In Search of Another Mainstream


Martyanov V.S.,

Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ekaternburg, Russia, martianovy@rambler.ru


elibrary_id: 223692 | ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7747-0022 |


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.04.09

Rubric: Laboratory

For citation:

Martyanov V.S. In Search of Another Mainstream. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No. 4. P. 112-131. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.09



Abstract

The “end of history” actually turned out to be the beginning of the end for the global hierarchy of the West, centered around societies which identified themselves as liberal market democracies. At present, one can observe a consistent weakening of Western economic, political, and military hegemony, accompanied by the rise of non-Western centers of power. The world is again moving towards conflict multipolarity, and this movement is determined by a number of background factors affecting all contemporary societies. This is the achievement of several factors: the limited capacity of global markets alongside the model of endless economic growth, the crisis of societies’ class stratification, the strengthening of inequality, and the crisis of social policy focused on the labor and military usefulness of citizens. These changes allow us to formulate two interrelated theses developed in the article. The first thesis is that the globally changing economic and political ontology, which can be described as the rental turn, no longer can be convincingly described from the mainstream perspective, one of the main tasks of which was to ideologically legitimize Western hegemony. The second thesis is that the concepts of contemporary societies – running alternative to the neoliberal mainstream – that do not reveal in them the qualitative political, economic, and cultural differences lying at the foundation of the intellectual and institutional hierarchies are becoming increasingly relevant. Alternative descriptions are built primarily on the reassessment of capitalism, democracy, and market exchanges as an indispensable core of modernity, framed in the form of the liberal consensus. Under the public ideological variations of the liberal consensus, hidden mechanisms can be found, revealing themes of power-ownership, rent-seeking behavior, oligopolies, inherited power, and economic policy, far from the principles of self-regulated market competition. The neoliberal mainstream continues to classify these trends as archaic, traumatic, and unworthy deviations that need to be brought back to normal. The paradox is that liberal democracy itself ceases to be the norm, turning into a specific ideal of the political system, less and less attainable even in Western societies, where this ideal was considered to be realized in practice. The article proves the fallacy of the negative moral assessments of trends inconvenient to the mainstream. It is argued that fundamental changes, initially assessed within the narrow framework of liberal market modernity as archaic (neo-feudalism, neopatrimonialism, rent-estate society), will only increase ontologically. They will lead to the formation of a new consensus among researchers  about the value-institutional economic and political normality of 21st century societies against the background of reaching the natural limits of capitalism and leveling Western hegemony. The new normality appears as a rent-estate society in an adaptive market shell, differing only in its relative thickness. 

Keywords
mainstream, liberal consensus, hegemony of the West, limits of growth, multipolar world, legitimation, rent society, neo-feudalism, neopatrimonialism, soft power.


References

Collier D., Levitsky S. 1997. Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research. – World Politics. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 430-451. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1997.0009

Hale H.E. 2005. Regime Cycles: Democracy, Autocracy, and Revolution in Post-Soviet Eurasia. – World Politics. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 133-165. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.2006.0019

Jameson F. 1971. Marxism and Form: Twentieth Century Dialectical Theories of Literature. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 432 p.

Kotkin J. 2020. The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class. New York, N.Y.: Encounter Books. 288 p.

Shlapentokh V., Woods J. 2011. Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. 184 p.

Shleifer A., Treisman D. 2005. A Normal Country: Russia after Communism – Journal of Economic Perspectives. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 151-174. https://doi.org/10.1257/0895330053147949

 

Derlug’yan G. 2009. Stabilizatsionnaya politsistema v poiskakh dinamizma? [A Stabilizing Political System in Search of Dynamism?]. – Pervyi ezhegodnyi Doklad Instituta obshchestvennogo proektirovaniya “Otsenka sostoyaniya i perspektiv politicheskoi sistemy Rossiiskoi Federatsii v 2008 godu – nachale 2009 goda [The First Annual Report of the Institute of Public Design “Assessment of the State and Prospects of the Political System of the Russian Federation in 2008 – Early 2009]. Moscow: Institut obshchestvennogo proektirovaniya. P. 13-32. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.inop.ru/files/Doklad_2009_mr.pdf (accessed: 22.05.2021).

Dean J. 2019. Communism or Neo-Feudalism? – Logos. Vol. 29. No. 6. P. 85-116. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2019-6-85-114

Fishman L.G. 2019. Boomerang Comes Around? – Svobodnaya Mysl (Free Thought). No. 1. P. 15-23. (In Russ.)

Gel’man V. 2019. Nedostoinoe pravlenie. Politika v sovremennoi Rossii [Bad Governance: Politics in Modern Russia]. Saint Petersburg: EUSP Press. 254 p. (In Russ.)

Kordonskii S.G. 2008. Soslovnaya struktura postsovetskoi Rossii [The Estate Structure of the Post-Soviet Russia]. Moscow: Institut Fonda Obschestvennoe Mnenie. 216 p. (In Russ.)

Koshovets O.B., Orekhovsky P.A. 2018. Structuralist Revolution and Transformation of Economics: From Science to Fairy Tale. – Social Sciences and Contemporary World. No. 5. P. 143-157. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S086904990000392-3

Martianov V.S. 2017a. The Political Limits of “Homo Economicus”. – Social Sciences and Contemporary World. No. 2. P. 104-118. (In Russ.)

Martianov V.S. 2017b. The Capitalism, Rent and Democracy. – Journal of Institutional Studies. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 51-68. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2017.9.1.051-068

Mills C.W. 2007. The Power Elite. (Russ. ed.: Mills C.W. Vlastvuyushchaya elita. Moscow: Directmedia Publishing. 844 p.).

Pivovarov Yu., Fursov A. 2001. “Russian System” as an Attempt to Understand Russian History. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 37-48. (In Russ.)

Pliskevich N.M. 2006. “Power-Property” in Modern Russia: Emergence and Possible Mutations. – Universe of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 62-113. (In Russ.)

Ryabov A. 2008. Revival of the “Feudal” Archaic in Modern Russia: Practice and Ideas. – Series “Working Materials” of the Carnegie Moscow Center. No. 4. 16 p. (In Russ.) URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/files/WP_4_2008.indd.pdf (accessed: 22.05.2021).

Shlapentokh V. 2008. Contemporary Russia as a Feudal Society: a New Perspective on the Post-Soviet Era. (Russ. ed.: Shlapentokh V. Sovremennaya Rossiya kak feodal’noe obshchestvo. Novyi rakurs postsovetskoi ehpokhi. Moscow: Capital-print. 364 p.).

Startsev Y.Yu. 2019. Neo-feudalism or Neopatrimonialism? Quantitative Analysis of the “New Middle Ages” Conceptualizations in Political Science. – Vox medii aevi. Vol. 2(5). P. 127–149. https://doi.org/10.24411/2587-6619-2019-00017

Vakhrusheva E.A. 2016. Politicheskaya filosofiya Fredrika Dzheimisona [The Political Philosophy of Fredrik Jameson]. Dissertation for the Degree of Candidate of Political Sciences. Ekaterinburg: Institute of Philosophy and Law, Russian Academy of Sciences, Ural Branch. 157 p. (In Russ.)

Wallerstein I. 2003. After Liberalism. (Russ. ed.: Wallerstein I. Posle liberalizma. Moscow: Editorial URSS. 256 p.).

Wallerstein I. 2004. The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century. (Russ. ed.: Wallerstein I. Konets znakomogo mira: Sotsiologiya XXI veka. Moscow: Logos. 368 p.).

Wallerstein I. 2016. The Modern World-System. Vol. IV: Centrist Liberalism Triumphant, 1789-1914. (Russ. ed.: Wallerstein I. Mir-sistema Moderna. Vol IV. Triumf tsentristskogo liberalizma, 1789-1914. Moscow: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science. 496 p.). 

Content No. 4, 2021

See also:


Liu Zaiqi,
«Soft Power» in China’s Development Strategy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No4

Martyanov V.S., Fishman L.G.,
Overcoming capitalism: from moral collapse to moral revolution?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No1

Andreyev A.L.,
“Soft Power”: Arrangement of Senses, Russian Style. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No5

Kostyrev A.G.,
The intelligent power, public diplomacy, and social networks as a factors of international politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2

Martyanov V.S.,
Modernity continues?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No3

 
 

Archive

   2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991