Власть и политика в эпоху медиадемократии
The present article traces the origins and forms of aggressive rhetoric in the Soviet literary criticism of the 1920s, using the example of the debates surrounding the Len- ingrad branch of the Russian Formalist School. e discussions around this research circle can be traced to the destructive experience of revolution and civil war, and the shi from conventional forms of debate to the abuse and annihilation of opponents, transforming the latter practices into the new mainstream. e discussion as such becomes a race for power, or a straight-up competition between political groups. In turn, literary criticism also starts reproducing the repressive methods of the victor. e so-called “formalists” represent the most prominent example of this process, as they were sentenced to annihilation as pure ideological enemies of the new hegem- onic class — both in a political and cultural sense.
The contrast dualism that characterizes the opposition between ‘us’ and ‘them’ in Russian culture to the present day became visible during that time, as the trium- phant class was fundamentally unwilling to compromise with the defeated. e Bol- sheviks were not feeling magnanimous a er the victory of the October revolution. eir strategy was to cultivate hatred, pitting di erent groups against each other under the banner of class struggle in order to further strip and/or remove any phe- nomena diverging from the established way forward. e primary motivation for the crackdown through terror was civil war. Subsequently, it was replaced by the require- ment for special vigilance during the temporary resurgence of the bourgeoisie in the period of New Economic Policy (NEP). e conceptualization of the NEP was not only an economic and industrial, but also inevitably a cultural matter, and the prole- tariat simply had to feel threatened by the surviving oppressors whose consciousness remained the same as before the revolution. Ultimately, the announced and long- awaited rejection of the NEP and its “restorative” culture legitimized a new round of aggressive rhetoric that reinforced the internal crisis of the Soviet “poputchiks” (pri- marily discriminated intelligentsia) and allowed to put an end to them on the cusp of the 1920s and 1930s.
Criticizing and for the most part rejecting the most common approaches to the connection between the problem of evil and the problem of political in the modern political thought, S.Kaspe is looking for a way to build an operational definition of political evil in a narrow and strict sense. The starting point of his argument is the following: the essence of political evil can be understood from the perspective of a notion of political rather than the concept of evil per se (which should be viewed as an independent variable). Transfiguration of the usual, human evil into political evil (i.e., systemic, structural) is possible due to the deficit of efficiency of political institutions that normally prevent such transformation as well as their hyper-efficiency that transcends the norm in the other direction. In their turn, both of these institutional dysfunctions are generated, according to the author, first and foremost by the attempts to ignore or consciously eliminate ethical criteria that distinguish between good and evil. As a result, ethics is replaced by the very same politics.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.