The article is devoted to the critique of K. Marx's labor theory of value, which was started in 1884 by F. G. Wicksteed. This polemic is based on a misunderstanding of the scientific abstraction method and the dialectics of Marx. His opponents critisize Marx for not using the notion of "abstract utility". It is shown why the exchange value of goods should be based on socially necessary labor costs. The subjective utility value is not suitable to determine the proportions of exchange.
The need for technological modernization of the Russian economy within the framework of the existing economic model is not realized. This makes us turn to the study of alternative models, among which the domestic experience of a regulated mixed economy during the period of the new economic policy deserves attention. It was the world's first mixed economy model that included a set of regulatory methods based on strategic planning. In addition to the strategic plan itself, this model included direct budget investment, budget subsidies, government orders, regulation of monopoly prices, methods of credit expansion and restriction. Based on this model, such elements of economic modernization were implemented as expanded training of qualified workers and specialists, the development of independent research and development activities in key areas of technological progress, the creation of new industries and enterprises in high-tech sectors of the economy, the organization of import substitution. The implementation of these measures also included the extensive use of foreign technical assistance and the involvement of workers and specialists from abroad. It seems that this experience can be adapted to the realities of the modern Russian economy in order to ensure real progress in the direction of its technological modernization.
The need for technological modernization of the Russian economy within the framework of the existing economic model is not realized. This makes us turn to the study of alternative models, among which the domestic experience of a regulated mixed economy during the period of the new economic policy deserves attention. It was the world's first mixed economy model that included a set of regulatory methods based on strategic planning. In addition to the strategic plan itself, this model included direct budget investment, budget subsidies, government orders, regulation of monopoly prices, methods of credit expansion and restriction. Based on this model, such elements of economic modernization were implemented as expanded training of qualified workers and specialists, the development of independent research and development activities in key areas of technological progress, the creation of new industries and enterprises in high-tech sectors of the economy, the organization of import substitution. The implementation of these measures also included the extensive use of foreign technical assistance and the involvement of workers and specialists from abroad. It seems that this experience can be adapted to the realities of the modern Russian economy in order to ensure real progress in the direction of its technological modernization.
The purpose of the article is to substantiate the need and characterize the main directions of a deep reform of economic education in Russia. The existing model of economic education, based on the absolute dominance of neoclassical economic theory, even taking into account the recent partial renovation of the latter, is unable to provide the formation of knowledge and competence, allowing not only to solve standard tasks of rational choice of optimal investment and consumption trajectories, but also to independently analyze and act in a qualitatively changing economy, focusing not only on selfish private interest, but also on solving the problems of national and global development. In a dialogue with the publication of A. Auzan, A. Maltsev and A. Kurdin (Voprosy Ekonomiki, 2023, No. 10), the authors show that the changes proposed are necessary, but not sufficient, only in some part they take into account the results of past discussions and publications. The answer to the challenges facingeducation in the context of qualitative changes in the economy and society necessitates the inclusion in the circle of compulsory disciplines (1) of heterodox economic theory, which reveals the content of existing economic systems, the contradictions and patterns of their transformation, the technological, social, political and cultural context of economic processes; (2) the course "Russian economy"; (3) the history of economy and economic thought with (4) a significant reduction and updating of the content of courses in micro- and macroeconomics, strengthening their social, environmental, and humanistic orientation
The book under review aims to form a broad picture of economic reforms in the course of transition from a planned economy to a market one in the memberstates of Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The authors set as their objective to show changes of economic institutions in the process of market reforms. In this book, the main attention is paid to institutions of ownership and institutions, which determine the role of the state in the economy. This analysis not only shows the process of reforms in different countries, but demonstrates the evolution of the conditions for economic integration of EAEU member-states. In the book, the presence of barriers for integration is analyzed as well as the conditions for their dismantling. It contains a lot of facts and empirical information, which are structured by unified principles that makes the process of comparing economic reforms in different countries much easier. At the same time, the empirical part in the book evidently prevails over the analytical one. Presentation of facts is rarely followed by definitive theoretical conclusions.
The paper shows that now the mainstream of the economic theory is in crisis losing the heuristic potential. There is some positive potential of the institutional approach that is close to (without admitting it) a number of methodological approaches in Marxist political economy (allocation of objective determinants of economic behavior, an implied confession of existence of similar economic systems, emphasis on property relations, etc.) and goes farther than neoclassics. The " failures" of institutionalism are specified, and it is emphasized that in a number of points (especially, in exaggerating the role of institutions — political, in particular — as bases of economic changes) the criticism of R. I. Kapelyushnikov's "pan-institutionalism" is justified but positive proposals of the author, the "ideational" approach, are themselves subject to criticism. The conclusion is drawn that active discussions concerning the methodology and paradigmatic foundations bases of economic theory are on the agenda.
The article proposes a systematic description of Russian economy, in order to move from its unilateral definitions to its comprehensive assessment. This assessment is necessary to determine both the foundations of the current state of Russian economy and the prospects for its development. This characteristic is intended to reflect the level of development of the Russian economic system, its place in the system of world economy and its national peculiarities. The article deals with a set of features reflecting the internal structure of the Russian economic system: market situation, the system of reproduction, economy structure, the main socio-economic institutions etc., taking into account the historical development that led to the formation of the current state of affairs. Within the framework of this point of view, Russian economy appears to be a peculiar version of a mixed economy with a significant share of state participation and the structure of private property, formed largely as a result of its noneconomic redistribution. In such an economy there are no economic, institutional and social conditions that provide effective domestic sources of economic development. The national and cultural peculiarities of the Russian economy are determined on the basis of a variety of factors, ranging from natural-climatic, spatial, and up to socio-psychological formed, among other things, due to the influence of peculiar features of social relations' historical evolution. Finally, the Russian economy place in the system of global economy is considered. It is defined primarily on the basis of qualities and level of Russian economic system development. The conclusion is made that Russian economic system meets the characteristics of semiperipheral economies. Such a characteristic of Russian economic system does not exclude the capability of its modernization, but makes it possible only in case of qualitative changes in the existing economic model.
The roundtable took place on May 18, 2018 within the International forum MARX—XXI in commemoration of Karl Marx 200th birth anniversary. The event gathered leading Russian economists representing Lomonosov Moscow State University, Higher School of Economics, Financial University, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. The participants of the roundtable assessed the role of Karl Marx's heritage studies in the intellectual development of contemporary Russian economists, shared their personal experience in Karl Marx's "Capital" studies during the special seminar at the economic faculty of Moscow State University, determined the most challenging problems of today, which were raised by Marx, and presented their recommendations on Karl Marx's works studies in Russian universities.
The article examines the objective grounds for the possibility and necessity of reviving the humanistic heritage of Soviet critical Marxism of the 1960s and 1970s, one of the leaders of which was E.V. Ilyenkov. The main methodological features of this direction are highlighted: development and consistent implementation of materialistic dialectical method in solving problems of personality, social exclusion, etc.; identification of objective laws of social development and criteria of social progress (free harmonious development of personality); study of the contradiction of human social existence as a product of dominant social relations and as a creator of history, etc. These elaborations of Soviet critical Marxism are put in the context of the processes of development of humanistic philosophical thought. The authors show that the main achievements of this school are developed (in some cases independently of the Soviet tradition) by modern supporters of eco-socio-cultural priorities of the social development. Special attention is paid to the achievements of Soviet critical Marxism in the study of personality problems and prospects for free harmonious human development in a voluntary working association. The article shows that in modern conditions, both positive (technological progress leading to the priority development of creative activity) and negative (the need to remove social exclusion) grounds for the implementation of this imperative are developing. The article concludes with an analysis of the contradictory trends in the development of the USSR, which created the basis for the development of both dogmatic and critical Marxism, and indicates that the traditions of Ilyenkov and his colleagues in the post-Soviet space are being developed by new generations, in particular, by representatives of the post-conscientious school of critical Marxism.
