What Kind Of Economics Do We Need?

Abstract

This article is a critical estimation of the present-day condition of Russian economic ideas and politics. Both are characterized by a number of interconnected defects. First of all, in practice fragmentary measures are undertaken, which lack the vision of genera] perspective. In their turn the discussions on economic subjects focus on a set of separate and trite subjects instead of searching for universal and stratified innovative decisions, taking into consideration the peculiarity of Russia. As a result — there is a lack of systemic purpose-posing and complex approach towards solving the existing problems. The shortage of non-standard thinking permanently directs the nation towards «catching-up» development. Even when they dwell on the innovation economy, the authors focus only on those market niches, which have been open for a long time and have not been developed by us. Such methods doom Russia to be always at the tail-end of the world progress. The root of the problem is in several facts. The most important fact is the secondary character of Russian economic science. It is characterized by narrow comprehension of values borrowed from the West, and contrary to the native tradition, in particular human resource, creativity and cultural potential. While the leading societies, faced with psychological, demographic and other social dead ends, generated by economic vision, are gradually beginning to abandon it, lack of independence on the part of Russian economists explains why they have stayed so long on the positions, which have been passed by their colleagues in the developed democracies, and, as a result, the internal inconsistency of many of their proposals. Thus, liberals also demonstrate their dependence on outgoing stereotypes. They, for example, pay little attention to the opinions of institutionalists and warnings of the founders of market ideology. That is why they absolutize market and its regulators to the prejudice of those spheres, where they are not considered effective. They also indulge in extrapolation of the opinions of Weber in the situation when they are already subjected to serious revision in his native home. Besides, economics and sociology have a weak world outlook basis as a whole. It is now time to abase and to admit that neither of them has yet formulated convincing theories, if not universal, then at least suitable for the interpretation of large classes of similar objects. And they stay at the level of descriptive science, and like botany, zoology, demography or ethnography they try to give an acceptable explanation in pursuit of those events which have already occurred, but they are unable to analyze the variants of their consequences with necessary accuracy. Among the ideas, non-critically borrowed from the outside, one should first of all reject the notion about objective laws of economics, because it is as a whole a human production and it completely depends on everyday — individual and collective — behavior of masses of people. That is why as an instrument it cannot be placed higher than the one whom it serves. Meanwhile, everywhere, including Russia, during all the XXth century the dominating economic vision even in its different versions, posed the tasks of economy higher than the interests of society and a separate person, due to the arrogance of economists, who allegedly knew the only truth. Such abnormal situation should be turned over as it is proclaimed by both institutionalists and Orthodox ethics. The article gives the conception of how it can be achieved. The relevance of this approach is strengthened by the fact that market and economy do not produce freedom by themselves as we could see from our own experience. In order to start, they must have a certain minimum of freedom, for the enlargement of which they are not responsible. Therefore, the value of freedom is above them. In particular, we need independence from the vulgarly understood benefit and creeping pragmatism. And in our circumstances of the society which still has a fully nomenclature character — its all-round disnomenclaturing is necessary. For such purposes we should confirm primacy and priority of moral principles and to clear up the significance of religion as the basis of a free individual. The West has already formulated its requirements for the humanization of economy and society, for the implementation in everyday life the so-called ethics of life, i.e. the harmony of morality and economy in the wide sense. As we know. Orthodoxy has here a powerful resource which in the current situation is a competitive advantage of Russia. We have everything necessary, including unique experience both positive and tragic to find the golden mean between the extremes of total market and «socialism», unrestrained individualism and kolkhoz. To ensure the positive character of the world development, one should give up prejudice attitude towards the East and chimeras of«Eurasianism», mutual complexes of Russia and the West, in particular the inferiority complex and the superiority complex, and acknowledge the secondary role of Rome and western civilization in relation to the creativity of Hellas and Byzantium. It is necessary for Russia to realize its genuine and unique peculiarity in the European family, as an heir of Hellenism, civilization of knowledge (including intuitive knowledge), which is obliged to produce and transmit their encyclopedic forms and universal moral senses, and which possesses, in contrast to Western Europe, wide comprehension (which is in great demand now) of creativity, culture, human capital and values, practicality of fundamental humanitarian and naturally scientific notions and explorations. And this is another competitive advantage of ours. It is necessary to stop copying narrow pragmatism of the West and to concentrate on skillful stimulation of the economy of production and implementation of many-sided and complex knowledge and its products. It is necessary to invest into their elaboration and the progress of educational and research infrastructure, which supports them, including all systems of information, transport and everyday life-support. It is also necessary to monitor the market elements when and where it is justified (education, health, culture, science). Because the investment in economy of knowledge is in our circumstances those rational social expenditures, which are defended by institutionalists. Since creativity and culture are the kingdom of woman, this way cardinal improvement of her position and demographic situation in the country will be secured. And on the basis of the above-mentioned, the principal goal of the creation and strengthening of national unity and solidarity will be achieved.