The article is devoted to the issue, which has not been actually studied in bibliology and culture studies − the origin and formation of noniction books and periodicals as an independent genre in Russia. Indeed, today, when the circulation of popular science periodicals dropped by several orders of magnitude compared with the end of the 1980s, it seems highly improbable that in Russia, destroyed by the First World War and the Civil War, that popular scientiic literature amounted more than a third (36 %) of total books production. Even political literature noticeably lagged behind this igure. Based on rich archival, bibliographic and statistical material of the second half of the XVIII − beginning of the XXI century, found in the inaccessible primary sources, many of which have become a rarity, the author makes an attempt to reconstruct the social mechanisms of formation of the popular science genre. It is shown that one can not speak about the popular science genre as a once and for all formed phenomenon. The complexity of a clear deinition of the genre of scientiic popularization is explained by the fact that this genre is essentially historical. The author suggests using a model of the historical dynamics of the popular science genre he has developed – "Popular Science" / "Industrial Education" / "Entertaining Science" / "Nauchpop" (Popular Science 2.0) – in the analysis of the evolution of forms of popularization of science in Russia. It is shown that in our country the development of scientiic popularization began approximately a century later than in the West, having bypassed the Popular Science stage. In fact, this stage was combined with the stage of the "Industrial Education". It is important to keep in mind, at least in order to adequately deine the subject in the course of today's multiple discussions about the place and role of science popularization in society.
The article analyzes the phenomenon of ownership in its legal, economic, political and philosophical perspectives. Ownership is considered as an opportunity and as a guarantee of sustainable development. Comparative context is used to identify the specificity of the bourgeois model of owners' power (social state) and the domestic concept of power-ownership (including socialist state). The author draws conclusions about ways to overcome the competition between the state and the market for the human resource and proposes to explore the ideological provision of power-ownership in order to appreciate its progressive potential and predilection in relation to the liberal model of social development
The article, which is addressed to a wide range of readers, but first of all to University teachers, graduate students and students, outlines a wide range of views on the institution of the state of social scientists of different times and peoples: from ancient thinkers to modern authorities. Discussion of the latest trends in the development of this Institute in the late twentieth and first decades of the XXI century is the subject of the author's research. The article analyzes the futurist ideas about the state related to forecasts of the progress of information technologies, as well as ideas about the dynamics of relations between state power and society. Special sections of the article are devoted to: the evolutionary concept of the state; the challenges that States face in the context of the next technological (fourth industrial) revolution; the discourse on the discrepancy between formal and real citizenship as the reverse side of the extraterritoriality of the state.
Актуальность работы обусловлена возникшей необходимостью исследования социальной ответственности как важного условия осуществления властного процесса. Изучение содержания социальной ответственности власти актуализируется ростом позитивных и негативных последствий, эффективностью политического процесса, устойчивостью структур социального бытия, определяемых ориентацией или неориентацией властных субъектов на социальную ответственность. Анализ обретает значимость в контексте изменения степени внимания к актуальности ответственности как императива властного процесса, нацеленного на формирование устойчивого социального бытия, построение стабильного совместного будущего для общества. В этой связи актуальным становится исследование содержания социальной ответственности власти, которое может быть отличным в различных политических средах. Возникает потребность в определении механизмов формирования медиума социальной ответственности, его содержания. Цель: выявить механизмы формирования и реализации социальной ответственности власти, исходя из ее определения как презентационного медиума властных «сообщений». Теоретико- методологическую базу работы составляет ряд дополняющих друг друга исследовательских подходов, связанных с представлением о том, что содержание социальной ответственности власти неразрывно связано с властным процессом. В основе работы лежат системный и философский анализы, эвристический потенциал которых позволяет исследовать структуру социальной ответственности власти, определить условия, влияющие на формирование содержания социальной ответственности. Результаты. Выявлены механизмы формирования и реализации социальной ответственности власти, анализ которых позволит исследовать содержание социальной ответственности власти в различных политических средах. ; The relevance of the paper is caused by the need to study social responsibility as an important condition for the power process. The study of the content of the authorities social responsibility is actualized by the growth of positive and negative consequences, the effectiveness of political process, stability of social life structures, determined by the orientation or non-orientation of the authorities to social responsibility. The analysis takes on significance in the context of changing the level of attention to the relevance of responsibility as an imperative of the power process aimed at building a stable social life, a stable joint future for society. In this regard, it is important to study the content of social responsibility of power, which can be different in different political environments. There is a need to define mechanisms for formation of a medium of social responsibility, its content. The aim of the work is to determine the mechanisms for formation and implementation of social responsibility of the authorities, based on its definition as a presentation medium of powerful communications. The theoretical and methodological basis of the work consists of a number of complementary research approaches related to the notion that the content of social responsibility of power is inextricably linked with the power process. The work is based on systematic and philosophical analysis, the heuristic potential of which allows us to examine the structure of social responsibility of the authorities, determine the conditions that affect the formation of the content of social responsibility. The results. Mechanisms for formation and implementation of social responsibility of the authorities were identified. The analysis of the methods will allow examining the content of social responsibility of the authorities in various political environments.
In information society, the information delivered by mass media and becoming the most effective weapon in "information wars" plays a huge role in the formation of public consciousness, the dominating ideological principles and motives of social actions. In the last decades, the strategy of "soft power", which different states treat in different ways, has become more relevant. Russia implements the policy of "soft power" as using the opportunities of civil society, informational and communicational, humanitarian and other methods and techniques, in addition to traditional diplomatic methods, which is defined by the Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation. There is another practical application of the policy of "soft power" that includes informational "brainwashing" and manipulation of consciousness and is directed at destabilization of political regimes. It acts as a technological resource of the USA, which has developed and field-tested the strategy of nonviolent change of political regimes. The author critically comprehends the techniques of "soft power" and "nonviolent resistance", analyzes ways of protection against destructive informational and psychological influence, define the backbone spheres in the course of any state counteracting a similar strategy. ; В информационном обществе огромную роль в формировании общественного сознания, доминирующих идеологических принципов, мотивов социальных действий играет информация, представляемая массмедиа и становящаяся наиболее эффективным оружием в «информационных войнах». В последние десятилетия более актуальной стала стратегия «мягкой силы», которая различными государствами трактуется различным образом. Россия реализует политику «мягкой силы» как использующую возможности гражданского общества, информационно-коммуникационных, гуманитарных и других методов и технологий, в дополнение к традиционным дипломатическим методам, что определяет Концепция внешней политики России. Есть и другое практическое применение политики «мягкой силы», которое включает информационную «обработку» и манипулирование сознанием, направлено на дестабилизацию политических режимов и выступает технологическим ресурсом США. Штаты выработали и апробировали таким образом стратегию ненасильственной смены политических режимов. Автор критически осмысливает технологии «мягкой силы» и «ненасильственного сопротивления», анализирует способы защиты от деструктивного информационного и психологического воздействия, определяет те сферы, которые являются системообразующими в процессе противодействия любого государства подобным стратегиям.
The paper presents the results of a research project "Global study of the politicization of social networks." According to the author, undermining the citizens' trust in democratic institutions such as the parliament and political parties in various states leads not only to visible consequences – political absenteeism and social escapism, but also provokes a deeper process of the rapid politicization of Internet social networks. A content analysis of political discourse has been selected as the academic metho dology. The project has shown that in countries of various regions – from Europe to Latin America – there are pro-government, opposition, and moderately radical network communities. It is concluded that the politicization of modern networks is more conducive to the archaization and radicalization of social relations than strengthening the legitimacy of democratic regimes and constructive dialogue with the government of society. The most politicized social networks are Facebook and Twitter. ; В работе публикуются итоги научного проекта – «Глобально- го исследования политизации социальных сетей». По мнению автора, подрыв доверия граждан различных государств к таким демократическим институтамкак партии и парламент приводит не только к видимым последствиям – политическому абсентеизму и общественному эскапизму, но и провоцирует более глубокий процесс стремительной политизации сообществ социальных сетей Интернета. В качестве научной методологии был избран контент-анализ политического дискурса. Проект показал, что в странах различных регионов – от Европы до Латинской Америки – существуют провластные, умеренно оппозиционные и радикальные сетевые сообщества. Сделан вывод, что политизация современных сетей пока больше способствует архаизации и радикализации социальных отношений, чем упрочнению легитимности демократических режимов и конструктивному диалогу общества с властью. Наиболее политизированными социальными сетями оказались Facebook и Twitter. ; The paper presents the results of a research project "Global study of the politicization of social networks." According to the author, undermining the citizens' trust in democratic institutions such as the parliament and political parties in various states leads not only to visible consequences – political absenteeism and social escapism, but also provokes a deeper process of the rapid politicization of Internet social networks. A content analysis of political discourse has been selected as the academic metho dology. The project has shown that in countries of various regions – from Europe to Latin America – there are pro-government, opposition, and moderately radical network communities. It is concluded that the politicization of modern networks is more conducive to the archaization and radicalization of social relations than strengthening the legitimacy of democratic regimes and constructive dialogue with the government of society. The most politicized social networks are Facebook and Twitter.
В работе публикуются итоги научного проекта – «Глобального исследования политизации социальных сетей». По мнению автора, подрыв доверия граждан различных государств к таким демократическим институтам как партии и парламент приводит не только к видимым последствиям – полиическому абсентеизму и общественному эскапизму, но и провоцирует более глубокий процесс стремительной политизации сообществ социальных сетей Интернета. В качестве научной методологии был избран контент-анализ полиического дискурса. Проект показал, что в странах различных регионов – от Европы до Латинской Америки – существуют провластные, умеренно оппозиционные и радикальные сетевые сообщества. Сделан вывод, что политизация современных сетей пока больше способствует архаизации и радикализации социальных отношений, чем упрочнению легитимности демократических режимов и конструктивному диалогу общества с властью. Наиболее политизироваными социальными сетями оказались Facebook и Twitter. ; The paper presents the results of a research project "Global study of the politicization of social networks." According to the author, undermining the citizens' trust in democratic institutions such as the parliament and political parties in various states leads not only to visible consequences – political absenteeism and social escapism, but also provokes a deeper process of the rapid politicization of Internet social networks. A content analysis of political discourse has been selected as the academic methodology. The project has shown that in countries of various regions – from Europe to Latin America – there are pro-government, opposition, and moderately radical network communities. It is concluded that the politicization of modern networks is more conducive to the archaization and radicalization of social relations than strengthening the legitimacy of democratic regimes and constructive dialogue with the government of society. The most politicized social networks are Facebook and Twitter.
In the revolutionary year 1905, Odessa became an area of violence in the tension of social, religious and cultural upheaval. In this year there were strikes, escalations of revolutional mood, a fire in the port after the arrival of the battleship «Knjaz´ Potemkin-Tavričeskij» («Potemkin») in the night of June 14-15. Arrival of the rebellious battleship was a significant event not only for the city of Odessa and the Russian revolution, but also for the history of the fate of Jews of the early 20th century. This was the first armed insurrection in the course of the revolution, which moved Odessa and its social, geographical and semiotic city spaces. The «Potemkin days» entered the history of the city of Odessa mainly through the periodicals of that time but also through the Russian-Jewish literature such as Lazar Karmen's story «Potemkin Days» (1907), Korney Chukovsky's essay «1905, June» (1958) and Vladimir Jabotinsky's novel «The Five» (1936). These works depict not only the resulting collective violence but also its semiotic and social spaces in the city. Up until now, this field has not been investigated in any historical, cultural or literary research. The focus of this paper is to analyse geographical, social and symbolic city spaces in Odessa with the help of the space theories by Jury Lotman and Michel de Certeau. Both scholars work with the definitions of the city, the place and the space, which are significant for the selected literate works about Odessa in 1905. The analysis will show not only the ambivalence, mobility and variability of city spaces, but also the narrators expectations and thus the fate of Jews in Odessa and the perspectives in the historical processes for them — assimilation or emigration.
Twenty years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Up until the point of dissolution, the Soviet authorities and intellectual elite had attempted to build a community in order to unite all Soviet citizens in the spirit of socialist modernisation. Although it is difficult to demonstrate that 'a Soviet nation' was successfully created [1], the attempt to build such a nation can serve as a case study through which to examine nation-building processes for constructivists as well as modernists . In addition to socialist modernisation, the Soviet nation aimed to be identified as a state, which would make it similar to the political nations dominant in western countries. Contrary to western tradition, however, it was not a nation state that provided full rights for all its citizens, but rather a socialist state that was 'ruled by workers and peasantry'. Nevertheless, the authorities aimed to give the Soviet nation the characteristics of a specific nation state. "It was a nation that in historical terms strived, or more accurately part of which strived, to form or proclaim a particular state" [2]. While at the time of proclaiming the USSR there was no such thing as the Soviet nation, it can be assumed that it was intended to become a constructed titular nation. The majority of national communities, even created ones, have an ethnic core. However academics cannot agree on the kind of state the USSR was, to what extent it took into account the ethnicity of its multinational population, how much it reflected the values, culture, and interests of its largest population group (i.e., the Russians) or even whether it was a Russian national state despite the strong influence of Russian ideology and politics. Some Russian academics, especially those in nationalistic circles (e.g., Valerij Solovej) as well as western scholars such as Terry Martin and Geoffrey Hosking stressed that Russians dominated demographically and politically. However, the USSR did not aim to nurture traditional Russian values. It rather fostered the deethnicisation of Russians and the ethnicisation of non-Russian. Another group of scientists, including those from post-Soviet states (e.g., Žambyl Artykbaev, Otar Džanelidze, and Georgij Siamašvili) as well as western scholars (e.g., Rogers Brubaker) concede that positive processes such as the allotment of territory to republics and other territorial units, the constitution of authority and administrative apparatus, and the formation of the elites once characterised the ethnic history of the USSR. All these processes, however, were dominated by a lack of sovereignty, a loss of national identity, and damage to the living environment. Georgia rather than the USSR has always been regarded by the Georgian people as their mother country. The Soviet Union, which was considered to be a voluntary union of equal republics, was in fact an artificial creation that non-Russian nations were forced to join. The majority of Georgians did not therefore claim the USSR as their homeland: 'The USSR was for its nations a socio-political state not a homeland' [3]. Non-Russian citizens in the Soviet Union perceived the Russians to be a state-building 'nation' and the USSR a Russian state. The Soviet authorities, who predicated internationalism on the Russian language and new Russian culture, actively combated ethnic nationalism (including Russian nationalism, which was associated with chauvinism and a tsarist legacy). Although Russkost was considered to be a remnant of a disgraceful past, it was nonetheless used as a tool to sovietise society. Indeed, Russian language and culture were both conducive to the assimilation of non-Russians. 'The Great Russian nation' was to be 'the first among equals' and thus Russia provided. Soviet state with certain features of ethnicity. However, Russian characteristics were never treated as instrumental to the USSR, because the aim was to form a new socialist, national community, that was beyond ethnicity, rather than to convert the citizens of the former USSR into Russians. Soviet ideology and science thus set the direction for nationality policy in the USSR, especially in terms of forming a Soviet nation. Based on the foregoing, the present paper identifies how the ethnic character of both the Soviet nation and the state. ; Twenty years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Up until the point of dissolution, the Soviet authorities and intellectual elite had attempted to build a community in order to unite all Soviet citizens in the spirit of socialist modernisation. Although it is difficult to demonstrate that 'a Soviet nation' was successfully created [1], the attempt to build such a nation can serve as a case study through which to examine nation-building processes for constructivists as well as modernists . In addition to socialist modernisation, the Soviet nation aimed to be identified as a state, which would make it similar to the political nations dominant in western countries. Contrary to western tradition, however, it was not a nation state that provided full rights for all its citizens, but rather a socialist state that was 'ruled by workers and peasantry'. Nevertheless, the authorities aimed to give the Soviet nation the characteristics of a specific nation state. "It was a nation that in historical terms strived, or more accurately part of which strived, to form or proclaim a particular state" [2]. While at the time of proclaiming the USSR there was no such thing as the Soviet nation, it can be assumed that it was intended to become a constructed titular nation. The majority of national communities, even created ones, have an ethnic core. However academics cannot agree on the kind of state the USSR was, to what extent it took into account the ethnicity of its multinational population, how much it reflected the values, culture, and interests of its largest population group (i.e., the Russians) or even whether it was a Russian national state despite the strong influence of Russian ideology and politics. Some Russian academics, especially those in nationalistic circles (e.g., Valerij Solovej) as well as western scholars such as Terry Martin and Geoffrey Hosking stressed that Russians dominated demographically and politically. However, the USSR did not aim to nurture traditional Russian values. It rather fostered the deethnicisation of Russians and the ethnicisation of non-Russian. Another group of scientists, including those from post-Soviet states (e.g., Žambyl Artykbaev, Otar Džanelidze, and Georgij Siamašvili) as well as western scholars (e.g., Rogers Brubaker) concede that positive processes such as the allotment of territory to republics and other territorial units, the constitution of authority and administrative apparatus, and the formation of the elites once characterised the ethnic history of the USSR. All these processes, however, were dominated by a lack of sovereignty, a loss of national identity, and damage to the living environment. Georgia rather than the USSR has always been regarded by the Georgian people as their mother country. The Soviet Union, which was considered to be a voluntary union of equal republics, was in fact an artificial creation that non-Russian nations were forced to join. The majority of Georgians did not therefore claim the USSR as their homeland: 'The USSR was for its nations a socio-political state not a homeland' [3]. Non-Russian citizens in the Soviet Union perceived the Russians to be a state-building 'nation' and the USSR a Russian state. The Soviet authorities, who predicated internationalism on the Russian language and new Russian culture, actively combated ethnic nationalism (including Russian nationalism, which was associated with chauvinism and a tsarist legacy). Although Russkost was considered to be a remnant of a disgraceful past, it was nonetheless used as a tool to sovietise society. Indeed, Russian language and culture were both conducive to the assimilation of non-Russians. 'The Great Russian nation' was to be 'the first among equals' and thus Russia provided. Soviet state with certain features of ethnicity. However, Russian characteristics were never treated as instrumental to the USSR, because the aim was to form a new socialist, national community, that was beyond ethnicity, rather than to convert the citizens of the former USSR into Russians. Soviet ideology and science thus set the direction for nationality policy in the USSR, especially in terms of forming a Soviet nation. Based on the foregoing, the present paper identifies how the ethnic character of both the Soviet nation and the state.
In the article discussion of French philosopher Michel Foucault on the relationship between power, creative work and concept of discourse is examined. Creative work is considered in wide sense as creation of objects, ideas, meanings and includes artistic work, science, philosophy, creation of social and political institutes. ; В статье рассматриваются рассуждения французского философа Мишеля Фуко о взаимоотношениях между властью, творческой деятельностью и понятием дискурса. Творчество понимается в широком смысле как продуцирование объектов, идей, смыслов и включает в себя художественное творчество, науку, философию, созидание социально-политических институтов.POWER, CREATIVE WORK AND DISCOURSE IN THE CONCEPT OF MICHEL FOUCAULTIn the article discussion of French philosopher Michel Foucault on the relationship between power, creative work and concept of discourse is examined. Creative work is considered in wide sense as creation of objects, ideas, meanings and includes artistic work, science, philosophy, creation of social and political institutes.Keywords: power, creative work, discourse, discursive practice, western culture, artistic work, science.
The article discusses the features of teaching municipal law at the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. This was in uenced by various factors, the central place among which is the dynamics of ideas about the essence of local self-government. The issues of teaching municipal law at Moscow University are traditionally included in the range of tasks of the department related to the organization of state power - the department of state law, Soviet construction, now - the department of constitutional and municipal law. The teachers of the department have made and continue to make to the formation of local self-government and Russian statehood. Devoting their work to the problems of the organization and activities of local authorities, the teachers of the department, on the one hand, maintained the continuity of scienti c views, strengthening the traditions of the national state-law school, and on the other hand, they created the foundation for future statelegal (constitutionallegal) transformations, sensitively responding to the requirements of the time, and sometimes ahead of them. Special attention is drawn to the fact that the issues of teaching municipal law at Moscow University are traditionally included in the range of tasks of the department related to the organization of state power - the department of state law and Soviet construction, now - the department of constitutional and municipal law. The paper points to the contribution that the teachers of the department have made and continue to make to the formation of local self-government and Russian statehood as a whole.
Review of the books: Makarenko, V.P. Sobr. soch.: v 3-kh t. [Coll. cit .: in 3 volumes]. Rostov-on-Don; Taganrog: Southern Federal University Publishing House, 2019. This is the review of the three-volume book by V.P. Makarenko, the author of over 500 works, Doctor of Philosophy and Political Sciences, Professor, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federa-tion, Academician of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine, Chief Researcher, Head of the Center for Political Conceptology of the Institute of Philosophy, Social and Political Sciences of the Southern Federal university. This is the work of a person who devoted his life to the study of socio-political processes taking place before his eyes, which required understanding from the point of view of time, history, and civilization. This collection comprises essays written from 1980s to 2010s. The author included them to illus-trate his cross-cutting idea of the relationship between power, bureaucracy and society. The au-thor's successes and failures are also noted. V.P. Makarenko understands bureaucracy as a 'trans-formed form of expression of universal interests', a social organism-parasite throughout its his-torical existence, reflection of social contradictions and conflicts, materialization of political and managerial alienation. The methodological thought of Makarenko is devoted to the explanation of this phenomenon, whose task is to develop his own concept and destroy long-term myths about bureaucracy as an example of 'rational management of society'. Makarenko proceeds from the difference between name and description and on this basis de-scribes bureaucratic ontology, epistemology and axiology. V.P. Makarenko's concept of bureau-cracy can be understood as a version of a theory that can fall under the status of error (according to K. Popper's theory). It implies the transformation of the common good as an ideal idea into an embodied common evil, a particular case of which is civilization and any power. The errors of various theories of state structures, relations and power are also described. The bureaucratic state created by Lenin and Stalin is a formally developed system of total lies, the consequences and incarnations of which still exist in Russia. ; Рецензия на книги: Макаренко В.П. Собр. соч.: в 3-х т. Ростов-на-Дону; Таганрог: Издательство Южного федерального университета, 2019. Рассматривается трехтомник В.П.Макаренко – автора свыше 500 оригинальных трудов, доктора философских и политических наук, профессора, заслуженного деятеля науки РФ, академика Академии педагогических наук Украины, главного научного сотрудника, руководителя Центра политической концептологии Института философии и социально-политических наук Южного федерального университета. Это – произведение человека, посвятившего жизнь исследованию социально-политических процессов, происходящих на его глазах, которые требовали осмысления с точек зрения времени, истории, цивилизации. Собрание сочинений состоит из работ 1980-2010-х годов, которые автор включил в собрание для иллюстрации его сквозной идеи соотношения власти, бюрократии и общества. Отмечаются удачи и просчеты автора. В.П.Макаренко понимает бюрократию как «превращенную форму выражения всеобщих интересов», социальный организм паразит на всем протяжении его исторического существования, отражение социальных противоречий и конфликтов, материализацию политико-управленческого отчуждения. Разъяснению этого феномена посвящена методологическая мысль Макаренко, задача которого состоит в разработке собственной концепции и раз рушении долговременных мифов о бюрократии как образце «рационального управления обществом». Макаренко исходит из различия между именем и дескрипцией и на этом основании описывает бюрократическую онтологию, гносеологию и аксиологию. Концепцию бюрократии В.П.Макаренко можно понимать как вариант теории, которая может попасть под статус ошибки (по теории К. Поппера). Речь идет о преобразовании общего блага как идеального представления в воплощенное всеобщее зло, частным случаем которого являются цивилизация и любая власть. Описаны ошибки различных теорий государственных структур, отношений, власти. Созданное Лениным и Сталиным бюрократическое государство есть формально разработанная система тотальной лжи, следствия и воплощения которой существуют в России до сих пор.
В статье предпринята попытка выявить и проанализировать историю происхождения, системные характеристики, предназначение, политические и предметные составляющие идеи «мягкой/умной силы» в современном геополитическом дискурсе. Главное внимание концентрируется на обосновании тезиса, согласно которому один из главных авторов этой идеи известный американский политолог и государственный деятель Дж. Най-мл. дал собственное название политико-культурному феномену, который использовался власть имущими в течение всей писаной истории. Показано, что при всех претензиях на объективность, идея выдержана в духе известных конструкций западного триумфализма и победы во всемирном масштабе западного либерализма. По сути дела, за ее основу взята идея культурной гегемонии как предварительное условие для завоевания власти, выдвинутая идеологом итальянских коммунистов в 30-х годах прошлого века. Рассматривая ценности политической демократии, прав и свобод человека, как системных и структурных составляющих «мягкой/умной силы», ее авторы подспудно проводят мысль об их использовании для завоевания американской гегемонии в культурной сфере как одного из возможных направления сохранения политической гегемонии США в современном мире.
