Davydov Dmitry
In the article, post-capitalism is viewed not as a prospect of a progressive movement towards a brighter future, but as archaization – the establishment of social relations reminiscent of pre-capitalist ones. Concepts are considered, the authors of which point to the corresponding tendencies: parcelling of sovereignty, merging of economic and political power, blocking the paths of upward mobility, class and caste character of social stratification, and much more. The article substantiates that the reasons for these trends should be sought not only in neoliberalism. The author puts forward the thesis that some of the phenomena associated with modernist progress (increasing the share of the middle class in society, accelerating social mobility, etc.) were a historical exception because, thanks to the industrial revolution, the broad masses of workers acquired a significant “negotiation” advantage in the form of a well-sold labour force involved in material production. This advantage disappears as production becomes more automated and the creative economy grows. Creative “labour” is much more difficult to sell due to the unpredictability of the creative process itself. Economic elites, in turn, rarely invest directly in “human capital”, preferring to look for talents and “appropriate” them, rather than develop them on a massive scale. This leads to the corresponding transformations of the social structure. Nevertheless, the article argues that the terms referring to the past (neo-feudalism, etc.) are unlikely to be suitable for a correct assessment of the current situation. We are in a different situation when the omnipotence of the “neo-feudal” can quite be countered by a perspective in which the universal and purposeful acceleration of scientific and technological progress is accompanied by a growing demand for maximizing the realization of everyone's talents.
Keywords: post-capitalism, neo-feudalism, communism, cognitive capitalism, creative economy, knowledge communism, rent, rental society, post-democracy
Voscresensky Fedor
The article describes the functioning of the Judiciary as an element of the political system of modern Russia. The characteristics of the activities of the courts are manifested through the mechanism of judicial discretion, within the framework of which decisions on cases are made. There are two main models used to explain the behavior of judges: based on the law and on the basis of personal preference. In Russian conditions, the most adequate way to explain the behavior of judges on the basis of personal preferences is a strategic approach. According to it judges take into account existing institutional and political restrictions and are guided by the structure of political opportunities that is formed by these restrictions. The latter are due to the “Zone of Power”, the real function of which is to project onto the subject, the prescriptions formed by the current political regime, as well as the application of sanctions for their violation. Such a construction of the Russian political space gives the judicial system the place not of a full-fledged branch of power, but, in fact, of one of the executive state institutions that carry out the functions assigned to it within the framework of general policy. Its institutional characteristics are determined by the universal bureaucratic characteristics of the organization of activities and management, characteristic of the executive branch. Being in the “Zone of Power” significantly complicates the promotion of the concept of Public policy, since it levels the possibilities of horizontal cooperation, designed to be implemented by the principle of competition and equality of the parties. The article concluded that the Judicial system of modern Russia, represented by the acting judges, has abandoned the role of the builder of the field of law in the Public political space.
Key words: Judicial power, political system, public policy, judicial discretion, power zone