The article attempts to recover the position of the temporal concept of postmodernism that describes our epoch as capitalist. At the end of the 20th century, postmodernism (in Fredric Jameson's interpretation) was not only the leading way to comprehend the social and cultural tendencies of the 'eternal present', but also a condition of 'late capitalism' (as per Ernest Mandel), characterizing our era from the socio-economical standpoint. However, at the beginning of the new millennium, philosophers and social theorists started to assert the exhaustion of postmodernism's heuristic potential as a theory meant to describe our time. Along with that, doubt was cast on all the attempts to understand modernity through the lens of capitalism. However, there was a group of scientists who continued to treat capitalism as a core aspect of modernity. As a result, many other social theories of capitalism, the alternative to postmodernism, have emerged: globalization, hypermodernism, communicative capitalism, metamodernism, postcapitalism, supervisory capitalism, cool capitalism, the capitalocene, and many more. The following analysis challenges the assertion that postmodernism has lost its explicative capacities. There are two pieces of evidence for the applicability of postmodernism. The first is that Jameson himself turned back to elaborating this temporal category, and the second is that other social theoreticians couldn't overcome Jameson's theoretical basis. All these opposite temporal perspectives on capitalism, as we found it, enhance the relevance of postmodernism, rather than refute this concept. Among all the contemporary approaches to the temporalization of capitalism covered by the author, there are only two concepts that speak of this social formation entering the fourth phase. But capitalocene - being one of them - supposes that the fourth stage has not yet begun, while metamodernism has nothing to suggest regarding the reasons for the epochal shift. This allows us to declare that postmodernism/late capitalism is still a viable scheme for the temporal comprehension of the state of current capitalism and modernity per se, while the new temporal schemes of capitalism are only expanding and reinforcing the terminological apparatus of postmodernism/late capitalism. 

As the new types of economy (digital, gigonomics, sharing economy, etc.) are more and more frequently discussed in the scientific literature, while novel concepts of new capitalism regularly emerge, the author of the article investigates the origins of these constant changes and turns to contemporary social theory for answers. As a starting point, the author takes the books of two Marxists, Douglas Kellner and David Harvey; both were published in 1989, in the symbolic year of the Fall of the Berlin Wall. To construct a narrative, the author employs the idea of the periodization of the American culture of the long nineties (1989-2001) by the American cultural critic Philip Wagner and the concept of external and internal globalization by the social theorist Robert Hassan, who in his turn grounds his reflections on the idea of flexible accumulation by Harvey. Using the example of the film "Fight Club", the author shows how the colonization of the internal human experience by capital took place after 1989. Thus, in the 1990s, capital, by depriving people of sleep, began to profit not only from the economy built on knowledge, but also from emotions, as reflected in social theory at the turn of the millennium. Further, briefly describing several recent concepts of capitalism (data capitalism, computational capitalism, semiocapitalism, biocognitive capitalism), the author notes that the creators of the theories, focusing on the digital economy, do not take into account the factor of external globalization, and most importantly forget about financial capitalism, on which, ultimately, the economy depends. The article concludes that the dynamics of capital development were predicted by David Harvey back in 1989, and that his concept still has a high heuristic potential. 

Abstract:
This essay seeks to supplement Thomas Piketty’s work in “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by exploring connections between Piketty and Antonio Negri’s post-Marxist work. Piketty tries to excise consideration of so called “human capital” from his analysis, whereas Negri puts such human, creative or what he calls “biopolitical” considerations front and center in his analysis of contemporary capitalism, opening up fresh points of intervention that can help us to understand where capitalism is headed in the future. As the nature of capital continues to mutate today, so must our responses to it. In Negri’s biopolitical world, performative subjectivity or human capital finds its charge not through making products and commodities, but in the ongoing project of making ourselves. So aesthetics and the concerns of the humanities are not merely epiphenomenal, reflective, representational, or superstructural discourses (as Piketty understands them); but the arts and humanities—the powers of creative everyday subjectivity — remain a crucial linchpin for understanding the workings of (and against) capital in the twenty-first century.

The article questions the opposition of the concepts of "neoliberalism" and
"welfare state". It is more productive to consider them not as mutually
exclusive alternatives, but as two coexisting regimes of contemporary
capitalism. It is their coexistence that gives the latter additional stability.

Switching regimes within the framework of its general “governmental”
strategy, capitalism copes with historical challenges much more
successfully, turning the external history into internal dynamics. The
assemblage of these two regimes is carried out in temporal and functional
planes. In terms of temporality, they equally rely on the logic of progressive
historicism. That is, they construct modernity by setting the present against
a "dark" past. At the same time, the historical narrative of neoliberalism (in
the past — cumbersome state regulation, in the present — effective private
management) is the inversion of the narrative of the welfare state (in the
past — wild predatory capitalism, in the present — reasonable government
intervention and social policy). Switching between these two narratives,
capitalism makes people feel that they continue to move "progressively"
towards a better future. Risk management becomes another functional
common feature of the capitalist project. But if a welfare society implies
a minimization of risks at the state’s expense, then neoliberalism plays
a more complex game with them. For neoliberalism, crisis is not a test of
survival, which must be passed successfully, but rather a new opportunity
to strengthen its own position through the “rational” redistribution of
funds and constant modification of management strategies that spread
more and more widely in all spheres of society. In this model, crises turn
out to be a necessary switching point of two regimes — a regulator of both
financial flows and social expectations.

The theory of value is one of the fundamental topics of political economy;
it lays the very foundation for its functioning. The theory of value radically affects both the research program and the political views of economists and social theorists. Today, the question of value is considered to
be settled, at least within the economic mainstream. Sometimes it is
considered simply irrelevant or outside the field of study of "real" science. But the very desire to leave this question unresolved (to abandon
the consideration of the theory of value in general) or to find a temporary
solution for it (to deal with the issues of price instead of the issue of value)
represents evidence that we are dealing with an epistemological obstacle,
the very complexity of which reflects some of the contradictions of capitalism. The issue of value is not only a matter of economics; it should be
viewed through an interdisciplinary perspective. But, first of all, it is a
socio-philosophical question in the broadest sense of the word. Returning
to the question of value will allow us to take a fresh look at the "mystery
of the form in itself", the commodity form, which was the central object
of consideration of the political economy of Marx. This article proposes to
re-raise the question of value as a socio-philosophical basis for a criticism
of modern capitalism.

This paper offers a review of the recent literature on capitalism in history
and sociology inspired by the Pragmatist perspective. In historical sociology and economic sociology, capitalism has largely been discussed in
terms of its institutional attributes, e. g. property rights, money, markets,
proletarianization of labor, supportive governments, etc. This approach
can tentatively be called “attribute-based.” In contrast to the “attributebased” approach, the pragmatic approach takes a different perspective on
capitalism, treating it as a set of practices rather than a set of institutions.
Thus, capitalism appears as a set of historically specific valuation practices,
whereby legal property is transformed into income-generating assets. The
first part of the paper describes the origins of the “pragmatic turn” in the
study of capitalism in economic sociology and the “new” history of capitalism. For the former, the emergence of the pragmatic approach to capitalism
resulted from the development of the research program on “economization”
elaborated by Koray Çalışkan and Michel Callon. For the latter, the impetus
came from the necessity to rethink the economic characteristics of chattel slavery in the history of American capitalism, as well as the history of
the trans-Atlantic economy more generally. The second part of the paper
focuses on the divergences between “attribute-based” and pragmatic approaches to capitalism. The latter presupposes a turn from representation
to action, putting the temporal organization of capital as a process into the
centre of analysis, a turn from commodification processes to the processes
of capitalization or assetization, as well as the role of competent agents in
these processes. In conclusion, several tentative generalizations are offered
regarding the prospects of the pragmatic approach to capitalism

Online digital platforms are a new type of firm; they are data-driven,
software-based companies established in the late 90s due to increased
digitization and the extensive adoption of the Internet for economic and
social activities. Platforms are market intermediaries as they mediate
transactions between groups of users and benefit from network effects.
Platforms disrupt the conventional organization of firms and industries
and have become key players in capitalist economies. Platforms structure
social interactions, transform employment and the labor market, and
determine media consumption and cultural production practices. The
paper offers a comprehensive theory review covering three approaches:
the economic approach (industrial organization of network markets),
the technology engineering approach, and the strategic management
approach. The economic approach explains the nature of network effects
and highlights the differences between network markets and traditional
industries. The engineering technology approach demonstrates how
platforms can achieve network effects through technological architecture.
The strategic management approach explores platform growth strategies
and highlights how a platform firm deals with the external environment that includes user preferences, national regulations, and technology
convergence. The review focuses on the theoretical instruments most
relevant for the sociological and political-economic analysis of platforms.
The paper concludes with remarks on the uneven geographical distribution
of platforms. 

This exploratory and review essay views Russia as a particular state-capital accommodation-assemblage characterized by neoliberal subjectivization of the population in a particularly stark manner. This argument is a departure from perspectives on Russia as a semi-periphery, instead proposing its thorough incorporation into the current moment of global capitalism. While 'state capitalism' has analytical purchase, 'authoritarian neoliberalism' is proposed as a more sharply focussed lens in examining Russia in the global context. This is important too in reorienting political economy to accommodate more grounded methodologies, including ethnography and other empirically subjective accounts. While beyond the scope of the essay, existing ethnographic accounts and empirical materials - particularly relating to Special Economic Zones in Russia are incorporated in the argument. In making its argument, the essay reviews the contribution of Foucauldian approaches to neoliberalism and neomarxian political economy. Then it reviews the varieties of capitalism approaches and their critics as well as the debates on state capitalism pertaining to Russia by Ilya Matveev, and as pertaining to state capitalism in general. Further the essay reviews recent work on Eastern Europe as providing examples of vanguard authoritarian neoliberal governance. Finally, this approach allows the essay to argue that Russia is not only a 'normal country', but that it anticipates contemporary developments towards more post-democratic capitalist futures, along with their counter-currents.

This review is devoted to the recent concept of communicative capitalism
introduced by American social theorist and left activist Jodi Dean in
2002. Communicative capitalism is a political-economic formation in
which the convergence of democracy, capitalism, network technologies,
and media occurs. Under these new conditions, the primary democratic
values materialize in networked communication technologies, which
leads to a reliance of communicative capitalism on the exploitation of
communication. This causes a radical shift in network communication:
now the fact of “contributions” to the “circulation of content” is more
significant than the content of a message. The review traces the evolution
of Dean’s conceptual framework, outlines key aspects and ideas which
were used for its elaboration (e.g. the Lacanian concepts of jouissance and
drive, Slavoj Žižek’s “interpassivity” and “post-politics”, “whatever being”
by Giorgio Agamben, “zero-institution” by Claude Lévi-Strauss). The author
concludes that modern world events and trends in online communication
(Twitter and Facebook Revolutions, frames for profile pictures on Facebook,
online petitions, surveys and hashtags, very popular accounts with large
numbers of followers) make it possible to discern the high potential of the
framework as an eminently applicable interdisciplinary theoretical lens
and methodological tool.