The paper examines the various aspects of the historical experience of the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The undoubted success of this experience posed a whole series of fundamentally new problems of a methodological and theoretical nature to the philosophy of history. The paper discusses the attitude to socialism with Chinese characteristics in modern Russian literature. The diversity of existing points of view (liberal, technocratic, socialist) is emphasized. The author researches the noncapitalist path of development of China and demonstrates that the transition to socialism with Chinese characteristics was at the same time a restoration of the national (civilizational) way of development that had been lost earlier as a result of colonial aggression. The author reconsiders the world-systems analysis from the Marxist positions in order to find ways and methods of theoretical combination of formational and civilizational approaches to history. This combination is possible only through the use of world-systems analysis, which reveals a much more complex logic of the historical process in the 21^st century in comparison with the classical Marxist logic of economic formations. The author demonstrates that at least two types of socialism exist. Western, or European, socialism derives from the mature capitalist structures of society. The non-Western socialism inherits the logic of national historical (civilizational) traditions. Nevertheless, the nature of socialism formation is preserved and reproduced there. At the present stage of world development, non-Western socialist countries are able to rationally use the achievements of modern capitalism for its own purposes, especially in the fields of science, technology and management. In the conclusion, the author argues that non-Western socialism has great prospects in the 21^st century for the enhancement of social development and transformation.

The article focuses on the Chinese discussion of 1935 on “Cultural Construction on a Chinese Basis” (Zhongguo benwei wenhua jianshe) and its influence on the subsequent “Sinification” (Zhongguohua) movement. The author analyzed the content of the “Manifesto of Cultural Construction on a Chinese Basis” (January 1935), which advocated a selective approach to both Chinese and Western cultures in order to enable China’s politics, society and thought to regain their national characteristics. It is underlined that compromise proposal to “not cling to the old” in Chinese culture and not to “follow blindly” Western culture has drawn critical response from Chinese adherents of Westernization. Hu Shi interpreted the idea of “Chinese own-based culture” as embodiment of the old thesis of combining “Chinese basis” (Zhong ti) with “Western application” (Xi yong). He maintained that the force of inertia of traditional culture is very strong, and, therefore, anxiety about the disappearance of national characteristics from the life of Chinese society is unfounded. Relying on materials of Chinese primary sources, the article shows that during the discussion the center of attention shifted from the sphere of culture to the outstanding issues of socio-economic development and international relations. Tao Xisheng, a proponent of “construction of own-based culture,” urged the “semicolonial Chinese” to oppose capitalist aggression, to create national thought and to take China as a starting point in assessing all events and trends. He prioritized tasks of gaining national independence and sovereignty, countering the expansion of capitalist powers, carrying out organized and planned advance of China. The emphasis on the factors of time and place demonstrated that the discourse on “own-based culture” was not divorced from practice. Participants of the discussion summarized China’s needs as improving people’s livelihood, developing the economy and ensuring the survival of the nation. The transition from the discussion of cultural construction to deliberating on the problems of the state took place against the background of the growing need for national consolidation in eve of the full-scale conflict with Japan. The pre-war discussion of “own-based culture” strengthened the positions of Chinese nationalism and cultural conservatism. In the late 1930s, Chinese Marxists launched their “Sinification” movement, which helped to bridge the gap between foreign theory and Chinese practice, thus paving the way to a positive understanding of Chinese characteristics. The article concludes that in modern China the contemporary relevance of the ideas of “construction of own-based culture” is determined by the growing attention to the preservation of identity and independence of Chinese culture in the era of rapid economic development and advancement towards the goal of national revival.

The article examines the main scientific research on Chinese philosophy published in the USSR and Russia from the beginning of the 1950s to the beginning of the 21^st century. Until the 1980s, the Soviet scholars described Chinese philosophy with ideological bias, the teachings of ancient Chinese philosophy were classified by them based on the criteria of materialism and idealism. During that period, the specifics of Chinese philosophy, especially traditional, was not successfully revealed. Since the beginning of the 1980s, special attention has been paid to the main philosophical schools, such as Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism. In particular, in the 1980s the Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences published the books Confucianism in China: Problems of Theory and Practice, Tao and Taoism in China and Buddhism and Society in the Countries of Central and east Asia, in which the main figures and concepts of classical Chinese philosophy were researched in depth. At the beginning of the 21^st century, the six-volume encyclopedia The Spiritual Culture of China, edited by M.L. Titarenko, A.I. Kobzev and A.E. Lukyanov, was published. The first volume of the encyclopedia is dedicated to philosophy and covers the history of Chinese philosophy from ancient times to the present day. The author of the article, being the project manager for translating this encyclopedia into Chinese, shows that Russian sinology has completely freed itself from old clichés and has come closer in this encyclopedia to comprehend the very essence of ancient Chinese philosophy. The author concludes that in the era of globalization, in the context of a constantly deepening intercultural dialogue, it becomes necessary not only to limit ourselves to our own perception rooted in our tradition but also to absorb the interpretations of the researchers of other traditions.

The article discusses the philosophical component of the Chinese project for the harmonization of cultures promoted by modern Confucius Institutes. The author research the formation of the Confucian culture of Tao, the creation by Confucius (551–479 BC) of the first Chinese philosophical school as well as the dictionary of universals of Confucian culture. In Confucianism, on the basis of the archetype of the Tao culture, a model of “moderate prosperity” (xiaokang) is built. This model involves the implementation of five programs: the global foreign policy program (pacification of all four cardinal points around the Middle Country), the cultural program (the Middle Country is chosen as the meeting place for all peoples), the internal political capital-government program (the calming and integration of internal provinces around the Capital of the Middle Country), the moral and ethical program (peace of mind and peace of the people of the Middle Country), the program of state unity (ensuring the integrity of the Middle Country). The key role in the xiaokang project is played by the perfection of man, the achievement of a harmonious balance of physical and mental virtues, the formation of personality of junzi as the ideal person of future civilization. Although the concept of xiaokang appeared in separate medieval treatises of the epochs of Jin (265–420) and Song (960–1279) dynasties, the xiaokang returns to the forefront of Chinese history at the end of the 19^th century during the movement for the modernization of the country. Xiaokang is interpreted by the reformers of China, in particular, Kang Youwei, as a necessary stage in building a society of “great unity” (datong). The “Architect of Chinese Reforms,” Deng Xiaoping, introduced the concept of “modestly prosperous family” (xiao kang zhi jia), the xiaokang of the “Four Chinese Modernizations.” The project of the formation of “community with shared future for mankind,” currently implemented by China, is based on a Confucian vision of the development of society and the world. In 1994, the International Confucian Association was created in China, and, since 2004, the deployment of a network of Confucius Institutes around the world began. The author concludes that Confucian culture has a supra-ethnic value because it opens the prospect of a new type of globalization, when cultures, preserving their originality but complementing each other by archetypes, form a single universal human paradigm.

The basic concept of Chinese culture – the concept of “face” (mianzi) – remains one of the most debated topics in philosophy, cultural studies and ethics. The author argues that the main methodological problem is “translation” of realities of Chinese mentality into the language of European discourse, the question of how European thinking interprets concepts that have no analogues in a non-Asian worldview and outlook. The problem of understanding realities of foreign consciousness is complicated by the fact that we can say, with a certain degree of confidence, that today there is no common global scientific field of social and humanitarian research. In spite of international contacts and diligent study of foreign languages, Asian, Euro-American and Russian studies on China do not actually constitute a single area of research. In spite of assurances of unbiased research, scientific objectivity, tolerance and equal respect for scientific schools of different countries, these studies are often afflicted with Eurocentrism or, reversely, Sinocentrism. This article discusses the main ideas of F. Fukuyama’s recently published book, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, regarding the Chinese concept of “face.” The article presents a brief analysis of the concept of “heart” in Christianity, which largely formed the general European understanding of personality and identity, and then a description of “heart” in the Taoist-Confucian philosophy, which is fundamental to the Chinese mentality. The article considers the methodological foundations of Fukuyama’s concepts and demonstrates the inefficiency of Eurocentric and Americentric criteria in interpretation of the “face” and personality in China. It is shown that the traditional understanding of Chinese consciousness as collectivistic and of European consciousness as chiefly individualistic is nothing more than a cliché. The author concludes that studying the Chinese concept of “face” requires a different methodological approach, which will be relevant not to epistemological views entrenched in the West, but to the subject of research itself.

A new Russian translation of Chinese treatise Mengzi from the Confucian philosophical corpus Si shu (Four Books) was long-awaited by sinologists. The author of the book is the famous Russian sinologist I.I. Semenenko, who has already published a series of works on the spiritual culture of China. The book contains a translation of the original text Mengzi, translations of two canonical commentaries by Zhao Qi and Zhu Xi as well as two historical and philosophical essays by I.I. Semenenko on Mengzi and Chinese exegesis. The publication is equipped with bibliography, chronology of Mengzi hermeneutic tradition, indexes of names and terms. The author professionally combines historical and philosophical analytics with knowledge from related disciplines – mythology, philology, history. As a translator, I.I. Semenenko is deeply immersed in the semantics of the text, at the same time, the book’s author pays considerable attention to the extensive commentaries. It is worthy of mention, until the beginning of the 20^th century, the traditional Chinese philosophy developed precisely in the form of commentaries on classical works. Until recently, both in China itself and in foreign sinology, researchers were almost exclusively focused on canonical texts. Only in the second half of the 1980s a new research field emerges – the study of the commentaries on canonical texts, the study of Chinese exegetical tradition. Thus, I.I. Semenenko is one of the few researchers who choose commentaries as the object of his historical and philosophical study.

In A.P. Lyubinov’s textbook, the explanation of the philosophy of law is based on worldview and theoretical principles and program requirements. The educational material leads readers to the study of the philosophy of law as a self-sufficient scientific and educational discipline, which is not solely the product of some logical conclusions of theoreticians who connected fragments of philosophy and law. The philosophy of law, comprising a philosophical understanding of the essence of law, the reasons for its occurrence and its connection with other phenomena of spiritual life, the study of the comparability of formulated codified legal provisions with the ideas and values underlying them, is an organic continuation of the traditions of philosophical and legal research of the Classical Period and Western Europe of the end 18^th – middle of the 19^th centuries. All these issues are presented in this textbook in a very detailed, critical and comprehensive manner.

Personalia. The 90^th Anniversary of the Birth of Professor David I. Dubrovsky.