The knowledge of society and social cognition: social dream on the other side of science, art and ideology

The knowledge of society, in contrast to the knowledge of nature, deals with social matter, that is, with social relations that people enter with each other and that are independent of their will and consciousness. These relations and other forms of social matter in the form of objects of the first nature of social matter involved in circulation can be known and reflected in images and concepts by means of science, religion and art, but their transformation is possible only in collective material practice. The people's dream-the collective great dream is an integrator of public consciousness and social reality in mastering new meanings and, therefore, capturing and building an image of the future, and later in the practical construction of this future. 30 years ago, our people and their party-state elite realized the rejection of the great dream of a common destiny of humanity through the construction of communism as a bright future for all mankind, as a result, the peoples of Eurasia were invited to integrate into the foreign liberal project of Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. For us in Russia, this project was unsuccessful and showed its failure.

To this global project that failed for Russia, attributions were added such as-we are going to a post-industrial society, to a society of services. The way to this society is through sustainable development. The conceptual complex "sustainable development" is unscientific and questionable, but it has been encrusted in the theoretical framework of understanding liberal globalization. Later, it was followed by meaningless but loud-sounding phrases like "green economy, digital society".

Sustainable development in Russia is figuratively demonstrated at international exhibitions, in particular, at Innoprom exhibition in Yekaterinburg. The author visited and studied all ten Innoprom exhibitions, which are designed to show the dream of peoples and mark a special Russian dream. But at the exhibitions, the lack of understanding of the development path and image of the future for the Russian and its complimentary civilizations is striking. There is a chimerical thinking of the exhibitors themselves. Baroness S. Greenfield, a participant in the exhibition, writes about "the people of tomorrow" in her books. As the main one, she puts on the cover the question: "how technologies of the twenty-first century are changing the way we think and feel" [2]. In other words, we are talking about technologies, and technologies are how something is produced, but not under what social relations it occurs.

It is obvious to us that it was necessary to check the course on the information society and post-industrialism initially, that is, at the time of the change of formations, when there was an accelerated degradation from human to transhuman. But many authors believe that socialism with its rigid ideology is outdated and does not correspond to the level of modern production, and they declare capitalism mysterious, incomprehensible and changing. Literally, our friend the German philosopher J. Campbell writes: "History has proved that the ideology of socialism does not correspond to the level of development of society and therefore cannot bring any real results." And then: "Capitalism is one of the most mysterious systems (if not the most mysterious) in the history of mankind. It is much more interesting than the Mayan civilization, the civilizations of Ancient China and Egypt. Capitalism is a system that is constantly changing, not identical to itself and difficult to detect" [1, p. 387-388].

Break into the future under the banner of the great dream

History itself shows that in its most difficult moments, Russia has repeatedly made a breakthrough into the future of all mankind under the banner of the great dream. Russian dream Academy in Yekaterinburg in 2019 was opened by A.A. Prokhanov as the first step of the new Russian dream in modern Russia. After talking at the opening of the Academy with a prominent publicist, the author of these lines understood his idea-we need to conceptualize the dream, that is, the transition from dreams through art, ideology, exploration of the future to the science of society. Russian writer was initially surprised that in a dialogue with the Governor of the Sverdlovsk region, this prominent writer of the Russian land replaced the "Russian idea" with the "Russian dream". Replace the idea with a dream!? This requirement shows that training for projects of new world systems shows that the old geopolitics is a thing of the past, a new geopolitics 1.0 (in the terminology of A.G. Dugin) - the geopolitics of the unipolar world, while there is a need for a new real geopolitics 2.0, or the geopolitics of a multipolar world [5]. However, this is not enough – there is a need for not just geopolitical regulation of space, but time management, that is, sky-politics [4].

In Russia, sky-politics is beginning to replace the "bright myth of the West", which is no longer supported by the new real geopolitics of the multipolar world. And since multipolarity is impossible in the physical material world (only bipolarity), it is also impossible in the spatial dimension of relations between countries and powers in the pre-war and war period, when only two sides collide, as is the case in any military conflict, non-politics comes to the fore. There are three pairs of players in it as in a bridge game, and these pairs need a special form of public consciousness – the black myth. The black myth of the West as the "fiend of hell" in Russia changes the perestroika myth of adoration and worship of the West. S.G. Kara-Murza writes in the book "Manipulation of consciousness": "Today, having been defeated in the cold war and observing the destruction of our country, a significant part of the intelligentsia has fallen into a symmetrical and structurally similar to perestroika myth-making. The black myth of the West is being created. It warms the soul of a patriot, but reduces his ability to realistically perceive and understand the processes that are taking place. For manipulators who need to divert public consciousness from the essence of contradictions, such myths are no less useful than the bright myth of the West in the 80's" [7, p. 196]. The author shows in his classic fundamental research that these black myths of the West are supplemented by "soft" black myths about the Soviet system (the economic myth, the myth of the Soviet militia, the myth of technological risk, the environmental myth), as well as large black myths – myths about the black hundreds and white guards, myths about socialism as a path to destruction.

These myths are created by pseudo-experts, by engaged political scientists. The most serious and objective Western scientists note, as S. Cohen writes, that "scientists and journalists should get rid of pseudo-experts, especially those who treat Russia like any other country, regardless of its history, and see it as just a "laboratory" for testing their theories. (No doubt there must be something special about a country where both communism and capitalism have been completely discredited in just 80 years.) Among those who consider themselves experts, representatives of two professions played a particularly pernicious role in the 90s: theoretical economists and financial investors. Both resembled those weapons experts from another era who were considered "Sovietologists" only on the grounds that the Soviet Union possessed weapons.

Traveling "shock therapists" from various universities, intersectoral institutions, and official structures have had a particularly strong influence on the press's opinion of post-Communist Russia. It is a pity that most of them knew little about this country (except that it has an economy) and were not at all embarrassed that their laws and recipes are Marxist universal. (Some of them were so "not in the material" that their own businesses in Moscow ended in a scandal). In fairness, it should be noted that not all economists shared the views of the adherents of "shock therapy" and were right. "Shock therapists" suffered a crushing defeat in Russia" [8, p. 61].

The idea, the dream, the doctrine

The idea exists where there are large groups of people comparable to society (classes, nations, peoples), and the dream, dreams can be an individual, a person, a person. Reducing an idea to a dream, philosophy to aesthetics and artistic understanding of the world in images, social Sciences and Humanities to sociological surveys is dangerous for building the trajectory and development plan of any society. We need to reverse the movement from the dream of the future, of the "beautiful Russia of the future" to move through the idea and social ideologies to the scientific understanding of society.

The constitutional ban on official ideology lowered the level of study of ideas in society. Now even graduate students do not know what an idea is, and yet this category comes from the philosophers of antiquity and in Plato occupies the most important role in his system, since the entire material object world in objective idealism and religion is a shadow of the world of ideas. You ask graduate students: "is the white ceiling an idea?» They don't understand, but you say: "Where-where-where I am" - these words are smiled at, there is an Association from advertising: "there is an idea, there is IKEA" - here the smile is even wider, they understand what they are calling to buy, this is the idea of minimalism and quality embedded in perfect goods and services.

Meanwhile, a dream without an idea is empty, a dream with an idea is a project, and a conceptually formed dream is already a doctrine. In A. Balabanov's cult film "Brother 2", a New-York taxi driver on the way from the airport shouts: "Russian idea, Dostoevsky, power… Where is your homeland, son?! Gorbachev handed over your Homeland to the Americans to hang out beautifully...". To form a new doctrine consisting of ideas, the famous traditional "Russian questions" of the century before last should be asked: Who is to blame? What to do? Who are the judges? Where to start? They will make it possible not to issue decrees and carry out manual management of society, but to create plans, the very plans that are controlled by scientific communities and tested in practice on the scale of individual industries and society as a whole. Nevertheless, the ideas and concepts themselves may be scientific or unscientific, and a dream is a dream – it is always outside of science.

Three forms of knowledge

In the “Phenomenology of the spirit”, G.W.F. Hegel shows three forms of knowledge: religion, art, and science. The highest of these is conceptual knowledge, i.e. scientific knowledge. And science, as we know, is a product of class society; moreover, in an antagonistic society, two understandings and two images of this society are possible: scientific and unscientific, or historical materialism and historical idealism. It is necessary to choose between a scientific understanding of society and an unscientific representation of it. Among our colleagues, philosophers and social scientists, there are many idealists, but they do not admit that idealists and often say that the main question of philosophy is outdated (the question of the primacy and secondary nature of matter and consciousness – the ontological aspect of the question, the question of cognizability and ways of knowing the world – the epistemological aspect of the question) and that it is time to know the world with images, feelings, sensations.

Knowledge of the world in images, a reflection of the world by means of art, mastering the world with dreams and day dreams, in the words of Freud, also a party of human cognition, but it is not a science. It is difficult to apply scientific systematic work and practice as a criterion of truth to dreams and dreams as a production of ideas. It is possible, but difficult – just like it is difficult to apply labor to winter wheat in winter: production is under snow, and human labor is not needed. Since the largest modern writer A.A. Prokhanov does not stand on the positions of the class understanding of society, and he is forced to talk about the people's subjectivity in history, to turn to God, to talk about the unknowable mysteries of the soul of our people and history as a whole.

Since the people are the bearers of the dream, the dream of the people is not interpreted as true or false. The question of whether it exists or not, in what new form it will appear at a particular turn of history, is comprehended. Here, while waiting for the manifestation of a dream, one can only rely on a great personality, and any individual as a person in history is always guided by the patterns of the past. It remains only to see whose portraits hang in the offices of the great personalities of modern history, who they focus on in the past - Peter the First (or Great) or Ivan Grozny, for example. And we know who had these portraits. All this means that it is time to agree on concepts, create a categorical grid for the study of society and man, and in the words of the classic, before you unite, you should resolutely separate. Separate social scientists and visionaries, politicians and ideologues. It is important for our postgraduates and undergraduates to take the position of scientific knowledge of society, which sets tasks for natural and social Sciences, and social needs move science more than a dozen first-class universities. Recall the "Manhattan project" of the United States and the catch-up nuclear project in the USSR, the battle for space and the arms race of the cold war period.

The dream does not replace ideology, because the realization of the dream requires the political will and interests of the class that develops the ideology and uses it as its tool, using the party. Dreams and ideologies create and replicate an image of the future that is attractive to the masses with the help of state media. Since the dominant ideology is prohibited in the Russian Federation, and, as article 13 States, updated in 2020. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, "no ideology can be established as a state or mandatory", then you can create an ideology that is common, but not dominant and mandatory for everyone on behalf of the state. Most often, ideology is understood as a system of socially significant ideas and values. It turns out that the Constitution prohibits values and ideas adopted at the state level, because the Constitution recognizes "ideological diversity". If ideology is not understood as political ideas and projects, then it is possible as a state system of ideas, since it is no longer an ideology and not a political one, and this is how the 1991 referendum on the preservation of the USSR was replaced by the party apparatus. Then it was written - "Are you for preserving the Union as a Union of sovereign States?" and people voted for the Union, but in fact it was interpreted as a vote against or a vote for independent or Sovereign States.

And in the case of ideology, we create an ideology without calling it an ideology. In fact, the expression "Greater Eurasia" is not ideological, like the expression "Greater Ural": this was the name of a hotel in the 30s in Sverdlovsk, but the name referred to the era of industrialization. The expression combines formational and civilizational approaches. Greater Eurasia is an ideology-form is content, the medium is the message, as stated by M. McLuhan. In the expression "Greater Eurasia", as in the expression "dictatorship of the proletariat", neither the dictatorship nor the proletariat has a separate meaning, but only together. Not a dictatorship, but the leadership of the masses. Not the proletariat, but the owner of the means of production, or the factory-and-factory urban proletariat, which has taken power and is now leading the mass of working people, that is, non-factory workers, but employees and employees of all kinds. This means that Greater Eurasia is neither Eurasia nor Greater. This is a single expression that speaks of the Russian world, which is undergoing a phase of second industrialization in the framework of cooperation between countries with a population that makes up half of the world in the Eurasian Union.

Classical geopolitics States that States are living organisms that live, move, expand, and die. States degrade and break up into fragments of small non-independent pseudo-States, which not so long ago received the name failed states. Nations move States, and Nations are ruled by leaders. The whole scheme in the twenty-first century was called into question. Everything is managed by real experts or pseudo-specialists, whose lies require science to expose.

People make mistakes in their choice and do it more and more often. The nomenclature of the former state nominates leaders from its ranks, the leaders turn from populist Democrats into tyrants, and then into clowns. The masses are increasingly aroused not by the destruction of their established social condition, but by the unfairness of song contests. And since peoples are making mistakes more and more often, is it possible to respect the hasty and unwise choice of peoples in these conditions? Can the right to elect heads of state be taken away from them?

People are increasingly interested in the "shadow of the donkey" - this phraseology was widely known in the ancient world. According to legend, Demosthenes bitterly remarked: you are ready to listen to the fable about the shadow of the donkey, but you do not want to listen to an important matter. Socrates said something similar to the Athenians, for which he was poisoned by the court: each of you is as cunning as a fox, and all together - you are a herd of sheep. The question, therefore, is about training and educating specialists who cannot be deceived, but are able to expose and question global lies. This means that we need an ideology, but of the future, not of the present, and it is the task of the science of society to create it. In other words, there is no common ideology today – it is the future and the main word in the discourse about ideology is the future. Ideology is a superstructure phenomenon and it does not arise without creating a basis in society. The basis and core of the common ideology is the SCO and BRICS, the core of which is the World system of socialism, which has moved to Southeast Asia. In the words of G.W.F. Hegel, "it is, or it is Being." And ideology is nothing, or a reflection of being.

In G.V.F. Hegel, on the contrary, the idea creates the world. Ominous are his words about the German spirit from the “Lectures on the philosophy of history”: "the German spirit is the spirit of the new world, whose goal is to realize absolute truth as the infinite self-determination of freedom, that freedom whose content is its absolute form itself. The purpose of the Germanic peoples is to be the bearers of the Christian principle. The principle of spiritual freedom, the principle of reconciliation was laid down in the simple-minded, not yet enlightened souls of the German peoples, and they were entrusted with the task not only to accept the concept of true freedom as a religious substance in the service of the world spirit, but also to create freely in the world, based on subjective self-consciousness" [3, p. 361].

The science of the diversity of society and the ideologies

Today, in the science of society, it is necessary to turn to the study of the diversity of civilizations in conditions when the globalization proclaimed by liberal mythology not only ended, but a century after Lenin's theory of imperialism turned out to be a theoretical dummy. For the "end of history" proclaimed by the liberals, there is no problem of local civilizations, since there is the only winning global commodity civilization. But since most modern humanitarians are not Marxists, they are not right-wing or left-wing, but conservatives (in the old way, bourgeois, or philistines, in the terminology of the nineteenth century), they find in the theory of civilization a third way between the class approach and the civilizational world-historical, that is, bourgeois approach to history. Their way of understanding history is cultural and historical, and the language of their theories is postmodern, like all terminology, but the content of the theory contradicts this form. They are not liberals - today it is dangerous to be a liberal, because the Russian President in an interview on June 27, 2019 before the G20 Summit said that "the liberal idea has outlived its usefulness", and these words were interpreted as a statement about the "death of liberalism". This interpretation was taken up by the entire "collective West" - they heard not what was said, but what everyone was waiting for, as they waited for the announcement of the "death of communism" a quarter of a century ago, and then this statement was made on behalf of the new Russia in the US Congress.

The key concept of philosophical unscientific postmodernism as the ideological foundation of liberalism - "deconstruction" - does not mean the destruction, but the identification of parts of a whole, or rather, as G.W.F. Hegel said, "moments" of classical works on civilizationism, theories of civilization as non-class, and therefore not quite scientific models of social development. Why not parts, because only a corpse can have parts, as F. Engels pointed out, and it will be more correct to speak about the moments of origin and passing (death) of social existence and its reflection in science as a form of social consciousness. But since the question is about reconstruction, that is, restoring the civilizational approach, we can talk about recreating the scientific understanding of civilizations themselves. This means that in principle, civilizational analysis can be put on a modern scientific basis and get away from the figurative principle that prevails in understanding civilizations, comparing them, and identifying certain worlds, including the "Russian world". This is what F. Engels, when singled out the stages of early development of society - "savagery, barbarism, civilization".

However, many social thinkers, predicting the future, are engaged exclusively in language and civilization, deliberately narrowing the horizon of their research. They are usually interested in local civilizations, that is, unique civilizations that are simply understood as rare languages of communication, where only a game of metaphors and meanings is seen. The authors believe that the Marxist paradigm of understanding society refers to the world-historical course of history, is outdated and therefore not suitable for considering local civilizations today. Moving away from postmodernism and avoiding general questions about the way people's material life is produced, and setting a particular question about the relationship between language and civilization, one can only remain within the framework of historical idealism. This means not seeing in civilization either the class struggle or the development of methods of production, leaving the core of civilizations out of the scope of our consideration, and understanding it as something secondary to civilization. The core of society in this case will be language, discourse, a set of simulacra. This search for the linguistic foundations of local civilizations reveals the evaluative nature of the axioms underlying the civilizational approach. It's like in mathematics – when you change the axioms, change the idea of a point, plane, and straight line, the science itself changes: from Euclidean stereometry to Lobachevsky geometry.

However, the national language is not a demiurge of either civilization or culture. If you look at the letters M.V. Lomonosov stored in the archive of the St. Petersburg branch of the archive of Russian Academy of Sciences, which showed the sister of the author of these lines, historian, Director of the archive and the corresponding member of RAS I.V. Tunkina, we find written by M.V. Lomonosov in German huge volumes, dotted on the margins with notes in Greek, Italian, Latin. Today, there are no translators in the country who can prepare these materials for publication. The question is what language governed Russian science in the Imperial Academy of Sciences and Arts created by Peter the Great from German academicians recruited on the recommendation of G. Leibniz? Russian Academy itself became ethnically Russian only after a century and a half, when the Russians and Germans equalized in its composition and reconciled.

Since G.W.F. Hegel distinguished three ways of human comprehension of the world – religious, figurative and conceptual, we can agree with the intention of deconstructing the conceptual series to pay attention to the figurative comprehension of the world, but this is not enough for the full knowledge of society. We will leave religion aside here as a form of knowledge that goes back to history.

It is interesting that by proclaiming language as the creator of the civilizational structure that covers borders and demographic processes, the authors of the conservative orientation reproduce the Hegelian absolute idea, which becomes the absolute spirit and thus completes every development and history of society. This was the position of the old Hegelians, who believed in the system of categories of their teacher. But young Hegelians that prioritizes the dialectic as a revolutionary method of thinking that condemns all things to death, you know that you need to work with the new and what is developing from lower to higher, from simple to complex, that is the scientist in the understanding of society is necessary to side with progressive tendencies. And here the position of moderate conservatism comes into conflict with the vector of historical development. People usually speak after the image of F. Fukuyama about the "end of history" and the collapse of the three-pronged model of international relations: capitalist countries (or "free world" in terms of Western sociology), socialist countries ("Communist bloc") and (countries of the so called "third world"). In fact, the world has developed a bipolar model, there is no total domination of the capitalist system, have been preserved and developed by the world socialist system, which, departing from the imperialist metropolises as emerging capitalist countries came to the core of the new system of the Union of states of Russia and China and created the SCO and BRICS on this basis.

Since liberalism and its practical embodiment, capitalism, are subjected to not only theoretical but also comprehensive practical criticism, the question of creating a positive social ideal becomes acute. Capitalism is criticized by the small bourgeoisie, which dreams of becoming a large one. She criticizes him from the standpoint of corruption of the state apparatus, which does not allow small businesses to rise and enriches state officials. At the same time, as in the criticized V.I. Lenin's naive dreams of socialism of the old co-operatives do not take into account that in an industrial society small business always loses to large-scale production, and such criticism was made By P.-J. Proudhon and the ideologists of workers' bazaars. The big bourgeoisie is also dissatisfied with capitalism, since it constantly privatizes private property, and the bourgeois is a class society with elements of slavery and feudalism with personal dependence of workers. This critique of existing capitalism for the sake of good capitalism-petty-bourgeois socialism, priest socialism, reactionary feudal socialism, aristocratic socialism, German, or true socialism - were brilliantly set forth by K. Marx and F. Engels in the third Chapter of "Socialist and Communist literature" of their famous "Manifesto of the Communist party". A modern example of this reactionary utopian ideology is the image of the "beautiful Russia of the future", formulated by the bourgeois oppositionist A.A. Navalny.

Civilizational neo-industrialism and world theories

The scientific basis of the social ideology of a society that has overcome the end of history and the end of the cold war can be an integrative scientific direction in the field of social philosophy, modern Humanities and social studies "Civilizational neo-industrialism as the fifth world theory". It comes from the danger of a false civilizational choice under the influence of an eclectic mix of ideologies and leading world theories. Since the three leading world theories – liberalism, fascism, and communism – have been supplemented in recent years by a fourth theory-conservatism, it is tempting to identify a new social subject of the modern era.

Liberalism assigns this subjective role to the individual at the post-industrial end of history. Fascism follows the march of nations transformed from the mass of the people and united by the call of blood. Communism records the emancipatory mission of the proletariat and its dictatorship on a world-historical scale or as a weak link in the chain of capitalist countries. Conservatism, which arises from the confusion of three world theories, appeals to a single people, which is not allowed, in the words of N.A. Berdyaev, to slide "back and down". In the context of the insufficiency of the four world theories, it becomes necessary to introduce a neo-industrial vector of development, during which the dialectic of contradictions dooms the post-industrial impasse of global liberalism, the racial fascist totalitarian myth of the merging of the state and the individual, and destroys the course of dismantling the social state as a socialist one.

In theory, civilizational neo-industrialism is a conceptual vanguard of increased complexity integrative disciplinary scientific course of geopolitics, political economy of goods and signs of modernity, cultural studies, social philosophy, epistemology, geopolitics, and the modern history of philosophy. Civilizational neo-industrialism operates on original material that was not previously introduced into scientific circulation. It can be useful for graduate students, teachers of humanities, and analysts of public services as a tool for developing analytical creative thinking in the field of philosophical understanding of the problems of the near and distant future of our country and the whole world.

In fact, the "Russian civilizational neo-industrialism" of the futurotraditionalists is the ideology of the new proletarians, workers and intellectuals who have no Fatherland. Futurotraditionalism is the ideology of the archeomodern, that is, Greater Eurasia, the Third Horde, spread throughout the world as its progressive pole. The image of Greater Eurasia is archeomodern or delirium from the point of view of modernity. A.G. Dugin writes in the presentation of this idea: "Imagine the same Windows computer running the Macintosh operating system directly on Windows. Will it work? Maybe it will flash something, but formally the program is correct one, and the second is also correct, and the installation disk works, and the correct activation codes for both programs are indicated on the cover, but they do not go together on the same computer. What is happening on this computer? There is a zone of uncertainty where anything can happen. One system can defeat another, another can interfere with the first, they may or may not complete a task. This is approximately what we have in the archaeomodern" [5].

In this multi-layered delirium, the core of the Russian world acts as a matryoshka doll, which refers to communism as the past and future. The integration of the image thanks to the archeomodern brings together "Russian world" and "pax Americana": the song "beautiful far away", which amazes Americans and is close to them. This is our common ideology-not the mythical "beautiful Russia of the future" of empty dreamers, but the directive and planned-achievable "beautiful far away", or a movement that removes the present state. K. Marx called this movement the true history or communism.

The world has reached the point where meaningless wordplay around a person – world civilization, the main path of social development, human potential, human factor, human capital-becomes dangerous for a person, because it leads him to the utopia of an imperialist market green world with a green economy, insists on the desirability and continuity of downshifting as an escape from culture to ecology. In practice, it turns out that the opposite of capital is labor, and not the anti-industrial pagan belief in the earth and the worship of the creative abilities of nature and abstract man. We know that bourgeois political economy likes "robinsonade". Labor as a source of wealth and development of a collective person grouped in progressive classes is the basis of the non-industrial vector of human development in the direction of ecological socialism. The fifth world theory will unite the most diverse peoples and civilizations in one progressive movement of mastering nature and achieving freedom over social necessity. Something similar has already happened to Russian communism in the twentieth century, when the USSR was the birthplace of all the working people of the Earth. It turned out that a person could not be reduced to the basic needs of A. Maslow, man must be understood as a being with first-order sensations (point-sensations), second-order sensations (chain-sensations), third-order sensations (system-sensations), and finally fourth-order sensations (sensations of social sensuously supersensible objects, such as the value of goods). The concept of feelings of a social being and complex social feelings allowed us to develop the concept of civilizational neo-industrialism as the fifth world theory.

Since K. Marx created a whole Third continent in the sphere of scientific knowledge, like C. Darwin, who managed to turn biology into a science and find patterns in the evolution of living nature, K. Marx also put an end to the views of society as a chaos of colliding forces and wills, and discovered objective patterns of social development that follow from a materialistic understanding of history. Another attempt to create the fourth continent of psychology was made by Z. Freud. It turned out to be dubious and scientifically unverifiable due to the fact that it could not be applied to all human societies, and therefore remained on the verge of therapy, experimental shamanism, and sometimes Satanism, since it addressed the lower spheres of human life. It turned out that personality is not quite a mature scientific construction, and the lack of scientific cultural discourse has left the theory of personality in a state of immature ideologeme. Here, and to this day, the unsolved problem of quality criteria in the humanities appears, which we raised in our publications. Setting this problem and solving it makes it possible to practically implement the return of Russia to history, and people to social abstract theory.

And K. Marx, for lack of time and facing the need to develop a scientific concept of the social revolution of the proletariat as a universal emancipator of humanity, was forced to leave for future researchers the prospect of developing a socio-psychological theory of classes and a cultural theory of personality, the foundations of which he laid in his early works. These works were unknown to either V.I. Lenin or I.V. Stalin. In his later works, K. Marx proceeds to study the classes and apparatuses of the state, thereby creating the basis for a holistic scientific understanding of the social process.

The third world war of the new hybrid type

The West declared the third world war in the international community will go in the areas nanobioimaging simulation. Nano-involves miniaturization of the element base of computer technology, with the us and China leading the way. Bio-involves the creation of artificial viruses as a combat weapon affecting the genocode of various ethnic groups and causing panic and destruction of the economic life of the masses and continents. Info-involves competition in the field of "big data", "Internet of things" between "Huawei" and "Microsoft" with the element base "Intel". Cogni - involves competition of meanings and global projects Chinese project the future of the planet as a "community of common destiny of mankind" and the American project of transhumanism, creating controlled artificial human and reduce the world's population. It means that a war of civilizations and classes of red China with blue and liberal West (on scale maps are still Red - our, Blue – the enemy) moves into the sphere of meanings of war and the struggle for control of meaning, to capture an attractive image of a common future. These two states address their peoples and the peoples of the world with a message of meaning for the future. In fact, this is where the socialist progressive utopia of welfare - for all through hard work and science - and the bourgeois reactionary dystopia of the end of history collide.

What is the role of Russia, the Russian Federation in this balance of forces at the beginning of the clash of the dragon and the eagle, what is the place given to the bear? Today, the Russian Federation is planning its role as a guard, a guardian of order in the vast expanses of Eurasia, protecting the rear of China. China, understood as a single society that lives on the principle of "one country – two systems": red China or China and white China, the Republic of China on Taiwan. In 2020, at the BRICs autumn session, we saw the clarification of Russia's position in the us cold war declared by the Peoples Republic of China. Either Russia remains the "sentinel of Eurasia" like the Soviet Union, which means a reliable rear of Chinese expansion into the world, or it will become the leading strike force of American global monopolies. The trouble with Russia is that in addition to national projects, it does not have and does not implement its own global project. Perhaps such a project, coming from the depths of Russian history, will be a project of abundance of organic agricultural products for a single planet? Such a project involves the transformation of Russia into an industrial and innovative power.

From geopolitics to sky-politics

I.N. Panarin writes that geopolitics in the USSR was in practice, but in theory it was not engaged. He's writing: "In the USSR, they did not formally engage in geopolitics. But in fact, from the first days of Bolshevik rule, there was a fierce struggle between two geopolitical trends-STALINIST and LENINIST-TROTSKYIST. As a result of a long-term political confrontation, the STALINIST geopolitical direction won. Lenin and Trotsky regarded the October revolution of 1917 as the beginning of the first stage of the world revolution. They defended the idea of inciting a world revolution, during which it was supposed to sacrifice the Russian people for the sake of implementing this first idea of world globalization under the banner of socialism" [10, p. 113].

It is obvious that the drilling and storeroom of the planet will easily be captured by stronger predators, and therefore, as M. Kalashnikov writes, the future Russia needs to become not "a storeroom and a drilling planet, but first of all an industrial and innovative power. Colonel of foreign intelligence, or classical "order intelligence", sinologist A.P. Devyatov continues the line of historical materialism in the paradoxical form of "sky-politics", namely as a product of the order's political intelligence of the future, where intelligence signs are revealed hidden by "masking networks of disinformation" hung over the "ears of the entity". This terminology of the order of the future intelligence is focused on identifying intelligence signs of changes in time cycles. In contrast to geopolitics, non-politics records not spatial shifts, but temporal ones – Chronos (duration), Cyclos (repeated cyclicity), and Kairos (chance) [4, 12]. Representatives of non-politics note that in the pre - industrial society of subsistence farming, the main wealth was land-agricultural, forest and hunting grounds. The energy of nature came from the Sun. The main motive to spend the energy of people's lives (to do work) was the harvest, the offspring of livestock and the increase in land plots, on which this nature grew. In the post-industrial society of the knowledge economy, the main wealth will be the understanding of the meaning of being in the form of the ability of people to build a series (chain) of consecutive steps from any starting position to the desired result. According to the slogan "Who owns information, owns the world", because through the meanings you can control the entire process of being.

The peasant on Russian soil here gets the advantages of history – he knows the sacred meaning of his work, but does not use it, because an alien state in the person of functionaries does not meet and does not own this meaning. But as soon as the state sounds a soft "brothers and sisters", the energy of the Russian people and the Russian peasantry will come into a seething creative movement.

Since the capture of the future through the creation of new life meanings implies the liberation of the individual from information dependence in the culture of the world of information flood, information counter-reformation is necessary. This historical procedure does not constitute an informational counter-revolution. On the contrary, it allows those who have passed its crucible to pass to the new Noah's ark, which Russia has every chance of becoming. The next stage of interaction between the new ark people will be the confrontation of social and ethical systems. Overcoming the confrontation of value systems is possible in civilizational neo-industrialism, which will allow you to escape from the ulcers of capitalist development. The development of life meanings cannot be spontaneous and requires careful management, since it is possible to develop in the direction of fascist corporate meanings, neoliberal ideology of consumerism, and other variants of the theological, that is, secular state ideology. In other words, we need a scientific cultural expertise of meaning formation. We have already offered our own version of expertise at cultural congresses in Russia. Unfortunately, the cultural association of the country ordered to live for a long time and congresses are no longer held. However, the relevance of cultural expertise has only increased due to the lack of a global project of the country, state ideology, which raises the question of a particularly acute – is it a sovereign country or a trading company offering oil and gas for export?

Today, our country is once again at a turning point in history. At the same time, the main danger for the Russian state is regional separatism and the lack of its own global project: there is the failed liberal project of entering Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok and the red project rejected in 1991. This is what causes the greatest concern of citizens – it is not clear what country we live in, what is the super-task of this country, whether it is a country or a trading company that sells oil and gas and, depending on this, builds its foreign and domestic policy. We are talking about our spiritual security, which can only be provided by the existence of the highest values recognized by the people-values for which you can fight and die.

The Russian Federation should become a historical Russia-enter Europe or become a Greater Eurasia, restore the red project or take part in the Western liberal project of building a New Babylon, the New Caliphate project, the Eternal Israel project, the Great Europe project, etc. However, the implementation of any of these projects is hindered by the source of separatism-the hypertrophied center-Moscow, Federal parties that do not fight for the regions, do not represent their interests. The edges – the North and the far East-fall away. The security of the people and the creation of a global project of Russia require that The State Duma and the Senate, in the new historical conditions of the adopted amendments to the Constitution, be rigidly formed on the basis of regional representation, that is, regions and villagers, and direct elections of their representatives to state authorities.

Since Atlanticism and liberal individualism are losing, historically, the Pacific is winning - the red project of the common destiny of mankind with the Asian mode of production, two-circuit monetary exchange, accumulation of wealth without expanded reproduction of consumer goods. In the new world, the main thing is not to forget to be human. A person is destroyed in an antagonistic society through alienation and this was shown by the young K. Marx, in the "Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844", and later in "Capital", proved in a scientific study how the dehumanization of man is carried out and how it can be overcome by revolutionary practice, when people as brothers will live in a single human community. The question of fraternity is directly related to Marxism and its theory of class struggle and social revolution. Recognizing, for example, social rent as one of the types of unearned and, consequently, unfair sources of enrichment for specific categories of citizens. Marx advocated for its redistribution for the benefit of society in General: "peace to the cottages - war to the palaces". However, he also did not forget about peaceful methods. Entering the true history of the prehistory of mankind begins today and represents an era of struggle between capitalism and communism, not only on the fronts of digital society, but primarily in the souls of people [6].

In any case, the idea of the formation of a post-capitalist society, which is sometimes called rent-based or super-capitalist, and sometimes socialist, is generally accepted today, but it is already clear that we may see the "end of the liberal turn of civilization" [11, p.355].

REFERENCES

1. Campbell J. Concent not needed. Prague: Atila Voros. 2016. – 586 p.

2. Greenfield S. Tomorrow's People: How 21st Century Technology is Changing the Way we Think and Feel. - London: Allen Lane, 2003. - 304 p.

3. Hegel G.W.F. Lectures on the philosophy of history. S. Pb: Nauka. 1993. – 479 p.

4. Devyatov A.V. Path of truth-intelligence. Theory and practice of "soft power". - Moscow: Volant. 2013. – 87 p.

5. [Electronic resource] // Dugin A.G. What is geopolitics 2.0? https://universe-tss.su/main/video/69825-aleksandr-dugin-chto-takoe-geopolitika-20.html

6. [Electronic resource] // Dugin A.G. Archeomodern. A phenomenon that should be at the center of modern philosophical historical political science discourse http:// zavtra.ru/ blogs/arheomodern

7. Kara-Murza S.G. Manipulation of consciousness. - M.: Algorithm. 2000. – 688 p.

8. Cohen S. The failure of the crusade. USA and the tragedy of post-Communist Russia. - Moscow: AIRO-XX, 2001. – 304 p.

9. Nekrasov S.N. Chapter IX. From capitalism to socialism: the road to the future // Leninism and socialism: History. Theory. Practice: [Coll. monograph] / author: A.P. Vetoshkin, B.A. Voronin, R.A. Dzhiov, L.A. Zhuravleva, V.M. Knyazev, T.I. Kruzhkova, V.N. Lavrov, L.M. Martseva, S.N. Nekrasov, D.K. Stozhko, K.P. Stozhko / ed. Yekaterinburg: Ural state agrarian University; UMTS-UPI, 2020. - 243 p. - p. 153-179.

10. Panarin I.N. Information war and geopolitics. - M.: Generation, 2006. - 560 p.

11. Ramadan T. Perhaps we will see the end of the liberal round of globalization // Chesnokova T. Yu. Posthuman. From Neanderthal to cyborg, Moscow: Algorithm, 2008. - 368 p.