The crisis experienced by the world system prompts us to turn to the analysis of the model of Western industrial society. In most Eastern countries, the transition to the state of modern society has not yet been completed, so the crisis is complicated by the presence of semi-traditional and semi-modern ways of life.

The countries of the East and West have considerable opportunities to overcome the crisis if they define new development goals and use modernization tools, taking into account such objective development factors as civilizational, demographic, food, environmental, and energy.

Key words: East, West, crisis, modernization, tradition.

The crisis state of the modern world, whose obvious manifestations were the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the events of the "Arab Spring" of 2011, once again drew attention to the problem of choosing the path of development for the countries of the East.

Until the end of the twentieth century, it was believed that most of the Eastern countries were following the path of catch-up development, using the Western model of modern industrial capitalist society as an example. However, the crisis phenomena in the Western world and the very policy of the West have called into question the attractiveness of the existing model of modernization. This is the crisis of a given social system, the emergence of objective conditions for interrupting the linear process of gradualness, for a new formulation of the question of the development goal. This was the crisis of pre-industrial society on the eve of transformation into a new state. Such is the current crisis of incompleteness in Russia's transition to a post-industrial state, and in many Eastern countries - the crisis of incompleteness in the industrial revolution and the formation of a modern bourgeois society. But part of this phenomenon was the crisis of the original model of development for non - Western societies-Western industrial capitalist society.

This model is still strong, still retains its leading value and attractive image in the world, its high level and quality of life, but its main parameters have already worked out, and resource opportunities are rapidly shrinking. In recent years, there has been an economic downturn, rising unemployment, and declining incomes all over the world. The crisis of overproduction combined with the crisis of resources and was compounded by a sharp polarization of income (in the global system as a whole and in most countries), which is also directed to speculation, rather than returning to circulation.

The system is facing challenges that it cannot find a decent response to in order to maintain its leading role in global development. English historian E. Hobsbawm stated in a speech to the BBC in 2008:: "Without any doubt, this is the biggest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s... In the last thirty years, we have witnessed the triumph of the free - market ideology - almost theology-that has been adopted by all Governments in the West... The end of this era has come."

there is no doubt about it... If anything, we are seeing an impressive analog of the collapse of the Soviet Union. We know that the era has come to an end. But we don't know what will happen after that" [Hobsbawm, 2010, p.113]. Of course, the power of the West and the United States is still great, but J. Arrigi in his last interview suggested: in the current conditions, the only thing that B. Obama can do is "make the sunset manageable" in order to preserve the US not hegemony, but domination in the world [Arrigi, 2009, p. 23, 48].

In these circumstances, the West faces the challenges of finding a different model of development, finding ways to transition to development in a new way and tools for making such a transition, and most importantly, a new development goal. But perhaps the East will be content with the old model of development?

It is fundamentally important to note that the system-forming factor of capitalist society was the economic factor, which suppressed or detracted from other factors naturally inherent in Western society. Since the Industrial Revolution, the economy has increasingly determined the entire course of development of European society, the entire structure of its internal life, and the principle of economic determinism has become dominant in the public consciousness.

The limitations of a rational economocentric approach to social development became apparent by the end of the twentieth century. The system could achieve " absolutely extraordinary success in developing technology and accumulating wealth, but it was only able to do so by constantly deepening the polarization between 20% of those at the top and 80% of those at the bottom - a polarization that at the same time It is economic, political, social and cultural, " noted I. Wallerstein [Wallerstein, 2008, p. 37]. It is worth mentioning only the data for 2003 on the world expenditure on the consumption of perfumes and cosmetics , on the one hand - $ 33 billion, and on the minimum budget necessary for the development of Africa (eliminating extreme poverty and hunger, ensuring universal primary education, reducing child mortality, fighting HIV, etc.) - 25 USD billion [Monde Diplomatique. Atlas, 2009, p. 103].

The model of modern Western society that was accepted as a canonical basis was for a long time seen as a linear and conservative dynamic system, and the logic of its development seemed irrefutable. It was considered obvious that following the example of the West would allow the countries of the East to make a leap in the development of their education and training systems. In fact, these countries reproduced their backwardness from the level of the West, although at a higher level.

True, the focus on the Western model of production, consumption and culture has significantly improved the living standards of millions of people in almost all Eastern countries. By the end of the 20th century, economic growth allowed many countries to significantly increase their GDP and average per capita income. An increasing number of people were able to get if not a "piece of cake", then at least "crumbs" from this pie.

Based on the experience of the XIX and XX centuries, it is possible to distinguish modernization of system development (West) and "catching up" modernization of system creation (East). But in traditional Eastern societies, the difficulties of transition to a new, modern industrial state were compounded by the objective impossibility of adequately reproducing the original Western model.

With a few exceptions, in the Eastern countries, modernization took place not only with difficulties, but also unevenly, asynchronously, destroying the organic unity of Eastern society. The process of modernization was most successful and widespread in the economic sphere (industrialization, restructuring, infrastructure creation, the "green revolution"), less successful and on a smaller scale - in the social sphere, and even more modest - in the political and cultural spheres. There, the interaction of traditional and modern principles took the form of symbiosis with predominance (sometimes domination) Traditions. Insufficient degree of industrialization and "capitalism"

According to the Western model, most of the Eastern societies were brought to a state of "semi - modernity", and a smaller part-to the consolidation of backwardness.

Examples of successful modernization based on the Western model include "system reform" in such deeply traditional and initially backward societies as Taiwan and South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. According to all the main socio-economic parameters, a new capitalist social system, an industrial formation, and a bourgeois society emerged there, although it retained the system-forming elements of its civilization. Thus, it became obvious that modernization does not mean complete westernization of non-Western society, but only selective assimilation of certain elements of European culture.

Society-a social and productive organism - develops organically and naturally according to its own laws, experiencing various kinds of crisis states in the spheres of economy, politics, and culture. It is precisely because of the organic integrity of society that non-material factors of development retain their significance in it, even if they are pushed into the background in the minds of people. "It is important to emphasize," V. I. Pantin noted, " that in the theory of modernization, despite special attention to the processes of socio-economic and political development, from the very beginning, great importance was attached to the problems of human change during the transition from a traditional society to a modern one, the transformation of its values, attitudes, orientations and the very way of interaction with other people"[Pantin, 1997, p. 75].

But it is not only ideology that influences social development. Man is a spiritual being, and his work and behavior are not motivated solely by vital needs or political ideas. Even now, in the modern information world, not only representations and ideas remain important as motivating stimuli for the activity of a person and society, but also moods, dreams, memories, various idealistic constructions based on the results of civilizational (partly national) self - identification of a person and society.

The spiritual factor in the form of religion played a certain role in the formation and development of the modern capitalist system in the countries of Western Europe. Its influence in economic life was noted both in Russia (Old Believers) and in China (Confucianism). In the countries of the Muslim world, the religious factor directly regulated economic life, restraining the growth of the capitalist system.

The experience of modernizing various countries shows that if ideology as an element of a historically transitory social system can serve as a useful tool in the hands of reformers, then religion as a civilizational element should be taken into account by them, so that the plans for a" revolution from above " do not clearly contradict the traditional value system of a particular society.

It was this circumstance that revealed a potential contradiction between the spiritual and ideological foundations of the Western model, the main principle of which was economocentrism, and the civilizational foundations of Eastern society. By the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, the problem of the crisis of the principles of the world's dominant socio-economic system (industrial formation) became obvious. P. A. Sorokin stated in 1941 that " all the most important aspects of the life, way of life and culture of Western society are experiencing a serious crisis... The flesh and spirit of Western society are sick... " [Sorokin, 2009, p. 97]. In 1953, B. P. Vysheslavtsev published a book in New York with the provocative title "The Crisis of Industrial Culture". Both Russian philosophers offered a different, non-economocentric view of the prevailing model of industrial society.

The Western model implemented in the East has led to contradictory consequences. By itself, the growth of material production in the Eastern countries, expressed in terms of GDP, is not adequate to the growth of the well-being of people and society. On the contrary, " in modern conditions, each unit of increase in material production corresponds to-

This is due to a declining percentage of real social welfare gains." Thus, A. B. Weber concluded, " the quality of life depends not only on the level of income and consumption, but also on the state of the environment - both natural (climate change, morbidity from harmful emissions) and social (over-urbanization, crowding of the population, mental and nervous stress, threats to personal safety, man-made disasters accidents, etc.) " [Weber, 2010, p. 42].

The financial crisis of 2008-2009 showed that the market is not an absolutely perfect principle of organizing public life, since it is guided not by social ideals and not by the long-term interests of the whole society, but by the short-term interests of producers and consumers. Already K. Polanyi noted the limitations of the "typical liberal credo" - the doctrine of a self-regulating market (See [Polanyi, 2002, ch. 12-13]). But in the second half of the twentieth century. with the weakening of the influence of the state and society on regulating the development process, the self-serving interests of the market with the values of unlimited consumption and unlimited satisfaction of one's desires, which are irrational in their essence, prevailed in public life. In Western society, by the end of the twentieth century, the excess of goods and services offered, along with a decrease in their prestige and accessibility, as well as the weakening of the principles of justice, solidarity and equality, created social tension and psychological discomfort.

It was discovered that unlimited growth of production and consumption in a limited and non-reproducible ecological system of the Earth is impossible. The growing problem of resource scarcity and the increasing number of natural disasters clearly indicate this. There were 620 major natural disasters in 1900-1910, and 2,800 in 1980-2005 [Euronews, 04.02.2006].

In recent decades, crisis phenomena have manifested themselves in the social life of Western countries: there is a polarization in the social sphere, the degree of concentration of poverty and wealth is increasing. The attempt of the US political and corporate elite at the beginning of the XXI century to get out of the brewing systemic crisis with the help of "catastrophe capitalism" (N. Klein) was not very successful.

There was a rethinking of the foundations of the capitalist system itself, in which, according to J. R. Saul, "the modern' holy trinity 'is organization, technology and information" [Saul, 2006, p.34]. Just mention Krugman's book "The Great Lie" (2003), in which he analyzes the crisis state of the American economy and American society, and P. J. Buchanan, a tireless fighter for the traditional values of American society, in his book "On the Edge of Destruction" (2006), calls for the rejection of liberalism, from the ideology on which it is based. which modern society has grown up with.

The position and role of the West in the modern world has changed. The capitalist system was formed in the course of the historical development of the countries of the "first echelon of capitalism" of England and France as a "metropolis - colony" system, and despite the obvious inequality of relations between the two sides, the degree of interdependence of both parts was quite significant. In the middle of the 20th century, there was a "revolt against the West" (J. Arrigi). During the national liberation revolutions and the formation of independent national farms in the Eastern countries, the "metropolis-colony" system was broken. Attempts to reproduce it at a new stage of scientific and technological development in the context of globalization were not as significant and profitable for the West as it was before.

Moreover, by the end of the twentieth century, such previously obvious world-system principles as "core-periphery" are being revised, and Western culture and value systems proposed (or implanted) in" uncivilized zones " are simply rejected. The transformation of the East into an active subject of world politics, noted in the 1960s by A. Toynbee, has now become obvious. He wrote that, " responding

our Challenge", "India and China are likely to have a much deeper impact on our Western life than what Russia can claim with its communism", "heretical Western religion" (Toynbee, 2003, p. 405). We see the end of" European universalism", that set of" progressive " ideas and values that were implanted in the Eastern countries during modernization as natural elements of the capitalist system. They are now being rejected.

Indeed, the ever-simmering conflict between North and South (Center and Periphery) remains a potential threat to the stability of the world system. By the beginning of the XXI century, 10% of the adult population of the world concentrated in their hands 85% of the world's wealth, which is in personal ownership, and the richest 1% - 40% of the world's wealth [Weber, 2010, p. 45]. It is only a matter of time before this potential conflict becomes a real one. After all, as a result of modernization, the "eastern world" has grown up next to the West, with good reason claiming equality as a leader and locomotive of development.

The principle of historicism assumes that any phenomenon in the world has its beginning, its development and its completion. This, of course, means not its destruction, but the transition to a new quality. Thus, Ancient Rome experienced a systemic crisis for more than two centuries, until it ceased to exist, leaving the Byzantine Empire in the east and the Holy Roman Empire in the west-although contemporaries hardly realized that they were in a state of transition.

Attempts to explain the current crisis stage of world development from the perspective of long Kondratiev waves (or standard Zhuglar cycles) by imperfection of the mechanism of control over financial institutions or increased lack of resources do not allow us to realize the main thing: the modern world has entered a period of crisis of the system according to the laws of which its vanguard, richest and strongest part lives. According to S. Pereslegin ," the main content of the current historical epoch is the crisis of industrial civilization. This crisis is systemic in nature and will inevitably lead to the dismantling of modern industrial civilization "[Pereslegin, 2009, p. 12].

This is all the more obvious in the conditions of the new knowledge economy, when the basis of wealth is not so much premises, equipment and material resources, but knowledge and information, which allowed N. A. Simoniya to identify the latest information technology structure as the basis of a new development model [Simoniya, 2011, pp. 9-27]. However, simply replacing the economy-centric approach with a technocentric one seems one-sided. People are becoming an increasingly important part of the post-industrial economy, along with machinery and technology, capital and the organization of production.

The attempt to designate the system-forming principle of the Western model by the concept of "knowledge", rather than" production "or" profit", does not change the essence of the matter. "In everyday use, the word 'knowledge' is a short term for everything that we believe to be true, "argued E. Toffler and H. Toffler, contrasting science with" any kind of fanaticism-religious, political, nationalist, racist, and so on" and declaring that only science "filters out truth" and "itself corrects it" [Toffler, Toffler, 2007, p. 182, 187]. But such an attempt to sacralize always relative scientific knowledge is unproductive for explaining the causes of the global crisis. Moreover, in recent years, everywhere in the world there has been a decline in the value of knowledge as a value, there is an obvious trend towards the disposal of education, the transformation of the university into a "higher professional school".

Another kind of attempt-the absolutization of liberal values as a universal means of development - is just as fruitless. After all, it is necessary to explain why, with the successful implementation of the Western model of development from an economic point of view, the foundations of liberal democracy as one of the system-forming principles of the Western model steadily weakened (starting from the Great French Revolution).

revolutions). By the end of the 20th century, the components of liberal democracy (justice, solidarity, community, equality, freedom) were losing their significance in the everyday social practice of Western life. They were ideal elements and were not needed, and therefore could not survive in a rigidly pragmatic society that is guided not by ideals, but by interests. For example, the apologist of liberalism M. Friedman declared :" For a free person, a country should be a collection of its constituent individuals, and not some higher authority... A free man does not recognize any national goal unless it is a consensus of goals that citizens strive for individually. It does not recognize any national task if it is not a consensus of tasks that citizens individually serve" [Friedman, 2005, p. 25]. A particular manifestation of the crisis of liberalism was the weakening of the social state model in the West, its rejection of the functions of a social arbiter and the transition to a self-sustaining existence (archiatatism).

Therefore, the consequences of the implementation of the Western model of development were negative phenomena: for the whole world - a crisis of resources, global warming, an increase in the degree of conflict in the world system; for the West - an aggravation of problems in the economy, social and political life, in the ecology and spiritual sphere; for the East - a contradictory development process that led to a state of semi-modern society, the symbiosis of elements and properties of the Western model and the traditional foundations of their civilizations and cultures.

Thus, the main causes of the global crisis as a crisis of the dominant (Western) model of development should be considered: unjustified development goals as all-round growth and development of material and other production to meet the desires and needs of people and for the sake of increasing profits; inefficiency of existing development tools that ensure production growth, but increase the instability of the world system; generated by the principles of liberalism increasing competition and rivalry in the world, as well as the environmental crisis.

Changes are overdue. Even now we can note the "generic features", the qualitative differences of the outgoing, old and coming to replace the new social system.

The old system is characterized by: the defining role of industrial technology in the economy, the subordinate role of labor in relation to capital, the dominant role of market principles and the leading role of financial capital in public life, the supremacy of democratic principles in civil society, respect for the law on the part of the social state, the disappearance of the religious principle in the life of the individual and society, the important role of ideology in public life, the ability to use the resource potential of a semi-modern or non-modern world (Eastern countries) in one form or another of domination.

For the new system, the defining factors were: highly scientific technologies and information flows in the economy, the emergence of hired workers-owners( knowledge workers), the combination of market principles with the principles of regulating economic life, the disintegration and atomization of society, the increasing role of the state and the importance of power in public life, the important role of culture in public life, the revival of interest in religion, the transformation of Eastern countries in independent subjects of world politics and economy.

The existing system of modern industrial society (in two forms - capitalist and socialist) was formed in the XX century largely due to its own objective logic of development, inherent in it organically, and not as a mechanical combination of various elements. It can be assumed that the new social system will only partially respond to regulation, realizing its naturally accumulated potential and existing opportunities, probably not again-

taking literally the socialist experience of the USSR or the capitalist experience of the United States, but finding its own foundations taking into account other principles.

The economy will remain at the core of society's development as value creation and exchange, but the nature of entrepreneurship is likely to change. It already covers a much broader sphere than the production of material values in the XIX-XX centuries, and the boundaries of the actual economic activity of a person are blurring, which is intertwined with social, cultural, and environmental ones. Today, it is sometimes difficult to draw the line between business and research or training.

You can also expect a change in the business development goal and, consequently, its value system, its morals. Protestant ethics, M. Weber argued, played an important role in the formation of capitalist society in the West. It was the recognition of the highest value - God and the focus on meeting people's needs, complemented by the principles of personal trust, respect and responsibility, that ensured the rapid and effective development of the new system. But in the future, ideology replaces religion, the principles of liberalism come to dominate, and the vertically oriented hierarchical system of values is replaced by a horizontal system in which all values are equalized. The destruction of the old moral and ethical foundations of business by the beginning of the XX century is associated with the emergence of other goals for its development: this is enrichment, increasing profits, production for the sake of production. A. de Benoit, denouncing liberalism, wrote: "Liberalism is an anthropological system even more than a socio-economic one... Its ultimate goal is to establish a society that will only be a market... the realm of quantity... Residents are no longer citizens, they are consumers" [Benois, 2009, pp. 12-13, 16]. Weber was the first to talk about the progressive rationalization of all aspects of public life, which was aimed at optimizing costs and increasing profits. Developing this idea, J. Ritzer in his book "Macdonaldization of Society 5" (2008) examines the organization of mass consumption as part of modern industrial culture.

By the end of the twentieth century, the predatory nature of the capitalist system became apparent, in which industrial production itself gave way to speculative financial operations as the main form of enrichment. The goal of product production in modern society is not so much to satisfy people's needs as to satisfy their desires generated by the producers themselves in order to make a profit.

Nevertheless, it was in the East that capitalism received a new impetus for development. The only question is: what kind of capitalism is this?

It is likely that the transformation of profit from the goal of production simply to its result, the return of trust and responsibility in the business sector can become an important factor in radical changes. The human factor (human capital) is all the more important for the Eastern countries, which are mostly doomed to catch-up modernization [Ulyakhin, 2011, p.244-284].

How can the reform mechanism be used to modernize and "reform the system" in the twenty-first century in order to create a new model of development?

The main feature of modernization is the purposefulness of state-led transformations. Accordingly, it is necessary to determine the subject (s) of modernization, which can become both national states and supranational institutions. The most important task is to determine the contours and main principle of the new social system, based on the realities of the post - industrial world and the capabilities of a particular society, and then-the actual development goal. In contrast to previous upgrades, in the new conditions, it is necessary to

development not only by the leading society, but also by the majority of the world community, if not a single goal, then at least common principles of the new social system.

Previously, the object of modernization was invariably a particular society within its national, state and cultural borders. Now, due to the globalization processes, it is more productive to consider at least regional communities as the object of purposeful activities of modernizers.

The main goals of industrial modernization are to get out of the systemic crisis (while maintaining stability) and gain a new quality of society: competitiveness and equality in the systems of the world economy and world politics. In the post-industrial world, material production itself is no longer a goal, but only a necessary condition for development. Moreover, material and non-material production is reorganized in accordance with the approved goals and principles of the new society.

The subject of modernization is the state. If in 1995 I. Wallerstein confidently wrote that" the state can make life a little better (or a little worse) for all its citizens", but in general," the state is not the main driving force of progress "[Wallerstein, 2003, p. 9], then ten years later it is difficult to recognize the indisputability of the statement that " the state can make life a little better (or a little worse)".withering away of the nation-state". Purposeful and energetic actions of Western and non-Western states in the context of the financial crisis of 2008-2009 helped to mitigate the course of the crisis and facilitate the search for a way out of it. Considering the prospects for the modern development of the BRIC countries, V. Davydov noted the leading strategic role of the state (with all deviations towards economic liberalization), and this role is " prolonged within the framework of a civilizationally stable tradition. And this is certainly a special quality that brings the "four" together internally, making it stand out from the global background" [Davydov, 2008, p. 136].

At the same time, it is necessary to note the really significant role of other active subjects of world development that emerged in the second half of the XX century and are now comparable in importance to national states - transnational corporations and international organizations. These institutions are already being used to regulate global development. As their effectiveness increases, they will be able, in cooperation with States, not only to develop programs to overcome the crisis, but also to become a real pillar of this process.

The main characteristic of modernization is a complex process of qualitative transformations in all spheres of society's life. But if earlier modernization solved the problem of overcoming the crisis of the pre-modern system, and, therefore, the key task became obvious-agrarian reform and the creation of industry, which changed the system-forming principle and determined the direction of changes in other spheres of public life, now the situation is more complicated. The crisis has engulfed not only the "second world", but to a certain extent the" first world", the natural environment that was given to man for use. The well-known "butterfly effect" should be taken into account both when defining key tasks, the solution of which brings the system out of crisis and gives it a new quality, and when developing detailed stages of modernization.

This process, as it was centuries earlier, will cover the entire socio-industrial organism of a particular society, but to varying degrees-based on real conditions, the degree of readiness and opportunities to perceive new technologies, technology, industrial relations, the level of education and culture, the psychological readiness of the broad masses and local groups of the population.

You can outline some indicators of the direction of this process. In the sphere of economic life: changing the structure of national economies in order to reduce the material and energy intensity of production, increasing the share of the service sector and the importance of environmental protection. In the social sphere: easing and reducing property differentiation, creating conditions for maximum freedom of movement

access of people to means of subsistence (water, food, medical services) and means of personal development (education, vocational training, information) and facilitating the self-organization of various communities of people that meet the development goals and principles of the new social system.

In political life: the establishment of an indissoluble link between the principles of development and human freedom, the creation of conditions for positive civic activity of members of society and public organizations. Addressing the new challenges of radical modernization involves combining democratic participation with competent and effective governance. It is necessary to create a generation of new, young leaders, as it happened in the era of industrial modernization. At the same time, it is hardly possible to create any "absolute ideology" with a universal recipe for solving global problems (like liberalism or communism). The likely organizing principle of social and political life will be the principle of "sustainable development", which affirms the values of respect for the rights of others, moderation, sufficiency and self-restraint.

In the sphere of culture, it is obvious to reject the nihilistic principles of the destructive Postmodern counterculture with its denial of all the richness of human culture accumulated over the centuries for the sake of one thing-the freedom of individual expression. The rediscovery of old values and achievements of world culture will create conditions for the humanization of society and the harmonization of public interests. An important condition for social harmonization is to mitigate the gap between young people and the older generation, to balance the values of these parts of society, since with the current dominance of the principles of "youth", the dominance of momentary interests and primitive mass culture is obvious. At the same time, the obligatory return to the original principles of their own civilizations cannot prevent the mutually enriching dialogue of different cultures, which can already take place within the framework of not only civilizations, but also individual diasporas within other cultural civilizations.

In the sphere of spiritual life, when carrying out radical transformations, it remains equally important to rely on Tradition, respect and use of the system - forming elements of a particular civilization, the first of which is religion. "The attitude to religion determines the vision of the world," S. Huntington argued [Huntington, 2005, p. 24]. It is necessary for the state to approve and accept new value orientations based both on the unchangeable part of civilizational values and on the principles of a new, post-industrial system.

It is obvious that a revision of one of the basic elements of the Art Nouveau era is overdue, a natural part of which was the active neutralization or "disqualification of Tradition". Meanwhile, V. Yu. Sukhachev rightly notes, "Memory is not the past at all, which can be likened to computer memory", "here a completely different principle works: memory is constituted by the eventful past", which determines and transmits "to the present that without which the present is deprived of support... its own meaning." And without the recognition of absolute values," without this 'eternity of the past', the generation of meaning becomes impossible, there are only scattered, repelling each other present, senselessly colliding with each other" [Sukhachev, 2003, p.247].

But doesn't loyalty to Tradition and one vertically oriented mountain system of values contradict the tasks of modernization? Not if we do not limit development exclusively to the material sphere, to the growth of consumption. According to Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, in 2009 the head of "one powerful Western European state" suddenly said to him: "We don't know what we should go out to our voters with now. It is impossible to live better than we are now, because then there will not be enough resources. We have reached such a material level where there is no-

complete well-being is guaranteed. But a party that calls people to the polls cannot stand still, and it must address people with new slogans and new appeals." However, Patriarch Kirill notes ," human well-being, a person's attitude to the world is determined not only by the amount of money in his pocket or in a bank account. But the construction of a harmonious personality and harmonious relations necessarily implies, along with economic development, also spiritual development" ["Unknown" Patriarch..., 2009, p. 161].

The real state of society, both in its basic, civilizational indicators, and in actual manifestations, should be taken into account by reformers. With excessive acceleration of transformations (introduction of basic technologies and value orientations of modern society), for which the society is not ready, and, thus, when the power passes the social / spiritual "threshold of sensitivity" in the course of" initiating reforms", the society may reject modernization. At the same time, if the process of renewal, for which society is objectively prepared, slows down voluntarily or involuntarily, it can reject the government, choosing not "delayed reforms", but revolution.

The external factor is always of great importance, and in this sense it can be understood as the continuing activity of the world's leading powers and powerful TNCs, new regional centers of power (China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey) and international institutions (the UN, IMF, IBRD, etc.) in the future. so is the ongoing process of all-encompassing globalization, which is only partially controlled by the West and sometimes causes unexpected consequences.

It seems that, as before, in the process of modernization, an important, sometimes decisive, external factor will remain: the very logic of the development of the world system requires the allocation of leaders and slaves. The difference from the twentieth century will be that the West will probably lose its monopoly on the role of the leading subject of modernization.

The sequence of the modernization process is unchanged.

At the first stage, the society becomes aware of the crisis state. The authorities take separate measures to resolve the crisis, as a rule, these are "reforms within the system".

Actually, this stage has already been overcome by Western countries since the end of the XX century. Palliative solutions to emerging problems include attempts at economic and political integration within the EU, tighter financial regulation by the state in the context of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, or the search for the right solution to the problems of the labor force and social stability within the national state.

China, India, and Brazil, the contenders for the role of the world's leading powers, are facing the same kind of crisis, but they must overcome not only the crisis of growth, but also the crisis of backwardness.

A new phenomenon is the need to overcome the crisis not only by national social systems, but also by international ones. Emerged in the XX century. The European Union and other regional organizations have shown their objective need, and therefore the need for transformation, based on changing conditions. It can be assumed that in the future, the process of regionalization will lead to a higher degree of socio-economic integration of groups of countries in a particular region, and such regional unions will also become the object of modernization along with nation states.

At the second stage, there is an awareness of the scale of the national crisis. The authorities are developing an attitude to the crisis and ways out of it. The program of reforms is adopted and the creation of the legal basis of the new system begins. A reformer leader appears. There is a "hotbed" of a new society, which has the value of a clear example for society.

It seems that this scheme works if we pay attention to the desire of the leading Western powers to maintain their advantage in the XXI century. However, they are trying to solve this problem by using the old methods of violence and pressure against the rest of the world. Nevertheless, the very appearance of Barack Obama, the first black president of the United States, is a landmark phenomenon: American society is on the path of serious changes, because the rejection of the outdated part of the traditional heritage has begun. Changes in people's minds, along with the active work of numerous "think tanks" in the United States, will sooner or later lead to an awareness of the urgency of cardinal changes in the entire social system. "Hotbeds" of a new society and a new way of life, elements of a new system already exist in this country.

At the same time, there are many reasons to believe that China is also able to enter the second stage of modernization in the coming decades. Although Chinese society is less homogeneous than that of the United States, it compensates for this by being more willing to mobilize and more effective in its power institutions. If China manages to move from imitating scientific and technological progress to independent scientific and technological development, and from copying equipment and technologies to creating them, then another modernization center will appear in the world. The United States, China, and possibly Western European countries and Japan can form the "first echelon" of post-modern development.

The crucial condition for the success of modernization remains unchanged - the timely readiness of the authorities to carry out fundamental reforms for the benefit of society. At this stage, much still depends on the elite, ruling and ruling groups in the country and in the world. Will the elite be able to unite themselves and unite society on the basis of creative values to carry out radical changes of revolutionary significance, or will they limit themselves to the existing quality of life? It is important what goals the elite mostly pursues: national development, self-survival, or self-serving enrichment. This subjective factor can slow down or speed up the start of modernization.

The third stage is the longest and most difficult. The government overcomes the inertia of economic-centrist development and carries out systematic and purposeful transformations in the economic and social spheres. Its modernization policy should take into account not only the objective conditions and spontaneous changes in society and the globalizing world, but also the need to resist the power of market fundamentalism and consumer selfishness. The bureaucracy is an instrument of power. The new social forces interested in the success of modernization serve as the social support of the authorities. As the national economy is reorganized on qualitatively new technological and social bases, a qualitative transformation of society takes place.

At present, it seems unproductive to try to determine the directions and pace of development, as well as the contours of the future society (partly outlined earlier). Nevertheless, it is clear that in a few decades the main part of the world system will need to abandon, outlive or modify a considerable part of its traditional economic, social, political and cultural heritage. And this is a necessary condition for growing and building various parameters of a new order, a new system.

It is likely that in a globalized world, the process of modernization will take place in some cases over national and state borders, drawing only a part of the socio-industrial organism into its flow, while the other part will retain its former, pre-modern quality. The result of such a process within national and state borders will not be a synthesis of Modernity and Tradition, but its symbiosis (or rejection). The same criterion - inclusion in postmodernity-will be applied to the world as a whole. And those countries and peoples who do not have time to "jump on the train of modernity" will sink to the "bottom" of the post-modern world.

At the fourth stage of modernization, the political life and political system of society are brought into line with the changed social structure. Thus, the society acquires an organic integrity in a new quality.

It can be assumed that political life itself will take other forms and acquire a different meaning. The formation of various network structures in the world in recent years, the emergence of new human communities, based on new unifying interests and goals, is gradually changing the usual course of social and political life. However, it is clear that the changed life of society will have to find a formal framework adequate to the depth of change.

The authors of the Review Report on Modernization in the World and in China, considering the prospects for global modernization by 2050, proposed three models for countries at different stages of development: intensive secondary (post-industrial) modernization; sequential completion of primary (industrial) and the beginning of secondary; integrated modernization [Review Report..., 2011, pp. 92-102]. At the same time, in defining the hierarchy of goals and objectives of modernization, they do not leave the space of industrial-consumer meanings and values.

The proposed reform mechanism is value-neutral and theoretically can be used at any time in any society. However, the uneven development of the Eastern countries in the course of modernization led to the collapse of the once unified "third world" into a "second-third" (in the terminology of the authors of IMEMO, the" first echelon "- the BRIC countries, the" second echelon " - Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea and South Africa) [Russia in polycentric..., 2011, p. 317], in which the problem of industrial modernization is generally solved, and "third-fourth", for which the solution of such a problem turned out to be difficult. Thus, the model of development for the countries of the" third or fourth world " is not so much the West as the example of successfully modernized Eastern countries.

At the same time, the first and second "echelons of the East" can be compared with the West mainly in terms of formal macroeconomic and social indicators (GDP, literacy rate, life expectancy, etc.). In contrast to the West, which has experienced a relatively smooth socio-economic evolution and preserved the integrity of the socio-industrial organism, in the modernized countries of the East this organic integrity of society is irrevocably broken. Moreover, this is no longer the usual multi-structure, but the division of society according to the criterion of inclusion in modernity (the era of Modernity). And the vast masses of the population in China, Brazil, Pakistan, and Indonesia continue to live in pre-Modern times in terms of their mode of production, way of life, standards of living, and morals. They retain and reproduce their traditional worldview and worldview, although they also use "Modern toys" in the form of cars, laptops and mobile phones. This suggests the formation of a" two-track "model of development not only in the economy, the emergence of a symbiosis of "hotbeds" of post-industrial society and stable traditionalism within a single national-state organism.

However, A. P. Kolontaev considers it possible for many developing countries of the East to "overcome such dualism" [Kolontaev, 2011, p. 13]. While V. A. Melyantsev, considering the experience of developing countries in the Middle East region, states there "a lot of accumulated problems associated with inefficiency... economic and institutional systems", as a result of which "in terms of their technological, economic, and socio-political development, they, unlike the fast-growing East and South Asian states, do not fit well into the promising growth models of the XXI century" [Melyantsev, 2011, p. 83].

But it is not only the "maturing and depletion of the technological revolution, on which the growth of the entire system was based" [Peres, 2011, p. 215] of capitalism, that creates limitations-

for the modernization of the East. The effectiveness of the modernization mechanism is determined not only by rational considerations, but also by completely irrational ones that relate to the spiritual, not to the material nature of a person - namely, a person is the main subject and object of social development.

A person has not only material needs and desires, but also beliefs, experiences and moods. We cannot agree with M. Delyagin's point of view, according to which "the development of mankind does not require either justice (which simply does not exist in history) or efficiency, which remains unattainable for most human associations" [Delyagin, 2008, p.22]. The degree of achievement of the second (always conditional) indicator is determined by the specific conditions of society, and the entire path of world history is precisely the path to achieving justice as an absolute value. Since this goal is unattainable on earth, is transcendent, in the course of development according to the Western model with its primacy of the ratio principle, the principle of justice was blurred, devalued (or simplified in the theoretical constructions of J. R. R. Tolkien). Rawls). But it is inherent in human consciousness from the beginning to the end and cannot be completely replaced by the dominance of industrial-consumer meanings.

In any case, this principle was the basis for the formation of the capitalist (modern, industrial) formation, which dates back to the beginning of the Great French Revolution in 1789. True, I. Wallerstein, considering liberalism as a " global ideology "(of a new formation, a new system), believed that in 1989 this "political and cultural era", "the era of impressive technical achievements" came to an end. But the end of an era does not mean a change in human nature. And he himself puts the principle of justice as the basis for the proposed "program of expedient social and political action in the next 20-50 years" [Wallerstein, 2003, p. 248-251].

In fact, the consequences of the "Arab Spring" of 2011 can be considered precisely as the choice of a backward traditional society between Modernity and Tradition. A narrow layer of the modernized national elite, with the support of an external factor, offered society to accelerate the process of modernization according to the Western model, but the proposed reforms turned out to "initiate" such beginnings that are not characteristic of society itself. And it rejected the proposed changes and adjusted the social system in accordance with its own meanings and goals - irrational from the point of view of the Western model of development, but fair from the point of view of this society.

The first decade of the XXI century turned out to be the beginning of a "global transition period" (I. Wallerstein). The West and East faced new challenges that go beyond the outdated formation structure, which means that new approaches are needed that do not cancel out, but complement the known ones. In modern conditions, when the previously unknown task of adapting human society to previously unprecedented conditions of existence arises and when the proven rational method does not work, both in the West and in the East turn to the transcendental approach as optimal. This means that the principle of justice, even if it is understood differently by different subjects of the historical process, becomes effective. The world is getting more complicated. At the same time, the complexity of the task does not negate the need to solve it, which may take several decades. Since the end of the 20th century, as the importance of the axiological approach in modern life has been realized, culture, rather than ideology, has become a tool for maintaining the adequacy of a particular society, and in the future - the basis of its life activity.

It is impossible to exclude the gradual " weakening of the economy as the basis of social structure "( O. Vikhansky). "It will be replaced by education and the scientific and technical component. And the main indicators will be... results of development of the educational system and scientific and technical potential of the society... the new society will be general-

It is a complex social-oriented association based on intellectual activity that is closely integrated with the educational process" [Vikhansky, 2009, p.60]. We can only assume that information, leisure or medicine will replace industry and finance as the basis of the industrial system (formation).

Another thing is that the bulk of the peoples of the "third or fourth world" will pass by these goals without having the capabilities to achieve them, solving the tasks not of reforming their national systems, but of bringing them out of the crisis and finding stable development in line with the semi - industrial and semi-traditional model of development. Thus, the global periphery will remain, but it is less obvious whether a catch - up modernization is possible for it in the future.

Such a forecast is all the more likely because the growing role and power of the BRIC countries along with other rapidly developing post-industrial economies in the East has become an obvious fact. All these countries have not abandoned their civilizational heritage, which includes the primacy of spiritual principles over material ones when choosing a development goal. Preserving the foundations of their identity gives them the opportunity to influence the process of forming a new model of development to change the places of the system-forming elements of the future society. F. Zakaria, describing the "post-American world of the future", wrote about "the end of the era of US dominance", that China "has long been offering an alternative development model to the American one", which "developing countries will become more and more oriented" [Zakaria, 2009, p.17-18].

It is likely that in the new model of development that is now emerging, the material principle will return, as it was before the capitalist era and in Western Europe, to a subordinate position in relation to the spiritual principle, and the foundations of social development will take the following form: state-society-religion-culture-economy.

list of literature

J. Arrigi Afterword to the second edition of the "Long Twentieth Century" / / Prognosis, 2009, No. 1.

Vsnua ds A. Vs liberalizma: k chetveroi politicheskoi teorii [Against Liberalism: towards the Fourth Political Theory]. Moscow, 2009.

Wallsrstein I. Posle liberalizma [After Liberalism], Moscow, 2003.

Wallsrstein I. Evropeiskii universalizm: rhetorika vlasti [European Universalism: the Rhetoric of Power].

Webster A. B. Razvitie v razvitiye stranakh k postanovke problemy [Development in developed countries to the problem statement]. M: IMEMO. 2010.

Vihansky O. Homo cconomicus must die // Expert, 2009, no. 17-18.

Davydov V. The awakening giants of BRIK / / Svobodnaya mysl. 2008. № 5.

Delyagin M. Drive of humanity. Globalization and the Global Crisis, Moscow, 2008.

Zakaria F. Post-American World, Moscow, 2009.

Kolontasv A. P. Strany Vostoka v nachale XXI veka: poiskakh novykh teoreticheskikh generalizatsii [Countries of the East at the beginning of the XXI century: Search for new theoretical Generalizations]. 2011. № 2.

Melyantsev V. A. Krizis v arabskom mire: ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye aspekty [The Crisis in the Arab World: Economic and Social Aspects]. 2011. № 10.

"Unknown" Patriarch Kirill, Moscow, 2009.

North D. Understanding the process of Economic change, Moscow, 2010.

Review report on modernization in the world and China (2001-2010). Moscow, 2011.

Pantin V. I. Tsikly i volni modernizatsii kak fenomen sotsial'nogo razvitiya [Cycles and waves of modernization as a phenomenon of social development]. Moscow, 1997.

Perez K. Technological revolution and financial capital. Dynamics of Bubbles and Periods of Prosperity, Moscow, 2011.

Perslsgin S. Novye karty budushchego, ili Anti-RAND [New Maps of the Future, or Anti-RAND]. Moscow, 2009.

Polanyi K. The Great Transformation. Political and Economic Origins of our Time, St. Petersburg, 2002.

Polanyi K. Izbrannye raboty [Selected Works], Moscow, 2010.

Ritzsr J. Macdonaldization of society 5. Moscow, 2008.

Russia in the Polycentric World, Moscow: IMEMO, 2011.

Simonia N. A. Catch-up development in the era of globalism // What is catching up with catch-up development. Search for a Concept, Moscow, 2011.

Saul J. Smith Voltaire's bastards. The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, Moscow, 2006.

Sukhachsv V. Yu. Istoriya i tsmporalnost', ili nekotorye razmyshleniya po prokhodu "kontsa epokhi moderna" [History and tsmporality, or some reflections on the "end of the Modern era"]. The end of the twentieth century and the end of the Art Nouveau era. SPb., 2003.

Toynbee A. J. Civilizatsiya pered sudom istorii [Civilization before the Court of History]. Moscow, 2003.

Toffler E., Toffler X. Revolutionary wealth. How it will be created and how it will change our life. Moscow, 2007.

Ulyakhin V. N. Dorozhnaya karta "dogonyushchego razvitiya" [Road map of "catching up development"]. Search for a Concept, Moscow, 2011.

Fridman M. Kapitalizm i svoboda [Capitalism and Freedom], Moscow, 2005.

Huntington S. Difficulties... addictive behavior // Free thought. 2005. № 4.

Hobsbawm / / Cit. by: Prognosis. 2010. No. 1.

Monde Diplomatique. Atlas, Moscow, 2009.

Euronews. 04.02.2006.

6 Vostok, No. 4

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: