The present day fuss about «the crisis of power» is based on the fundamental incongruence between the content of the political process in Russia and the political language which is used to describe the process. The whole culture of human process is leaned upon the image of a hero who performs extreme efforts. In post-Soviet Russia everything was sold for a convenience. However no life can be constructed on the basis of such sales. The idea of convenience does not generate a convenience. This idea is a by-product of heroic efforts made by somebody. The country may be a place for whatever you may like but not a place for convenience because it is a place for convenience it will become a macroAushwitz. The country is being built not by the Kremlin but by the misfortune. And take note: the making is to be by far more long process then what is going on.

The author considers differences between the classic market economy and the market economy of the neo-liberal type. The author demonstrates that the transition from the system of regulated market economy to the economy of the neo-liberal type did not bring the modern economy any closer to the 19th model. On the contrary, the present day economy is at greater distance from the 19th model. The author points out that the neo-liberal economy is not the economy of growth: it is the economy of redistribution. Due to its inherent properties the neo-liberal economy’s life expectancy is quite limited. The neo-liberal economy is doomed to disappear in 30-40 years. According to estimates, the neo-liberal experiment in 25 years cost 400 trillion dollars to the world economy and 90 trillion dollars to the US economy. These staggering losses have undermined the American economy’s capacity to compete with the East Asian economies, in particular with the economy of China which is the principal systemic competitor to the global neo-liberal market system. The author presents arguments in favor of position according to which the return to a market economy system characteristics of which will be similar to those of Bretton-Woods System era world economy.

The author investigates interrelationships between the types of society development and the political elites formation models. The author proceeds from availability of two paradigms of development: the mobilization paradigm and innovative paradigm. Both paradigms predetermine formation of distinctively different models of elite formation: «bureaucratic» (or «service») one and the «oligarchic» one. Under the mobilization model of development the higher echelon of administrative-political bureaucracy performs the functions normally performed by the political elite while economically dominant groups act as the subject of the innovative development. The author provides, on the basis of the comparative analysis of political development in Russia and the US, a detailed analysis of factors that help to diversify models of development and political forms which correspond to these models. The author points out that the prolonged, in historical terms, period when the mobilization methods of development dominated caused the fact that the model of elite formation which evolved under mobilization development conditions functioned for a long span of the Russian history. In the course of the 1990s social reforms the old «service» principle has been succeeded by the «oligarchic» principle. The contemporary stage of the Russian society development is characterized by a complicated interaction between pluralistically organized political-financial groups and political-administrative bureaucracy.

The problem of historical sources’ interpretation is coming out in the spotlight of the contemporary humanitarian sciences. This is caused by the onward development of theoretical sources’ study which nowadays defines the search for the most correct and unbiased ways of texts interpretation as its principal task. As this is done, the object of historical study is no more the likely past «reality» but an opinion of an author who created the source. So peculiar subject-subjective relationship between a scholar and the «other person’s» conscience fragments of which are embodied in monuments of the past are established. In this case the very historical text comes out in capacity of the singular likely reality which is the most important integral part of the cognitive process. However this position cannot be accepted as a whole with no accompanying reservations. The article is devoted to the theoretical disputes in the contemporary humanitarian sciences.

Theosophy of Charles Baudler, the outstanding French poet, comes out in Europe as the most important stage of the neo-romantic conscience making. The article is devoted to the philosophical principles and ethical and aesthetic meaning of Baudler’s works reception in neo-romanticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The author attempts to find out what did constitute the main regularities of this continuity. The typological affinity of Baudlerianism and the neo-romantic thought as such emerges in result of the creative assimilation of theosophical first principles and aesthetic strategies of Modernism and Post-Modernism related to these first principles. While Modernism recognizes philosophical individualization of a subject, Post-Modernism denies such individualization. That determined the brightest features in the positivist thought of the past century evolution.

The article deals with one of the most tragic events of Nicolas II reign. Khodynka disaster became a menacing warning, but the power did not derive any benefit from the event. The coronation celebrations of 1896 lost any sense. Instead of spiritual unification of the power and the people a monstrous massive self-destruction occurred. One could say that it was a fatal concurrence of circumstances, but it has developed in a prophesy, in a kind of a regularity of history.