Metamodern economy: Between war and peace

Man's economic activity and his worldview are closely interrelated, and this relationship has attracted the attention of philosophers and scientists for centuries. When making economic decisions, a person entered into relations of cooperation, collaboration and/or competition and even war. Since ancient times, war was used by man as a tool for resolving economic conflicts and achieving economic interests and evolved along with the development of socio-economic systems and the worldview of man himself. The economic worldview and socio-economic systems, in turn, evolve under the influence of the development of economic activity, philosophical knowledge, science and technology. In the development of mankind, we can distinguish eras of dominance of a certain philosophical paradigm (classicism, modernity, postmodernity, metamodernity), which determined the worldview of people, the “spirit of the times”, as well as their economic activities, the choice of tools for resolving economic conflicts and achieving economic interests, including characteristics and distinctive features of wars. Since in the modern global world of the metamodern era, military conflicts have a significant impact on the economic decisions of economic entities, identifying the distinctive features of modern wars in conjunction with the philosophy of metamodernism is relevant. The purpose of the study is to identify the distinctive characteristics of war as an economic instrument in each of the above-mentioned eras in conjunction with the dominant philosophical paradigm and the characteristics of the socio-economic systems of the parties to military conflicts, as well as to substantiate the key features of war in the modern metamodern era. To achieve this goal, the following tasks were solved: a comparative historical and economic analysis of the wars of the eras of classicism, modernity, postmodernity, and metamodernity was be carried out; differences between them were identified according to a number of criteria. The relationship between the characteristics of wars and the dominant philosophical paradigm were identified. The role of war in the economy of metamodernity was determined. The research methodology was based on a synthesis of historical and economic methodology, a systemic economic approach, and comparative analysis, which determined the novelty of the research results: the rationale for the relationship of war as a tool for solving economic conflicts and/or realizing economic interests with the dominant philosophical paradigm.

1. Vermeulen T., Acker R. (2017). Metamodernism: Historicity, influence and depth after postmodernism. Moscow: Ripol-Classic (in Russian).

2. Kirdina-Chandler S.G., Hall D. (2017). Cooperation versus competition in the works of Russian evolutionists. Journal of Institutional Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 6–26 (in Russian).

3. Kirdina-Chandler S.G. (2022). Unipolarity, multipolarity and bipolar coalitions. XXI Century. Sociological Studies, no. 10, pp. 3–16 (in Russian).

4. Kirdina-Chandler S.G. (2022). Economic theory, ideology and economic interest. AlterEconomics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 71–92 (in Russian).

5. Kleiner G. B. (2018). Three questions for political economy (an attempt at systemic retrospection). Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 8, pp. 118–127 (in Russian).

6. Korchagin K. (2019). What is metarealism? [Electronic resource] (in Russian). URL: https://arzamas.academy/mag/698-metameta?ysclid=lur0otx15s903750453

7. Petrovskaya E. V., Pomerants G. S. (2010). Postmodernism. New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vol. Prev. scientific-ed. Council V. S. Stepin. 2nd ed., rev. and add. Moscow: Mysl (in Russian).

8. Sazanova S. L. (2017). Study of the relationship between the dynamics of the institution of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial activity, the dynamics of values and business incentives. Vestnik GUU. Scientific and Methodological Journal, no. 6, pp. 88–91 (in Russian).

9. Sazanova S. L. (2019). Challenges of metamodernity and their influence on modern economic science. Entrepreneur’s Guide, no. 44, pp. 172–179 (in Russian).

10. Sazanova S. L., Karmanov N. N. (2023). Interrelation of economic and political factors of the country’s economic development (using the example of the Democratic Republic of Congo). Scientific Notes of the Russian Academy of Entrepreneurship, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 28–33 (in Russian).

11. Sazanova S. L., Mokiy M. S. (2023). Mutual assistance and competition as driving forces of economic development. Economics of Contemporary Russia, no. 2 (101), pp. 7–17 (in Russian).

12. Sazanova S. L., Ryazanova G. N. (2019). Economic theory of organizations in the structure of modern economic theory. Entrepreneur’s Guide, no. 44, pp. 180–192 (in Russian).

13. Turner L. (2011). Manifesto of metamodernism [Electronic resource] (in Russian). URL: http://www.metamodernism.org/

14. Epstein M. (1983). Theses on metarealism and conceptualism [Electronic resource] (in Russian). URL: https://emory.edu/INTELNET/pm_kontsep_metareal.html

15. Epstein M. (1986). What is «metarealism»? [Electronic resource] (in Russian). URL: https://emory.edu/INTELNET/pm_metarealizm.html

16. Epstein M. (2000). Postmodern in Russia. Literature and theory. Moscow: Publishing house R. Elinin (in Russian).

17. Epstein M. (1989) What is a «me metabola»? Stylistics and poetics. Abstracts of the All-Union Scientific Conference. Moscow. Vol. 2 (in Russian).

18. Morgenthau H. (1948). Politics among Nations. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf.

19. Morgenthau H. (1952). In Defense of National Interest. N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf.

20. Storm J. (2021). Metamodernism: The Future of Theory. London: The University of Chicago Press, Ltd.