Pavel Simashenkov

The relevance of the topic is determined by the increasing interest in the trends of human-oriented «creative economy» and «value-based management». The aim of the research is to critically analyze and identify internal contradictions in the specified paradigms. Studying the characteristics of human capital, everyday attitudes of BANI-world inhabitants and specifics of their interactions, the author provides evidence of utopianism of the «Society 5.0» doctrine and palliative nature of digital innovation and commercial creativity. In the author's opinion, the creative economy has a significant potential for expansion, but not for development due to the limited tasks and extensive methods.

The article is devoted to the topic of "traces of the past” interpretation; its relevance is due to both the need to improve the training of history majors and the aggravation of the fight against falsifications of history (primarily domestic). The aim of the research is to analyze the correlation of humanitarian, social and technological components in the methodology of teaching historical disciplines. The comparative method was chosen as a key method. The work uses the method of hypotheses, content analysis of the source base, and experience in studying University teaching practice. Identifying the prerequisites for «incorrect" interpretation of historical events, the author compares legal, forensic and philosophical approaches. The theoretical significance of the article lies in the novelty of an interdisciplinary, integrated technosocial humanitarian outlook on historical research. According to the author, the best way to overcome bias is adherence to principles; a person must inspire and justify trust: this requirement is true for both a forensic expert and a scientist. The main thing is to avoid simplifications, geometric sketching of the past, reducing it to parallels and piles of additional constructions, politicized speculations. No less great is the temptation to fall into exegesis, and from the interpreter of texts to become the owner of stylization and meta-history. The task of the researcher is to establish the specifics of the typical. It is extremely difficult to find the “median nerve” of an era, but this is the only way to “qualify the subjective side of an act” from a historiosophical perspective. The sensation and awareness of belonging to humanity obliges the scientist to think in integral, complex, figurative, and not abstract categories. Intersubjectivity itself (even intrasubjectivity) characterizes history as a humanitarian science, and not as narrowly social one (akin to jurisprudence or sociology, especially in their positivistic interpretations). The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the material of the article can be used in the pedagogical process, and a comparison of fundamental and applied disciplines will help history majors to sort out professional and worldview issues, and teach them to distinguish between the eternal and the vain-trendy, the ideological and the tendentious. History, the author believes, is about the eternally alive, and not about the outdated things.

The article analyzes the draft law providing for the administrative prejudice for hatred or enmity incitement (article 282 of the Russian criminal code). Based on the results of a comprehensive historical and legal study, the author formulates recommendations that can improve the effectiveness of fighting against extremism in Russia.

The article analyzes the phenomenon of ownership in its legal, economic, political and philosophical perspectives. Ownership is considered as an opportunity and as a guarantee of sustainable development. Comparative context is used to identify the specificity of the bourgeois model of owners’ power (social state) and the domestic concept of power-ownership (including socialist state). The author draws conclusions about ways to overcome the competition between the state and the market for the human resource and proposes to explore the ideological provision of power- ownership in order to appreciate its progressive potential and predilection in relation to the liberal model of social development.

The article is devoted to the problem of distinguishing the concepts of revolution and opposition in the coordinates of national history. Identifying the contradiction between «progress supporters» and «orthodox persons», the author reinterprets the Marxist-Leninist views on the revolutionary movement in Russia and on the relationship between power and society.