Moscow University Bulletin. Series 12. Political Science. 2023. 3.

In modern political and theoretical discourse, the concept of a ‘ just society’ is usually perceived as a normative idea that expresses the notion of what society “should be”. Nowadays, social justice as a political slogan is becoming an increasingly universal requirement made by social movements, political parties and groups regarding the ways of social organization and its functions. Regardless of the different interpretations, it is inseparable from other related concepts, such as ‘equality’, ‘ freedom’ and many others. It also represents the projection of various concepts of justice on social relations in individual countries, regions, and, finally, throughout the world (‘global justice’ on the scale of all mankind). Comparative analysis of the A.M. Kovalev’s concept of a just society and the main trends in the interpretation of this idea in modern Western socio-political theory indicate that the methodology developed by an outstanding Russian scientist can rightfully be considered one of the most promising. Its distinguishing feature is the creative interpretation of a set of ideas about a just society, dating back to the early works of Marx. It is combined with the analysis of the ideas of the Western European Enlightenment, the philosophy of Kant, Hegel and Fichte, the evolution of the social philosophy of the Frankfurt School and other equally influential areas of modern political theory (R. Aron and others). An analysis of modern political theories shows that the dyad “ justice / state” constitutes the ontological core of the political and philosophical discourse, in the structure of which the ideas of Marxism play an important role. In the A.M. Kovalev’s theory of a just society, the various assessments of the heuristic potential of Marxism acquire additional incentives, opening the way to new creative discussions. The article is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of A.M. Kovalev.

The authors determine the features of the introduction of the concept of sustainable development into the socio-political discourse. The research methodology is based on the political analysis of various views of researchers concerning mechanisms and ways for implementing sustainable development. As a result of the study, the authors made conclusion that the implementation of the concept of sustainable development carry out non-linearly and requires a radical revision of relations with the natural system, finding new mutually beneficial models of cooperation between business, civil society and a state, increasing their environmental responsibility, developing innovations and overcoming the problem of the glass ceiling of environmental modernization. The reverse side of the introduction of the concept of sustainable development in the interests of the West and large financial alliances through the mechanism of creating debt of developing countries, putting them in a deliberately losing position and leading to economic stagnation, is analyzed. The authors present own vision of the transformation and implementation trends of this concept in the world. The present research can be used as a theoretical basis in the
development of effective mechanisms for the realization of the concept of sustainable development in the Russia.

One of the achievements of the reflectivist turn in international relations theory in the late 20th century was the attention given to the role of discourse and other ideational factors in international politics. In recent years, however, approaches critical of the discursive emphasis in international studies have emerged, seeking to restore the significance of non-discursive aspects of international relations such as geography, technology, and the non-human. This article offers a perspective on the development of international relations theory from the standpoint of the debate between materialism and idealism. Within this framework, it provides a brief overview of the historical evolution of international relations theory and subsequently delves into a detailed analysis of three strands of the new wave of materialist theorizing in the field — critical realism, new materialism, and neoclassical geopolitics. The article suggests considering the new materialist wave as, on the whole, a positive development, but also points out the necessity of taking into account the risk of “exiling” the human element from international relations research as such concepts proliferate. The possibility of collaboration between reflecivists and post-reflecivists, as well as between idealists and materialists in general, is underlined for the comprehensive study of contemporary international realities.

The change in the relationship between the state and science is clearly manifested at the present time (we are talking about a slowdown in the growth of funding and a change in its principles, precarious employment in science, the prevalence of technoscience, etc.). After presenting the most characteristic features, the article discusses what these changes are related to and how objective they are. Based on the analysis of statistical data and strategic documents of a number of states, the reasons for the ongoing transformation are revealed. It is emphasized that its risks have been presented in many futuristic concepts representing scenarios for the development of society (from the knowledge society to transhumanism), but have not received due attention. It is concluded that we are witnessing a transition from the classical model of the relationship between science and the state, which emerged during the scientific and technological revolution of the twentieth century, to a new model characterized primarily by the expansion of the number of stakeholders, the creation of new forms of innovative research organization, networking and internationalization of scientific research, new techniques for evaluating and stimulating scientific activity, expertise of scientific projects, including public.

This article presents the stages of politicization of Russian literature in the era of the Great Reforms. The first stage is the end of the reign of Nicholas I (1848–1855), the second is the period of preparation for the Great Reforms (1855–1861), the third is the period of the Great Reforms (1861–1866), the fourth is the period of the end of the Great Reforms (1866–1881). The first period can be characterized as the period of the emergence of political literature, as yet without a pronounced social ideal. Censorship increased during this period, but important features of the liberal ideal were articulated in the literature. The second period was characterized by the weakening of censorship, the emergence of a number of new newspapers and magazines. Then literary criticism begins to play an important social role and the maximum politicization of the literary process takes place. At the same time, a patriarchal social ideal was formulated in a number of works of art. The third period was distinguished by the fact that raznochintsy authors began to play an important role in literature. This led to the emergence of opposing parties of “nihilists” and “anti-nihilists”, as well as to the emergence of the phenomenon of the anti-nihilist novel. First half of 1860 became the time of the formation of a social ideal of raznochintsy. The fourth period can be characterized as a period of reflection on the results of the Great Reforms, as a time for writers to rethink their views and develop new ideas about the social ideal.

This article raises questions related to the political interpretation of A.I. Solzhenitsyn. It is demonstrated that Solzhenitsyn’s work in this aspect can be described as a political and philosophical legitimation of the project of “conservative modernity”. The main plot dominant in Solzhenitsyn’s reflections is the political and philosophical criticism of Western secularism and its political consequences. Secularism is described by Solzhenitsyn as a “perversion” of the Christian idea, in this respect Bolshevism and Western liberalism are equated with each other, embodying the radical features of the Western modernist project. The main question that worries Solzhenitsyn: how is modernity possible, in which the basic Christian principles and rules are preserved and developed? The solution to this issue is connected with the political implementation of this project — the construction of a conservative version of democracy, in which the observance of human rights and the construction of a rule of law state is based on Christian, not secular values.