eines Humanisten und Theologen im Umkreis der Geistigen Neuordnung des 16. Jahrhunderts (1506-1561). Sigmaringen: Hohenzollernsche Jahreshefte 1965.

____________The Critical Theory of Religion:The Frankfurt School. Lanham, MD:The Scarecrow Press.2001

____________From Critical Theory to Political Theology:Personal Autonomy and Universal Solidarity. New York:Peter Lang Publishing. 2002a

Snyder, Michael.Poverty,Crime And Human Feces... The Worst Cities in America Are The o­nes Being Run By Democrats.' From Source:www.wsws.org. 2018.

Spengler, Oswald. Untergang des Abendlandes.Berlin. 1922

Krasnov, Vladislav HYPERLINK "mailto:president92@gmail. com"president92@gmail. com

Zinn, Howard. . A Peoples History of the United States. 1492-Present. New York Harper Collifs Publishers. 2003

 

 

Biographical Note.

 

The author was born in Frankfurt a. M, Germany. He has studied history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, theology at the University of Frankfurt, the University of Mainz the University of Münster, and the Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. Siebert created and is a specialist in the critical theory of religion, or dialectical religiology. The author has taught, lectured and published widely in Western and Eastern Europe, the United States and Canada, Israel and Japan. He is professor of religion and society, and founder and director of the Center for Humanistic Future Studies, at the Western Michigan University, and founder and director of the 42 year old international course o­n the Future of Religion in the IUC, Dubrovnik, Croatia, and founder and drector of the 20 year old international course o­n Religion in Civil Society, in Yalta, Republic of Crimea. Siebert has written 30 books and 500 articles. His major works are the three - volume Manifesto of the Critical Theory of Society and Religion: The Wholly Other, Liberation, Happiness, and the Rescue of the Hopeless, and The Critical Theory of Religion: Frankfurt School, and From Critical Theory to Political Theology:Personal Autonomy and Universal Solidarity. Please, see for further information : http://www. rudolfjsiebert/"http://www. rudolfjsiebertrg/.

 
--------------------------------------------------------
The Critical Theory of Society and the Manifesto for Global Peace Science:

The Slavic and the American World

 

By

 

Rudolf J Siebert

Personal page:http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=51



Critical theorists of the Frankfurt School, and connectedglobal peace-and conflict-resolution scientists and researchersremember, that o­nce the great classical and proletarian, dynamic idealists saw beyond the decline of old Europe in Russia and America the land of the future, in which the universal and the particular, the religious and the secular, the personal autonomy and universal, i.e. anamnestic, present, and proleptic solidarity, would be reconciled, and peace and harmony would be achieved (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; Hegel 1801[ 1896; 1949; 1952; 1954; 1961a-b; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 218; g: 465; l: 107-115, 413, 418, 422, 490-491, 500; 513; o: 352; t: 62; Taylor 1983: chaps.XIV; XV, XVI; XVII; XVIII;XIX; XX; Fechtheim 1971; Horkheimer 1987k: 13-79, 100-118; Ross 2014: 88-94; Lipset/Marks 2000). Europe was no longer to make wars, because history was moving beyond it into the American World and into the Slavic World - what today is called the Eurasian Union (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; Hegel 1986a: 218;b-g: 465; h-l: 107-115, 413, 418, 422, 490-491, 500; 513;m-o: 352; p- t: 62; Taylor 1983: chaps. XIV; XV, XVI; XVII; XVIII;XIX; XX; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Kluge2014: 78- 83;Lipset/ Marks 2000).In dialectical perspective, the American andthe Slavic World were in the process of concretely superseding, or determinately negating, i.e.not o­nly overcoming, but also preserving, and elevating, and fuilfilling the old European World (Hegel 1986a: 218;b-c; g: 465; h-j; l: 107-115, 413, 418, 422, 490-491, 500; 513;m-o: 352; p- t: 62; Taylor 1983: chaps. XIV; XV, XVI; XVII; XVIII;XIX; XX; Lipset/ Marks 2000 ).The wars, which Europe continued to make, nevertheless, throughout the 19th., 20th., and 21st., centuries o­nly brought the American and the Slavic World further to the front of the historical process(Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; Hegel 1986a: 218; g: 465;l: 107-115, 413, 418, 422, 490-491, 500; 513; o: 352; t: 62; Taylor 1983: chaps.XIV; XV, XVI; XVII; XVIII;XIX; XX; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54; Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 60; Lipset/ Marks 2000). Adolf Hitler declared war against Russia and America( Hitler 1943;1986; Trevor-Roper1971; 2000; Kershaw 1999; 2000). Both together, the Slavic and the American World, defeated European fascism and militarism: Hubris was followed by Nemesis. Victorious Russian and American troops met in Berlin,- which had been planned to become Germania, the center of a thousand year totalitarian, authoritarian, fascist empire, which fortunately ended after 12 years, - and then drew the Red Line, orpulled the Iron Curtain, -a wordcoined by Dr.Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, before Winston Churchill picked it up in the USA,- of the Cold War down through Thüringia, in the middle of Germany andof Central Europe (Hitler 1943;1986; Trevor/Roper (ed) 1979; 2000; Lipset/Marks 2000; Siebert 2010b).

But then followed the tragic Cold War between a nuclearized American and Slavic World (Horkheimer 1996s: 28 -31;Zinn 2003:chaps 14-25; Lipset/Marks 2000). The third youth movement to break out of - what Max Weber had called - the iron cage of capitalism, fought not o­nly for new love, new religion, new politics, but also for the absolute prohibition and ban against all atomic weapons, in the name of world peace, and later against the Vietnam War, the peak of the Cold War: it could not speak about war without speaking about capitalism, what President Eisenhower named the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex( Weber 1952; 1962; 1963; 1969; 1978; 1991; 1992; 2002a-b; 2005; Habermas1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1975; 1976; 1986; Fromm 1956; 1962; 1963; 1966b; 1967; 1959; 1968; 1970a-c; 1972a-b; 1973; 1974; 1975; 1978; Marcuse 1956; 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b; Habermas/ Bovenschen 1981; Habermas/ Henrich 1974; Hacker 2013; Lipset/ Marks 2000). The permanent World Peace Committee in Stockholm declared, that every government, which would use first the atomic weapons against any other country, would be declared to be a war criminal (Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 60).

Then under the Leninist Mikhail Gorbatchev's Perestroika,andhis new thinking for Russia and the world, the neo-liberal, or neo-conservative,counter-revolution succeeded toward the end of the 1980ties ( Horkheimer 1970a-d; 1987k: 171-188;1996s: 28-31; Ulyanov 1917; Gorbachev 1987; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43). This was supposedly an age of progressive change: and Gorbachev had made himself its angel and its instrument. There was not a new socialism, but rather a neo-liberalism. The Berlin Wall fell. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, the old aggressive geopolitics seems to return. Long forgotten discourses about annexation, fascism, militarism, nationalism, and propaganda have entered again the public sphere. That constitutes the East-West crisis of the present historical moment: the so called aggressive transformation of the international order( Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 60; Lipset/Marks 2000). However, to be sure, the decline,and the liquidation, andthe abolition of the Diamat in the former Soviet Union, in the late 1980s and early 1990ties, and the firing of all Marxist-Leninist teachers, did not mean the end of Marx'shistorical materialism, orof the possbility of a humanistic socialism, or socialistic humanism, or the amnesia concerning the great, heroic, and victorious war against the armies of European fascism: Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin( Marx 1871; 1906; 1951;1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; Marx/Engels 1953a-c; 1955;1960; 2005; Marcuse 1956; 1960; 1961; 1962; 1965; 1967; 1969a-b; 1970a-b; 1973; 1975; 1979; 1980a-b; 1984; 1987; 1995; 2001; 2005; Fromm 1930a; 1959; 1962; 1966b; 1967; 1970b-c; 1976; 1980a-b; 1981; 1990a-b; 1992a-b; 1995; 1997; 2001; 2010; Fromm.(ed).1966c; Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1975; 1976; 1977;a-b.; Hitler 1943;1986; Trevor-Roper1971; 2000; Kershaw 1999; 2000; Fest/ Eichinger 2002; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 -60; Lipset/ Marks 2000). During the global catastrophe of high finance in 2008, German Ministers of State went to the library in Berlin, in order to study Marx' s crisis theory again (Marx 1871; 1906; 1951;1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; Marx/ Engels 1953a-c; 1955;1960; 2005).

Since 40 years, I and other critical theorists, and scholars in peace studies have travelled, coming from post-war Central and Western Europe, from Frankfurt a.M., between the Slavic and the American World, in order to study their present situation and their history(Siebert 1966; 1978; 1977; 1983; 1985; 1993; 1994b; 1995; 2001; 2005a; b; 2007g; 2010a-d; Zinn 2003; Siebert/ Ott/ Byrd 2013). Our critical theory and peace study were critical precisely as refusal of a positivistic conception of scientific research, as the mere duplication of the real in thought, and based o­n a metaphysics of what is the case: It is as it is!( Hegel 1986 g;p; q; Adorno1932; 1938; 1951; 1952; 1960; 1962; 1963a-b; 1966; 1969a-d; 1970a-b;1997a-t). Our critical theory and peace research contained older forms of liberalism, which had emphasized the inherent values of tolerance, and the connection between toleration and intellectual deviancy, and the success in the pursuit of genuine understanding of the world. With the o­nset of the Cold War in the late 1940s, even paying lip-service to these liberal ideas came to be thought of as being an expensive luxury, that could no longer be afforded. We remained, nevertheless, faithful to these liberal ideas, and we continue to do so today, despite, and even precisely because, of the new crisis looming between the American and the Slavic World (Lipset/Marks 2000; Siebert1965; 1966; 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979a-e; 1980; 1983; 1985; 2010a-f; 2011; 2012a-e; 2013a-c; 2014a-c).

We remembered the great sufferings in the Slavic World: the invasions of Crusaders up to the City Republic of Novgorod; of Napoleon with 800 000 Western and Middle Europeans; of Hitler with his project Barbarossa, including 4 million Western Europeans, killing 27 million Russians and 6 million Jews( Hitler 1943; 1986; Trevor-Roper1971; 2000; Kershaw 1999; 2000; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 -60). We understood, why many Russians thought, that the third, neo-liberal counter-revolution of 1989, after the liberal o­ne of the 1920s, and the fascist o­ne of the 1940s, and after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, and why they worried about the Euromaidan in Kiev, and the appearance and the combination of neo-liberal and Neo-Nazi groups in the Ukraine - the Aidar Battallion, the Patriot of Ukraine, the Right Sector, etc., employing ISIS -like methods, and the burning down of a new synagogue in Kiev, which had just been built in remembranceof the over 30 000 Jews, who had been killed in and around this old city o­nly a few decades earlier by the SS, and in general about the new Eastward trend of the European Union and the NATO (Hitler 1943; 1986; Trevor-Roper1971; 2000; Kershaw 1999; 2000; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43). The West reacted to the breakdown of the Sovjet Union o­nly with bourgeois, neo-liberal ideology, rather than with real help. The newly introduced capitalism led to the impoverishment of large parts of the population (Klein 2007; Hinkelammert 1985; Picketty 2013; 2014; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43). The unregulated privatization brought about the formation of a capitalistic oligarchy. There, indeed, existed a conscious strategy of the Neo-Conservatives in the USA, to weaken the new Russian state. The nationalism in the USA, Clinton's Necessary Nation, and Obama's American Exceptionalism, were in Russia experienced and rejected as aggressive, and not like in Germany and Europe as an imperial protective screen, or iron shield( Clinton 2004 ; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Lipset/Marks 2000). At present, the USA invests 600 billion dollars for military purposes; the European Union 254 billion; Russia 68 billion( Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 -60). The European Union has 1 559 000 soldiers; the USA 1 492 000; Russia 845 000. Unfortunately, this Western military superiority may be rather an incentive for Russia, to increase its military expenditure. Of course, the Slavic, European, and American World together own about 77 000 atomic weapons( Broad 2014: 14-16 ; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54; Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58-60). We remembered the sufferings not o­nly in the Slavic World, but also in the American World: the annihilation of the Native Americans; the enslavement of the African Americans; the colonization of the Catholic South by the Protestant North; the unending labor struggles; the exclusion of a labor party; the assasinations of liberal leaders; the wars; the terrorism; the corruption; the Pentagon Papers;the depressions; etc. ( Zinn2003). No matter, how rich the American civil society became, it could never resolve its poverty problem: the abominable, murderousslums in every city and in the countryside remained unremovable, and the victims werealways blamed (Meissner,(ed),1966; Zinn2003; Hinkelammert 1985; Picketti 2013; 2014; Klein 2007; Lipset/Marks 2000;). The sad discrepancy between theory and praxis continues unfortunately in the American as well as in the Slavic World.

But we were also, and even more so, interested in the enormous evolutionary potential of the American and the Slavic World, which had catapulted them to the front of the world-historical process in the 20th century( Zinn2003). Out of our Center for Humanistic Future Studies, including peace- and environmental research, at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, we founded the international course, entitled The Future of Religion, in the IUC, Dubrovnik, Croatia, which has now lasted almost 40 years, as well as the international course named Religion in Civil Society, in Yalta, Crimea, which has now lasted almost 13 years, in order to promote peace between the American and the Slavic World (Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 60 Siebert 1966; 1978; 1977; 1979a-e; 1983; 1985;1987a-d; 1993; 1994b; 1995; 2001; 2005a; b; 2007g; 2010a-d; Lipset/Marks 2000; Siebert/ Ott/ Byrd 2013). We saw in the rising American and Slavic World an important stage in the long and difficult march of humanity from animality to freedom and peace( Hegel 1986g: 122-126; Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964;1974; 1977; Marx/Engels 1953a-c; 1955; 1960; 2005). In both courses large numbers of scholars met through the years from the American and the Slavic World, as well as from Western and iddle Europe,the Near East, Asia and Africa. We worked o­n the assumption, that there could be no peace among the nations, without peace among the world-religions, e.g. the Old Church Hellenistic Paradigm of Christianity as the Religion of Freedom, and the Islamic Religion of Law in the Slavic World, and the Medieval Roman Catholic Paradigm of Christianity and the Reformatory Protestant Paradigm in the American World; no peace among the religions without discourse among them; no discourse among the religions without foundation-research in the religions( Küng1965; 1970; 1972; 1974; 1978; 1990b; 1991b; 1994a-b;2004; 2012; Küng/ Homolka 2009; Metz 1962; 1965; 1973;a-c; 1977; 1980;Metz/ Wiesel 1993;Siebert 1966; 1978; 1977; 1983; 1985; 1993; 1994b; 1995; 2001; 2005a; b; 2007g; 2010a-d; Siebert/ Ott/ Byrd 2013). The Roman Catholic Church certainly followed the stream of history, whenin recent decades it chose o­ne Pope from the Slavic World - John Paul II - and o­ne from the American World - Francis I ( Küng 1970; 1972; 1974; 1976; 1978; 1984; 1987; 1989; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b; 2003; 2009; 2011; Küng/Kuschel 1993;1994; Kuschel1990; Kuschel/ Schlensog 2008; Metz1959; 1962; 1963; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1970; 1977a-b; 1973a-c; 1975;a-b; 1977; 1978; 1980; 1981; 1984; 1985; 1986; 1987; 1995; 1997; 1998; Metz/ Habermas/ Sölle et. al. 1994; Metz/ Peters 1991; Metz/ Rendtorf, (ed).1971; Metz/ Wiesel 1993). The new American Pope, a Jesuit,took, nevertheless for his patron Francis of Assissi, the greatest Christian saint, who travelled to the Near Eastto meet Sultan Malek al-Kamil in 1219 (Celano 1955; Warren/ Hart2012). This journey became a historic symbol for peace as Frencis crossed the battle lines of the Crusades, and reached out to the enemy, as demanded by the Sermon o­n theMount:

You have learned how it was said: You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you; in this way you will be sons of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise o­n bad men as well as good, and his rain to fall o­n honest and dishonest men alike......You must therefore be perfect just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

( Leviticus19:18; Matthew 5: 43-48; Luke 6; Celano 1955; Warren/ Hart 2012).These counter-cujtural efforts of Francis, a simple friar, and the Sultan, the leader of the Muslim forces of the Levant, made these men most unusual in their time. Through them modern people in the European, American, and Slavic World can see an example, that speaks to them today, as they work to achive understanding among peoples of different backgrounds, faith traditions, cultures, andethnicities. The new AmericanPope examines contemporary issues of inter-religious and inter-continental understanding in the timeless Franciscan tradition of tolerance, peacemaking, and social justice. Even secular critical theorists and conflict - resolution scholars can still walk in the foot prints of Francis and the Sultan as model for peacemaking (Leviticus19:18; Matthew 5: 43-48; Luke 6; Celano 1955; Warren/ Hart 2012; Horkheimer 1936; 1970a-d; 1985g: 17; 29; 37; 40; Siebert 2-10b).

We built ourcritical theory of religion, or dialectical religiology,derived from the critical theory of society, andour praxis, instead of o­n the Lex, or Jus,Talionis, o­n the Golden Rule,-

So always treat others as you would like them to treat you; that is the meaning of the Lawand the Prophets

 

- which is present in all world-religions, and o­n its translation, sublation, rationalization, and secularization into the Kantian Categorical Imperative, and into the Apelian and Habermasianapriority of the Unlimited or Universal Communication Community: religious neighborly love into secular solidarity, relgious communty into the always more perfect union(Matthew 7: 12; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; Hegel 1986 g; l; p; q; Apel 1975; 1976a-b; 1982; 1990; Küng 1970;1974; 1978; 1984; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b; 2004; 2012; Küng/ Homolka 2009; Küng/Kuschel1993a-b Kuschel/ Schlensog 2008; Metz 1962; 1965; 1973a-c; 1977; 1980; 1995; Metz/Wiesel 1993; Metz/ Habermas/ Sölle et.al. 1994; Habermas 1962; 1969; 1969 1970; 1976; 1978c;1981 c; 1982a; 1983; 1986; 1987b; 1988a; 1991b; 1992a; Zinn 2003; Lipset/ Marks 2000; Siebert1965; 1994c; 1995; 2001; 2002a; 2004b; 2005c; d;2006a;d; 2007a; c; d; 2010a; b). We hoped, that the Slavic and the American World would treat each other as they wanted to be treated. The Monroe Doctrine was to be valid not o­nly for the American World, but also for the Slavic World( Zinn 2003).We found much solidarity in the Slavic World, and much personal autonomy in the American World. We promoted solidarity in the American World and personal autonomy in the Slavic World. We aimed in theory and praxis at the reconciliation of the antagonism betweenthe religious and the secular, as well as of the discrepancy beween personal autonomy and universal solidarity in the American and in the Slavic World, which had never been accomplished before in world-history, and was as such indeed u-topian, ouk topos, without place o­n any continent( Hegel 1986 g; l; p; q; Küng 1978; 1990b; Siebert. 2001; 2002a; 2010b). Both Worlds could compete peacefully, to reach and achieve such reconciliation(Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1966; 1971; Lipset/Marks 2000; Küng.1965; 1970; 1972; 1974; 1978; 1980; 1981a-b; 1984; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1992; 1993 a-b; 1998; 1994a-b; 2004; 2009; 2011; 2012; Küng/ Ess/Stietencron/ Becheet 1984; Küng/ Homolka 2009; Küng/ Kuschel 1993a-b; Kuschel 1990; Kuschel/ Schlensog 2008). We stressed common interests and cooperation between the Slavic and the American World, e.g. the common defense against global terrorism, or the healing of dangerous diseases, like Ebola, or different forms of cancer, etc.. The American and theSlavic World can learn from the European World as well as from each other, how to defend the modern enlightenment, which they all share. o­nly veryrecenly Vladimir Putin stated before the Duma with great applause:

...We will not tolerate disrespect of our Russian culture.We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation.

The Muslims are taking those countries, but they will not take Russia. Russian taditions are not compatible with theculture or primitive ways of Sharia Law and Muslims.....

 

(Hili 2014). Since all world religions, cultures, traditions, and nations share the Golden Rule in commonin o­ne form or the other, they are indeed expected to recognize and respect each other, as theythemselves want to be recognized and respected (Hili 2014; Küng1970; 1972; 1978; 1984; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b; 1998; 2004' 2011; 2012; Küng/ Ess/ Stietencron/ Bechert 1984; Siebert 2014 a-c; Siebert/ Ott/ Byrd 2014).

We were fully aware, that conflict between the Slavic and the American World could mean the final catastrophe, Shoah, Holocaust, not o­nly for both of them, but even for the human species as a whole, but that their creative, peaceful coexistence and cooperation could mean a great blessing not o­nly for both of them, but also for all of humanity ( Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Matthew 5-7; Matthew 7: 12;Revelation 21-22; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1949; 1952; 1954; 1961a-b; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 218; g: 465; l: 107-115, 413, 418, 422, 490-491, 500; 513; o: 352; t: 62; Taylor 1983: chaps.XIV; XV, XVI; XVII; XVIII;XIX; XX; Horkheimer 1987k: 13-79, 100-118; Bloch 1960; 1970a-b; 1975a-c; 1979; 1985a-c; 2000; 2009; Bloch/ Reif 1878; Apel 1975; 1976a-b; 1982; 1990; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 -60; Küng 1970;1974; 1978; 1984; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b; 2004; 2012; Küng 1970;1974; 1978; 1984; 1990a-b; 1991a-b; 1994a-b; 2004; 2012; Metz 1962; 1965; 1973a-c; 1977; 1980; 1995; Siebert 1966; 1978; 1977; 1979a-e; 1983; 1985;1987a-d; 1993; 1994b; 1995; 2001; 2005a; b; 2007g; 2010a-d; Siebert/ Ott/ Byrd 2013).

Today we are continuing our peace work in Dubrovnik as well as in Yalta, despite of the present most regrettable tensions between the American and Slavic World, because of the Referendum o­n the Crimea, and thecivil war in the Ukraine, and the shooting down of the MH 17 o­n July 17, 2014 (Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58-60). We consider to be ahistorical, and naïve, and even dangerous the attempt of the European World, to integrate Russia, like the Baltic States, or Poland, or Bulgaria, or Rumania, or the Ukraine, be it like in the 1940s and 1950s through military action like Barbarossa, or peacefully through the Marshall Plan, or today through sanctions, since the Slavic as well as the American World are themselves autonomous systems and centers of integration, moving historically beyond Europe already since the 19th century. The Slavic World can as little be integrated into Europe as the American World:

No o­ne puts a peace of unshrunken cloth o­n to an old cloak, because the patch pulls away from the cloak and the tear gets worse.Nor do people put new wine into old winskins;if they do, the skins burst, the wine runs out, and the skins are lost. No; they put new wine into fresh skins and both are preserved.

 

( Matthew 9 : 16-17). The Slavic World goes its own way and rightly so; and so does the American World. That was not foreseen sufficiently at the end of the Cold War, in the new paradigm of the Pan-European integration, as it was expressed in the Charta of Paris and in Gorbachev's concept of the Common European House( Gorbachev 1987; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43 Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 -60). Already the free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok, proposed by Vladimir Putin in November 2010, was not a step toward the integration of Russia into the European structure, but rather a roof organization, in order to embed what it had already started: the building of its own regional integration project of the Eurasian Customs Union, and a Slavic World with its own norm- and value- system, turned against a European World, which had become decadent, and wasin the process of decline, while the Slavic World was o­n the rise as a guardian of traditional and conservative values: e.g. of heterosexual marriage and family against homosexual and lesbian marriages (Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43). Europe must give up the illusion of a common value and interest basis: the Slavic World is not a strategic partner, but an autonomous power-political actor. A selective, pragmatic cooperation is possible. Europe must accept, that the Slavic World is other, and that its otherness must no longer be criticized away(Horkheimer1996s: 28-31, 32-74; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43).

At present, Russia's constructive partnership is neededby the world society not o­nly in the Ukraine, but also in such politically explosive devices as the De Facto States Transnistrian, Nagorno-Karabach, South-Ossetian and Abchasian, the Republics of Lugansk and Donetsk in the Eastern Ukraine standing in foreground(Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43). The West has the suspicion, that it is the political goal of the separatist soldiers in the Eastern Ukraine, to establish and erect a Nowaja Russija in the area of Lughansk and Donetsk in the East, Odessa in the South, and Transnistrian, which belongs to Moldau, in the South-West. Russia's positive influence is likewise needed in international conflicts: in Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Near East. The Slavic and the American World, insofar as they see themselves as world powers, must also take responsibility in the case of global challenges: climate change, water distribution, the securing of the food- stuff and industry, energy supply, as well as defense against epidemics. Humanity cannot survive without the leadership of the Slavic and the American World.

Both, the American and the Slavic world, are formally democratic in the sense, that while the USA is dominated by two bourgeois, liberal parties, a Roosevelt-Liberal,- New Deal, - Democratic Partyon the Left, and a Neo-Liberal Republican Party o­n the Right, which both do not allow any third party to come up already by mere financial means: e.g. a labor party(Zinn 2003; Lipset/Marks 2000). Russia has since 2012, 76 registered parties, and is dominated by communistic and nationalistic parties(Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Stark2001; 2007). Despite of secular states in the American and the Slavic World, the synagogues, churches, and mosques are, nevertheless, important political actors in the public sphere. The Orthodox Church has formulated the most important values of Russia's recent conservative turn: the return of religion!? (Clergymen work as advisors in the committees of the Duma. 86% of the Russians support the policies of the Putin Government: indeed a high popularity rate, in comparison of what the Obama Adminsitration can muster at this time - October 2014. Regime-critical opinion has a right to exist, and is practiced in Russia as well as in the USA.

We saw and supported a global movement from unilateralism to a multipolar world(Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58-60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43). Treaties and autonomous power justification took place in the Slavic and in the American World. Two superpowersdeveloped in the new multipolar world. The American and the Slavic World developed hegemony in their own regions. It was extremely unrealistic o­n the part of the European and American World, to believe that the Slavic World would, or could, accept without a great Pan-Slavic reaction a West-orientation in the Ukraine. However, a repetition of the Russian crisis politics a la East Ukraine, after the Euromaidan and the regime change in Kiev, and after the still unresolved tragedy of the Boeing 777 - death flight, is nowhere recognizable. Russia saw the European Union Association Offer asa geopolitical attack against Russian interests, in the sense of a liquidation of the separation line between Russia and the Ukraine. Encirclement of the rising Russia was feared. Those people in the West, who assert such repetition of the Russian crisis politics anywhere else, o­nly serve their own interest: not at last a Western rearmament.

According to the critical theory of society and the global peace science, the maintenance and the preservation of peace is the most urgent concern, matter, and wish of all human beings o­n this globe today(Horkheimer 1996s: 28-31, 32- 74; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43. It is self-evident, that the accumulation of 77000 atomic weapons present in the Slavic and in the American World, not to speak of Europe, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and South Africa, can bring about the ultimate catastrophe for all human beings (Horkheimer 1996s: 28- 31, 32- 74; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003). But in the past at least, it has been the expression of the confused, entangled, and delusional world-historical situation, that it has threatened to pervert the truth about this condition into the lie, as it takes this truth into the service of the lie, namely as ideology, understood critically as false consciousness, and as masking of racial, national, and class interests. This world-historical situation has more or less been latently drifting toward not o­nly post-modern alternative Future I - the totally administered, bureaucratized, computerized, robotized signal society of overcrowded skyscrapers and nine-lane highways, but also toward post-modern alternative Future II - always new conventional and civil wars, preparing the way to the absolute horror of ABC wars between civilizations, based o­n antagonistic economic, political, religious, or philosophical presuppositions, and always further away from post-modern alternative Future III a reconciled, harmonious, peace society(Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32- 74; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Gumnior/ Ringguth 1973: 91-132; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Lipset/Marks 2000;).

It has happened often in the past, that peace summons, and calls, and the outlawing and banning of weapons of mass destruction, became a piece of national, or block propaganda, which aimed at the abuse and misuse of religious, or humanistic emotions, feelings, and impulses in the masses of people everywhere, in order thus to break the resistance against power and force, and which may start from states interested in war (Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32- 74; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Gumnior/ Ringguth 1973; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003). The longing for peace, which the people of all countries share, is used to gain time for the arrival of alternative Future I - new totalitarian and authoritarian undertakings and enterprises.What harm such false propaganda has done to the notion of peace, has been symptomatic for the changes, to which the conception of politics has been subject in general in the 20th and 21st centuries. o­nce upon a time, politics meant the conscious, independent, and critical effort, through thoughts and deeds, theory and praxis, to bring about instead of bad social conditions, those, which were more human andhumane. In the 20th and the 21st centuries, politics and policies have often become to a large extend mere façades. Politics meant no longer the realization of humanity, butrather power struggles inside and between states, and more recently between states and international religious movements, which use, lacking air forces and drones, other terroristic tactics and strategies, inluding decapitation of innocent prisoners. Politics turned into war with other means. Politics became nothing else than the identification of the enemy, as Adolf Hitler's jurist and political theologian, Carl Schmitt, put it most clearly(Groh1998). Fascism is the wrong answer to the chronical crisis of capitalism, and therefore liberalism from the American World, and socialismfrom the Slavic World fought against it rightly in the past, and must continue to do so in the future ( Neumann 1942; Neumann/ Marcuse/ Kircheimer 2013:ix-xiii,xxi- xxiv, 1-23; Adorno/ Kogon 1958a-b; Kogon 1965; 1967; 1995; 2002; 2003a-b Lipset/Marks 2000).

Unfortunately, in the American World of the early 21st century a politics came about of myopic intellectual conformism and stagnation: a politics of lazy indifference to, and incuriosity about other people and societies, except as potential objects of exploitation, or manipulation, or control, or regime change; a politics of massive governmental deceit; a politics of policy making by knee-jerk reaction; and a politics of sound bite and television spots as the basic units of public discourse(Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Kinzer 2006; Scahill 2007; Bacevich 2009; Trento 2001; Buchanan 2006; Nelson-Pallmeyer 2003; Hedges2003;2006; Hedges/ Al-Arian 2008; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43 ;Lipset/ Marks 2000;). Often in the past 100 years, since the beginning of World War I in August 1914, precisely those people, who had trumpeted out most loudly the goals of humanity, were the same, who took humanity under control, and drove out of people the spirit of critique and freedom, which alone would be able to achieve more humane economic and social conditions (Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Lipset/Marks 2000;). There was not o­nly the dialectic between the sacred and the profane, but also the dialectic in the enlightenment, and the dialetic in religion ( Siebert 2010b). Enlightenment as the attempt to free people from their fears, and to make them into masters of their fate, turned over into more fear and dependence; as the attempt to make conscious what was unconscious, lead to more mass stupidity; as the attempt to post Ego where Id was, brought about more irrationality( Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; Marx/ Engels1953a-b; 1955; 1960; 2005; Freud 1936; 1939; 1946; 1955; 1962a-b; 1964; 1969; 1977; 1978; 1989; 1992; 1993; 1995a-b; Fromm 1930a; 1959; 1962; 1966b; 1967; 1970b;c; 1976; 2001; 2010; Fromm.(ed). 1966c.; Horkheimer/Adorno2002; Friedeburg/ Habermas 1983; Lipset/Marks 2000). It happened the dialectic of enlightenment: more rationalization produced more irrationality, more integration lead to more desintegration (Horkheimer/Adorno2002) There happened also a dialectic in religion: the religion of love was used for new crusades; the religion of truth served as ideology for capitalistic oligarchs(Fromm 1930a; 1959; 1962; 1966b; 1967; 1970b;c; 1976; 2001; 2010; Fromm.(ed). 1966c. Horkheimer/Adorno2002; Friedeburg/ Habermas 1983; Siebert 2010b). Whoever naively called in the traditional language of pacifism for the outlawing or banning of war, excluded thereby very often the army and the well decorated generals of the state, of which he or she was a member (Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74). Fritz Haber and Albert Einstein were pacifists, until their own state was involved in war, when they volunteered to deliver to it the most horrible weapons of mass destruction: gas and atomic bomb( Siebert 2010b). Often people, who painted and described the horror of ABC wars, at the same time covered up the social injustice of the race- and class- system and struggle at home, as well as the repression of critical intellectuals, and theconsequent official barbarism of mass culture, poduced by the culture industry(Adorno1932; 1938; 1951; 1952; 1960; 1962; 1963a-b; 1966; 1969a-c; 1970a-e; 1976; 1979; 1980a-b; 1991a-b; Horkheimer/Adorno2002; Friedeburg/ Habermas 1983; Lipset/ Marks 2000;Siebert 2010b). In a world, in which thoughts are more than ever before entangled in means-purpose and control-connections, rooted in the human potential of work and tool, and instrumental and functional rationality without meaning, it is not enough to talk about peace (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981;1982; 1983; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1949; 1952; 1954; 1961a-b; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979;Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1987k:13- 79, 100-118; 171-188, 202--208, 221- 232; 1991f: 21-188;1996s: 28- 31, 32-74;Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1975; 1876; 1977; 1978 a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984;a-b; 1985a-b; 1986; 1987a-d; 198a-b; Siebert 2010b). The critical theorist and peace scientist must also ask, who speaks about peace, and o­n whose order and commission, and o­n whose behalf, and in which function: cui bonum?

We critical theorists and peace study scholars have always tried in the American World, the European World, and the Slavic World, as far as our energies reached, in our theoretical and practical work, to maintain for us the spirit of critical independence (Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Siebert 2010b). In this critical spirit alone we saw and found the hope to avert, and to turn away, the misfortune of post-modern Future I, and particularly of post-modern Future II, and to achieve post-modern Future III(Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32- 74; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann 2003; Gumnior/ Ringguth 1973: 91-132; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54; Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43). Such spirit of critique cannot stop short off the American or the Slavic World, which indeed o­nce, be it through Woodrow Wilson or Lenin, incorporated this hope for the end of all wars, and which they must never degrade into a mere hollow phrase, or about which they must never churn out o­ne cliché after another, as Central and Western Europe has done long enough( Wilson 2011;Ulyanov 1917; Horkheimer1987k:13-79;100-118; 171-188; 202-208; 221-232;Zinn 2003; Lipset/Marks 2000;). Precisely those people, who remain faithful to this hope, step into necessary opposition to all forms of imperialism, nationalism, militarism, and fascism (Ulyanov 1917; Neumann 1942; Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Kinzer 2006; Scahill 2007; Bacevich 2009; Trento 2001; Buchanan 2006; Nelson-Pallmeyer2003; Hedges2003;2006; Hedges/ Al-Arian 2008; Bacevich 2009; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Siebert 2010b). The critical thinking, to which the critical theorists and peace scientists and researcherstry to hold o­n to, has its own essence in that it does not devote itself to any authority, but that it preserves for itself the element of living experience and critical freedom also in relation to the most powerful thoughts. Precisely, therefore, we travelled for decades in both, the American and the Slavic World, as well as in Europe. No thought is immune, to turn over into illusion, or delusion, or madness, or insanity, as it happened massively in European fascism o­nly 80 years ago, when it is broken out of that living experience, and is installed as idol (Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; John 1; Hegel 1986a;g;l;p;q; Hitler 1943;1986; Trevor-Roper1971; 2000; Kershaw 1999; 2000; Horkheimer 1988d: chaps. 1; 2; 3; 5; 6; 8; 9; 11; 12; 17; Horkheimer/Adorno 1951; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Horkheimer/ Fromm/ Marcuse1936; Fromm 1922a; 1927a; 1930a;b; 1931a-b; 1932a-c; 1933; 1934; 1935; 1936; 1937; 1939; 1950; 1956; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1963; 1964; 1966a-b; 1967; 1968; 1970a-c; 1972a-b; 1973; 1974; 1975; 1976; 1980a-b; 1981; 1989; 1990a-b; 1992a-b; 1995; 1997; 1999; 2001; 2010;Fromm/ Suzuki/Martino 1960; Fromm/Xirau 1979;Fromm (ed) 1966c; Lundgren 1998; Friedeburg/ Habermas 1983). Such idolatry happened to Marxism in the Slacic World and to Smith's teaching in the American World. The critical theory of society, whichreconciles Moses and Kant, religion and enlightenment, is essentially idology: i.e. the continual struggle against all forms of idolatry (Genesis 1-3; Exodus 20; Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981;1982; 1983; Hegel 1801; 1896; 1949; 1952; 1954; 1961a-b; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979;Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1987k:13- 79, 100-118; 171-188, 202--208, 221- 232; 1991f: 21-188;1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Horkheimer 1988d: chaps. 1; 2; 3; 5; 6; 8; 9; 11; 12; 17; Horkheimer/ Adorno 1951; 1969a-b; 1972a-b; 1984; 2002; Horkheimer/ Fromm/ Marcuse1936; Fromm 1922a; 1927a; 1930a;b; 1931a-b; 1932a-c; 1933; 1934; 1935; 1936; 1937; 1939; 1950; 1956; 1957a-b; 1959; 1961; 1962; 1963; 1964; 1966a-b; 1967; 1968; 1970a-c; 1972a-b; 1973; 1974; 1975; 1976; 1980a-b; 1981; 1989; 1990a-b; 1992a-b; 1995; 1997; 1999; 2001; 2010; Fromm/ Suzuki/Martino 1960; Fromm/ Xirau 1979;Fromm (ed) 1966c; Lundgren 1998; Friedeburg/Habermas 1983;Habermas 1962; 1969; 1970; 1971; 1973; 1975; 1876; 1977; 1978 a-d; 1979a-b; 1981a-c; 1982a-b; 1983; 1984;a-b; 1985a-b; 1986; 1987a-d; 198a-b; Siebert 2010b). The Marxist thought and conception was turned into an idol under Stalin ( Marx 1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-b;c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; Marx/Engels 1953a-c; 1955; 1960; 2005; Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74). In the perspective of the critical theory, in the Slavic World the meaning of each sentence of dialectical materialism was the more thoroughly turned into its opposite, the more rigidly it was repeated in parrot fashion. The same what happened with Karl Marx in the Slavic World, occurred with Adam Smith in the American World, where Americans read o­nly his book o­n the Wealth of Nations, but not his earlier book o­nThe Theory of Moral Sentiments( Marx1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; Marx/ Engels1953a-c; 1955; 1960; 2005; Smith 1759; 1776; Lipset/ Marks 2000). o­nly recently, the Chinese suggested rightly to the Americans, who have borrowed billions of dollars from them, in order to deal with the catastrophe of the financial markets of 2008, which resulted from the Reagan Administration's neo-liberal turn from Keynesianism to the Friedmann School inChicago, and the consequentderegulation and privatization, not o­nly to read Smith's Wealth of Nations, in order to get alwaysricher, but also his The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in order to be able to controll their unlimitedgreed. Inthe case, out of Marx, or Smith, a positive system, or a world formula, is made, then an unspeakable impoverishment of all knowledge, and all praxis, comes about: finally a deception and illusion of reality - a deadly untruth (Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1988d: chaps 1; 2; 3l 5; 6; 7; 8;11; 17; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Adorno 1932; 1938; 1951; 1952; 1960; 1962; 1963a-b;1966; 1969a-c; 1970a-c; 1973a-b; 1973c-e; 1974; 1976; 1979; 1980a-b; 1981; 1991a-b; 1993a-c; 1994; 1995a-b; 1996; 1997;a-t-1;t-2;1998; a-d; 2000a-c; 2001a-c; 2002a-d; 2003a-d; Adrno/ Frankl-Brunswick/ Levison/ Sanfeld 1950/1969; Adorno et. al. 2007; Adorno/ Benjamin 1994; Adorno/Dirks (eds) 1974; Adorno /Kereenyi 1998; Adorno/ Kogon 1958;a-b; Adorno/ Mann 2003; Adorno/Sohn-Rethel 1991; Adorno/ Kracauee 2008; Adorno/ Tobisch 2003; Kogon165; 1967; 1995; 2002; 2003a-b; Hinkelammert 1985; Klein 2007; Piketty 2014; Bacevich 2009; Scahill 2007; Trento 2001; Hedges 2002; 2006; Kinzler 2006; Hedges/Al-Arian 2008;Nelson-Pallmeyer 2003; Lipset/ Marks 2000). The cultural formation and education of humanityconsists neither out ofSmith alone nor out of Marx alone, nor is either of them the whole truth (Marx1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; Marx/Engels1953a-c; 1955; 1960; 2005; Smith 1759; 1776; Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1988d: chaps 1; 2; 3l 5; 6; 7; 8;11; 17; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Lipset/Marks 2000). If people arereally serious about the truth in the cultural formation and education, then they will not allow Smith, or Marx, to spoil their chances to reach the imperturbable knowledge. It has become obvious again and again, that precisely those people, who have swallowed and guzzledmost fully from Smith or Marx, as if they had not been the inventor and the critic of the political economy, but rather the inventors of a world formula, showed themselves more ready to give in, as soon as they o­nce discovered, that the human existence did not exhaust itself in the Smithian or Marxian categories. Dogmatic rigidity, bad conscience, and the readiness to replace o­ne cliché through the next o­ne, behind which stands the sheer power, belong together. Also the split-off and powerless oppositional groups are often guilty of such dogmatic regidity, bad conscience, and unauthentic cliche-production,who admittedly tell the Eastern and Western powers uncomfortable truths enough, but who nevertheless talk the same way, and mean the same, as they do. In historical phases, like the present paradigmatic transition from Modernity to Post-Modernity, it seems that in the private existence, which does not intoxicate itself through collective images of power, more of the truth is preserved, than in the machinery of great national and international politics. Those people, who appeal to international solidarity in a world, in which cosmopolitism is often a term of abuse, make it into a pretext for national and international secret surveillance, and espionage, and agents of nationalism in countries, in which humanity can still breath: Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and Julian Assange the new heroes of a fourth youth movement, hungrynot o­nly for new love, religion, and politics, but also and particuoarly so for the transparency o­nce promised by the bourgeois, and socialist enlightenment and revolutions (Marx1871; 1906; 1951; 1953; 1956; 1961a-c; 1963; 1964; 1974; 1977; Marx/ Engels1953a-c; 1955; 1960; 2005; Smith 1759; 1776; Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1988d: chaps 1; 2; 3l 5; 6; 7; 8;11; 17; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Zizek 2003; 2007; 2009; 2012; 2013; 2014; Zizek/ Milbank 2008; Zizek/ Gunjevic 2012; Zizek/ Crockett/ David 2012; Lipset/ Marks 2000;Siebert 1965; 1966; 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979a-e; 1980; 1983; 1985; 1986; 2001; 2002a; 2010a-f; 2011; 2912 a-e; 2013a-c; 2014a-c; Siebert/ Ott/ Byrd 2013).At this moment of a new crisis between the American and the Slavic World, the critical theorists of society and the peace- and conflict- resolution- researchers see themselves prompted to the expressive explanation and declaration, that their work stands in sharpest contradiction to any aggressive political doctrine, which may come from the American, or the Slavic, or the European, or any other World (Horkheimer1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1988d: chaps 1; 2; 3l 5; 6; 7; 8;11; 17; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Zizek 2003; 2007; 2009; 2012; 2013; 2014; Zizek/ Milbank 2008; Zizek/ Gunjevic 2012; Zizek/ Crockett/ David 2012; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Lipset/Marks 2000; Siebert 1965; 1966; 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979a-e; 1980; 1983; 1985; 1986; 2001; 2002a; 2010a-f; 2011; 2912 a-e; 2013a-c; 2014a-c; Siebert/ Ott/ Byrd 2013). The potential of post-modern, alternative Future III - a society, in which theantagonism between the sacred and the profane,and between the personal autonomyand the universal solidarity, would be reconciled the first time in human evolution andhistory, is better preserved in that world, in which the status quo is allowed to be analyzed critically and without consideration, than in o­ne, in which the idea of a better society was ruined, in order to defend the bad status quo (Kant 1929; 1946; 1968; 1970; 1974a-b; 1975; 1981; 1982; 1983; Hegel 1801[ 1896; 1949; 1952; 1954; 1961a-b; 1964; 1965; 1967; 1969; 1972; 1976; 1979; 1986a: 218; g: 465; l: 107-115, 413, 418, 422, 490-491, 500; 513; o: 352; t: 62; Taylor 1983: chaps.XIV; XV, XVI; XVII; XVIII;XIX; XX; Horkheimer1970a-d;1987k: 13-79, 100-118; 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1988d: chaps 1; 2; 3l 5; 6; 7; 8;11; 17; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963 1966; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann2003; Zizek 2003; 2007; 2009; 2012; 2013; 2014; Zizek/ Milbank 2008; Zizek/ Gunjevic 2012; Zizek/ Crockett/ David 2012; Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54; Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Lipset/Marks 2000; Siebert 1965; 1966; 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979a-e; 1980; 1983; 1985; 1986; 2001; 2002a; 2010a-f; 2011; 2912 a-e; 2013a-c; 2014a-c; Siebert/Ott/ Byrd 2013). That, precisely, is the presupposition of the existence and the work of the critical theorists of society and religion, and of the global peace scientists and researchers.

On all our peace-trips between East and West, the Slavic and the American World, through the European World, we listened to, and tried to follow the warning of theHindu Mahatma Gandhi, who was neverthelessoften more informed by theChristian Sermon o­n the Mount than many Christians, against the

Seven blunders of the world that lead to violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics without principle.

 

( Matthew 5-7; Luke 6; Siebert 2010b). We opted for responsibility - partnership - and cooperation - agreements between the Slavic and the American World (Münkler 2014:21-26; Thränert 2014: 27-29; Engartner/ Eberhardt 2014: 30-33; Engels 2014: 34-37; Ehricht/ Lippold: 2014: 38-40; Ulrich 2014: 41-43; Mützenich 2014: 44-46; Alberti 2014: 47-50; Kaltofen 2014: 51-54;Walther 2014:55-57; Schütte/ Islam 2014: 58 - 60; Krzeminski 2014: 20-22; Hett/ Traub-Merz 2014: 23-26; Erler 2014: 27-29; Fix 2014: 30-32; Michaleva 2914: 30-32; Michaleva 2014 2014: 33-36; Zöpel 37-40; Berwanger 2014: 41-43; Siebert 1965; 1966; 1976; 1977; 1978; 1979a-e; 1980; 1983; 1985; 1986; 2001; 2002a; 2010a-f; 2011; 2912 a-e; 2013a-c; 2014a-c; Siebert/Ott/ Byrd 2013). Mutual sanctions were no help. Natural gas treaties are more productive than sanctions for Russia, Ukraine, Germany, Europe and America. Incalculability and unpredictability were the greatest enemies of mutual trust, partnership, and cooperation. We worked for the de-escalation of aggressions, damage control and limitation, and the end to armed conflict, and most of all against any return of the tragic Cold War (Horkheimer1970a-d;1987k: 13-79, 100-118; 1970a-d; 1985g: chaps. 17; 29; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 40;1988d: chaps 1; 2; 3l 5; 6; 7; 8;11; 17; 1996s: 28- 31, 32-74; Flechtheim1959; 1962; 1963 1966; 1971; Flechtheim/ Lohmann2003; Zizek 2003; 2007; 2009; 2012; 2013; 2014; Zizek/ Milbank 2008; Zizek/ Gunjevic 2012; Zizek/ Crockett/ David 2012; Kluge2014: 78-83; Lipset/Marks 2000; Siebert 2010a-f; 2011; 2012a-e; 2013a-c; 2014a-c; Siebert/Ott/Byrd 2013).

 

References

Adorno, Theodor W. 1932. Zur gesellschaftlichen Lage der Musik. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. 1:103124, 356378.

_____. 1938. Über den Fetischcharakter in der Musik und die Regression des Hörens." In Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung. München; Kösel Verlag.

_____. 1951. Minima Moralia. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1952. Die Soziologen und die Wirklichkeit. Über den Stand der Sozialforschung in Deutschland in Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik, (Aug. ) 7&8:585595

_____. 1960. Über Mahler, Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik. 15 (9):643-653.

_____. 1962. Kierkegaard. Konstruktion des Ästetischen. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp

Verlag.

_____. 1963a. Drei Studien zu Hegel. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1963b. Quasi Una Fantasia..Frankfurt a.M. : SuhrkampVerlag

_____. 1966. Negative Dialektik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1969a. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt a. M. :S. Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1969b. Drei Studien zu Hegel, Aspekte. Erfahrungsgehalt. Skoteinos oder Wie zu lesen sei. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1969c. Vernunft und Offenbarung, Stichworte, Kritische Modelle 2. Frankfurt a. M.:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1969d. Stichworte. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag

_____. 1970a. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie, Neuwied and Berlin:Hermann Luchterhand Verlag.

_____. 1970b. Über Walter Benjamin. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____.1970c. "Zur späten Lyrik Hölderlins," in Joachim Schmidt, Über Hölderlin.

Frankfurt a.M,: Insel Verlag

_____. 1973a. Äesthetische Theorie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1973b. Negative Dialectic. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1973c. Philosophy of Modern Music. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1973d. Versuch, das Endspiel zu verstehen. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1973e. Zur Dialektik des Engagements. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1974. Kierkegaard. Konstruktion des Ästhetischen. Frankfurt a. M.

:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1976. Introduction to the Sociology of Music. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1979. Soziologische Schriften I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1980a. Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie. Darmstadt und Neuwied:Herman Luchterhand Verlag.

_____. 1980b. Minima Moralia:Reflexionen aus dem beschädigten Leben. Frankfurt a.

M.:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1980c. Stichworte, Kritische Modelle 2. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1981. Noten zur Literatur. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1982. Philosophische Terminologie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1990. Zur Metakritik der Erkenntnistheorie. Studien über Husserl und die phänomenologieschen Antinomien. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1991a. The Culture Industry:Selected Essays o­n Mass Culture. London and New York:Routledge.

_____. 1991b. Marginalia o­n Mahler in Telos, 87:7984. New York:Telos Press Publishing.

_____. 1992. Aufzeichnungen zur Ästhetik-Vorlesung von 1931/32In Frankfurter Adorno Blätter I:35-90. München.

_____. 1993a. Beethoven, Philosophie der Musik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1993b. Einleitung in die Soziologie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1993c. Hegel:Three Studies. Translated by Shierry Weber Nicholsen. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.

_____. 1994. The Stars Down to Earth and Other Essays o­n the Irrational in Culture. London Routledge.

_____. 1995a. Berg. Der Meister des kleinsten Übergangs. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1995b. Studien zum autoritären Charakter. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag

_____. 1996. Dissonanzen. Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997a. Philosophische Frühschriften. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997b. Kierkegaard:Konstruktion des Aesthetischen. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997c. Dialectik des Aufklärung. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997d. Minima Moralia. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997e. Zur Metakritik der Erkenntnishtheorie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997f. Negative Dialectik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997g. Äesthetische Theorie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997h. Soziologische Schriften I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997i-1. Soziologische Schriften II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997i-2. Soziologische Schriften II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997j-1. Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997j-2. Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997k. Noten zur Literatur. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997l. Philosophie der neuen Musik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997m. Die musikalischen Monographien. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997n. Dissonanzen Einleitung in die Musiksoziologie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997o. Komposition für den Film. Der getreue Korrepetitor. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997p. Musikalische Schriften I-III. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997q. Musikalische Schriften VI. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997r. Musikalische Schriften V. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997s. Musikalische Schriften VI. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997t-1. Vermischte Schriften I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997t-2. Vermischte Schriften II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1997u. Ob nach Auschwitz noch sich leben lasse:Ein philosophisches Lesebuch. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1998a. Das Problem des Idealismus. Stichworte zur Vorlesung 1953/54, Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, 5. Munich.

_____. 1998b. Geschichtsphilosophischer Exkurs zur Odyssee. Frühe Fassungen von Odysseus oder Mythos und Aufklärung, Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, 5. Munich.

_____. 1998c. Metaphysik. Begriff und Probleme. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1998d. Um Benjamins Werk. Briefe an Gershom Scholem 1838-1955, in Frankfurter Adorno Blätter V, Munich.

_____. 2000a. Introduction to Sociology. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

_____. 2000b. Problems of Moral Philosophy. Stanford:California:Stanford University Press.

_____. 2000c. Metaphysics. Concept and Problems. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press.

_____. 2001a. The Culture Industry. London:Routledge.

_____. 2001b. Zur Lehre von der Geschichte und von der Freiheit. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 2001c. Kants Criqtique of Pure Reason. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press

_____. 2002a. Ontologie und Dialektik. Frankf0urt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 2002b. Quasi una Fantasia:Essays o­n Modern Music. London. New York:Verso.

_____. 2002c. Essays o­n Music. Berkeley:University of California Press.

_____. 2002d. Dialectic of Enlightenment:Philosophical Fragments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

_____. 2003a. Briefe an die Eltern 19391951. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 2003b. Konferenz:Dialektik der Freiheit in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Sozialforschung, 14 (4):168-171.

_____. 2003c. On Women:A Letter to Erich Fromm. With an Introduction by Eva-Maria Ziege, Logos:A Journal of Modern Society and Culture, 2 (4). [www. logosjournal. com/adorno_letter. htm. ]

_____.2003d. Vorlesungen über Negative Dialektik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp

Verlag.

Adorno, Theodor W. / Else Frenkel- Brunswik/ Daniel L. Levinson/ R. Nevitt Sanford. 1969. The Authoritarian Personality. New York:W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

Adorno, Theodor W. , et al. 1976. The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. Trans. by Glyn Adey and David Frisby. New York:Harper and Row.

Adorno, Theodor W. et al. 2007. Aesthetics and Politics. London:Verso.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Walter Benjamin. 1994. Briefwechsel 1928-1940. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Walter Dirks [eds. ] 1974. Sociologica I. Aufsätze. Max Horkheimer zum Sechzigsten Geburtstag gwidmet. Frankfurt a. M. :Europäische Verlag.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Karl Kereenyi. 1998. Mythologie und Aufklärung. Ein Rundfunksgespräch In Frankfurter Adorno Plätter 5:89-104. München.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Eugen Kogon. 1958a. Offenbarung oder autonome

Vernunft. Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik, 13 (Juni 6):

392402.

_____.1958b Offenbarung oder autonome Vernunft. In Frankfurter Hefte: Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik, 13 (Juni 7):484- 498.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Thomas Mann. 2003. Briefwechsel 19431955. Frankfurt a. M. :S. Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Alfred SohnRethel. 1991. Briefwechsel 19361969, München:Edition Text + Kritik.

Adorno, Theodor W. and Lotte Tobisch. 2003. Der private Briefwechsel. Graz and Wien:LiteraturVerlag. Droschel.

Adorno, Theodor W. , Else FrenkelBrunswick, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York:Harper & Row, Publishers.

Adorno, Theodor W. / Siegfried Kracauer. 2008. Briefwechsel 1923-1966. Hg. von

Wolfgang Schopf. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

Alberti, Bettina.2014." Über die transgenerationalen Folgen des Sweiten Weltkrieges id der NS-Zeit." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61.

Apel, KarlOtto. 1975. Der Denkweg von Charles S, Peirce. Eine Einführung in den Amerikanischen Pragmatismus. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

1976a. Transformation der Philosophie. Band 1 Sprachanalytik, Semiotik, Hermeneutik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1976b. Transformation der Philosophie. Band 2. Das Apriori der Kommunikationsgemeinschaft. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1982. Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1990. Diskurs und Verantwortung. Das Problem des Übergangs zur postkonventionellen Moral. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

Bacevic.Andrew J.2009.The Limits of Power.The End of Am,erican Exceptionalism.New York : Metropolitan Books.

Berwanger, Harald/ Karsten Rudolph. 2014."Deutsche Aussenpoltik im Ukraine Konflikt." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 9/61.

Bloch, Ernst. 1960. Thomas Münzer:Als Theologe der Revolution. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1970a. A Philosophy of the Future. New York:Herder and Herder.

_____. 1970b. Man o­n his Own:Essays o­n the Philosophy of Religion. New York:Herder and Herder.

_____. 1971a. On Karl Marx. New York:Herder and Herder.

_____. 1971b. Im Christentum steckt die Revolte. Zürich :Verlag der Arche

_____. 1975a. Experimentum Mundi, Frage, Kategorien des

Herausbringens, Praxis. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1975b. Der Geist der Utopie. Frankfurt a. M. :Surhkamp Verlag

_____. 1975c. Über Methode und System bei Hegel. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1979. Tübinger Einleitung in die Philosophie. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1985a. Erbschaft dieser Zeit, Erweiterte Ausgabe. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1985b. Naturrecht und menschliche Würde. Frankfurt a. M; Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1985c Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag. Vol. I.

_____. 1985d. Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt a/M:

Suhrkamp Verlag. Vol. II

_____. 1985e. Das Prinzip Hoffnung. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag. Vol. III

_____. 2000. The Spirit of Utopia. Stanford:Stanford University Press

_____..2009. Atheism in Christianity. London:Verso

Bloch, Karola, and Adelbert Reif. 1978. Denken heisst Überschreiten:In Memoriam Ernst Bloch 18851977. Köln. Frankfurt a. M. :Europäische Verlag.

Boer, Roland. 2014."Theology and Treason. Introduction," In CRR.Critical Research o­n Religion. April 2014.Vol.2.Issue 1. 6-8.

Broad, William,J..2014."Transscripts Kept Secret for 60 years Bolster Defense of Oppenheimer's Loyalty."In The New York Times.National. Sunday,October 12.

Buchanan, Patrick J.2006. State of Emergency.The Third World Invasion and Coinquestof America.New York: Thomas Dunne Books.St.Martin's Press

Celano, Thomas von.1955. Leben Und Wunder Des Heiligen Franziskus Von Assissi. Werl /Westfalen: Dietrich-Coelde-Verlag.

Clinton, Bill. My Life. New York : Alfred A Knopf.

Ehricht, Sebastian/ Matthias Lippold. 2014."Drohnen: Anschlag auf das Recht." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61.

Enggartner, Tim/ Anna Eberhardt.2014."War sells - oder: Die Privatisierung des Militärs" In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61.

Engels,Bettina.2014." Friedens- und Konfiktforschung in Deutschland." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61.

Erler, Gernot" Autopsie einer Krise und ihrer Folgen." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 9/61.

Fest, Joachim/ Bernd Eichinger.2004.Der Untergang.Das Filmbuch.Reinbek bei HamburgRowohkts Taschenbuch Verlag

Fix,Liana.2014."Das Ende der Beziehugen zwischen der EU und Russland, wie wir sie kennen." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 9/61.

Flechtheim, Ossip K. 1959. Sozialistischer Humanismuseine dritte Position. In the Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik. 14 (9):625634.

_____. 1962. Humanismus und Menschenrechte In the Frankfurter Hefte; Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik. September 31/9:27-34.

_____. 1963. Die Neue Linke in der Neuen Welt In the Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik 18 (XX):14815

_____. 1966. Widerstände gegen Abrüstung. In the Frankfurter Hefte, Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik. July 21/7:455-464.

_____. 1971. Futurologie:Der Kampf um die Zukunft. Köln:Verlag. Wissenschaft und Politik.

Flechtheim, Ossip K. and Hans-Martin Lohmann. 2003. Marx:Zur Einführung. Hamburg:Junius Verlag.

Freud, Sigmund. 1936. The Problem of Anxiety. New York :W. W. Norton and Company.

_____. 1939. Moses and Monotheism. New York:Random House.

_____. 1946. Totem and Taboo. New York:Random House.

_____. 1955. Abriss der Psychoanalyse. Das Unbehagen in der Kultur. Frankfurt a. M.:Hamburg:Fischr Bücherei.

_____. 1962a. Complete Psychoanalytical Works. London.

_____. 1962b. Civilization and its Discontent. New York:W. W. Norton and Company.

_____. 1964. The Future of an Illusion. New York:Doubleday Company.

_____. 1969. Gesammelte Werke. Band X. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag

_____. 1977. Introductory Lectures o­n Psychoanalysis. New York:W. W. Norton and Company.

_____. 1978. The Question of Layanalysis. New York

_____. 1989. Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood. New York:W. W. Norton & Company

_____. 1992. Das Ich und das Es. Metapsychologische Schriften. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1993. Bruchstück einer HysterieAnalyse. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbuch.

_____. 1995a. Analyse der Phobie eines Fünfjährigen Knaben. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1995b. Der Wahn und die Träume in Wilhelm Jensens Gravida. Mit der Erzählung von Wilhelm Jensen. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

Friedeburg, Ludwig von/ Jürgen Habermas. 1983. Adorno Konferenz. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag.

Fromm, Erich. 1922a. Das jüdische Gesetz. Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie des Diasporajudentums. Heidelberg

_____. 1927a. Der Sabbath. In:Imago. Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf die Natur und Geisteswissenschaften, XIII Jg. Wien 1927.

_____. 1928a. Psychoanalyse und Soziologie, in :Zeitschrift für Psychoanalytisch Pädagogik, III. Jg. Wien 1928. 1929.

_____. 1930a. Die Entwicklung des Christusdogmas. Eine psychoanalytische Studie zur sozialpsychologischen Funktion der Religion, in Imago

:Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf die Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften, XVI. Jg. Wien 1930.

_____. 1930b. Der Staat als Erzieher. Zur Psychologie der Strafjustiz, in:Zeitschrft für psychoanalytische Pädagogik VI Jg. Wien 1930.

_____. 1931a. Zur Psychologie des Verbrechers und der strafenden Gesellschaft,in Imago. Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalayse auf die Natur und Geisteswissenschaften, XVII. Jg. Wien 1931.

_____.1931b."Über Methode und Aufgabe einer analytischen Sozialpsychologie." In Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung.Vol.I: 28-54.

_____. 1932a. Über Methode und Aufgabe einer analytischen Sozialpsychologie. Zeischrift für Sozialforschung. 1 (1/2):28.

_____. 1932b. Die psychoanalytische Charakterologie und ihre Bedeutung für die Sozialpsychologie. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 1 (1/2):253.

_____.1932c." Review of Otto Heller.Der Untergang des Judentums". Zeitschrift

für Sozialforschung, 1 (1/2):438-439.

_____.1933. " Robert Briffault's Werk über das Mutterrecht." In Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 1 (1/2):382-387.

_____.1934." Die sozialsychologische Bedeutungder Mutterrechtstheorie." Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 1 (1/2): 196-227.

_____.1935." Die gesellschaftliche Bedingtheit der psychoanalytischen Therapie." In Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 1 (1/2):365-398.

_____.1936."Sozialpsychologischer Teil." In Max Horkheimer.(ed). Studien über Autorität und Familie." Paris1936. 77-135.

_____.1937." Zum Gefühl der Ohnmacht". In Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, 1 (1/2):95-117.

_____,1939," The Social Psychology of 'Will Therapy'".In Psychiatry. May 1939 229-237.

_____. 1950. Psychoanalysis and Religion. New HavenLondon.

_____. 1956. The Art of Loving. New York:Harper & Row Publishers.

_____. 1957a. Man is not a thing. In Saturday Review, March 16.

_____.1957b. The Forgotten Language. An Introduction to the Understanding of Dreams, Fairy Tales and Myths. New Yortk :Grove Press

_____. 1959. Sigmund Freuds Mission. New York:Harper and Brothers Publishers.

_____. 1961. Afterword, in Georg Orwells 1984, New York; The New American Library.

_____. 1962. Beyond the Chains of Illusion. My Encounter with Marx and Freud. New York:Continuum

_____.1963.The Psychological Roots of War and Destruction.Speech esploring the psychological causes of violent behavious particuparly as it ismanifested in war.New YorkWBAIBroadcast 20 Octiber

_____. 1964. The Heart of Man:Its Genius for Good and Evil. New York:Harper and Row, Publishers.

_____. 1966a. Man For Himself:An Inquiry into the psychology of Ethics. New York:Fawcett World Library.

_____. 1966b. You Shall Be as Gods:A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and Its Tradition. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

_____. 1967. Marxs Concept of Man. New York:Frederick Ungar Publishing Company.

_____. 1968. The Revolution of Hope toward a Humanized Technology. New York:Evanston and London:Harper and Row Publishers.

_____. 1970a. Guest Editorial:Thoughts o­n Bureaucracy. In Management Science, Application Series, Urban Issues, 16 (August, No. 12):B699B705

_____. 1970b. Some Post-Marxian and Post-Freudian Thoughts o­n Religion and Religiousness, in Johannes B. Metz, New Quqestions of God. New York:Herder and Herder. 146-156.

_____.1970c. The Crisis of Psychoanalysis. Essays o­n Freud, Marx, and Social Psychology. New York:Holt.

_____. 1972a. Escape From Freedom. New York:The Hearst Corporation.

_____. 1972b. The Erich Fromm Theory of Aggression. New York Times Magazine, February 27.

_____. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

_____. 1974. Im Namen des Lebens. Stuttgart :Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt

_____. 1975. Interview, Feb. 16, in LEspresso by Aleotti, L.

_____. 1976. To Have Or To Be? New York:Harper and Row Publishers

_____. 1980a. Arbeiter und Angestellte am Vorabend des Dritten Reiches. Eine Sozialpsychologische Untersuchung. Stuttgart:Deutsche Verlag-Anstalt.

_____. 1980b. Greatness and Limitation of Freuds Thought. New York:Harper and Row.

_____. 1981. On Disobedience and Other Essays. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____.1989. The Art of Loving. New York:First Perennial Library

_____. 1990a. The Sane Society. New York:Henry Holt and Company.

_____. 1990b. Beyond the Chains of Illusion:An Encounter with Freud and Marx. New York:Continuum.

_____. 1992a. The Dogma of Christ and Other Essays o­n Religion, Psychology, and Culture, trans. by James Luther Adams. New York:Henry Holt and Company.

_____. 1992b. Beyond Freud. Riverdale,New York:American Mental Health Foundation

_____. 1995. The Essential Fromm:Life Between Having and Being. New York:Continuum.

_____. 1997. Love, Sexuality and Matriarchy:About Gender. Funk, Rainer (Ed. ). New York:Fromm International Publishing Corporation.

_____. 1999. Gibt es eine Ethik ohne Religiosität? in Fromm -Forum. Tübingen. No. 3:34-36.

_____. 2001. Haben oder Sein. München:Deutscher Verlag.

_____. 2010. The Pathology of Normalcy. Riverdale New York:American Mental Health Foundation Inc.

Fromm, Erich [ed. ] 1966 c. Socialist Humanism:An International Symposium. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company.

Fromm, Erich, D. T. Suzuki, and, Richard De Martino. 1960. Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis. New York:Harper and Row.

Fromm, Erich and Ramon Xirau. 1979. The Nature of Man. New York:MacMillan Publishing Company.

Gorbachev,Mikhail.1988. Perestroika.New Thinking for Our Country and The World.New York : Harper and Row,Publishers.

Groh.Ruth. 1998. Arbeit an der Heillosigkeit der Welt.Zur politisch-theologischen Mythologie und Anthropologie Carl Schmitt's. Frankfurt a.M. :Suhrkamp Verlag

Gumnior, Helmuth/ Rudolf Ringguth.1973. Max Horkheimer mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten.Reinbech bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag

Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Neuwied:Hermann Luchterhand Verlag

_____. 1969. Antworten auf Herbert Marcuse. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1970. Toward a Rational Society:Student Protest, Science and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press.

_____. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____. 1973. Zur Logik der Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____. 1976. Zur Rekonstruktion des historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt a. M. Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1977. Discourse with Professor Habermas at Villa Nova University, USA

_____. 1978a. Theorie und Praxis. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1978b. Starnberg Studien I. Die gesellschaftliche Orientierung des

wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1978c. Politik, Kunst, Religion. Stuttgart:Reclam Verlag.

_____. 1978d. Discourse with Professor Habermas in the IUC, Dubrovnik Yugoslavia.

_____. 1979a. Stichworte zur Geistigen Situation der Zeit 1. Band:Nation und Republik.

Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1979b. Stichworte zur Geistigen Situation der Zeit 2. Band:Politik und Kultur.

Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1981a. Kleine Politische Schriften IIV. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1981b. Modernity versus Postmodernity. In New German Critique 22:3-14.

_____. 1981c. Bewusstmachende oder rettende Kritik, In Philosophisch-Politische Profile.

_____. 1982a The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment:Rereading of Dialectic of Enlightenment. In New German Critique, 26 (Spring-Summer):13-30.

_____. 1982b. Tod in Jerusalem. Am Grab von Gershom Scholemam Ende einer

Ära". In Merkur. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Europäisches Denken, Heft 4, 36.

_____. 1983. Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1984a. Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1984b. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume o­ne:Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____.1985a. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne:Zwölf Vorlesungen. Frankfurft a. M.:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1985b. Die Neue Unübersichtlichkeit. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986. Autonomy and Solidarity:Interviews. London:Verso Verlag.

_____. 1987a. Eine Art Schadensabwicklung. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1987b. PhilosophischPolitische Profile. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1987c. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity:Twelve Lectures. Translated by Frederick G. Lawrence. Cambridge:MIT Press.

_____. 1987d. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume Two:Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

_____. 1988a. Nachmetaphysisches Denken. Philosophische Aufsätze. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1988b. Walter Benjamin:Consciousness-Raising or Rescuing Critique in Gary Smith, [ed. ] On Walter Benjamin:Critical Essays and Recollections. Cambridge:MIT Press.

Hedges, Chris.2003.War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.New York:Anchor Books.

______.2006.American Fascists.The Christian Right and the War o­ni America. New York : Free Press

Hedges, Chris/ Laila Al-Arian. 2008.Collateral Damage.America's War Against Iraqui Civilians.New York : Nation Books.

Hegel, Georg W. F. 1801. De orbitis planetarum. Translated by David Healan, System of ScienceHegel. net, Oct. 24, 2007, www. hegel. net/en/v2133healan. htm.

_____. 1896. Lectures o­n the History of Philosophy. London.

_____. 1949. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. In Sämptliche Werke, herausgegeben von H. Glockner. Stuttgart. Band 11.

_____. 1952. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Hamburg :Verlag Felix Meiner

_____.1954. Grundlinien des Rechts.Stuttgart-Bad: Friedrich Frommann Verlag Cannstatt.

_____.1961a. On Christianity.New York

_____.1961b.Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Stuttgart: Fr. Frommann Verlag

_____. 1964. Wissenschaft der Logik. StuttgartBad Cannstatt:Friedrich Frommann Verlag.

_____. 1965. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt Friedrich Frommann Verlag

_____. 1967. The Phenomenology of Mind. New York :Harper and Row

_____. 1969. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1972. Jenaer Schriften. Berlin:Akademie Verlag.

_____. 1976. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. Frankfurft a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1979. System of Ethical Life (1802 and 3) and First Philosophy of Spirit (Part II of theSystem of Speculative Philosophy 1803 and 4). Albany:State University of New York Press.

_____. 1986a. Frühe Schriften. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986b. Jenaer Schriften 18011807. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986c. Phänomenologie des Geistes. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986d. Nürnberger und Heidelberger Schriften 18081817. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986e. Wissenschaft der Logik I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986f. Wissenschaft der Logik II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986g. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts oder Naturrecht und Staatswissenschaft im Grundriss. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986h. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag

_____. 1986i. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986j. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften III. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986k. Berliner Schriften 18181831. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986l. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986m. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986n. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986o. Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik III. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986p. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986q. Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion II. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986r. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie I. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986s. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie II. Frankfurt a. M. Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1986t. Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie III. Frankfurt a. M

Hett, Felix/ Rudolf Traub-Merz. 2014."Russlands Rolle in der Welt". In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 9/61.

Hili, Victor. 2014. "Vladimir Pitin's Speech"( yhili45@gmail.com). Member of the European Union.Wednes day, Octiber 22.

Hinkelammert, Franz.J.1985.Die ideologischen Waffen des Todes.Zur Metaphysik des Kapitalismus, Freiburg ( Schweiz): Exodus

Hitler, Adolf. 1943. Mein Kampf. Boston:Hiughtion Mifflin Comoany

_____. 1986. Secret Book, introduced. by Telford Taylor, Translated by Salvator Attanasio. New York: Grove Press.

Horkheimer, Max. 1932. Geschichte und Psychologie. In Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung,

(1/2):125144.

_____. 1936. Zu Theodor Haecker:Der Christ und die Geschichte. In Zeischrift für Socialforschung 5.

_____. 1966. Letzte Spur von TheologiePaul Tillichs Vermächtnis. In Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

_____. 1967a. Werk und Wirken Paul Tillichs Ein Gedenkbuch. Stuttgart:Evangelisches Verlag.

_____. 1967b. Zur Kritik der instrumentellen Vernunft. Aus den Vorträgen und Aufzeichnungen seit Kriegsende. Frankfurt a. M. :S. Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1970a. Bemerkungen über Wissenschaft und Krise. In Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, München:Kösel-Verlag.

_____. 1970b. Geschichte und Psychologie. In Mitteilungen des Instituts für Sozialforschung.

_____. 1970c. Kritische Theorie:Eine Dokumentation. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Bücherei.

_____. 1970d. Die Sehnsucht nach dem ganz Anderen. Ein Interview mit Kommentar von Helmut Gumnior. Hamburg, Furche Verlag.

_____. 1972. The Critical Theory:Selected Essays. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1973. Foreword in Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination:A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 19231950. Boston and Toronto:Little Brown and Company.

_____. 1974a. Critique of Instrumental Reason. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1974b. Eclipse of Reason. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1974c. Notizen 1950 bis 1969 und Dämmerung. Notizen in Deutschland. Frankfurt a. M. :S. Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1978. Dawn and Decline. Notes 19261931 and 19501969. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1981a. Gesellschaft im Übergang. Aufsätze. Reden und Vortrage 19421970. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1981b. Sozialphilosophische Studien:Aufsätze, Reden und Vorträge 19301972. Frankfurt a. M:Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1981c. Tradionelle und kritische Theorie:Vier Aufsätze. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1985g. Vorträge und Aufzeichnungen 19491973. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 1985h. Vorträge und Aufzeichnungen 1949-1973. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1985l. Nachgelassene Schriften 19311949. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1987b. Philosophische Frühschriften 19221932. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbich Verlag.

_____. 1987e. Dialektik der Aufklärung und Schriften 19401950. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1987i. Nachgelassene Schriften 19141931. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 1987k. Nachgelassene Schriften 19141931. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 1988a. Aus der Pubertät:Novellen und Tagebuchblätter 19141918. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1988c. Schriften 19311936. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 1988d. Schriften 19361941. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 1988n. Nachgelsassene Schriften 19491972. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1989m. Nachgelassene Schriften 1949 1972. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1990j. Nachgelassene Schriften 19141931. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1991f. Zur Kritik der instrumentellen Vernunft und Notizen 19491969. Alfred Schmidt [ed. ] Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1995o. Briefwechsel 19131936. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1995p. Briefwechsel 19371940. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verla.

_____. 1996r. Briefwechsel 19491973. Frankfurt a. M:Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1996q. Briefwechsel 19411948. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1996s. Nachträge, Verzeichnisse und Register. Frankfurt a. M. :Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 2006. Psalm 91. Translated by Michael R. Ott in Warren S. Goldstein, [ed.] Marx, Critical Theory, and Religion:A Critique of Rational Choice. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.

Horkheimer, Max. [Hg. ] 1970. Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, München:Kösel Verlag.

Horkheimer, Max and Theodor W. Adorno. 1951. Vorurteil und Charakter. In Frankfurter Hefte:Zeitschrift für Kultur und Politik, 7 (4):284291.

_____. 1956. Universität und Gesellschaft. Eine Erhebung des Instituts für Sozialforschung unterMitwirkung des Instituts für vergleichende Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt a. M.

_____. 1969a. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1969b. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt a. M. :S. Fischer Verlag.

_____. 1972a. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by John Cumming. New York: The Seabury Press.

_____.1972b. Critical Theory. New York

_____. 1984. Sociological Reden und Vorträge. Frankfurt a. M:Europäische Verlag.

_____. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment:Philosophical Fragments, ed. by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr [ed. ] Translated by Edmund Jehcott. Stanford, California:Stanford University Press.

Horkheimer, Max, Erich Fromm, and Herbert Marcuse,. 1936. Studien über Autorität und Familie. Schriften des Instituts für Sozialforschung. Paris

Kant, Immanuel. 1929. Critique of Pure Reason. New York:St. Martins Press.

_____. 1946. Zum Ewigen Frieden. Düsseldorf:Drei Eulen Verlag.

_____. 1968. Schriften zur Anthropologie, Geschichtsphilosophie, Politik und Pädagogik. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhramp Verlag.

_____. 1970. On the Foundation of Morality:A Modern Version of the Grundlegungen. Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press.

_____. 1974a. Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam.

_____. 1974b. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt a. M; Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1975. Was ist Aufklärung? Aufsätze zur Geschichte und Philosophie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

_____. 1981. Zum ewigen Frieden. Stuttgart:Philipp Reclam Jun.

_____. 1982. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1983. Anthropologie in Pragmatischer Hinsicht. Stuttgart:Philipp Reclam Verlag.

Kaltofen,Frank."2014." An den Fronten des 'Grossen Krieges.'" In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61..

Kershaw, Ian. 1999, Hitler.1889-1936 Hubris New York : W.W Norton and Company

_____.2000. Hitler. 1936-1945.Nemesis,New York : W.W.Norton and Company

Kinzer,Stephen.2006.Overthrow.America's Century of Regime Change From Hawai to Iraq. New York : Times Books.

Klein, Naomi.2007.The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.New York : Metropolitan Books

Kluge, Alexander.2014."Oskar Negt zum 80.Geburtstag." In Neue Gesellschaft/Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61.

Kogon, Eugen. 1965. Der SSStaat. Das System der Deutschen Konzentrationslager. Frankfurt a. M. :Europäische Verlag.

_____. 1967. Revolution und TheologieDas Neue in unserem Zeitalter. Ein Symposion. Frankfurter Hefte, Sept. 22 (9).

_____. 1995. Der SSStaat. Das System der Deutschen Konzentrationslager. München:Wilhelm Heyne Verlag.

_____. 2002. Der SS Staat. Frankfurt a. M. :Europäische Verlag.

Kogon, Michael. 2003a. Bilanz des EugenKogonJahres 2003. Neue Gesellschaft / Frankfurter Hefte, 50 (3).

_____. 2003b. Kurze Geschichte der Erinnerung an meinen Vater. In Neue Gesellschaft / Frankfurter Hefte, 50 (3):5963.

Krzeminski,Adam.2014." Die imperiale Haftcreme verwittert." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 9/61.

Küng, Hans. 1965. The Council, Reform, and Reunion with an Introduction. Garden City, NY:Image Books.

_____. 1970. Menschwerdung Gottes:Eine Einführung in Hegels Theologisches Denken als Prolegomena zu einer künftigen Christologie. Freiburg:Herder Verlag.

_____. 1972. Freiheit des Christen. Hamburg:Siebenstern Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____.1974. Christ sein. Munich

_____. 1976. The Church. Garden City, NY:Double Day and Co.

_____. 1978. Existiert Gott? Antwort auf die Gottesfrage der Neuzeit. München:R. Piper Verlag.

_____. 1980. Wegzeichen in die Zukunft. Programmatisches für eine christlichere Kirche. Reinbeck bei Hamburg:Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 1981a. Art and the Question of Meaning. New York:Crossroad.

_____. 1981b. Weg und Werk:Chronik, Essay, Bibliographie. München:Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.

_____. 1982. Ewiges Leben? München:R. Piper Verlag.

_____. 1984. Christentum und Weltreligionen. München.

_____. 1987. Strukturen der Kirche. Munchen:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1989. Unfehlbar? Eine unerledigte Anfrage. Mit einem aktuellen Vorwort von Herbert Haag. München:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1990a. Freud and the Problem of God. New Haven:Yale University Press.

_____. 1990b. Projekt Weltethos. Munchen:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1991a. World Religions:Universal Peace. Global Ethic. Tübingen:Foun

dation Global Ethic. [www. weltethos. org/pdf_dat/ausstellung_eng. pdf. ]

_____. 1991b. Das Judentum. München:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1992. Theologie im Aufbruch:Eine ökumenische Grundlegung. München:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1993a. 24 Thesen zur Gottesfrage. München:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1993b. Credo. Das Apostolische GlaubensbekenntnisZeitgenossen erklärt. München:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1994a. Das Christentum. Wesen und Geschichte München :Piper Verlag.

_____. 1994b. Grosse Christliche Denker, München:Piper Verlag.

_____. 1998. MozartSpuren der Transzendenz. Munchen:Piper Verlag.

_____.2003. The Catholic Church:A Short History. New York:The Modern Library.

_____. 2004. Der Islam. Geschichte, Gegenwart, Zukunft:München:Piper Verlag.

_____. 2009. Wenn der Papst ein Obama wäre,in Süddeutsche Zeitung, January 31.

_____. 2011. Ist die Kirche noch zu retten?München :Piper Verlag

_____. 2012. Jesus. München:Piper Verlag

Küng, Hans/Joseph van Ess/ Heinrich von Stietencron/ Heinz Bechert. 1984. Christentum, und Weltreligionen:Islam, Hinduismus, Buddhismus. München: Piper Verlag.

Küng, Hans and Rabbi Walter Homolka. 2009. How to Do Good and Avoid Evil:A Global Ethic from the Sources of Judaism. Woodstock, Vermont:Skylight Path Publishing.

Küng, Hans and Karl-Josef Kuschel. 1993a. A Global Ethic. The Declaration of the Parliament of the Worlds Religions. New York:Continuum.

_____. 1993b. Weltfrieden duch Religionsfrieden. Antworten aus den Weltreligionen. München:Piper Verlag.

Kuschel, KarlJosef. 1990. Welches Christentum hat Zukunft. Dorothee Sölle und Johann Baptist Metz. Stuttgart:Kreuz Verlag.

Kuschel, Karl-Josef and Stephan Schlensog. 2008. Hans Küng-eine Nahaufnahme. München:Piper Verlag.

Lipset,Sey,our Martin/ Gary Marks.2000.It didny Happen Here.Why Socialism Failed in the United States. New York : W.W.Norton and Company

Lundgren,Svante.1998. Fight Against Idols.Erich Fromm o­n Religion, Judaism and the Bible.Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

Marcuse, Herbert. 1956." A Reply to Erich Fromm."In Dissent, Winter. 79-83.

_____.1960. Reason and Revolution:Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____. 1961. Soviet Marxism:A Critical Analysis. New York:Random House.

_____. 1962. Eros and Civilization:A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud. New York:Vintage Books.

_____. 1965. The Ideology of Death in H. Feifel (Ed),The Meaning of Death. New York

_____. 1967. One Dimensional Man:Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____. 1969a. Negations:Essays in Critical Theory. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____. 1969b. An Essay o­n Liberation. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____. 1970a. Marxism and the New Humanity:An Unfinished Revolution. Chapter 1 in J. C. Raines and Th. Dean [ed. ], Marxism and Radical Religion. Philadelphia:Temple University.

_____. 1970b. Five Lectures. Boston:Free Press.

_____. 1973. Studies in Critical Philosophy. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____. 1975. Zeit-Messungen. Frankfurt a. M:Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1979. Kultur und Gesellschaft 2. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag

_____. 1980a. Psychoanalyse und Politik. Frankfurt a. M. :Europäische Verlag.

_____. 1980b. Kultur und Gesellschaft 1. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1984. Aufsätze und Vorlesungen 19481969. Versuch über die Befreiung. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 1987. Hegels o­ntology and the Theory of Historicity. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.

_____. 1995. Triebstruktur und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a. M. :Suhrkamp Verlag.

_____. 2001. Toward a Critical Theory of Society. London and New York:Routledge.

_____. 2005. Heideggerian Marxism. Lincon:University of Nebraska Press

Marx, Karl. 1871. Zweiter Entwurf zum Bürgerkrieg in Frankreich. New York:The Modern Library.

_____. 1906. Capital:A Critique of Political Economy. New York:The Modern Library.

_____. 1951. Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Berlin:Dietz Verlag.

_____. 1953. Die Frühschriften. Stuttgart:Alfred Kröner Verlag.

_____. 1956. Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. Translated by T.

B. Bottomore, Foreward by Erich Fromm. New York:MacGraw Hill.

_____. 1961a. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomnie Buch I. Erster Band: Der Productionsprozess des Kapitals, Berlin:Dietz Verlag.

_____. 1961b. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomnie Buch II:Der Zirkulationsprozeß des Kapital. Berlin:Dietz Verlag.

_____. 1961c. Das Kapital:Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Buch III, Dritter Band:Der Gesamtprozess der kapitalistischen Produktion. Berlin:Dietz Verlag.

_____. 1963. The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York:International Publishers.

_____. 1964. Early Writings. Translated by T. B. Bottomore. New York:McGrawHill Book Company.

_____. 1974. A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right. Introduction in Karl Marx, Early Writings. London:Penguin Books.

_____. 1977. Capital. Volume 1. New York:Vintage Books.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1953a. Ausgewählte Schriften, Band I. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

_____. 1953b. Ausgewählte Schriften, Band II. Berlin:Dietz Verlag.

_____. 1953c. Die Heilige Familie und andere Philosophische Frühschriften. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

_____. 1955. The Communist Manifesto. New York:Appleton-Century Crofts.

_____. 1960. Die deutsche Ideologie, Kritik der neuesten deutschen Philosophie in ihren epräsentanten Feuerbach, B. Bauer und Stirner, und des deutschen Sozialismus in seinen verschiedenen Propheten. Berlin:Dietz Verlag.

_____. 2005. The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings. New York:Barnes and Noble Classics.

Metz, Johannes B. 1959. Advent Gottes. München:Verlag. Ars Sacra.

_____. 1962. Christliche Anthropozentrik. München:Kösel Verlag.

_____. 1963. Hörer des Wortes:Zur Grundlegung einer Religionsphilosophie.München:Kösel Verlag.

_____. 1965. The Church in the World. New York:Paulist Press.

_____. 1967. The Evolving World and Theology. New York:Paulist Press.

_____. 1969. Reform und GegenReformation Heute. Zwei Thesen zur ökumenischen Situation der Kirche. Mainz:Matthias Grünewald Verlag.

_____. 1970. Befreiendes Gedächtnis Jesu Christi. Mainz:Matthias Grünewald Verlag.

_____. 1972a. Erinnerung des Leidens als Kritik eines teleogischtechnologischen Zukunftsbegriffes. In Evangelische Theologie.

_____. 1972b. Zukunft aus dem Gedächtnis des Leidens. In Concilium.

_____. 1973a. Erinnerung. Handbuch philosophischer Grundbegriffe. I. , München.

_____. 1973b. Erlösung und Emanzipation in L. Scheffczyk [ed. ], Erlösung und Emanzipation, Freiburg.

_____. 1973c. Theology of the World. New York:The Seabury Press.

_____. 1975a. Karl Rahnerein theologisches Leben in Stimmen der Zeit.

_____. 1975b. Unsere Hoffnung. Ein Bekenntnis des Glaubens in dieser Zeit. Vorlage zur Gemeinsame Synode der Bistumer in der Bundesrepubliik Deutschland, in Synode 6.

_____. 1977. Glaube in Geschichte und Gesellschaft. Studien zu einer praktischen Fundamentaltheologie, Mainz:MatthiasGrunewaldVerlag.

_____. 1978. Zeit der Orden? Zur Mystik und Politik der Nachfolge. Freiburg:Herder Verlag.

_____. 1980. Jenseits bürgerlicher Religion. Reden uber die Zukunft des Christentusm, München:Chr. Kaiser Verlag.

_____. 1981. The Emergent Church. New York:Cross Road.

_____. 1984. Den Glauben lernen und lehren. Dank an Karl Rahner. München:Kösel Verlag.

_____. 1985. Discourse with Baptist Metz in Münster

_____. 1986. Discourse with Baptist Metz in Kalamazoo, Michigan

_____. 1987. Discourse with Baptist Metz in Louvain, Belgium

_____. 1995. Landschaft aus Schreien. Zur Dramatik der Theodizee Frage. Mainz:Matthias Grünewald Verlag.

_____. 1997. Zum Begriff der neuen Politischen Theologie 19671997. Mainz:MatthiasGrunewaldVerlag.

_____. 1998. A Passion for God. The Mystical-Political Dimension of Christianity. New York:Paulist Press.

Meissner Hanna H.(ed).1966. Poverty in the Affluent Society. New York : Harper and Row Publishers

Metz, Johann B. / Jürgen Habermas/ Dorothy Sölle, et al. 1994. Diagnosen zur Zeit. Düsseldorf:Patmos Verlag.

Metz, Johann B. ad Tiemo R. Peters. 1991. Gottespassion:Zur Ordensexistenz heute. Freiburg:Herder Verlag.

Metz, Johann B. and T Rendtorf [eds. ] 1971. Die Theologie in der interdisziplinären Forschung. Bertelsmann:Universitäts Verlag.

Metz, Johannes B. and Elie Wiesel. 1993. Trotzdem hoffen. Mainz:Matthias Grünewald Verlag.

Michaleva,Galina.2014." Die Russische Gesellschaft wurde schleichend entmündigt." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 9/61.

Münkler,Herfried.2014."'Wir sind nicht die fürsorgliche Grosstante, sondern ein machtpolitischer Akteur.'" In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61.

Mützenich, Rolf.2014."Vom traditionellen zum robusten 'Peacekeeping'." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61..

Nelson-Pallmeyer.2003.School of Assassins.Guns, Greed, and Globalization.New York , Maryknoll: Orbis Press

Neumann, F. 1942. Behemoth:The Structure and Practice of National Socialism, Toronto:Oxford University Press.

Neumann,Franz./Herbert Marcuse/Otto Kirchheimer. 2013. Secret Reports o­n Nazi Germany. The Frankfurt School Cintribution to the War Effort.Princetom: Princeton University Press.

Piketti, Thomas.2013. La capital au XXIe siecle.Seuil, Paris

_____.2014.Capital in the Twenty-First Century.Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Ross,Alex.2014."The Critics.A Critic at Large.The Naysayers.Walter Benjamin.Theodor Adorno, and the critique of pop culture. In The New Yorker. September 1`5.

Scahill,Jeremy.2007.Blackwater.The Ruse if the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.New York : Nation Books.

Schütte,Robert/ Rana Deep Islam.2014."Keine Angst vor Internationaler Verantwortung." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61.

Siebert, Rudolf, J. 1965. Die Anthropologie Michael Heldings, eines Humanisten und Theologen im Umkreis der Geistigen Neuordnung des 16. Jahrhunderts (1506-1561). Sigmaringen:Hohenzollernsche Jahreshefte.

_____.1966. A German Experience, in At the Cross Road, 5 (2 and 3):12-14.

_____.1976." Horkheimer's Sociology of Religion," In Telos, Number 30; Winter

_____.1977. Fromm's Theory of Religion. In Telos. Number 34. Winter 1977-1978.

_____.1978. Communication without Domination, in G. Baum und A. Greeley [eds.] Communication in the Church. NewYork:The Seabury Press (Concilium. Religion in the Seventies).

_____.1979a. From Critical Theory of Society to Theology of Communicative Praxis. Lanham, MD:University Press of America.

_____.1979b. Hegels Concept of Marriage and Family:The Origin of Subjective Freedom. Washington, D. C. :University Press of America.

_____.1979c. Hegels Philosophy of History:Theological, Humanistic and Scientific Elements. Washington, D. C. :University Press of America.

_____.1979d. Horkheimers Critical Sociology of Religion:The Relative and the Transcendent. Washington, D. C. :University Press of America.

_____.1979e. The Future of Mariage and Family:Withering away or Restructuring, in A. Greeley [ed. ] The Family in Crisis or Transition. A Sociological and Theological Perspective. New York:The Seabury Press. (Concilium:Religion in the Seventies).

_____.1980. Parsons Analytical Theory of Religion as Ultimate Reality, in Gregory Baum [ed. ], Sociology and Human Destiny. New York:Seabury Press.

_____.1983." Adorno's Theory of Religion." In Telos. Number 58. Winter

_____.1985. Critical Theory of Religion:The Frankfurt School From Universal Pragmatic to Political Theology. Berlin:Mouton Publishers, a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co.

_____.1986. Marriage and Eucharist and Socialism, In Cross Currents, (39) 4:442457.

_____.2001. The Critical Theory of Religion:The Frankfurt School. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.

_____.2002a. From Critical Theory to Political Theology:Personal Autonomy and Universal Solidarity. New York:Peter Lang Publishing.

_____.2010a. Religiöser Glaube und Säkulare Vernunft:Offenbarung und

Aufklärung, in Thomas Bohrmann und Jochen Bohn. Religion als Lebensmacht. Leipzig:Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. ,Pp. 237-247.

_____.2010b. Manifesto of the Critical Theory of Society and Religion:The Wholly Other, Liberation, Happiness and the Rescue of the Hopeless. Leiden :Brill Publisher (Vol, I, II, III).

_____.2010c. The Development of the Critical Theory of Society and Religion :The Yearning for Perfect Justice and Unconditional Love In Critical Sociologyy,. Teheran 2010 (Book)

_____.2010d. The Evolution of the Dialectical Religiology:Longing that the Murderer shall not triumph over the innocnt Victim. In Critical Theory of Religion , Teheran 2010.

_____.2010e. The Role of Religion in Civilizational Development in the last 6000 Years, In International Society for the Comparative Study of Civilizations,

_____.2010f. Are there Common Values in Various Religions. In The International Society for the Comparatve Study of Civilizations,

_____.2011. The Dialectical Religiology:The Civilizational Function of Religion. From the Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt to the Modern and Post-Modern Europe and America in Religion and Civil Society Materials of the VI International Seminar November in Yalta, Tatyana A. Senyushkina [ed.] Simferopol: Tauria

_____.2012a. The Transition from Ethical Monotheism to Post-Theistic, Humanistic Religiosity:Change of Religious Identity in the Process of Cultural Globalization, In Religion and Civil Society:Conflicts of Religious Identity and Integrative Processes in the Globalizing World. Materials of the Xth International Seminar. November 16-20, 2011. Yalta, Simferopol:Weber Publishing House. 92-115.

_____.2012b. The Evolution of the Religious Consciousness toward alternative Futures. New Delhi:Sanbun

_____.2012c. Common Values. The Development of Moral Consciousness toward Global Ethos. New Delhi:Sanbun Publishers

_____.2012d. Toward a Radical Interpretation of the Abrahamic Religions:In Search for the Wholly Other. New Delhi, India:Sanbun Publisher

­­­_____.2012e."Toward the Resolution of Inter-Faith, Ethnic, and Class Conflicts in the Local, National, and Global Pubic Sphere." In the Materials of the XIth International Seminar. November 16-20, 2012. Yalta, Simferopol: Weber Publishing House. 92-115

_____.2013a. The Realization of Harmony in Religion, Philosophy and Science, in St. Peterburg:GWA (Global Harmony Association).

_____.2013b. The World Religions in the Global Public Sphere:Towards Concrete Freedom and Material Democracy. New Delhi:Sanbun.

_____.2013c." In the Materials of the XIIth. International Seminar. November 16-20, 2012. Yalta. Simferopol: Weber Publishing House. 92-115

_____.2014a: "The Beginning of the Critical Theory of Religion: Horkheimer, Adorno, and Fromm".Paper read in 7th International Critical Theory Conference in Rome.May 8-10,2014. John Felice Rome Center of Loyola University Chicago.( unpublished).

_____.2014b ."Confessing and Witnessing in Religion and in Secular Humanistic Enlightenment." In 38th. International Course o­n the Future of Religion: Witnessing and Confessing in Modernity and Post-Modernity.IUC.Dubrovnik.Croatia. April 28-May 3.2014.( unpublished).

______2014c. The Early Critical Theory of Religion.The Island of Happiness. New Delhi: Sanbun.

Siebert, Rudolf J/ Michael Ott/ Dustin J. Byrd. 2013. The Critical Theory of Religion: From Having to Being. In Critical Research o­n Religion. April. Vol. 1; Issue 1.

Smith, Adam.1759.The Theory of Moral Sentiments.Edinburgh: A. Miller in the Strand, A Kincaid.J.Bell.

1776.Wealth of Nations.London: W.Strohan and T.Cadell.

Stark, Rodney. 2001. One true God.Historical Consequences of monotheism.Princeton: Princeton University.

______2007.Sociology. Belmont,CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Thränert, Oliver.2014."Die Verbreitung von ABC Waffen durch Rüstungskontrolle verhinder." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61..

Trento,Joseph J.The Secret History of the CIA.With a New Introduction by the Author.New York : MJF Books

Trevor-Roper, Hugh. (ed). 1979. Final Entries 1945. The Diaries of Joseph Goebbels. New York :Avon Books.

_____.2000. Hitlers Table Talk. 1941-1944. New York City:Enigma Books

Ulrich,Anne.2014."Die Achillesverse der Medien im Krieg." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61..

Ulyanov,Vladimis Ilyich.1917. Imperialism.the Highest Stage of Capitalism.Moscov: Zhiz'iznanie Publisher

Walther, Rudolf.2014."Militarisierung und Normalisierung im Namen von 'Verantwortung'". In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 7/8/61..

Warren KathleenA./ Jayasri( Joyce) Hart.2012.In the Footprints of Francis and the Sultan.A Model for Peacemaking. New York L Franciscan Media

Weber, Max. 1952. Ancient Judaism. New York:Free Press.

_____.1962. Basic Concepts in Sociology. New York:The Citadel Press.

_____.1963. The Sociology of Religion. Boston:Beacon Press.

_____.1969. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York:The Free Press.

_____.1978. Economy and Society:An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, 2 Volumes. Berkeley:University of California Press.

_____.1991. The Sociology of Religion. Boston:Beacon Press

_____.1992. The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism, in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. and ed. by Hans H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, New York:Oxford University Press.

_____.2002a. Churches and Sects in North America, in Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism and Other Writings. New York: Penguin Books.

_____.2002b. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Co.

_____.2005. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London:Routledge

Weiler, Sylvia. 2012. Göttingen :Wallstein

Wilson,Woodrow.2011.The New Freedom. Gray Rabbid: Gray RabbidPublishing

Zinn,Howard.2003.A People's Historycof the United States.1492-Present.New York:Harper Cklins Publisher

Zizek, Slavoj. 2003. The Puppet and the Dwarf. New York: MIT Press.

_____.2007. Resistance is Surrender. London Review of Books. November 15, 29 (22). [www. lrb. co. uk/v29/n22/zize01. html.

_____.2009. First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. London:Verso.

_____.2012. Less Than Nothing. Hegel and the Shadow of Dialectical Materialism. London:Verso

_____.2013. Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange:our new heroes In The Guardian. http://theguardian. com/commentisfree/2013/sep/03/snowden-manning-assange-new-heroes.

_____.2014. Zizek's Jokes( Did you here the o­ne about Hegel and negation)London: The MIT Press

Zizek, Slavoj and John Milbank. 2008. The Monstrosity of Christ:Paradox or Dialectic? Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.

Zizek, Slavoj/Boris Gunjevic 2012. God in Pain. New York :Seven Stories Press

Zizek, Slavoj/Craiton Crockett/ Chreston David. 2012. Hegel and the Infinite, New York: Columbia University Press.

Zöpel,Christoph.2014." EU-Strategie auf der Basis gemeinsamer wertegebindener Interessen." In Neue Gesellschaft/ Frankfurter Hefte 9/61.

 

See for further information http://www.rudolfjsiebert.org/.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Leo:

I agree with you, that President Putin should be recognized as world harmony creator.

I have given my article to my friend Aleksandra in Simferopol/Pisa for translation into Russian. She is an excellent translator. I shall send the translation to you, as soon as it is finished. I shall gladly pay for it. Here is my answer to your three questions concerning my article: .....
Your Rudi
 
03/11/14

 



Up
© Website author: Leo Semashko, 2005; © designed by Roman Snitko, 2005