BRICS ON THE WAY TO A NEW CIVILIZATION

The text of the speech by the co-chairman of the Armenian Association of Political Scientists, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor A.S. Manasyan at the forum "Armenia, EAEU, BRICS, SCO".

Human history has once again entered the zone of drastic changes and shocks. They are often tried to understand by searching for significant events that marked the beginning of current processes or provoked the launch of modern turbulent history, or, finally, by trying to understand the new reality by comparing it in quantitative terms with historically previous socio-political conditions of the world. However, neither situational analysis Neither a statistical review of the ongoing processes, nor a statement of the reformatting of military-political and economic blocs are able to clarify the true meaning of the processes taking place in our presence .

The causes that trigger them are “on the other side” of their manifestation. To reveal their essence, it is necessary to involve an adequate methodology based on high theory . Philosophy is particularly in demand, which is able to see the essence of the current shifts in the ontology of human existence, manifested on its event surface in the realities of everyday life that we experience. Collisions of tectonic plates in the depths of human existence in real life most often make themselves felt in the form of conflicts and shocks of different levels, severity and generality – peculiar social earthquakes. Understanding social contradictions and conflicts is the shortest path to understanding their underlying causes, and therefore the truth about them. The deep, often elusive motives for the appearance of the BRIX are most easily understood through the conflicts associated with it or occurring within it. It is there that the keys to the ontology of modern processes on the "great chessboard" are located, from where they are visible if not the originals themselves, or at least the "portraits" of the realities of our world that are close to them.

Nowadays, conflicts between states, nations, and civilizations are usually considered the most significant in terms of scale, consequences, and potential for historical prolongation . The idea that we put forward in this regard is that these dimensions of globally significant conflicts, although they allow us to highlight certain aspects of the development of world history, nevertheless do not capture the deeper layers of its ontology. It turns out that there is such a dimension. But usually it is not given the importance it deserves, and is left in the shadows, in line spacing and hints, without getting involved in revealing the essence and nature of events on the world stage. It is connected with the conflict between an economic person and a political person. The topic of homo economicus is not new. From what the classics have said , it can be concluded that property, in whatever form it comes under the ownership of the owner, becomes a source of social power, and through it an instrument of power. Naturally , the largest slave owner became the head of the slave empire.

The same thing happened under feudalism. The head The feudal state usually had one of the largest feudal lords. In both the first and second cases, property as a source of social power was directly transformed into political power. History has known other sources of social power that generate power. They were faith and knowledge. Their place in the system of government has historically undergone changes. Up to XX For centuries, it was property that remained the dominant source of power. It reflected the power of the bourgeoisie that was forming in the depths of feudalism , which led the third estate by storm the Bastille under the slogans of “freedom”, “equality” and “brotherhood”. Capitalism freed the productive forces from feudal shackles, and the European countries, which had embarked on a new path, soon set about the economic development of the “native countries.”

A colonial system emerged. Meanwhile , a split was growing within the industrialized countries of Europe, where the working class, dissatisfied with the implementation of the revolution's slogans of freedom and equality, grew up on the ruins of the third estate . Property could not become a source of strength for this class. She didn't have one. Such a source was social knowledge, which , thanks to the classics of Marxism, fully revealed this potential. First in the USSR, and then in Europe and Asia, countries appeared in which property was not a source of political power. This was not just a social, but a civilizational turn in the history of mankind. Soviet-style socialism did not stand the test of history, but China proved its viability, becoming the world's first economy.

The issues discussed above are directly related to BRICS as a new phenomenon in global development. It does not require proof that the BRICS civilizational platform is the idea of resisting the neo-colonialist claims of the former the colonial Powers. Although it is not customary for his co-founders of the organization to talk about this officially, its implicit presence is obvious. And in the countries that declare their desire to join this commonwealth, they openly talk about it. For BRICS, economic benefits, security issues, and ensuring a good life for the people of these countries are usually put in the foreground. But this is not enough for the resilience of the commonwealth of countries with different political and economic systems. It requires the disclosure of vital, civilizational landmarks that are common to them, which would enhance the interaction of the members of the moving countries to a higher level. The modern world order and the general global state of the world make it possible to develop an approach that would not make BRICS another military-political bloc. This is possible, but it requires the involvement of high social theory.