Archive

Abstract. The article speaks of and describes the philosophical-theological conditions and characteristics of theopoetic interpretation of the divine in the postmodern times. Its main feature is an effort to replace the traditional prosaic theology characterized by its intellectualism, scientism and the displacement of symbols with the poetic sensitivity to the divine. The author takes John Caputo’s “weak theology” as an example and reflects on how it is still possible to speak about God in a way that is both meaningful and relevant to the post-modern people in the world, which declares that there is no fixed and authoritative way to access the knowledge or the belief. Caputo’s theopoetics is an important component of his “weak theology” project, which considers God not as an allpowerful person or the ground of being, but as the “weak force”, devoid of traditional metaphysical attributes of authority, power and hierarchical primacy open to risk and uncertainty. The “weak theology” seeks to remain open to “things themselves”; that is, to what belongs to the ultimate human concern and cannot be reduced to the accuracy of statements made by the objectifying thinking. Similarly, Caputo sees religion not as a figurative expression of metaphysical substance or spirit, but as a way to poeticize what Heidegger, Derrida and Deleuze called an “event”. Additionally, the article analyzes some consequences of the theopoetic perspective to the formation of a new political theology and the search for new ways of Christians’ political engagement. The article investigates how the consistent deconstruction of the idea of a sovereign God regarded as one of the pillars on which the ideology and practice of political violence stands involves the deconstruction of these violent political systems.

Keywords: John Caputo, deconstruction, theopoetics, theopolitics, “weak theology”, event of God.

Abstract. The article discusses the motives and foundations of the critique of historism in Leo Strauss’s political philosophy. The major arguments suggested by Strauss against the principle of historicism are identified and put in order. All objections made by Strauss are divided into two groups. The first one includes those arguments, which challenge not the actual content of the principle of historism, but the value attributed to it in the context of philosophical and scientific knowledge. The second group includes the substantive objections to historism. Strauss analyzes and compares different versions
of historicism’ philosophy, identifies its common denominator, traces the genesis of historism as a cultural and historical relativism. The core of any historicism’s concept is the presumption of historical conditions of philosophy, and a statement of impossibility of universal answers to philosophical questions. Strauss regards historism as the main challenge facing modern philosophy. According to Strauss, the key role in the decomposition of the classical philosophical tradition and the formation of historicism concepts belongs to the idea of progress firmly established in modern times. The question of the relationship between philosophy and history, as well as philosophical and historical types of knowledge, is crucial for understanding the essence of historism, which formulates philosophical problems as historical-philosophical and historical ones. In understanding the relationship between philosophy and history, Strauss primarily relies on classical philosophical tradition; however, he also takes into account the experience of critique of historism in non-classical philosophical concepts such as neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, and critical rationalism. Strauss combines all major objections and arguments against historism proposed by representatives of various philosophical trends of the XX century. His own contribution to the critique of historism is the substantiation of the thesis that this principle may not have historical and empirical justification, but it is a self-contradictory philosophical concept. Strauss proves that historism cannot be refuted by historical facts and arguments; only it can be rejected due to another (but not less fundamental than historism itself) philosophical principle.
Keywords: historism, historicism, history, philosophy of history, relativism, classical philosophy, Leo Strauss.

Abstract. The concept of neopatrimonialism formed as a response to the non-obviousness of basic assumptions of the democratic transit paradigm has gained great popularity in analyzing the political development of African, Latin American, Southeast Asian, and post-Soviet states. However, the explosive growth of research based on these concept starts to cause concerns of its blurring and loss of heuristic potential. One of the most important problem is correlation between neopatrimonialism concept and the category of political regimes. This problem has two principal aspects. First, it is important to determine whether neopatrimonialism itself is a kind of political regime. A negative answer to this question implies the need to clarify what kind of political science category it represents. Second, it is important to clarify how neopatrimonialism relates to the existing typology of political regimes. Are authoritarian regimes the natural abode for neopatrimonialism, or neopatrimonialism could be found anywhere – from authoritarianism to democracy? The article consists of two parts, which correspond to the above-mentioned aspects. In the first part, the author analyzes the existing notions of neopatrimonialism as a political regime, political system, political order, and concludes that neopatrimonialism is a type of political domination formed by two Max Weber’s ideal types: rational-legal and patrimonial ones. In the second part of article, the author summarizes research approaches to the problem of neopatrimonialism in different types of political regimes. Taking into account Alexander Fisun’s concept of “neopatrimonial democracy”, and Thomas Carothers’s typology of “gray zone”, the author considers the idea of identifying authoritarianism and neopatrimonialism as irrelevant. Summarizing the debates on the correlation of neopatrimonialism and typology of political regimes, the author considers the idea of their strict conformity as counterproductive. Rather, neopatrimonialism concept provides another dimension for political systems, analyzing the degree of private appropriation of the public sphere and new forms of constructing the traditional type of dominance in modernity. In turn, these phenomena could be combined with both authoritarian and democratic practices.
Keywords: neopatrimonialism, patrimonialism, political regime, neo-patrimonial democracy, legitimate rule.

Abstract. The article is devoted to the question: what role do references to the revolution play in legitimizing the modern Russian state? The author shows that by evading legitimating oneself by revolutions it legitimizes itself by referring to Modernity. The Russian political regime cannot legitimize itself separately neither by any of the social revolutions that have taken place in our history, nor by a reference to the Western revolutions. Therefore, it must (with all the reverence towards “spiritual bonds”), justify itself with references to “Modernity in general”. At the same time, in utilitarian terms Modernity is the result of private non-political revolutions, and the use of political technologies. Today, the reference to stability and tradition is still the same disguised reference to Modernity. The Russian state is built in the interests of the ruling elite, which itself would like to enjoy benefits of Modernity, not caring about accustoming the majority to these benefits. However, a state that wants to imitate its modernity with references to the domain “small revolutions” faces the fact that Modernity contains an irremovable reference to revolution in the social and political sense – a revolution that makes the achievements of domain revolutions of Modernity available to the majority.
Keywords: Modernity, state, revolution, counterrevolution, legitimation, ruling elite.

Abstract. The article deals with diverse juridical and criminological characteristic of contemporary organized crime as one of the most socially dangerous and destructive phenomenon of our time. The author provides information about the history of organized crime in Russia, the main characteristics, qualitative and quantitative parameters of modern organized crime, recent changes of its level, dynamics, structure, and latency; he indicates the prevailing causes, conditions and prerequisites for the spread of organized crime. The article describes the main characteristics of organized criminal groups and criminal communities (criminal organizations). In addition, the article highlights and describes in detail the most destructive tendencies and prospects of development of organized crime at the present stage: focus on the implementation of the representatives of organized criminal associations into governmental institutions, law enforcement and regulatory powers; further expansion of corrupt relations, and the system of bribery of officials; establishment of control over the economic activities of large domestic enterprises; redistribution of property; yield on the transnational level, and hijacking of the business through raiding. The author argues for the need of re-establishment of specialized units combating organized crime in the structure of the bodies of internal affairs of the Russian Federation.

Keywords: organized crime; mafia; criminal behavior prevention; transnational crime; law enforcement; causes and conditions of crime; dynamics of crime in Russia; tendencies of development of crime; fight against crime.

Abstract. Article 33 of Constitution of the Russian Federation provides the right of citizens to address state authorities and local self-governments. However, the Federal Law “On the order of consideration of appeals of citizens of the Russian Federation” contains the statutory definition of the term “appeal”, but it is limited to the enumeration of its varieties; in the best, it points to the destination but does not reflect the features of appeal as legal and factual category. The article presents the lexical and legal study of the term “appeal”, as well as the analysis of the practice of its application in the legislation. The author concludes that the term “appeal” should be used only in close conjunction with the additional term clarifying its content. Based on the works of other researchers, international experience and regulations, the author of article formulates the following definition of the term “citizen’s appeal”: it is the will of the individual (groups of individuals, or associations); it is the subject of mandatory review; it corresponds to regulatory-established rules; it is expressed in the form of written, oral or tacit demands of implementation of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests; it is addressed to the state authorities, local government body or organization carrying a significant public function, as well as to their officials. Thus, the features of the appeal are: 1) mandatory review; 2) particular subject of the will; 3) action as objective side; 4) special procedural form; 5) purpose; and 6) destination. These six characteristics are necessary and sufficient; the proposed definition not only describes citizen’s appeal from factual and legal points of view, but allows to distinguish it from other related categories. The definition reflects the recent changes in legislation regarding the change of the subject composition (by including citizens’ associations), and the destination (due to including state [municipal] institutions and organizations implementing publicly important functions into the law on appeals).

Keywords: citizen appeal; concept of appeals; applicant; legislation of appeals; destination of appeal; purpose of appeal.