The article discusses current issues of leadership in contemporary Russian society within the context of implementing an effective state (national) ideology of development. The author argues that Russia’s successful strategic development requires addressing two interconnected challenges: establishing a unifying ideological foundation and cultivating socially responsible leaders. The analysis focuses particularly on leadership characteristics and the role of leaders in emerging social and socio-political movements. Contemporary society is characterized as a complex interplay between formal institutional organizations and informal practices. Modern leaders must possess not only professional expertise but also meta-professional competencies, including empathic competence – the ability to understand and constructively leverage the emotional and spiritual dimensions of organizational life. A pressing challenge facing society is determining how to ensure that leaders of voluntary civic organizations act in socially responsible ways. National ideology plays a crucial role in addressing this challenge, and should be grounded in the civilizational characteristics of contemporary Russian society. This ideology must emerge as an integrative framework synthesizing the most significant ideological currents of recent decades and the present day. The author cautions against replacing national ideology with ideocratic ideology – a secular variant of theocratic state ideology. The power of integrative ideology derives not from rigidity but from its ability to maintain unity around strategic national objectives while accommodating the diverse situational features of development processes. The article concludes that integrative ideology can serve as the cornerstone for balancing competing societal and state interests, fostering the development of initiative-taking and socially responsible leaders, and enabling rapid socio-economic progress without undermining institutional stability.

The article examines ideology as a determinant vector that shapes strategic goals and tactical objectives for the development of the state-civilization. It substantiates that the presence of state ideology does not contradict the local-civilizational approach, which serves as a scientific paradigm for analyzing global processes. The paper formulates methodological, anthropological, and socio-political arguments supporting the necessity of developing a civilization-authentic model of development. The methodological arguments are predicated upon the inherent contradictions within “Western values” and the impossibility of mechanical transplantation of ready-made schemas from an alternative supersystem. The research extrapolates Gadamer’s concept of the horizon of understanding to the civilizational level, where collective historical experience forms a distinctive hermeneutical tradition. Anthropological arguments are grounded in the concept of a unique “logic of meaning” intrinsic to each local civilization, encoded within its language. Socio-political arguments derive from the theory of multiple modernities and the particular model of state-civilization that characterizes the developmental trajectories of Russia, China, and India. Significant attention is devoted to the economic dimension of state ideology. The article demonstrates the value-conditioned nature of economic theory and practice, critically analyzes post-Soviet reform experiences, and examines an alternative model of “moral economics” proposed by D.S. Lvov, which aligns with traditional values of communal solidarity and collective well-being. The research illustrates that the substantive component of social knowledge is invariably conditioned by the cultural context from which it emerges, explaining the limitations of mechanical application of Western economic theories. The text particularly emphasizes that Russia's civilizational peculiarities have facilitated the formation of collective labor organization forms and redistributive economic structures. The article underscores that economic policy must consider not only financial indicators but also a broad spectrum of social parameters, including income distribution, accessibility of quality education and healthcare, and environmental well-being. The conclusion advocates for the formation of a holistic ideological model grounded in the value foundations of Russian civilization, ensuring its sustainable and authentic development across all spheres in the contemporary historical period.

The article examines the concept of the civilizational state as an alternative model of political organization that emerged in the early 21st century in opposition to the nation-state paradigm. The analysis addresses two arguments advanced by Western theorists against this concept: one historical, the other methodological. The first argument, based on a progressivist logic of evolution, construes the civilizational state as a regression, a return to the pre-modern, a “descent into the archaic.” This assertion ignores the fact that every civilization contains a core set of values that acts as a foundational myth, an archetype, a “pure paradigm,” an “ideal telos,” which unfold across time and space, constantly renewing itself and providing appropriate responses to the new challenges of modernity. The second objection appeals to the restrictive Western positivist understanding of the state as a “machine of governance.” Based on this, it is concluded that the “mechanistic” function inherent to the state is incompatible with the “organismic” basis of the concept of civilization. This argument fails to account for non-Western philosophy, in which the state is conceived from an ethical perspective that has been largely lost in contemporary European thought. In non-Western political thought, the state is held responsible for realizing the common good and for safeguarding peace and harmony, and is ultimately perceived as a locus of “virtue.” The article analyzes the developmental trends of the nation-state model and identifies the factors contributing to the crisis of this model. The emergence of the civilizational-state model (notably in China, Russia, India) serves not only as a form of self-defense for these countries but also as a necessary counterbalance to the concentration of global power. These states are becoming centers of attraction for culturally and historically similar regions, forming new “civilizational worlds.” The article concludes that the dichotomy between the corporate state and the civilizational state represents a fundamental choice: between the unification of the world under a single template and the establishment of a genuinely multipolar world order founded on respect for humanity’s civilizational diversity.

The article examines the role and status of state and party ideologies within the system of sociopolitical relations. Highlighting the polysemy of the concept of “ideology,” the study traces its evolution from Antoine Destutt de Tracy’s original “science of ideas” through the works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Antonio Gramsci, Karl Mannheim, Louis Althusser, and Clifford Geertz, to contemporary interpretations. The author delineates the specific meanings of ideology as applied to state and party spheres of activity. It is demonstrated that ideologies are grounded in political theory, which serves as the basis for forming political ideals, value systems, and norms of behavior for political actors. The study reveals the axiological character of ideologies and their connection to the concept of the good as an overarching designation of social and political ideals. Ideology is shown to arise from public consensus regarding values and norms; this reflects the active nature of human beings, involving not only the cognition of social regularities but also their normative evaluation in the context of societal development goals. The concept of state ideology is defined here as a system of the state's self-definition regarding its purpose and goals – a system that exists regardless of official status or formal codification. A legitimate state ideology, rooted in public consensus, ensures state stability and effective strategic development. A fundamental distinction is drawn between state and party ideologies in terms of actors, goals, and functions: while party ideologies are particularistic and express the interests of specific groups, state ideology aims at social consolidation. Noting the recent resurgence of interest in the issue of state ideology, the article analyzes various constitutional provisions concerning the public and legal status of ideologies. Finally, the author outlines pathways for forming a state ideology while preserving ideological diversity within civil society, arguing that this model aligns with an understanding of politics as a space for reconciling diverse social interests in pursuit of the common good.

The study of a possible and favorable future for education is, primarily, a task of scientific thinking. The fundamental ontology examines the essential contents of education of the future. The subject matter of the fundamental ontology is the relation of education to being, expressed in a system of primary categories and relations. The constitutive part of the fundamental ontology of education includes the relations to truth, ontological essence, and universals (structural, procedural, psychological, and distributive). Its anthropological part is determined by existentials and societals that define the ontological relations of education to an inner human and an outer human. The analysis of their ontological pairs allows us to identify critical gaps in modern education that hinder its development, as well as reveal the fundamental problems of modern education and develop fundamental models of education of the future with the aim to find their solutions. The first fundamental problem of contemporary education is the cultivation of those who think essentially, i.e., who essentially know and essentially create. The second is the harmonious combination of creative freedom of a person with a social function of thinking and, at the same time, the connection of a cognitive-type individual with a cognitive-type profession. The third is the formation of spiritual knowledge and spiritual education as opposed to simple assimilation of results. The principal fundamental problem of education in its present-day and future image is righteousness cultivation of humanity in the individual and society. Models of the education of the future are considered as Weber’s ideal types, which determine its essential characteristics. As such, this work presents a brief description of memory-retentive, problem-cognitive, cognitive-role, spirit, and righteousness models of education. Based on fundamentals of Russian culture in its historical heritage, the need for redefining Russian education is shown.

The article presents an analytical summary of the XXII International Panarin Readings, held on 19 February 2024 and devoted to one of the most pressing issues: the role of ideas and values in contemporary geopolitical confrontation. The conference was organized by the Faculty of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University (Department of Philosophy of Politics and Law) in collaboration with the Likhachev Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage. At the Panarin Readings, one of Russia’s influential intellectual platforms, the academic and policy-making community discusses strategies for axiological and civilizational research, focused primarily on questions concerning the development of Russian civilization. The summary concisely examines the substantive points of papers presented by scholars representing various academic institutions from Russia and other countries. The speakers addressed a broad spectrum of issues: the methodology for studying traditional Russian values, bioethical questions, the transformation of the education system, Russia’s civilizational development, and its place in the contemporary world. The conference devoted particular attention to the ideas of A.S. Panarin, who anticipated the key trajectories of global conflicts in the 21^st century and developed a theory of global political forecasting, advancing an alternative vision for a future polycentric world. The participants discussed the challenges of modernization and the preservation of cultural sovereignty, the shift in dominant civilizations and the formation of a multipolar world, the relationship between rights and duties in traditional cultures, the role of Orthodoxy in Russia’s civilizational identity, and civilizational diversity as an intrinsic value. The presenters emphasized the need to formulate a “common idea” for Russian society and to establish a normative-value system capable of ensuring the country’s sustainable development. In their concluding remarks, the organizers underscored the enduring relevance of A.S. Panarin’s legacy, whose works continue to inspire contemporary researchers to seek answers to the acute challenges of our time.