The article is devoted to the concept of “soft power”, its forms and content. The term “soft power” was introduced relatively recently, but in its practical implementation it has a centuries-old history. In a certain sense, the word “soft power” has been meaningfully used since the times of the states of Ancient Rome and Ancient Iran. The article notes the ambiguity of the “soft power” policy, since its form can vary according to the interests of the state, as well as its socio-political structure. Thus, the use of «soft power» to the Soviet Unions was qualitatively different from the “soft power” used by states with a capitalist way of life. It is important to see the difference between “soft power” and economic expansion, especially since the border between them can be very conditional.

An important idea of the presented article is that in the conditions of the crisis of the state as a form and way of being of a person, the influence of transnational companies is significantly increasing, which, in fact, squeeze out the state and seek to replace it with themselves. At the same time, the nature and essence of transnational corporations is very different from the nature and essence of the state, therefore, there is a process of transformation of “soft power”, filling it with new meanings and motives. If for states in their classical understanding, culture with its traditions, spiritual categories, and universal values could become the semantic content of the “soft power” policy, then for transnational corporations, the economic motive usually forms the basis of the policy. This kind of motive will easily result in the exploitation of some people by other people and the loss by society of such traits that define it as human. Thus, in the form in which the concept of “soft power” was relevant at the end of the twentieth century, it now looks like a vestige of a bygone historical era. Nevertheless, the degree of development of information technologies, the level of their accessibility can become a new content of «soft power» in the foreign policy of states.