Suchergebnisse

Актуальность темы исследования в настоящее время определяется тем фактом, что электронное пространство, по большей части, является повторением реальной политики, что свидетельствует о том, что интернет-технологии глубоко укоренились в политической жизни общества. Целью данной работы было выяснение особенностей информационных технологий (ИТ) и их места в современном политическом процессе на примере Казахстана. Доказано, что Интернет является жизненно важной частью любого общества, особенно демократического, где он выполняет функции социальных, экономических и политических институтов. В этой статье приводится обоснование важности информационных технологий в политической жизни общества. Особое внимание уделяется усилению их влияния при принятии важных политических решений. В данном исследовании также приведены примеры использования информационных технологий в современных политических процессах. Детальный анализ теоретических концепций, их интерпретация применительно к Казахстану, детальное изучение моделей медиаполитики открывает возможности и перспективы для новых научных исследований процессов трансформации и модернизации информационных технологий в политическом процессе.

The article is devoted to analysis of new Marxism as a key methodological
trends of political science research. Historical events of the last century and the
ensuing updated the creative legacy of Marx and contributed to its reconsideration,
which was the enrichment of political science, development of methodology in its area
schools and trends, developing ideas known German scientist.

The article is devoted to a very interesting methodological paradigm, which has
its own history and the high importance in a number of Social Sciences - Institutional,
which is influenced by social changes and needs in their understanding was further
developed in the form of appearance of new institutional paradigm, actively used in
modern political science knowledge.

The article attempts to provide a definition for the problem area of the philosophy of politics, political philosophy and political science. Given the lack of a well-established distinction between the subjects of these sciences in the Russian-language discourse, the author turns to the English-language tradition. The analysis of this discourse shows the following: 1) the absence of a distinction between political philosophy and the philosophy of politics, which is replaced by political ontology as part of political philosophy; 2) the existence of a distinction between political theory and political philosophy; 3) the dependence of the paradigm of the relationship between political theory and political philosophy on the consensus developed in the national intellectual tradition. In the English-language discourse, the question of the relationship between political science and political philosophy comes to the fore. The latter is considered as a subordinate, integral part of political science. It is shown that, based on the criterion of "insufficient scientificity", attempts to exclude political philosophy from the political science do not stop. The article substantiates the position according to which, despite their apparent similarity, the subjects of political science and political philosophy do not coincide – the disciplinary ontology of political science can become the subject of political philosophy. When discussing the relationship between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy, the article presents several hypotheses. First, a distinction is made between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy and the author argues that they are distinct. Secondly, the position, according to which the philosophy of politics belongs to the field of philosophy, and political philosophy to political science, is critically examined, and the fact that the two disciplines belong to the philosophical corpus of knowledge is substantiated. Thirdly, it is proposed to demarcate between the philosophy of politics and political philosophy in accordance with the difference between their subjects. The subject of philosophy of politics is the phenomenon of the political, while the subject of political philosophy is political phenomena.

The problem of trust in political institutions is currently relevant and is becoming the object of research in many scientific fields, including political science. The interest of foreign and Russian researchers is not only the understanding of this phenomenon at the theoretical level, but also its empirical analysis for solving practical problems. In addition to the problem of a conceptual explanation of the concept of "institutional trust", which has developed due to the theoretical diversity of interpretations of this phenomenon, scientists are faced with the need to choose the best way to collect and measure data (depending on the purpose of a particular study). In this paper, the author focuses on the problem of measuring institutional trust, highlights the key areas of institutional trust analysis, considers their advantages and disadvantages.

In this paper we consider the role of government as a state owner and
public relations manager, as well as we consider the contradictions that arise from
the interaction of these two roles between business and government.

The course of political science in higher education is often read, to a large extent, as a theoretical course and affects the study of issues and problems of the formation and development of political institutions, processes and technologies. The focus is usually on the history of politics, the state as the central institution of the political system, political parties, political consciousness, culture, political relations, etc. However, it is very important that, when studying a course in political science, listeners understand the current political processes taking place around them. Some of them are well established, democratic processes, such as the electoral process. Others are associated with the impact of modern innovation processes on the political sphere of society. And in this case, political science as a science once again demonstrates its value in an applied format. For a deep understanding of this kind of political processes, additional aggregated information is needed, knowledge that should differ in such characteristics as relevance, novelty, compliance with modern development. In the modern digital era, it is necessary to additionally acquire knowledge about the digital transformation of political institutions, processes and technologies, including types of state policy, the most important of which is social. And it's not just the digital economy. This, first of all, digitalization of public administration (State-web) — Big Date management, blockchain, etc., as well as digitalization of business — the emergence and development of digital enterprises, etc. It is obvious that the use of digital technologies will become possible for the development of predictive political science. This article is largely a translation of German publications by scientists dealing with the development of modern political science education in the countries of the European Union, in particular, in the Federal Republic of Germany. The focus is on the impact of digitalization on the teaching of theoretical and applied political science.

Russian scientific economic literature continues to discuss the problem of the modern evolution of political economy as a science and its return as an academic discipline in the number of mandatory university courses. In this regard, the article, firstly, examines the historical fate and the current state of Marxist political economy, emphasizes its fundamental difference from other economic theories. Secondly, — considerable attention is paid to neoclassical economic theory and an academic discipline called «economics». The historical circumstances of the emergence of this term are shown and the place of neoclassicism in the Western classification of economic sciences is characterized. Thirdly, — for a comprehensive analysis of the economy, it is proposed to use general economic theory as a combination (a special kind of aggregate) of all modern schools, directions and programs of economic theory, unified in the object, but differing in the subject and method of research. It is emphasized that the role of the basis and historically and logically the initial component of this theory is played by political economy.

The author believes that the governmental regulation of a society is one of the bases of conservatism. He thinks that the state exists in order to protect society and a person from forcible manifestations and free understanding of personal liberty, from non-state coercion and even violence, from manifestation of egoistical personal and corporate interests. Power of the state considerably increases when it relies on traditions of the past rather than the ideals of the future.

The conservatism as a political trend historically developed as force fastening a public organism. The author of this article believes that only conservatism possesses the real stabilizing resources capable to consolidate society of modern Russia. The author also recognizes that nowadays government and public institutes make certain efforts for overcoming certain social diseases.

The continuity and progressiveness of the state and social development define fundamentals of ontology of conservatism as the world outlook and a political trend. The Russian State is still at the stage of transition period. The formation of strong democratic institutes has not yet been completed. One of the main problems is the need for public consolidation. Now only the conservatism has sufficient resources and opportunities for the solution of this problem.