Latov Yuri
Employing sociological methodologies, this paper investigates the contemporary preconditions for a post-capitalist transition as reflected in mass consciousness. While the socio-philosophical dichotomy of “capitalism vs socialism” proves increasingly inadequate for characterizing modern societal trends, it serves as a heuristic framework to assess the extent to which a critical stance toward the prevailing capitalist system has permeated public discourse, alongside the perceived (un)attractiveness of its socialist alternative. Through a systematic analysis of longitudinal sociological data (2000s–2020s), this study compares attitudes toward socialism in Russia (drawing primarily on surveys by the Institute of Sociology, FRC RAS) and the United States (utilizing Pew Research Center data). The findings reveal a pronounced Russian preference for socialist ideals over capitalist ones: as of 2024, 41 % of respondents viewed socialism positively, compared to merely 12 % for capitalism. This inclination manifests more strongly in affective dispositions than in ideological self-identification, with only ~20% explicitly endorsing communist or social democratic principles, while a substantial proportion remains indifferent to both systems. In the U.S. – long considered capitalism’s paradigmatic case – sympathy for socialism remains comparatively muted yet non-negligible: during the 2010s, approximately one-third of citizens expressed favorable views toward socialism, while a quarter held negative perceptions of free-market economics. These results suggest that, although not hegemonic, socialist sympathizers constitute a significant minority (25–33 %) in both nations – a pattern characteristic of transitional historical epochs. The study concludes by critically engaging with arguments dismissing socialism’s contemporary viability, while advancing a theoretically grounded case for its 21st-century developmental potential. The persistence of competing socialist visions, alongside this measurable baseline of public support, underscores the ongoing ideological contestation shaping post-capitalist possibilities.
Keywords: post-capitalist development; socialism; capitalism; formational shift; mass consciousness; post-Marxism
Loskutov Yuri
This article presents the author’s perspective on the ongoing inter-formational transition from capitalism to post-capitalism (post-capitalist social revolution), building upon foundational works in the field. The successful realization of this transition hinges on overcoming the profound – and often devastating – systemic crises of contemporary capitalism, encompassing demographic, environmental, and cultural dimensions. Such transcendence, the author argues, necessitates a shift from ideological metanarratives to an ontological framework grounded in social theory. Employing a substantive approach rooted in Marxist social ontology, the article examines the philosophical problem of social revolution. Within this framework, the ontology of complex self-developing systems (including social formations) demands post-classical rationality, which operates polylogically in the context of social self-analysis. Crucially, the development (and self-development) of productive forces is identified as the sole catalyst of inter-formational transitions membranes gradually beyond commodified social relations, ultimately dismantling the capitalist socioeconomic order.
Keywords: social revolution; post-capitalism; social substance; universal labor; post-nonclassical rationality
Rebrov Sergey
This article interrogates contemporary post-capitalist thought through the frameworks of political theology and post-secularization theory. Its central argument posits that projects seeking to transcend capitalism frequently operate as secularized iterations of Christian eschatology: capitalism assumes the role of a modern Fall, while the post-capitalist future functions as an immanentized analogue of the Kingdom of God. The analysis unfolds in three movements. First, it examines the immanentization of the eschaton – the translation of religious teleology into secular socio-political programs. Second, it scrutinizes historical materialism as a form of salvation history, wherein the proletariat assumes messianic agency and communism emerges as both the terminus of alienation and the culmination of humanity’s prehistory. Third, it deciphers narratives of capitalism’s demise as secularized renditions of the Fall’s abolition, wherein market relations and private property – framed as historical aberrations – await redemption through progressive political action. Concluding with Voegelin and Löwith, the article demonstrates how such theories inherit a chiliastic structure, replacing divine transcendence with human political praxis. This theological substrate, while endowing post-capitalist thought with moral-utopian vitality, simultaneously renders it vulnerable to conceptual blurring between scientific and religious categories.
Keywords: post-capitalism; communism; political theology; eschatology; apocalypse; Marxism; secularization; progressivism
Fishman Leonid
The article distinguishes between socialism and postcapitalism. Socialism (the Soviet or Western version of the welfare state) is described as a way of thinking for social strata striving to enter the ranks of the middle class. Its most conscious members use the
standards of living of this class as a model when imagining their desired future. Its values are materialistic, and its visions of the future are largely standardized. Postcapitalism is a mindset characteristic of a relatively financially secure segment of the population.
It is one of the means of political self-expression for those who already belong to the middle class and wish to maintain this position in the future. This explains the commitment to postmaterialist values and the significant diversity of ideas about the future. Socialism,
and to some extent, modern capitalism, are therefore phenomena of yesterday. The postcapitalism of tomorrow could be realized if social groups already existed today whose standard of living, opportunities, lifestyle, and image were achievable for large masses of the population and therefore became objects of mass emulation. Since such groups do not exist, the postcapitalist left faces stagnation and competition from right-wing and populist opponents who partially fulfill their program of yesterday.
Keywords: socialism; postcapitalism; postmaterialist values; middle class
Davydov Dmitry
This article examines contemporary debates on the prospects of post-capitalist social relations and the emergence of a new societal paradigm. It distinguishes between two discursive frameworks on hypothetical post-capitalist society: deprivational and utopian. The former associates capitalism’s decline with the struggle of the exploited and oppressed, who consciously strive for a society of equality and justice, while the latter emphasizes emerging possibilities, primarily driven by technological advancement. Both perspectives are subjected to critique. The analysis contends that current socio-structural conditions lack the prerequisites for a political-revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism. Similarly, the technological optimism underpinning utopian projections relies on overly optimistic – and often naïve – assumptions about the pace of scientific and technical progress. Instead, the article proposes shifting focus to alternative trajectories in which capitalism’s decline entails a transformation of the mode of production that does not necessarily culminate in socialism or communism. The waning of capitalism is framed as the erosion of an accumulation model based on the mass extraction of surplus value from commodified labor or wage employment. The article advances an alternative framework in which emerging production relations are increasingly shaped by relatively autonomous individuals accumulating their own capital resources – knowledge, skills, creative competencies, and, crucially, attention as the scarcest resource of the informational age. This shift is conceptualized as a transition from capitalism to what might be termed personalism. Empirical evidence demonstrates that economic activity is already undergoing significant personalization, marked by the growing sphere of economic agents operating independently of wage labor. This trend is exemplified by the rapid expansion of solo entrepreneurs, freelancers, gig workers, and content creators. The article concludes by underscoring the need for a more rigorous critical theory to address the contradictions of contemporary society, while cautioning against undue pessimism in assessing these transformations.
Keywords: post-capitalism; capitalism; neo-feudalism; techno-feudalism; social classes; the personaliat; attention economy; creative economy; gig economy; artificial intelligence; social inequality
Pavlov Alexander
This article examines the concept of neo-feudalism as articulated by Marxist political theorist Jodi Dean, situating its emergence within broader debates in social theory regarding the notion of a “new feudalism.” Various scholars – including Cédric Durand and Yanis Varoufakis (techno-feudalism) and Carlos Saura García (data feudalism) – have theorized the rise of such formations. The present analysis distinguishes techno-feudalism as a political-economic framework from neo-feudalism as a political-philosophical one, advocating for a focused engagement with the latter. A comparative assessment of neofeudalism and data-feudalism reveals the former’s greater theoretical depth and sophistication. Tracing the evolution of Dean’s thought, the article demonstrates how her earlier work on communicative capitalism informs her later conceptualization of neo-feudalism. The four hallmarks of neo-feudalism are as follows. First, the parceling of sovereignty – the political right to extract wealth through fines, taxes, patents, and asset seizures – replaces market competition. Legal authority is replaced by private arbitration, and economic authority by cryptocurrency and rent. Second, the emergence of a class of “lords” (platform owners) who produce nothing, and “serfs” – internet users deprived of social guarantees and stable employment. Third, hinterlandization: megacities subjugate the peripheries, turning them into sources of resources and cheap services. Fourth, catastrophism and anxiety – a widespread psychological state of powerlessness and loss of common meaning among many people. Jodi Dean also examines the case of Uber through the prism of Karl Marx's “Economic Manuscripts 1857–1859,” which exemplifies neo-feudal logic. Dean argues that the working class has been defeated and that the traditional sequence of stages of historical materialism (from slavery through feudalism to capitalism, and then to socialism and communism) is flawed. Finally, Dean identifies three key ideas for the struggle for communism. The first is climate. The second is the idea of universal basic services (UBS). Dean expresses his third idea for the struggle for communism as a call for revolution. The core tenets of neo-feudalism are delineated, followed by a synthesis of the extensive critiques leveled against the concept by the end of 2025. While acknowledging the theoretical limitations of neo-feudalism, the author contends that it remains a significant contribution to contemporary Marxist philosophy.
Keywords: Marxism; neofeudalism; technofeudalism; Jodi Dean; postcapitalism; digitalization; datafeudalism
Naumova Ekaterina
This article contends that surveillance capitalism constitutes a logical extension of the neoliberal political and economic project, achieved through technological rationalization while retaining its core ideological foundations. Within neoliberalism, a shift occurs from Foucault’s art of governing society to what Shoshana Zuboff terms art of surveillance – a transition signaling the advent of the Third Modernity and the rise of global digital civilization. A critical distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism lies in their respective approaches to state intervention: while liberalism delineates which economic domains may or may not be subject to intervention, neoliberalism focuses on optimizing the mechanisms of intervention. Under neoliberalism, economic intervention evolves into a governance strategy that compels society, culture, and law to operate according to corporate logic. The article analyzes surveillance capitalism as an outgrowth of neoliberalism, propelled by the presumed inevitability of technological progress – an ethos epitomized by Silicon Valley. It reconstructs the convergence between the neoliberal project and technological development, tracing its evolution from open-source principles and copyleft ethics (Richard Stallman) to the monopolization of programming languages (Bill Gates) and, ultimately, the commodification of behavioral surplus into “predictive products” (Google). In surveillance capitalism, the emancipatory ideal of a free internet gives way to an epistemic asymmetry, wherein corporations monopolize consumer knowledge and trade in behavioral futures markets. The contemporary geopolitical transformation further disrupts neoliberal capitalism, as civilizational conflicts increasingly defy economic rationality, eroding universalist frameworks and creating space for axiological alternatives – including at the level of virtual existence.
Keywords: liberalism; neoliberalism; surveillance capitalism; Shoshana Zuboff; Michel Foucault; digital civilization; Russian civilization; image of the future; multipolar Internet; virtual being; axiology of the digital world
Vakhitov Rustem
This article examines various conceptions of socialism – a post-capitalist societal model characterized by planned production and distribution in place of market mechanisms and private property. It evaluates the arguments employed within each theoretical framework to substantiate the inevitability of capitalism’s collapse and the subsequent transition to socialism. Focusing first on Marx and Engels, the author underscores their conception of socialism as the initial phase of communist society. The founders of Marxism tied capitalism’s demise to the evolution of large-scale industrial production, which generates contradictions between cooperative labor relations, planned production structures, and the persistence of private ownership and profit appropriation. Within this dialectical process, competition under capitalism fosters industrial consolidation and monopolization, ultimately reinforcing socialist tendencies. Marx and Engels posited that when the state becomes the sole capitalist, the proletariat will dismantle the system and establish socialism. In contrast, the idealist philosopher and Orthodox Neoplatonist Alexei Fedorovich Losev interpreted history not as progress but as regression. His use of the term “formations” referred not to economic structures but to mythological ones, where myth serves as the foundational worldview of a society, its generative model. Losev’s vision of socialism synthesizes elements of feudalism and capitalism, merging feudal authoritarianism with capitalist secularism. The resulting system absolutizes production, reducing all societal functions to labor and elevating the productive class to a quasi-sacred status. An alternative model of a propertyless, state-directed society emerges in Isaac Asimov’s Elijah Baley novel series, depicting a future Earth plagued by resource scarcity. Here, humanity is confined to vast urban enclaves, stratified into consumption-based classes, and wholly subjugated to state control. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that disparate socialist projects rest upon divergent metaphysical foundations.
Keywords: socialism; capitalism; state; planned distribution; handouts; Karl Marx; Friedrich Engels; Alexei Losev; Isaac Azimov; Olga Bessonova
