Man and culture

Never has so much been written about man and culture as in recent years. The problem is so relevant to the
present day that it comes up constantly for discussion at national, regional and international levels. In the West some
people predict a tragic future for both man and culture; others are inclined to optimism, though their optimism is often
tempered with anxiety. The backcloth for these speculations is an outward wellbeing and even an unprecedented flow
of material goods. Nevertheless the gloomy predictions prevail.

They present a marked contrast to the philosophy of man and culture in Marxism, which radiates a bright view of
the future.

Any discussion of the phenomenon of culture calls for an analysis of the related concept of civilisation. Neither
can be understood outside their contradictory unity.

The concept of civilisation. Society and its history constitute the most complex and multi-dimensional process.
And if we are to make any sense of this highly developed piece of reality we shall need a wide range of concepts.
Human reason, which for centuries has been nurtured by this seething polyglot reality, has evolved numerous
concepts and categories to explain the world historical process. For a long time idealist views prevailed, but
dialectical materialism, with its materialist understanding of world history, has evolved a new and comprehensive
system of concepts, categories and principles that enable us to reveal the essence, sources, mechanisms and driving
forces in the development of society.

Historically the idea of civilisation was formulated during the period of the rise of capitalism in order to
substantiate the principle ofhistorical progress, the necessity for the replacement of the feudal system, when the claim
that it was God-given no longer satisfied social and philosophical thought. Instead it was maintained that history was
motivated by man's vital interests, his desire to realise the principles of social justice and legal equality. Thinkers
became concerned with the future of world civilisation as a whole and this prompted them to create a different
paradigm of philosophical thought, particularly when the victory of the Socialist Revolution in Russia in 1917
launched a new stage in the development of civilisationdevelopment with a humanist orientation on the national
and social emancipation of mankind, on distribution of the wealth of society according to work, and on freedom of
the popular will in managing the affairs of state and society.

Marxism went to the root of the problem by showing that the development of society proceeds in successive
stages, pinpointing the distinctive features of each stage, and thus evolving the category of the socio-economic
formation. This placed our understanding of history on a scientific, dialectical-materialist basis, which is the only

feasible one. The category of the socio-economic formation is crucial for interpreting both the history of mankind and
its specific phenomena, such as culture and its interconnections with society and the individual.

. The arrangement of the socio-economic formations in a straight line is a scientific idealisation, which the
ideological critics of Marxism misinterpret as a desire to provide a theoretical basis for the idea that all the roads of
history lead to one goal, and that all the past has been merely an exhaustingly long preparation for the ascent to the
sunlit peak of universal happiness. But mankind's desire for social equality is indeed a recurring phenomenon. From
time immemorial it has provided inspiration to the best minds of humanity, but this does not make the vector of
history a straight line. Each people takes its own road. Some civilisations achieve a great and brilliant efflorescence
and then, for some strange or even known reason perish, as was the case with the Mayas; other civilisations soar like
a firework into the heavens, shedding their brilliant light on everything around them, then fall back in a shower of
historically insignificant sparks. Yet others move slowly, retaining their uniqueness, protected from change as if by
embalmment.

In Marxist literature there is no unanimity about the meaning of civilisation. Some thinkers are inclined to dismiss
the concept altogether, holding that it adds nothing to the broad concept of society. Others identify civilisation with
the socio-economic formation, which is also a way of denying the necessity for the concept of civilisation. I believe
that the correct standpoint is to regard civilisation as a special and very important category, as something which
coincides with the category of the socio-economic formation in some respects but also differs from it essentially in
others. The concept of civilisation "works" particularly well when world history is thought of in global terms, as
something integral, and the future of mankind is regarded from the standpoint of unity and diversity. Historically
civilisation defines not the early dawn of humanity, not its childhood or even adolescence, but its youth and maturity,
the established forms of society. Basing himself on Lewis Henry Morgan's book Ancient Society, Frederick Engels
followed him in observing that society began with the stages of savagery and barbarity. These were the first gleams of
sociality. And they were superseded by civilisation, the centres of which arose in various continents, some in Africa,
others in Asia, others in Europe, and yet others in America. From this point we can begin to discuss the stages of
civilisation and its corresponding forms.

The concept of civilisation has more than one meaning. Generically it denotes the historical alternative to the
savagery and barbarity, which we mentioned above.

Secondly, civilisation may be taken to mean a relatively high stage in society's mastery of the forces of nature, a
relatively high level of organisation of social relations and, in general, all aspects of social existence and culture and
also a uniqueness of material and spiritual life of society in the framework of the nation, the state unit or the region. In
this sense it embraces the overall motion of human history, the global achievements of society, the world standards

evolved in the development of culture, society, technology and the productivity of labour, and also, of course, all the
specific features of regional, national and ethnic forms of social existence.

Thirdly, civilisation may be thought of as a limitless universal phenomenon embracing not only terrestrial but also
extraterrestrial forms in their assumed endless diversity, denial of which would be tantamount to acknowledging the
greatest of all divine miracles. The universe is eternal and infinite. It cannot, in principle, contain only one terrestrial
civilisation. If it did, civilisation would not be something natural and functioning according to certain laws, but a
unique, unnatural, entirely fortuitous exception to the logic of the life of the universe and would thus have to be
regarded as something miraculous. This was intuitively perceived by many ancient thinkers, who acknowledged a
countless number of worlds inhabited by rational beings. It would be only natural if human civilisation, having
penetrated outer space, sooner or later came into contact with extraterrestrial forms of civilisation.

The present age is characterised by a growth of integrating trends and the acceleration of development.
Uniqueness preserves itself by overcoming its own hypertrophy. Even the least developed countries are being drawn
increasingly into the orbit of modern civilisation. Interrelations are becoming closer and there is greater exchange of
historical experience between one nation and another. All this goes to show that an unprecedented world-historic
community of mankind is in the process of formation and requires a joint coordinating reason, not centrifugal forces
that generate trouble spots all over the world and bring grief and suffering upon millions of innocent people. More
intensely than ever before humankind expects enmity and strife to be replaced by order and harmony. As yet,
however, everything is in a state of contradiction. The victories of technology are often won at the cost of human
health. Even the pure light of science with its radiant truths may also contain destructive rays. Discoveries and
inventions, all the brilliant fireworks of the human intelligence, may burn up the very torch of reason.

The philosophy of culture. Civilisation depends on culture for its development and existence and, in its turn, provides
the conditions for the existence and development of culture. Historically culture precedes civilisation.

Usually culture is understood as the accumulation of material and spiritual values. This is a broad and largely
correct interpretation but it leaves out one main fact, and that is the human being as the maker of culture. Culture is
quite often identified with works of art, with enlightenment in general. This definition is too narrow. Nor can one
agree with the notion that culture embraces only the sphere of intellectual production, even if we take this sphere to
include the whole of science. Such an interpretation leaves out a great deal. For example, the culture of physical
labour, administration, of personal relationships, and so on. Reducing culture to the intellectual sphere results in an
elitist approach depriving culture of its nationwide significance. But any person may make a contribution to culture,
and not only artists, writers, or scientists. The concept of culture is an integral and all-embracing concept which
includes various phenomena, ranging from the cultivated blackcurrant bush to La Gioconda, and methods of
administrating the state. Culture defines everything that man does, and how he does it, in the process of self-

fulfilment. Culture is the method of the self-realisation of the individual and society, the measure of the development
of both. Various fields in knowledge ethnography, archeology, history, literary criticism and so onstudy the
various spheres of culture. What we are interested in here is not the numerous spheres in which cultural activity of
various peoples, nations, ethnic groups, social groups and individuals have manifested themselves, but the essence of
culture, i. e., culture as a philosophical category.

We may gain some idea of the meaning of culture by turning to the etymology of the word, which can be traced
back to the Latincultura, deriving from the word colere, meaning both to "cultivate" and to "worship". It is a curious
fact that the very origin of the wordculture contains the wisdom of the people's understanding of culture as the
worshipful cultivation of something, particularly the land. The word "culture" was thus from the beginning related to
good action. And action usually means assimilation of our world in some form or another. It may therefore be said
that culture is a kind of prism, through which everything essential to us is refracted. Every nation, every level and
form of civilisation, and every individual attains knowledge of the world and a mastery of its principles and laws to
the extent that it masters culture. The forms of culture are a kind of mirror that reflects the essence of every enterprise,
its techniques and methods, and the contribution which it makes to the development of culture itself. In this sense
man himself is a phenomenon of culture, and not only of nature. If we may attempt an analogy, it may be said that
culture is the opened, read and understood pages of the "book of life", pages which when assimilated by the
individual become his selfhood. Culture is not merely a matter of skill raised to the level of art, but also a morally
sanctioned goal. Culture manifests itself in ordinary consciousness and everyday behaviour, in labour activity and the
attitude that one adopts to such activity, in scientific thought and artistic creation and the vision of their results, in
self-control, in one's smile and manner of laughing, in love and other intimate relationships, which the individual may
elevate to unexpected heights of tenderness and spiritual beauty. The truly cultured person shows all these facets in
every manifestation of his selfhood. Culture is characterised by the vital ideals of humankind, of the individual, the
social group, the class and society as a whole. The more significant these ideals, the higher the level of culture.

How to Calculate Gross Income

Gross income is the total of all your income before taxes and other deductions are removed. The amount left after
all deductions is called net income. Calculating your gross income is fairly easy and straightforward using basic
information from your pay stub and simple math.

How to Calculate Gross Income for Tax

How to Calculate Gross Payroll From the NetInstructions

1 Identify your hourly wage rate.

2 Multiply your hourly rate of pay by the number of hours worked each day to find your daily gross earnings. A fulltime workday typically consists of eight hours of work. Using $10.00 as an example of hourly wages, 8 x $10.00 will
be $80.00 per day.
3 Find the weekly gross earnings by multiplying your hourly wage by the number of hours worked per week. The
standard full-time work week is 40 hours, so gross weekly wages, again using $10.00 as hourly pay, would be 40 x
$10.00, or $400.00.
4
Calculate your gross earnings per year by multiplying the your gross weekly pay by 52, or your hourly rate by the
number of hours worked per year.
A standard 40-hour week translates to 2,080 hours per year, so gross wages would be 2,080 x $10.00, which is
$20,800 per year.