INTRODUCTION
POLITECONOMY: EMERGENCY AND EVOLUTION
CONCLUSION
LIST OF SOURCES USED
INTRODUCTION
The topic of the work is “Political economy: emergence and evolution.”
The work examines the formation and evolution of political economy and critically analyzes the current state of the problem.
Political economy is one of the ancient sciences about the economy. IN Ancient Greece Xenophon (V-IV centuries BC) called this science “oikonomia” (from the Greek words “oikos” - household and “nomos” - law). Consequently, we were talking about the laws of managing a slave household. Aristotle also used it in this understanding.
The name “political economy” was introduced into scientific circulation by the French mercantilist A. Montchretien, who in 1615 published the work “Treatise of Political Economy” in Rouen. The term “politics” (from the Greek word “politike” - public administration, public affairs) was used by A. Montchretien to emphasize the need for rational management not of the household, but of the state, national one. After all, the mercantilists were supporters of the state approach to the economy, as well as the need to understand and explain state economic policy in order to increase the wealth of the nation. The name of the science appeared before its conceptual foundations were formed and its subject was defined.
As is known, K. Marx called mercantilism the first school of bourgeois political economy. However, most foreign economists believe that mercantilism was not a science, but only its prehistory. Researchers also focus on the fact that political economy has separated from moral philosophy. This was the process of formation of classical political economy. It became established as a science. She began teaching at universities.
POLITECONOMY: EMERGENCY AND EVOLUTION
state political economy mercantilism
The definition of political economy as a science required the formulation of its subject. However, oddly enough, political economy from its very inception did not have a clear definition of its subject. For a long time it remained the science of wealth, which was due to the title of A. Smith’s book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776).
In the 19th century, due to the rapid development of capitalism, the ideas of classical political economy “do not work” in real life. Under these conditions, students and followers of the classics criticized capitalism and classical political economy, and, as a result, in the last third of the 19th century. a neoclassical direction is being formed. IN scientific literature This transition was called the “margin revolution.”
A kind of completion of marginalism was the concept of A. Marshall, who saw his task as systematizing the entire post-Ricardian political economy. In 1890, he published the work “Principles of Economics”, and in 1902 he proposed to the leadership of the University of Cambridge to introduce the course “Economics” instead of the course “Political Economy”. The intention was to strengthen the applied nature of political economy.
Numerous responses to this work by A. Marshall, cited by J.M. Keynes, spoke of the emergence of a “new political economy” and expressed hopes that this work “will contribute to the revival of the shaken authority of political economy.” However, “economics” is not political economy, although foreign economists are trying to identify them. Thus, the author of the famous textbook on “economics” P. Samuelson wrote: “Economic theory, or political economy, as it is usually called.” Of course, “economics” does not ignore the problems that political economy studies, but they do not define its subject. True, “economics,” like political economy, did not have and does not have a single definition of its subject. And P. Samuelson generally believed that “no definition of the subject of economic theory can be precise, and, in fact, there is no need for this.”
As University of Chicago professor F. Knight wrote, “economics” replaced political economy. It has become the university's leading economics course. There is a differentiation of economic science, micro- and macroeconomics are being formed. Branch economies separated from political economy. Separate schools and areas of economic science are developing. Keynesianism and institutionalism emerge. It is true that economists who have studied the history of economic thought write about schools of political economy. In particular, B. Seligman, considering the development of economic theory with late XIX in., writes about the English, Swedish and American schools of political economy. Meanwhile, the economists presented in the studies are shown as the authors of individual theories.
And it is no coincidence that scientists, without denying the existence of certain theoretical foundations of scientific schools, focus on the need for a “general theory.” It was the need for such a “general theory” that led to the emergence of diverse “political economy”.
Professor of the University of Friborg G. Bortis (Switzerland) noted that after the Second World War the division of “political and social sciences” accelerated, their specialization deepened, and economic theory lost its historical component. This led to the predominance of the hypothetical approach in the formation of theoretical models, which, in turn, contributed to a better understanding of individual, isolated problems and limited the possibilities of analyzing the functioning of the socio-economic system as a whole.
G. Bortis proclaims the “political economy of humanism,” which for him corresponds to a society organized on humanistic principles. According to the scientist, the leading role in his organization is played by “classical-Keynesian political economy” (for him this is a synthesis of the works of Quesnay, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes). It is she who is able to solve the interrelated problems of income distribution and employment, which, as J.M. Keynes emphasized, the existing society is not able to solve. Only a system of socio-political sciences, in which political economy plays a leading role, can solve these problems. Accordingly, G. Bortis interprets such a system as a third way, alternative to the economic theory of socialism and liberalism (neoclassicism).
If G. Bortis proclaims the political economy of humanism, then the famous English physicist, specialist in the field of quantum physics and biophysics, Doctor of Philosophy D. Hooke (1942) came up with a quantum theory of political economy, which deals with the interaction of natural and social sciences. He explores and proclaims the influence of quantum physics on the development of political economy. D. Hooke contrasts quantum theory with the Cartesian-Newtonian concept, which, according to him, is built on the principles of atomism and creates a gap between human society and nature. Focusing on the theoretical and methodological achievements of quantum physics, the scientist emphasizes that they can be used in the interests of the development of economic theory.
Physical economy, which also deals with the unification of the physical and the economic, has received significant development and recognition. Its founder is the outstanding Ukrainian scientist S. Podolinsky (1850-1891). He formulated a new scientific paradigm for civilizational development, basing it on the energy theory, and also presenting the interaction of world energy (object) and man (subject) as the basis of life. The ideas of S. Podolinsky were developed by the outstanding Ukrainian scientist in the field of natural science V. Vernadsky (we are talking, in particular, about his studies of the biosphere and noosphere). M. Rudenko (1920-2004) made a significant contribution to the development of the ideas of physical economy. It was he who gave the name to this science, revealed the location of the energy source that underlies photosynthesis, and built the formula for the “energy of progress.”
At the same time, evolutionary, realistic, critical and other branches of political economy were proclaimed. And what does it mean? Scientists believe this means that “the end of classical political economy” has come. Of interest is the prophetic foresight of this process by M. Tugan-Baranovsky: “There is every reason to recognize the fate of political economy as a unique science of the causal-functional relationships of economic phenomena, closely related to the modern national economy. Together with it, it arose and developed and with it There will be no place for this science in a socialist system, although it is in this system that practical knowledge related to the field of economic policy, and all the auxiliary scientific disciplines necessary for this - for example, statistics - should receive extraordinary development. partly will turn into a theory of economic policy, and partly will become part of a more general science about society - sociology".
The emergence of many “general theories” (political economy) did not solve the problem. The discussion was again about different theoretical foundations of “political economy”, about the absence of a unified definition of their subject. Only the name of the science was retained, under which the “general economic theory” was formed.
Changes in economic life, global shifts in the development of world civilization require new theoretical generalizations. Established schools and directions of social thought are not able to explain them. There was a need for a transition to a new paradigm of ideas about the development of society. In particular, there was a need for a detailed analysis of the problem of influence political institutions and processes on the functioning of the economy. Classical political economy only partially took into account political factors. Subsequent directions of this science did not include political processes in their analysis. Thus, interest in traditional political economy was lost.
In the second half of the 20th century. interest in the study of political processes and their role in economic life, as well as the role of government in the state, increased. Accordingly, there was a change in the term "political economy". Scientists are proclaiming ideas about the “renaissance of political economy”, about its reorientation, mainly to the study of issues of interaction between the state and the economy, to the analysis and justification of economic policy. They note that the problems of mutual influence of economic and political processes, interaction of economics and politics have become one of the leading subjects of research in the social sciences. And “...the most successful project in the field of political-economic research in modern social sciences can be considered political economics or new political economy.”
The new political economy is a scientific symbiosis of political science and economics, formed on a common methodological basis, which consists of several scientific theories, and above all the theory of public choice. According to the recognized leaders in this theory, J. Brennan and J. Buchanan, the theory of public choice “applies the technology and analytical apparatus of modern economics to the study of political processes.” Scientists associate the formation of a new political economy with the pioneering work of E. Downes “The Economic Theory of Democracy” (1957), in which the subject of research was the relationship between economics and politics. And the sources (origins) of the new political economy, besides theory rational choice, defined agency, international, spatial and other theories, “which for a long time were independent tools for studying the influence of politics on the economy.”
Second half of the 20th century. became the arena for the appearance of a whole series of works that marked the formation of a new political economy. We are talking about articles by W. Nord House, E. Taft, D. Hibbs and P. Mosley on the problems of the theory of the political business cycle, about the monographs “Political Economy” by T. Persson and D. Tabellini, “Political Competition” by D. Roemer and etc.
There is a growing interest in studying the role of government in public life, and, accordingly, the term “political economy” is filled with new content. Contemporary new political economy includes several directions. We are talking about both purely political and political-economic models of this science. For example, the areas of political economy of democracy, which was initiated by E. Downes, are the study of the influence of political processes and institutions on the formation of economic policy, studies of the institution of competition between political parties in elections and voter behavior, and the definition of government and its functions.
Scientists associate the further development of the new political economy with the second stage (70s of the 20th century), which was marked by the appearance of a number of works on political business cycles. They talked about the relationship between the political and economic cycles, proclaimed the hypothesis of fluctuations economic indicators in sync with the elections. These problems were studied by W. Nordhaus, E. Taft, P. Mosley and others. An important place in the new political economy is occupied by the constitutional political economy of J. Brennan and J. Buchanan. It arose almost simultaneously with the theory of public choice and for a certain period was on the periphery of the mainstream, and recently has regained relevance. As the authors of constitutional political economy write, its task and, accordingly, field of study is the analysis of the rules that must be followed in order to ensure the acceptably efficient functioning of society as such. Scientists emphasize the importance of this problem and draw an analogy with classical political economy, in particular with the theory of A. Smith, who “used the term “laws and institutions”.” We need rules, they write, because Everyday life without them we would be at war all the time. “The rules define the boundaries of the space within which everyone can act as they see fit.” The study concludes: “We must remake our rules and our thinking,” “focusing our attention on the right-handers that limit government activity, rather than on the innovations that justify the increasing interference of politicians in the lives of citizens.” J. Buchanan also explores the practical application of constitutional economic theory. He, in particular, identifies several areas of its practical application: these are tax rules, budget policy, distribution of income and wealth, etc.
The problems of the new political economy are analyzed in his work “Incentives and Political Economy” by the famous French economist J.-J. Laffont. He defines political economy as “the discipline that arises from the need to delegate economic policy to politicians, and is therefore fundamentally a problem of incentives.” As the author notes, in this study he "raises several questions about the incentives that arise when politicians are delegated the power to make socially significant decisions." To analyze traditional issues of political economy, the author, as he himself points out, uses the theory of contracts and economics of information. Accordingly, the first and second sections of his work are devoted to the consideration of constitutions from the perspective of both complete and incomplete contracts. In the third section, the scientist examines the contract model with asymmetric information. They are also offered a methodology to identify optimal changes in the constitution. In addition, the author explores such current issues as corruption, ecology, positive features and shortcomings of laws, etc.
The new political economy is developing dynamically. As researchers of this problem note, it represents “one of the most active areas of research in modern economic theory, since the introduction of political restrictions into standard economic models makes it possible to advance the understanding and explanation of real economic problems."
A high assessment of the new political economy cannot serve as a sign of its high scientific level. It, like other areas of modern economic theory, is not able to provide answers to questions arising in the global economy of the 21st century, nor scientific knowledge about them. Like modern economics in general, the new political economy is unstructured. It deals with individual theories - models, both purely political and political-economic. It does not give an idea of the fundamental laws of development of the modern economy.
And it is no coincidence that in the scientific literature the issue of the “renaissance” of political economy is not removed from the agenda. Because of this, the study of this problem by Russian scientists, who interpret it as “the fate of political economy,” is of particular interest. First of all, it should be noted that with the beginning of perestroika, political economy was excluded from the scientific and educational processes in the Russian Federation and replaced by “economic theory” or “national economics”. However, scientists did not stop fighting for the restoration, the “renaissance” of political economy as a science and as academic discipline. In November 2002, a group of leading Russian economists addressed open letter to the Minister of Education of the Russian Federation with a proposal to “restore political economy as a general theoretical discipline and as a science in the Russian classification of sciences.”
However, the question arises: if we restore political economy as a general theoretical discipline, then what kind? Are we talking about classical, Marxist or some new political economy? The scientists' appeal was ignored, and two directions emerged in the scientific community - supporters and opponents of the "renaissance of political economy." Opponents of the revival of political economy were guided mainly by neoclassical “economics”, arguing their position with a number of provisions, by the way - not scientific, but mainly organizational and practical. They opposed the restoration of political economy in the educational process, motivating their opinion by the fact that regulatory documents in education give each university the opportunity to introduce disciplines into the educational process at its own discretion. Opponents of the revival of political economy also argued the “practical inexpediency” of this action, due to the fact that a lot of work had already been done to create training course programs and corresponding documentation on “economic theory.” They also referred to pan-European requirements, in particular the Bologna process, in the program of which such a subject as political economy is absent. In turn, supporters of the “renaissance” of political economy tended to synthesize different areas of economic theory (in particular, classical and neoclassical) under the general name “political economy.” Such an attempt was implemented in a number of textbooks (published at Moscow University), which dealt with the coverage of unambiguous economic categories from different conceptual positions. However, this idea did not receive support from scientists.
A new version of the synthesis of theories was proposed by S. Dzarasov, including classical, post-Keynesian, institutional and neo-Marxism in the new, revived political economy. Consequently, neoclassical synthesis was opposed to postclassical synthesis - “synthesis of a higher level.” According to the author, the tool that would unite theories within the framework of a new course of political economy should be Marxist methodology. Based on this methodology and using the views of leading representatives of these directions, it is possible to “seriously advance political economy and present an alternative to the “neoclassical-mainstream” political economic interpretation of modern society.”
Without dwelling on the many absurdities of the proposed synthesis, it should only be emphasized that Marxist methodology is alien to both Keynesianism and institutionalism, as well as neoclassicism, and therefore its application to them as components of a new political economy is not acceptable.
In June 2004, the International Scientific Symposium “Economic Theory: historical roots, modern role and development prospects." Summing up the results of the symposium, Professor V. Cherkovets stated with regret that he "did not develop any agreed decision on ways to restore political economy as an independent academic discipline in universities." According to the scientist, the symposium and could not propose a specific project for solving the problem, taking into account the state of economic science both in Russia and in the global educational and scientific space. Therefore, he poses the question: “What to do?” and identifies two problems, two tasks that, in his opinion, should be done. decide in order to restore the political economy: “We need, of course, a special large-scale preparatory work, aimed, on the one hand, at political and economic research on the largest pressing problems of social and economic development,., on the other hand, to develop the accumulated issues of structuring the economic theory itself in its current state".
In practice, the author proposes to solve the problem of the “model” for the revival of political economy by implementing two “subprograms”:
1) preparation of teaching aids and textbooks on this subject;
2) carrying out scientific research.
In such teaching aids he proposes to include the main political economic directions of modern economic theory, conducting a comparative analysis of their methodologies, interpretations of the most important problems and categories of the same name (such as “product”, “utility”, “cost”, “money”, “prices”, “profit” " and its sources). In fact, the scientist proposes to include all modern economic theories in these textbooks, paying special attention to classical political economy and Marxism.
In our opinion, creating a textbook on political economy on such a basis is quite problematic. It will be more reminiscent of a textbook on the history of economic doctrines or on modern economic theories, especially since V. Cherkovets proposes to conduct a comparative analysis of the methodologies of the included areas of modern economic theory, as well as their economic categories. And since the methodology and definition of economic categories of different directions are different things, it is difficult to imagine the content of such a textbook. As for the second part of the author’s proposals, this provides for an analysis of the most pressing scientific problems in textbooks.
Of interest is the position of supporters of Marxism, who raise the question not of a renewal, “renaissance” of political economy, but of the formation of a new political economy that would meet the requirements of today, the challenges of the 21st century. In this context, the scientific research of K. Molchanov, who connects the problems of socio-economic development with the development of social sciences, and in particular political economy, is of particular interest. Accordingly, for this author the transition to a “new political economy” is natural, conditioned by socio-economic development. He traces the evolution of political economy and identifies its stages. The author’s current stage is the fourth. Its inherent patterns of development, new problems, and therefore tasks, require new foundations of development, new theoretical developments and, accordingly, a “new political economy.”
According to K. Molchanov, political economy in its “old” understanding “lost” its meaning for society, failing to provide it in the 20th century. its mission (social development). Consequently, political economy in its “old” understanding has been exhausted. Thus, the need for a new political economy objectively arises. The author proposes to build a new political economy on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist “philosophical and economic heritage (but taking into account its re-awareness and dialectical development) in conjunction with the consideration and analysis of events and economic theories of the 20th century, as well as taking into account new goals and modern problems requiring solution ". Consequently, he proposes to carry out the formation of a new political economy on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory, taking into account modern problems and theories.
As for the rethinking of Marxism, K. Molchanov, first of all, abandons its fundamental thesis - class struggle"...Class struggle," he writes, "is unacceptable as the basis for development at the turn of the 21st century." He advocates conflict-free, democratic development, which will take place in the future socio-economic formation, which the author conventionally defines as “the formation of an industrial social society.” According to the scientist, the transition to a new formation will be accompanied by a transformation of some economic categories, in particular cost and surplus value. The absence of class struggle, he believes, will lead to a new definition of surplus value - “political economic, not political.”
Summing up the study, K. Molchanov concludes that the socio-economic processes of our time and, accordingly, the transition to the study and development of political economy through stages and phases determine the need to “rethink knowledge and identify new methods of analysis.” In his opinion, a new approach and corresponding foundations will ensure the formation of modern political economy. "While retaining the achievements of political economy of the 17th-20th centuries, modern political economy is not reborn from the ashes of its predecessor, but appears in beginning of XXI V. from the waves of the global ocean of knowledge and historical experience development, marking a new circle in the development of science." Consequently, for the author, evolution, the development of political economy, is a natural process determined by socio-economic development, and its unique vision is a combination of Marxism with modern economic theories.
One cannot ignore the opinion of scientists about the “end of classical political economy,” which they associate with the weakening of class contradictions. In March 2008, at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, at a round table meeting, Professor M. Voeikov gave a scientific report “The Labor Question and the End of Classical Political Economy”. He connects political economy with the labor question, which he understands as a problem of confrontation between labor and capital. “The presence and existence of the working class,” the author of the report emphasizes, “obviously can be directly linked with the fate of political economy.” In turn, the irrelevance of the “labor question” explains the irrelevance of political economy. "If the current Russian government, he proves, “not in words, but in deeds, will strive to create social state, then the importance of the labor question will decrease and political economy will lose its meaning." Consequently, the speaker connects the subject of political economy with class society and, accordingly, denies political economy in the broad sense. As for today, in the scientist’s opinion, the presence of class contradictions necessitates political economy for society. The report contains many absurdities, which was noted already during its discussion 36. And what is interesting is that the discussion has acquired a primary focus on clarifying the working issue, rather than the problems of political economy.
The materials of the round table received a negative assessment from representatives of the all-Russian public organization"Russian scientists of socialist orientation." In particular, in V. Budarin’s article “What kind of political economy does Russia need”, the speeches of both the speaker and opponents are analyzed in detail. First of all, the author of the article draws attention to the fact that neither the speaker nor the majority of speakers essentially set out to prove the idea of the inevitability and necessity of the withering away of classical political economy or to somehow resist it, but instead discussed various related topics. He emphasizes that the speaker does not give a clear definition of the essence of classical political economy and its chronological framework. V. Budarin is also outraged by the fact that the speaker, analyzing Marxism-Leninism, does not even mention such “outstanding personalities who made an invaluable contribution to the significant development of Marxist political economy, such as V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, N. A. Voznesensky".
V. Budarin also does not accept the speaker’s statement that the need for political economy is due to key contradictions, the class division of society, which arises only at the stage of bourgeois development and “has the property of ending someday.” Then there will be no need for political economy. The author of the article also criticizes the speaker for his definition of the subject of political economy, which for him is the social conflict between capitalists and workers as the main conflict in the distribution of the social product.
The issue of solving the problem of reviving political economy through the synthesis of theories and thereby creating an “integrative course in economic theory” has been discussed for a long time on the pages of economic publications. Supporters of such integration understood its meaninglessness and shortcomings - in particular, “the danger of eclecticism, the mechanical unification of significantly different and even opposing conclusions, provisions and assessments of real economic relations.” They hoped to prevent this by “selecting the entities that are most adequate” to modern economic relations. It is clear that this is not a scientific solution to the problem, but a synthetic course - a fiction.
The diversity of opinions and proposals for restoring the political economy did not change the situation. Approved in the Russian Federation scientific program research on the "New Political Economy". This prompted scientists to develop appropriate programs, methodological bases and training courses, as well as to prepare new manuals and textbooks. For example, A. Dankov, analyzing the evolution of the new political economy, defines its subject and identifies several stages in its development. He writes: "The new political economy is a separate branch social science, the subject of which is the influence of political institutions and processes on economic policy."
Educational materials and the program for the course “New Political Economy” was developed by V. Busygin. In particular, this program contains 7 sections, with a corresponding disclosure of their content.
Section 1. The role of the state in the modern economy. Political institutions and political restrictions. Section 2. Models of political processes and tools of political economic analysis. Section 3. Redistribution Policy. Section 4. Comparative analysis of political systems. Section 5. The problem of time consistency of political decisions and approaches to its solution. Section 6. Monetary policy. Section 7. Political economy of reforms. In our opinion, this is a fairly modest list of issues studied by foreign economists. But, obviously, it cannot be otherwise. The fact is that economic theory is increasingly enriched, expanded and at the same time divided into separate conceptual parts that are isolated from it. And “new political economy” is, to some extent, a collective name for individual theories of the political-economic direction that have not yet been structured. Therefore, researchers can include issues of greater interest in their analysis.
For those who have studied Marxist political economy, this structure of science is unusual. Indeed, in Marxist political economy we are talking about a clear definition of the subject of science, the basic and initial relations, economic laws and a system of economic categories, the main contradiction of the mode of production is highlighted and ways of resolving it are revealed. This means the presence of systematic and clear logic in scientific analysis.
As for the “new political economy,” at first glance, one is struck by the diversity and diversity of content. It brings to the fore political issues and their impact on the economy. One gets the impression that the study of the “new political economy” presupposes knowledge of classical, Marxist political economy with their interpretation of economic laws and categories. Meanwhile, the “new political economy” is successfully emerging. As for its assessment, in our opinion, it is quite possible to agree with the conclusions of A. Dankov: “The new political economy still represents a fertile object for criticism. The lack of empirical evidence, on the one hand, and the arbitrary nature of the premises put forward, on the other hand, contribute to the accumulation of concepts and paradigms. What can be said about the new political economy today is what John Keynes said about mathematical economics in the 1930s, namely that it “is essentially a mere mishmash, as imprecise as the original assumptions on which it is based, and the authors are able to forget about the complex relationships and interconnections of the real world, locking themselves in a labyrinth of pretentious and useless symbols." At the same time, the author also determines the importance of the latest economic research. He writes, in particular, that “recognition of the fact that economic policy formed within the framework of the political process, by political authors in the context of political institutions, and its content and results are largely determined by political “origin”, is the main result of half a century of efforts of many scientists and researchers, united by the tradition of new political economy.”
CONCLUSION
To summarize, there are several issues to consider. First of all, we are talking about the structuring of economic science and the definition of its subject. This problem, emphasizes Professor V. Eremenko, “constitutes an essential characteristic of economic science itself.” In modern conditions, there is no more or less unambiguous systematization and structuring of economic science. In scientific research, we quite often encounter the identification of the concepts “economics”, “economic theory”, “political economy”, “theoretical economics”, “economic science”, etc. without defining the subject. This identification concerns, in particular, such fundamental concepts as “economic science”, “political economy”, “economic theory”. For such an identification, V. Eremenko accuses, in particular, Professor P. Groenewegen (University of Sydney), who, according to him, identifies the concepts of “political economy”, “economic science” and “economic theory” than “... even more intensified the discussion" 47.
In our opinion, it is advisable to make some comments. First of all, the work of P. Groenewegen deals with the study of the emergence and evolution of the term “political economy”. “The discussion,” writes the scientist, “...will concentrate mainly around definitions and be etymological in nature, emphasizing the lack of precise definitions of the term “political economy” and its more modern synonym “economic science,” that is, “economics.” The fact that we are talking specifically about “economics” is evidenced by both the content of the work and its title. As for the term “economic science,” this is an unsuccessful translation of the term “economics,” which brings a lot of confusion to scientific research. From our point of view, it is more appropriate to leave this term without translation. At the same time, we are impressed by V. Eremenko’s opinion that “the concepts of “economic science”, “economic theory” and “political economy” not only do not coincide, but are completely different.” To the greatest extent, this identification concerns the concepts of “political economy” and “economic theory”.
We regard such identification of concepts as unlawful. After all, the term “economic theory” can and should be used when we are talking about individual theories (distribution, exchange, growth, etc.), and within their framework - about many individual theories. Consequently, it is illogical to define the entire science of “political economy” with such a term. Obviously, the mass identification of terms can be explained by the fact that during perestroika it was the term “economic theory” that was replaced by the term “political economy”. Scientists, trying to preserve at least the name of the science, used definitions such as “economic theory (political economy)”; “economic theory, political economic aspect”, etc.
As for manuals and textbooks, they, as a rule, were built according to the “economics” scheme. In our opinion, we can agree with the opinion of U. Aliyev, who proposes to call this discipline (political economy) “theoretical economy (economics)” - modeled on the definition of the theoretical component in other sciences (for example, “theoretical mechanics”, “theoretical mathematics”) . Changing the name, of course, also presupposes the need to scientifically substantiate the new concept by clarifying its subject. As is known, political economy did not have and does not have a single definition of the subject. It has changed in the process of socio-economic development, which will certainly continue. This is about the name of science. As for its content, that is a separate question.
Interesting thoughts Professor D. Colander (USA) speaks about the evolution of economic science and its future. First of all, he emphasizes the inevitability of changes in economic theory, due to both technological progress and personnel changes in the composition of scientists. “Changes in technology,” the researcher writes, “will cause significant transformations in the economic science of the future.” They enhance computing capabilities in scientific work. And “young, differently trained economists are replacing the old ones, and the image of what economics and its study is is changing.” D. Kolander predicts the development of new hybrid forms - such as psychoeconomics, neuroeconomics, socioeconomics, bioeconomics, etc. In his opinion, the importance of new specific sections of applied economics - such as the economics of health, crime, etc. will increase, and "economic science will cease to exist as a set of loosely interconnected approaches." Ultimately, the scientist believes, psychologists, sociologists, and economists will disappear - only social scientists will remain.
As for the new political economy, its emergence can be considered as a certain stage in the development of economic science. And its definition as “new political economy” indicates that the name corresponds to the content and subject of science. Indeed, we are talking about “political economy”, about the unification of politics and economics, while in orthodox political economy the name meant “laws of state and public administration". "New Political Economy" explores complex and important problems of social development. However, it is not capable of forming (developing) theoretical basis modern economic and social development, as well as long-term socio-economic strategy. Therefore, it is no coincidence that scientists emphasize the need to form political economy as the fundamental theoretical basis of the system of economic sciences, the subject of which should be the essence of the phenomena and processes of economic life, that is, economic laws.
LIST OF SOURCES USED
1. Aliev U. Once again about the terminological designation of the theoretical component of economic science. "Society and Economics" No. 4-5, 2003, p. 250.
2. Kolander D. Revolutionary significance of complexity theory and the future of economic science. "Economic Issues" No. 1, 2009, p. 98.
3. Keynes J. M. Alfred Marshall. In the book: Marshall A. Principles of economic science. T 1. M., 1993, p. 33.
4. Samuelson P. Economics. M., "Progress", 1964, p. 26.
5. Seligman B. Main currents of modern economic thought. M., "Progress", 1968, p. 287, 355, 414.
6. Bortis G. Revival of the old sciences about the state - the path to a system of humanistic socio-political sciences. In the book: Social and political sciences in the friendship of independent powers. Robocha zustrich. Kiev, 23-25 spring 1998, p. 45.
7. Korniychuk L., Shevchuk V., Vorobyova L. Physical economy. Ukrainian school. "Economy of Ukraine" No. 9-10, 2006.
8. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Fundamentals of Political Economy. M., 1998, p. 37.
9. Libman A. Directions and prospects for the development of political and economic research. "Economic Issues" No. 1, 2008, p. 27.
10. Brennan J., Buchanan J. The reason for the rules. Constitutional political economy. St. Petersburg, 2005, p. 12.
11. Dankov A.N. Retrospective of the new political economy (), p. 3.
28. Busygin V.P. New political economy. 2004.
29. Groenewegen P. Political Economy and Economics. In the book: Economic Theory (Ed. J. Intwell). M., "Infra - M", 2004, p. 680.
30. Shubladze E.K. the question of the theoretical designation of economic theory. "Society and Economics" No. 8, 2000, p. 189
31. Salikhov B. Is political economy adequate to modern social realities? "Society and Economics" No. 3, 2006, p. 17
32. Leonenko P. M. Methodological aspects of the history of the Ukrainian economic thought (XIX-XX centuries). K., 2004, p. 66.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Political Economy P. e. - the science that studies public relations, emerging in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption material goods, and economic laws governing their development in historically successive socio-economic formations. Name P. e. comes from the Greek words politikós - state, public and oikonomía - household management (from óikos - house, household and nómos - law). The term "P. e." was introduced by the French mercantilist A. Montchretien in his work “Treatise of Political Economy” (1615). I. The emergence and development of political economy The study of economic processes and phenomena originated within the framework of a single and undivided science of antiquity. Formation of P. e. As an independent science, it belongs to the period of formation of Capitalism. The first attempts to comprehend the phenomena of capitalism and justify the economic policy of the state were made by representatives of Mercantilism and ,
reflecting the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie, primarily the commercial one. Mercantilism studied mainly foreign trade (circulation), seeing in it the main source of wealth; he justified the policy of Protectionism a. However, only the transfer of analysis from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of production and the study of its internal laws marked the beginning of P. e. like science. At its highest development, bourgeois P. e. achieved in the works of representatives of classical bourgeois political economy (See Classical bourgeois political economy): W. Petty ,
A. Smith and D. Ricardo (Great Britain), P. Boisguillebert, F. Quesnay (France). They made an attempt to study the objective laws of the development of capitalism, to find out the economic content of goods, value, money, wages, profits and rents. The head of the school of physiocrats, F. Quesnay, in his “Economic Table” (1758), first presented the process of capitalist reproduction as a whole (see Quesnay’s Economic Table). The merit of classical bourgeois P. e. in that it laid the foundation for the labor theory of value. This theory was most consistently revealed by D. Ricardo, who on its basis showed the opposition of profit and wages, profit and rent. According to V.I. Lenin’s description, classical bourgeois P. e. - one of the sources of Marxism (see Complete collection of works, 5th ed., vol. 23, pp. 40-43). Classic bourgeois P. e. expressed the ideology of the bourgeoisie during the period of the formation of the capitalist mode of production and the undeveloped class struggle of the proletariat (18th century). The critical content of the theory was directed mainly against outdated feudal orders. The establishment of the capitalist mode of production, the exacerbation of its contradictions, the growing antagonism between wage labor and capital, the transformation of the bourgeoisie from a progressive class into a reactionary one served as the basis for the emergence of vulgar political economy (See Vulgar Political Economy) (30s of the 19th century). Vulgar P. e. originates in the works of T. R. Malthus (Great Britain), J. B. Say (See Say) and F. Bastiat (France). She refuses to analyze the objective laws of development of the capitalist mode of production. but explores the area of underlying economic phenomena. Vulgar P. e. denies the theory of labor value: Sey declared “three factors of production” to be the sources of value: labor, capital and land. Denying the contradictions of capitalism, vulgar P. e. proclaimed the “harmony” of class interests. The economic interests and views of small commodity producers in town and countryside in capitalist society are expressed by petty-bourgeois political economy. Its emergence is associated with the works of J. S. L. S. Sismondi (Switzerland) and P. J. Proudhon
(France), who criticized the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. However, they saw the way out of these contradictions not in moving forward, towards socialism, but in returning to outdated, archaic forms of economic life. With the development of capitalism, petty-bourgeois P. e. is becoming more and more utopian and reactionary. In the 2nd half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. in bourgeois P. e. Several schools are emerging. Austrian school (K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk ,
F. Wieser) put forward the theory of marginal utility of goods, according to which the value of economic goods is determined by the benefit brought by the last (marginal) unit of the supply, and also depends on their rarity (see Marginal utility theory) .
The Cambridge School was founded in Great Britain ,
the founder of which, A. Marshall, eclectically combined the vulgar theories of production costs, supply and demand, productivity and abstinence with the theories of marginal utility and marginal productivity. In the USA, J.B. Clark formulated the theory of marginal productivity and derived the “universal law” of diminishing productivity of factors of production (see Productivity theory) ,
According to which, as a factor increases, its productivity decreases. This served as a theoretical justification for reducing workers' wages and proof of the need for unemployment. The entry of capitalism into the stage of imperialism and the development of the general crisis of capitalism (See General Crisis of Capitalism) caused profound changes in bourgeois political economy. During this period, two main functions of bourgeois political economy began to become more and more apparent: defense of the capitalist system and proof of its inviolability and eternity, in the form of a pronounced apologetics of capitalism, and the development of practical measures for state-monopoly regulation of production. The beginning of a new stage in bourgeois P. e. associated with the works of J.M. Keynes (Great Britain) and, above all, with the appearance of his main op. "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" (1936). Keynes showed the inability of the mechanism of free competition to cope with the productive forces and initiated the development of the concept of regulated capitalism (see regulated capitalism theory). Keynesianism has become the main direction of modern bourgeois economics. In 1913 A. Aftalion
(France) and in 1919 J. M. Clark (USA) put forward the “acceleration principle”, according to which every increase or decrease in income, demand or supply causes (or requires) a larger increase or decrease in relative (percentage) terms in “induced” investments (see Accelerator). Subsequently, this principle was developed in more detail by R. Harrod
(UK), J. Hicks ,
P. Samuelson (USA) and included in neo-Keynesian models of economic growth (see Economic growth theory). The economic concept of left Keynesianism is substantiated in the works of J. Robinson (USA). Econometric concepts have become widespread. One of the most common varieties of modern apologetic bourgeois theories are the theories of “transformation of capitalism”, for example the concept of “stages of development of society” by W. Rostow (USA), “a single industrial society"R. Aron (France), "new industrial society" J. Galbraith (USA), theory " post-industrial society» D. Bell (USA). Modern bourgeois P. e. is experiencing a deep crisis. One of its manifestations is the emergence of convergence theory (See Convergence theory) ,
according to which there is a gradual convergence of two systems: socialism and capitalism. The most prominent representatives of this theory, J. Galbraith, J. Tinbergen (Netherlands), R. Aron, refuse to proclaim capitalism as the eternal and best social system and call for taking everything “good” that exists in the capitalist and socialist systems. At the same time, they turn to purely external similar moments or processes occurring directly in the material and technical sphere (the development of the modern scientific and technological revolution and the growth of large-scale industry, elements of indicative, i.e., recommendatory, planning in capitalist countries, the use of commodity-money relations and their characteristic categories in socialist countries, etc.). Proponents of the theory of convergence ignore the fundamental opposition between socialism and capitalism; domination is fundamentally excellent relationship ownership of the means of production, fundamental differences in social structure society and in order to develop social production, the presence of exploitation of man by man in the capitalist world and its complete elimination under socialism. The crisis of modern bourgeois P. e. also manifests itself in the appearance in capitalist countries of the so-called. radical P. e., whose representatives reject the traditional dogmas of bourgeois scientists and, in a number of cases, carry out useful practical research. The vitality of petty-bourgeois P. e. during the period of the general crisis of capitalism is explained by the presence in many countries of significant layers petty bourgeoisie(See petty bourgeoisie) (peasants, artisans, small traders, etc.). IN developing countries petty-bourgeois political economy, which exposes colonialism and neocolonialism and the domination of foreign monopolies and supports an independent path of development, can play a certain progressive role. The proletarian political economy created by K. Marx and F. Engels, while truly scientific, is at the same time consistently party. It inherits and develops the best achievements of previous economic thought. K. Marx and F. Engels carried out the development of P. e. a revolutionary revolution, the essence of which was the application of a materialist understanding of history to economic life, the discovery of objective laws of social development and the creation of a theory of surplus value (See Surplus Value) -
«... cornerstone economic theory of Marx" (Lenin V.I., ibid., p. 45). K. Marx was the first to scientifically prove the historical limitations and transitory nature of the capitalist mode of production. He discovered and comprehensively studied the laws of motion of capitalism. A brilliant economic analysis of the capitalist system allowed K. Marx to make a discovery of world-historical significance - about the inevitability of the revolutionary collapse of capitalism and the transition of society from capitalism to communism, about the historical mission of the proletariat as the gravedigger of capitalism and the creator of a new, communist society. Initially Marxist (proletarian) P. e. arose as a science that studies the production relations of the capitalist mode of production (Pe. in the narrow sense). Gradually, with the accumulation of knowledge about the methods of production that preceded capitalism, industrial economics emerged. in a broad sense, studying the relations of production of historically successive modes of production. A new stage in the development of Marxist political economy. associated with the works of V.I. Lenin, who creatively developed general theory P. e. based on new historical experience of social development. Lenin created the doctrine of monopoly capitalism (imperialism), revealed its economic essence and main features. Based on an analysis of the effect of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism, the law in the era of imperialism Lenin concluded that the victory of socialism was initially possible in several or even in one individual country, and developed it in relation to the new historical era Marxist theory socialist revolution. Lenin's greatest contribution to the economic theory of Marxism lies in his creation of the foundations of economic economics. socialism. He developed a complete theory about the transition period from capitalism to socialism (See), about the ways to build a socialist economy, about socialist industrialization, about the socialist reorganization of agriculture through the production cooperation of peasant farms (see V.I. Lenin’s Cooperative Plan), about the economic the basis of socialism, the forms and methods of socialist management. Lenin developed the Marxist teaching about the two phases of communist society, about the transition from the first to the second - the highest phase, about the essence and ways of creating the material and technical base of communism (See Material and technical base of communism) ,
on the formation of communist production relations. Lenin defined the main content of the modern era as the era of humanity’s transition from capitalism to socialism, and foresaw the formation of a world system of socialism (See World system of socialism), which would have a decisive impact on all world development. Marxist P. e. - creative, constantly developing science. It received its further development in the theoretical activities of the CPSU and fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties, in documents jointly developed by the communist and workers' parties at international meetings. Significant contribution to the development of current problems of P. e. contributed by Marxist scientists of the Soviet Union and other countries. Marxist P. e. seriously enriched by research into the general crisis of capitalism and its new, modern stage, analysis of the forms and methods of state-monopoly regulation of the economy, study of the problems of the world capitalist economy, and the currency crisis. Significant works have been written on the economic problems of the Third World countries. The theory of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism was further developed, the analysis of the system of economic laws and categories of socialism was deepened, the position of a developed socialist society and the peculiarities of its economy was put forward and substantiated, the scientific foundations of the economic policy of a socialist state were developed, the doctrine of creating a material and technical base was concretized communism, the theory of socialist economic integration is substantiated and successfully developed. II. Subject and method of Marxist political economy P. e. - one of the components of Marxism-Leninism (together with philosophy and scientific communism). V.I. Lenin wrote that “the most profound, comprehensive and detailed confirmation and application of Marx’s theory is his economic doctrine"(ibid., vol. 26, p. 60). The subject of study is Marxist (proletarian) political economy. are Industrial relations ,
characteristic of various, historically successive methods of production (See Method of Production). The theoretical expression of objectively existing relations of production are economic categories (See Economic category). The most general, recurring, internal cause-and-effect relationships of economic phenomena and processes are expressed in economic laws (See Economic laws). In the system of production relations, relations of ownership of the means of production are identified as the basis of all other economic relations. Industrial relations are studied by P. e. in organic unity with the productive forces that determine them (See Productive forces) and the superstructure of the corresponding society. With the development of social production and the complication of economic relations, the subject of industrial economics expands. In modern conditions P. e. cannot be limited to the study of production relations only within the framework of one or another mode of production. Deepening of the global division of labor, development of economic and political relations between countries of different socio-economic systems, economic competition between socialism and capitalism, expanding international economic cooperation -
all this makes it necessary to develop the economic problems of the world economy. These include: ways and forms of influence of world socialism on the development of the non-socialist part of the world, the nature of economic relations between countries of different systems and prospects for their development, characteristics of the structure and social nature of economic relations and economic laws operating in the world economy. Here lies one of the main directions of further creative development Marxist-Leninist P. e. Identification of production relations as a subject of P. e. - the greatest merit of Marxism. Bourgeois P. e. I couldn't rise to that level. She studied the isolated processes of production, distribution, exchange and consumption, often replacing the analysis of economic relations with the study of the technical side of social production, legal institutions and psychological factors. Marxism created and truly scientific method knowledge - the method of materialist dialectics (see Dialectical materialism) and applied it to the study of production relations of society. Dialectical materialism sees the only criterion of truth in the correspondence of the conclusions obtained by science to objective reality. This determines the creative nature of Marxist philosophy. In the process of learning P. e. takes a specific economic phenomenon as the initial one and, with the help of scientific abstraction, cuts off everything secondary, random, everything that characterizes it external signs, and step by step reveals the essence of economic processes. In the process of further movement of scientific thought, an ascent from the abstract to the concrete, from simple to complex occurs, a system of economic categories and laws is presented and analyzed. The method of scientific abstraction requires the study of economic relations in their most developed form, that is, when they reach the highest degree of maturity, and at the same time assumes that they are considered in a state of movement, development, and not in a frozen form. Method P. e. uses general philosophical techniques scientific knowledge: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, unity of logical and historical approaches. The Marxist dialectical method requires the unity of qualitative and quantitative analysis of economic processes, in which primacy remains with qualitative, socio-economic analysis. The consistent application of the dialectical method also involves enriching the research process with modern scientific achievements (system analysis, the use of economic and mathematical models, etc.). P. e. as science has a class, party character, for it studies relations of production, closely related to economic interests classes (proletariat, bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie). The coincidence of the interests of the working class with the interests of the majority of the population and their correspondence to the needs of the progressive development of the productive forces allows Marxist political economy. combine partisanship, direct and open defense of the interests of the proletariat with scientific objectivity. P. e. - an ideological weapon in the hands of the working class in the struggle to overthrow capitalism and build a communist society. III. Political economy of pre-capitalist formations Exploring the capitalist mode of production and revealing its historically transitory nature, Marx and Engels, on the basis of the knowledge accumulated by science, in particular the works of L. G. Morgan (USA), laid the foundation for economic development. pre-capitalist formations. These issues are addressed in the work of K. Marx “Forms preceding the capitalist mode of production”, which is part of his economic manuscripts of 1858-59, and in particular the work of F. Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”.
Important contribution to P. e. pre-capitalist formations were introduced by V.I. Lenin (work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”).
P. e. pre-capitalist formations includes P. e. primitive communal, slaveholding and feudal system. It studies, first of all, the historical process of the emergence and development of production and exchange, private property and classes, necessary and surplus product, and explores the economic laws governing the development of production, distribution of exchange and consumption at these historical stages of development human society, shows the decisive role of ownership of the means of production (and the worker) in the system of industrial relations. Such an analysis reveals the historical nature of economic categories and laws, in particular the historical nature of the emergence and existence of private property. Under the primitive communal system (See Primitive communal system), on the basis of the primitive development of productive forces, there was public (tribal, tribal) ownership of the means of production and equal distribution. With the improvement of tools and the accumulation of labor skills and experience of the worker, as well as with the development of societies. The division of labor gradually increased labor productivity, at first sporadically, and then regularly a surplus product appeared. The decomposition of the primitive communal system began, private property appeared, society split into antagonistic classes, the State arose as an apparatus of coercion, oppression and violence in the hands of the ruling class. The basis of production relations under the slave-owning system (See Slave-owning system) is formed by the slave-owning form of ownership of the means of production and full ownership of the worker - slave. The connection of the means of production with labor power is carried out on the basis of non-economic coercion (See Non-economic coercion). The production of surplus product through the exploitation of a slave is regular. The entire surplus product, as well as a significant part of what is necessary, is appropriated free of charge by the slave-owning class. The gradual improvement of the tools of labor increasingly came into conflict with the slave-owning form of ownership, with the complete disinterest of the worker in the results of his labor. During the period of disintegration of the slave system, transitional type farms arise in which the worker, remaining the property of his owner, gains independence in the use of the means of production. Feudal dependence is replacing slavery.
The surplus value created by the labor of wage workers is distributed among various groups of capitalists and takes the form of profit (entrepreneurial income), trading profit and loan interest. A specific form of surplus value in agriculture is land rent, and in the mining industry - mining rent. Capitalist way production leads to a significant increase in productive forces based on the use of machinery, the size of enterprises grows, and the social division of labor deepens. The growth of socialization of production and the development of productive forces is the historical mission of capitalism. At the same time, the dominance of private capitalist ownership of the means of production at a certain stage becomes an obstacle to the further development of productive forces. The main contradiction of capitalism is deepening - between the social nature of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation. Objective laws of development require the resolution of this contradiction: the replacement of the capitalist mode of production with a communist one based on public property for the means of production. At the same time, within the framework of the bourgeois system, a force is growing that is capable of carrying out this replacement - the working class. In the 2nd decade of the 20th century. In connection with the First World War of 1914-18 and the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, a general crisis of capitalism arises, covering the capitalist system as a whole, its economy, politics, and ideology. It reflects the further growth of the contradictions of capitalism, the process of gradual falling away from the world capitalist system of more and more countries, the formation and growth of the world system of socialism. In the era of the general crisis of capitalism, the colonial system of imperialism is collapsing. The current stage in the development of the capitalist mode of production is characterized by the growth of state-monopoly capitalism (See State-monopoly capitalism) ,
combining the power of the state with the power of monopolies. State-monopoly regulation of the economy, its forecasting and programming are developing. State-monopoly capitalism, being a new stage in the socialization of production, further aggravates the main contradiction of capitalism. Before Marxist scientists developing the theory of political economy. modern capitalism, there are tasks associated with a deep analysis of new phenomena and processes in the development of the economy of modern capitalism, occurring, in particular, under the influence of the modern scientific and technological revolution, with the study of the mechanism of influence of the bourgeois state on the processes of social reproduction and modification of the economic cycle, price movements , inflation and currency relations. V. Political economy of socialism P. e. socialism - part of P. e. the communist mode of production as a whole. It studies the production relations of a mixed economy in the transition period from capitalism to socialism (See Transition period from capitalism to socialism) ,
reveals the patterns of development of social production inherent in the first phase of the communist mode of production (the system of socialist production relations, the operation of economic laws, their use in the practice of planned management of the national economy), and also studies the features of their manifestation at certain stages of the development of socialism itself. The construction of a developed socialist society in the USSR, characterized by a high degree of maturity of the material and technical base and the system of industrial relations, creates conditions for the most complete and consistent study and use of the advantages of socialism. The maturity of socialist production relations, their achievement of the highest stage of development, is an important prerequisite for further in-depth analysis of their essence and forms of manifestation. The main object of study of P. e. socialism are the production relations of socialism and, above all, the underlying social socialist ownership of the means of production, which characterizes the method of appropriating material and spiritual benefits in the interests of the working masses. In the USSR and other socialist countries, public socialist property exists in two forms - state and cooperative. The dominance of public socialist property and the formation on its basis of united national interests determine the direction of development of socialist production - its subordination to the interests of increasingly complete satisfaction of the material and spiritual needs of the people, the comprehensive development of all members of society. This finds expression in the basic economic law of socialism (See Basic Economic Law of Socialism).
Social ownership of the means of production also determines the emergence and operation of the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy, which characterizes the possibility and necessity of coordinated activity of society, the anticipation of the results of this activity, the planned management of social production, including the conscious development of goals of economic development and ways to achieve them. P. e. socialism studies the features of the operation of economic laws under socialism that are characteristic of all or a number of socio-economic formations: saving time, law, increasing needs, law, accelerated (predominant) growth of production of means of production, law (See priority growth of production of means of production, law).
An important place in P. e. Socialism is concerned with the study of commodity-money relations and the economic laws inherent in them (the law of value, the laws of monetary circulation, etc.). Commodity-money relations under the conditions of the first phase of communism have a new, socialist content. They are systematically used by the socialist state at all stages and stages of socialist expanded reproduction, both within the framework of the national economy of each country, and in economic relations between the countries of the world system of socialism. The systematic use of categories of commodity production is the basis of economic calculation. P. e. socialism studies the categories and laws inherent in social reproduction as a whole, as well as its individual spheres: production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Particular attention at the present stage of socialist construction is paid to the analysis of the relationship between two divisions of social production, the relationship between extensive and intensive factors of economic growth, the problems of increasing the efficiency of production and the entire economy as a whole based on accelerating the pace of scientific and technological progress, improving the organization of production and improving the management and planning of everything economic mechanism. P. e. socialism reveals the socio-economic aspects of the modern scientific and technological revolution under socialism. Planned management of the national economy under socialism is based on the knowledge and use of a system of objective economic laws, which ensures the organic unity of theory and practice, the development scientific foundations economic policy of the party and state. P. e. socialism studies the system of planned management of the socialist economy, a system in which the directive tasks of planning bodies and economic levers of influence on production (price, credit, wages, profit, etc.) are organically combined. A comprehensive study of the management of social production is carried out in close cooperation with representatives of economic and other sciences (law, sociology, etc.). With the establishment of socialist ownership, the state turns into a body that systematically manages the development of the national economy. P. e. socialism studies the economic role and functions of the state, forms and methods of socialist management. The formation of a world socialist economy brings to life a new sphere of production relations - international socialist economic relations. The study of these relations and the laws inherent to them, the process of internationalization of production, and socialist economic integration significantly enriches pedagogical economics. socialism. Along with P. e. an extensive system of economic sciences is developing: general economics (national economic planning, economic management theory, statistics, etc.), functional (finance and credit, labor economics, pricing, etc.) and sectoral (industrial economics, agricultural economics, transport economics, etc. .). P. e. forms the theoretical and methodological foundation of the entire system of economic sciences. The successful development of economic sciences is possible only when they are based on the theoretical foundations and conclusions of Marxist-Leninist economics. In turn, P. e. enriched with factual material that accumulates in the course of the development of specific economic sciences. The development of the scientific foundations of economic policy and planned management of the national economy is the practical function of economic economics. socialism. This development is the more successful the deeper science penetrates into the essence of socialist production relations and laws and the more fully it reveals their system. Along with this, P. e. socialism performs important ideological functions - it serves as one of the main means of forming a communist worldview, equips workers with knowledge of the fundamental differences and advantages of the socialist economic system over the capitalist one, provides a clear orientation in the events of economic and political life and instills confidence in the inevitable triumph of communism. Study of P. e. socialism occupies a central place in the system of economic education of working people. Practical and ideological functions of P. e. are in organic unity, mutually complementing each other. Considering the important and ever-increasing role of P. e. in the construction of socialism and communism, the CPSU is constantly concerned about its further development. The Party focuses the attention of economists on developing the most effective forms and methods of using objective economic laws in the practice of planned management of the national economy, on improving long-term long-term planning, problems of accelerating scientific and technological progress, intensifying and fully increasing the efficiency of social production, as well as on the most important issues of the development of socialist economic integration. Lit.: Marx K., Towards a critique of political economy, Marx K. and Engels F., Works, 2nd ed., vol. 13; his own. Capital, vol. 1-3, ibid., vol. 23, 24, 25; his, Theory of Surplus Value, (IV volume of “Capital”), ibid., vol. 26; his own. Criticism of the Gotha Program, ibid., vol. 191; Engels F., Origin of the family, private property and the state, ibid., vol. 21; his, Anti-Dühring, ibid., vol. 20; Lenin V.I., Regarding the so-called question of markets, Complete. collection cit., 5th ed., vol. 1; him, Development of capitalism in Russia, ibid., vol. 3; his own. Karl Marx, ibid., vol. 26; his own. Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, ibid., vol. 27; his own. State and Revolution, ibid., vol. 33; him, Immediate tasks Soviet power, ibid., t. 36; his own. The Great Initiative, ibid., vol. 39; his own. Economics and politics in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat, ibid.; him, On a unified economic plan, ibid., vol. 42; him, On the food tax, ibid., vol. 43; him, On the significance of gold now and after the complete victory of socialism, ibid., vol. 44; him, On Cooperation, ibid., vol. 45. Program Communist Party Soviet Union, M., 1974; Materials of the XXIV Congress of the CPSU, M., 1971; Political Economy. Textbook, M., 1954; Political Economy, Part 1 - The Capitalist Mode of Production, ed. A. M. Rumyantseva, M., 1973; Political economy of socialism. Uch. allowance, 2nd ed., M., 1971; Political economy of modern monopoly capitalism, vol. 1-2, M., 1970; Course of Political Economy, 2nd ed., ed. N. A. Tsagolov, vol. 1-2, M., 1970; Cherkovets V.N., On the methodological principles of political economy as a scientific system, M., 1965; Rumyantsev A.M., On the categories and laws of political economy of the communist formation, 2nd ed., M., 1966; Pagikov A.I., Economic problems of socialism, M., 1970; Abalkin L.I., Political economy and economic policy, M., 1970; his, Economic laws of socialism, M., 1971; Ostrovityanov K.V., Selected works, vol. 1-Political economy of pre-socialist formations, vol. 2-Issues of the political economy of socialism, M., 1972-73. Political science. Dictionary. - POLITICAL ECONOMY, a science that studies the foundations of social production, the laws of its functioning and development, problems of production, distribution, exchange, consumption of material goods at various stages of social development. Term... ... Modern encyclopedia
First of all, about the origin of the word “political economy”. It consists of the Greek sZyuv: "politeia", which means social order, and “oikonomia”, which in turn was formed as a result of the merger of two words: “oikos” - household and “nomos” - law. In the literal sense, the word “political economy” means the science of economic laws.
As an independent science, political economy began to develop with the emergence of capitalism - from the 16th century. Bourgeois scientists have made many attempts to define the subject of this science. To the greatest extent, issues of political economy were developed by the classics of bourgeois political economy, and primarily by the English scientists A. Smith and D. Ricardo.
But political economy became a true science after the revolutionary revolution carried out in it by the great teachers of the working class, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Where bourgeois economists considered economic phenomena - goods, money, capital - as relations between things, Marx revealed the relations between people, classes, relations that develop in the process of producing material goods. Marxist political economy provides the only correct, scientific explanation for the phenomena of the economic life of society.
The great successor of the work of K. Marx and F. Engels, V. I. Lenin, further developed Marxist economic teaching. Summarizing new experience economic and political development humanity, he created the doctrine of imperialism as the last stage of the development of capitalism.
Marxist-Leninist political economy studies the relationships that develop between people in the process of producing material goods, that is, production relations, the laws of their development.
But production relations exist in mutual connection with the productive forces. Therefore, political economy studies production relations as a form of development of the productive forces of each socio-economic formation. It reveals the internal contradiction between these two sides of a particular mode of production as the source of its movement.
Political economy is a historical science, since it examines economic relations in their emergence, development and disappearance. …Political economy,” wrote F. Engels, “is essentially a historical science. It deals with historical, i.e., constantly changing material; it investigates first of all the special laws of each individual stage of development of production and exchange, and only at the end of this study can it establish a few, completely general laws, applicable to production and exchange in general.”
We have published books whose theme is various questions: “Political economy of capitalism”, “Political economy of socialism”, “Political economy of pre-capitalist formations”. But this does not mean at all that there are different sciences - one for capitalism, another for socialism, etc. Marxist political economy- unified science, which studies the production relations of each mode of production in accordance with its specific economic laws. This is the task of political economy, to reveal the content of these laws, to show the nature of the production relations of a given method of production and its connection with the past and future development of mankind.
So, political economy is the science of the development of human relations of production. It clarifies the economic laws of development: production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods at various stages of social development.
Political economy is a class, party science. It cannot be otherwise: by clarifying the essence of production relations, it reveals the reason for the origin of classes, the content of class interests, and thereby shows the inevitability of struggle between classes with irreconcilable interests. The laws and conclusions of political economy affect the fundamental interests of all classes. And it is quite natural that each class interprets economic phenomena in its own way.
In a capitalist society there are two main classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Accordingly, bourgeois political economy and proletarian political economy were formed. The existence of various groups of the petty bourgeoisie determined the emergence of petty-bourgeois political economy.
During the period of struggle against feudalism, the bourgeoisie was the advanced class. Then she was interested in scientific coverage of economic phenomena, since her class interests coincided with the objective course of historical development.
But, having become the ruling class of society, the bourgeoisie ceased to be progressive. When the working class entered the historical arena, the bourgeoisie and its economists were interested in only one thing - to defend the capitalist system. Bourgeois political economy has become unscientific, reactionary, and vulgar. Dozens of different “schools” and “trends” of modern bourgeois political economy set themselves one single goal - to hide the contradictions of capitalism and thereby whitewash the bourgeois system. Lenin pointed out that “not a single professor of political economy, capable of giving the most valuable works in the field of factual, special research, can be trusted in a single word when it comes to the general theory of political economy. For this latter is the same party science in modern society, as well as epistemology. In general, professors of economics are nothing more than learned clerks of the capitalist class, and professors of philosophy are learned clerks of theologians.”
The proletariat - the most advanced class of society - is vitally interested in the progressive development of humanity. This is explained by the fact that the class interests of the proletariat express the interests of the progressive development of society. That is why proletarian, Marxist political economy is the only scientific one, since it objectively and truthfully reveals the laws of economic development of society.
Political Economy.
P. e. - a science that studies social relations that develop in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods, and the economic laws that govern their development in historically successive socio-economic formations.
Name P. e. comes from the Greek words politikós - state, public and oikonomía - household management (from óikos - house, household and nómos - law). The term "P. e." was introduced by the French mercantilist A. Montchretien in his work “Treatise of Political Economy” (1615).
I. The emergence and development of political economy
The study of economic processes and phenomena originated within the framework of a single and undivided science of antiquity. Formation of P. e. as an independent science relates to the period of formation of capitalism. The first attempts to comprehend the phenomena of capitalism and substantiate the economic policy of the state were made by representatives of mercantilism, reflecting the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie, primarily the commercial one. Mercantilism studied mainly foreign trade (circulation), seeing in it the main source of wealth; they justified the policy of protectionism. However, only the transfer of analysis from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of production and the study of its internal laws marked the beginning of P. e. like science.
At its highest development, bourgeois P. e. achieved in the works of representatives of classical bourgeois political economy: W. Petty, A. Smith and D. Ricardo (Great Britain), P. Boisguillebert, F. Quesnay (France). They made an attempt to study the objective laws of the development of capitalism, to find out the economic content of goods, value, money, wages, profit and rent. The head of the school of physiocrats, F. Quesnay, in his “Economic Table” (1758), first presented the process of capitalist reproduction as a whole (see Quesnay’s Economic Table). The merit of classical bourgeois P. e. in that it laid the foundation for the labor theory of value. This theory was most consistently revealed by D. Ricardo, who on its basis showed the opposition of profit and wages, profit and rent. According to V.I. Lenin’s description, classical bourgeois P. e. - one of the sources of Marxism (see Complete collection of works, 5th ed., vol. 23, pp. 40-43). Classic bourgeois P. e. expressed the ideology of the bourgeoisie during the period of the formation of the capitalist mode of production and the undeveloped class struggle of the proletariat (18th century). The critical content of the theory was directed mainly against outdated feudal orders. The establishment of the capitalist mode of production, the exacerbation of its contradictions, the growing antagonism between wage labor and capital, the transformation of the bourgeoisie from a progressive class into a reactionary one served as the basis for the emergence of vulgar political economy (30s of the 19th century).
Vulgar P. e. originates in the works of T. R. Malthus (Great Britain), J. B. Say and F. Bastiat (France). She refuses to analyze the objective laws of development of the capitalist mode of production. but explores the area of underlying economic phenomena. Vulgar P. e. denies the theory of labor value: Sey declared “three factors of production” to be the sources of value: labor, capital and land. Denying the contradictions of capitalism, vulgar P. e. proclaimed the “harmony” of class interests.
The economic interests and views of small commodity producers in town and countryside in capitalist society are expressed by petty-bourgeois political economy. Its emergence is associated with the works of J. S. L. S. Sismondi (Switzerland) and P. J. Proudhon (France), who criticized the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. However, they saw the way out of these contradictions not in moving forward, towards socialism, but in returning to outdated, archaic forms of economic life. With the development of capitalism, petty-bourgeois P. e. is becoming more and more utopian and reactionary. In the 2nd half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. in bourgeois P. e. Several schools are emerging. The Austrian school (K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Wieser) put forward the theory of marginal utility of goods, according to which the value of economic goods is determined by the benefit brought by the last (marginal) unit of the supply, and also depends on their rarity ( see marginal utility theory) . In Great Britain, the Cambridge school emerged, whose founder, A. Marshall, eclectically combined the vulgar theories of production costs, supply and demand, productivity and abstinence with the theories of marginal utility and marginal productivity. In the USA, J.B. Clark formulated the theory of marginal productivity and derived the “universal law” of diminishing productivity of factors of production (see Productivity theory) , According to which, as a factor increases, its productivity decreases. This served as a theoretical justification for reducing workers' wages and proof of the need for unemployment. The entry of capitalism into the stage of imperialism and the development of the general crisis of capitalism caused profound changes in bourgeois political economy. During this period, two main functions of bourgeois political economy began to become more and more apparent: defense of the capitalist system and proof of its inviolability and eternity, in the form of a pronounced apologetics of capitalism, and the development of practical measures for state-monopoly regulation of production. The beginning of a new stage in bourgeois P. e. associated with the works of J. M. Keynes (Great Britain) and, above all, with the appearance of his main opus. "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" (1936). Keynes showed the inability of the mechanism of free competition to cope with the productive forces and initiated the development of the concept of regulated capitalism (see regulated capitalism theory) . Keynesianism has become the main direction of modern bourgeois economics. In 1913 A. Aftalion (France) and in 1919 J. M. Clark (USA) put forward the “acceleration principle”, according to which each increase or decrease in income, demand or supply causes (or requires) a larger increase in relative (percentage) terms or reduction of “induced” investments (see Accelerator) . Subsequently, this principle was developed in more detail by R. Harrod (Great Britain), J. Hicks, P. Samuelson (USA) and included in neo-Keynesian models of economic growth (see Economic growth theory) . The economic concept of left Keynesianism is substantiated in the works of J. Robinson (USA). Econometric concepts have become widespread. One of the most common varieties of modern apologetic bourgeois theories are the theories of “transformation of capitalism”, for example the concept of “stages of development of society” by W. Rostow (USA), “unified industrial society” by R. Aron (France), “new industrial society” by J. Galbraith (USA), theory of “post-industrial society” by D. Bell (USA).
Modern bourgeois P. e. is experiencing a deep crisis. One of its manifestations is the emergence of convergence theory, according to which there is a gradual rapprochement of two systems: socialism and capitalism. The most prominent representatives of this theory, J. Galbraith, J. Tinbergen (Netherlands), and R. Aron, refuse to proclaim capitalism as the eternal and best social system and call for taking everything “good” that exists in the capitalist and socialist systems. At the same time, they turn to purely external similar moments or processes occurring directly in the material and technical sphere (the development of the modern scientific and technological revolution and the growth of large-scale industry, elements of indicative, i.e., recommendatory, planning in capitalist countries, the use of commodity-money relations and their characteristic categories in socialist countries, etc.). Proponents of the theory of convergence ignore the fundamental opposition between socialism and capitalism, the dominance of fundamentally different relations of ownership of the means of production, fundamental differences in the social structure of society and in the development of social production, the presence of exploitation of man by man in the capitalist world and its complete elimination under socialism.
The crisis of modern bourgeois P. e. also manifests itself in the appearance in capitalist countries of the so-called. radical P. e., whose representatives reject the traditional dogmas of bourgeois scientists and, in a number of cases, carry out useful practical research. The vitality of petty-bourgeois P. e. during the period of the general crisis of capitalism is explained by the presence in many countries of significant layers of the petty bourgeoisie (peasants, artisans, small traders, etc.). In developing countries, petty-bourgeois political ideology, which exposes colonialism and neocolonialism and the domination of foreign monopolies and supports an independent path of development, can play a certain progressive role.
The proletarian political economy created by K. Marx and F. Engels, while truly scientific, is at the same time consistently party. It inherits and develops the best achievements of previous economic thought. K. Marx and F. Engels carried out the development of P. e. a revolutionary revolution, the essence of which was the application of a materialist understanding of history to economic life, the discovery of objective laws of social development and the creation of a theory of surplus value - “... the cornerstone of Marx’s economic theory” (V.I. Lenin, ibid., p. 45). K. Marx was the first to scientifically prove the historical limitations and transitory nature of the capitalist mode of production. He discovered and comprehensively studied the laws of motion of capitalism. A brilliant economic analysis of the capitalist system allowed K. Marx to make a discovery of world-historical significance - about the inevitability of the revolutionary collapse of capitalism and the transition of society from capitalism to communism, about the historical mission of the proletariat as the gravedigger of capitalism and the creator of a new, communist society.
Initially Marxist (proletarian) P. e. arose as a science that studies the production relations of the capitalist mode of production (Pe. in the narrow sense). Gradually, with the accumulation of knowledge about the methods of production that preceded capitalism, industrial economics emerged. in a broad sense, studying the relations of production of historically successive modes of production.
A new stage in the development of Marxist political economy. associated with the works of V. I. Lenin, who creatively developed the general theory of P. e. based on new historical experience of social development. Lenin created the doctrine of monopoly capitalism (imperialism), revealed its economic essence and main features. Based on an analysis of the effect of the uneven economic and political development of capitalism of law in the era of imperialism, Lenin concluded that the victory of socialism was initially possible in several or even in one individual country, and developed the Marxist theory of socialist revolution in relation to the new historical era.
Lenin's greatest contribution to the economic theory of Marxism lies in his creation of the foundations of economic economics. socialism. He developed a complete theory about the transition period from capitalism to socialism, about the ways to build a socialist economy, about socialist industrialization, about the socialist reorganization of agriculture through the production cooperation of peasant farms (see V.I. Lenin’s Cooperative Plan), about the economic basis of socialism, about forms and methods of socialist management. Lenin developed the Marxist teaching about the two phases of communist society, about the transition from the first to the second - the highest phase, about the essence and ways of creating the material and technical base of communism, about the formation of communist production relations. Lenin defined the main content of the modern era as the era of humanity's transition from capitalism to socialism, and foresaw the formation of a world system of socialism, which would have a decisive impact on all world development.
Marxist P. e. - creative, constantly developing science. It received its further development in the theoretical activities of the CPSU and fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties, in documents jointly developed by the communist and workers' parties at international meetings. Significant contribution to the development of current problems of P. e. contributed by Marxist scientists of the Soviet Union and other countries.
Marxist P. e. seriously enriched by research into the general crisis of capitalism and its new, modern stage, analysis of the forms and methods of state-monopoly regulation of the economy, study of the problems of the world capitalist economy, and the currency crisis. Significant works have been written on the economic problems of the Third World countries. The theory of the revolutionary transition from capitalism to socialism was further developed, the analysis of the system of economic laws and categories of socialism was deepened, the position of a developed socialist society and the peculiarities of its economy was put forward and substantiated, the scientific foundations of the economic policy of a socialist state were developed, the doctrine of creating a material and technical base was concretized communism, the theory of socialist economic integration is substantiated and successfully developed.
II. Subject and method of Marxist political economy
P. e. - one of the components of Marxism-Leninism (together with philosophy and scientific communism). V.I. Lenin wrote that “the most profound, comprehensive and detailed confirmation and application of Marx’s theory is his economic teaching” (ibid., vol. 26, p. 60).
The subject of study is Marxist (proletarian) political economy. are the production relations inherent in different, historically successive modes of production. Economic categories are the theoretical expression of objectively existing relations of production. The most general, repeating, internal cause-and-effect relationships of economic phenomena and processes are expressed in economic laws. In the system of production relations, relations of ownership of the means of production are identified as the basis of all other economic relations. Industrial relations are studied by P. e. in organic unity with the productive forces that determine them and the superstructure of the corresponding society. With the development of social production and the complication of economic relations, the subject of industrial economics expands. In modern conditions P. e. cannot be limited to the study of production relations only within the framework of one or another mode of production. The deepening of the global division of labor, the development of economic and political relations between countries of different socio-economic systems, economic competition between socialism and capitalism, expanding international economic cooperation - all this makes it necessary to develop the economic problems of the world economy. These include: ways and forms of influence of world socialism on the development of the non-socialist part of the world, the nature of economic relations between countries of different systems and prospects for their development, characteristics of the structure and social nature of economic relations and economic laws operating in the world economy. Here lies one of the main directions of the further creative development of Marxist-Leninist poetry.
Identification of production relations as a subject of P. e. - the greatest merit of Marxism. Bourgeois P. e. I couldn't rise to that level. She studied the isolated processes of production, distribution, exchange and consumption, often replacing the analysis of economic relations with the study of the technical side of social production, legal institutions and psychological factors.
Marxism also created a truly scientific method of knowledge - the method of materialist dialectics (see Dialectical materialism) and applied it to the study of the production relations of society. Dialectical materialism sees the only criterion of truth in the correspondence of the conclusions obtained by science to objective reality. This determines the creative nature of Marxist philosophy. In the process of learning P. e. takes a specific economic phenomenon as the initial one and, with the help of scientific abstraction, cuts off everything secondary, random, everything that characterizes its external signs, and step by step reveals the essence of economic processes. In the process of further movement of scientific thought, an ascent from the abstract to the concrete, from simple to complex occurs, a system of economic categories and laws is presented and analyzed. The method of scientific abstraction requires the study of economic relations in their most developed form, that is, when they reach the highest degree of maturity, and at the same time assumes that they are considered in a state of movement, development, and not in a frozen form.
Method P. e. uses general philosophical methods of scientific knowledge: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, the unity of logical and historical approaches.
The Marxist dialectical method requires the unity of qualitative and quantitative analysis of economic processes, in which primacy remains with qualitative, socio-economic analysis. The consistent application of the dialectical method also involves enriching the research process with modern scientific achievements (system analysis, the use of economic and mathematical models, etc.).
P. e. as a science it has a class, party character, for it studies relations of production that are closely related to the economic interests of classes (the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie). The coincidence of the interests of the working class with the interests of the majority of the population and their correspondence to the needs of the progressive development of the productive forces allows Marxist political economy. combine partisanship, direct and open defense of the interests of the proletariat with scientific objectivity. P. e. - an ideological weapon in the hands of the working class in the struggle to overthrow capitalism and build a communist society.
III. Political economy of pre-capitalist formations
Exploring the capitalist mode of production and revealing its historically transitory nature, Marx and Engels, on the basis of the knowledge accumulated by science, in particular the works of L. G. Morgan (USA), laid the foundation for economic development. pre-capitalist formations. These issues are addressed in the work of K. Marx, “Forms Preceding the Capitalist Mode of Production,” which is part of his economic manuscripts of 1858-59, and especially in the work of F. Engels, “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.” An important contribution to economics. pre-capitalist formations were introduced by V.I. Lenin (work “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”).
P. e. pre-capitalist formations includes P. e. primitive communal, slave and feudal systems. It studies, first of all, the historical process of the emergence and development of production and exchange, private property and classes, necessary and surplus product, explores the economic laws governing the development of production, distribution of exchange and consumption at these historical stages of development of human society, shows the decisive role of ownership of the means of production (and on the employee) in the system of industrial relations. Such an analysis reveals the historical nature of economic categories and laws, in particular the historical nature of the emergence and existence of private property.
Under the primitive communal system, on the basis of the primitive development of productive forces, there was public (tribal, tribal) ownership of the means of production and equal distribution. With the improvement of tools and the accumulation of labor skills and experience of the worker, as well as with the development of societies. The division of labor gradually increased labor productivity, at first sporadically, and then regularly a surplus product appeared. The decomposition of the primitive communal system began, private property appeared, society split into antagonistic classes, the state arose as an apparatus of coercion, oppression and violence in the hands of the ruling class.
The basis of production relations under the slave-owning system is formed by the slave-owning form of ownership of the means of production and full ownership of the worker - slave. The connection of the means of production with the labor force is carried out on the basis of non-economic coercion. the production of surplus product through the exploitation of a slave is regular. The entire surplus product, as well as a significant part of what is necessary, is appropriated free of charge by the slave-owning class. The gradual improvement of the tools of labor increasingly came into conflict with the slave-owning form of ownership, with the complete disinterest of the worker in the results of his labor. During the period of disintegration of the slave system, transitional type farms arise in which the worker, remaining the property of his owner, gains independence in the use of the means of production. Feudal dependence is replacing slavery.
Under feudalism, the basis of production relations is formed by feudal ownership of the means of production and partial ownership of the worker - the peasant. The feudal mode of production is also based on the use of relatively simple technology. The surplus product appropriated as a result of the exploitation of feudally dependent peasants appears in the form of feudal rent (labor rent, food rent, cash rent). The development of commodity-money relations and the growth of guild production in cities gradually disintegrated the foundations of the feudal mode of production. The developing productive forces became cramped within the framework of feudal production relations.
The period of disintegration of the feudal mode of production is at the same time the period of primitive accumulation of capital. At this time, the main prerequisites for the capitalist mode of production are created: money capital accumulates in the hands of a few individuals and an army of wage labor is formed - people deprived of the means of production and legally free. Due to the similarity of feudal and capitalist private property, the latter develops initially within the framework of the feudal mode of production.
The political economy of pre-capitalist modes of production deals not only with historical material. In many areas globe and in the 20th century. remnants of not only feudal, but even earlier economic relations have been preserved. This makes the development of problems of P. e. very relevant. pre-capitalist modes of production.
IV. Political economy of capitalism
P. e. capitalism studies the patterns of emergence, development and inevitable death of the capitalist mode of production.
The system of laws and categories characterizing the capitalist mode of production was revealed by Marx in Capital. The starting point in the study of bourgeois production relations was the analysis of goods, since goods historically and logically precede capital. A product has two properties: value and use value, which reveal the dual nature of the labor that creates the product. Marx's disclosure of the dual nature of labor (as abstract and concrete labor) is the basis for understanding P. e. capitalism.
Where bourgeois economists saw the relationship between things (the exchange of goods for goods), Marx revealed the relationship between people, covered with a material shell. He showed that the value of a product is determined by socially necessary labor costs, and the usefulness of a product, its ability to satisfy certain human needs, makes it a use value.
Analysis of the dual nature of labor allowed Marx to clarify the development of forms of value and reveal the origin of money, its essence as a universal equivalent, and provide an analysis of its functions.
Capital is a special, historically determined production relation. The exploitation of wage labor by capital serves as a source of creation of surplus value. The capitalist buys on the labor market, in accordance with its laws, a specific product - labor power, the consumption of which (labor) is at the same time a process of creating value. Capital breaks down into two parts: constant capital, spent on the acquisition of means of production, the value of which is transferred without change to the finished product, and variable capital, spent on the purchase work force. The value of variable capital changes; it increases in the labor process by the amount of surplus value. The ratio of surplus value to variable capital characterizes the degree of exploitation of wage labor by capital.
Marxist P. e. distinguishes two methods of producing surplus value: the production of absolute and relative surplus value. In the first case, an increase in the production of surplus value is achieved by lengthening the working day, in the second (with a constant length of the working day) - by reducing the time required for the reproduction of labor power and increasing surplus labor time. Reducing the required working time is achieved by increasing labor productivity and goes through three historical stages: simple capitalist cooperation, manufacturing, and machine production. In the process of transition from cooperation to manufacture, and from the latter to the capitalist factory, the formal subordination of labor to capital is replaced by its real subordination.
The transformation of part of surplus value into capital represents capital accumulation. A faster growth of constant capital compared to variable capital (growth of the organic composition of capital) leads to the accumulation of wealth at one pole of a capitalist society, and poverty at the other, giving rise to a reserve army of labor and unemployment. the production of surplus value is the basic economic law of capitalism.
The surplus value created by the labor of wage workers is distributed among various groups of capitalists and takes the form of profit (entrepreneurial income), trading profit and loan interest. A specific form of surplus value in agriculture is land rent, and in the mining industry - mining rent.
The capitalist mode of production leads to a significant increase in productive forces based on the use of machinery, the size of enterprises grows, and the social division of labor deepens. The growth of socialization of production and the development of productive forces is the historical mission of capitalism. At the same time, the dominance of private capitalist ownership of the means of production at a certain stage becomes an obstacle to the further development of productive forces. The main contradiction of capitalism is deepening - between the social nature of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation. Objective laws of development require the resolution of this contradiction: the replacement of the capitalist mode of production with a communist one, based on public ownership of the means of production. At the same time, within the framework of the bourgeois system, a force is growing that is capable of carrying out this replacement - the working class.
"pros" and "cons" of democracy
Surveyor. Who is a surveyor? Description of the profession. Profession surveyor Surveyor training
Magellanic clouds: who are they?
Pepper Steak Sauce Creamy Pepper Sauce
How to create a competent portfolio for a designer