Economic and social development (socio-economic development) is a multifaceted process covering economic growth, sectoral shifts in the economy, and improving the level and quality of life. This process does not always follow an ascending line; it may also include long periods of decline. So, in Russia in the 1990s. the transformation of an administrative-command economy into a market economy was accompanied by a sharp decline in GDP, degradation of the industry structure, and the standard and quality of life decreased for the majority of the population.

Although the listed elements of socio-economic development are related to each other by a positive dependence, it manifests itself primarily in the long term, and in the short term their multidirectional movement (at least some of the components of these elements) is possible. Thus, in our decade in Russia, despite the economic growth that began back in 1999, a partial deterioration in the sectoral structure of the economy continues (the share of industry and construction, although decreasing, is due to complex branches of mechanical engineering, and the share of the service sector is growing due primarily to trade), the standard of living is growing mainly at the top of society, and life expectancy is not increasing at all after a catastrophic fall in the 1990s.

However, in the long term, high economic growth leads to an improvement in most indicators of the sectoral structure, quality and standard of living. Therefore, in macroeconomics, when analyzing socio-economic development, due to the difficulties of bringing together the elements of this development, they analyze, first of all, economic growth, i.e. GDP dynamics.

Despite wars, social upheavals and economic crises, the world economy is growing faster and faster every century. But the trend toward faster economic growth plays out differently in different countries.

For thousands of years, the standard of living of mankind has changed little from generation to generation. Economic development was very slow due to very low economic growth rates. The situation changed in the second millennium: GDP growth rates began to accelerate. This is especially visible when recalculating the rate of economic growth per capita (for this, the GDP growth rate is reduced by the population growth rate).

In the first millennium AD, the average annual growth rate of GDP in the world per capita was equal to zero, in subsequent centuries it increased to hundredths of a percent, and in the last hundred-plus years it has already amounted to percent. The acceleration of economic growth began in the birthplace of the industrial revolution - in Western Europe, then captured the USA, CEE, Russia and Japan, then spread to other regions of the world.

The acceleration occurred primarily on the basis of new knowledge obtained by science. Its achievements, which have grown like an avalanche over the past 200 years, have led to the fact that knowledge, which was not identified by the classics of economic theory as a separate economic resource along with labor, land, capital and entrepreneurship, has become such and at the same time no less (if not more) important. than other economic resources. First machines, and then chemistry, electronics, and biology immeasurably increased economic productivity. This knowledge was primarily able to be used by the countries that generated it and whose economies successfully adapted it (the latter is very important, as shown by the example of China, where in the last millennium many inventions were made that were poorly or almost not used due to the insensitivity of the Chinese feudal economy to these inventions).

Another important reason for the acceleration has been globalization. By promoting the growth of the most competitive goods and services on the world market, stimulating the movement of economic resources around the world, it accelerates economic growth in countries actively participating in globalization. This indirectly confirms the period 1913-1950, when the rate of economic growth in the world fell not only due to two world wars and the Great Economic Depression, but also, as modern economists believe, due to the collapse of international economic relations during this period.

According to A. Maddison's calculations, GDP per capita (in constant 1990 prices and at purchasing power parity) over the past 1000 years has grown 14 times in the world as a whole. However, GDP grew unevenly across regions of the world: if in Western Europe and Japan it increased by more than 48 times, then in CEE - by 15 times, in India - by more than 4 times, and in Africa - only by 3.5 times. It can be concluded that, from a historical perspective, accelerated economic growth has increased the level of development of all countries in the world, but to varying degrees.

As a result, the gap in levels of socio-economic development between the countries of the world that existed before has increased sharply, and the world has become more divided than before into developed and less developed countries. Less developed countries are faced with the task of catching up with advanced countries, or the task of catching up development, which is possible only by accelerating economic growth in countries with catching up development.

In recent decades, China, India and other Asian countries (primarily newly industrialized ones) have taken the path of narrowing the gap with developed countries. At the same time, the modest dynamics of economic growth in Latin America and especially Africa over recent decades widens their gap with developed countries. It can be concluded that different countries and groups of countries have different successes and failures in bridging the gap.

Among the countries with emerging markets, China, India, Brazil and Russia stand out for their size and good dynamics. It can be predicted that in the future their weight in the world economy will be even greater, especially at the expense of the first two countries, the development of which is already having a serious impact on the state of the world economy and international economic relations in all their forms. Therefore, in the future, the Asia-Pacific region may become the economic center of the world, covering, on the one hand, the countries of East and Southeast Asia (China, Japan, newly developed and newly industrialized countries of these regions), and on the other, the countries of North and South America , Australia and Oceania, as well as Russia.

Unlike developing and transition economies, developed countries face the challenge of maintaining stable, efficient and high-quality economic growth, although they also strive to increase their growth rates.

In the most developed countries, economic growth rates per capita over the past three-plus decades have been close to 2% per year (see Table 1.2), or 2-3% per year without per capita conversion. This is lower than during the period of restoration of the world economy after two world wars (1950-1973), but close to the rate of the period of the first wave of globalization (1870-1913). Apparently, they will continue to maintain similar rates in the foreseeable future.

The tendency to reach similar rates does not mean that in certain periods they cannot fall. As the experience of the EU and especially Japan shows, this is quite possible: in 1998-2007. compared to 1980-1990 the average annual GDP rate of the eurozone countries fell from 2.4 to 2.1%, and of Japan - from 4.1 to 1.3%. The reasons are both the traditional influence on the growth rate of the economic cycle and the insufficient adaptation of the socio-economic models of these countries to new economic conditions.

The economic cycle continues to lead to periodic slowdowns or declines in GDP in the group of developed countries during years of economic crisis and subsequent depression. In recent decades, this happened in 1974-1975, 1980-1982, 1991-1993 and 2001-2002. By the way, these recessions greatly affected the economy of the rest of the world, as a result of which the rate of economic growth in the world fell during these years.

Insufficient adaptation of socio-economic models of developed countries has a longer-term impact on their dynamics. An example would be Japan, which in the 90s. turned out to be one of the slowest growing economies in the world for this reason. An opposite example can be the United States, which, largely through the successful adaptation of its socio-economic model (largely based on the “new economy”), not only increased its economic growth rates in the 90s. almost up to 4% per year, but also grew rapidly in the period after the recession of 2001-2002.

Thus, for the most developed countries, the goal of stable economic growth means minimizing losses during a cyclical downturn and maximizing growth during a cyclical recovery.

The situation is somewhat different with those developed countries that have only recently become or are becoming so (newly industrialized Asian economies, CEE countries), or have long been in the lower echelon of the group of developed countries (Portugal, Greece, etc.). Their continued lag behind the leaders of the group allows these countries to use their natural advantages (lower labor costs, the ability to use the knowledge of more developed countries) to maintain higher rates of economic growth than those of the leading countries. As a result, some of them are already among the leaders or close to them, judging by the size of GNI per capita (Ireland, Finland, Singapore).

Dividing the countries of the world into groups and subgroups helps to identify the differences between some countries and others based on the level of their economic and social development. However, between countries with the same level of development there are numerous differences, primarily in the mechanisms of economic and social life. Thus, the USA and Japan demonstrate how different the approaches of the state, entrepreneurs and the population to economic life and the social sphere can be, even in the most developed countries of the world.

The socio-economic model of a country (national socio-economic model) is the specificity of economic and social relations in the country, distinguishing it from other countries of a similar level of development. The main reasons for this specificity are the peculiarities of the historical development of the country, its location and endowment with economic resources. In various groups and subgroups of countries, there are socio-economic models that are typical for them, such as the above-mentioned American and Japanese, to which similar models gravitate, for example, Canadian and South Korean.

Economics deals with the fundamental problems of social life; it concerns everyone and belongs to everyone.

Ludwig von Mises

People who have never systematically studied economic theory are like deaf people trying to appreciate the sound of an orchestra.

Paul Samuelson

The origin and main stages of development of economic theory as a science

Human needs are very diverse. The main source of their satisfaction is the economy, the economic activity of people, since it is they who create the necessary conditions for this. Economics makes it possible to transform natural resources into goods suitable for consumption by society.

The concept of economics (from the gr. oikonomia, literally - the art of housekeeping) is now used in four meanings:

• - the national economy of a particular country, group of countries or the whole world;
• - the sphere of human economic activity in which vital benefits are created, distributed and consumed;
• - a set of economic relations between people in the sphere of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of products, forming a certain economic system.

Economy as a complex, diversely structured system is the object of study of a special science - economic science.

Economic science- this is the sphere of human mental activity, the function of which is the knowledge and systematization of objective knowledge about the laws and principles of development of real economic reality.

The first attempts to study individual aspects of economic processes are known from the works of ancient Greek and Roman thinkers (Xenophon, Aristotle, Plato, Cato, Varro, Seneca, Columella), as well as thinkers of Ancient Egypt, China and India. They explored the problems of housekeeping, as well as agriculture, trade, wealth, taxes, money, etc.

Economic science as a system of knowledge about the essence of economic processes and phenomena began to emerge only in the 16th-17th centuries, when the market economy began to acquire a general character. The main stages of development of economic science are shown in Fig. 1.1.

Mercantilism. Supporters of this school considered the main source of wealth to be the sphere of circulation, trade, and wealth was identified with the accumulation of metallic money (gold and silver). The views of representatives of this school expressed the interests of the trading bourgeoisie during the period of initial accumulation of capital and the development of foreign trade. Representatives: A. Montchretien, T. Mann, D. Hume, V. Stafford.

Physiocrats. Unlike the mercantilists, the physiocrats were the first to transfer research from the sphere of circulation directly to the sphere of production. But only the primary sector - labor in agricultural production - was considered the source of wealth. In their opinion, industry, transport and trade are sterile areas, and the work of people in them only covers the costs of their existence and is unprofitable for society. Representatives: F. Quesnay, A. Turgot, V. Mirabeau and others.

Classical political economy. Arose with the development of capitalism. Its founders W. Petty, A. Smith, D. Ricardo were the first to give a systematic presentation of economic science as a single holistic scientific discipline. They focus on the analysis of economic phenomena and patterns of development of all spheres of capitalist production, and strive to reveal the economic nature of wealth, capital, income, credit, circulation, and the mechanism of competition. It was they who laid the foundation for the theory of labor value, and the market was considered as a self-regulating system.

Marxism, or the political economy of labor. The founders of this direction, K. Marx and F. Engels, explore the system of laws of capitalist society from the perspective of the interests of the working class. Continuing the study of the theory of labor value, they analyzed the development of forms of value and proposed their own concept of surplus value, money, labor productivity, reproduction, economic crises, and land rent. However, some provisions of Marxism - about the denial of private property and the market, increased exploitation and growing impoverishment of workers under capitalism, about the only factor in the formation of surplus value, the advantages of public property, the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism - did not have proper scientific validity and did not find practical confirmation. Therefore, they are now being revised and subjected to fair scientific criticism.

Marginalism(from the English marginal - limit) - a theory that explains economic processes and phenomena on the basis of the universal concept of using limiting, extreme ("max" or "min") values ​​that characterize not the internal essence of the phenomena themselves, but their change due to modification other phenomena. The research of marginalists is based on categories such as “marginal utility”, “marginal productivity”, “marginal costs”, etc. Marginalism uses quantitative analysis, economic and mathematical methods and models, which are based on subjective psychological assessments of economic processes and phenomena. Representatives of marginalism - K. Menger, F. Wieser, W. Jevons, L. Walras.

In modern Western economic science, there are different directions, trends, schools, the typology of which differs both in methods of analysis and in understanding the subject and purpose of the study. The approaches to solving economic problems are also conceptually different. However, these differences are largely conditional, therefore the entire set of modern non-Marxist movements and schools can be grouped into the following four main directions: neoclassicism, Keynesianism, institutionalism, neoclassical synthesis (Fig. 1.2).

Neoclassicism explores and develops the ideas of classical political economy taking into account modern conditions. Denies the need for state intervention in the economy, considers the market as a self-regulating economic system capable of independently establishing the necessary balance between aggregate demand and aggregate supply. The founders of the theory are A. Marshall and A. League. Followers - L. Mises, F. Hayek, M. Friedman, A. Laffer, J. Gilder, F. Kagan and others.

The neoclassical direction covers many different concepts and schools: “monetarism”, “public choice theory”, “rational expectations theory”, etc. The concept of monetarism is especially popular, the recognized theorist of which is the American economist Milton Friedman. Proponents of monetarism - F. Knight, J. Stigler, F. Kagan, A. Goldman.

Monetarism- a theory that proposes a rejection of active government intervention in the economy and attributes the money supply in circulation to the role of a determining factor in the formation of economic equilibrium, production development and changes in the volume of gross domestic product (GDP). According to the rule of monetarism, the increase in the money supply (monetary base) must be coordinated with the growth rate of GDP, price dynamics and the speed of circulation of money according to this scheme (Fig. 1.3).

Rice. 1.3. Monetary levers for regulating GDP

Keynesianism- one of the leading modern theories, in contrast to the neoclassics, substantiates the need for active government intervention in regulating a market economy by stimulating aggregate demand and investment through the implementation of certain credit and budget policies. The founder of the theory is the outstanding English economist J.M. Keynes. Keynesianism arose in the 30s of the 20th century. as a response to the need to overcome the Great Depression (1929-1933), which brought the economic system of capitalism to the brink of complete disaster. Ideas by J.M. Keynes, set out in his main work “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” (1936), were widely used by the leading countries of the world in the practice of regulating market economies and made it possible to relatively quickly overcome crisis phenomena, achieve stable rates of economic growth and dynamic equilibrium. The Keynesian concept of demand stimulation is shown in Fig. 1.4.

Adherents and followers of J.M. Keynes (J. Robinson, P. Sraffa, A. Hansen, N. Kaldor, R. Lucas and others) advocate the active participation of the state in the structural restructuring of the economy, consider it necessary to introduce anti-crisis and counter-cyclical regulation, income redistribution, increased social benefits and etc.

Institutionalism, or the institutional-sociological direction, whose representatives are T. Veblen, J. Commons, W. Mitchell, J. Galbraith, J. Tinbergen, G. Myrdal and others, considers the economy as a system in which relations between economic entities arise under the influence of both economic and legal, political, sociological and socio-psychological factors. The objects of study for them are “institutions,” by which they mean the state, corporations, trade unions, as well as legal, moral and ethical norms, customs, mentality, instincts of people, etc.

Neoclassical synthesis- a generalizing concept, whose representatives (D. Hicks, J. Buchanan, P. Samuelson, L. Klein, etc.) substantiate the principle of combining market and state regulation of economic processes and assert the need to move towards a mixed economy. They adhere to the principle of rational synthesis of neoclassical and Cavesian directions of economic theory.

This refers to the rivalry between enterprises producing the same products in order to attract consumers to their brand. Competition is one of the most important concepts of a market economy, substantiating the laws of the capitalist mode of production. The purpose of competition is to provide conditions for obtaining maximum profits and achieving economic efficiency of production.

At different historical stages of the development of society, the law of competition took different forms. In Russian society, a particular manifestation of the law of competition was the law of socialist competition, characteristic of the Soviet period. However, it would be a mistake to ideologize the law of socialist competition, believing that it is a purely Soviet property. The problem of competition as an effective form of personal self-expression was considered by the utopian socialists T. More (1478-1535), T. Campanella (1568-1639), C. Fourier (1772-1837), C. Saint-Simon (1760-1825). ). The spread of the law of socialist competition in Russia occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. Lenin, in his work “The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power” (1918), formulated the basic principles of this law: the living power of example, publicity; a new organization of labor, a contract as the basis for the development of socialist competition. At the same time, Lenin considered the development of competition in the economic sphere an integral condition for the development of a socialist society, assigning to it the function of an economic mechanism for the development of a new society. As history has shown, the law of socialist competition could not fully fulfill its regulatory functions, since it was based on the influence of power on individuals dependent on it. The law on socialist competition contains a contradiction between “the desire of the individual to prove himself in work and the desire to help the work collective. The resolution of this contradiction came to life on a personal level.” According to many experts, the replacement of the law of competition with the law of socialist competition significantly weakened the possibilities of interaction between the laws of division and change of labor, since the law of division of labor turned out to be deprived of natural incentives for development, and the effect of the law of change of labor narrowed and was reduced mainly to the combination of professions on production (production) lines , mastering related professions, industry-specific types of retraining.

The scope of the competition law is all social production, while the source of self-development is the social contradiction between the desire of each person to realize himself to the maximum in the struggle for survival and the resistance of the social environment. The intensity of competition in the markets for goods and services in a market economy is constantly increasing, and the types of competition, or rather, competition, are becoming more complex, becoming more diverse and taking on an increasingly indirect nature. The results of competition depend on the subjects of competition, as well as the specific financial and economic conditions of the development of society.

When analyzing social relations in the field of economics and finance, it is useful to take into account the types of competition: perfect (or “pure”), monopolistic, oligopolistic (competition between the few), pure monopoly. The closest interaction between the laws of division and change of labor is ensured by perfect competition, which presupposes the absence of price control, elastic demand, and the absence of restrictions on free enterprise and business development. There is also such a type of competition as competition in quantities - competition in an oligopolistic market, when enterprises vary not prices, but production volumes (quantities). This type of competition was first considered by Antoine Cournot in 1838.

Due to increased competition in the labor and goods markets and, at the same time, the high level of poverty of the Russian population, the introduction of monetization of social benefits, there is increasing interest in the sociological analysis of the “hare problem” - the problem of minimizing society’s losses associated with the population’s desire to consume as many public goods as possible distributed free of charge. However, due to imperfect competition in the Russian market of goods and services, and the desire of producers to quickly get rich, it is not profitable for the latter to increase “public goods”, which can be distributed free of charge among the poor and impoverished segments of the population.

So, from the standpoint of the sociological approach, competition is a social process of economic development of producers of goods and services, accompanied by a clash of interests of subjects of competition (social organizations, institutions, individuals), leading to the emergence of a conflict of interests and behavior of competing parties and having a direct or indirect impact on the state of the market , as well as on the economic behavior of producers and consumers.

Important social indicators of the competition process are:

• competitiveness, manifested in the interaction of competing parties - economic entities;
• fairness of competition associated with the ethical and cultural standards of competing entities.

Law of division of labor

The law of division of labor determines the dynamics of the division of labor into various types depending on the criteria - mental and physical labor; industrial and agricultural; managerial and executive, etc. This law is the basis for dividing society into social groups engaged in corresponding types of labor. French sociologist Emile Durkheim, in his work “On the Division of Social Labor” (1893), noted: “Although the division of labor has not existed since yesterday, it was only at the end of the last century that societies began to become aware of this law, which until then had governed them almost without their knowledge. " In modern conditions of development of a market economy, the role of science as a component of production is increasing, and the division of labor increasingly depends on the development of the education system.

In the context of the development of the modern concept of the “knowledge economy,” sociologists consider the status of various types of work, their combination, the emergence of new professions and types of work, the expansion of the tertiary education sector, which, within the Russian education system, corresponds to secondary and higher vocational education, as well as postgraduate education ( postgraduate and doctoral studies). Post-graduate education should play a decisive role in the formation of intellectual potential and the development of new types of intellectual work.

Today, an important problem for sociological analysis is the social consequences of the division of social labor, in particular the process of formation of the Russian middle class, the integration into its structure of representatives of different socio-professional strata of qualified specialists.

Law of labor change

Law of labor change is directly related to the law of division of labor and is the “universal law of social production.” This law arose during the Industrial Revolution of the 16th-19th centuries, when the dependence of the type of labor on technical progress and its implementation in all types of production increased.

This law reflects the mobility of an employee’s functions and the need to change occupation. An enterprise, based on the needs of production and the interests of the employer, can repeatedly change personnel, achieving the formation of a high-quality workforce. Thus, the law manifests itself in the transition from one type of activity to another and presupposes that the individual has the ability to make such a transition. Changing jobs develops the employee’s abilities and professional skills. At the same time, mastering a number of specialties not only expands the range of a person’s (employee’s) work activity, but increases his competitiveness in the labor market. Ultimately, the law of labor change contains the requirement to replace workers with limited labor and professional skills with workers with a high level of professional suitability for the rapidly changing demands of technologically advanced production. The tools for achieving such mobile qualities of a worker are vocational education, a system of advanced training and retraining. The effect of this law is fully manifested in the labor market, in the qualitative characteristics of the labor force and connects the labor market with the market for educational services.

In the conditions of the Russian market economy, three forms of functioning of the law of labor change can be distinguished:

• changing the type of work activity within the existing profession;
• changing the type of work;
• combination of the main type of work activity with other types.

The change in the structure of the Russian labor and employment market, in turn, changed the nature of demand. With a general sharp drop in the early 1990s. labor mobility in the production sector, a reduction in the employment of engineering and technical workers, the labor market's demand for financial and economic specialists, lawyers, managers, and trade workers has increased.

The world labor market in the context of globalization creates the need for an ever-increasing migration of labor resources, adaptation of workers to the demands of national labor markets, the needs of employers and consumers. These processes give rise to a new phenomenon - flexibilization - increasing the flexibility of employers in the use of labor. Flexibilization as one of the forms of manifestation of the law of labor change reflects the ability of an organization to adapt its production to the demand in the markets for goods and services, taking into account their quality and quantity, as well as to ensure the necessary quality of labor for production needs. The social aspects of flexibilization and the social consequences of its development are of direct interest as a subject of sociological analysis.

Law of supply and demand

Laws of supply and demand - fundamental economic laws of a market economy. They reflect the action of two market forces - supply and demand. The result of their interaction is “an agreement between the parties on the purchase and sale of goods and/or services in a certain quantity and at a certain price.”

The origin of economic ideas dates back to the emergence of man. The origins of economic science should be sought in the teachings of thinkers of the ancient world. Ancient Indian "Laws of Manu"(IV–III centuries BC), “ Arthashastra"(II century BC), Babylonian " Laws of King Hammurabi"(XVIII BC), ancient Chinese " Book of Changes" and other sources noted the existence of a social division of labor, private property, relations of dominance and subordination between people.

Vertex pre-classical stage The development of economic thought is associated with the activities of ancient thinkers. Views of ancient Greek philosophers Xenophon(430–354 BC), Plato(427–347 BC) , Aristotle(384–322 BC) can be characterized as the theoretical starting points of modern economics. For example, issues such as the value and price of goods, utility, exchange relations, functions of money, etc. were considered here. It is believed that the very term “economics,” denoting the study of housekeeping, was introduced into scientific circulation by Aristotle. In Ancient Rome, problems of an applied, primarily agricultural nature, received particular importance.

Christianity has changed the assessment of economic activity. It declared work to be a necessary and sacred task. Ethical standards of conduct have been transferred scholastics in the description of the economy. Therefore, the economic doctrine of the Middle Ages turned out to be more of a set of norms and rules of social life than a generalization of real economic practice.

As a science, economic theory emerged in the 16th–17th centuries. Its origins classical period development has become mercantilism(from the Italian “mercante” - merchant), which, according to T. Negishi, is not a theoretical school, but a systematic policy aimed at creating strong centralized national states in the conditions that emerged after the collapse of the medieval system of organizing industry and trade. The main concern of the mercantilists was to find ways by which the state could obtain gold and silver, which were considered the main wealth. The most famous of them were the ban on the export of precious metals from the country and the import of goods.

The English economist was especially popular among mercantilists Thomas Mann, who recognized trade as the only source of wealth, and the French explorer Antoine de Montchretien, who in 1615 introduced the term “political economy”, which meant “management of the state property of the city.”

In the middle of the 18th century, economic schools proper began to form. . Physiocrats(from the Greek “power of nature”) rejected the teachings of the mercantilists, believing that the source of wealth is the excess of the product produced over that consumed in agriculture. The most prominent representative of this school was Francois Quesnay(1694–1774), who in his “Economic Tables” made a brilliant attempt to analyze social reproduction. A transitional bridge from mercantilists and physiocrats to classical political economy steel work William Petty(1623–1686). His saying “Labor is the father and the most active principle of wealth, and land is its mother” became widely known.

Adam Smith and David Ricardo went down in history as the founders of classical political economy. Its main idea is liberalism, minimal government intervention in the economy, market self-regulation based on free competition, which A. Smith called the “invisible hand.” The classics of political economy laid the foundations of the labor theory of value and the doctrine of income, and tried to reveal the economic laws of development of their contemporary society.

Classical political economy became the basis for all subsequent development of economic science, posing the main problems and proposing the main research methods. Based on the traditions of the classical school of political economy, K. Marx and F. Engels in the middle of the 19th century. created a theoretical concept that received the general name Marxism. Their ideas, considering the laws of development of capitalism and the concept of socialism, had a significant influence on the development of domestic economic theory until the 1980s.

In parallel with Marxism, the theory was formulated marginalism(from English “ultimate”), which marked the beginning of a new neoclassical stage development of economic thought. Economists became classics of this theory Austrian school Carl Menger (1840–1921), Friedrich von Wieser (1851–1926), Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk(1851–1914). Marginalism, unlike previous schools of economic analysis, was based on the use of marginal, additional values ​​that characterize changes in the state of the object of analysis.

Within the framework of the neoclassical stage, modern economic theories that were formed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries are also distinguished. Their main directions are neoclassical, Keynesian and institutional sociological.

Neoclassical direction began to be associated with the design of the “new classical economics,” which is an attempt to synthesize marginalism and classical political economy. It is represented by modern theories monetarism (M. Friedman(born 1912)) and neoliberalism (F. Hayek (1899–1992)).

Founder Keynesian direction is John Maynard Keynes(1883–1946). His works provided the most important theoretical justification for state regulation of the economy through financial and monetary policies.

Forefather institutional-sociological direction is Thorstein Veblen(1857–1929). The name of the concept comes from the Latin “institute” – establishment, organization, establishment. All its supporters view the economy as a system that includes a set of economic and non-economic factors and relations.

Modern economic theory, being the heir to a wealth of knowledge, does not discard anything that economists of past centuries contributed to it. It continues their ideas, supplementing or clarifying scientific analysis, therefore this stage in the development of economic science is usually associated with the formation of a new paradigms. It is understood as a system of fundamental premises, research methods adopted in science, as well as scientists’ ideas about ways to solve problems. The modern paradigm provides for the possibility of synthesis, rather than opposition, of various economic schools and areas of analysis.

Many modern economists have made outstanding discoveries in theory, which have been applied in practice and contributed to improving the impact on economic development. Evidence of this is the annual award of the Nobel Prize, the highest scientific award. Nobel Prizes in Economics have been awarded since 1969, and currently there are over 30 of them. Among the prize winners are P. Samuelson, V. Leontiev, M. Friedman, L. Kantorovich, K. Arrow, J. Hicks, G. Simon , R. Sollow, J. Buchanan, J. Tinbergen, S. Kuznets and other prominent economists of our time.

1.2. The subject of economic theory and its functions

There is still no generally accepted definition of economic theory. It covers such a wide range of meanings that any brief definition leaves out any important aspects. item A. However, the main problem of economic theory and practice is to resolve the contradiction between the unlimited needs of people and limited resources.

In the broad sense of the word economic theory– is the science of the patterns and factors of economic growth in the phase-by-phase dynamics of reproduction; about the use of limited resources for the production of goods and services and their exchange in order to satisfy needs; about the types of production and exchange activities, about the daily business life of people associated with the extraction of means of subsistence; about public wealth.

Structurally, economic theory includes two sections: microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics studies the behavior of individual economic agents. Its founders are considered to be representatives of marginalism. The center of her analysis is the prices of individual goods, costs, forms and mechanisms of capital formation and the functioning of the company, the pricing mechanism, and labor motivation. Macroeconomics studies economic processes and phenomena at the state level. The object of her research is the national product, economic growth, employment, inflation. Macro- and microeconomics are interdependent and organically interact.

Macroeconomics, like microeconomics, is section of economic theory. Translated from Greek, the word “macro” means “big” (correspondingly, “micro” means “small”), and the word “economics” means “household management” (Shevchuk D.A., Shevchuk V.A. Macroeconomics: Lecture notes. – M.: Higher Education, 2006). Thus, macroeconomics is a science that studies the behavior of the economy as a whole or its large aggregates (aggregates)), while the economy is considered as a single complex large hierarchically organized system, as a set of economic processes and phenomena and their indicators (Shevchuk D.A. Macroeconomics: Lecture notes. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2007).

Unlike microeconomics, which studies the economic behavior of individual economic entities (consumer or producer), macroeconomics studies problems common to the entire economy, and operates aggregate values such as gross domestic product, national income, aggregate demand, aggregate supply, aggregate consumption, investment, general price level, unemployment rate, public debt, etc.

The definition of the subject of economics in terms of limited resources, the classic formulation of which belongs to Lionel Robbins (1932), consists of four conditions:

1) a person strives for various goals;

2) the time and means at his disposal are limited;

3) they can be aimed at achieving alternative goals;

4) at each moment in time, goals have different importance.

Only all conditions taken together create a situation of choice.

The main problem of economics is the choice of directions and methods of using limited resources. This leads to three fundamental tasks that individuals and society as a whole face in the process of choice: what, how and for whom to produce? Depending on the methods of solving these problems, three economic systems are distinguished: traditional, market and command. In a market economy, the price system determines: “what,” “how,” and “for whom.” For this reason, microeconomics is often called the theory of price (Shevchuk D.A. Microeconomics: Lecture notes. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2007).

The criterion for answering the first question is “Which needs are most important and to what extent can they be satisfied?” value appears. In a market economy, it, along with costs, determines the price of goods, and the valuation process itself is carried out by the buyer. A greater need corresponds to a willingness to pay a higher price. Thus, the economy establishes a price structure that reflects the relative value of various goods and services to society as a whole. When preferences change, the structure of consumer spending changes, as a result, the price structure changes, and we answer the question “What to produce?” differently.

The problem “How to produce?” can be broken down into a number of sub-questions:

1. How should resources be distributed between industries?

2. Which firms (enterprises) should carry out production in each industry?

3. What combinations of resources (what technology) should the firm use?

Once again, the price system tells us the right answers. The more a product is needed, the higher its price and the higher the profit from its production. In turn, more profitable firms are willing to pay more for resources. There is a market-regulated flow of resources from firms producing less desirable goods to firms producing more desirable goods and services. The choice of a specific technology is determined by the internal company goal - to produce goods as cheaply as possible (to minimize costs). This choice depends on the prices of factors of production.

Product distribution and the answer to the question “Who should benefit?” depends on the distribution of income among individuals in accordance with the prices of resources and the amount of resources each individual possesses. Those with large incomes receive a larger share of production.

Opportunity costs.

When choosing the optimal option for using resources, the “opportunity cost” of the choice made can be called the best of the options that had to be sacrificed.

For example, the opportunity cost of studying at an institute is the student’s earnings if he worked.

The most important concept in economics is opportunity costs. In the literature, the expressions “lost opportunity costs” are also used as synonyms. “opportunity costs”, “opportunity cost”, “opportunity costs” and some others).

The opportunity cost of current use of a resource is the income from the best remaining alternative use of it.

"Microeconomics" in the system of economic disciplines.

Micro, meso, macro, global (mega).

It should be emphasized that microeconomics is in many ways an abstract science; it is not intended to provide answers to questions like “How to earn a million and how best to spend it later?” It cannot be said that it fully reflects the realities of economic life or even strives for this, as physics, for example, strives to give a holistic physical picture of the world. It only explores the main features of the functioning of the economy, using various simplifying premises and models. One of the most important prerequisites is the hypothesis about the rational behavior of economic agents.

Unlike other social sciences, the economic approach to the analysis of behavior is based on the assumption that individuals act solely in their own interests, and the goal of these actions is to maximize utility.

Microeconomics methodology: postulates and models.

The main research method is the study of objects not directly, but indirectly, through the analysis of models.

In economic theory, symbolic modeling is used, usually formulas and graphs.

In microeconomics, optimization models (marginal utility, marginal costs, etc.) and equilibrium models (market equilibrium) are used.

Various models are used in microeconomics to describe how prices and the factors that determine them interact. Models are used to draw conclusions from theory and to predict how changes in economic conditions lead to changes in decisions and to changes in the prices and quantities of goods sold and purchased. Conclusions from an economic model are expressed in the form of hypotheses, which are statements about cause and effect that can be supported or refuted by evidence. At the same time, models are simplifications and abstractions that do not pretend to be a mirror image of reality. They should be detailed enough to satisfy the original purpose and no more. And the basic principles taken from simple models do not contradict the principles of operation of complex models (Shevchuk D.A. Microeconomics: Lecture notes. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2007).

Economic theory serves several functions. Cognitive function allows you to reveal the essence of economic phenomena and contributes to the formation of economic thinking. Thanks to methodological function economic theory studies the general (the object as a whole), relying on general laws as the initial methodological premises of analysis. Practical function provides economic policy.

The mutual connection of these functions is manifested in the interaction of economic policy, economic practice and science, which is reflected in Diagram 1.

Scheme 1.

Interaction of economic policy, economic practice and science.

The basis of economic theory is the study of social production, which serves as the starting point for the emergence of new needs and interests. Needs contribute to qualitative and quantitative changes in production, influencing it not directly, but through the market and economic policy. The latter, in turn, is exposed not only to production, but also to economic science. The implementation of economic policy objectives can lead to changes in social production and its improvement, which is reflected in the subsequent development of economic theory. Isolating the functions of economic theory allows us to determine its place among other economic sciences (Diagram 2).

Scheme 2.

The place of economic theory in the system of economic sciences.

1.3. Basic methods and principles of economic analysis

Method- these are the techniques and research tools that are available to methodology as an independent science of method.

When studying economic processes and phenomena, we should talk about two aspects of analysis. Firstly, it is a study of internal processes at the microeconomic level. It involves the use method of establishing a minimum or maximum when determining limit values. Secondly, there is the aspect of considering external relations that characterize the relationships between agents of production. The predominant one here is equilibrium method both at the macroeconomic and microeconomic levels.

The connection between economic theory and methodology does not exhaust the role of the research method; it has its own special techniques and specifics. First of all this principle he needs to consider phenomena in development. The research potential of the principle of historicism is very great, it includes comparative historical method, unity of historical and logical etc.

Methods and techniques for analyzing economic reality include induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis . Induction is the process of creating a theory from a set of observations. It provides a transition from particular observations to generalization . Deduction– the process of predicting future events using theory. It provides a transition from the general to the specific . Analysis means the study of an object in parts, i.e., its individual aspects and properties, in order to then combine the results obtained into a whole, to produce synthesis.

The most important method of economic theory is systems approach, exploring functional relationships - direct and inverse dependencies between variables. Its use has shown that economic laws and categories are not absolute, but relative, which allows us to move away from one-sided and categorical judgments.

Economic theory makes extensive use mathematical and statistical methods, which make it possible to identify the quantitative side of processes and phenomena of economic life, their transition to a new quality. Of particular importance for economic theory is modeling, i.e. a formalized description of an economic process or phenomenon, whose structure is determined by the objective properties and the subjective target nature of the study. When building a model, it is used abstraction method: by preserving the main functional dependencies of economic variables and not taking into account secondary ones, the model reproduces simplified economic connections, which makes it possible to create complex theoretical systems. After building the model, it is necessary to check how well it corresponds to real economic processes. Models can be static, in which the economic system is analyzed at a certain point in time, and dynamic, which are the basis for predicting development in the future. There are also linear and nonlinear models. A distinctive feature of nonlinear models is the complex nature of the relationships, which cannot be expressed by a system of linear equations. In addition to mathematical (sign) models, graphical models are used in economic theory.

Economic principles- these are generalizations containing somewhat inaccurate quantitative determinations in the form of average data or statistical probabilities.

Among the economic principles, the most common are:

– the “ceteris paribus” assumption, which allows us to consider all economic variables, with the exception of those currently being considered, unchanged;

– the cost-benefit principle, which requires an economically rational choice from a number of alternatives;

– the principle “after this, does not mean because of this”, which requires not to confuse correlation (dependence) with causation in the analysis.

When studying economic problems they often use positive and normative analysis. Based on this, a distinction is made between positive and normative economic theories. Positive analysis makes it possible to see connections between real economic phenomena and processes; normative analysis is based on the study of what and how it should be. A normative statement is usually derived from a positive statement, but objective facts cannot prove its truth or falsity. In normative analysis, assessments are made - fair or not, bad or good, acceptable or unacceptable.

Economic theories are formulated in the form of positive statements, although most of the differences between economists arise when considering issues of normative analysis.

Thus, the study of economic problems leads to the identification and collection of facts, the establishment of principles characterizing the actual behavior of individuals and institutions. Deriving principles from facts is the content of economic theory, which is necessary for the development of successful economic policies (see diagram 3).

Scheme 3.

The relationship between factors, principles and policies in economics.

Economic policy– a purposeful system of state activities in the field of social production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods. It is designed to reflect the interests of society, all its social groups, and is aimed at strengthening the national economy.

Major transformations, changes in the system of economic management, economic management, ways and means of implementing economic policy constitute the content of economic reforms.

Reform– specially organized and legally carried out by the highest authorities transformations of social relations (economic, social, political, etc.) or individual spheres of life of the state and society (finance, education, defense, etc.), and we are talking about quite significant layers of these relations, about important areas of social and state life.

The prerequisites for modern economic reform in Russia can be considered attempts to transform the centrally planned economy, called “perestroika” (spring 1985 - August 1991), when the first steps were taken towards a real market economy. At the same time, the main task was considered to be a radical reconstruction of the national economy on the basis of scientific and technological progress, with deep structural changes in social production, with a radical reform of the economic mechanism, capable of giving socialism a new quality. In the development of modern economic reform in Russia, associated with an attempt to build a market system, several stages can be distinguished (see Table 1)

Table 1.

Stages of economic reform in modern Russia.

The deepest crisis in which the country finds itself, the failure of attempts to interrupt its course testify to the inadequacy of the adopted version of reforms to the requirements of the time and conditions of the country and urgently raise the question of the need to create a new concept of reform with modern characteristics of the quality of life of the people based on the formation of a new technological method of production and a multi-structure, a socially oriented, dynamic market economy with a significant role of the state in regulation. Particular importance is attached to regional policy in the process of developing a new reform strategy. This is due to the existence of trends of economic and political disintegration. The example of Chechnya shows what dangerous limits the sovereignization process can reach, what casualties it can lead to among the population and in the economy if it is not blocked in a timely manner or is not resolved within the framework of the law. This proves the need to use more effective reform tools and make informed political and economic decisions that help preserve the integrity of the state. Such requirements are due to the general progress of economic reform in all regions of the country. Therefore, many documents related to regional policy state that modern economic reform should be aimed at: aligning the economic and social development of regions according to all indicators that determine the standard of living of the population; the formation of effective territorial proportions, large production complexes, the creation of conditions for a territorial settlement system; overcoming imbalances in the development of the national economic complex and individual industries based on a reduction in the raw materials sector of the economy in favor of the processing sector and the service sector; changes in the administrative-territorial structure of Russia and its zoning.

Training tasks for topic 1

1. Give your comment and determine which conclusions are positive and which are normative: a) “Recently, the Russian economy has seen a decline in production and high inflation rates”; b) “It is necessary to develop a set of measures to slow down or stop the decline in production and reduce the rate of inflation”; c) “The Primorsky Territory, already at the initial stage of reforms, received the necessary constitutional powers to justify and implement a socio-economic policy adequate to the conditions available here. This provided greater freedom of action in choosing priority areas and effective mechanisms for entering the market”; d) “If the decline in national production in 1991-92. was explained by the very fact of the transition from a planned economy to a market economy, then in subsequent years it is no longer possible and politically immoral to write off the “diseases” of the economy only due to the painful legacy of the communist regime.”

2. What is the significance of economics not being a laboratory science? What problems may arise from the formulation and application of economic principles?

3. Indicate which of the following statements applies to macroeconomics and which to microeconomics: a) the unemployment rate in certain regions of Russia reaches 10%; b) the closure of mines as a result of forced structural restructuring of the domestic economy led to the massive layoff of workers; c) Russia's GNP has decreased by almost 40% over five years.

4. Indicate what logical errors that violate the principles of economic analysis are contained in the following statements: a) workers in the coal mining industry increased their income as a result of wage increases, therefore, workers in all other industries would benefit if their wages increased; b) the increase in gasoline prices in Russia was accompanied by an expansion in the volume of its sales, therefore, the increase in demand for gasoline was caused by an increase in its selling price; c) after the collapse of the USSR, the structural crisis in the CIS countries began to deepen, which means that its development was caused by political reasons; d) rising prices in Primorye are accompanied by rising wages, therefore, the population of the region benefits from rising prices.

5. Based on common sense and your everyday experience, determine what functional connections exist between: a) the price of a product and the demand for it; b) your cash income and your savings; c) your cash income and expenses for current consumption; d) interest on loans and demand for credit.

Which of these dependencies are directly and which are inversely proportional?

Test on topic 1

Choose the only correct answer.

1. Economic theory can be defined as a science

a) about the exchange market; b) about public administration;

c) about public choice in conditions of limited resources;

d) how the state influences the activities of the market.

2. Which of these provisions is not related to the definition of the subject of economic theory?

a) efficient use of resources;

b) unlimited resources; c) system of needs;

d) maximum satisfaction of needs;

3. Economic model

a) reflects basic economic principles;

b) can explain how the real economy functions;

c) often based on simplifications;

d) is an ideal reflection of reality.

4. The process of focusing only on the most important factors to explain a phenomenon or phenomenon is called

a) abstraction; b) limit analysis;

c) rational choice; d) controlled experiment.

5. Which of the named economists is the founder of the labor theory of value in economic theory?

a) Aristotle; b) A. Smith; c) D. Ricardo; d) K. Marx.

6. Use of assumptions in economic analysis:

a) changes the internal logic of the theory or model;

b) makes it easier to solve the problem;

c) makes the model more realistic;

D) increases the number of research questions.

7. Economic theory

a) deals exclusively with the predictive characteristics of the development of economic systems;

b) contains provisions that are accepted by all economists;

c) is an exact applied science;

d) cannot predict the future, but can explain the consequences of certain phenomena in economic development.

8. Economic reform is

a) transformations specially organized and carried out by the highest authorities;

b) an alternative to social revolution;

c) a system of social experiments;

d) transition of society to a market economy.

Below is the method of mathematical analysis

it will be proven that surplus value is not created by labor

hired workers or invested capital,

and the INTELLIGENCE of scientists, designers and technologists,

discovering new laws of nature,

developing new materials,

samples of products and technologies for their production,

as well as natural ENERGY, which they can

put into production service.

1. Intellectual theory of surplus value.

By the end of the 20th century, Marxism-Leninism went through all three stages provided for by the process of cognition: from living contemplation of the class struggle of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to abstract thinking, which gave the theory of the revolutionary reorganization of the world, and from theory to practical experiment on three generations of people of a great power.

The cycle is completed, it’s time to analyze and draw conclusions. As Lenin put it, the cornerstone of Marxist revolutionary teaching is the theory of surplus value. Let's test this “stone” for strength. Pre-Marxist political economy at each stage only recorded the relations observed in social production and trade (as a photo), but could not reveal and show the dynamics of their development, explain the pattern of change in socio-economic formations, and reached a theoretical dead end.

Marx, taking as a basis Ricardo’s purely speculative conclusion about the nature of surplus value, developed this version in detail and turned it into a theory that became the basis of his teaching. Without assuming the possibility of further dialectical evolutionary development of capitalism (due to the above-mentioned static nature of all theories), Marx very convincingly proved that the only way to resolve the BASIC CONTRADICTION OF CAPITALISM (which, in his opinion, is that surplus value is created by the class of workers, and appropriated by the capitalists) is a proletarian revolution that destroys exploitation along with the exploiting classes: “...revolution is necessary not only because it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class in any other way, but also because the overthrowing class only in revolution can throw off all the old abominations and become capable of creating a new basis for society” (Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, p. 70). What is not the philosophy of Raskolnikov, the hero of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment"? However, let us return to issues of political economy, and we will conduct a philosophical analysis of the theory later.

Let us open the seventh chapter of the first volume of Capital and remember that industrial capital “K” consists of two parts: constant capital “c” spent on means of labor, and variable capital “v” spent on the acquisition of labor power. Analyzing your capital formula

Marx concludes that constant capital “c” transfers its value to products without changes, and variable capital “v”, i.e. labor force also creates surplus value “m”.

Let us take as an example the following statement of Engels, which does not raise any doubts among Marxists: “In the most advanced industrial countries we have tamed the forces of nature and put them at the service of man; thanks to this, we have increased production immensely, so that now a child produces more than a hundred adults did before” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 20, p. 358). Let us answer three questions that the founder did not ask himself:

a) Who are “we”?

b) What does a child do to produce more than a hundred adults?

c) Who is the person at whose service “we” have placed the forces of nature?

“We” is a very specific circle of scientists and engineers (to which neither we nor Engels belong), whose discoveries and inventions are applied in a given production process, i.e. materialized in the means of labor. The word “produces” is applied incorrectly to a child. The child does not produce. He controls the forces of nature, placed by “us” at the service of “man”. The child in this production is an overseer of slaves for the slave owner. Replace natural forces and mechanisms with a hundred slaves, and everything will fall into place. And, just as the slave owner previously shared with the overseer the surplus value created by slaves, so the owner of the means of production shares the surplus value created by the intellect invested in this production process with the child who controls the process, paying for the child’s working time at prices prevailing on the labor market. Thus, natural forces are put at the service of the owner of the means of production and the child, who, apart from the production system, cannot produce anything himself. The same “we” who put the forces of nature at the service of the last two do not participate in the distribution of surplus value! If someone has the idea that those workers who produced the means of labor, extracted raw materials and energy resources are related to this surplus value, he will be wrong, since those processes are no different from this. And in this case, the child can produce means of production, including to renew his process. The absurd statement of the classic, which could be forgiven for the child in question, should have been written as follows: “In the most advanced industrial countries, as a result of the unpaid creative work of scientists and engineers, hard physical labor is so automated and replaced by the forces of nature that now one child can manage equipment that produces more products than a hundred adult artisans previously produced.” Now everything is in its place, the true source of surplus value and the principle of its distribution are clear. Let us single out from the general concept of advanced capital not two, but five main factors (in mathematical terms, function arguments) that the capitalist actually acquires: means of labor, raw materials, energy resources, labor and the intelligence of engineers.

The formula will look like:

K` = c + i + v + e + f + m

i – intelligence involved in the production process (scientific, engineering and technical personnel, the subject of work of which is information, knowledge, and the product of labor is the design of a new product or new technology);

v – labor force (workers whose subject of labor are material objects);

e – energy (energy carriers); f – raw materials and auxiliary materials;

m – surplus value.

Let's analyze the influence of each factor on the amount of surplus value (in reality there may be more factors). First of all, let's look at energy resources. The cost of fuel is equal to the cost of its production and transportation. Burning in the furnace of a steam engine, it releases thermal energy, which is converted into mechanical energy, which performs the main work during the production process - driving mechanisms (machine tools). And this work is much more than that done during the extraction and transportation of fuel. It has a value equal to the cost of the labor power it replaces, which would be required to set the mechanisms in motion in the absence of the steam engine. Fuel is extracted because the energy it contains is greater than the energy required to extract and transport this fuel. Thus, the energy carrier (fuel) in the production process creates, through a steam engine (or other engine), surplus value equal to the difference in the cost of the released labor force and the cost of the energy that replaced it. It was the technical means that made it possible to replace labor with the cheap power of natural energy resources that ensured the rapid enrichment of capitalists during the industrial revolution!

Let us also evaluate the role of intelligence in the production process. By improving the machine and increasing its efficiency, automating manual operations and thereby reducing fuel and labor costs, intelligence also creates added value. For example, doubling the efficiency mechanisms, it creates a cost equal (to a first approximation) to half the cost of the required fuel. By doubling the service life (resource) of a steam engine due to the proper organization of its operation and maintenance or the use of new, more wear-resistant and durable materials, it creates a cost equal to the cost of a second steam engine. In addition, unlike other factors, intelligence has an invaluable property, namely: the surplus value once created by it (thanks to new designs or technologies), will now arise every time the production cycle is resumed, regardless of where the intelligence that created it is located!

But it doesn’t appear out of thin air every time. This means that once, having created value through a technical or organizational solution, the intellect forever transferred the ability to reproduce it to other factors of production. This means that each production factor does not simply transfer its value to the product produced, but creates surplus value, the size of which is determined by the intelligence invested in this factor.

Let's consider labor power - a factor that, according to Marx, is the only source of surplus value and the creator of all consumed and accumulated wealth. It is quite obvious that as production is automated, the share of its participation in the production process, gradually giving way to intelligence, will decrease and, in the end, disappear, and at the same time the surplus value it creates will disappear.

So maybe he made a decisive contribution to production at earlier stages of development? Let's exclude intelligence from the production process. An interesting picture emerges: without the invention by the intellect of a method for obtaining and useful use of energy and raw materials, they cannot be used, and the means of labor untouched by the intellect are nothing more than a stone or a stick lifted from the ground. This method of production, where the only type of labor is physical cyclic labor, does not allow obtaining a surplus product or surplus value. The labor force in such conditions is only capable of reproducing itself. Labor creates surplus value, like other factors, insofar as it contains intelligence in the form of knowledge and skills necessary to perform certain manual operations. Labor, in its purest form, should be considered as muscular energy and the skills of its use in the production process to perform operations that are not yet automated. The same can be read from Marx in the world-famous “Manifesto of the Communist Party”: “The worker becomes a simple appendage of the machine, only the simplest, most monotonous, and easiest to assimilate techniques are required of him.” All surplus value is created by the human intellect, both living, directly involved in the production process, and the past, embodied in the means of labor, in the methods of obtaining and using energy and raw materials, in the skills and knowledge of trained workers.

Indeed, any energy carrier, until the intellect has found a way to usefully use its energy, cannot become a production factor or a commodity of value: who needs wind before the invention of the sail and wind engine, or atmospheric electricity, if there is no way to extract and use it. Useless (from a production point of view) wind energy becomes possible to sell only after converting it into useful energy from rotating millstones, etc. It’s the same with raw materials: flax will not become a commodity until a method for producing yarn is invented, and iron ore will not become a commodity until a method for smelting iron is discovered. Therefore, any type of energy and raw materials acquires value and the ability to generate surplus value only after the magical touch of the intellect on it. Even the use of new auxiliary materials (lubricants, coolants, etc.) created by intelligence increases added value.

Let’s stop here and dare to say that the word INTELLIGENCE, which for a long time served almost as a curse, especially with the adjective “rotten,” is in fact precisely that fertile layer of society on which all the fruits of civilization have grown. The intelligentsia, being the main discoverer, custodian and disseminator of knowledge, has a very definite independent place in social production, has all the signs of a socio-political class and is such! Consider Lenin’s classic definition of classes for the intelligentsia: “... large groups of people, distinguished by their place in a historically determined system of social production, by their relationship (mostly enshrined and formalized in laws) to the means of production, by their role in the social organization of labor, and therefore, according to the methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth that they have. Classes are groups of people from which one can appropriate the work of another, due to the difference in their place in a certain structure of the social economy” (Lenin V.I., Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 39, p. 15 ). There is full compliance with the definition, both from the point of view of production and from the point of view of distribution. The intelligentsia is a class whose results of mental labor are appropriated by the owners of the relevant factors. The intellectual class is a socio-economic class that was the first to arise in the depths of the primitive communal system and ensured all further development of civilization. The first intellectuals were elders, shamans, leaders, whose functions included teaching fellow tribesmen how to make tools, determining the time of sowing, harvesting and other work, organizing joint labor, distributing responsibilities in the division of labor, etc. These “first intellectuals” could no longer take direct part in physical labor, but exist by consuming the surplus product produced by the tribe through the use of specially processed tools and rational organization of work. As the means of production accumulated past embodied intelligence (their improvement), the amount of surplus product, or the amount of surplus value, also increased. The intellectual class is the same “ugly duckling” that has not been recognized by any class throughout the history of civilization, and which in the era of the scientific and technological revolution turns into a “swan”. This is the class thanks to which humanity has all material and cultural values. The remaining classes took and continue to take part in the production of surplus value to the extent that they are carriers of intelligence and implement it in practice. Thus, all the wealth accumulated by humanity is the materialized intelligence accumulated over the entire history of its development.

Marx's formula K`= c+v+m is not a law, but a frozen photograph of the most primitive manufacture of the 19th century, in which the capitalist was his own engineer, accountant, supplier, and salesman. In expanded form, the Law is displayed by the following formula:

K` = c + i + v + e + f + mc + mi + mv + me + mf,

where: c – constant capital (means of labor);

i – intelligence involved in the production process (scientific, engineering and technical personnel, the subject of work of which is information, knowledge, and its product is a new product or new technology);

v – labor force (workers whose subject of labor are material objects, which they influence by means and methods invented by the intellect);

f – raw materials and auxiliary materials;

mc, mi, mv, me, mf – surplus values ​​created by the corresponding production factors.

The formula is valid for any formation, and reflects any method of production at any stage. Only the share of participation of one or another factor changes from zero to infinity. This formula is the LAW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. The formula is also suitable for the irrational area of ​​creative work. When creating, for example, a painting, an artist spends such a quantity of labor (easel, palette and brushes), energy (lighting and heating of the studio), raw materials and auxiliary materials (canvas, paints, solvents) that their cost can be neglected. The cost of a painting is determined by the intelligence invested in it - the talent, skill of the author. The owner of works of art can profit from their display without consuming or expending any resources.

Let us carry out a simple mathematical analysis of the derived law. Let us assume that scientific and technological progress has stopped at a certain level (the Khmer Rouge slaughtered their “rotten” intelligentsia with hoes) and, in this regard, we exclude from the formula only the intellectual factor and its surplus value. Initially, the remaining factors will create the same surplus value as before, but as the conditions for the extraction of natural resources become more complicated, their reserves become depleted, land is depleted, problems of processing and waste disposal become more acute, the surplus value created by the remaining factors will decrease and, reaching zero, can then turn into a negative value!

If we return to the example with fuel, this will mean that its extraction and transportation at a certain moment will require more energy than the fuel contains. Similarly with raw materials, their reserves are also limited. As a result of the limited availability of lands suitable for agriculture, the natural reduction of their areas and depletion, with constant population growth, the cost of food (I do not use the phrase “food” due to the fact that a product is usually called the result of a process, by analogy with combustion products), will increase . This process can continue until the surplus value created by the remaining factors becomes zero and the population begins to be regulated by hunger, like animals. This is the particular case that is described by Marx’s formula! When analyzing his formula (if he did), he did not take into account that due to the finiteness of natural resources, with each new cycle of reproduction, raw materials, energy resources, labor, and with them the means of labor (without the influence of intelligence on them), will rise in price until until production becomes unprofitable and stops. Only its intellect can save humanity from such a pessimistic finale of extensive development and ensure constant progress and prosperity, and not just intellect, but the rapid development of intellect in relation to processes that reduce the productivity of other factors!

Scientists have calculated natural energy reserves and named small, historically scale periods for which they will still be sufficient. To drown, as the great D.I. put it. Mendeleev, it is possible with banknotes, and if in the 21st century scientists and engineers do not develop an industrial method for obtaining cheap energy from new sources, and then new types of raw materials, I do not undertake to predict the fate of earthlings in the 22nd century, but I assume that a struggle will unfold for Antarctica and the bottom of the world's oceans (¾ of the planet, however).

Having completed the analysis of the derived law and having considered three cases (the first – when the parameter “i” of interest to us is taken as a constant value, the second – when it is turned to zero, and the third – when it tends to an upper, unlimited limit), we can confidently state that that it is this parameter (factor) - intelligence - that determines the speed of development and the fate of civilization. All other parameters of the formula (factors) are functions of intelligence, i.e. change meanings only under the influence of their argument - the intellect. “The bourgeoisie, through the rapid improvement of all instruments of production and the endless facilitation of the means of communication, draws into civilization everything, even the most barbaric nations...”, wrote Marx in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” Marx’s mistake is that the bourgeoisie itself does not improve the instruments of production, but creates conditions for creativity for the intellectual class and, with great benefit, appropriates the fruits of this creativity. Often the inventors themselves became owners or co-owners of enterprises using their inventions, especially since at that time university education was the lot of wealthy people. Apparently, this is why Marx combined the two classes into one. The process of industrialization naturally causes a rapid increase in the number of knowledge workers themselves, and at the other pole at this time, as a result of mechanization and automation of the labor of workers, i.e. simplifying the operations they carry out and attracting cheap labor from “barbarian nations”, a class of unemployed is formed. This trend is objective, natural and was observed in developed countries already in the 18th century, and now it has affected us, but has not received the proper dialectical assessment. It is impossible to constantly expand production, consumption is limited by the population and its effective demand, and therefore, with an increase in labor productivity, the class of unemployed must grow.

Socialism, to give this name to the formation following capitalism, where political power will pass to the class of intellectuals, will arise when this class, realizing its place in social production and its historical destiny, creates a political organization (party) to realize its class interests and goals, which will come to power through the mechanism of democratic elections. In this new formation, plutocracy (not from the Russian word plut, but from the name of the ancient Greek god of wealth Plutos) should be replaced by a power that I would call noocracy - the power of reason (from the Greek noos).

To summarize, it should be recognized that Max’s economic teaching, based on the achievements of science and technology of the 19th century, was a natural product of its time and in a number of issues was undoubtedly a step forward, but having inherited Ricardo’s mistake, Marx made a number of new mistakes, adjusting the theory to fit revolutionary idea and rebellious spirit of the mid-19th century. The tragedy of Marxism lies in the fact that, in accordance with Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, it not only explained the world, but, having become Marxism-Leninism, set out to reconstruct it - from an erroneous theory it turned into a real destructive force. And, as if the great Goethe said about him: “There is nothing more dangerous for a new truth than an old error.” Prophetic words about revolutionary theory, sounding in unison with Goethe, were put by Dostoevsky into the mouth of the character of “Demons” - the former revolutionary Shatov: “... semi-science, the most terrible scourge of humanity, worse than pestilence, famine and war, unknown until the present century. Semi-science is a despot, the likes of which have never come before. A despot who has his own priests and slaves, a despot before whom everything bowed with love and superstition, hitherto unthinkable, before whom even science itself trembles and shamefully indulges him.”

Concluding our consideration of the issue of the nature of surplus value, it should be noted that certain doubts about the infallibility of Marxism-Leninism also appeared among scientists developing this teaching. So, in Pravda of December 12, 1989. in the article “Smart Richer,” Professor A. Zhuravlev wrote: “... at a certain stage in the late 40s - early 50s, we did not take into account the new social force driving scientific and technological revolution, namely, knowledge workers. Meanwhile, their role increases immeasurably, stipulating the emergence of a new economic theory, which should incorporate, as a special case, the classical political economy of industrial society.” By this time, my theory had already been written, but it met with powerful resistance from scientists from Marxism-Leninism. Finally, 02/07/90. managed to perform with her on Leningrad television, and 02/08/90. the newspaper “Smena” published my article “Intellectual theory of surplus value” http://zerodragon.ucoz.com/publ/tema/intellektualnaja_teorija_pribavochnoj_stoimosti/4-1. Famous publicist Z.G. Oskotsky in his “Humane Bullet” spoke about it like this http://fanread.ru/book/4707296/?page=2. He was, of course, right that the time had not yet come, but now, if you wait any longer, you might be late.

Having been on business trips to China (10 times) and observing the rapid development of its industry and science, with each trip it seemed to me more and more that this country had already adopted what was published in 1990. theory and practice develops its scientific and technical potential in full accordance with it.

2. Dialectical analysis of the anomaly called socialism.

Engels has a very interesting example of dialectical transformations: “If you cut a worm, then at the positive pole it retains the mouth that receives food, forming at the other end a new negative pole with an anus for excretion; but the former negative pole (anus) now becomes the positive pole, i.e. becomes a mouth, and a new anus, or negative pole, is formed at the wounded site” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 20, p. 531). It is very strange that Engels, who a few pages earlier admitted that the history of nature and human society will obey the same general laws of dialectics, allowed not only the possibility of such an operation on humanity, but also considered it necessary. (Note: in fact, the part with the tail dies, but the part with the head lives and, if the reproductive parts remain with it, reproduces). Lenin brilliantly carried out this operation to destroy the old “head” and transform the “back passage” into a new “head” over the peoples of the great power. This new “head” - a new layer of society, called the party-state bureaucracy, by all criteria fits the previously given definition of classes: this is a fairly large group of people that has a very definite and only inherent relationship to the means of production - it has monopoly control over them without owning or bearing economic responsibility for the consequences of its activities. The mechanism of formation of this class is revealed in the book by M.S. Voslensky’s “Nomenklatura”, where it is convincingly proven that the party-state bureaucracy (nomenklatura) has never expressed the interests of the working class and, especially, the peasantry, but acts only in its own narrow interests. The bureaucracy consumes the best part of the wealth produced by society, and has invented a new method of appropriation for this - it has created public consumption funds with special distribution and special services - a method that has nothing to do with distribution according to labor. This method was presented as the sprouts of communist distribution. Its peculiarity is that representatives of the bureaucracy class received all their benefits, privileges, movable property and real estate not for ownership, but for use, and as a result of this they became dependent on their position, becoming slaves of the system, and most of all they were afraid of losing their party card . The Soviet bureaucrat was especially proud of his origins from the “back passage.” The lower the origin of a bureaucrat, the more firmly he was believed to be connected by his roots with the people. In this the bureaucrat saw his unity with the people, but this unity of origin is perhaps the only unity of the opposites that arose under socialism. The fundamental interest of this class was to maintain stagnation. In stagnation it is eternal. Under socialism, there are no internal economic mechanisms that stimulate scientific and technological progress. Being isolated from external influences, it must, destroying the intellectual class, degrade to the level of feudalism. The pinnacle of the triumph of Marxism-Leninism can be considered the Pol Pot regime that existed in Cambodia, under which the entire range of measures necessary to establish and maintain eternal equality was carried out, but which was destroyed by outside interference. The progress that took place in our country was noticeable only in those sectors on which our defense capability and political prestige depend; it occurred under the influence of the external contradiction of socialism and capitalism, which should be destroyed through the dialectical closure of opposites, or convergence, i.e. the transition of both systems to a “noocratic” formation. The possibility of a military solution to this contradiction still exists, but, thank God, the likelihood of this is small, since when waging a war using modern means there may not be a winner. In the course of implementing the peaceful version of perestroika, the bureaucracy had to be eliminated as a class, precisely by the intellectual class, in which it had sensed its enemy all the years of its stay in power. But for this, the unorganized forces of intellectuals had to unite on a single platform of their class interests, create their own political party and program for the realization of their historical destiny. Emigration and physical destruction of the intellectual class during the revolution, the Civil War, the waves of Stalinist repressions, social discrimination in the USSR - all these are stages and forms of the ongoing class struggle of two antagonistic opposites, one of which led the anomaly called the socialist system.

3. Analysis of post-Soviet capitalism.

Having reached a political impasse, the once monolithic party-Soviet bureaucracy began to crack, and with the announcement of perestroika, a process of polarization began within it. Its most efficient and enterprising representatives, taking advantage of their not yet completely lost influence, declaring themselves democrats and liberals, holding commanding heights and key positions, sought to turn the country onto the capitalist path of development. Trying to find a way out of the deep crisis of socialism that gripped the country, Gorbachev took a market-oriented course in economics, i.e. calling a spade a spade – capitalism. At first, cooperatives and individual activities were allowed. This made it possible for the “shadow” economy to “launder” its money, then private currency savings were legalized, small private enterprises were allowed; and finally there were no restrictions. Joint ventures, taking root, contributed to the merging of our economy with the world capitalist system. Ideologically, the country continued to stand firmly on the positions of socialism. In leadership positions there were loyal members of the CPSU, which did not renounce its leadership role and promised to prevent counter-revolution, in the sense in which it understood it. It is quite obvious that in this case, market relations at a certain stage should have been interrupted in a well-known way, as happened with the NEP, and then what? Would socialism remain humane to the new capitalists? The discrepancy between economics and ideology, which deepened every day, the contradiction between the democracy of the President of the country and the autocracy of the General Secretary of the CPSU, hindered the process of perestroika, caused inconsistency in the reforms being carried out, and led to an aggravation of the political atmosphere within the country.

And here again it is appropriate to recall the brilliant Hegel: - “The madness of modern times should be considered the desire to change the decayed system of morality, government and legislation without simultaneously changing religion - to carry out a revolution without reformation...” (Hegel, “Philosophy of Spirit”, paragraph 552.) If the General Secretary is not a madman, then he should have given up on perestroika and peacefully returned to the old principles, or in favor of the President, abandon the communist utopia and renounce its religion - Marxism-Leninism, which, due to the strength of its impact on human consciousness and influence on history , we compare it with the largest religious teachings. During the years of perestroika, as a result of Gorbachev’s dual personality, our country, as a socio-economic system, experienced a lot of contradictory influences from the authorities in the form of laws, decisions, decrees, decrees, supposedly aimed at improving the situation, but in fact causing negative effects. Most of these influences did not meet with popular support and only discredited the authorities.

The creators of these documents had to become familiar with the law of thermodynamics, known since 1884. and named after the French scientist who discovered it, Le Chatelier's principle. This principle, which states that an external influence that removes a system from a state of equilibrium causes processes in it that tend to weaken the effect of the influence, is as universal as the laws of Hegel’s dialectics.

Gorbachev’s campaign against drunkenness and vineyards, which ended in failure and negative consequences in the form of moonshine, speculation in alcoholic beverages, substance abuse and drug addiction, is a clear confirmation of the action of this principle in human society. This campaign contributed to his overthrow. In medicine it is forbidden to experiment on even one person, even a hopelessly ill one, but in politics and economics there are no prohibitions - here you can experiment on entire nations and remain unpunished. The country receives either a portion of a laxative, or a portion of a fixative, and from this its body becomes increasingly disordered. It is a pity that politicians do not take the Hippocratic Oath and are not held accountable for violating it. One can only dream with Plato about the time when philosophers come to power or rulers learn philosophy, when they begin to analyze existing experience and foresee the consequences of their influences, before making these influences. Gorbachev brought the system out of balance. Yeltsin took advantage of Gorbachev’s indecisiveness and weakness and, dividing the country with his comrades in the Politburo into parts, transferred his part to capitalist rails and led, but not forward along the path of convergence, but back to that semi-wild form of capitalism, which was defined as “cave capitalism.” capitalism". During this turn of history, yesterday's leading fighters for communist ideals turned into leading businessmen - future oligarchs and corrupt officials. The last theorists of socialism of the Gorbachev period tried to get rid of the class structure of society; they preferred to manipulate the amorphous concept of “the working masses.” This is an anti-scientific (and even anti-Leninist and anti-Marxist) approach to the historical process. The statement that the driving force of the development of society is the class struggle (i.e. the struggle of opposites) is absolutely indisputable - this is dialectics; you just need to correctly distinguish between classes and their interests.

And at the present stage, the denial of the class structure of society and the introduction into the consciousness of citizens who do not have basic knowledge in the field of political economy and philosophy of the consumer concept of “middle class” stems from the desire of the new bureaucrats, who have turned into plutocrats, to hide their class essence.

I believe that the time has come to recognize the workers of the intellectual front, regardless of nationality and religious views, to recognize them as a socio-political class, which numbers at least thirty million people, and is the only force capable of ensuring the development of science and the economy, improving the well-being of the entire people, and on the basis of this class to build a progressive political party.

I hope that some large scientific center, to whose employees my theory will reach, will become the center of crystallization of a new political force that will rally around itself employees of scientific industry institutes, design bureaus and high-tech industries, and then engineering and technical personnel of all industrial enterprises in Russia.

The party they created will become a worthy alternative to United Russia and, having won a majority in the Duma, will adopt laws that ensure the priority of science in all spheres of human activity. A

Alexander Pavlov