Suchergebnisse

The deep state has been haunting the minds of thinkers for centuries. In the article, the authors take an interdisciplinary approach to examining this phenomenon's historical path based on political philosophy, history, jurisprudence, and sociology.

In historical and legal retrospective, many issues in Russian law are just as relevant as its legacy transferred to the present. The problems of reception, legal adoption of the East-West geopolitical orientation, the ideological nature thatpermeates legal realities-for history of law, all of the above are not simply phenomena from specific eras of statehood, but characteristicfeatures of domestic legal reality from the distant past and to this day. In other words, it is a stable archetype inherent in a certain legal ethos, a type of legal relationship and legal consciousness formed in a specific space that has changed names and contours, but retained its main features, attributes, and identity.

The dual nature of the trend in the development of the state and law of the Soviet type can be traced in the events of the first decade of Soviet power: innovation was somehow integrated with periodically recurring traditions. However, in the realm of state and territorial structure, Soviet Russia can be considered the inventor of a completely new form of federalism, which was created on the basis of the union idea and came to the fore in the days of the new economic policy.

Technology intervenes in the sphere of state administration, introducing its own mechanisms to it and disseminating the appropriate order and automatism. The interdisciplinary approach to research allows us to imagine the processes of autonomization of the power machine in the context of intense events of the technological revolution of the 20th21st centuries. The authors initiate a scientific discussion on whether the actual essence of technology or a specific human creator is behind its demonization.

The aim of the study is to reveal the all-encompassing, all-pervasive impact of technology on the political-legal space over a technological revolution, exposing the total social control of the power machine. The complex methodological approach of the research allowed to present the processes of technology autonomization in conditions of intensive technological development in an interdisciplinary field. The institutions, principles and relations that form the subject matter of the study are examined within the framework of the historical-legal aspect, which involves a combination of comparative and formal legal analysis.

The authors of the article examine historical regularities in the evolution of power technologies in the context of non-positivistic philosophical ideas of the 20th century. These philosophical beliefs imply an intuitive understanding of power, deal with the formation of psychological mechanisms of the domination-subordination relations and describe their development. The authors pay special attention to magical and sacred aspects at the early stages of political development, as well as the subsequent formation of power structures and organization of administrative functions. At the present stage of social development, the digitalization of state and political activity is of great importance. The forming order of domination and subordination, as well as power relations, initially comprise magical elements allowing a person or a group of individuals to manipulate others' behavior. Modern digital technologies find their origins in centuries-long traditions either consciously or unconsciously. The need for managerial influence overcoming social chaos is objective. As a result, the state rationalizes the management of society, organizes its administrative functions and develops a more advanced technology ofpolitical power. However, people's dependence on technology is connected with decreasing interpersonal cooperation, growing individual dependence on power and other negative experiences. The modern humanities aim to determine regularities in the evolution of political power technologies and overcome the negative consequences of modern power technologization. ; El autor estudia las leyes históricas de la evolución de las tecnologías de poder en la tradición de las tendencias filosóficas no positivistas del siglo XX, que presuponen una comprensión intuitiva de la esencia del poder, prestan atención a la formación de mecanismos psicológicos de relaciones de poder y subordinación, la evolución de estas relaciones. Aquí son importantes los aspectos de lo mágico y lo sagrado en las primeras etapas del desarrollo político, la posterior formación de estructuras de poder y el diseño organizativo de las funciones administrativas. En la etapa actual del desarrollo de la sociedad, los procesos de digitalización del estado y la actividad política son fundamentales. El orden emergente de dominación y subordinación, las relaciones de poder son inherentemente inherentes a los elementos de la magia, permitiendo que uno o unos pocos manipulen el comportamiento de todos. Las tecnologías digitales modernas sacan consciente o inconscientemente su confianza en la tradición, perdida en el pasado distante. La necesidad de influencia gerencial para superar el caos social es objetiva. Posteriormente, el estado racionaliza la gestión de la sociedad, organiza funciones administrativas, crea una tecnología más avanzada de poder político. Pero la dependencia de la gente de la tecnología y la tecnología está acompañada por una disminución en la solidaridad interpersonal, un aumento en la dependencia de la persona del poder y experiencias negativas sobre esto. La tarea de las humanidades modernas se ve en la identificación de las leyes de la evolución de las tecnologías de poder político, en la superación de las consecuencias negativas de la moderna tecnologización del poder. ; Исследуются исторические закономерности эволюции властных технологий в традиции непозитивистских философских направлений ХХ в., которые предполагают интуитивное осмысление сущности власти, обращают внимание на формирование психологических механизмов отношений власти и подчинения, на эволюцию этих отношений. Здесь имеют значение аспекты магического и сакрального на ранних этапах политического развития, последующее формирование структур власти и организационное оформление управленческих функций. На современном этапе развития общества принципиальны процессы цифровизации государства и политической деятельности. Складывающемуся порядку господства и подчинения, властеотношениям изначально присущи элементы магического, позволяющие одному или немногим манипулировать поведением всех. Современные цифровые технологии сознательно или неосознанно черпают свою уверенность в традиции, теряющейся в далеком прошлом. Необходимость управленческого воздействия,преодолевающего социальный хаос, является объективной. Впоследствии государство рационализирует управление обществом, организационно оформляет управленческие функции, создает более совершенную технологию политической власти. Но зависимость людей от техники и технологии сопровождается уменьшением межличностной солидарности, увеличением зависимости человека от власти, негативными переживаниями по этому поводу. Задача современной гуманитарной науки видится в выявлении закономерностей эволюции технологий политической власти, в преодолении негативных последствий современной технологизации власти.

The authors of the article examine historical regularities in the evolution of power technologies in the context of non-positivistic philosophical ideas of the 20th century. These philosophical beliefs imply an intuitive understanding of power, deal with the formation of psychological mechanisms of the domination-subordination relations and describe their development. The authors pay special attention to magical and sacred aspects at the early stages of political development, as well as the subsequent formation of power structures and organization of administrative functions. At the present stage of social development, the digitalization of state and political activity is of great importance. The forming order of domination and subordination, as well as power relations, initially comprise magical elements allowing a person or a group of individuals to manipulate others' behavior. Modern digital technologies find their origins in centuries-long traditions either consciously or unconsciously. The need for managerial influence overcoming social chaos is objective. As a result, the state rationalizes the management of society, organizes its administrative functions and develops a more advanced technology of political power. However, people's dependence on technology is connected with decreasing interpersonal cooperation, growing individual dependence on power and other negative experiences. The modern humanities aim to determine regularities in the evolution of political power technologies and overcome the negative consequences of modern power technologization.

The article deals with the problems associated with the peculiarities of a single legal field development in the Russian state during the epoch of the early modern era (traditionally associated in Russian historiography with the times of a single centralized state formation and development and the emergence of autocracy as a kind of early absolutism). Using a number of provisions of modern concepts for the development of early modern states in Europe, the authors of the article put forward the thesis of a single legal field development in the Russian state during the period under consideration based on the analysis of Russian law monuments at the end of the XVth century (The Code of Law of Ivan III in 1497) and the 16th century (first of all, the code of law by Ivan IV, as well as a number of other legislative and legal acts) and judicial practice. In their opinion, this incompleteness was related with the following circumstances. First of all, the development of political and legal institutions in the early modern Russian state was of an evolutionary nature and, therefore, denied radical changes. Secondly, the poverty of the state caused the relative weakness and a slow development of "sinews of power" and,therefore, prevented the establishment of a more stringent administrative and legal control by the supreme power over the actions of local authorities. Finally, the weakness of the mentioned "sinews of power" conditioned the need of cooperation mode establishment between the supreme authority and local elites, while retaining the access to the exercise of power functions on the ground - also through the preservation of the old legal customs and traditions. Naturally, all this contributed to the preservation and the reproduction of the legal "antiquity" and, consequently, the incompleteness of legal centralization process and the formation of a single legal field throughout the country. The legal field, in the opinion of the authors of the article, had at least 2-level character all this time, the fragmented nature and the dispersion at the low-rank level. ; El artículo trata los problemas asociados con las peculiaridades de un desarrollo de campo legal único en el estado ruso durante la época moderna temprana (tradicionalmente asociado en la historiografía rusa con los tiempos de una formación y desarrollo estatal centralizado único y el surgimiento de la autocracia como una especie de absolutismo temprano). Usando una serie de disposiciones de conceptos modernos para el desarrollo de los estados modernos tempranos en Europa, los autores del artículo presentaron la tesis de un desarrollo de campo legal único en el estado ruso durante el período bajo consideración basado en el análisis de monumentos de derecho rusos a fines del siglo XV (El Código de Derecho de Iván III en 1497) y el siglo XVI (ante todo, el código de leyes de Iván IV, así como una serie de otros actos legislativos y jurídicos) y la práctica judicial . En su opinión, este estado incompleto estaba relacionado con las siguientes circunstancias. En primer lugar, el desarrollo de las instituciones políticas y legales en el estado ruso moderno temprano fue de naturaleza evolutiva y, por lo tanto, negó los cambios radicales. En segundo lugar, la pobreza del estado causó la debilidad relativa y un lentodesarrollo de "tendones de poder" y, por lo tanto, impidió el establecimiento de un control administrativo y legal más estricto por parte del poder supremo sobre las acciones de las autoridades locales. Finalmente, la debilidad de los mencionados "nervios de poder" condicionó la necesidad del establecimiento del modo de cooperación entre la autoridad suprema y las elites locales, mientras se mantiene el acceso al ejercicio de las funciones de poder sobre el terreno, también a través de la preservación de las viejas costumbres legales y tradiciones Naturalmente, todo esto contribuyó a la preservación y reproducción de la "antigüedad" legal y, en consecuencia, a la incompletitud del proceso de centralización legal y la formación de un solo campo legal en todo el país. El campo legal, en opinión de los autores del artículo, tenía al menos un carácter de dos niveles todo este tiempo, la naturaleza fragmentada y la dispersión en el nivel de bajo rango. ; O artigo trata os problemas associados com as peculiaridades de um curso de campo legal no estado ruso durante a época moderna temático (tradicionalmente associado à historiografia rusa com os tempos de uma formação e desenvolvimento estatal centralizado único e o surgimento da autocracia como una especie de absolutismo temprano). Using una serie de disposiciones de conceptos modernes para o desenvolvimento dos estados modernos templos na Europa, os autores do artigo apresentando a tese de um curso de campo legal no estado do ruso durante o período considerado de base na análise de pontos de vista ruses a fins del siglo XV (O código de direito de Iván III em 1497) e o século XVI (ante, o código de leyes de Iván IV, como uma série de atos legislativos e jurídicos) e a prática judicial. Em sua opinião, este estado incompleto está relacionado com as circunstâncias circunstanciadas. Em primeiro lugar, o desenvolvimento das instituições políticas e jurídicas no estado atual temprano naturalidade evolutiva e, por isso, os dois cambios radicais. Em segundo lugar, a pobreza do estado causou a debilidade relativa e um lento desenvolvimento de "tendões de poder" e, por que tanto, impiedoso o estabelecimento de um controle administrativo e jurídico mais estrito por parte do poder supremo sobre as ações das autoridades locales. Finalmente, a debilidad das perdas "nervos de poder" é a necessidade do estabelecimento do modo de cooperação entre a supremacia e as elites locais, mientras se mantém o acceso ao exercicio das funções de poder sobre o terreno, tambem a través de la preservación de las viejas costumbres legales y tradiciones Naturalmente, todo esto contribuído a la preservación y reproducción de la "antigüedad" legal y, en consecuencia, a incompletitud del proceso de centralización legal y la formación de un solo campo legal en todo el país . O campo legal, na opinião dos autores do artigo, com o menos um carácter dos niveles todo este tempo, a natureza fragmentada e a dispersão no nivel de bajo rango.

The article deals with the problems associated with the peculiarities of a single legal field development in the Russian state during the epoch of the early modern era (traditionally associated in Russian historiography with the times of a single centralized state formation and development and the emergence of autocracy as a kind of early absolutism). Using a number of provisions of modern concepts for the development of early modern states in Europe, the authors of the article put forward the thesis of a single legal field development in the Russian state during the period under consideration based on the analysis of Russian law monuments at the end of the XVth century (The Code of Law of Ivan III in 1497) and the 16th century (first of all, the code of law by Ivan IV, as well as a number of other legislative and legal acts) and judicial practice. In their opinion, this incompleteness was related with the following circumstances. First of all, the development of political and legal institutions in the early modern Russian state was of an evolutionary nature and, therefore, denied radical changes. Secondly, the poverty of the state caused the relative weakness and a slow development of "sinews of power" and, therefore, prevented the establishment of a more stringent administrative and legal control by the supreme power over the actions of local authorities. Finally, the weakness of the mentioned "sinews of power" conditioned the need of cooperation mode establishment between the supreme authority and local elites, while retaining the access to the exercise of power functions on the ground - also through the preservation of the old legal customs and traditions. Naturally, all this contributed to the preservation and the reproduction of the legal "antiquity" and, consequently, the incompleteness of legal centralization process and the formation of a single legal field throughout the country. The legal field, in the opinion of the authors of the article, had at least 2-level character all this time, the fragmented nature and the dispersion at the low-rank level.