Political system, its structure and functions. Political power The ability to realize the intended goals to reconcile conflicting

30.10.2020

Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus

educational institution

"Vitebsk State Technological University"

Department of Philosophy

Test

Political power

Completed:

Stud. gr. for A-13 IV course

Kudryavtsev D.V.

Checked:

Art. pr. Grishanov V.A.

Sources and resources of political power

Problems of legitimate power

Literature

1. The essence of political power, its objects, subjects and functions

Power is the ability and ability of a subject to exercise his will, to exert a decisive influence on the activity, behavior of another subject with the help of any means. In other words, power is a volitional relationship between two subjects, in which one of them - the subject of power - makes certain demands on the behavior of the other, and the other - in this case it will be a subject or object of power - obeys the orders of the first.

Power as a relationship between two subjects is the result of actions that produce both sides of this relationship: one - encourages a certain action, the other - carries it out. Any power relationship assumes as an indispensable condition for the expression in some form by the ruling (dominant) subject of his will, addressed to the one over whom he exercises power.

The external expression of the will of the dominant subject can be a law, decree, order, order, directive, prescription, instruction, rule, prohibition, instruction, requirement, wish, etc.

Only after the subject under control understands the content of the demand addressed to him, can we expect him to take any response. However, even at the same time, the one to whom the demand is addressed can always answer it with a refusal. An authoritative attitude also implies the existence of a reason that induces the object of power to carry out the command of the dominant subject. In the above definition of power, this reason is designated by the concept of "means". Only if it is possible for the dominant subject to use the means of subordination, the power relation can become a reality. The means of subordination or, in more common terminology, the means of influence (imperious influence) are those socially significant physical, material, social, psychological and moral factors for the subjects of public relations that the subject of power can use to subordinate to his will the activities of the subject subject (object of power) . Depending on the means of influence used by the subject, power relations can take at least the form of force, coercion, inducement, persuasion, manipulation or authority.

Power in the form of strength means the ability of the subject to achieve the desired result in relations with the subject, either by directly influencing his body and psyche, or by limiting his actions. In coercion, the source of obedience to the command of the dominant subject lies in the threat of negative sanctions if the subject refuses to obey. Motivation as a means of influence is based on the ability of the subject of power to provide the subject with those benefits (values and services) in which he is interested. In persuasion, the source of power influence lies in the arguments that the subject of power uses to subdue his will to the activities of the subject. Manipulation as a means of submission is based on the ability of the subject of power to exercise a hidden influence on the behavior of the subject. The source of subordination in a power relationship in the form of authority is a certain set of characteristics of the subject of power, which the subject cannot but reckon with and therefore he obeys the requirements presented to him.

Power is an indispensable side of human communication; it is due to the need to submit to the unified will of all participants in any community of people in order to ensure its integrity and stability. Power is universal in nature, it permeates all types of human interaction, all spheres of society. A scientific approach to the analysis of the phenomenon of power requires taking into account the multiplicity of its manifestations and clarifying the specific features of its individual types - economic, social, political, spiritual, military, family and others. The most important type of power is political power.

The central problem of politics and political science is power. The concept of "power" is one of the fundamental categories of political science. It provides the key to understanding the whole life of society. Sociologists talk about social power, lawyers - about state power, psychologists - about power over oneself, parents - about family power.

Power has historically emerged as one of the vital functions of human society, ensuring the survival of the human community in the face of a possible external threat and creating guarantees for the existence of individuals within this community. The natural nature of power is manifested in the fact that it arises as a society's need for self-regulation, for maintaining integrity and stability in the presence of different, sometimes opposing interests of people.

Naturally, the historical nature of power is also manifested in its continuity. Power never disappears, it can be inherited, taken away by other interested persons, it can be radically transformed. But any group or individual coming to power cannot but reckon with the overthrown government, with the traditions, consciousness, culture of power relations accumulated in the country. Continuity is also manifested in the active borrowing by countries from each other of the universal experience in the implementation of power relations.

It is clear that power arises under certain conditions. The Polish sociologist Jerzy Wyatr believes that for the existence of power, at least two partners are needed, and these partners can be both individuals and groups of individuals. The condition for the emergence of power must also be the subordination of the one over whom power is exercised to the one who exercises it in accordance with social norms that establish the right to give orders and the duty to obey.

Consequently, power relations are a necessary and indispensable mechanism for regulating the life of society, ensuring and maintaining its unity. This confirms the objective nature of power in human society.

The German sociologist Max Weber defines power as the ability of an actor to realize his own will, even in spite of the resistance of other participants in the action and regardless of what this possibility is based on.

Power is a complex phenomenon that includes various structural elements located in a certain hierarchy (from the highest to the lowest) and interacting with each other. The system of power can be represented as a pyramid, the top of which is those who exercise power, and the bottom - those who obey it.

Power is an expression of the will of society, a class, a group of people and an individual. This confirms the conditionality of power by the relevant interests.

An analysis of political science theories shows that in modern political science there is no single generally accepted understanding of the essence and definition of power. This, however, does not exclude similarities in their interpretation.

In this regard, several concepts of power can be distinguished.

An approach to the consideration of power, which studies political processes in conjunction with social processes and psychological motives of people's behavior, underlies behavioral (behavioral concepts of power. The basics of behavioral analysis of politics are set out in the work of the founder of this school, American researcher John B. Watson "Human nature in politics ". The phenomena of political life are explained by him by the natural properties of a person, his life behavior. Human behavior, including political, is a response to the actions of the environment. Therefore, power is a special type of behavior based on the possibility of changing the behavior of other people.

The relational (role) concept understands power as an interpersonal relationship between the subject and the object of power, assuming the possibility of volitional influence of some individuals and groups on others. This is how the American political scientist Hans Morgenthau and the German sociologist M. Weber define power. In modern Western political literature, the definition of power by G. Morgenthau is widespread, interpreted as the exercise by a person of control over the consciousness and actions of other people. Other representatives of this concept define power as the ability to exercise one's will either through fear, or through the refusal of someone in reward or in the form of punishment. The last two methods of influence (refusal and punishment) are negative sanctions.

The French sociologist Raymond Aron rejects almost all definitions of power known to him, considering them formalized and abstract, not taking into account psychological aspects, not clarifying the exact meaning of such terms as "strength", "power". Because of this, according to R. Aron, an ambiguous understanding of power arises.

Power as a political concept means relationships between people. Here R. Aron agrees with the relationists. At the same time, Aron argues, power denotes hidden opportunities, abilities, forces that manifest themselves under certain circumstances. Therefore, power is the potency owned by a person or group to establish relationships with other people or groups that agree with their desires.

Within the framework of the system concept, the authorities ensure the vital activity of society as a system, instructing each subject to fulfill the obligations imposed on him by the goals of society, and mobilize resources to achieve the goals of the system. (T. Parsons, M. Crozier, T. Clark).

American political scientist Hannah Arendt notes that power is not the answer to the question of who controls whom. Power, X. Arendt believes, is in full accordance with the human ability not only to act, but to act together. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to study the system of social institutions, those communications through which power is manifested and materialized. This is the essence of the communication (structural and functional) concept of power.

The definition of power given by American sociologists Harold D. Lasswell and A. Kaplan in their book "Power and Society" is as follows: power is participation or the ability to participate in decision-making that regulates the distribution of benefits in conflict situations. This is one of the fundamental provisions of the conflict concept of power.

Close to this concept is the teleological concept, the main position of which was formulated by the English liberal professor, the famous fighter for peace Bertrand Russell: power can be a means to achieve certain goals.

What all concepts have in common is that power relations are considered in them, first of all, as relations between two partners influencing each other. This makes it difficult to single out the main determinant of power - why, nevertheless, one can impose his will on another, and this other, although he resists, must still fulfill the imposed will.

The Marxist concept of power and the struggle for power is characterized by a clearly defined class approach to the social nature of power. In the Marxist understanding, power is dependent, secondary. This dependence follows from the manifestation of the will of the class. Even in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" K. Marx and F. Engels determined that "political power in the proper sense of the word is the organized violence of one class over another" (K. Marx. F. Engels Soch., ed. 2nd, v.4, p:447).

All of these concepts, their multivariance testify to the complexity and diversity of politics and power. In this light, one should not sharply oppose class and non-class approaches to political power, the Marxist and non-Marxist understanding of this phenomenon. All of them complement each other to a certain extent and allow you to create a complete and most objective picture. Power as one of the forms of social relations is capable of influencing the content of people's activities and behavior through economic, ideological and legal mechanisms.

Thus, power is an objectively determined social phenomenon, expressed in the ability of a person or group to manage others based on certain needs or interests.

Political power is a volitional relationship between social entities that make up a politically (i.e. state) organized community, the essence of which is to induce one social entity to behave in the direction desired by itself through the use of its authority, social and legal norms, organized violence , economic, ideological, emotional-psychological and other means of influence. Political and power relations arise in response to the need to maintain the integrity of the community and regulate the process of realizing the individual, group and common interests of its constituent people. The phrase political power also owes its origin to the ancient Greek polis and literally means power in the polis community. The modern meaning of the concept of political power reflects the fact that everything is political, i.e. a state-organized community of people, with its fundamental principle, presupposes the presence among its participants of relations of domination and subordination and the necessary attributes associated with them: laws, police, courts, prisons, taxes, etc. In other words, power and politics are inseparable and interdependent. Power, of course, is a means of implementing policy, and political relations are, first of all, the interaction of community members regarding the acquisition of means of power influence, their organization, retention and use. It is power that gives politics that originality, thanks to which it appears as a special kind of social interaction. And that is why political relations can be called political-power relations. They arise in response to the need to maintain the integrity of the political community and regulate the implementation of individual, group and common interests of its constituent people.

Thus, political power is a form of social relations inherent in a politically organized community of people, characterized by the ability of certain social subjects - individuals, social groups and communities - to subordinate the activities of other social subjects to their will with the help of state-legal and other means. Political power is the real ability and possibility of social forces to carry out their will in politics and legal norms, primarily in accordance with their needs and interests.

The functions of political power, i.e. its public purpose, the same as the functions of the state. Political power is, firstly, a tool for maintaining the integrity of the community and, secondly, a means of regulating the process of realization by social subjects of their individual, group and common interests. This is the main function of political power. Its other functions, the list of which may be longer (for example, leadership, management, coordination, organization, mediation, mobilization, control, etc.), are of subordinate importance in relation to these two.

Separate types of power can be distinguished on various grounds adopted for classification:

Other bases for classifying the types of power can be accepted: absolute, personal, family, clan power, etc.

Political science is the study of political power.

Power in society appears in non-political and political forms. In the conditions of the primitive communal system, where there were no classes, and therefore no state, and no politics, public power was not of a political nature. It constituted the power of all members of a given clan, tribe, community.

Non-political forms of power are characterized by the fact that the objects are small social groups and it is exercised directly by the ruling individual without a special intermediary apparatus and mechanism. Non-political forms include family, school power, power in the production team, etc.

Political power arose in the process of development of society. As property appears and accumulates in the hands of certain groups of people, there is a redistribution of managerial and administrative functions, i.e. change in the nature of power. From the power of the whole society (primitive), it turns into the ruling strata, becomes a kind of property of the emerging classes and, as a result, acquires a political character. In a class society, governance is exercised through political power. Political forms of power are characterized by the fact that their object is large social groups, and power in them is exercised through social institutions. Political power is also a volitional relationship, but a relationship between classes, social groups.

Political power has a number of characteristic features that define it as a relatively independent phenomenon. It has its own laws of development. To be stable, power must take into account the interests of not only the ruling classes, but also the subordinate groups, as well as the interests of the whole society. The characteristic features of political power are: its sovereignty and supremacy in the system of relations in society, as well as indivisibility, authority and strong-willed character.

Political power is always imperative. The will and interests of the ruling class, groups of people through political power acquire the form of law, certain norms that are binding on the entire population. Disobedience to laws and non-compliance with regulations entails legal, legal punishment up to and including coercion to comply with them.

The most important feature of political power is its close connection with the economy, economic conditionality. Since the most important factor in the economy is property relations, the economic basis of political power is the ownership of the means of production. The right to property also gives the right to power.

At the same time, representing the interests of the economically dominant classes and groups and being conditioned by these interests, political power has an active impact on the economy. F. Engels names three directions of such influence: political power acts in the same direction as the economy - then the development of society goes faster; against economic development - then after a certain period of time political power collapses; the authorities can put barriers to economic development and push it in other directions. As a result, F. Engels emphasizes, in the last two cases, political power can cause the greatest harm to economic development and cause a massive waste of forces and material (Marx K. and Engels F. Soch., ed. 2nd vol. 37. p. 417).

Thus, political power acts as a real ability and possibility of an organized class or social group, as well as individuals reflecting their interests, to carry out their will in politics and legal norms.

First of all, state power belongs to the political forms of power. It is necessary to distinguish between political power and state power. Every state power is political, but not every political power is state power.

IN AND. Lenin, criticizing the Russian populist P. Struve for recognizing coercive power as the main feature of the state, wrote "... coercive power is in every human community, and in the tribal structure, and in the family, but the state was not here. ... The sign of the state is the presence of an isolated a class of persons in whose hands power is concentrated "(Lenin V.I. Paul. sobr. soch. T. 2, p. 439).

State power is power exercised with the help of a special apparatus and having the ability to turn to the means of organized and legally enshrined violence. State power is so inseparable from the state that in the scientific literature of practical use these concepts are often identified. A state can exist for some time without a clearly defined territory, a strict delimitation of borders, without a precisely defined population. But without the power of the state there is no.

The most important features of state power are its public nature and the presence of a certain territorial structure, which is subject to state sovereignty. The state has a monopoly not only on the legal, legal consolidation of power, but also the monopoly right to use violence, using a special apparatus of coercion. Orders of the state power are obligatory for the entire population, foreign citizens and persons without citizenship, and permanently residing in the territory of the state.

State power performs a number of functions in society: it establishes laws, administers justice, manages all aspects of the life of society. The main functions of the government are:

Ensuring domination, that is, the implementation of the will of the ruling group in relation to society, the subordination (full or partial, absolute or relative) of some classes, groups, individuals to others;

Management of the development of society in accordance with the interests of the ruling classes, social groups;

management, i.e. implementation in practice of the main directions of development and the adoption of specific management decisions;

Control involves the implementation of supervision over the implementation of decisions and compliance with the norms and rules of human activity.

The actions of the state authorities to implement their functions are the essence of politics. Thus, state power represents the fullest expression of political power, is political power in its most developed form.

Political power can also be non-state. Such are party and military. There are many examples in history when the army or political parties during the period of national liberation wars controlled large territories without creating state structures on them, exercising power through military or party bodies.

The implementation of power is directly related to the subjects of politics, which are the social bearers of power. When power is won, and a certain subject of politics becomes the subject of power, the latter acts as a means of influencing the dominant social group on other associations of people in this society. The body of such influence is the state. With the help of its organs, the ruling class or the ruling group strengthens its political power, realizes and defends its interests.

Political power, like politics, is inextricably linked with social interests. On the one hand, power itself is a social interest around which political relations arise, form and function. The severity of the struggle for power is due to the fact that the possession of a mechanism for exercising power makes it possible to protect and realize certain socio-economic interests.

On the other hand, social interests have a decisive influence on power. The interests of social groups are always hidden behind the relations of political power. “People have always been and always will be stupid victims of deception and self-deception in politics until they learn to look for the interests of certain classes behind any moral, religious, political, social phrases, statements, promises,” V.I. Lenin (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 23, p. 47).

Political power, thus, acts as a certain aspect of relations between social groups, it is the realization of the volitional activity of a political subject. Subject-object relations of power are characterized by the fact that the difference between objects and subjects is relative: in some cases, a given political group can act as a subject of power, and in others - as an object.

The subjects of political power are a person, a social group, an organization that implement a policy or are able to relatively independently participate in political life in accordance with their interests. An important feature of a political subject is its ability to influence the position of others and cause significant changes in political life.

The subjects of political power are unequal. The interests of various social groups have either a decisive or indirect influence on the authorities, their role in politics is different. Therefore, among the subjects of political power, it is customary to distinguish between primary and secondary. Primary are characterized by the presence of their own social interests. These are classes, social strata, nations, ethnic and confessional, territorial and demographic groups. Secondary ones reflect the objective interests of the primary ones and are created by them to realize these interests. These include political parties, the state, public organizations and movements, the church.

The interests of those subjects that occupy a leading position in the economic system of society constitute the social basis of power.

It is these social groups, communities, individuals who use, set in motion the forms and means of power, fill them with real content. They are called social bearers of power.

However, the entire history of mankind testifies that the ruling class, the ruling political groups or elites, the professional bureaucracy - the administrative apparatus - political leaders have real political power.

The ruling class personifies the main material force of society. He exercises supreme control over the basic resources of society, production and its results. Its economic dominance is guaranteed by the state through political measures and is complemented by ideological dominance that justifies economic dominance as justified, just, and even desirable.

K. Marx and F. Engels wrote in their work "The German Ideology": "The class that represents the dominant material force of society is at the same time its dominant spiritual force.

The dominant thoughts are nothing but the ideal expression of the dominant material relations.

Thus, occupying key positions in the economy, the ruling class also concentrates the main political levers, and then spreads its influence to all spheres of public life. The ruling class is the class that dominates in the economic, social, political and spiritual fields, which determines social development in accordance with its will and fundamental interests. The main instrument of his domination is political power.

The ruling class is not homogeneous. In its structure, there are always internal groups with conflicting, even opposing interests (traditional small and middle strata, groups representing the military-industrial and fuel and energy complexes). Certain moments of social development in the ruling class can be dominated by the interests of certain internal groups: the 1960s were characterized by the Cold War policy, which reflected the interests of the military-industrial complex (MIC). Therefore, the ruling class, in order to exercise power, forms a relatively small group that includes the top of the various strata of this class - an active minority that has access to the instruments of power. Most often it is called the ruling elite, sometimes the ruling or ruling circles. This leading group includes the economic, military, ideological and bureaucratic elite. One of the main elements of this group is the political elite.

Elite is a group of individuals who have specific characteristics and professional qualities that make them "elected" in one or another area of public life, science, and production. The political elite is a fairly independent, superior, relatively privileged group (groups), endowed with important psychological, social and political qualities. It is made up of people who occupy leading or dominant positions in society: the country's top political leadership, including the top functionaries who develop political ideology. The political elite expresses the will and fundamental interests of the ruling class and, in accordance with them, directly and systematically participates in the adoption and implementation of decisions related to the use of state power or influence on it. Naturally, the ruling political elite formulates and makes political decisions on behalf of the ruling class in the interests of its dominant part, social stratum or group.

In the system of power, the political elite performs certain functions: it makes decisions on fundamental political issues; determines the goals, guidelines and priorities of the policy; develops a strategy of action; consolidates groups of people through compromises, taking into account the requirements and harmonizing the interests of all political forces that support it; manages the most important political structures and organizations; formulates the main ideas that substantiate and justify its political course.

The ruling elite performs direct leadership functions. Everyday activities for the implementation of the decisions taken, all the necessary for this event, is carried out by a professional bureaucratic and administrative apparatus, bureaucracy. As an integral element of the ruling elite of modern society, it plays the role of an intermediary between the top and bottom of the pyramid of political power. Historical epochs and political systems change, but the constant condition for the functioning of power remains the apparatus of officials, which is entrusted with the responsibility and management of daily affairs.

A bureaucratic vacuum - the absence of an administrative apparatus - is fatal for any political system.

M. Weber emphasized that the bureaucracy embodies the most effective and rational ways of managing organizations. Bureaucracy is not only a management system carried out with the help of a separate apparatus, but also a layer of people associated with this system, competently and qualifiedly, performing managerial functions at a professional level. This phenomenon, which is called the bureaucratization of power, is due not so much to the professional functions of officials as to the social nature of the bureaucracy itself, which strives for independence, isolation of the rest of society, achieving a certain autonomy, and implementing the developed political course without taking into account public interests. In practice, it develops its own interests, while claiming the right to make political decisions.

Substituting the public interests of the state and transforming the state goal into the personal goal of an official, into a race for ranks, in career matters, the bureaucracy arrogates to itself the right to dispose of what does not belong to it - power. A well-organized and powerful bureaucracy can impose its will and thereby partially become a political elite. That is why bureaucracy, its place in power and methods of dealing with it have become an important problem in any modern society.

Social carriers of power, i.e. The sources of practical political activity for the exercise of power can be not only the ruling class, the elite and the bureaucracy, but also individuals expressing the interests of a large social group. Each such person is called a political leader.

The subjects that influence the exercise of power include pressure groups (groups of particular, private interests). Pressure groups are organized associations created by representatives of certain social strata to exert targeted pressure on legislators and officials in order to satisfy their own specific interests.

One can talk about a pressure group only when it and its actions have the ability to systematically influence the authorities. The essential difference between a pressure group and a political party is that the pressure group does not seek to seize power. A pressure group, addressing wishes to a state body or a specific person, simultaneously makes it clear that failure to fulfill its wishes will lead to negative consequences: refusal of support in elections or financial assistance, loss of a position or social position by any influential person. Lobbies can be considered as such groups. Lobbying as a political phenomenon is one of the varieties of pressure groups and acts in the form of various committees, commissions, councils, bureaus created under legislative and governmental organizations. The main task of the lobby is to establish contacts with politicians and officials in order to influence their decisions. Lobbyism is distinguished by behind-the-scenes overorganization, intrusive and persistent striving to achieve certain and not necessarily lofty goals, and adherence to the interests of narrow groups striving for power. The means and methods of lobbying activities are diverse: informing and consulting on political issues, threats and blackmail, corruption, bribery and bribes, gifts and wishes to speak at parliamentary hearings, financing of election campaigns of candidates and much more. Lobbyism originated in the United States and has spread widely in other countries with a traditionally developed system of parliamentarism. Lobbies also exist in the American Congress, the British Parliament, and in the corridors of power in many other countries. Such groups are created not only by representatives of capital, but also by the military, some social movements, and associations of voters. This is one of the attributes of the political life of modern developed countries.

The opposition also has an influence on the exercise of political power, in a broad sense, the opposition is the usual political disagreements and disputes on current issues, all direct and indirect manifestations of public dissatisfaction with the existing regime. It is also believed that the opposition is a minority that opposes its views and the goals of the majority of participants in this political process. At the first stage of the emergence of the opposition, this was how it was: an active minority with its own views acted as the opposition. In a narrow sense, the opposition is seen as a political institution: political parties, organizations and movements that do not participate or are removed from power. The political opposition is understood as an organized group of active individuals united by the awareness of the commonality of their political interests, values and goals, fighting against the dominant subject. The opposition becomes a public political association, which consciously opposes itself to the dominant political force on programmatic policy issues, on the main ideas and goals. The opposition is an organization of political like-minded people - a party, a faction, a movement capable of waging and waging a struggle for a dominant position in power relations. It is a natural consequence of socio-political contradictions and exists in the presence of favorable political conditions for it - at least, the absence of an official ban on its existence.

Traditionally, there are two main types of opposition: non-systemic (destructive) and systemic (constructive). The first group includes those political parties and groups whose action programs completely or partially contradict official political values. Their activities are aimed at weakening and replacing state power. The second group includes parties that recognize the inviolability of the basic political, economic and social principles of society and do not agree with the government only in choosing ways and means to achieve common strategic goals. They operate within the existing political system and do not seek to change its foundations. Giving opposition forces the opportunity to express their own, different from the official, point of view and compete for votes in legislative, regional, judicial authorities, in the media with the ruling party is an effective remedy against the emergence of acute social conflicts. The absence of a viable opposition leads to an increase in social tension or generates apathy among the population.

First of all, the opposition is the main channel for expressing social discontent, an important factor in future changes and renewal of society. By criticizing the authorities and the government, it has the opportunity to achieve fundamental concessions and correct official policy. The presence of an influential opposition limits the abuse of power, prevents the violation or attempts to violate the civil, political rights and freedoms of the population. It prevents the government from deviating from the political center and thus maintains social stability. The existence of the opposition testifies to the struggle for power going on in society.

The struggle for power reflects the tense, rather conflicting degree of confrontation and counteraction of the existing social forces of political parties in matters of attitude to power, to understanding its role, tasks and capabilities. It can be carried out on a different scale, as well as using a variety of means, methods, with the involvement of various allies. The struggle for power always ends with the taking of power - the mastery of power with its use for certain purposes: a radical reorganization or the elimination of the old power. The mastery of power can be the result of volitional actions, both peaceful and violent.

History has shown that the progressive development of the political system is possible only in the presence of competing forces. The absence of alternative programs, including the proposed oppositions, reduces the need for timely correction of the program of action adopted by the winning majority.

During the last two decades of the 20th century, new opposition parties and movements appeared on the political scene: green, environmental, social justice and the like. They are a significant factor in the socio-political life of many countries, they have become a kind of catalyst for the renewal of political activity. These movements place the main emphasis on extra-parliamentary methods of political activity, however, they have, although indirect, indirect, but still, an impact on the exercise of power: their demands and appeals, under certain conditions, can become political in nature.

Thus, political power is not only one of the core concepts of political science, but also the most important factor in political practice. Through its mediation and influence, the integrity of society is established, social relations in various spheres of life are regulated.

Power is a volitional relationship between two subjects, in which one of them - the subject of power - makes certain demands on the behavior of the other, and the other - in this case it will be a subject subject, or an object of power - obeys the orders of the first.

There are types of power:

· according to the area of functioning, political and non-political power are distinguished;

· in the main areas of society - economic, state, spiritual, church power;

· by functions - legislative, executive and judicial;

· according to their place in the structure of society and the authorities as a whole, central, regional, local authorities are singled out; republican, regional, etc.

Political science is the study of political power. Power in society appears in non-political and political forms.

Political power acts as a real ability and possibility of an organized class or social group, as well as individuals reflecting their interests, to carry out their will in politics and legal norms.

The political forms of power include state power. Distinguish between political and state power. Every state power is political, but not every political power is state power.

State power is power exercised with the help of a special apparatus and having the ability to turn to the means of organized and legally enshrined violence.

The most important features of state power are its public nature and the presence of a certain territorial structure, which is subject to state sovereignty.

State power performs a number of functions in society: it establishes laws, administers justice, manages all aspects of the life of society.

Political power can also be non-state: party and military.

The objects of political power are: society as a whole, various spheres of its life (economy, social relations, culture, etc.), various social communities (class, national, territorial, confessional, demographic), socio-political formations (parties, organizations), citizens.

Any subject of politics can be a social bearer of power.

The ruling class is the class that dominates in the economic, social, political and spiritual fields, which determines social development in accordance with its will and fundamental interests. The ruling class is not homogeneous.

The ruling class, in order to exercise power, forms a relatively small group that includes the top of various layers of this class - an active minority that has access to the tools of power. Most often it is called the ruling elite, sometimes the ruling or ruling circles.

Elite is a group of individuals who have specific characteristics and professional qualities that make them "elected" in one or another area of public life, science, and production.

The political elite is subdivided into the leading one, which directly owns state power, and the opposition - the counter-elite; to the higher one, which makes decisions that are significant for the whole society, and the middle one, which acts as a kind of barometer of public opinion and includes about five percent of the population.

The social bearers of power can be not only the ruling class, the elite and the bureaucracy, but also individuals expressing the interests of a large social group. Each such person is called a political leader.

Pressure groups are organized associations created by representatives of certain social strata to exert targeted pressure on legislators and officials in order to satisfy their own specific interests.

Political power is not only one of the core concepts of political science, but also the most important factor in political practice. Through its mediation and influence, the integrity of society is established, social relations in various spheres of life are regulated.

2. Sources and resources of political power

political power social legitimate

Sources of power - objective and subjective conditions that serve as the cause of the heterogeneity of society, social inequality. These include strength, wealth, knowledge, position in society, the presence of an organization. The involved sources of power turn into the foundations of power - a set of significant factors in the life and activities of people used by some of them to subordinate other people to their will. Power resources are the foundations of power used to strengthen it or redistribute power in society. The resources of power are secondary to its foundations.

Power resources are:

Generating social structures and institutions, streamlining the activities of people for the realization of a certain will, power destroys social equality.

Due to the fact that the resources of power can neither be completely exhausted nor monopolized, the process of redistribution of power in society is never completed. As a means of achieving various kinds of benefits and advantages, power is always a subject of struggle.

The resources of power constitute the potential foundations of power, i.e. those means that can be used by the ruling group to strengthen its power; power resources can be formed as a result of measures to strengthen power.

Power resources are the foundations of power used to strengthen it or redistribute power in society. The resources of power are secondary to its foundations.

Power resources are:

1.Economic (material) - money, real estate, valuables, etc.

2.Social - sympathy, support for social groups.

.Legal - legal norms that are beneficial for certain political subjects.

.Administrative-power - the powers of officials in state and non-state organizations and institutions.

.Cultural-informational - knowledge and information technologies.

.Additional - socio-psychological characteristics of various social groups, beliefs, language, etc.

The logic of conducting participants in power relations is determined by the principles of power:

1)the principle of maintaining power means that the possession of power is a self-evident value (one does not give up power of one's own free will);

2)the principle of effectiveness requires will and other qualities from the bearer of power (decisiveness, foresight, balance, justice, responsibility, etc.);

)the principle of generality presupposes the involvement of all participants in power relations in the implementation of the will of the ruling subject;

)the principle of secrecy consists in the invisibility of power, in the fact that individuals often do not realize their involvement in domination-subordination relations and their contribution to their reproduction.

The resources of power constitute the potential bases of power.

3. Problems of legitimate power

In political theory, the problem of the legitimacy of power is of great importance. Legitimacy means legitimacy, legitimacy of political domination. The term "legitimacy" originated in France and was originally identified with the term "legality". It was used to refer to legally established power as opposed to forcibly usurped power. Currently, legitimacy means the voluntary recognition by the population of the legitimacy of power. M. Weber included two provisions in the principle of legitimacy: 1) recognition of the power of rulers; 2) the duty of the governed to obey it. The legitimacy of power means people's conviction that the government has the right to make decisions that are mandatory for implementation, the readiness of citizens to follow these decisions. In this case, the authorities have to resort to coercion. Moreover, the population allows the use of force if other means to implement the decisions taken do not have an effect.

M. Weber names three bases of legitimacy. First, the authority of customs, consecrated by centuries of tradition, and habit will submit to authority. This is the traditional domination - of the patriarch, tribal leader, feudal lord or monarch over his subjects. Secondly, the authority of an unusual personal gift - charisma, complete devotion and special trust, which is caused by the presence of the qualities of a leader in any person. Finally, the third type of legitimacy of power is domination on the basis of "legality", on the basis of the belief of participants in political life in the justice of the existing rules for the formation of power, that is, the type of power - rational-legal, which is carried out within the framework of most modern states. In practice, pure ideal types of legitimacy do not exist. They are intermingled and complement each other. Although the legitimacy of power is not absolute in any regime, it is the more complete, the less social distance between different groups of the population.

The legitimacy of power and politics is indispensable. It extends to power itself, its goals, means and methods. Legitimacy can be neglected to certain limits only by an overly self-confident government (totalitarian, authoritarian), or a temporary government doomed to quit. Power in society must constantly take care of its legitimacy, based on the need to rule with the consent of the people. However, in democratic countries, the ability of government, according to the American political scientist Seymour M. Lipset, to create and maintain people's conviction that existing political institutions are the best, is not unlimited. In a socially differentiated society, there are social groups that do not share the political course of the government, do not accept it either in detail or in general. Trust in the government is not unlimited, it is given on credit, if the loan is not paid, the government becomes bankrupt. One of the serious political problems of our time has become the question of the role of information in politics. There are fears that the informatization of society strengthens authoritarian tendencies and even leads to dictatorship. The ability to obtain accurate information about every citizen and manipulate the masses of people is maximized when using computer networks. The ruling circles know everything they need, and everyone else knows nothing.

Trends in information development lead political scientists to assume that the political power acquired by the majority through the concentration of information will not be exercised directly. Rather, this process will go through the strengthening of executive power while reducing the real power of official politicians and elected representatives, that is, through a decrease in the role of representative power. The ruling elite formed in this way may turn out to be a kind of "infocracy". The source of the power of the infocracy will not be any merit to the people or society, but only greater opportunities to use information.

Thus, the emergence of another type of power - information power - becomes possible. The status of information power, its functions depend on the political regime in the country. Information power cannot and should not be the prerogative, the exclusive right of state bodies, but can be represented by individuals, enterprises, domestic and international public associations, and local governments. Measures against monopolization of sources of information, as well as against abuse in the field of information, are established by the legislation of the country.

Legitimacy means legitimacy, legitimacy of political domination. The term "legitimacy" originated in France and was originally identified with the term "legality". It was used to denote legally established power, as opposed to forcibly usurped. Currently, legitimacy means the voluntary recognition by the population of the legitimacy of power.

There are two provisions in the principle of legitimacy: 1) recognition of the power of rulers; 2) the duty of the governed to obey it.

There are three bases of legitimacy. First, the authority of custom. Secondly, the authority of an unusual personal gift. The third type of power legitimacy is domination based on the "legality" of existing rules for the formation of power.

The legitimacy of power and politics is indispensable. It extends to power itself, its goals, means and methods.

The political power acquired by the majority through the concentration of information will not be exercised directly.

Literature

1.Melnik V.A. Political Science: Textbook for High Schools 4th ed., Revised. and additional - Minsk, 2002.

2.Political science: a course of lectures / ed. M.A. Slemnev. - Vitebsk, 2003.

.Political Science: Textbook / ed. S.V. Reshetnikov. Minsk, 2004.

.Reshetnikov S.V. etc. Political science: a course of lectures. Minsk, 2005.

.Kapustin B.G. On the Concept of Political Violence / Political Studies, No. 6, 2003.

.Melnik V.A. Political science: basic concepts and logical schemes: A manual. Minsk, 2003.

.Ekadumova I.I. Political science: answers to examination questions. Minsk, 2007.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Position

SHABROV Oleg Fedorovich - Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor; Head of the Department of Political Science and Political Management of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, President of the Academy of Political Science (119571, Russia, Moscow, Vernadsky Prospekt, 84; [email protected])

THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL: IS POLITICAL SCIENCE POSSIBLE?

Annotation. The article discusses the basic concepts of political science - "politics" and "political", establishes criteria for classifying social phenomena as political, reveals the place of the political sphere in the social system and its relationship with the economic, spiritual and social spheres. The relevance of the problem of the subject certainty of political science is shown, the author's approaches to its solution are formulated. The author believes that his publication will serve to reduce the degree of uncertainty about the subject of political science.

Keywords: politics, political, political sphere, economic sphere, spiritual sphere, social sphere

Any science deals with a fairly specific area of the real world. There are, of course, areas of interdisciplinary research, such as biochemistry, astrophysics, medical anthropology, and the like. Moreover, dominating from about the middle of the XIX century. the trend of deepening the specialization of sciences and their isolation changed by the end of the 20th century. opposite trend

The development of interdisciplinary research. At the same time, however, in the relevant scientific communities, a fairly solidary idea of the object and subject field of their own research interests is preserved, and even more so there are no serious discussions about the presence of sufficiently clear boundaries of the subject in their science.

Political science is another matter. In discussions about what is politics and what is “political”, many copies have been broken. Ideas about them range widely - from the widespread assertion that politics is a dirty business, to the lofty idea of politics as an activity for the common good. “Politics,” wrote, for example, I.A. Ilyin, - there is, first of all, service - not a "career", not a personal life path, not the satisfaction of vanity, ambition and love of power ... Service implies in a person an increased sense of responsibility and the ability to forget about his personal "success-failure" in the face of the Cause " [Ilyin 2007: 194].

But this is not enough. Many authoritative political scientists believe that the concepts of politics and the political, in principle, do not and cannot have an unambiguous interpretation. “Theory,” writes A.I. Solovyov - can create an infinite number of interpretations of politics" [Soloviev 2006: 7]. And further: “Political science is open (emphasis mine.

O.Sh.) a knowledge system that develops on the basis of constant refinement and updating of theoretical images of politics. That is why in modern politics there is no single theoretical direction that would form unambiguous approaches and universally recognized assessments of the world of politics” [Soloviev 2006: 14]. The same pessimistic view is demonstrated by T.V. Karaje: “The political is a complex, multi-level, diverse and at the same time dynamically changing phenomenon that cannot be explored with the help of a clearly defined scheme. Any attempt to exhaustively define the content of the political inevitably fails. [Karaje 2013: 6]. Of the 62 articles contained in the voluminous publication “Political Science” published in 2007:

Lexicon”, 27 are devoted to categories containing the term “political”. Only the very concept of the political is not disclosed. The article devoted to the concept of politics contains an unequivocal warning to the political scientist: “...the most serious intellectual trap that lies in wait for scientists. consists in their desire to give politics a holistic and systemic character, to grasp the regularity of its historical movement, to form an image of this phenomenon devoid of contradictions” [Soloviev 2007: 324].

The essence of the problem is that these judgments contain skepticism regarding not only concepts, but also the possibility of political science as such. It turns out that my contemporaries are not able to speak the same scientific language, not only with Plato, but also among themselves. But that's not all. The lack of agreement between representatives of a particular branch of knowledge regarding key concepts and patterns calls into question the attribution of this area to the field of science. “There is one fundamental phenomenon,” wrote V.I. Vernadsky, - which defines scientific thought and distinguishes scientific results and scientific conclusions clearly and simply from the statements of philosophy and religion - is the universal validity and indisputability of correctly made scientific conclusions, scientific statements, concepts, conclusions (emphasis mine. - O.Sh.) ” [Vernadsky 1991: 139]. What universally binding and indisputable conclusions are here, even if there are no universally binding and indisputable judgments about the subject area!

This contradiction prompts us to return to the question of the concept of "political" and once again try to determine its content.

Politics

Our goal is to define the concept of the political and through it to establish the boundaries of the subject area of political science, to find out what phenomena we classify as political. In other words, we need to establish signs that, firstly, are inherent in all objects of the set of interest to us and, secondly, distinguish them from all other objects. For the concept of the political in political science, this is especially relevant, since almost its entire categorical apparatus is a set of terms containing a combination of two or more words, one of which is the adjective “political”. Without establishing the meaning of the latter, we will never agree on what "political power", "political system", "political process", etc. are.

Without pretending to consider the political in all its aspects, we aim only to define the boundary of the field of phenomena that we classify as political. This presupposes the need to reveal the content not only of the political realm, but also of the regions bordering on it. As such, it seems natural to follow the logic of T. Parsons, who presented the social system as a set of four subsystems: the societal community, the subsystem of reproduction of the model, politics and economics [Parsons 1998: 24]. Within the framework of modern, well-established terms, we must define the sphere of the political and its relationship with the social, economic and cultural (spiritual) spheres.

But this is difficult to do without defining the concept of politics. Therefore, we take a risk and rush into the “intellectual trap”. It is customary to refer to the definition of M. Weber, according to which politics is “the desire to participate in power or to influence the distribution of power, whether between states, whether within a state between groups of people” [Weber 1990: 646]. Everything would be fine, but why only “aspiration”? And what then gives grounds for judgments common among some Russian political scientists such as:

“There is no politics in Russia in the Western sense of the word” [Pastukhov 2007]? Doesn't anyone in Russia aspire to power? Can the content of scientific concepts have different meanings in different parts of the planet? If so, then again the question arises whether political science is a science.

In fact, the problem of the content of concepts used in different societies exists objectively, and not only in political science. One of the reasons for this is the difference in cultures and the ways of reflecting reality associated with them, which is reflected in the specifics of languages. First-year political science students know, for example, that the Russian word "politics" is translated into English by at least three terms - polity, policy and politics, meaning the institutional, content and procedural aspects of politics. At the same time, few people attach importance to the fact that in English, as in Russian, there is no integral concept that would reflect these three phenomena together!

Here we are faced with one of the manifestations of a significant difference in the perception of the surrounding world by a rational person in the West and a Russian person, who is more contemplative. In the mind of a Russian person, the object is designated by the concept as a whole, undivided. On the contrary, a rational Western person cognizes an object through its analysis, isolating the components, which are not always then combined into a whole.

All this, among other things, complicates the understanding of translated works. This circumstance cannot be ignored, especially since modern Russian political science is largely based on borrowings from Western texts. It also dictates the need to develop our own schools of political science that do not necessarily conflict with Western ones and fit into the context of Russian culture.

There are other reasons that predetermine the difference in interpretations of the concepts of political science, including the basic ones. Two circumstances leave a special imprint on it: a genetic connection with philosophical thought and the voluntary or involuntary ideological and political engagement of researchers.

Since ancient times, European philosophical thought has been looking for the formula of a perfect state (Plato), and Russian - the state of grace (Metropolitan Hilarion), later - Holy Russia. Secular in its basis, ancient philosophy and religious Russian were united in one thing: they were looking for the criterion of truth in accordance with ideals and values.

Another basis for correlating social practice, incl. and in politics, with certain value systems arises from the adherence of experts to certain models of social order. For almost the entire 20th century two competing models dominated world consciousness and practice: Soviet and Western. The supporters of each of them considered the movement towards their "ideal" as the only true, objectively determined path of development of society.

With the collapse of the Soviet system and the discrediting of Soviet models, the Soviet-centric model lost ground and was almost completely pushed to the periphery of world political thought by the Western-centric model of social development. In the absence of a competition of ideas, the actual sacralization of Western values took place, and their correspondence to real political practice became for it a criterion of truth. This gives grounds for the supporters of this trend to argue that a policy that does not meet this criterion is not a policy. Here we continue, as in the 20th century, to deal with ideology, however, in the conditions of the temporary absence of an authoritative ideological alternative. Ideological bias voluntarily or involuntarily makes the scientist a hostage of his own ideological and political

tic preferences, pushes him, for the sake of their justification, to the substitution of the meaning of concepts, incl. concepts of politics and the political.

It is impossible not to point out another source of confusion in the categorical apparatus of political science. This is the penetration into him of the ordinary understanding of politics. In everyday communication, they talk about the policy of the teacher, the director of the enterprise, the father in the family, etc. An example is the book of the authoritative Dutch primatologist F.B.M. de Waal "Politics among the Chimpanzees" [De Waal 2016], a Russian translation of which was published at the Higher School of Economics in the series "Political (!) Theory".

All this once again encourages the return of the conceptual apparatus of political science to the mainstream of science, to find the content of its main categories that, at least in the first approximation, would not depend on philosophical views, ideological preferences and everyday ideas.

Taking into account all the options for using the term "politics", we can say that not every policy is included in the range of interests of a political scientist and is political in this sense. Politics is understood in various ways: both as the struggle of large groups of people for the opportunity to dispose of public resources, and as an activity in the name of the common good for the country, and as a struggle for the acquisition, retention and use of state power, and as a process of preparing, adopting and implementing universally binding for the country. solutions. However, it is easy to see that all these methods are in good agreement with each other, reflect different aspects of one phenomenon. This applies, first of all, to the struggle for the distribution of social resources, if we understand by them the material, intellectual and spiritual resources produced by society. As for the consensus view of politics as an activity for the common good, it only at first glance contradicts the confrontational approach. After all, it is through the struggle for resources in the political sphere that the balance of interests is ideally realized, which ensures the adoption of generally binding decisions aimed at realizing the common good.

In any case, politics is an activity for the implementation of the named and similar goals and the relations that arise in the process of this activity. Since activity itself is a relationship between the acting subject and the object to which this activity is directed, politics can be represented as a set of relevant relations. At the epicenter of these relations is political power, so that politics can be defined as a set of social relations of political power and relations about this power. In the end, as the well-known Soviet philosopher A.I. Uemov, "any science, whatever its subject, studies things, their properties and relations." [Uemov 1963: 3]. In our case, the consideration of politics as a set of precisely relations seems to be more constructive both for understanding the problem of the political and for revealing the essence of its relationship with other public spheres.

There are, of course, approaches that do not agree well with our definition. For example, E. Haywood understands politics as “a process in which people create, preserve and enrich the norms of their own community” [Heywood 2005: 519]. But, firstly, social norms are formed not only within the framework of the political process, and secondly, politics is clearly not reduced to this. In other words, this definition does not have the property of completeness and does not allow distinguishing politics from other social phenomena, i.e. cannot serve as a concept. Other approaches suffer from flaws, but their consideration would take up unnecessarily much space.

Political

There is also a flaw in the definition we have proposed: the concept of politics is given through the concept of political power, so the question remains: what kind of power do we call political? In other words, it is necessary to solve the problem that was identified from the very beginning: to define the political. It is clear that the realm of the political does not coincide with politics: it has already been noted above that not all politics is political. The opposite also seems obvious - not everything political is politics: political culture, political consciousness, the political system go beyond politics, if by the latter we mean a certain kind of activity.

We will proceed from the obvious fact that everything political is one way or another connected with the state, and political power is understood as power, first of all, state or implemented through the state. The involvement of the state in this or that phenomenon is the first necessary sign that this phenomenon belongs to the political sphere. Necessary, but not sufficient: we do not classify everything state as political. We do not consider, for example, the political functions of an accountant, the service relations of a superior and a subordinate in ministries. It is customary to refer to the political only that state that has an impact on the social environment. This is his second necessary sign.

But the combination of these two signs is not enough. There are many state institutions that enter into direct relations with the public environment - in Russia, for example, this is the State Inspectorate for Road Safety, sanitary and epidemiological, fire and other services, whose activities can also hardly be attributed to the political sphere. Why?

We find the answer to this question in K. Schmitt, for whom the key to understanding the specifics of the political is “the distinction between friend and foe (emphasis mine. - O.Sh.)” [Schmitt 2012: 25]. If we ignore the alarmist nature of the terminology he uses, K. Schmitt drew attention to the real difference between the political sphere and other spheres of society: it begins where relations between social groups, between “us” and “they” become aggravated due to a mismatch of interests. This, in fact, is the main function of political leaders, parties, pressure groups, socio-political movements - to aggregate and articulate the specific interests of various social groups significant in terms of their influence on public policy and defend them, influencing the adoption and implementation of government decisions.

In the state institutions mentioned above, there is objectively no ground for the emergence of the opposition "friend - foe" (although the state can create it, thereby politicizing problems that are not political in nature). It is not customary to classify such a sphere of relations as a political one. In this sense, the position of the authors seems to be vulnerable, referring to politics any activity of making state decisions that apply to the whole society [Alekseeva 2005: 169]. In our understanding, such "politics" goes beyond the sphere of the political.

So, the presence of these three signs in a phenomenon - the state, significant social groups, a divergence of interests - is not only necessary, but also sufficient to classify it as a political one, of course, if this phenomenon is not correlated with values, i.e. stay in the field of science. In other words, any social phenomenon associated with the state and affecting the conflicting interests of significant social groups can be called political.

groups. In this triad of formal features, a special role belongs to the state. Its clarification is necessary for understanding the essence of the political.

Without delving into the analysis of the scientific work of K. Schmitt as a whole, we note only one, but a fundamental mistake in his reasoning. He actually assigns the role of an arbiter to the state, which has the right “by its own decision to determine the enemy and fight him” [Schmitt 2012: 42]. Projecting this thesis onto domestic politics, he argues that “the state as a political unity, as long as it exists, can determine its “internal enemy”” [Schmitt 2012: 43]. The consistent development of this idea led him not only to the theoretical justification of National Socialism, but also to the ranks of Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' Party.

In fact, the state as an institution, not only administrative, but also political, functioning in the interests of the most significant social groups, is designed to ensure the integrity of the country in the interests of these social groups. Here is the fundamental difference between state administration and industrial and any other: it inevitably has a political component, through which, together with other political institutions, social harmony is ensured, sufficient to maintain the stability of the social system. Even in the absence of democratic institutions, it is under constant pressure from influential clans, castes, estates, classes, ethnic and religious communities, and periodically from discontented lower classes. This is the mission of the political sphere, so that it should search for possible compromises between significant social groups through their representatives in order to prevent the disintegration of society. In the sphere of politics, significant social groups get the opportunity, instead of a direct clarification of relations, to find a compromise through their representatives and implement it using the mechanisms of state subordination.

This gives some researchers reason to idealize the political, to consider it exclusively as a sphere of agreements and compromises, and to oppose the political to the administrative. This scheme is far, however, from real practice. It is no coincidence that science operates with the concepts of “political corruption”, “political violence”, “political terror” and others that have nothing to do with compromises and agreements. In addition, not all decisions of politicians based on compromise and even consensus are willingly implemented by citizens, which requires the state to use violence. Real politics, like everything real, is far from ideal.

The definition of the political by the presence of three necessary and sufficient criteria (the state, significant social groups, a divergence of interests) expands the sphere of the political to real limits, including the political as a sphere of agreements and compromises. At the same time, such an understanding of the political boundary makes it possible to more clearly understand its relationship with the spheres bordering it - social, economic and spiritual - in such a way that their totality becomes complete, including all spheres of society's life, incl. and activities of state enforcement agencies.

Political in the social system

Now we can begin to establish the relationship between the political and other social spheres, which together, according to Parsons, constitute a social system. Having considered the political as a set of relations, we must also consider other spheres as a set of relations so that the corresponding concepts are comparable. four spheres,

collectively representing the social system, can, ultimately, be represented in this case as the relationship of social groups with the natural, material environment (economic sphere), spiritual environment (spiritual sphere), among themselves (social sphere) and with the state as a representative of society in in general (political sphere). Accordingly, we will refer to the economic sphere relations that develop in the process of production, reproduction, exchange and consumption of material values. In the spiritual sphere, there are relations of production, reproduction, exchange and consumption of spiritual values - religious, moral, aesthetic. Relations that develop over the distribution of values can be attributed to the social sphere. The very distribution and redistribution of values, realized through the state, and the relations of political power arising in this connection and about power, as already shown above, belong to the political sphere of the life of society.

Mutual influence of economic and political spheres today is not questioned. On the one hand, decision-making on public investment and other measures to support certain industries, filling and spending public funds, creating exchange mechanisms, and responsibility for violations of laws in the economic sphere depends on politicians. On the other hand, the state can redistribute, invest, and spend on law enforcement agencies only what it gets at its disposal from the economic activity of citizens through a system of taxes and fees. The possibilities of politics are limited by the resources of the economy.

But the influence of the economy on politics is not limited to the functions of the resource base. The very political structure of society is largely determined by the level of economic development. Fanned by romance, ancient democracy gave the right to vote not to all the inhabitants of the policy, but only to citizens, leaving slaves with the rights of animated property and the most perfect tool. Neither in ancient times nor in the Middle Ages were there economic conditions for democracy in its modern sense. This dependence of politics on the economy as a general historical trend was studied by K. Marx, F. Engels and their associates - the ideologists of the labor movement in Europe and Russia in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. It was formulated in the theory of socio-economic formations and became known as the formational approach. It is precisely as a historical trend, and not "economic determinism" in its vulgar interpretation, that the dependence of politics on economics is justified in authentic Marxism. To accusations to the contrary, K. Marx back in the 70s. 19th century ironically remarked: "I know only one thing, that I am not a Marxist" [Engels 1965: 370].

Thus, the sphere of the economy contains the prerequisites for politics, the conditions for the emergence of certain types of political structure and material resources. Politics, in turn, affects the economy, creating legal and other conditions for its functioning, as well as directly through the mechanisms of public administration.

The problem of the relationship between the spiritual and political spheres is no less complex, but less developed and has attracted less attention so far. In this sphere (which includes religion, morality, art, education, etc.), in contrast to the economic one, there is a satisfaction of human needs in the creation, transfer and consumption of not material, but spiritual values. In the modern consumer society, this area is given secondary importance not only in theory, but often in real politics, although it is precisely here that the fundamental difference between man and animal lies.

In one of the segments of the spiritual sphere, there is a mechanism for the production and reproduction of social communities, the social system as a whole. This is a spiritual culture, understood as a set of historically formed, stable, significant ideas, social values, customs, beliefs, traditions, norms and rules of behavior passed from generation to generation, which puts the spiritual sphere on a par with the economic sphere in importance. One cannot but agree with A.A. Pelipenko, who writes about the inferiority of the pan-economic view of being, “when economic indicators are evaluated outside the general cultural-historical, and most importantly, outside the value orientations of the corresponding human type. Therefore, the causes of crises and declines of certain civilizations are first of all sought in the field of economics, production and technology. And they are quite surprised to discover that crises, decline and destruction often overtake societies in the era of their economic, technological and military heyday” [Pelipenko 2014: 37]. The processes of mass migration, which have become one of the hallmarks of the 21st century and lead to direct contact between different cultures, put forward the problem of “reproduction of the model” among the most urgent.

The set of established value orientations and attitudes, contained in the collective unconscious, constitutes the core of culture, it is called mentality. In the mentality of each social community - ethnic, religious, national, class - there is a specificity associated with the peculiarity of the historical path it has traveled and significantly affecting the way of life, political and economic behavior of its representatives. Underestimation of this influence entails significant costs in politics. Attempts to impose on society a political structure that does not correspond to its mentality, without gaining public support, are doomed to failure. Hopes for a radical change in mentality are also minimal: the collective unconscious is inert, its changes occur only as new social experience is accumulated and layered. It is possible to destroy the values of a social community - modern information technologies make it possible to do this - but thereby the regulators of social behavior are destroyed, society plunges into a state of anomie, and the social identity that cements the group is destroyed. There is a threat of collapse of the social community and, accordingly, the entire state and political structure.

This is the basis for the influence of spiritual culture and the spiritual sphere as a whole on the political sphere. Even K. Marx, to whom the model of economic determinism is unreasonably attributed, assigned a significant role to this influence. “Law,” he wrote, “can never be higher than the economic system and the resulting cultural (highlighted by me. - O.Sh.) development of society” [Marx 1961: 19]. Culture, and with it the spiritual sphere, is the basis along with the economic sphere in relation to the political sphere. Like the economy, it contains the prerequisites for politics - the conditions for the emergence of certain types of political structure and provides it with its own - spiritual - resources. Politics, in turn, affects the spiritual sphere, creating legal and other conditions for its functioning, both directly through the relevant institutions and by means of informational influence.

Finally, one of the segments of spiritual culture enters the sphere of the political directly. This is a political culture - a set of historically formed, stable, significant political ideas, values, customs, beliefs, traditions, norms and rules of political behavior transmitted from generation to generation.

Finally, the relationship between the social and the political can be interpreted in different ways due to different understandings of the social. The social in a broad sense, understood as social, practically coincides with the social system in terms of the scope of the concept, and in this sense the political is considered as part of the social. Often the concept of the social is narrowed down to a set of institutions whose function is the production and reproduction of man, the creation of living conditions for his existence. In our case, the social, understood as a set of intergroup relations in the social system, allows us to see the interconnection of all four social spheres, connecting them into a single whole.

a person is not only a material and spiritual being, but also a social one: in addition to material and spiritual needs, he has a need to be in a group. This need is realized in relationships with colleagues, relatives, friends, like-minded people, coreligionists, sports teammates, etc. But in addition to the circle of direct communication in the process of socialization, a person joins a wider circle of people, identifying himself in relation to common spiritual values or to a general position in the production system. As a person develops, the process of his socialization, becoming as a person takes place: the circle of relations with groups close to him expands, the community of economic interests is realized, their social values are assimilated and accepted as their own - the number of groups perceived by the individual as "we" grows. Thus, the scope of a person's social identity expands to the limits of society as a whole. And every time the formation of the circle of identity "we" is accompanied by the formation of attitudes towards those who are outside this circle. Along with every "we" there is a corresponding "they".

There are, however, groups whose economic interests and social values not only do not coincide, but even come into conflict with each other. In this case, between "we" and "they" there are relations of competition, and even conflict, which ceases under certain conditions into confrontation on the principle of "friend" - "enemy". The most important for modern society are the relations over opposing material interests and spiritual values between employees and employers (or classes), as well as between different ethnic and religious groups. “Modern political science,” wrote A.S. Panarin - combines two methodological strategies. One of them is related to the procedures of assignment to interests. To reveal the springs of "realpolitik" means to reveal the interests behind it. The second strategy is related to the procedures for referring to values. In an analytical sense, it involves the disclosure of the spring of political events, which is associated with a conflict of values, mentality, traditions" [Panarin 1997: 10]. Both of these procedures are equivalent and reflect two real sources of policy, rooted in the economic and spiritual spheres, but manifesting themselves in the form of social contradictions, in the social sphere. It is precisely for the regulation of relations between significant social groups that the political sphere exists.

Contradictions may also arise between groups based on gender, age or other affiliation, but these contradictions, as a rule, are inferior in severity to contradictions that have prerequisites in the economic and spiritual sphere. It happens, however, that belonging to one or another of these groups is associated with the economic situation (youth unemployment, industrial discrimination based on sex, etc.) or with the formation of special value systems (subcultures). If such groups are sufficiently consolidated

Figure 1. Scheme of interaction between the political, social and spiritual spheres

and influence the adoption of state decisions, they should also be classified as significant social groups, relations with which are projected onto the political sphere.

Thus, we can say that the economic and spiritual spheres have an impact on the political sphere, they form it not directly, but through the social sphere, through the relations that develop between significant social groups with mismatched interests and values. Conventionally, the interaction between these spheres is shown in fig. one.

Without agreeing on the basic concepts, it is impossible to form a single space of scientific ideas about the political world. The scarcity of scientific knowledge is easily replaced by a wealth of preconceived interpretations and selfish fantasies. Departing from a clear designation of the subject, political science, like any other, gives scope to eclecticism, slows down its own development and reduces its predictive capabilities. Thus, the ministers of political science themselves provide food for talk about the absence of this science or about its bias. It is hoped that this publication will serve to reduce the degree of uncertainty about the subject of political science.

Bibliography

Alekseeva T.A. 2005. Cognition and Essence of the Political. - Politia. No. 1. S. 144-170.

Weber M. 1990. Politics as a vocation and a profession. - Selected works. M.: Progress. pp. 644-706.

Vernadsky V.I. 1991. Scientific thought as a planetary phenomenon. M.: Science. 268 p. De Wahl F. 2016. Chimpanzee Politics. Power and sex in primates. 2nd ed. M.: ID HSE. 272 p. Ilyin I.A. 2007. Path to evidence. M: Keeper. 325 p. Karadzhe T.V. 2013. The problem of defining "political" in political science. - Issues of political science. No. 3. S. 5-13.

Marx K. 1961. Remarks on the program of the German Workers' Party. - K. Marx, F. Engels. Works. 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house of political literature. T. 19. 670 p.

Panarin A.S. 1997. Political science. M.: Prospect. 408 p. Parsons T. 1998. The System of Modern Societies. Moscow: Aspect Press. 270 p. Pastukhov V.B. 2007. We live in a "pre-political" state. - APN resource. Access: http://www.apn.ru/publications/article17284.htm (checked on 05/01/2016). Pelipenko A.A. 2014. Global crisis and the fate of the West. M: Knowledge. 224 p. Solovyov A.I. 2006. Political Science: Political Theory, Political Technologies. Moscow: Aspect Press. 559 p. Solovyov A.I. 2007. Politics. - Political Science: Lexicon. M.: ROSSPEN. Uemov A.I. 1963. Things, properties and relations. M.: Book on Demand. 184 p. Haywood E. 2005. Political Science. M.: UNITY-DANA. 544 p. Schmitt K. 2012. The Concept of the Political. M.: Research Center "Engineer". 172 p. Engels F. 1965. Konrad Schmidt. - K. Marx, F. Engels. Works. 2nd ed. M.: Publishing house of political literature. T. 37. 599 p.

SHABROV Oleg Fedorovich, Dr.Sci.(Pol.Sci), Professor; Head of the Chair of Political Science and Political Management, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), President of the Academy of Political Science (84 Vernadskogo Ave, Moscow, Russia, 119571; [email protected])

THE CONCEPT OF POLITICAL: IS POLITICAL SCIENCE POSSIBLE?

abstract. In the article basic concepts of political science - polity and political, are discussed. The author formulated criteria of social phenomena belonging to the sphere of political and defined the position of the political sphere in social system and its interrelation with economic, social and cultural spheres. The urgency of the problem of the subject certainty of political science is shown, the author also formulates the approaches to its solution. The author believes that this publication will decrease a degree of uncertainty in the question of political science subject.

Keywords: politics, political, political sphere, economic sphere, cultural sphere, social sphere

II. SECULAR LEVEL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION REGARDING THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL JUSTICE

II. Purpose and objectives of the state policy in the field of development of the innovation system

IV. Mechanisms and main measures for the implementation of state policy in the field of innovation system development

The political system is the totality and interaction of all political institutions in society that regulate political life.

The following subsystems are included in the political system:

1. institutional subsystem, consisting of various socio-political institutions and organizations that play a leading role in shaping the ideology of the state.

The leading political institution, concentrating in itself the maximum political power, is state. Among non-governmental organizations, the largest role in the political life of society is played by political parties. They also have an important influence on political life. social organizations and movements.

3. Normative (regulatory) subsystem. This substructure takes the form political and legal norms and other means of regulating the relationship between the subjects of the political system.

4. Political and ideological subsystem includes a set of political ideas, theories and views on the basis of which various socio-political institutions are formed and function as elements of the political system of society.

5. functional subsystem. This component characterizes the main forms and directions of activity of the political system, ways and means of its influence on public life. The functional subsystem finds concrete expression in political relations and the political regime.

Political power - it is the ability and ability of a social group, stratum to exercise its will, to have a decisive influence on the activities, behavior of people through authority, law, violence. Political power is the real ability of a social group, an individual to carry out his will in politics, in the sphere of legal norms and in the formation of state ideology. The manifestations of political power in society are diverse: state, public, economic, etc. The forms and methods of its implementation in various social and economic systems are not the same: from consensus to violence, from democracy to totalitarianism, from adequate consideration of the needs and interests of the masses to direct psychological pressure and physical terror, from appealing to divine and secular authorities to manipulating the minds and behavior of individuals.

What is the relationship between politics and power?

Power and politics are sometimes identified, considering them inseparable and interdependent. Really, power is the central principle of politics, is a means of implementing the policy. The struggle for power, for mastering it and retaining it, is a political problem, regardless of whether it is solved through elections, appointments, or seizure. As a rule, power is not an end in itself for social forces seeking to realize their goals. However, having come to power, these forces begin to form specific power structures of various scales - from the government, president, parliament to regional and local structures. The new rulers, realizing their interests and goals, themselves develop and implement their own policy, which becomes a means of this power. In other words, politics is the cause of power, and power is the cause of politics. We can say that politics and power are connected by a cause-and-effect relationship.

Relations of power presuppose the existence of a subject and an object (or a second, passive subject), relations of domination and subordination, inducement to action and its commission at the request of the first subject. Power arises in relations between people, groups of people, society and its parts, that is, subjects endowed with consciousness, will, and the ability to act.

The subjects of power can be individuals, organizations, communities of people, unions of states, the world community.

The most important, socially significant functions of political power include the following:

Maintaining public order and stability;

Identification, limitation and resolution of conflicts;

Achievement of public consent (consensus);

Coercion in the name of socially significant goals and maintaining stability;

Society management.

The national-state ideology and the political system of society are in a dialectical relationship.

In modern society, the components of the political system are: the state, political parties, public organizations and movements. The exercise of political power, the struggle for power, or the desire to influence it is the main and most important content of their activities. The core element of the political system of society and its core is the state, which has the following features:

This is the right of the state to use coercion, and only the state has power-public functions;

This is the universality of the influence of the state on its citizens, the obligatory influence for all members of society.

Political parties are not directly authorities, they have a direct impact on the functioning of the institutions of political power.

A specific role in the political system belongs to public organizations and movements whose activities are aimed at achieving any group or public goals. Examples include national movements, trade unions, and other societies and associations.

As an analysis of the political system of society, one can point to the inner, deep content that makes up its essence. The very existence of this system is due to social reasons and, above all, the need to protect and implement fundamental social interests. Thus, any political system as a whole and any of its constituent elements have a social content and are a reflection of certain social interests. This is the essence of the political system of society

The state ideology predetermines not only the composition and characteristics of the political institutions of a given society, but also within the framework of those tasks and goals, the implementation of which is directed by the activity of the political system and, above all, such an element of it as the state. Developing, the national-state ideology modifies the political system in relation to the characteristics of a particular stage of social development. The political system of society, its structural characteristics allow us to make an integrated conclusion that the political system includes the organization of political power, relations between society and the state, characterizes the course of political processes, including the institutionalization of power, the state of political activity, the levels of political creativity in society, the nature political relations. The political system of society is one of the parts of the total social system and in real life interacts with its other subsystems: social, economic, ideological, legal

The Republic of Belarus is undergoing a process of significant transformation of the political system. The main vector of transformations is associated with its transformation into a political system of an open, pluralistic type. Currently, the political and legal principles and norms underlying the functioning of the political system of the Belarusian society are oriented towards international democratic standards. The Constitution proclaims the Republic of Belarus a unitary democratic social legal state. The bodies of state power of the Republic of Belarus carry out their activities on the basis of the principle of separation of powers: legislative, judicial, and executive, each of which is independent. The system of local self-government is constitutionally recognized and guaranteed, affirming the diversity of political parties and public associations, social groups and political institutions, ideologies and opinions. The principle of the rule of law is being established in the Republic of Belarus. In the sphere of political consciousness and political culture, a process is underway aimed at shaping political thinking and democratic behavior of citizens. Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus guarantees everyone freedom of opinion, belief, and their free expression. All this indicates that political pluralism has become a reality.

The complication of the system of political relations in society has not only quantitative, but also qualitative changes. Thus, attitudes towards the political system are characterized, on the one hand, by the loyalty and support of the majority of the people, and, on the other hand, by the formation of real opposition, the activity of which intensifies during the struggle for power (parliamentary and presidential elections). In this regard, much remains to be done in the field of improving political relations. Thus, the primary task is to reduce the level of political confrontation in society, ensure civil accord and develop democratic procedures for resolving political conflicts. The norm of political relations should be relations of a consensus type (discussions, negotiations, organization of "round tables", etc.).

The modern political system in the Republic of Belarus is young. Its development continues: a dialogue and mutual understanding is being established between various political institutions, legislation is being improved, a political culture is being formed in the conditions of political pluralism and the peculiarities of the Belarusian mentality

The political system of society is a set of political interests and organizations, moral and legal norms, public opinion, political culture and other elements through which political power is exercised.

An analysis of the relationship between socio-political phenomena and state ideology in civil society confirms the need for a serious attitude to the formation and development of the state ideology of the Republic of Belarus as an indispensable condition for the effective functioning of the Belarusian society.

| | | | | | | | 9 | | | | | | | |

The functioning and development of political science in public life is combined with the performance of a number of specific functions associated not only with the knowledge of politics, but also with real practical activities in the field of public authority. This is first of all descriptive a function that implies the need for a comprehensive and complete description of the internal and external relations of political phenomena, their characteristic features. The implementation of this function is inextricably linked with the change and enrichment of the methods and techniques of cognition, the requirements for which are determined by the state of the object, the needs of society in obtaining reliable knowledge about political changes, the availability of professional performers and some other conditions.

Political science performs and estimated a function that involves making judgments about political objects (and their properties) in terms of their acceptability or unacceptability for a particular social subject. In other words, political phenomena are subjected by scientists to a mandatory value assessment, which is an indispensable component of scientific analysis. And this is not “partiality”, but a feature of the cognition procedure, which manifests itself in the form of attributing certain subjective meanings to events, which turns the event into a political fact. It is no coincidence that scholars who adhere, for example, to democratic views, see in the fascist putsch a content that is opposite to that which the supporters of such actions see in it.

Political science also performs comparative a function that involves the mandatory comparison of various political phenomena (systems of power, regimes of government, types of political culture, etc.) before conclusions and assessments are formed regarding certain phenomena, trends in their development, typologies, patterns, etc.

very important and transformative function of political science. It is caused by the need of society to form such knowledge that, being included in practical activities in the sphere of power, will be able to reduce the costs of public administration, contribute to achieving greater compliance with the results of the intended goals, etc. Thus, political science is to some extent connected with practical transformations in the sphere of power, woven into the purposeful actions of various political forces.

An integral, but very specific part of the solution of this problem is predictive function of political science. It expresses the need to develop probabilistic knowledge that anticipates the possible consequences of the actions taken and tries to hypothetically determine the changes that accompany the achievement of goals. Thanks to the implementation of this function of political knowledge, a certain primary image of the policy of the future is formed, capable of correcting the actual actions of the forces fighting for power.

Function socialization It is aimed at the formation of political consciousness among people who are included in the sphere of power relations. Accompanying the life of individuals whose lives are in one way or another affected by political processes, science helps to rationalize their political ideas, increase their level of competence in performing various roles in the sphere of power, clarify their own capabilities when using political power to protect their interests.

Giving a logical list of the main functions of political science, we do not touch on the question of the real weight of each of them in a particular state and society. For example, in Soviet times, supporters of Marxism, who professed the credo of the founder of this scientific direction (and K. Marx believed that the task of scientists is not to explain, but to change the world), considered the transformative function as the leading one. At the same time, many conservative-minded scientists, on the contrary, have a negative attitude towards the transformative properties of scientific knowledge, preferring its descriptive functions. Thus, it should be recognized that the significance and role of certain functions may vary depending on specific political conditions, the level of development of scientific knowledge, the sensitivity of the ruling elite to the recommendations of scientists, the priorities of the leading group of political researchers, and a number of other factors.

Chapter 28

From the book About Stalin without tantrums author Medvedev Felix Nikolaevich

Chapter 28

Seventh commandment: Any idea is your idea!

From the book Six Actors in Search of a Director author Kieslowski Kshishtov

Seventh commandment: Any idea is your idea! The openness that Kieslowski preaches is necessary not only in relation to all sorts of surprises, but also to proposals of various kinds. Kieslowski: "Of course, we have a seminar, the situation is special, but also during normal work on

Road leading to nowhere

From the book U-3 author Flögstad Härtan

The Road Leading to Nowhere Historical facts, set out in a living literary language, are sometimes curious. But when they are intertwined with politics, the matter reaches the level of heightened reader interest. And if there are still detective elements here, and even with

HERO OF OUR TIME Belarusian idea as the idea of a better person

From the author's book

THE HERO OF OUR TIME The Belarusian idea as the idea of a better man This spring has been fighting winter for so long, as if it wants to draw our attention to the importance of change. There is something milestone in this battle. The usual annual death and rebirth turns into a milestone of eras. All,

The final idea is "you don't need any idea"

From the book I Am - I Am. Conversations author Renz Karl

The last idea is "you don't need any idea" Q: When the question doesn't come up, is it because the fish are afraid of being killed? K: You don't want to lose Your last fish. You are afraid of danger, therefore You do not show Your shop. "I'd rather not show my fish, it's too much

§ 3. The Cartesian Revolution and the Leading Final Idea of the Foundation of Science

From the book Cartesian Reflections author Husserl Edmund

§ 3. The Cartesian Revolution and the Leading Final Idea of the Foundation of Science Thus, we, each for ourselves and in ourselves, start from the beginning, with the radical decision of beginning philosophers to remove, first of all, from the game all beliefs that have hitherto been significant for us, and together with them and all

Chapter 40 Idea and Ideology. International integration and cooperation. Vatican and UN. humanistic idea. union of nations

From the book Understanding Processes the author Tevosyan Mikhail

Chapter 40 Idea and Ideology. International integration and cooperation. Vatican and UN. humanistic idea. Union of Nations The only way to change the world is to explain it in any satisfactory way; to explain it means to calmly change it under the influence of

The head is the leading function

From the book History of the Body in the Middle Ages author Le Goff Jacques

Head - the leading function The Romans, like most peoples, believed that in the head (caput) are the brain, soul and life force of man. She was given a leading role in the body. Historian Paul-Henri Stahl convincingly showed that very common in antiquity and in the Middle Ages

Leading and led

From the book Be an Amazon - ride fate author Andreeva Julia

Leading and led It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. Stuart's retroactive law (Murphy's laws) Well, life sometimes slips riddles, it is well known that people are divided into those who can lead, teach, direct the masses, and those who are better

Anxiety leading to disease

From the book Getting rid of all diseases. Self love lessons author Tarasov Evgeny Alexandrovich

Suspiciousness leading to diseases It is known that suspiciousness is an increased tendency to anxious fears for any reason. And perhaps the most painful for a person are anxieties and fears about their own health or the health of their loved ones.

LEADING CONCEPT

From the book Serious Creative Thinking by Bono Edward de

LEADING CONCEPT The Wright brothers were the first to build a heavier-than-air flying machine because they changed the basic principle. While all inventors were preoccupied with constructing "static" flying machines, the Wright brothers decided to create a "dynamic" machine.

Ladder leading to success

From the book Dream like a woman, win like a man author Harvey Steve

Ladder leading to success As I mentioned, intermediate goals should help you move towards your dream step by step. This process is deeply individual. You have your own ladder to success, I have mine. The main thing is that until the next step you can

Tower leading to the sky

From the book Encounters on the Banks of Yodogawa author Mamonov Anatoly Ivanovich

Tower leading to the sky I have souvenirs brought from Japan on my table: A diploma with ink hieroglyphs - the art of a modern calligrapher, chess, an openwork model of the Osaka Tower, somewhat reminiscent of the Eiffel Tower. They are very dear to me. These are awards. This is the memory of

Lead Program

From the book Strange Civilization author Tsaplin Vladimir Sergeevich

The leading program The continued existence of a complex physical and chemical phenomenon that has the property that we call "life" is possible only with the simultaneous and mandatory appearance and inheritance of the self-reproduction mechanism as the main condition

9. "The Idea of Datit and the Idea of Eloikim" ("The Divine Idea and the Religious Idea")

From the book Introduction to the Philosophy of Judaism author Polonsky Pinchas

9. "The Idea of Datit and the Idea of the Eloikim" ("The Divine Idea and the Religious Idea") Both of these terms belong to Rav Kook. He has a special book called "Le Maalach Yediot B'Israel" about the evolution of ideas in the Jewish people. And in this book he describes as follows

Political system, its structure and functions. Political power The ability to realize the intended goals to reconcile conflicting

Tutoring

Chapter 28

Seventh commandment: Any idea is your idea!

Road leading to nowhere

HERO OF OUR TIME Belarusian idea as the idea of a better person

The final idea is "you don't need any idea"

§ 3. The Cartesian Revolution and the Leading Final Idea of the Foundation of Science

Chapter 40 Idea and Ideology. International integration and cooperation. Vatican and UN. humanistic idea. union of nations

The head is the leading function

Leading and led

Anxiety leading to disease

LEADING CONCEPT

Ladder leading to success

Tower leading to the sky

Lead Program

9. "The Idea of Datit and the Idea of Eloikim" ("The Divine Idea and the Religious Idea")

Report a typo

Text to be sent to our editors:

Your comment (optional):

Tutoring

Chapter 28

Seventh commandment: Any idea is your idea!

Road leading to nowhere

HERO OF OUR TIME Belarusian idea as the idea of ​​a better person

The final idea is "you don't need any idea"

§ 3. The Cartesian Revolution and the Leading Final Idea of ​​the Foundation of Science

Chapter 40 Idea and Ideology. International integration and cooperation. Vatican and UN. humanistic idea. union of nations

The head is the leading function

Leading and led

Anxiety leading to disease

LEADING CONCEPT

Ladder leading to success

Tower leading to the sky

Lead Program

9. "The Idea of ​​Datit and the Idea of ​​Eloikim" ("The Divine Idea and the Religious Idea")

Report a typo

Text to be sent to our editors:

Your comment (optional):

HERO OF OUR TIME Belarusian idea as the idea of a better person

§ 3. The Cartesian Revolution and the Leading Final Idea of the Foundation of Science

9. "The Idea of Datit and the Idea of Eloikim" ("The Divine Idea and the Religious Idea")