|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
Lecture notes, cheat sheets
History of Economic Thought. Lecture notes
Directory / Lecture notes, cheat sheets Table of contents
LECTURE No. 1. The emergence of economic thought in the ancient world 1. Background of economic thought in the Ancient East. Ancient Egypt and Babylonia A feature of the development of the civilizations of the Ancient East is the large-scale economic functions of the state, for example, the construction of pyramids or an irrigation system. Ancient Egypt We do not know as much about the economic development of Ancient Egypt as we would like. By and large, only two documents about those times have survived to this day: “Instruction of the Heracleopolis king to his son” (XXII century BC) and “Speech of Ipures” (XVIII century BC). The first document says that the king leaves his son the rules of government. In those days, it was important for kings to master some kind of art, and even better - several of them. The king, as it were, bequeaths to his son to master the science of proper management of the economy and the state as a whole, since this is as important as the highest level of skill in any art. The second document makes us understand that even then the kings tried to prevent uncontrollability in the growth of interest and lending operations, as well as the formation of debt slavery in order to avoid stratification in society, which could subsequently lead to civil war. The kings understood that a civil war would cause an even greater decline in the country as a whole, and also lead to the impoverishment of the peasants. Since they will consider that they have practically nothing to lose but their lives, they will destroy the last thing they have. Babylonia Babylonia is an ancient Eastern state that was located in the valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. From this state the so-called laws of King Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC) have come down to us. In history, they are most often called a code of laws, which was used already in the XNUMXth century. BC e. Violation of the laws that were written in this code could entail severe penalties: economic, criminal liability, and the death penalty. Administrative punishments were also very common. Some of the laws looked something like this. 1. The largest percentage for a monetary amount is 20%, and for a natural amount a little more - 33%. 2. Anyone who has encroached on someone else's property, even on a slave, may himself become a slave or be sentenced to death. 3. If the royal soldiers or citizens of Babylon did not pay their taxes on time, they were deprived of their land plots under the new law. 4. If someone fell into debt slavery, he could not be left as a slave for longer than three years, and after serving his sentence as a slave, the debt was forgiven. From such examples it is possible to see that already in very ancient countries that existed before our era, the first "sprouts" of economic thought and laws on the structure of this society were already beginning to appear. Although each civilization had its own nuances, but in general terms their development coincided, even if some civilizations were ahead of others in development. 2. Economic thought in ancient India There is also insufficient data on economic thought in ancient India. Historians would like to know a lot of interesting things about this amazing country. "Arthashastra" ("artha" - "teaching", "shastra" - "income", that is, if translated literally, it will turn out "the doctrine of income") - one of the most striking documents of Ancient India in the 5th - 10rd centuries. BC e. This document tells us about the economic achievements of the country. The author of this work is believed to be Kautilya, one of the advisers to King Chandragupta I (who ruled around the end of the XNUMXth century BC). He tried to explain to his people that wealth comes from labor, and also how necessary it is to share the profits of merchants with the state, because only the state allows preferential land use, builds roads, ensures the protection of facilities, develops industries, develops minerals (for example, , ores), the fight against speculators, who are not so easy to identify among respectable merchants. In his opinion, it is natural that there are free people and slaves. In addition, he called for those who do not pay for the use of land to be enslaved for a while or forever. Kautilya advocated that the state regulate the economic mechanism. The costs, in his opinion, should be set in advance, amounting to XNUMX% for local goods and XNUMX% for imported goods. Perhaps his views will seem naive and wrong to a modern person, but this is how economic theory was presented in ancient India. Of course, over time, it changed and came to a modern understanding of the economy, which exists to this day. 3. Economic thought in ancient China Most often, Ancient China is associated with Confucius. Also, those who know more about the history of this country also associate it with the collective treatise popular at that time called "Guanzi". Confucius (Kung Fuzi) (551 (2) - 479 BC) - philosopher and thinker of Ancient China. He is known to all as the author of the treatise "Lun-yu" ("Conversations and Judgments"). According to Confucius, a good state should be like a respectable family. The sovereign is a father who takes care of everyone, and the inhabitants of the state are children who obey their sovereign father in everything. (It is possible that even from there the phrase "tsar-father" came to us.) But only a highly educated sovereign can rule like that. Only he is able to influence the distribution of wealth in the country. Confucius always stood up for the protection of the privileges of the tribal nobility. He also believed that all people are divided into classes by God himself, but still reminded that a person of any class should try to become morally perfect. Confucius believed that the moment might come when everyone would have prosperity, because the management of the economy would be skillful, the wealth of the state would increase, and regardless of whether it was a private economy or a common peasant property. The main task of the author of the book "Kuan Tzu" was also the construction of such a society in which all the people would become well-to-do and therefore happy. Confucius, believed that the people are inherently divided into estates correctly, although it is not known exactly which estate he himself belonged to. Perhaps if he had been from the poorest class, he would have thought a little differently. He also believed that the state must necessarily regulate the price of bread and create a grain reserve in case of crop failure. Still, in his opinion, the state should create the most favorable conditions for lending to farmers. He proposed to replace direct taxes on salt and iron with indirect ones, which would be taken into account already in finished products made from these goods. He considered gold to be a commodity that exists to measure other commodities. 4. Economic thought in Ancient Rome. Cato's teaching Cato, much less famous under his real name Marcus Porcius (234-149 BC), is known as the author of a work called Agriculture. In it, he tried to describe the economy of Ancient Rome in general terms, as well as agriculture itself and agriculture in particular. Judging by the reviews of many scientists, he succeeded in this to the extent that was possible at that stage of economic development. Cato called for farming as much as possible, because physical labor does not allow a person to be rude, angry, aggressive and dissatisfied. Labor, and only agricultural work, can benefit health. It cannot be said that Cato was an ardent opponent of trade, but he did not really welcome it, because he considered it a dangerous disaster that could create inconvenience and trouble and lead to the emergence of dissatisfied citizens (for example, with low-quality goods or too high a price for them). . According to Cato, all economic areas should be united into one large one. He very zealously supported the slave system and pointed out that slaves should be constantly punished so that they would not be lazy in their work. Therefore, Cato suggested that the master himself should work from time to time, so that the slaves knew that they were being looked after and did not allow themselves to relax. Every master should have an overseer over his slaves, perhaps even one of the slaves, who will punish those who do bad work to the fullest extent. Over time, in ancient Rome, those who work for money or a certain part of the crop began to appear (later they began to be called sharecroppers). A reflection of how to enter into an agreement with them and conduct business with them, we can find in the work of Cato. Also in his treatise you can learn a lot of useful advice about the purchase of land or slaves. Historians and contemporaries believe that at that time there was no more economical and able to properly manage money in all of Rome. Cato looked for profit in everything and clearly knew where to save money. 5. Teachings of Xenophon It is believed that it was Xenophon (430-355 BC) who proposed the name “economics,” which literally translates as “the science of skillful housekeeping” (or “housekeeping”). The basis was the creation of the treatise "Oikonomia", which described the economy as understood by the ancient Greeks. This treatise covers absolutely all aspects of life of that time (from the distribution of responsibilities in the house to farming). This is due to the fact that the farms were subsistence, that is, they provided themselves with everything they needed. Xenophon is also recognized as the author of the treatise "Domostroy", which was considered by the ancient Greeks a model of wisdom. In this treatise you can read what was considered true and wise at that time. 1. Labor should be divided into mental labor and physical labor. 2. People should be divided into free and slaves (this is natural). 3. Natural purpose is, first of all, agriculture, and only then craft and trade. 4. The simpler the work, the faster and better it will be done. 5. The larger the sales market, the greater the division of labor goes. 6. Any product has useful properties, that is, what it is purchased for. It is also possible to constantly change one product for another. 7. Money exists for faster and easier exchange. Also, money was invented for accumulation, but not for usurers to profit. The most important activity, according to Xenophon, is agriculture. But the craft is not needed at all, so everyone who is engaged in it or is going to do it should be blamed. Xenophon also believed that slavery was necessary. To make a slave work harder, it is necessary to reward those who work better, both materially and morally, thereby "igniting" the rivalry between them. Exchange and trade were already in place, as was the division of labor, but this had not yet become a necessary means of survival, since the Greeks still relied on the household, especially in the smaller towns. According to Xenophon, the division of labor could bring more benefits, because the more often a person does the same simple work, the more perfect he becomes in this area. In ancient Greece, life followed customs: professions were passed down from father to son, and it was believed that they did not have the right to choose their own fate. Also, the son inherited everything that was earned by the father. If the father had cattle, money or other benefits, then people believed that the son received many benefits, although Xenophon looked at this issue differently. In his opinion, nothing is good for a person if he does not know how to properly manage it. (A cow cannot be constantly useful if you do not know how to milk it, because you can only kill it once). 6. Teachings of Plato Plato (428 - 348 BC) - an ancient Greek philosopher, one of the first thinkers who tried to show what an ideal state should look like. He is known as the author of the works "State" and "Laws". Plato believed that the ideal state is something similar to how the human soul works. According to Plato, philosophers should rule the state, because their main advantage is wisdom. They make up the first class, the second are the warriors, who must keep order both in the state itself and on its borders, and the third are merchants, artisans, peasants, who must provide the first two classes with goods. He believed that only the lower class should be given land, so that the first two would not seize it as more intelligent people. Plato thought that the best thing is when the state is ruled by a tyrant, but his idea was refuted when he himself was sold into slavery. In many ways, this system resembles that built in ancient India - the "breaking" of the country's inhabitants into so-called castes. Plato called them classes and made his improvements. According to his teachings, there should be three classes: philosophers, warriors and everyone else (townspeople and residents of surrounding lands, merchants, artisans, peasants). Plato was the first to classify the forms of government according to how they obey the laws and how many people govern the state. This can be represented in the following table.
Plato, like Xenophon, believed that slavery was necessary, and in order for a slave to work better, he must be encouraged for labor success. He also believed that the slaves should not understand each other, as in the biblical legend of the Tower of Babel, that is, communicate in different languages so that they cannot agree on an escape, or, worse, an uprising. Plato believed that slaves can be equated with property. According to Plato, prices for goods should be set by the state. He believed that money could only be an object for accumulation, but he had a negative attitude towards people who saved money or borrowed it at interest. In his work "Laws" he criticizes usurers even more than in the treatise "State". He also said that one should not do something if it will be paid for later, but it is worth doing only when they are ready to immediately pay you for your services or goods, even if with a different product. Plato, like Xenophon, considered agriculture to be the most important, and not craft and trade. He also suggested that land could be inherited. Even Plato practically demanded that people should not be richer than each other by more than 4 times. 7. Teachings of Aristotle Aristotle (364 - 322 BC) - philosopher, student of Plato and teacher of the great Alexander the Great, the first thinker who expressed the opinion that economics is the science of wealth. He is also known to us as the author of many works on the ideal state, such as "Politics", "Nicomachean Ethics", etc. Aristotle believed that free people should neither work with their own hands on the earth, nor engage in crafts, for this there are slaves. He assumed that someday there would be no slavery, although in his writings he justified slavery and considered it right. Aristotle supported Xenophon and Plato on the division of labor (into mental and physical) and the division of people (into free and slaves). He also, like his predecessors, believed that agriculture was the main thing when compared with handicraft and trade. Almost all scientists of antiquity thought so. Aristotle contrasts economy and chrematism in his writings. The economy is the acquisition of wealth for a completely comfortable existence of oneself and one's family. Chrematistics is the accumulation of money in excess of what a person needs to live. The thinker divided chrematistics into two types: 1) the ability to save what is needed later to save money (housekeeping); 2) the accumulation of everything, including money, beyond measure. He condemned if money became an end in itself, and not a means to good ends, especially among those who were engaged in commercial trade and usury. Aristotle constantly mentions in his works that he hates usury. After all, money, in his opinion, exists for completely different purposes (for example, to be able to help those who do not live so well). Money, according to Aristotle, appeared because of the need to trade in a more convenient way, that is, not to find out how many pieces of one product can be exchanged for several pieces of another product. The very need for trade arose because of the division of labor. People began to apply the division of labor, because each person has some abilities and skills to a greater extent, and others to a lesser extent. Therefore, the ancient Greeks realized that it was much more profitable to exchange one for another than to learn how to make this product just as skillfully. Aristotle also put forward a theory about the value of money and price, but did not finish his research in this area, as he still did not realize much. However, Aristotle went much further in his studies than Plato and Xenophon. Also for researchers of future generations, he "composed" topics that will always be of interest to people. LECTURE No. 2. Economic thought in the Middle Ages 1. Medieval teachings of Western Europe. "Salic Truth" Much more is known about the Middle Ages and the development of economic doctrine at that time than about economic thought in ancient times. As an example, we can take the Salic Truth. Scientists believe that Europe entered the medieval stage of subsistence economic relations in the XNUMXth - XNUMXth centuries, that is, much later than the eastern states, in which such relations arose in the XNUMXrd - XNUMXth centuries. In the Middle Ages, economics did not yet exist as an independent science, but was an addition to the subject of the proper conduct of the household (feudal) economy. Since under the feudal system all land belonged to the feudal lords, the peasants created a surplus product and could not become participants in economic relations. Thus, the development of economic relations and the country in general was hampered. There were many documents (such as "Salicheskaya Pravda"), which absorbed grains of knowledge about the economy and did not allow them to stand out as a separate science. "Salic truth" ("Salic law") - a collection of economic and legal law of the Salic Franks. This collection reflects the development of economic thought of that time. This document shows how things were mainly in pre-feudal society after the beginning of the collapse of the tribal system. "Salic truth" was divided into chapters, each of which described some aspect of the life of the peasants in France. As in the rest of the world at that time, in France preference was given to agriculture, although there were other types of industries, such as beekeeping, horticulture, viticulture, animal husbandry, fishing, and hunting. Also preference was given to subsistence farming. In "Salicheskaya Pravda" special attention is paid to ordinary peasants. This document has chapters that are devoted to theft and punishment for it. 2. Socio-economic views of Ibn Khaldun Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) is the greatest thinker of the countries where Islam is preached (Arab countries in northern Africa). In his opinion, a person leads a social life only to satisfy his natural needs. It is the desire to satisfy all his needs that makes a person work harder in order to be able to fulfill all his dreams. This is what develops society as a whole through greater demand for goods. Thanks to this development, the market for goods and services is constantly increasing. Even then, Ibn Khaldun understood that the market is the engine of progress and long-term development of society. Private property was interpreted by Ibn Khaldun as a gift from above. Ibn Khaldun divided goods into two types: "commodities" and "wealth". Wealth is those items that a person possesses due to his abilities and work, but which are not absolutely necessary for life. Consumer goods are those goods that serve to satisfy the natural needs of man. Dealing with this problem, Ibn-Khaldun draws the following conclusions. 1. When the city begins to grow, then the needs of man begin to grow both in commodities and in luxuries. 2. If you start lowering the prices of essentials and raising the prices of luxuries, the city as a whole will prosper. 3. The smaller the city, the more expensive the necessary goods. 4. The city will prosper even if taxes and duties are reduced. This also applies to society as a whole. Ibn Khaldun believed that the value of a product depends on the amount of labor that was spent on it, and, of course, on the importance of the product for people. Ibn Khaldun gave us the concept of value. He also tried to explain how this value is formed. According to Ibn Khaldun, several quantities should be reflected in the volume of value (the cost of raw materials, the cost of labor, the cost of labor means, i.e., items that were needed to manufacture a new product and remained suitable for reuse). Ibn Khaldun represented money both as a means of accumulation and as a means of circulation for the purchase of goods. He also believed that money must be made of gold and silver. Ibn Khaldun divided labor into two categories: necessary and surplus. Necessary satisfies all needs, and surplus, unlike necessary, allows you to buy luxury items and accumulate wealth. Ibn Khaldun believed that one could earn money both through labor and through trade. However, he believed that in order to make a profit, sellers are ready to artificially create a shortage, i.e., a shortage of goods, hiding it for the time being and maintaining a hype, i.e., excessive interest in some product, spreading the rumor that this product is needed absolutely everyone. Maybe that's how the ad started. 3. Teachings of Thomas Aquinas Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - philosopher, Italian monk, economic thinker. He had a huge influence on the development of the economic views of his time, although he based his teachings largely on religious grounds. Thomas Aquinas believed that not all people are equal at birth, so not all people are equal in the possession of property. According to Aquinas, we all have things only in this life, so the poor should not be very sad, but the rich should not rejoice. Thomas Aquinas also condemned theft and suggested that rulers should punish it very harshly. He called the ideal state in which all the sovereigns of Europe are strictly subordinate to the Pope, and the people, in turn, do not contradict the sovereign in anything as long as he stands on the side of the church. Therefore, Thomas Aquinas admitted the idea that the people were capable of revolting if the rulers ceased to completely obey the Roman Church. Just like the philosophers before him, Thomas Aquinas analyzed trade. He made the assumption that trade can be of two types: legal and illegal. Permissive trading is when a merchant seeks to make a small profit that will support his family, and also seeks to help people acquire those goods that they need and that are produced in another city or country. Illegal trading is when traders make profit in and of themselves and hold on to a product in order to win after a price increase. Aquinas strongly condemned such trade. Money, according to Thomas Aquinas, was invented to measure the value of goods. Money is the very commodity that can be equivalent to any commodity, which greatly simplifies the exchange. Thomas Aquinas put forward the idea that the profit from the goods should be the higher, the higher the person in rank. Everyone has their own expenses, and profit exists in order to cover them. Thomas Aquinas believed that it was impossible to lend money at interest or rent a house. But under the pressure of his time, he agreed that the correct clause could be made in the loan agreement, then the receipt of interest would sound not like making a profit, but like compensation for possible damage to the person lending money. 4. Thomas More's social utopia Thomas More (1478-1535) - English thinker, political and economic figure. Known as the author of epigrams, political poems, the autobiographical work "Apology", "Dialogue on Oppression against Adversity", the work "Utopia" (1515-1516). His essay "Utopia" marked the beginning of a huge amount of utopian literature, the authors of which tried to draw an ideal society. Perhaps the name "Utopia" is derived from two Greek words "no" and "place", so it speaks for itself. Thomas More denied private property in general. He believed that everything should be social and that everyone should work only six hours a day. In an ideal state there should be no money. On this occasion, T. More writes: “Wherever there is private property, where everything is measured by money, it will hardly ever be possible for the state to be governed fairly or happily. Unless you consider it fair when all the best goes to bad people , or you will consider it successful when everything is distributed among very few, and even they do not live prosperously, while the rest are completely unhappy.” In their free time, those who lived on the island of Utopia developed their talents through the arts and sciences. Relatives are employed in one type of production. Utopians try not to fight, but only to defend themselves, but they are able to help other people cope with the tyrant king. The religion of these islanders can be any. All are treated in the same hospitals and eat together in public canteens. There is no army and police on the island, and there are only overseers who monitor the observance of the laws of the island. Thomas More can be called both a practitioner and a theorist. His meteoric political career and similar failure speak volumes about his idealistic outlook. As long as the government was more or less in line with his views on life, he was at the height and honor. As soon as he did not want to obey the tyrant king, he was immediately "thrown" down (up to his arrest and stay in the Tower) through false accusations and conspiracies. He ended up there because he realized how hard it is for peasants and workers to live against the backdrop of an idle life at the court of His Majesty. He tried to change something in this world, and now - retribution for his kindness and understanding of the acuteness of the pressing problems of his time. Perhaps not all of his works have been studied as thoroughly as "Utopia", which, one might say, is the heart of his works. Nothing helps to understand the future like a scrupulous study of the past. Perhaps a more complete analysis of his other works will make it possible to put forward some completely new views on the understanding of economic theory or a completely ideal state. 5. "Russian Truth" We do not know much about the development of economic doctrine among our ancestors. One of the most famous examples is Russkaya Pravda. Russkaya Pravda is a collection of Russian laws during the feudal system. This collection is based on such documents as "Pravda" by Yaroslav the Wise, "Pravda" by the Yaroslavichs, the Charter of Vladimir Monomakh, some norms from the "Russian Law", etc. This document reflects the development of economic life in Russia at that time, reveals to us the norms of relations peasants regarding the receipt of an inheritance or the use of property. It also speaks of the return of debts and compensation for their use. Russkaya Pravda describes how and for what the peasants can be punished. Punishments for theft can be especially terrible, up to the murder of a person who decided to steal. Russkaya Pravda is a source of the laws of that time, telling about economic development and legal law in Ancient Rus'. It also describes how our distant ancestors conducted trade with other states. This document states that money is not only gold and silver, but also furs. We can learn a lot about prices, or what goods were in great demand, by how often overseas merchants brought them. "Russian Truth" tells us that the debtor could be sold along with all his property, thereby paying off the debt. Russkaya Pravda gives us an idea of how the collection of interest was treated in those distant times. If Russkaya Pravda had not been preserved, we would never have learned so much about the life of our compatriots, their norms of behavior, their customs and traditions, which were previously passed down by word of mouth, their economic development and legal heritage. LECTURE No. 3. Mercantilism 1. Mercantilism. Economic prerequisites for mercantilism. Features of mercantilism as an economic idea For the development of mercantilism as a separate economic science, there were enough prerequisites and reasons. We can highlight some of them. 1. In a feudal society, the fate of a person depended on the feudal lord, and consciousness was under the control of the church. However, life began to change. 2. The church has become less and less in control of the state. 3. The state began to subjugate economic life and change the approach to the public interest. 4. New proposals and demands addressed to the government have appeared in the literature. Mercantilism is a transitional period of economic theory into an independent science. This direction in the development of economic thought held the primacy from the XNUMXth to the XNUMXth centuries. Mercantilism is a doctrine that is based on the idea that wealth consists in owning money and accumulating it. Previously, gold and silver were money, so mercantilists believed that the more gold "comes" into the country and the less "leaves" the country, the richer the country. The birth of mercantilism gave a certain impetus to change the ideal. According to the mercantilists, merchants are the main people in the state, and the most important industry is foreign trade. Warriors have already begun to lose the status of leaders in the eyes of society as a whole, now the rapidly getting richer, and therefore enterprising merchant has become an ideal. The mercantilists believed that it was necessary to develop their industry, but not for themselves, but for the resale of manufactured goods abroad. They proposed limiting imports (imports from abroad), prohibiting the export of precious metals, and stimulating exports. 18 Representatives who relied on this theory were called bulbonists. In their understanding, trade is a "war" for gold and silver. The bulbonists believed that trade was profitable only when their country was a seller, not a buyer. They constantly criticized the trading companies that dealt with imports. Those, in turn, tried to prove that its prosperity does not depend on the amount of money in the country. Other representatives, on the other hand, believed that one should support one's production on one's own, that is, use one's own goods, and not imported ones. Already in those days, concepts began to emerge that are used to this day and which became the impetus for separating economics into a separate science. The rapid growth of industry made the theory of mercantilism less viable. However, even today this teaching is still not forgotten. Many economists suggest following these ideas. They are called "new mercantilists". 2. French and English mercantilism It would seem that England and France were two practically equally developed European countries of that time, but mercantilism in each of them had its own characteristics. Perhaps even the development of culture as a whole influenced this. The development of mercantilism, going in different ways, in turn led to the formation of different cultural traditions. England tried to support "its" manufacturer. For example, there were days when it was forbidden to eat meat, so everyone bought fish, and a hundred years later it was allowed to bury only in a woolen dress. William Stafford (1554-1612) is one of the major representatives of early English mercantilism. He had a huge influence on the development of mercantilism as a separate economic school. Thomas Mann (Mann) (1571-1641) - the largest representative of late English mercantilism, one of the leaders of the East India campaign. He managed to prove that the trade balance should be assessed by adding all government transactions into one, and not separately. This allowed him to come to the conclusion that it is quite possible to compensate for the “outflow” of money in one transaction with the “inflow” in another. Thomas Mann is the author of the book “The Wealth of England in Foreign Trade,” which was published only in 1664. Mann also believed that money should bring money, that is, not lie in the treasury, but return again to trade or production. He criticized the English government for obliging foreign merchants to buy goods so that they could not take gold with them. Each country had its own characteristics of the development of any school and any science in general, including mercantilism. The following features of English mercantilism can be distinguished: 1) English economic thought begins to take first place in Europe; 2) there are prerequisites for the implementation of the free trade policy; 3) England's market relations with other countries are developing very harmoniously, and this harmony is achieved in all areas (trade, agriculture, industry). Antoine de Montchretien (1575-1622) - representative of late French mercantilism. He put forward ideas similar to those of Thomas Mann, without even knowing about his existence. We know him as the author of the Treatise of Political Economy. In this work, Antoine de Montchretien says that trade should be encouraged in every possible way, because it is the main incentive for production as such. The name he gave to his book has survived to this day, but as the name of an entire science. Jean Baptiste Colbert (1619-1683) - representative of French mercantilism, superintendent of financial affairs. Later, French mercantilism was renamed in his honor and began to be called Colbertism. The features of French mercantilism include the following: 1) a new specific direction in the development of economic thought appeared - physiocracy. Its representatives considered the main resource what agriculture produces; 2) Thoughts that free trade is not needed, since goods are produced only for the domestic market, which in turn hinders the development of the economy (Colbert). 3. Features of Russian mercantilism In Russia, mercantilism was born a little later, as, indeed, all other areas in science. If in Europe it began to form in the middle of the 1649th century, then in Russia this direction of economic thought arose only in the middle of the XNUMXth - XNUMXth centuries. This was facilitated by the longer existence of subsistence farming. Subsistence farming existed in Russia for so long because only here serfdom was preserved. And serfdom is the same slavery. In the Middle Ages, slavery no longer existed in any economically developed European country. In Rus', every landowner tried to produce everything he needed for his personal consumption with the help of his serfs. The Council Code of XNUMX finally enserfed the peasants. For these purposes corvée and dues were increased. This did not allow trade to develop as rapidly as in Europe. In addition, before the transformations of Peter the Great, Russia did not have such a powerful fleet that could be used for trade purposes, nor proven sea routes for the sale of goods abroad. But despite all this, in the XVII century. nevertheless, the formation of the all-Russian market began. Many enterprising people (merchants) were able to increase their capital. The first manufactories began to appear, the range of goods that could be sold to European countries was expanding. This idea seemed beneficial to both the government and the nobles. The nobles thought that perhaps charcoal would be one of these goods, so they began to burn their forests. During the period of the development of mercantilism in Russia, such names as Afanasy Ordin-Nashchokin (1605-1680), Yuri Krizhanich (1618-1663), Ivan Shcherbakov (1686-1716) became known. 4. Late mercantilism James Stewart (1712-1780) - representative of late mercantilism. He is the author of a book entitled An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (1767). Market competition reminded James Stewart of a clockwork mechanism that needed to be checked and corrected from time to time. He assigned the role of watchmaker to the state. It is believed that early mercantilism existed until the middle of the XNUMXth century. It is characterized by the following features: 1) trade relations between countries are practically not developed; 2) the highest prices are set for the exported goods; 3) it is forbidden to export precious metals (gold and silver) from the country; 4) the import of goods is permanently restricted; 5) money is perceived at face value, so many, including the government, undermine money, thereby reducing the weight, and at the same time the cost of money; 6) a little later, a fixed amount of gold and silver is established in the circulation of countries; 7) it is believed that money exists for accumulation and as a system for measuring the price of a commodity. They are also used as world money; 8) the main idea is "monetary balance". John Law (1671-1729) - Scotsman, one of the most prominent figures of late mercantilism. To saturate the country with money, John Law proposed to begin issuing paper money not backed by precious metals. If the supply of money increases, this will replenish the treasury, increase profits and reduce bank interest. He wrote a work called "Money and Trade, with a proposal for how to provide the nation with money" (1705), to substantiate these ideas. At first, no European country agreed to this proposal, but in 1716 Philippe d'Orleans accepted it. First, Law received the right to organize a bank, which later became practically state-owned. Then a joint-stock company was organized, which was supposed to develop the French colonies in North America. Law persuaded his creditors to invest securities in this company, whose shares were constantly growing in price, since the bank was responsible for the return of money on shares. Everything was going great until investors realized that his company's success was too modest to continue to invest. Therefore, there were more people willing to sell shares than buyers, thereby the outflow of silver from the country began to increase. Everyone came to the conclusion that Lo's scheme was a pyramid scheme. Also late mercantilists include Thomas Mann and Antoine de Montchrentien. Late mercantilism is the period from the second half of the XNUMXth century. to the second half of the XNUMXth century, although many principles were preserved until the XNUMXth century. The signs that characterize the late period are the following: 1) trade is very well developed and fairly constant; 2) export prices are significantly reduced; 3) import of goods (other than luxury) is allowed if the country's balance is positive; 4) the export of gold is allowed if this contributes to the strengthening of trade relations under favorable conditions and a positive balance of the country; 5) money is recognized only as a means of circulation for commercial transactions; 6) the most important thing is the "trade balance". LECTURE No. 4. Physiocracy 1. General characteristics of physiocrats The school of physiocrats (literally, the word "physiocrats" is translated as "the power of nature") is the first scientific school of economic thought. The Physiocrats believed that true wealth is the product that agriculture produces. They believed that the mercantilists were wrong in that gold is the most important thing, and the country is richer, the more gold it contains. The founders of this trend are considered to be the French - such as Francois Quesnay (1694-1774), Jacques (Anne) Turgot (1727-1781), Victor de Mirabeau (1715-1789), Dupont Neymour (1739-1817). The most popular physiocracy was among the French intelligentsia, although it developed in other countries of Western Europe. The physiocrats were convinced that the peasants were the main people in the state, since they were the only ones who produced the product. The rest are processed, such as merchants and industrialists, or consumed, such as the army and nobles. Citizens feed on exchange, but do not create a new product. The Physiocrats believed that the policy of the state should be more liberal in relation to entrepreneurs, so as not to interfere with their work for the development of production. It was in this policy that they supported the mercantilists. Physiocracy itself was born as a desire to put up with the shortcomings of mercantilism. In our time, the teachings of the physiocrats are presented in many mathematical models in production, and here their developments bring certain benefits. 2. Teachings of François Quesnay Francois Quesnay - the court physician of King Louis XV of France, was born into a poor peasant family in the suburbs of Versailles (this is not far from Paris). In order to become a doctor, he left home at the age of 17. Getting older and increasing his wealth, he began to devote more and more time to philosophy, and then to economic theory. His students and followers are the elite of the French society of that time. Francois Quesnay is known as the author of the "Economic Table" (1758) and such articles as "Population" (1756), "Farms" (1757), "Grain" (1757), "Taxes" (1757). In the work "Economic Table" F. Quesnay showed that the circulation of cash flow and social product is constantly going on. This table is the very first experience of modeling economic processes. F. Quesnay was one of the first to try to understand what capital is in the economic sense of the word, and introduced such concepts as "fixed capital" and "circulating capital". Quesnay mentioned many times that in order to drive out monopoly and reduce costs, trade should be expanded and enterprising people should be given as much freedom as possible. François Quesnay's "Economic Table" can be called the first attempt at macroeconomic research. Even now it is used in macroeconomic studies, although in a slightly improved form. In his work, he divides all people into three groups, namely: 1) farmers - the main, in his opinion, people in the state; 2) the bourgeoisie and the nobility, owning the land (landlords); 3) craftsmen, workers and ordinary people who are not engaged in agriculture. It is between these three classes that the circulation of both money and goods takes place, which constantly creates the need to start it anew. This cycle can be described as follows. The landlord will rent his land for money, with which he will subsequently purchase what has grown on his own land, and manufactured goods to satisfy his needs. The tenant will pay money for using the land to grow crops, and then sell his product to industrialists and landlords. The industrialist will buy the product from the farmer and sell his goods to both the farmer and the owner of the land. In his writings, Quesnay most often condemned the mercantilists for their views on economic problems in general. He convinced that someone's sole (private) interest cannot exist separately from the interests of society as a whole, but this is possible only under the rule of freedom. 3. Activities of Jacques Turgot Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1721-1781) - nobleman, minister of finance in the early years of the reign of Louis XVI, one of the followers of François Quesnay, although he did not consider himself one of them and denied his belonging to the physiocrats. Almost all of his ancestors were in the service in Paris. According to tradition, he was supposed to become a clergyman, but after he graduated from the seminary, he changed his mind. Before he was appointed Minister of Finance, he served as Minister of Navy. Jacques Turgot was both a practitioner and a theorist. He is the author of the book "Reflections on the Creation and Distribution of Wealth" (1766) and the never completed work "Values and Money" (1769). Even earlier, he showed the world his work entitled “Letter to the Abbé de Cisay on paper money” (1749). In his work, he refined the ideas of Francois Canet and put forward many completely new assumptions. He believed that if you constantly invest money and labor in a larger volume in one area, then at first this will cause an increase in profit on capital, and after a certain point of oversaturation there will be a recession and a sharp decrease in profit on invested capital. Indeed, due to bans limiting the import of grain, it was necessary to use poor soil, investing more money and effort into its cultivation. This led to an increase in grain prices. He proposed lifting the ban on the import of grain into France, as well as allowing duty-free export from the country. He explained how the wages of a simple worker in the market work out (it all depends on the number of competitors for the position, because they hire the one who agrees to work for less pay). Also, Jacques Turgot improved the "Economic Table" of Francois Canet. As a minister, he tried to put the ideas of the physiocrats into practice. The first thing he did in his post was to reduce taxes for the peasants and set taxes for the nobility. His reforms did not please the French nobility, because they were accustomed to living in grand style at the expense of others. Some began to openly condemn him, while others started gossip. These gossip subsequently served as the reason for his voluntary resignation. The most surprising thing is that all the innovations he put into practice were immediately canceled with the light hand of the government. This was not slow to affect the French reality of that time. LECTURE No. 5. The classical school of political economy 1. Classical school The ideas of the representatives of the classical school are relevant to this day, and in their time they had a huge impact on the development of economic science. This direction developed from the XNUMXth to the beginning of the XNUMXth century. Representatives of the classical school advocated liberalism, that is, they defended the position that the state should not interfere in the affairs of its subjects. It is believed that the period of formation of economic theory as a science falls just at the time of the existence of the classical school. Therefore, the separation of economics into a separate science is considered the merit of representatives of the classical school. They began to develop the theory of value, expressed their opinion on where the surplus value comes from or where the profit comes from. They created many works on taxation and land rent. The founders of the classical school are considered to be William Petty, Pierre Boisguillebert, Adam Smith, David Riccardo, Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill. They believed that economics is the science of wealth and how to achieve it. We list the main ideas of representatives of the classical school. 1. The main and practically the only goal of the capitalist is to obtain the maximum profit in the minimum period of time. 2. The increase in wealth can only occur through the accumulation of capital. 3. A person is selfish by nature, and therefore the most important thing for him is to receive benefits. 4. The best development of the state will be achieved only under liberalism. 5. The amount of salary depends and will always depend on the demand for the profession at a given time. 6. There must be free competition in order for the "principle of the invisible hand of Providence" to work, that is, what is commonly called today the law of supply and demand. 7. In transactions, everyone should be economically savvy and have an idea of everything that happens in any of the markets (land, labor, commodity, etc.). 2. Economic views of William Petty William Petty (1623-1687) - English classical economist, whom Karl Marx called the father of political economy and, possibly, statistics. He is also considered to be the author of the labor theory of value. William Petty was born in the south of England in the city of Romsey. Almost all subjects at school were easy for him, even Latin. At the age of 14 he went to work as a cabin boy on a ship. Then he ended up in France and was able to go to college precisely because he knew Latin. In 1640 he came to London to continue his studies. At the age of 27 he received a doctorate in physics, and at the age of 38 he received a knighthood. William Petty is known as the author of many works - such as "A Treatise on Taxes and Duties" (1662), "Political Anatomy of Ireland" (1672), "Miscellaneous Concerning Money" (1682). In one of his works one can read the famous formula: "Labor is the father and the active principle of wealth, the Earth is its mother." He believed that the sources of wealth are labor and land, and not just money, that is, precious metals. On the other hand, in his opinion, almost everything can be called wealth: houses, ships, goods, home furnishings, lands, precious stones and money. Yet wealth is created by labor and the results of labor. William Petty suggested that the ban on the export of money is a stupid and pointless exercise. He also believed that trade was not beneficial for the economy, so he proposed to "dissolve" part of the merchants. According to Petty, the salary of a worker is the price of his labor, which must be enough for the existence of himself and his family. In one of his books, Petty was able to explain how to separate what the earth produced from what labor produced. Rent, in his opinion, is the excess of the product over the cost of its production. This gave impetus to a new theory of classical political economy. Petty created "Political Arithmetic" 29 (70s of the XNUMXth century), in which econometrics and statistics originate. Also, William Petty was engaged in research in the field of trade duties and tax duties. He believed that people caught stealing should be given into slavery to work. 3. The teachings of Adam Smith Adam Smith (1723-1790) was a Scottish economist who was called the father of economics due to his work entitled An Inquiry into the Nature of the Wealth of Nations (1776). He is a representative of the English classical school of political economy. The main idea of this trend is that wealth is created only through production in any area of the economy, and not only in agriculture, as the physiocrats thought. Adam Smith believed that the most important thing in society is the division of labor by industry, and in each industry by operations. The division of labor allows you to accelerate the pace of production due to the fact that everyone does what he knows best. In order for there to be as much manufacturing as possible, Smith argued, the government should give enterprising people the opportunity to work. They probably have an economic mindset, as they managed to save money, and can create production, thereby developing the country's economy as a whole. Adam Smith was sure that the liberal approach is the best (the state does not interfere in anything and gives complete freedom to entrepreneurs). What modern people call supply and demand, Adam Smith called "the invisible hand of Providence." Any modern person, like Adam Smith in his time, understands that the ultimate goal of an entrepreneur is to get the maximum profit in the shortest possible time. Of course, the law of the market dictates to entrepreneurs its own opinion, when and what products to produce (winter tires are not needed in summer), at what price to sell. Entrepreneurs have to cut prices to be more competitive. None of the entrepreneurs think about how to benefit society, but healthy competition among them provides society with a richer choice of goods and services at lower prices. Thus, competition forces entrepreneurs to try to reduce production costs in order to afford to lower the price without reducing their profits. Such a search leads to the improvement of technology and the search for a cheaper substitute for raw materials. The interests of the bourgeoisie were to freely hire workers, sell and buy land, enter the foreign market and use their money as they please, and not according to the dictates of the state. All this made the ideas of Adam Smith very attractive to this class. Adam Smith's writings are so diverse that he became the forefather of two warring trends in economics: 1) the political economy of labor (the division of society into classes with absolutely opposite interests; the exploitative origin of profit under capitalism) (Karl Marx); 2) Economics (principle of "invisible hand"; economic liberalism; competition). 4. The teachings of David Riccardo David Riccardo (1772-1823) - a representative of the English classical school, a man who did not have a decent education at that time, who was a professional player on the stock exchange, as well as a member of parliament. This is the author of the work “Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” (1817), after which economists stopped relying on the work of A. Smith. But he wrote it already when he managed to earn a sufficient fortune on the stock exchange. David Ricciardo became the new and undisputed leader of the classical school. He himself relied on the works of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, although he outlined his concept much more clearly. David Ricardo tried to explain everything that remained not entirely clear in the works of Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, being their zealous follower. His main themes are the problem of income distribution and land rent. Here is what constitutes ground rent, according to Riccardo: 1) differential rent - additional income that owners receive due to better lands; 2) bad lands do not give rent; 3) land rent does not affect prices, since prices are set on the basis of worse conditions (yields on poorer land). David Ricciardo has always feared that the way income is distributed could cause growth to slow down and then stop economic growth. According to Riccardo, due to the growth in production rates, there may be a shortage of land, since their number is limited. This can cause a rise in the price of land, and then the product, thereby reducing the growth of production. In his theory of income distribution, David Ricciardo made two main conclusions: 1) the price of grain does not depend on the rent paid for the land; 2) if there is more money in the country, then less fertile land has to be used, which will soon lead to a decrease in income. David Riccardo proposed the theory of "comparative costs". Although the essence of the theory for our time is simple in principle, but for his time it was a real breakthrough: to use the theory of labor distribution not at the level of one state, but at the level of the world economy as a whole. The most important thing is that the government does not impose huge duties on imported and exported goods, thereby helping to reduce their prices. The reduction in prices in itself leads to an improvement in the life of the population. LECTURE No. 6. Classical school after Smith and Riccardo 1. Teachings of Jean-Baptiste Say Jean-Baptiste Say (Se) (1762-1832) - French representative of the classical school, one of the followers of Adam Smith. Born into a merchant family, he devoted a lot of time to his self-education. Author of the book "Treatise of Political Economy, or a Simple Statement of the Method in which Wealth is Formed, Distributed and Consumed" (1803-1804) and the six-volume "Complete Course of Practical Political Economy" (1828-1829). In his opinion, he greatly simplified and made more accessible what Adam Smith offered his contemporaries. He constantly supplemented and republished the Treatise of Political Economy. Sey, like Adam Smith, preached the idea of economic liberalism. This man had the gift of explaining complex things in simple words, accessible to everyone. He put forward the "law of markets": the supply of a product always creates a demand for it. In Say's words, it sounds like this: "Every product from the moment of its creation opens a market for other products for the entire amount of its value." Say's law is part of many political and economic theories for representatives of the classical school. In modern economics, it is called Say's law. The labor theory of value, according to him, may depend on many factors - such as costs, utility, demand, supply. Say's doctrine of the law of the market is in many ways opposed to the teachings of the mercantilists. Say believed that it was not the amount of money that played an important role in the life of society, but the amount of product produced for sale. Say also criticized squandering and said that one should save and then reinvest in production, constantly increasing the amount of product for sale. Say believed that the crisis of the entire production could never occur, in general, the crisis is an accident. Especially for him, the Department of Political Economy was created at the College de France. But towards the end of his life, he stopped looking for new ideas and only constantly repeated the old ones. Nevertheless, Jean-Baptiste Say occupies far from the last place in the historical development of economic thought. He was the first to suggest that capital, labor and land participate equally in production. Many scientific studies of the last century were based on this idea. 2. Economic views of John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) - a follower of D. Riccardo, whom he considered his idol. This is the last of the largest representatives of the classical school. James Mile (1773-1836) - English economist, father of John Stuart Mile, gave him an excellent education and developed his creative abilities. He was David Ricciardo's closest friend. John Stuart Mill put forward an idea similar to Say's law. His works dealt with completely different sciences. He published the first of them when he was only 23. The list of these works is very long: "System of Logic" (1843), "Utilitarianism" (1836), "On Freedom" (1859), "Essays on some unsolved problems of political economy "(1844)," The principles of political economy with some applications to social philosophy "(1848) (in 5 books). Mill in his works relied on the works of representatives of the classical school, but he interpreted all their principles in a completely new way. Mill put forward the idea that it is worth separating the law of production and the law of distribution. From the theory of Malthus about population and the theory of rent, Riccardo Mill concluded that the lack of incentives for the population can lead to a "stupor" in the economy, but perhaps this "stupor" will give impetus to spiritual and moral improvement. Mill believed that only production can create material wealth, and another way to obtain material wealth is only the redistribution of what production has created. In his opinion, wages are payment for labor, which depends on supply and demand. Value, Mill suggested, cannot go up on all goods at the same time, because value is a relative concept. John Stuart Mill was very friendly towards socialism, but still did not consider himself a socialist. Mill advised the government of his country to increase bank interest in order for foreigners to invest in the banks of this country. The government should also cut its own spending. He even proposed to carry out a social reform, the main ideas of which, according to S. Gide and S. Rist, can be expressed in the following points: 1) it is worth limiting the inequality of wealth. This will be possible if the rights of inheritance are slightly limited; 2) abolish wage labor as such. This can be done with the help of a productive cooperative association; 3) to carry out the socialization of land rent through a land tax. 3. Economic views of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) - French sociologist, economist and petty-bourgeois socialist, who is generally considered an idealist. He believed Say's law was false. Proudhon was born in eastern France. He, being a poor peasant, did not receive a decent formal education, but devoted a lot of time to self-education, visiting the city library. He was especially interested in philosophy, history and political economy. Known as the author of the books “On the Political Abilities of the Working Class” (death book), “On the Federal Principle” (1862), “On the Justice of the Revolution and in the Church” (1858), “Confession of a Revolutionary” and “The Idea of Revolution in the 1848th Century.” (1848), “Solving the Social Question” (1845), “The System of Economic Contradictions, or the Philosophy of Poverty” (1846-1840), “What is Property?” (XNUMX). "Property is theft!" - considered Proudhon, although he believed that this was one of the conditions of freedom and did not reject property as categorically as others. He said that the very fact of owning property cannot be the basis for receiving income from this property. In 1844-1845 he communicated with Karl Marx, who tried to convince him of the correctness of the idea of communism, but Proudhon remained true to his views on the further development of the country and science. He believed that the issuance of free loans could stop the receipt of unearned income and would help those people who want to work on the land and earn a living from it. Proudhon suggested that the "People's Bank" implement this idea. His idea of helping the proletariat through associations on the principle of mutual assistance was later called "mutualism". He believed that it was possible to build an ideal society based on the highest absolute mind, which would constantly apply the "laws of justice." For such ideas, he was in prison. After he had to emigrate to Belgium, so as not to go to jail again. Social science is a struggle for justice, as Proudhon believed. According to Proudhon, production is the result of the addition of labor, capital, and land. If these elements are considered separately, then they can be productive only in a figurative sense. 4. The teachings of Thomas Malthus Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) - English economist, one of the ardent critics of Say's law, author of many scientific works - such as "An Essay on the Law of Population" (1798), "An Inquiry into the Nature and Increase of Rent" (1815), "Principles political economy, considered from the point of view of their application" (1820). According to Thomas Malthus, capitalism will not be able to create the demand that is necessary for the sale of what is produced in the country. The problem is that more goods are produced for the same salary of workers. Accordingly, they cannot afford to purchase more than usual. He believed that things could be improved if someone bought more, such as civil servants or the aristocracy. In his work on the laws of population, he explains what causes the change in the size of a nation, although many have denied his theory. He also tried to explain why there are so many poor people. In his opinion, the population is growing much faster than people are developing new lands for agricultural work that can feed humanity. In addition, Thomas Malthus believed that the land that is now fertile cannot be such all the time, and the lands that are reclaimed cannot remain endless and always suitable for agriculture. And the scientific achievements of our time are not able to increase the fertility of the land as much as necessary. In his opinion, this causes an increase in mortality (due to hunger and hard work for pennies) and a decrease in the birth rate (fear of not feeding several children). Some believe that his work was the impetus for the emergence in the distant future of the science of "correct family planning." Although at the same time others consider him a perfect tyrant who hated humanity in general. Be that as it may, Thomas Malthus left us a legacy of many theories that have become the property of all mankind and have been widely used by many economists and other scientists. LECTURE No. 7. Historical school 1. The contribution of the historical school to the development of economic theory The development of economic thought in Germany is quite unique for many reasons. For example, at that time in Germany there were about forty states with their own closed borders and huge trade duties. This hampered trade, and consequently, the development of economic thought in general. Yet the formation of economic thought in Germany was largely based on the works of Thomas Malthus. The development of the historical school in Germany is usually divided into three stages: 1) 40-60s XIX century This period is known in history as the "Old Historical School". The main leaders of this stage are Wilhelm Roscher, Bruno Hildebrand, Karl Knies; 2) 70-90s. XIX century This is the second stage, it is called the “new historical school”. The founders of this stage were Lujo Brentano, Gustav Schmoller, Karl Buchera. 3) the first third of the 1863th century. It is customary to call it “the newest historical school.” Its main leaders are Wener Sombart (1941-1864), Max Weber (1920-XNUMX), A. Spiethof. The greatest contribution to the development of economic thought in Germany is almost impossible to determine. Some believe that there were three stages of development, and attribute the most valuable contribution to the development of the economy to Roscher, Hildebrand, Knies. Others believe that there were only two stages, so Brentano, Schmoller, Bucher should be considered the founders and founders. Schmoller himself also belongs to this group of scientists. This school introduced new elements into the very methodology of political economy. The essence of these elements can be summarized in several paragraphs: 1) reliance on the economic development of the country as a whole, taking into account the influence of the "human factor"; 2) understanding how economic and non-economic factors are interrelated; 3) understanding the role of non-class criteria; 4) study of how they affect social life and the development of society. Representatives of different generations are mainly united by one idea - criticism of the classical school about the fact that its representatives consider everything only in theory, leaving no room for the presence of the "human factor". Since the method of the historical school was too new for that time, and besides, it was completely unrelated to the already existing achievements in economic theory, this direction could not take a leading position in the economy of that time. This would make up for the omissions of the representatives of the classical school. This became possible only in the XIX - XX centuries. 2. German Historical School The historical school arose in the XNUMXth century. as one of the alternatives to the classical school. The main ideas of the representatives of the historical school are taken from the works of Adam Müller ("Fundamentals of the Art of Government", 1809) and Friedrich List ("The National System of Political Economy", 1841). The main point on which all representatives of the historical school are unanimous is that the classics are too carried away by generalization and abstraction and are completely unwilling to recognize any observations and experience from the past or the present. Also, representatives of the historical school believed that economic laws are completely different from natural (chemical or physical). On the basis of such reflections, they concluded that political economy has a universal character, the economy depends not only on economic, but also on non-economic factors. These non-economic factors include: 1) geographical location, therefore, climate; 2) features of mentality; 3) faith and its features; 4) features of historical development; 5) features of culture; 6) features of psychology. Representatives of the historical school of Germany at the initial stage include such scientists as Wilhelm Roscher (1817-1894), Bruno Hildebrand (1812-1878), Karl Knies (1821-1894). Their teachings were based on the collection of historical facts. This trend began in the 1840s and 1850s. Later, these three scientists were attributed to the “old” historical school. William Roscher - University professor, compiler of the Lecture Program on the Historical Method. He divided into five categories information that related to income, property, credit, prices, money, slavery, freedom, division of labor, luxury, population. He also identified three stages in the development of the history of the economy: ancient, medieval and new. Known as the author of the works "Brief Foundations of the Course of Political Economy from the Point of View of the Historical Method" (1843), "The Beginning of the National Economy" (in 4 vols.; 1854, 1860, 1881, 1886). Bruno Hildebrand was the mentor and teacher of the American neoclassicist J. B. Clark, the author of The Political Economy of the Present and the Future (1848) and the book Natural Economy, Money Economy, Credit Economy (1864). Carl Gustav Adolf Knies - author of "Political Economy from the Point of View of the Historical Method" (1853). He denied economic science in general. The historical method of Karl Knies was eventually reduced to the history of economic opinions. 3. New Historical School of Germany Gustav Schmoller (1870-1838), Lujo Brentano (1917-1848), Adolf Geld (1931-18844), Karl Bücher (1880-1847) can be attributed to the representatives of the new historical school in Germany, which began to emerge in the 1930s. . Gustav Schmoller is a university professor, one of the founders of the Social Policy Union. He did not consider V. Roscher, B. Hildebrand, K. Knies as representatives of the historical school. G. Schmoller, like K. Marx, believed that it was impossible to reconcile the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. According to G. Schmoller, the state must protect the lower class and create mutually beneficial conditions for the reconciliation of classes so that their enmity does not interfere with the proper development of the country's economy. G. Schmoller believed that political economy should not explain only the doctrine of the market and the exchange of goods, it is necessary to try to explain economic behavior, the theory and ethics of economic activity. Lujo Brentano is an active member of the Social Policy Union. He proposed raising the wages of workers, thereby giving rise to an improvement in the quality and quantity of goods produced. Adolf Geld - Professor, author of the book "Socialism, Social Democracy and Social Policy" (1878). Karl Bucher - author of "The Emergence of the National Economy" (1893). In this work, he proposed a scheme according to which the national economy of Europe developed. The scheme is very simple and consists of three periods of the development of society: 1) subsistence farming (all goods were produced only for personal consumption in their household); 2) the beginning of the division of labor (people noticed that they produce some goods faster, and some more slowly, and it is much more profitable to exchange missing goods with neighbors); 3) complete division of labor (people considered that it is much more profitable to produce one type of goods, and exchange the rest on the market). LECTURE No. 8. Utopian Socialists 1. Western European utopian socialism The representatives of Western European socialism-utopianism include such scientists as Claude Henri de Rubroy Saint-Simon, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier. These scientists largely agree with the classics, for example, that production should be developed as much as possible, as well as new inventions, striving for scientific and technological progress. They tried to build a model of an ideal society in their works. Each of them had their own idea of an ideal society. Their main difference from the classics is that they did not recognize, and sometimes even criticized, private property. They also condemned free competition, because this, in their opinion, is manifested by exploitation, which has the goal of reducing production costs. They denied the possibility of any economic transformation that would lead to a better life. However, they still rely in their writings on the ideas of social justice. The views of these scientists are similar in many respects, but at the same time they are very different from each other. Saint-Simon and his supporters proposed to unite everyone into one big team. Owen and his followers argued otherwise. According to them, a person should not lose his individuality in a huge team. 2. Economic views of Simon de Sismondi Jean-Charles-Léonard Simon de Sismondi (1773-1842) - French historian and economist. Born in Switzerland, he was one of the critics of Say's law and supporters of Thomas Malthus. Both of them, almost at the same time, put forward very similar ideas about capitalism and the failure of Say's law. Simon de Sismondi is the author of the famous two-volume work "New Principles of Political Economy" ("New Principles of Political Economy") (1819). He is also known for other works, such as the two-volume “History of the Italian Republics” (1807), “Literature of Southern Europe” (1813). Simon de Sismondi was born in Geneva. All his childhood was spent in his father's family estate near Geneva. His father was a pastor. First, Simon graduated from the spiritual Calvinist "college", after which he entered the university, which he could not finish due to the shaken financial situation of his father. He had to get a job in one of the banks in Lyon. During the French Revolutions, Sismondi and his father were imprisoned. Then his family was forced to leave. First they went to England, where the twenty-year-old Sismondi got acquainted with such work by Adam Smith as The Wealth of Nations. Then his family crossed over to Italy, where he began to manage his father's household and began to write his works. In the main work of his life, Simon de Sismondi writes about his own method and understanding of political economy. Also here is his point of view on the division of labor, income, reforms, reproduction, population. Sismondi, like Adam Smith, suggested that wealth is social labor, and the subject of political economy is the financial situation of people. But on another issue, their opinions are opposite, for example, regarding the theory of the division of labor. He believed that the division of labor contributes to the more rapid emergence of new machines, and they, in turn, are able to displace more people, leaving them out of work. At the end of his work, Sismondi writes about what does not apply to those who do not want progress or stand in its way. Progress, depending on the specific circumstances, can be both beneficial and harmful. In his opinion, capitalism can develop only by constantly expanding markets. Since the internal market cannot be expanded indefinitely, therefore, one must constantly look for new external markets. In order to at least somewhat increase the volume of sales in the domestic market, it is necessary to raise the wages of ordinary workers. His ideal society is small producers who work for themselves on their own land. 3. Robert Owen's Utopian Dreams Robert Owen (1771-1858) - one of the great utopian socialists, teacher of William Thompson. For a long time he was a large manufacturer. Robert Owen drew up a rational constitution consisting of 26 laws. Robert Owen is also known for such works as “On the Education of Human Character” (1813-1814), “Report to the County of New Lanark” (1820), “Book of the New Moral World” (1836-1844). In his views on economics, he largely agrees with representatives of the classical school. Robert Owen believed that the views of the classics were unfair only that the value of a product should include profit. This, according to Owen, was a blatant injustice towards ordinary workers, and it is this injustice that is the cause of economic crises and the constant impoverishment of the working class. Robert Owen was also a zealous opponent of Thomas Malthus' theory of population. He suggested that if the government properly managed physical work, it would be possible to feed an infinitely increasing number of inhabitants. Robert Owen was one of the first to take care of the workers in his factories. He built a canteen, a trading shop, a savings bank, a nursery, a kindergarten for them, and improved their living conditions. Owen also ordered changes to be made to his factories such as: 1) 10-hour working day for adults; 2) the abolition of the use of child labor, that is, those who are under 18; 3) schools for the children of workers; 4) the abolition of the system of fines, which were very common at that time. Robert Owen has never been a supporter of revolution or other violent coup. He believed that the unjust system would change gradually and correctly, using "scientific principles". Owen believed that only a wise government is able to initiate such changes, while creating suitable conditions, so the main role in his work is assigned to the government. He considered the following conditions to be suitable: 1) the widespread use of machine labor, and not human, even in the household; 2) labor should become the only measure of value; 3) money must have its own value, which would not exceed the value of steel and iron; 4) the population should be educated, especially using printed materials: books, newspapers, magazines. LECTURE No. 9. Marxism 1. The emergence of Marxism as an economic doctrine Karl Marx is recognized as one of the greatest philosophers in human history. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that Marx was able to talk about capital from the point of view of a philosopher. Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a German scientist who was involved in many sciences. Yet his main research was in the field of political economy. He is also one of the most famous socialist thinkers. Many today are trying to answer the question of how to organize the economy so that there are no beggars, based on the theory of Karl Marx. He is known to many as the author of “The Poverty of Philosophy” (1847), “Towards a Critique of Political Economy” (1859), “Capital” (1867) (1st volume). The second and third volumes were published by Friedrich Engels in 1885 and 1894. Although not all works have yet been translated into Russian, more of them have been translated into this language than into any other language in the world. Many of his works were published only after his death. Marxism is a new doctrine of new views and values, which was preached by Karl Marx. The economic theory of Karl Marx differed in that he did not consider the capitalist system "natural" and "eternal" and always said that there would be a revolution. This revolution will sweep away the capitalist system and replace it with another, where there will be no place for private property, inequality and poverty. Karl Marx believed that a capitalist society would necessarily turn into a socialist one through revolutionary intervention and not otherwise. He made such conclusions based on the study of the economic law on the development of modern society. One of the main foundations of the offensive of socialism is the accumulation of capital. The capitalists create more and more of their industries, syndicates, cartels, etc., while the wage workers only become poorer, which in itself cannot continue indefinitely. According to his theory, capitalism must perish because of internal contradictions that cannot be resolved peacefully. Almost all the works of Karl Marx deal with this issue, especially Capital. Marx's main conclusion from this theory was that it was impossible to reconcile the bourgeoisie and the proletariat within the existing system. Karl Marx also argued that this would not be permanent, because with the accumulation of capital, the need for machines and new technologies increases due to high competition, and the need for human labor decreases. Such a strategy leads to greater enrichment of some (the bourgeoisie) and impoverishment of others (the proletariat), as they are increasingly left without work. Therefore, what Karl Marx began as a doctrine of the development of capitalism later became a doctrine of its death and revolutionary transition to socialism. 2. Capital by Karl Marx "Capital" is the most important work of Karl Marx, which aims to understand the economic law that drives people in modern society. It was in it that Karl Marx argued that the key to understanding the culture of mankind and human history as a whole is labor, that is, the productive activity of mankind. Capital, like many of Karl Marx's works, asserts that capitalism will perish after all. However, many pages of this work are devoted precisely to the emergence of capitalism from feudalism. The full title of this work is Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. The first volume was published in 1867, during the author's lifetime. The beginning of this book is more about the properties and functions of money. In this volume, the question of the historical trend of capital accumulation is dealt with in great detail and clearly. The second and third volumes were published in 1885 and 1894. respectively. This was done by Karl Marx's best friend Friedrich Engels. The second volume of Capital, as it were, continues what Marx's predecessor Francois Quesnay did not finish in his economic table. Karl Marx continues to develop his theory of the circulation of the social product. Also in the second volume, he analyzes the reproduction of social capital. To do this, Marx analyzes the entire economy in general, and not its individual parts, as economists did before him. In the same place, Karl Marx shows what a mistake the representatives of the classical school made on this issue. According to him, social reproduction should be divided into at least two parts: 1) the production of the means of production themselves, in order to produce something new in the future; 2) the production of what is consumed every day. The third volume of this work is devoted to such important issues as usury, commercial and money capital, land rent. The third volume also covers the issue of obtaining an average rate of profit. To obtain the average rate of profit, one has to use the law of value. The novelty of this analysis is achieved again by examining the economy as a whole, and not in individual parts. The very first thing that Karl Marx analyzes is the very origin of surplus value. He then proceeds to analyze how this surplus profit is subdivided into ground rent, interest, and profit. Profit is how surplus value relates to all capital that is invested in the enterprise. According to Marx, if the productivity of labor is increased, then there will be the fastest increase in constant capital, if at this point it is compared with variable capital. 3. Karl Marx about the product and its properties. Money and its functions According to Marx, the production of various goods dominates in capitalist society. Based on this, he begins his research in the field of product analysis. According to him, the product has two functions: 1) the ability to satisfy the needs of the person himself (use value); 2) the ability to be exchanged for another commodity, which at the moment is more necessary (exchange value). Marx believed that production as a whole is an already established system of human relations in which all commodities must be equal when exchanged. Therefore, labor in itself is common to all commodities in general, and not labor in any particular area of production. The amount of value is that amount of labor or labor time which is socially necessary in order to produce any use value. According to Karl Marx, when people compare their various products, they unconsciously compare their very different types of work. A commodity is, in fact, the essence of the time that has been worked out and which, as it were, "froze" in these goods. Marx suggested that labor has a dual character. After he finished with the analysis of labor, he turned to the analysis of the properties of money. Karl Marx studied the origin of money for some time, and then took up the historical process of the development of money as such. In his opinion, money is only the highest product of the development of commodity exchange and the production of goods. Marx also engaged in a detailed analysis of the functions of money, especially at the beginning of his work Capital. When society reaches a certain stage in the development of commodity relations, money becomes capital. The formula of commodity-money relations begins to look like this: C - D - T (goods - money - goods). According to Marx, surplus value is an increase in the initial value of money that has been invested in circulation. In his opinion, it is this increase in the original value that makes money capital. There are at least two prerequisites for the emergence of capital: 1) the accumulation of money in the hands of individual citizens with a sufficiently high level of development of production itself; 2) the presence of free workers who are now not "attached" to any land or any production. On the other hand, these people have nothing but their labor force. 4. Karl Marx on constant and variable capital and surplus value The basis of the works of Karl Marx is the theory of labor value. The foundations of this theory are mentioned in the writings of Adam Smith. Its essence is as follows: the exchange of goods takes place in accordance with the amount of labor that is spent on obtaining them. Karl Marx developed this theory further and pointed out that the nature of labor is dual, that is, "concrete" and "abstract". Abstract labor is the value of a good or service that makes them commensurable. Concrete labor is the material and material form of the commodity, to which Marx appropriated the name of consumer value. According to Karl Marx, surplus value by itself cannot arise from the circulation of a commodity, since this is an equivalent exchange, or the one who owns money must find an absolutely amazing commodity that would itself become a source of value. In addition, the simplest thing that a person with money can find is the wage labor of another person, that is, his labor power. He who owns money is able to buy labor power, the value of which can be determined in the same way as the price of any commodity. Labor power, according to Marx, has both value and use value. (Value is the minimum amount a worker and his family can live on. Use value is the ability of a worker to work hard.) The capitalist, buying "labor power", pays the cost, but at the same time forces the worker to work more than is necessary to compensate for this very cost. Suppose an employee justifies his salary in 6 hours, while his working day is at least 8 hours, and possibly 12 hours (overtime is from 2 to 6 hours per day). Thus the wage-worker works every day more than he is paid, and the capitalist appropriates this surplus. Such surplus Karl Marx called "surplus value". According to Marx, capital has two parts: constant capital and variable capital. He attributed to constant capital the costs that the capitalist pays for the means of production (equipment, raw materials, etc.). Their value can be transferred to the products both immediately and partially. Variable capital includes labor costs (wages of workers). It is the value of variable capital that creates surplus value. There is always the possibility of adding value. For example, this could be achieved by increasing the working day at the same salary. Marx called this increase in capital absolute surplus value. Although there is another option for increasing surplus capital - this is a decrease in the required time for which the employee will pay back his salary. Marx gave the name of relative surplus value to this type of capital increase. Karl Marx was engaged for a long time in the analysis of relative surplus value. He proposed as many as three options for the appearance of such an increase in capital: 1) cooperation; 2) a simple division of labor, as well as small-scale manufactory production; 3) technical development and the emergence of a larger industry. Karl Marx made a new fundamental analysis in the field of capital accumulation. According to him, the accumulation of capital is a process that turns part of the surplus value into capital, which is used not to expand production, but for the personal needs of its owner. 5. Views of Karl Marx on land rent According to Marx, the price of agricultural products can and should be determined by the harvest from the worst soil. The costs that are generated by bringing the product to the market should be determined by the largest costs. The difference between the quantity of a commodity produced on the best soil and the quantity of a commodity produced on the worst soil is differential rent. Because of private property, there is a monopoly on land. Such a monopoly allows you to make the price above the average. This monopoly price helps create absolute rent. According to Karl Marx, absolute rent can be lost in any coup, while differential rent cannot be lost under any circumstances. Marx also pointed out that there were several stages in the history of land rent: 1) land rent is converted into rent by the products produced on this land, i.e., the peasants give back to the landowner what they have produced on his land; 2) then this rent becomes cash rent, that is, the peasants must sell what they have produced on the landowner's land, and only then give him the land rent in money; 3) capitalist rent appears last of all. Here the rent is paid by an entrepreneur who hires simple workers, former peasants, to cultivate this land. According to Marx, it was the transition from rent in kind to cash rent that created a class of poor people who only have to hire themselves for money. During this period, those peasants who were richer allowed themselves to hire the poorer and thus became even richer. But even so, not all the poor found work, so they had to go to the city to become employees for some manufacturer. Under capitalism, small landed property perishes completely. According to Marx, in capitalist industry (and in capitalist agriculture as well) the productivity of labor power and high mobility are achieved only by the exhaustion of workers and labor power as such. Karl Marx also assured that capitalist progress in agriculture is the ability to rob both the land and the worker. LECTURE No. 10. The Austrian School 1. The Austrian school: the theory of marginal utility as a theory of pricing The Austrian school appeared in the 70s. XIX century Its most prominent representatives are Carl Menger (1840-1921), Eugen (Eugene) Böhm-Bawerk (1851-1914) and Friedrich von Wieser (1851-1926). They were the founders of a completely new direction, which began to be called “marginalism,” i.e., “ultimate.” Later, marginalism was called a revolution in economic science and was given the name “marginalist revolution.” Representatives of the classical school believed that the value of a product is the amount of labor that was spent on its production. Accordingly, the price - the cost in monetary terms. Representatives of the Austrian school held a completely opposite opinion: the value of any product or service is the subjective attitude of a potential consumer towards them. The commodity itself is devoid of any economic properties. Therefore, the main thing is the end result, which is evaluated by the consumer himself, based on his needs and tastes, and not on the amount of costs for the production of this product. In addition, according to the Austrians, the usefulness of each next unit does not remain in one place, but is constantly decreasing. (On a hot day, a person is very thirsty. He is ready to pay 10 or 20 rubles for a glass of mineral water, but he does not agree to pay the same amount for the second glass, because he does not want to drink so much. On a cold day, he will not agree to pay for even 2 rubles for this water, since he does not want to drink at all.) Between "utility" and "value" can not put an equal sign. Not every good is valuable, although it can be useful. Only that which is limited in comparison with the demand for it has value. (Snow for children has utility, but no value, since its amount is almost limitless in winter.) Marginalists divided all goods into economic (rare) and free. Basically, a person is surrounded by economic benefits. The price of economic goods depends on the need for them, and not on the cost of their production. The Austrians completely rejected the theory of labor value, which was put forward at the time by Karl Marx. They also believed that the price had no objective basis. The theory of marginal utility has been constantly criticized. Perhaps the theory itself is wrong in many ways, but it became a strong impetus for further research in the economic field, for example, for the development of the concept of "marginal values" (marginal cost, marginal income, etc.). Now this theory is used in microeconomics, showing the formation of costs and prices, consumer behavior, firm behavior in conditions of limited resources, etc. 2. Economic views of Eugen Böhm-Bawerk Eugen (Eugene) Böhm-Bawerk (1851-1914) - nobleman and childhood friend of Friedrich von Wieser, student of Carl Menger. He graduated from the law department of the University of Vienna, where he studied with his friend, although he was a senior statesman (Minister of Finance, Chairman of the Supreme Court of Appeal). And he was a teacher for a relatively short time (1880-1889). He wrote his famous works only at the beginning of his career. Böhm-Bawerk received life membership in the upper house of parliament. His works had a huge influence on economic science. These include “Rights and Relations from the Point of View of the Doctrine of National Economic Goods” (1881), the two-volume “Capital and Interest” (the first volume is “Capital and Profit” (1884), and the second volume is “The Positive Theory of Capital” ( 1889)), “Fundamentals of the theory of values of economic goods” (1886), “Towards the completion of the Marxist system” (1890). The main purpose of the book "Fundamentals of the Theory of Values of Economic Goods" is to prove the correctness of the "law of magnitude of the value of a thing." Böhm-Bawerk writes about this: "The value of a thing is measured by the marginal utility of that thing." Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, like Karl Menger, believed that the more homogeneous goods a person has at his disposal, the less each individual thing is valued, if all other conditions are the same. In his opinion, a person in practice realized the benefits of marginal utility faster than science derived this definition. Böhm-Bawerk, not without reason, is considered one of the largest representatives of the "Austrian school". The theory of interest and capital is O. Böhm-Bawerk's main merit. He emphasized three reasons why interest appeared and exists: 1) people tend to expect that perhaps resources will be scarce and rise in price; 2) people tend to underestimate their needs in the future; 3) the use of capital increases the profit, as well as the time of receipt. Bayem-Bawerk believed that the price is a subjective value, which relies only on the desires of buyers, and does not depend on the costs of producing this product. He also believed that an item is valuable only when it is useful and rare (for example, salt in places where it is not freely available, but only occasionally brought by merchants.). The process of acquiring value for a product can be divided into two stages: first, there is a need to purchase a product, and then it becomes scarce, there is a rush with a possible increase in price, if we consider the same example with salt. Thus, through supply and demand, an average price is created in the market. 3. The teachings of Carl Menger Carl Menger (1840-1921) - a nobleman by birth, took up economic theory in 1867, before that he practiced jurisprudence. And yet this did not stop him from becoming the first head of the department of economic theory at the University of Vienna. Carl Menger is one of the brightest representatives of economists of his time. No wonder he became the head of the Austrian school. He is the author of the works "Foundation of the Doctrine of National Economy" ("Foundation of Political Economy") (1871) and "An Inquiry into the Method of the Social Sciences and Political Economy in Particular" (1883), as well as the articles "Money" (1909). On the first book he worked hardest of all, and it was even reprinted, albeit after the death of the author. On a global scale, Karl Menger was not recognized for about half a century, because his first work was translated into English only fifty years after the death of the author. This became a stimulus for his followers, and they began to continue their research in the direction indicated by Karl Menger even more diligently. He is rightfully considered the founder of the marginalist revolution, although there were other scientists who started with him. Perhaps this is due to the fact that Menger relies heavily on the works of representatives of the classical school and only expands and refines their research. On the other hand, it introduces many new things. For example, Carl Menger believes that price is a subjective property of a product and is completely independent of the cost of producing this product. Only supply and demand can regulate the price of a commodity. In his first work, Karl Menger writes that the good is an object that satisfies some human need. When Karl Menger conducted his research, he relied only on a single economy, which was taken separately from others, that is, ideal theoretical conditions were created, but practice still goes beyond the scope of these studies. Karl Menger and his followers divide all goods into orders: the first order satisfies the immediate desires of a person, and the rest (the second, etc.) are necessary to obtain the first. Karl Menger also introduces the concept of economic goods. A person has two desires, but at the moment he can fulfill only one, so he will have to choose what is of great benefit, and it is advisable to use it (to save goods). Carl Menger divides all goods into two types: economic and non-economic. He then describes the transition from one to the other. (If there is more of a good at the moment than it is required, then it ceases to be economic.) Thus, a good or good is valuable as long as it is rare. He believes that the exchange should be beneficial to both parties, otherwise it turns out "an awl on soap and vice versa." It is believed that it was Karl Menger who first developed the theory of the existence of complementary goods, that is, when one product is completely unnecessary without the other. All his studies are considered a huge contribution to the development of economic thought of that time, and of our time too. 4. Economic views of Friedrich von Wieser Friedrich von Wieser (1851-1926) - baron, representative of the Austrian school, friend and brother-in-law of Böhm-Bawerk, student and follower of K. Mengenra. He became the head of the department after him, and before that he worked at the University of Prague. Received life membership in the upper house of parliament. Known as the author of the works “On the Origin and Basic Laws of Economic Value” (1884), “Natural Value” (1889), “The Theory of Social Economy” (1914), “Sociology and the Law of Power” (1926). Friedrich von Wieser believed that the state should not prohibit private property, otherwise everything would again gather in the hands of the state, or rather, its officials. This is unlikely to be useful, since the state will not be able to manage everything as mobilely as a private owner. In addition, officials themselves are likely to want to become owners of private property, which again will lead to careless management of this property. After all, officials already have enough to do, except for property management as such. This scholar criticizes those who oppose private ownership and private property. After all, private property is an impetus to the development of society as a whole. A person is selfish by nature in general and therefore will never work for someone as well as for himself. And a person has the opportunity to work for himself only if he owns private property. He was the first to propose a way to determine the total utility. Friedrich Wieser was also a practitioner, serving for a time as Minister of Commerce. He is remembered as the man who gave marginalists a lot of terms (marginal utility, Gossen's first law). Wieser believed that an equilibrium approach should be applied (the value of productive goods cannot change, since all production combinations are optimal). Friedrich Wieser improved on the theory of his teacher Karl Menger so that there would be no remainder that was not distributed, and called this theory "imputation". According to him, there were two types of imputation: 1) general; 2) specific. LECTURE No. 11. Marginalism 1. The theory of marginalism. Methodological principles of marginalism Marginalists, like representatives of other economic trends, had their own methodological principles. They, in fact, did not derive those principles of methodology that are now customarily attributed to this theory. Methodological principles are mentioned in passing in their theories. If the methodological principles are evaluated from the position of modernity, then the following can be distinguished. 1. Mathematization. It allowed the use of analysis tools used in mathematics. Although this principle does not apply to the Austrian school. 2. The equilibrium approach is an attempt to estimate the equilibrium state of the market, despite short-term changes in any variables in the economy. 3. Individualism. Marginalists evaluated the economic behavior of each individual person (individual), and not of a country or class, as suggested by the mercantilists or the classics. 4. Limit analysis is the analysis of limit values. If, after adding one more unit of goods, the overall level of profit or utility is not added, then this state is already the equilibrium state. 5. Economic rationality. Marginalists have constantly sought to prove that business entities always want to maximize what they are most interested in. Buyers are always interested in usefulness and quality, and manufacturers are always interested in profit. 6. Statistical approach. Marginalists were more interested not in the economy itself, but in how it constantly changes. For them, the most important question was how a system consisting of selfish, constantly wanting to do everything only for themselves, people manage to exist and not collapse. 2. Marginalist theory of value and its advantages The marginalist approach to the theory of value is opposed to the classical approach, that is, the price of a product should be based on demand, and not on costs. Marginalists attached great importance to the taste and preference of consumers, so the theory of consumer choice became the first main theory. On the one hand, marginalists believed that the price is a subjective assessment of the product (someone is expensive, someone is not), and on the other hand, it is very difficult to compare the cost of subjective goods. Yet the main theory of marginalists is the theory of marginal utility. One of the main problems that marginalists studied was the idea of the proportions of the exchange of goods. This problem was solved by the theory of marginal utility. Alfred Marshall believed that it was almost impossible to do this in natural terms, but you can indirectly measure everything in money and come to some kind of agreement. He was a supporter of cardinalism (if you compare goods by utility, and then add or subtract the utility of another good, you can get the true utility of the goods). V. Pareto - an opponent of A. Marshall - denied that a person can measure the utility of each product. In his opinion, the maximum that a person is capable of, if at all, is to arrange the goods that are needed in a list from the most necessary to the not very necessary. He also believed that it was simply impossible to add up the utility of a product. His approach is called ordinalism. The most important advantage of the marginalist revolution is its universality. Classical cost theory was almost impossible to apply to world trade. Marginal utility theory has created a theoretical language that can be applied to other economic theories and problems, and also explained the proportions of exchange. 3. Marginalist revolution. Causes and consequences of the marginalist revolution The marginalist revolution "turned over" economic science as a whole, that is, it changed its methods and the very subject of study. 60 After the marginalist revolution (after the 1870s), according to many modern scholars, the era of modern economic thought began. Perhaps one of the reasons for the revolution can be called the publication of a book by William Jevons called "The Theory of Political Economy" at the time when the works of Karl Menger were published. This was the impetus for the beginning of the marginalist revolution. It is believed that marginalism is opposition to the economic teachings of Karl Marx. This can also be attributed to one of the causes of the marginalist revolution. According to the views of many scholars, the marginalist revolution prevailed, most likely for reasons that come from within economics itself. Such reasons include the following: 1) "parsimony" of this theory (one principles of research); 2) analytical tools, the same for all problems (economic and non-economic); 3) universality of the method and tools of analysis (formation of a single language). The consequences of the marginalist revolution can be summarized as follows: 1) creation of economic associations, magazines; 2) abstract level of analysis; 3) simplification of the human image; 4) simplification of the image of the world. At first, marginalists were divided into schools according to the language they speak, i.e. Austrian (German) (represented by Karl Menger, Eugen Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser), Lausanne (French) (represented by V. Pareto ) and English (represented by William Stanley Jevons, Francis Isidro Edgeworth, F. G. Wicksteed). Over time, Alfred Marshal and his followers were added to the last of the groups, and the group began to be called the Cambridge School. Then J. B. Clark was added to it, and the school was renamed again (this time to the Anglo-American school). English marginalists - William Jevons and Francis Edgeworth. William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882) - dropped out of college at the University of London, where he studied chemistry and metallurgy, when his father went bankrupt in 1847. Because of this, he had to go to work at the mint, which was located in Sydney in Australia. His job allowed him to devote time to his hobbies. William Jevons was interested in such sciences as meteorology and economics. Even at a young age, Jevons was very interested in photography and collecting statistical data, and was also interested in the problems of railway transport. He lived in Australia for five years and then decided to return to London to finish his studies at his university, although after returning he chose to study economics. The first of his works brought him virtually no success. They were called “On the General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy” and “Note on Statistical Methods for Studying Seasonal Fluctuations” (1862). His next works became more famous. This is a work on the price of gold (1683), as well as a work called "The Coal Question" (1865). In the second paper, William Jevons looks at what problems might arise if England runs out of coal. Yet his most famous books are The Theory of Political Economy (1871) and The Principles of Science - a treatise on logic and scientific method (1874). William Jevons worked as a teacher from 1863 to 1880, first for 13 years in Manchester and then for 4 years in London. This scientist can be attributed to very versatile economists, because he was fascinated by both applied analysis and statistical research, as well as the methodology and logic of economic science. It was he who compiled a review on the development of the mathematical theory of marginal utility for each author separately, without diminishing the merits of each of them. It is also generally accepted that it was he who laid the foundations of modern logic in his writings. We should not forget about his contribution to the development of the theory of indices or the attempt to create the theory that the economic cycle depends on the activity of the sun. The publication of his book entitled "The Theory of Political Economy" at the time when the works of Karl Menger were published and served as an impetus for the start of the marginalist revolution. According to Jevons, economics must also be mathematical, since it has enough numbers. The mathematical approach helps to make economic theory a more accurate science. This science should be based on statistical data. Francis Isidro Edgeworth (1845-1926) is practically the most original economist of his time. Although his education was at home, it was the envy of many. For example, not everyone is able to learn six languages, including Latin. Also, a little later, he studied humanities at the universities of Dublin and Oxford. The range of his hobbies also does not leave anyone indifferent and causes a lot of surprises. This includes philosophy, ethics, ancient languages, logic, and even mathematics, which he had to master himself. Edgeworth was so proficient in these subjects that he even taught many of them. Meeting Alfred Marshall and William Jevons sparked his passion for statistics and economics. In 1891 he became professor of economics at Oxford and remained so until 1922. It was also during this time that he became a publisher and co-publisher with such a scholar as John Maynard Keynes. In the same year, Edgeworth was appointed chairman of the editorial board of the well-known Economic Journal. He wrote mostly articles for magazines, as well as articles for the Palgrave Dictionary (Dictionary of Political Economy, published in 1925). Francis Edgeworth is also known as the author of the book “Mathematical Psychology” (1881). The works of this scientist, both now and during his lifetime, were very difficult to understand, because his works are a rather complex mixture of quotes from Latin and Greek authors and very complex mathematics. Most of all, Edgeworth was concerned about economic problems that were associated with limiting competition, as well as price discrimination. Of all his contributions to economic theory, the most original is his contribution to the theory of exchange. 4. Utility theory by William Stanley Jevons According to Jevons, the most important thing for the economy is to maximize pleasure. How useful the good we have depends on the amount we have: and =f(x). According to Jevons, the degree of utility is the utility of the increment of the good, which is equal to Δu / Δx, and if the increment is infinitely small - the derivative ux - di / dx. From the point of view of William Jevons, the most interesting thing for economists is the utility of the most recent increase in the good. He called this utility the last degree of utility. The greater the increase in the good, the more the marginal degree of utility decreases. This principle is called the first law of Gossen, but William Jevons considered himself the discoverer of this "great principle". According to Jevons, the last degree of utility is an infinitesimal increase in goods. Representatives of the Austrian school considered this concept incorrect, and Jevons on this occasion was of the opposite opinion, albeit with a reservation. This concept should refer not to one person, but to the whole nation in general. A small problem arises here, because the law of diminishing marginal utility is created on the basis of and specifically for one person. But, according to Jevons, what is deduced in theory for an individual must be tested in practice. According to Jevons, it is necessary to distribute the optimal consumption of goods in such a way that the last degree of utility remains the same: v1 p1 q1 = v2 p2 q2 = ... = vn pn qn, where v is the last degree of utility; p - probability; q is the coefficient of proximity in time; 1, 2, n - time points. William Jevons determines the price of a commodity in the same way as the representatives of the Austrian school determine the exchange value, that is, relying only on marginal utility. In such a process, the costs of direct participation, in fact, do not take. They are only able to indirectly influence the volume of goods offered on the market. On this occasion, Jevons even forms a chain of dependence, which can be represented as follows: supply is determined by production costs => last degree of utility is determined by existing supply => value is determined by the last degree of utility. This so-called Jevons chain is "stretched" in terms of time, i.e. if it is time to determine the value, then the offer has already been determined earlier. Therefore, supply and demand cannot be determined at the same moment, as suggested by Alfred Marshall. 5. The Exchange Theory by William Stanley Jevons Jevons derived the theory of exchange from his own theory of utility. The theory of exchange also became a theory of value. The concept of "value" is very multifaceted: it is both exchange value, and use value, etc. According to Jevons, one should use the word "value" for the concept of exchange value. Exchange value is a proportion in the exchange of heterogeneous goods (one for another). It is capable of becoming an exchange proportion in the open market, where everything is available to everyone. Trading parties in the market can be both individuals and groups of any profession, and possibly the population of an entire country or continent. The concept of "trading parties" was introduced by William Jevons because he wanted to spread his theory in real markets, where there are a huge number of buyers and sellers. His theory of individual exchange is based on the theory of marginal utility. However, Francis Edgeworth soon came to the conclusion that such reasoning is at least incorrect, if not ridiculous, because the average marginal utility of a good for a group of people subsequently depends on the distribution of goods both before and after the exchange, so relying on such an explanation is practically impossible. Because of all this, Jevons failed to derive the marketable exchange value of goods from their marginal utility. Therefore, his theory only describes the case of individual exchange.
This diagram can be used to outline Jevons' theory of exchange. The abscissa shows the goods that are going to be exchanged. Let's say it's bread and fish. The amount of bread in our diagram increases from right to left, the amount of fish - vice versa. On the y-axis we plot the marginal utility of these two goods. Accordingly, we get that the marginal utility of bread now increases from left to right, and fish - from right to left. Let's call one side A, the other side B. Suppose that, before they exchanged, they had a units of fish (side A) and b units of bread (side B). After they exchanged part of their commodities for each other's commodities, the amount of their original commodities shifted to points a' and b' respectively. Based on this, the utility of grain is aa'gd, and the utility of meat at this point is aa'ch, so the net utility gain can be expressed as: hdgc. From this we can conclude that it is interesting for A to exchange up to the point m, respectively, the same is beneficial for B. 6. Labor Supply Theory by William Stanley Jevons According to Jevons, work is a very unpleasant, rather dreary and painful occupation. Most often, labor is a negative utility. If you increase the time spent on labor, then the hardships of labor automatically increase. We can represent the net utility of labor in the following diagram:
When a person has started work, it takes a certain period of time to get involved in it and start enjoying it. In this diagram, it is represented by the segment ab. After a person has become involved in work, a certain period of time passes before the work begins to bother and cause dreary thoughts that this work must be done by a certain period of time. Such a magical gap is indicated on the diagram by a segment bc. Since human strength is still not unlimited, fatigue begins to manifest itself, therefore, both productivity and pleasure from one's work fall. The decline in performance is represented in the diagram by the segment cd. When should work be completed? To find out how to answer this question, you will need to draw a utility curve for the product, more precisely, a curve of the last degree. From the above scheme, it can be understood that work should be stopped at point m, because at this point the last degree of utility of the product (segment mq) is equal to the degree of unutility of labor (segment md). The same can be represented as the following formula: du : dx \u31d XNUMX : dx, where and - utility; l - hardships of labor; x is the volume of the product. Based on the above, we can conclude that the theory of labor by William Jevons is purely subjective. 7. Francis Isidro Edgeworth's Exchange Theory Francis Edgeworth was the first to present utility as a function of several goods, rather than one, as was usually done. The simplest is if there are only two goods: U = U(x, y). He presented indifference curves to the public, which display this function graphically. Many students of economics today are familiar with the Edgeworth chart. Although the diagram itself was not created by him, but by V. Pareto, based on his material ("angle" on the graph). In addition, Edgeworth indifference curves are not at all like Pareto charts. But still he is considered a pioneer in this area of economic theory.
I, II, III - Robinson curves in ascending order. 3, 2, 1 - curves of Friday in ascending order. Using this scheme as an example, we can consider the case when the exchange is isolated. Here is the option that Edgeworth suggests. Robinson and Friday are on a desert island. Robinson asks Friday to sell him his labor (x2) for money (x1), which he is willing to pay. In the diagram, the amount of money and the amount of labor are plotted on the respective axes. For each of the participants in this transaction, the indifference curves increase, that is, the more one of them gives to the other, the more he asks from the first. The place where the points meet on the Edgeworth indifference curves is called the contract curve (CC). These points are better than all the others, since everyone who participates in the exchange is in the most advantageous position and at the same time does not in the least constrain the other in his desires. If from point Q, which does not lie on the contract curve, we move along curve 2 to point CC, then Robinson will thus gain, and Friday will not lose anything. From this follows the conclusion that if the exchange is isolated, then any of the points of the contract curve is an equilibrium. When the number of participants increases, price competition begins. This leads to the fact that the opportunity to reach equilibrium is reduced, since some points on the curve are already completely unattainable. When there are many sellers and many buyers, the price will tend to a point that corresponds to perfect competition. Under perfect competition, that is, when the number of buyers, as well as the number of sellers, is infinite, the equilibrium of exchange is precisely determined. This is the meaning of Francis Edgeworth's theorem. LECTURE No. 12. The theory of general economic equilibrium 1. General equilibrium model including production; the problem of the existence of a solution and the process of "tatonnement" The general equilibrium model of Leon Walras (1834-1910) includes production at a certain level of factors, which is specified in advance. Suppose that in the economy there are consumers who are independent of each other, and producers who own factors of production for sale to independent firms. Since consumers' budgets are always limited, they have to maximize what they find useful, which determines everyone's demand. This demand depends on prices and consumer income. If supply and demand are expressed in the same conventional units, then the aggregate supply will be equal to the aggregate demand. Such a formulation is essentially the law of Jean-Baptiste Say, expressed in mathematical language. In addition, the law so formulated does not make it possible to understand what is more important: supply or demand. But Jean-Baptiste Say, in his work on this topic, clearly explained that supply dominates demand. Leon Walras did not try to derive rigorous mathematical conditions under which equilibrium exists. He just demonstrated a possible mechanism of movement towards equilibrium. This process has been called "tatonnement". According to Walras, there are two types of such a process. 1. To begin with, it is possible to make an exchange incorrectly, that is, when some participants in the transaction won, while others lost this time. Since the principle of individual maximization has been violated, it is possible to cancel the transaction and accordingly offer new prices for the conclusion of a new transaction. In this way, balance can be reached through a long process of trial and error. 2. To find the balance, this option is more suitable than the previous one. Someone alone controls this process. First, he collects applications with offers and demand. Then, based on these orders, it adjusts prices, repeating the first action in theory. After the equilibrium prices are deduced, a deal is usually made. You can take a more complex model (production model) as a basis. Suppose there is an increase in demand for a particular product. There is a shortage of this product. Then the manufacturer will be able to afford to raise the price of this product, therefore, to get more profit at the same cost. The emergence of a larger increase in profits allows the manufacturer to expand its production. More of this commodity appears on the market, and it ceases to be a shortage. Then the production rate automatically decreases. In the end, the equilibrium in the market will be restored. If capital accumulation is also included in this model, then the interest rate will also change. 2. The theory of general equilibrium in the XNUMXth century: the contribution of A. Wald, J. von Neumann, J. Hicks, C. Arrow and J. Debre General equilibrium theory in the XNUMXth century. developed in two directions. The first of these areas can, perhaps, be attributed to microeconomics. Such scientists as A. Wald, J. von Neumann, J. Hicks, K. Arrow and J. Debre are associated with this direction. The largest contributions have been made since the late 1920s. until the early 1960s. The second direction is more like macroeconomic. This direction was initiated when there was a general interest in such problems as unemployment and money. The analysis of these problems is closely connected with the methodological problem of the representatives of the second direction. For them, the main question is how macro- and micro-approaches relate to each other. O. Lang, D. Patinkin, R. Klauer, R. Barrow, G. Grossman belong to this direction. You can also name John Maynard Keynes, although he refuted this approach, but after he identified problems for future researchers in this area. No matter how different these directions may seem, they have many of the same interests and goals. These interests relate to issues such as expectation, uncertainty, limited information, etc. In 1936, the most famous of A. Wald's series of papers on rigorous general equilibrium analysis was published. He was the first to be able to give a clear and rigorous definition of competitive equilibrium. Wald was also the first to prove that in the Leon Walrasian system, under certain conditions, there is a positive price vector, in which demand equals supply is established due to the actions of buyers and producers, each of which tries to satisfy its needs as much as possible. Wald also investigated the problem of the uniqueness of the solution, therefore, he proposed using the insufficiently strong axiom of revealing preferences for market demand functions, as well as the conditions for gross substitution of all goods. These conditions later became the main problem of his further research. In 1937, J. von Neumann presented to the public the proof of the existence of an equilibrium trajectory for a proportionally expanding economy. In this work, he used the concept of equilibrium, which can be applied to a constantly changing economy. He is also the first to use the tools of game theory in proofs. According to him, a model of this type, like that of Leon Walras, can be interpreted as a game. Therefore, the solutions of the game are found equilibria. J. von Neumann proved that the model of an expanding economy can be imagined if we assume that there are two players whose sum of money is zero. The first of them tries to maximize its payoff (the growth rate of the economy under the condition of limited supply). The second tries to minimize his loss (percentage subject to profit limitation). He also substantiated that under certain certain conditions there is a solution to this game, which is characterized by the equality of the values of these functions. The equality of the growth rate and the percentage is the equilibrium point. One of the most important roles in improving the methods of proving the existence of an equilibrium is assigned to Kakutani's theorem on a point that never moves. In the mid-1950s, based on this theorem and new research in the field of linear programming, several scientists, including Nobel laureates K. Arrow (1972) and J. Debre (1983), created their own versions of the existence theorem for a unique solution for Walrasian models, and much simpler than Walda proposed in his time. Now the Arrow-Debré model (1954) is considered to be classical in the theory of general equilibrium. This model is a modified version of the Walrasian model. These scientists also proved that there is still a competitive equilibrium. In their opinion, this balance should be maintained on the following foundations: 1) the maximum possible profit at the price that was set; 2) the price of the excess supply of goods is equal to zero; 3) the maximum possible utility of the product at a certain given price and profit share; 4) prices are only positive. J. Debret is also known as the author of "The Theory of Value". In the 1930s J. Hicks and P. Samuelson began to study the problem of equilibrium stability. They are considered to be the founders in the field of research of this problem. Subsequently, such studies were taken up by such scientists as K. Arrow, F. Khan, T. Nigishi, L. Mackenzie. According to Hicks' assumption, an increase in the price of a good creates conditions for a decrease in demand for this good. Such an effect is likely to be stronger than the effect that is associated with an indirect change in the prices of other goods. Demand for such goods may change due to the rise in price of this product. These products include both replacement and complementary products. (If a certain model of a car rises in price, then there may be a decrease in demand for components for this model, and also an increase in demand for a similar model from another manufacturer.) LECTURE 13 Alfred Marshall 1. A. Marshall - leader of the Cambridge school of marginalists Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) - one of the largest representatives of the neoclassical movement, as well as the leader of the marginalists in the Cambridge school. He is the author of the theory of market pricing and a six-volume work entitled "Principles of Economic Science" (1890), which he constantly supplemented and revised over the course of twenty years. This book can be recommended to readers today, especially to those who study microeconomics. This book became practically a “bible” for economists of that time. Alfred Marshall also wrote other works, such as Industry and Commerce (1919), Money, Credit and Commerce (1923). He also co-authored with Mary Paley (his wife) the book “Industrial Economics” (1923). Over the course of his entire career, Marshall wrote about 80 papers, which, in fact, made a huge contribution to the development of economic theory, although “Principles of Economic Science” remains his greatest contribution. Since his grandfather was a priest, the parents would have preferred to see their son first as an Oxford student and then as a successor to the family tradition, but Alfred Marshall himself did not share these beliefs. Young Alfred had other passions: mathematics and chess. So, as soon as possible, he immediately borrowed money from his uncle and went to Cambridge, where he entered the mathematics department and graduated with honors. At the university, he became interested in philosophy and social sciences, after which he was offered to stay to teach at Cambridge. Alfred Marshall taught political economy for forty years, though not only at Cambridge, but also at Oxford and Bristol Universities. Already in 1902, he re-stated the textbook "Economics", while practically replacing the teachings of John Stuart Mill. After reading the works of David Riccardo and John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall tried to make diagrams from these data, after which his graphical method of analysis arose, which he managed to consolidate in science. Among his students were such famous scientists as A. S. Pigou, John Maynard Keynes, J. Robinson, and others. Alfred Marshall had an exceptional talent that allowed him to develop and systematize the concepts put forward by other economists. The favorite motto of all his publications is the Latin expression "Natura non facit saltum", which translates as "nature does not make leaps." Unlike many English economists, Marshall highly appreciated the work of representatives of the German historical school, headed by Wilhelm Roscher. He also believed that the most important work in the field of economics was done in Germany. Alfred Marshall was often reproached for eclecticism. He took these remarks very painfully. Marshall was a supporter of marginalism, although he reworked many of his ideas. He proposed to abandon the definition that the only factors that affect the price are costs or the subjective assessment of a person. Alfred Marshall theorized that each of these statements affects the price of a good. Alfred Marshall is considered the last representative of the marginalist revolution. 2. Method of partial equilibrium of Alfred Marshall If we study the research methods used by Marshall, then we should stop at the method of partial equilibrium. Alfred Marshall examined the market for a particular good in isolation, in order to investigate equilibrium, not all interrelated markets. In order to determine the factors that can influence the amount of supply and demand in the market for a particular good, in addition to price, Marshall suggested that other indicators be included in this analysis. He included the following indicators: 1) the prices of resources that will be required for production; 2) prices for goods that can replace this product; 3) prices for additional goods; 4) income of consumers; 5) tastes, desires, needs of buyers, both current and future. Although there are other indirect factors that can affect the price of a product, Marshall considered it possible to take them for the same. According to him, this is the most optimal approach for practice. But he also believed that there was a general interdependence of markets. In his work, Marshall, in one of his remarks, analyzes the problem of the price of factors of production, which he explores with the help of a general equilibrium system. Since this system is rather abstract, Marshall did not leave it in the work itself. The method of partial equilibrium made it possible to solve many of the economic problems of that time, which concerned completely different parts of economic theory as a whole. The heart of his work "Principles of Economic Science" is the fifth volume. It is called "General Relations of Demand, Supply and Value" ("General Relations of Demand, Supply and Value"). In this volume, Marshall describes what he considers to be the foundations of the theoretical analysis of market equilibrium. The third and fourth volumes describe the theory of supply and demand. The sixth and final volume is a treatise on the functional distribution of income. It also touches on issues that relate to interest, rent, wages, profits. The first and second volumes and Appendixes A - D are, in fact, an introduction to his work. 3. Alfred Marshall's Utility and Demand Analysis In the third volume of his work, Marshall writes for the most part about the field in which the economic theory of demand is applied. In his opinion, human needs stem from the activities of the person himself. Since economic science at this stage studies only human needs, it will not be able to give society a final theory of consumption. The main achievements of Alfred Marshall, which he made in the field of demand research, include works related to the elasticity of demand, the demand curve, and consumer surplus. The very concept of "demand curve" was introduced into the theory of economic theory by O. Cournot. Before Alfred Marshall, no one associated the term with marginal utility theory or Gossen's first law. He was the first to link diminishing marginal utility and the law of demand. According to Marshall, the utility of goods can only be measured indirectly. This can be achieved by the prices that the buyer is able to pay for this or that product. This also requires that the currency always have the same price for the buyer. According to Alfred Marshall, it is possible to derive a demand curve for large markets. Actually, for large markets, he deduced the "general law of demand." Its essence is as follows: the more goods the manufacturer wants to sell in a short period of time, the more he must reduce the price in order to thereby interest a larger number of buyers. The very idea of elasticity of demand is also not the merit of Marshall. This idea has already been met in the works of O. Cournot and F. Jenkin. But the fact that this concept began to relate to the categories of economic analysis is entirely the merit of Alfred Marshall. He was the first to apply this concept to both the demand for goods and the demand for factors of production. Another idea was to apply this concept to a sentence. The quantitative expression of the elasticity of demand is how a change in the quantity demanded relates to a change in price as a percentage. Regarding the elasticity of demand, Alfred Marshall said: "The elasticity of demand is great at high prices, great or at least significant at average prices, but as prices fall, the elasticity of demand also decreases, and it gradually disappears altogether if the price fall is so strong that it is achieved saturation level of demand. He also believed that attention should be paid to the fact that the elasticity of demand is different for representatives of different social strata. According to Marshall, there are some patterns that subjugate the elasticity of demand. For goods that have the following properties, demand is always more elastic than for other goods. He referred to these features as: 1) these goods are always vital; 2) these goods always account for a large part of the budget; 3) prices change for these goods for a very long period; 4) such goods always have a huge number of substitute goods; 5) such goods can always be used in a large number of ways. 4. Cost analysis and proposals by Alfred Marshall With regard to costs and supply, then, analyzing this area, Alfred Marshall most of all turned his attention to the trend of increasing or decreasing growth in output. He devoted the fourth volume to these studies. On this occasion, Marshall made a certain conclusion that the use of drive resources leads to a decrease in the growth of production, but the use of improvements created by man leads to an increase in the growth of production. This comes at the cost of savings. Marshall believed that there are two types of such economy: internal and external. Internal savings are technological improvements and organizational skills within the firm itself. External economy is a dependence on the general growth of production in a given industry (perhaps, we are talking about the fact that an enterprise should concentrate its funds in one well-established industry, and not disperse them). In industries that specialize in raw materials (like agriculture, for example), the law of diminishing returns applies for the most part, Marshall said. In other production areas, in which raw materials practically do not play a role, the law of increasing profits or decreasing costs operates. 5. Equilibrium price and the influence of the time factor Alfred Marshall In his work, Marshall does not deal with exclusive transactions, but pays attention to the everyday and quite ordinary transactions of modern life. He refers to exclusive transactions as the sale or purchase of antiques or rarities, as well as isolated transactions that are out of competition. According to Marshall, price equilibrium can be applied to a certain period of time. One of the most important contributions of Alfred Marshall to the development of economic theory is considered to be the way of accounting for factors of time, which he used in his economic analysis. In the fifth volume of his work, which describes the theory of supply and demand, Marshall says that this only makes sense for a certain period of time (for example, a meat market in which stocks cannot exist for a long time). Alfred Marshall proposed not to argue over the issue of the cost of goods, but to observe how supply and demand interact with each other and how they affect market processes. Up to this point, representatives of the Austrian school proceeded only from the value of a product, which was determined by its costs, and also denied the influence of demand factors on the price of a product. Based on such studies, Marshall proposed to use the concept of "elasticity of demand" and his theory of the price market. Alfred Marshall showed the possibility of a "compromise" option: price is marginal cost plus marginal utility. Thus, the equilibrium (compromise) price is the maximum price that the future consumer is willing to pay, based on his tastes and needs, and the minimum price for which the entrepreneur is ready to sell based on his costs and desired profit. Marshall and his supporters came to the conclusion that each of these items equally affects the price of goods, any change in one of the factors leads to a change in the price of goods. Graphs and formulas by Alfred Marshall help to understand how supply and demand interact. Alfred Marshall continued his research to understand what would happen to demand if tastes, income, number of consumers, prices of similar and complementary goods changed, and what would happen to supply if resource prices, taxes, subsidies, etc., changed. Based on all this, Alfred Marshall concluded that the curves on the chart will shift, so the equilibrium price level will change. LECTURE No. 14. The beginning of the economic development of Russia 1. Eastern Slavs in the pre-state period. Prerequisites for the formation of the ancient Russian state. General characteristics of the socio-economic development of Kievan Rus. Features of early feudalization During the Great Migration of Peoples, the Slavic tribes, fleeing from the Huns, took refuge in the forests or headed west. But after the decline of the Huns' power, the Slavs returned to the banks of the Danube and Dnieper, to the forests along the Pripyat and Desna rivers, to the upper reaches of the Oka. In the V - VI centuries. n. e. there was a demographic explosion of the Slavic population. At this time, the importance of tribal leaders and elders was strengthened in Slavic society, fighting squads were formed around them, the division of the population into rich and poor began, and the trade of the inhabitants of the Danube and Dnieper with the Balkans and Greece began again. In the XNUMXth century n. e. in the basins of the Dnieper and Dniester, a strong alliance of East Slavic tribes, who were called Ants, was formed. At the same time, in the north of the Balkan Peninsula, a tribal union of the Slavs (Slavs), akin to the union of the Antes, was formed. From the XNUMXth century n. e. Antes moved to the Balkan Peninsula, to the territory of the Byzantine Empire. In the XNUMXth century n. e. on the banks of the Dnieper, the future capital of Rus', the city of Kyiv, was founded by the Slavic leader Kiy. Kyiv became the center of one of the tribes of the union of the Ants - the glades. At this time, there were attempts by the Byzantine state to establish peaceful relations with the leaders of the Ants, the desire of the Ants to develop new territories in confrontation with the local Slavs. Slavic teams are mastering the south, the Balkans, the west and the east. Later, another Slavic center appeared in Priilmenye - the union of Novgorod (Priilmensky) Slovenes. During the VI - VII centuries. the Slavs were constantly fighting the Avars, who invaded Eastern Europe. At the end of the XNUMXth century Slavs in alliance with the Frankish king Charlemagne inflicted a crushing defeat on the Avars. At the same time, a new Turkic horde, the Khazars, came to Eastern Europe through the Lower Volga region to the Northern Black Sea region, having occupied lands in the foothills of the Caucasus. Part of the Slavic tribes became dependent on the Khazar rule. Through Khazaria, the Slavs traded with the East. Since the Slavs tried to free themselves from the influence of the Khazars, peaceful relations often alternated with military conflicts. In the VIII - IX centuries. after the defeat of the Khazars and the liberation of their lands from their pressure, a long period of peace begins in the life of the Eastern Slavs. At least 15 unions of Slavic tribes similar to Antes are formed. At the turn of the VIII - IX centuries. the glades manage to get rid of the control of the Khazars and the payment of tribute to them. Other tribes (northerners, Vyatichi, Radimichi) still remained Khazar tributaries. The most developed among the Slavic tribes were the meadows, as they lived in a favorable climate, on a trade road, and were constantly in contact with more developed southern neighbors. This is where the majority of the population was concentrated. Also, different tribes had their own peculiarities of economic development. They had a great influence on the formation of society among the Eastern Slavs, on the emergence of their desire to create a state. In ancient times, the concept of the state was combined with the power of the leader-leader. Among the Eastern Slavs, they became tribal princes with the help of their squads. The first signs of statehood appeared among those tribes whose economy developed faster than others. These were meadows and Novgorod Slovenes. By the end of the ninth century established a fairly clear hierarchy of society. At its top was the prince. He completely controlled the entire tribe or union of tribes, relying on senior and junior combatants (personal protection). All combatants were professional soldiers. Over time, tribal nobility appeared - future boyars from among the heads of clans. The most numerous part of the tribe were people (smerds). But they were also divided into "husbands" (the most prosperous), "warriors", that is, those who had the right to participate in wars and could provide themselves with the necessary equipment. Men were subordinate to women, children, and other family members. They were called "servants". At the lower levels of society were the poor, who became dependent on rich people, the inferior - orphans and serfs. At the lowest rung of society were slaves - as a rule, prisoners of war. After the abolition of polyudya in Rus', a regular collection of tribute from the population was introduced. Thus, people fell into a certain dependence on the prince and the state. The princes were able to appropriate the most fertile and best lands. And free people, in addition to paying tribute to the prince, gradually fell into dependence on him. They were attracted to various jobs in the household of the prince; so there was a land dependence on the master. The first princely domains appear - complexes of lands on which people lived, dependent directly on the ruler of the state. At the same time, personal land holdings and farms of princely boyars and warriors arose. The princes gave them the opportunity to manage their possessions, and as a payment - to appropriate part of the profits from these farms. This order was called "feeding". Later, the princes transfer their possessions to the hereditary property of their vassals. Such lands in Rus' were called fiefdoms. But the right of supreme power to these lands belonged to the Grand Duke. He could grant these lands, or he could take them away or betray them to another person. In turn, large landowners transferred part of their possessions to their combatants so that they could live on them and have the opportunity to purchase military equipment - in the XNUMXth century. in Rus', a system similar to that of Western Europe was taking shape. Such a piece of transferred land was called a feud, and the entire system of multi-stage dependence was called feudal; owners of land with peasants or cities inhabited by artisans and other residents were called feudal lords. 2. The social division of labor among the Eastern Slavs. The emergence of cities, the development of trade in Ancient Russia In the VIII - X centuries. the Slavs have a division of labor. Sources of livelihood became more diverse - for example, military booty appears. Along with the division of sedentary and nomadic tribes, agricultural and pastoral, tribes hunting and engaged in a productive economy, an intra-clan division of labor began: professional artisans and professional warriors appeared. East Slavic cities became the seat of power, centers of trade and crafts, places of worship, allowed to protect themselves from enemies. They arose where artisans settled, namely, at the intersections of trade routes, where tribal leaders lived, there were religious shrines. Trade routes connected cities and lands with each other, helped to establish contacts and establish ties with other peoples, attached the East Slavic lands to developed territories - Byzantium, Western Europe, and eastern countries. At this time, the famous route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" appeared. In places where this path passed through Russian lands, large East Slavic cities arose: Kyiv, Smolensk, Lyubich - on the Dnieper; Novgorod - near Lake Ilmen, on the banks of the Volkhov River; Pskov - next to Lake Ladoga. But, in addition to communication with other peoples, trade routes also had negative properties. They were also used as military roads. And not only the Slavs followed them to different parts of the world, but other peoples used them to attack the Slavs. 3. Internal development of Russia In 862, three Varangian brothers arrived in the Slavic and Finno-Ugric lands. The eldest - Rurik - reigned in Novgorod, which he founded in 863. After the death of the brothers Sineus and Truvor, he united the entire north and north-west of the East Slavic and Finno-Ugric lands under his rule. After the death of Rurik, Prince Oleg in 882 united two state centers - Novgorod and Kyiv. Oleg continued to unite other East Slavic lands, freeing them from tribute to foreigners; he gave the princely power great authority and international prestige. At this time, Rus' was not inferior in territory to the Frankish or Byzantine Empire. But many lands were sparsely populated and unsuitable for life. The difference in the development of different parts of the state was great. Even then Rus' was multinational. Igor, the son of Rurik, continued the unification of the East Slavic tribes. The coals were included in Rus'. At this time, the official name of Rus' appears - the Russian land. The dependence of territories and population on the Grand Duke was expressed by tribute. This was one of the signs of the state and meant the end of tribal life. But the Slavs were against this dependence and more than once raised uprisings against the Grand Duke. The process of collecting tribute from the princely squad was called polyud. The tribute was not precisely defined, it was taken approximately. During such a polyudya in 945 in the land of the Drevlyans, Prince Igor was killed. The Drevlyans separated from Kyiv and stopped paying tribute. However, Princess Olga, Igor's wife, after the defeat of the Drevlyans again imposed a heavy tribute on them. The unity of the state was restored. Then Olga carried out reforms, during which a fixed amount of tribute was established. The places where the locals were supposed to bring tribute (graveyards) were determined. From there, representatives of the princely authorities sent her to Kyiv. This was the end of polyudya and the beginning of an organized system of taxation. The son of Igor and Olga, Svyatoslav, continued the unification of the East Slavic tribes. Under him, the Vyatichi principality became part of Russia. Svyatoslav also continued to strengthen the management system. He was the first to send his sons as governors to the most important Russian lands. Svyatoslav's son Vladimir continued his father's policy of uniting the lands and strengthening the country's governance system. He protected the southern borders from the Pechenegs by building fortresses. In these fortresses, Vladimir attracted brave and experienced warriors from all over Rus' - heroes. In 1019, the reign of Yaroslav, the son of Vladimir, begins. He continued to strengthen the system of government of the country. He sent his sons to large cities and lands, demanded their unquestioning obedience, and he himself became an "autocrat". Yaroslav introduced the first written set of laws of Rus' - "Russian Truth", which contained issues of public order. At the end of his reign, Yaroslav bequeathed the transfer of grand ducal power in Rus' according to seniority in the family. 4. The adoption of Christianity and the baptism of Russia The adoption of Christianity in 988 became one of the main state transformations of Prince Vladimir. By this time, Christianity was already known in Russia. There were many Christians among boyars, merchants, townspeople. Statesmen also became Christians more than once. However, the influence of paganism in Russia was enormous. Reasons for the Baptism of Russia: 1) the interests of the developing state demanded the rejection of polytheism and the introduction of a monotheistic religion: a single state, one prince, one god; 2) it was necessary for international relations - almost all of Europe converted to Christianity, and it was not profitable for Russia to remain a pagan land; 3) Christianity preached a humane attitude towards people, strengthened the family; 4) Christianity could contribute to the development of culture, writing, spiritual life of the country; 5) changes in society (the appearance of inequality) required a new ideology. Prince Vladimir chose Byzantine Orthodox Christianity among all monotheistic religions because of close trade and political ties with one of the centers of world civilization at that time - Constantinople. The significance of the baptism of Russia is great. Christianity contributed to the development of literacy, culture, book business, strengthening and expanding ties with Byzantium. The church contributed to the development of the country's economy on the land holdings of the monasteries. Christianity accustomed people to tolerance, humanism, respect for parents, children, and mothers. The Church contributed to the strengthening of the unity of Russia. However, the church persecuted pagan culture, condemned Roman-style Christianity, which made it difficult to communicate with the countries of Western Europe. Some church leaders participated in political intrigues. In church farms, forced labor was used. Many monasteries and church ministers robbed the inhabitants. All this caused dissatisfaction among the people. 5. Money and their role in Kievan Rus In the Old Russian state, there were practically no own coins. As a means of exchange, money existed among the Eastern Slavs long before the formation of the Old Russian state. In ancient times, the South Slavs used cattle as money in exchange. In the north, the population was engaged in hunting and the money was the fur of valuable animals. Trade relations in Russia appeared due to the high level of development of crafts, cattle breeding, agriculture, and the construction of cities. The national economy of Kievan Rus was deeply natural and trade did not yet occupy a significant place in it, barter in kind was widespread. Foreign trade was much more developed. Russian merchants traded with Byzantium, Scandinavia, Central Europe, Central Asia, Arab countries. In foreign trade, Kievan Rus used Byzantine and Arab coins made of gold and silver, and almost no money was minted in Russia. Coins were minted from imported raw materials, since for centuries it was believed that there were no deposits of precious metals in Russia. Already in the XI century. credit relations were well developed in Kievan Rus. The largest monetary unit was the Novgorod hryvnia. There were also Kuns and Nogaty - not of Novgorod origin. Functions of money in ancient Russia: 1) money was the equivalent of exchange; 2) money served as fines for misdeeds and crimes; 3) money was a measure of wealth, like property. It is not known whether such a function of money as a store of value existed, since it was difficult to quickly turn money into a commodity due to the presence of trade only in large cities and the rarity of fairs. At the end of the X century. under Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the first Russian coins appeared - "zlatniks" and "srebreniki", but their release did not last long due to low trading needs - no more than 30 years, until the beginning of the XNUMXth century. Further, for more than three centuries, coinage in Rus' did not resume. A high degree of development of monetary circulation could only be achieved for a long time. Money circulation existed primarily in the most developed cities. The collection of tribute, taxes, the accumulation of precious metals from the feudal lords also testify to the presence of money circulation. LECTURE No. 15. The economic development of Russia in the Middle Ages 1. Causes and consequences of feudal fragmentation. The rise of feudal landownership The period of political fragmentation began in the XII - XV centuries. This is a natural historical stage in the development of feudalism. One of the reasons for feudal fragmentation was the division of ancient Russian lands between the heirs of the Grand Duke of Kyiv Yaroslav the Wise and the ensuing internecine princely struggle. In 1097, the Lubech Congress of Princes established: "everyone keeps his fatherland." Among other reasons for feudal fragmentation, one should mention the natural character of the Old Russian economy, since it lacked genuine economic ties between individual principalities. One of the important reasons for fragmentation in Rus' should be called the growth of boyar estates. By the XII century. the estates became more free and independent. The feudal lords sought to gain more power in order to enslave the free communal smerds and to attack communal lands. In the XI - XII centuries. the growth and strengthening of cities also accelerated the process of disintegration of the Old Russian state. Gradually, the cities began to demand economic and political independence, as a result of which they turned into centers of various principalities with their strong princes, who were supported by local boyars. Among the economic reasons for the weakening of the power of the Kyiv princes was the decline of transit trade. As a result of the crusades, direct ties between the countries of Western Europe and the East along the Mediterranean Sea were established, while the route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", which ran through Kyiv, lost its significance. Kyiv ceased to play the role of a major center of European trade with the East, and the great princes of Kyiv - the force that ensured the safety of merchants. The reason for the decline and fragmentation of Kievan Rus was also the raids of nomads. As a result, the Old Russian state in the middle of the XII century. divided into 14 principalities. In each of them, the boyars tried to become the sovereign master. Separated from the boyars Novgorod with veche (republican) form of government. The largest lands in the era of feudal fragmentation were the Vladimir-Suzdal and Galicia-Volyn principalities, the Novgorod feudal republic. 2. Rus' under Mongol-Tatar rule. Socio-economic and political consequences of the Mongol-Tatar yoke The entire population of the conquered Russian lands was enumerated and subjected to a heavy annual tribute. This expressed the economic dependence of Russia on the Golden Horde. In addition to paying yasak, the Russian population had to perform a number of duties: military, yamskaya, underwater, etc. The princes came to the Golden Horde for letters (labels), which confirmed their right to reign. This expressed the political dependence of Russia. Between the princes there was a fierce confrontation for obtaining a label for the right to become a grand duke. This bloody struggle, supported by the Horde khans, was the cause of an even greater weakening of Russia. Only the stubborn resistance of the Russian people allowed him to save his statehood and forced the Horde to abandon the creation of a stable administration in Russia. Therefore, in the first half of the XIV century. the Golden Horde khans transferred the process of collecting tribute to the hands of the Russian princes. The Golden Horde yoke had far-reaching consequences. 1. It pulled Russia out of the stream of pan-European development for a long time. The Mongol-Tatar yoke with the incessant pumping out of vital funds from Russia became the main reason for Russia's economic lagging behind the countries of Western Europe. For two and a half centuries, a significant amount of national wealth went to the Horde khans. 2. Long-term subjugation to the Horde with its despotic regime noticeably weakened the beginnings of democratic (veche) freedoms that existed in Ancient Russia, strengthening princely autocracy with signs of Asian despotism. 3. Forced prolonged communication with the Mongol-Tatar conquerors affected Russian everyday culture, customs and even national character. On the one hand, the Russians adopted from them some useful administrative procedures and customs, enriched their language, on the other hand, the Horde introduced features of rudeness and Asian cruelty into Russian life. It is with the influence of the Horde that one can associate, in particular, the change in the position of women in Rus'. One of the negative economic consequences of the Mongol-Tatar invasion (due to the devastation of the fertile southern regions of the country) was the forced transfer of the center of Russian agriculture to the northeastern regions, which were less favorable in terms of nature. The economic center, and later the center of the political life of the Russian lands, moved from the Dnieper region to the northeast, to the Volga-Oka interfluve. The development of new territories gradually expanded to the north to the White Sea and to the northeast. 3. Main conditions and stages of the unification of Russian lands into a centralized state The process of uniting independent Russian principalities into a single state took almost two centuries. The final stage of unification is primarily the reign of Ivan III (1462-1505) and his son Vasily III (1505-1533). In 1468, Yaroslavl Principality was finally included in the Moscow State, in 1474 - Rostov, in 1478 - Lord Veliky Novgorod, in 1485 - Tver Principality. Although Pskov and Ryazan were still formally independent, the annexation of Tver meant the creation of a single state around Moscow. Since then, Ivan III calls himself the Sovereign of All Russia, and the Grand Duchy of Moscow becomes the Russian state. With the accession to Moscow by Vasily III of Pskov (1510), Smolensk (1514), Ryazan (1521), the process of unification of the Russian state was basically completed. The emergence of a single multinational state contributed to the development of the economy, the development of inland lands, and the elimination of feudal strife. In almost all countries of Western Europe, the unification process took place in the XNUMXth century. in a market economy. Active business ties between the regions were needed. The development of cities, handicraft production, trade led to the destruction of feudal isolation, the abolition of customs duties. The royal power in European countries was interested in the growth of the population of cities, because it helped the kings to fight feudal separatism and unite the lands into a single state. In Rus', the process of unification took place under different conditions. The first attempts at unification appeared in the 12th-13th centuries. in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality. However, the Mongol-Tatar invasion prevented this, delaying the processes of economic and political unification. The driving force behind these processes (unlike Western Europe) was the development of feudal relations, the further strengthening of patrimonial and local land ownership. This process took place more actively in the northeast of Rus'. As for the cities of Russia, they were not of great importance at that time and were not yet the centers of emerging market relations, as in Western Europe. The process of primitive accumulation of capital has not yet begun. The secular authorities and the clergy spent money on the purchase of land, treasures, and not on the development of industry. Consequently, in the early stages of the unification of the Russian lands, political reasons prevailed, the desire to free themselves from the Mongol yoke, the desire to protect the country from Western aggression from Lithuania, Poland and Sweden. First of all, the objective factor is the fact that the Moscow land was the territory where the formation of the Great Russian people began. The geographical position of Moscow provided it with some security, which contributed to the influx of residents. Therefore, the population was distinguished by the greatest well-being. Moscow was located at the crossroads of land and river trade routes that connected Russian lands. It was a convenient exchange point. Economically and militarily important handicrafts were concentrated in Moscow. The main branches of the Moscow handicraft economy were metal processing, blacksmithing, foundry, and the production of weapons. Moscow artisans have reached a high level in the construction business. The subjective factor is the active policy of the Moscow princes. The role of Moscow especially increased during the reign of Ivan Kalita (1325-1340). His policy served to strengthen the feudal system and the progressive development of Russian society. It was cruel, but at the same time it contributed to state centralization. Prince Dmitry Ivanovich (1363-1389), nicknamed Donskoy for the Battle of Kulikovo, pursued a policy in the same direction. During his reign, Moscow's leading role in the unification of Russian lands was consolidated. The Orthodox Church also contributed to this. The metropolitan see was transferred from Vladimir to Moscow under Ivan Kalita, which made Moscow the ecclesiastical capital of Rus'. 4. Economic policy of Russia in the second half of the XV-XVII centuries. At the end of the XV - beginning of the XVI centuries. in Russia, a system of state administration is gradually taking shape, headed by the Moscow prince. The appanage princes and boyars, both from Moscow and from the annexed lands, were subordinate to him. Such a hierarchical structure took the form of parochialism, that is, when a prince or boyar received any position, his origin and the nobility of the family, relations with the Grand Duke, and not personal merits, were necessarily taken into account. Ivan III, instead of temporary boyar councils, founded the highest advisory body of the Moscow state - the Boyar Duma. Every day she had to deal with current external and internal affairs, resolve conflicts and disputes. Members of the Duma were appointed by the Grand Duke in accordance with the laws of locality, and there was a constant struggle between the boyars for seats in the Duma. Ivan III was not an absolute autocrat. Any of his decisions had to be approved by the Boyar Duma, and later by the Zemsky Sobor. At this time, institutions began to appear to manage a variety of economic, financial, defense affairs throughout the country - orders. Boyars ruled there, who had great judicial and administrative powers. They had the right to collect "feed" from the local population, which in reality meant simply requisitions. All this weakened the central government. A special place in the domestic policy of the country during the reign of Ivan III was occupied by relations between the state and the church. Since the time of the Mongol-Tatar yoke, the church had a privileged position: it was exempt from all taxes and ruin. Thus, in the XV century. the church owned more than a third of the country's reserves, was the main usurer and the main economic entity in Russia. She possessed large land plots along with the peasants, her army, and the rights enjoyed by the secular authorities. The church had the right to decide court cases on civil issues within its possessions. To strengthen state power, Ivan III tried to control the economic activities of the church and reduce its land holdings. But the power of the church was enormous, so only the grandson of Ivan III - Ivan IV - was able to destroy its economic monopoly. In the XVI century. feudal landownership continued to develop and strengthen. Large feudal lords were interested in strong state power, since the Grand Duke supported feudal immunity. But, on the other hand, the heads of state, striving for autocracy, reduced the rights and privileges of the feudal estates. The central government found support among the service nobles. The mother of Ivan IV the Terrible, Elena Glinskaya, limited the tax and judicial privileges of the clergy, began to control the growth of monastic estates, and reduced the rights of the feeding boyars, who had enormous power in their possessions. Under Elena Glinskaya, a management reform began, which ended under Ivan the Terrible. At the same time, administrative "labial" institutions are being created. They were engaged in court cases on the most serious robbery crimes against the government and feudal lords. In Moscow, these institutions were led by the Robbery Order. Ivan IV in his activities tried to weaken the conservative boyar opposition, taking advantage of the service nobility and other segments of the population. In 1549, representatives of not only the landed aristocracy, clergy, boyars, but also merchants and wealthy citizens entered the Zemsky Sobor. This meant that a class-representative monarchy was established in Russia. Ivan IV carried out a military reform, which established the service of the nobles from the age of 15 for land and monetary rewards. They constituted, as it were, the royal guard and served as officer cadres for the noble militia. The votchinniks were supposed to carry out the same public service. After the failures in the Livonian War, the boyar militia was replaced by the archery army, which was recruited from free people voluntarily. In the mid 1550s. the feeding system was finally abolished. This strengthened the central government to the very bottom. Now local power was in the hands of elected zemstvo elders from wealthy peasants and city merchants. Zemstvo elders were subordinate to the labial elders. In 1551, the Stoglav Church Council was convened. Now the authorities could more strictly control the activities of the church, which could now acquire and sell land only with the permission of the state. In 1565, Ivan the Terrible moved to special conditions for governing the country: he introduced the oprichnina, which deprived the boyars and the Boyar Duma of many rights. In 1572, the tsar abolished the oprichnina, but as a result he established strong autocratic power, although the consequences of the oprichnina were very difficult and negatively affected the economy for a long time. Boris Godunov ruled the country in the same direction as Ivan the Terrible: he strengthened the central government, annexed new lands to Russia, saw his support in the nobles and strengthened their influence. The elected king encouraged private entrepreneurs and merchants. Book printing developed widely under him. Boris Godunov also had a great interest in Western civilization and invited German merchants, doctors, and warriors to Russia. For the first time in the history of the country, several young nobles were sent to study abroad. The reign of Boris Godunov proved difficult for Russia. In 1601-1603 There were unusual frosts in Russia, as a result of which a terrible famine began. In Moscow alone, 120 people died. The Tsar ordered the opening of state grain reserves, but this did not help. Chaos began in the country. The first years of the reign of the new Romanov dynasty showed a significant strengthening of the trend of transition from a class-representative monarchy to autocracy. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, a significant step was taken towards the complete removal of the church from interfering in the affairs of the state. In the middle of the XVII century. the number of orders increased, and their functions were intertwined, creating difficulties in management. The Streltsy army continued to lose combat effectiveness; the noble militia was not interested in the service, since most of them had already received the right to transfer their possessions by inheritance. Therefore, in the first half of the XVII century. regiments of the "new system" appeared - reiters (cavalry) and dragoons (mixed system). But they were not a permanent regular army, but gathered only in case of war, after which they disbanded. This system continued until the end of the XNUMXth century. 5. Formation of the all-Russian market Economic life of Russia in the XNUMXth century. was marked by the most important event - the formation of the All-Russian market. For this, certain prerequisites appeared in the country. The territorial division of labor deepened more and more noticeably. Various types of industrial products were produced in a number of regions. A certain regional specialization was also taking shape in agriculture. Farmers began to sell their products. For example, in the south and southeast of the country - bread and beef cattle, in the northwest - flax, near large cities - dairy cattle, vegetables. All this strengthened the economic ties between the regions of the country. From the second half of the XVI century. large regional markets begin to take shape, and in the XNUMXth century. they gradually merge into one all-Russian. If in the XNUMXth century internal trade was carried out mainly in small market-trading, then in the XVII century. regular fairs began to be laid. The Moscow Fair, Arkhangelskaya, Makaryevskaya, Irbitskaya, Svenskaya and others became important centers of wholesale and interregional trade. Moscow was the main trading center of all Russia. It was in Moscow that the merchant class was formed as a special class of citizens. 6. Socio-economic development of Russia after the Time of Troubles After the Troubles in agriculture there was a three-field system of farming. The path of development of agriculture was extensive: new southern territories of Russia, the lands of the Volga region and Siberia were mastered. There was an increase in commodity production of agricultural products. There is a transformation of handicraft into small-scale production. Commodity specialization of individual regions of the country begins. The first manufactories appear. Features of the Russian manufactory: 1) unlike European, Russian manufactory was based not on freelance labor, but on serf labor (there was a registration and purchase of serfs); 2) most often manufactories were founded by the state and carried out its orders; 3) the interest of manufacturers in improving technology was weak due to the cheapness of labor. Merchant capital is being formed, the merchant class is developing, and the Russian domestic market is being formed. LECTURE No. 16. Economic development under Peter I and Catherine II 1. The essence of the reforms of Peter I. The results of the reforms of Peter I In the "Table of Ranks" (1722), the personal beginning received state significance. In the Petrine era, a new order of service was introduced. In previous times, the main criterion for promotion was the nobility of origin. The "Table of Ranks" put in the first place not the origin, but the personal abilities, education and practical skills of a nobleman. Now the career ladder consisted of 14 steps or ranks. The sons of well-born fathers had preference only during palace receptions, but they did not receive any rank if they did not serve. At the same time, the "Table of Ranks" made it possible for representatives of other classes to receive noble ranks. The public administration reforms expressed Peter I's desire for centralization of power and absolutism. The liquidation of the patriarchate (1721) and the introduction of the Synod meant the victory of secular power over the spiritual; in 1721, Peter I assumed the imperial title and took full power. In 1711, the Senate was established, whose members were appointed by the autocrat. Peter I created the post of fiscals. The replacement of old orders with new central institutions - collegiums - was carried out in 1717-1721. (by the end of the 44th century, the functions of central institutions were performed by 11 orders - they were replaced by XNUMX collegiums). In the collegial system there was a stricter distribution of responsibilities between central departments compared to the order system. Decisions were made by a majority vote of the board members. In 1708-1710 regional reform was carried out. During its course, the country was divided into 8 provinces. The provinces were divided into provinces (1719) - about 50. At the head of the province was a governor appointed by the tsar, and in the provinces - a governor. As a result of administrative reforms, the establishment of an absolute monarchy was completed. One of the most important aspects of the economic policy of Peter I was the growth of industrial manufactories. A number of manufactories were built by the state. The government attracted private capital to the construction of others. Some manufactories, built with funds from the treasury, were transferred for operation to industrialists on preferential terms. At the beginning of the XVIII century. 30 state-owned manufactories in linen, cloth, leather, paper and other industries were transferred to private owners. The government began building canals to improve trade routes. Fairs played a decisive role in domestic trade. Makarievskaya, Svenskaya, Irbitskaya, Krolevetskaya fairs were still the largest. There were over 1000 trading villages in the country. Russia's access to the Baltic Sea increased the volume and expanded the scope of foreign trade. The trade importance of the White Sea fell. The ports of Riga, Revel (Tallinn), and Vyborg were of great importance in foreign trade. In the first half of the 1750th century. in Russian exports the share of industrial goods increased: linen fabrics, canvas, iron, mast timber, resins, ropes. In 1,2, the export of iron from the country reached XNUMX million poods. Russia imported cloth, dyes, and luxury goods. Trade also developed with the eastern countries - Persia, China, Turkey, the khanates of Central Asia. In the first half of the XVIII century. Russia had a trade surplus. The improvement of domestic and foreign trade was facilitated by the coinage reform (1700-1704). The main units were the copper kopeck and the silver ruble. Peter 1 banned the export of precious metals - gold and silver - abroad. The minting of coins became a state monopoly. It is extremely difficult to evaluate all the transformations of Peter I. His reforms are contradictory in nature and it is impossible to give an unambiguous assessment of them. The most important thing is that Peter I, for the first time after the baptism of Rus', made an energetic attempt to bring the country closer to European civilization. As a result of Peter's reforms, Russia took a worthy place among European countries. It has become a great power with a stable economy, strong army and modern navy, highly developed science and culture. Russia's breakthrough was swift and decisive. But all his reforms and transformations were carried out by force, entailed huge sacrifices and sufferings of the people. The new was planted through a fierce struggle with the old. The price paid by the people for the Empire created by Peter I was enormous. According to archival data, about 100 people died during the construction of St. Petersburg alone. The population of the country decreased by 000% during his reign due to numerous wars, repressions, resettlement of people to new places, construction of enterprises. 2. Peasant question. Agriculture and land use under Catherine II Under Catherine II, serfdom was significantly strengthened. For open disobedience, the peasants could be exiled to Siberia for hard labor. For the unrest that began, the authorities sent military teams, and the peasants were obliged to support them. Peasants were forbidden to complain about the landowners. The landlords could sell and buy peasants, transfer them from one estate to another, exchange them for puppies and horses, win at cards, separate families, forcibly marry and give in marriage, etc. Many state peasants became serfs. During the reign of Catherine II, more than 800 peasants were distributed to the nobles. Tens of thousands of serf souls were favorites of the empress. The duties of the peasants in favor of the nobility increased greatly. Economics of the country's agriculture in the second half of the XNUMXth century. closely confronted with the developing market relations. The active participation of the country in international trade, the creation of an all-Russian market led to the fact that market relations developed more strongly in agriculture. Due to the growth of cities and manufactories, the capacity of the market for agricultural products (mainly bread) has increased both at home and abroad. With access to the sea, Russia was able to export huge amounts of grain to Europe. This contributed to the increase in the marketability of agriculture. At this time, the main producing agricultural regions were already clearly defined - the Chernozem Center, the Middle Volga region. There is an economic development of the vast steppe regions of Ukraine - Novorossia. Fugitive serfs, state peasants and foreign colonists participated in the colonization of the southern steppes. Large landed estates were also created here. Wheat grown on the landowners' estates in the southern lands was exported abroad. In 1783, the transition of peasants was prohibited in the Left-Bank Ukraine. This ban was in effect in the south of Ukraine, the Don and in the Caucasus province. In the 80s. 53th century serfs in Russia accounted for XNUMX% of the total number of peasants. The landowners could exile serfs to Siberia for hard labor, out of turn to give in recruits. Peasants were forbidden to complain about their owners. In the Black Earth Center, the main form of feudal rent was corvée, which sometimes extended to 6 days a week. Three-quarters of the landowner peasants were in corvée. In some places, landowners drove peasants off their land and transferred them to "monthly labor." The excessive growth of corvée led to the disintegration of the serf economy and undermined the peasant economy. In quitrent estates, the size of the quitrent increased. There were also state peasants on quitrent - 4,9 million male souls (38% of the total peasant population). The palace peasants were also paid rent (about 7% of all peasants). 3. Industry, trade and finance under Catherine II Under Catherine II, industry developed rapidly, and the labor market gradually formed. At that time in Russia there were about 2 manufactories of various types: state-owned, patrimonial, merchant and peasant. As a rule, at patrimonial manufactories, products were made from raw materials produced within the estate. By the end of the century, the share of merchant and peasant manufactories increased. Here, basically, civilian workers from among the ruined peasants worked; peasants released by the landowners for profitable seasonal work in order to receive cash rent; also residents of cities and large villages. The development of merchant and peasant manufactories was facilitated by the Manifesto on Freedom of Entrepreneurship, according to which Catherine II allowed everyone to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Most of the Russian industrialists of the XVIII century. came out of the peasants and townspeople, it was from them that the young Russian bourgeoisie was formed. But their rights were severely limited. Since 1762, it was forbidden to buy peasants for enterprises owned by persons of non-noble origin. In general, in the second half of the XVIII century. there was a significant growth of large industrial enterprises. By the end of the century, various branches of industry were formed, so that Russia itself was able to almost completely provide for its basic needs. In Russia, technical thought was very well developed. Much earlier than in Western Europe, Russian inventors created a universal steam engine, a lathe, rolling mills and shafts. But in production, these inventions have not gained wide application. The disinterest of the state in the use of technical innovations and the general routine of the economy led to the fact that by the end of the XNUMXth century. Russia began to lag behind European countries that had already completed the industrial revolution. The marketability of agriculture directly depended on the growth of large cities and large fishing villages. The urban population and the army had an increased demand for food products. The volume of agricultural products supplied for export has increased. Thus, a capacious market for agriculture was formed. Demand for industrial products and handicrafts also increased greatly. In many cities there were gostiny yards with numerous shops. Traders, merchants, artisans, and peasants traded in the markets, which worked daily. Fairs played an important role in trade, of which there were more than 1 at the end of the century. Many trading peasants walked around the villages, exchanging small household goods for commercial waste from the peasant economy - leather, hemp, bristles. But the merchants in every possible way hindered the activities of their competitors. The government, supporting the merchant class, encouraged the rapid development of domestic trade. In the 80s. 3th century merchants were divided into 1 guilds according to the degree of wealth. Catherine II freed merchants from personal recruitment duty, corporal punishment and from the poll tax. Merchants had to pay XNUMX% of declared income to the state treasury. With access to Europe through seaports, foreign trade began to actively develop. An active foreign trade balance was maintained throughout the reign of Catherine II. The government continued to pursue a policy of protectionism, imposing high duties on imported goods. England has traditionally remained an active foreign trade partner of Russia, buying timber, canvas, hemp, and Ural iron. Permanent partners were Denmark, Austria, France, and Portugal. Joint trading companies began to be created with Turkey, Persia, Khiva, Bukhara and other eastern countries. Throughout the XVIII century. the state budget experienced a constant deficit caused by endless military campaigns, the growth of the state apparatus, and the high squandering of members of the imperial family. Taxes were collected with large arrears, besides, the nobles practically did not pay taxes. Further increase in the tax burden was impossible and the government decided to issue paper money to replenish the budget. Catherine II decided to switch to the issuance of paper money - banknotes. But their value soon depreciated due to the cessation of the free exchange of banknotes for silver money. Another source of replenishment of the treasury was government loans. By the end of the century, Russia's external debt amounted to 41,1 million rubles. The total public debt, taking into account tax farming, the issue of paper money, etc., amounted to 216 million rubles. In the middle of the XVIII century. first banks appear in Russia. They were state-owned, it was forbidden to create private banks. This whole system was inactive and inefficient. 4. Socio-economic policy of Catherine II. The nobility and the system of local government in the second half of the XNUMXth century. In 1764, Catherine II sharply limited the economic power of the church. She turned many church lands into state property. Millions of monastic peasants subsequently became state-owned. To revitalize and develop the country's economy, the Empress invited foreigners to come to settle in Russia, promising tax benefits, the preservation of language and culture, and religious freedom. Gradually, Catherine II began to move towards a policy of enlightened absolutism. It was necessary to streamline the entire system of legislation of the Russian Empire. The "Instruction of Empress Catherine II, given to the Commission on the drafting of a new Code" was published. The main idea of this document was that, apart from autocracy, any other power for Russia is not only harmful, but also ruinous for citizens. Catherine called for moderation in laws and politics, and the inadmissibility of tyranny. But the Commission ceased to exist in 1768 in connection with the outbreak of war with Turkey, without adopting a new code, although Catherine used many of the prepared materials when carrying out reforms. The reforms were significantly influenced by the peasant war led by Emelyan Pugachev. Catherine tried to suppress hotbeds of tension in regions with a large population of Cossacks, where discontented masses flocked, poorly controlled by the government. In 1775, a system of local self-government was organized. Instead of a three-tier administrative division (gubernia, province, county), a two-tier division was introduced - province, county. At the head of each province, the emperor appointed a governor, and if 2-3 provinces were united, a governor-general with great administrative, financial and judicial powers. All military units and teams located in this territory were subordinate to him. The county was headed by a police captain, elected by the nobility for 3 years. The city became a separate administrative unit and instead of voivods, city dwellers appointed by the government appeared. Citizens once every 3 years could elect the mayor and members of the city duma. In the first years of the reign of Catherine II, the rights and privileges of the nobles were strengthened and increased. They could not serve (Manifesto on the Liberty of the Nobility of 1762, published by Peter III), if they did not want to. The nobles were transformed from a service class into a privileged class. In 1785, the Empress signed the "Charter on the rights, liberties and advantages of the noble Russian nobility." It secured all class rights and privileges of the nobility. They received a unique right to own serfs and lands, pass them on by inheritance, buy villages, etc. It was forbidden to confiscate noble estates for criminal offenses - estates in such cases passed to the heirs. The nobles were exempted from corporal punishment, from personal taxes and various duties. Only by court could they be deprived of the title of nobility. In the provinces and districts, administrative power was completely in the hands of the nobility. Going towards the nobility, Catherine II approved the monopoly right of the nobles to own land (General land surveying, 1765), serfs (1762), and distillation (1765). Feeling the full support of the empress, the nobles began to attack other classes on various issues. Nobles could have a noble title and family coat of arms, participate in noble assemblies and societies. 5. Social and economic development of Russia in the first half of the XNUMXth century. Agriculture in the first half of the XIX century. continued to be extensive. Its development took place by clearing forests and plowing meadows in the center of the country and developing new areas on its outskirts. Low labor productivity remained, three fields and primitive agricultural implements dominated. The invasion of market relations interfered with the subsistence nature of serfdom. The expansion of the lordly plowland due to the increase in the production of landowner's bread for sale led to a reduction in peasant allotments. A process of social stratification took place in the countryside, which contributed to the growth of peasant entrepreneurship and the development of market relations. Machines, new methods of field cultivation and forms of land use are beginning to be used on some landlord farms. However, an attempt to introduce a new agricultural technique while maintaining the old feudal production relations was futile. The rationalization of the landlords led to a further intensification of the feudal exploitation of the peasants. Manufacture remained the main form of large-scale industrial production, but in the 1830-40s. The industrial revolution begins, which is characterized by the transition from the manufacturing stage of production to the factory stage, based on the systematic use of machines. This process began first in the textile industry, and later in the mining industry. However, for a successful transition from manufactory to factory, a significant number of free hired workers was required. The serf system delayed the development of industry. Urban population for the first half of the 2,8th century. grew from 5,7 to 75 million people, and the entire population increased by XNUMX%. Fairs with large sums of trade turnover (there were more than 60 of them) were of all-Russian significance. Foreign trade relations expanded. The development of trade was hampered by the unsatisfactory condition of the means of communication. In land transport, the horse-drawn system dominated. The construction of highways began in the center of the country. In 1837, a railway was built between St. Petersburg and Tsarskoe Selo, by 1851 - the Moscow - Petersburg road, by 1859 - the St. Petersburg - Warsaw road. However, the total length of highways and railways was negligible. LECTURE No. 17. Economic development of Russia in the XNUMXth century. 1. The Crimean War and its impact on the economic situation in the country. General characteristics of the economic development of Russia in the first half of the XNUMXth century. The reasons for the Crimean War, which began in 1853, were the clash of the territorial interests of Russia, England, France, Austria in the Middle East and the Balkans. Russia sought to oust Turkey from the Balkan Peninsula and from the Black Sea straits. England and France sought to spread their influence in Turkish possessions, to oust Russia from the shores of the Black Sea. Turkey counted on revenge for the defeat in the wars with Russia. In the first period of the war, the Russian army achieved significant success. Fearing the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, in March 1854 England and France declared war on Russia. Austria and Prussia also took a hostile stance. On March 18 (30), 1856, the Treaty of Paris was signed between Russia, Turkey, France, England, Austria, Prussia and Sardinia. Under its terms, the Black Sea became "neutral", the Russian fleet was reduced to a minimum, its bases and arsenals were destroyed. Russia lost the southern part of Bessarabia with the mouth of the Danube, Turkey received Kars in exchange for Sevastopol. Russia has lost influence in the Balkans. The defeat of Russia was also due to the political miscalculations of Nicholas I, who did not expect to face almost all of Europe. The Russian army suffered from a lack of weapons, ammunition, and equipment. There were few military factories, they were equipped with primitive technology and were serviced by unproductive serf labor. The smooth-bore weapons of the Russian army were inferior to long-range rifled weapons, the sailing fleet was inferior to steam-powered armored ones. The primitive state of the transport system had a detrimental effect on the combat capability of the Russian army. Russia lost prestige on the world stage, but the defeat prompted Alexander II, who came to the throne in 1855, to carry out a number of cardinal reforms. In 1802-1811 A reform of the highest government bodies was carried out: instead of the old Peter's collegiums, 8 ministries were created, later their number increased to 12. Some changes have taken place in the field of education. At the lower levels in all educational institutions, the principle of classlessness and free of charge was proclaimed. Universities opened; the university charter of 1803 provided higher educational institutions with broad rights and independence of their inner life: the election of the rector and professorship, their own court, etc. Alexander I instructed to prepare a project for the abolition of serfdom on favorable terms for the landowners. But the nobles were categorically against this and the emperor did not dare to implement this project. Gradually, Alexander I began to move from a fairly liberal to a tough domestic policy. An event of this period is the creation of military settlements (1816). This step was caused by the great financial difficulties of the state. The military settlers themselves repeatedly opposed this form of combining agricultural and military affairs, therefore, in the 1830s. the government of Nicholas I abandoned such settlements. Since 1820, the serfs were again forbidden to complain about the landowners, the exiles of peasants to Siberia resumed. The army had a particularly strict discipline, corporal punishment was resumed there. Increased censorship in the press. The self-government of universities in St. Petersburg and Kazan began to be limited, progressive professors were fired, recalcitrant students were handed over to the soldiers. Such a sharp turn in domestic politics is associated with the name of the first minister of the government, A. Arakcheev. All civil and military administration was concentrated in his hands. Having been abroad during the war of 1812 and the capture of Paris in 1814, Russian officers returned to their homeland, where Arakcheev already ruled. This prompted them to create secret societies (Northern and Southern), which aimed to spread the ideas of morality and education in society, to carry out political and social reforms. Their uprising on December 14, 1825 on the Senate Square in St. Petersburg was suppressed. The reign of Nicholas I was also controversial. This inconsistency was that he tried to carry out some reforms without changing the entire system. A policy of state guardianship over the political, economic, social, and cultural life of the country was pursued. In the sphere of public education, the principle of strict class was laid down. In 1826, an extremely strict censorship charter was developed. Connections with Western Europe were limited. In 1826-1832 codification of laws was carried out (systematization of Russian legislation), starting with the Council Code of 1649 and including the current code. Numerous decrees and laws of Nicholas I only softened the oppression of serfdom, but they were not binding on landowners. In 1837-1838 reform of the state village was carried out. It streamlined the situation of state peasants and contributed to the development of market relations in the countryside. In 1847-1848 Inventory reform took place in Right Bank Ukraine and Belarus. In its course, a description of the landowners' estates took place, where the size of peasant plots and the volume of duties were established, which could no longer be changed. This caused great discontent among both landowners and peasants, whose plight never changed. 2. Economic prerequisites for the elimination of serfdom. Abolition of serfdom. The stratification of the Russian village. The main types of agricultural holdings and their characteristics Among the prerequisites for the abolition of serfdom, publicity must be considered the most important. Various publications began to appear. Glasnost denounced, but at the same time carried a charge of hope. The emancipation of the spiritual forces of society was not only the most important prerequisite, but also an indispensable condition for the success of the reforms. The decision to abolish serfdom was made by tsarism, taking into account the complex and other circumstances. Among them, not the last place was occupied by the results of the Crimean War. Because of the military defeat, an understanding arose first of the inconsistency of the foreign policy of the empire, and then of the entire Nikolaev system as a whole. It is indicative that the first application of the government for reforms was set forth in the Manifesto of March 19, 1856 on the Peace of Paris. The desire to maintain the shaken status of a great power, to overcome post-war isolation in the international arena, forced the liberal bureaucracy and Alexander II himself to look for new ways and make non-standard decisions. The fact that free labor is more effective than forced labor, and serfdom is an institution that hinders the development of the country, an anachronism that should be said goodbye to, was clear to the government and the educated nobility back at the end of the 1816th century. Options for resolving the peasant issue were worked out in the quiet of numerous secret committees both during the reign of Alexander I and during the reign of Nicholas I. Milestones of this process: the liberation of peasants in the Baltic states in 1819-1803, decrees on free cultivators (1842) and on obligated peasants (XNUMX), etc. But the implementation of these measures depended on the will of the nobility. The overwhelming majority of nobles in the first half of the XIX century. was for the preservation of serfdom, because the serf economy was by no means in a critical state. It brought profit to the owner even at the lowest level of market prices for products and therefore survived the agrarian crisis of the 1820s, which turned out to be fatal for the few innovative landlords who founded the economy on the principles of free enterprise. The country's economy did not collapse on the eve of 1861, but the symptoms of the failure of the existing economic system manifested themselves in the financial and banking sector, which was sensitive to the government - an increase in the budget deficit, inflation, and a sharp reduction in cash in bank cash desks. This circumstance not only stimulated the preparation of the reform, but also predetermined the conditions of redemption that were extremely difficult for the peasantry. The peasantry tensely, although outwardly and relatively calmly awaited the promised liberation. The peak of his speeches came only in the first months after the announcement of the will. However, the peasant movement left its mark on the preparation of the reform. Thus, in 1858, prolonged peasant unrest broke out in Estonia, where serfs were liberated without land 40 years ago. The government reform program provided for the allocation of arable land to the peasants for ransom. Thus, although there was no immediate threat of a new Pugachevism at that moment, the memory of the previous peasant wars, of the participation of peasants in European revolutions, forced the liberal bureaucracy to attach particular importance to guarantees of socio-economic stability in a reformed Russia. Zemstvo statistics already in the 1880s. showed a significant property stratification of the peasants. First of all, a layer of wealthy peasants was formed, whose farms consisted of their own allotments and allotments of impoverished community members. The kulaks stood out from this stratum, they ran an entrepreneurial economy, using hired laborers, sent a large volume of products to the market and thereby increased the degree of marketability of their production. But this group of peasants was still small. The poor part of the peasantry, having their own economy, often combined agriculture with various crafts. From this stratum, a group of "spread" households stood out, which gradually lost their economic independence, leaving for the city or hiring as farm laborers. By the way, it was this group that created the labor market for both kulaks and industrialists. At the same time, this part of the peasants, receiving payment for their work, also began to show a certain demand for consumer goods. The formation of a layer of prosperous peasants led to the creation of a stable demand for agricultural machinery, fertilizers, seeds and thoroughbred livestock, which also influenced the country's market economy, since an increase in demand led to the development of various industries. 3. Bourgeois reforms of Alexander II and their consequences The abolition of serfdom led to other reforms. Bourgeois reforms of the 1860-70s. - the era of the Great Reforms, when the alliance of the tsar, nobles and bourgeoisie began to take shape. The reforms were supposed to promote the development of capitalism and use the bourgeoisie in their own interests. Since the 1860s The process of industrialization began in Russia, so a new state and social structure was needed. 1. Zemstvo reform (1864) established local self-government in provinces and districts: zemstvo assemblies and their executive bodies (uprava). They elected nobles, rural intelligentsia, the bourgeoisie, rich peasants. Zemstvos did not have political rights, they were engaged in solving local issues (fighting epidemics, opening first-aid posts, schools, roads, land management, etc.). 2. City Reform (1870) created the city self-government, the city duma and the council, which solved communal issues (fighting fires, sanitation control, the affairs of schools, shelters, hospitals, etc.). The wealthiest townspeople were elected to the Duma, headed by the mayor. 3. Judicial reform (1864) established a classless court with jurors, publicity of legal proceedings, competitiveness of the parties (advocacy was introduced), partial independence of the court from the administration. In Russia, a notary has been created to conduct inheritance cases, certify transactions, documents. 4. Military reform (1874) replaced recruitment with universal military service. Service life was made dependent on education: from 6 months to 6 - 7 years; the training of officers has improved, rearmament has been carried out. 5. Educational reforms. In 1863, a university charter was introduced, which approved a certain autonomy and democracy of these educational institutions. The school charter of 1864 provided formal equality in education and expanded the network of schools. Since 1870, women's gymnasiums began to open, and higher courses for women appeared. Thus, in Moscow, Professor Guerrier in 1872 opened historical and philological higher courses for women. 6. Financial reform was carried out in 1862-1866. The right to dispose of all the country's financial resources was given to the Minister of Finance, whose activities were subject to accounting by the State Audit Office. In 1860, the State Bank was organized, lending to commercial and industrial enterprises. Wine taxation was abolished (1863), and patent fees and a special excise tax were introduced instead. Locally, special excise departments have been created to collect them. The main result of the transformation of the financial system is the establishment of budget transparency, financial control and progressive changes in the tax sphere. Results of the reforms of the 1860-70s: 1) reforms, of course, corresponded to the main directions of development of the leading world powers. They have significantly advanced Russia along the path of modernization. But the political structure of the country was not perfect. Russia still remained an autocratic monarchy. Society could not influence government policy; 2) the reforms were mostly in the nature of a compromise. The radicals, who perpetrated a bloody terror in society and staged a real hunt for the reformer tsar, and conservatives, who were dissatisfied with the very fact of any transformations, were also dissatisfied; 3) most historians believe that since the mid-1860s. Conservative-protective tendencies begin to dominate in the activities of the government, and the reform potential is practically exhausted. A more objective point of view seems to be that the policy of Alexander II should not be unambiguously divided into reformist and conservative periods, since the mechanism of its formation was quite complex. The nature of certain transformations, specific decisions depended on many objective and subjective factors: the opinions of the emperor's inner circle, the balance of power in the camp of "reformers" and "conservatives", the position of the revolutionary camp. 4. Basic provisions of the legislation on peasants The reform on the emancipation of the peasantry was carried out on February 19, 1861 - Alexander II signed the Manifesto "On the most merciful granting to serfs of the rights of the state of free rural inhabitants and on the arrangement of their life", as well as "The highest approval by His Imperial Majesty of the position of peasants who have emerged from serfdom ". With the adoption of the Manifesto, Alexander II and his government stopped the development of the revolutionary situation that had matured in Russia, and Alexander II managed to reduce the wave of mass discontent. The reform on the emancipation of the serfs could not be called "the gift of freedom." According to the provisions of the Manifesto, the peasants received personal freedom, the serfs could no longer be sold, dispose of their time, and appropriate the results of labor. Former serfs were endowed with the rights to own property, could receive education, etc. The poll tax from the peasants was not removed, and recruitment duty continued to apply to former serfs. All the lands of the landowners remained in the ownership of the former owners, with the exception of allotments (plots), which the landlords had to allocate to the peasants after the former serfs paid the appropriate ransom. When selling land to peasants, land prices were inflated, and former serfs did not have the means to buy land even at real prices, nobles or officials were world mediators who resolved disputes that arose between the peasants and their former owners. Since the peasants were not able to redeem the allotments provided to them, the state provided the peasants with loans that paid the landowners 80% of the land value, the peasant himself had to pay 20% of the cost. The conditions for granting loans were difficult, since the state gave money to the peasants at fairly high interest rates. Temporarily liable peasants are peasants who did not have money to redeem the allotment. They had to work for the landowner until they were able to buy the allotment. This provision lasted until 1881, after which the concept of "temporarily liable peasants" was abolished. The reform for the emancipation of the peasants was perceived as a great progress in the development of Russia. The mass actions of the peasantry ended, the lack of education of the majority of the serfs did not allow them to fully enjoy all the rights granted to them by the state, as a result of which landlord arbitrariness dominated Russia for many more years. But the fall of serfdom was a progressive step in the development of Russia, since the appearance of civilian labor made it possible for capitalist production to develop in the country. The peasants clearly did not have enough land received under the reform and they were forced to rent part of the landlords' lands, paying for it with money or their labor, that is, the land dependence of the peasants on the landowners remained, which led to the preservation of the former feudal forms of exploitation of the peasants. Thus, the position of the Russian peasant, who had to work both for himself and for the landowner, pay debts and taxes to the state, remained extremely difficult and hindered the development of agriculture. Another brake on agricultural production was the preservation of another feudal vestige - the peasant community, which was the owner of the peasant land and maintained equal relations, which significantly hampered the economic initiative of the most industrious peasants. Alexander II carried out a number of reforms that improved the position of Russia and prevented the imminent social explosion. The reforms were a little late, as many areas of public life were in critical condition, but the adoption of a whole range of reforms after the liberation of the serfs made the policy of Alexander II popular, ensuring the further progressive development of Russia along the path of capitalism. 5. The situation of agriculture in the 1860-1870s. The remnants of serfdom, preserved after 1861, prevented the formation of market relations in agriculture. Huge redemption payments were a heavy burden on millions of peasants. In addition, instead of the power of the landowners in the countryside, the oppression of the community was strengthened, which could impose a fine on hard-working peasants for working on holidays, sentence the peasants to exile in Siberia "for witchcraft", etc. Many peasants experienced great hardships due to the fact that that they could not freely dispose of their allotment (sell, bequeath, mortgage in the Peasant Bank), and also run their household as they saw fit. In many communities, redistribution of land was carried out, which excluded the interest of the peasants in increasing soil fertility (for example, fertilizing the fields), since after a while the plots had to be transferred to others. Often, compulsory crop rotation was established in the communities, the peasants were charged with the obligation to simultaneously start and finish field work. As a result of all this, the rise of agriculture was slow and with considerable difficulties. And yet in the 1880-1890s. market relations penetrated into the agricultural sector. This was noticeable in several ways: social differentiation of the peasant population was taking place, the essence of the landowner economy was changing, and the market orientation of regions and farms that specialized in certain goods was intensifying. Noticeable changes also occurred in landowners' farms, which gradually made the transition from patriarchal forms to market relations. In the 1870-1880s. The former serfs still had to work for the redemption of their own plots. These peasants cultivated the landowners' lands with their own tools for the right to rent arable and other land, but they already acted as legally free people with whom it was necessary to build relationships based on the laws of the market. The landowners could no longer, as before, force the peasants to work in their fields. Wealthy peasants sought to quickly redeem their own allotments, so as not to work out the segments that arose after 1861. The “de-peasant” ones did not want to work out the ransom at all, since they were not kept in the village by insignificant land plots. They moved to the city or were hired on strong farms to the kulaks without any bondage, for a higher wage, since it was more profitable for them. In order to turn their estates into profitable farms, the landlords needed new machines, fertilizers, seeds, new agricultural techniques, and all this required significant capital and qualified managers. But not all landowners managed to adapt to new methods of management, so many of them had to mortgage and remortgage their estates in credit institutions, or even just sell them. Increasingly, they were bought by former serfs, and now by wealthy peasants. In agriculture, after the reform, its commodity character more and more clearly stood out. At the same time, not only agricultural products, but also land plots and free labor were included in the market turnover. Only the previously assumed regional specialization in the production of marketable grain, flax, sugar beets, oilseeds, livestock products was more clearly defined, which also contributed to market exchange between the regions. In addition to traditional organizational forms, large estates began to appear in the southern steppes of Russia and Ukraine - economy, which consisted of several thousand acres of land and which were already oriented to the market, primarily foreign. Economy farms were based on a good technical base and hired labor. Thanks to these changes, the level of agricultural production in Russia has increased markedly. But, despite such achievements, at the end of the 1861th century. The difficulties of agriculture in Russia were very relevant, since the reform of 1861 was not brought to its logical conclusion. Peasant land shortage increased sharply, as the rural population in 1899-24. increased from 44 million to 5 million male souls, and the size of land plots per capita decreased on average from 2,7 to XNUMX dessiatines. It was necessary to rent land on unfair terms or buy it at a high price. Along with chronic land shortages, peasants experienced enormous tax oppression. In the post-reform era, peasants paid approximately 89 million gold rubles annually in the form of taxes and redemption payments. Of the total amount of taxes received by the treasury from the rural population, 94% was levied on peasant farms and only 6% on landowners. The global agrarian crisis of the late 1896th century contributed to the strengthening of social differentiation in rural areas. Total for 1900-XNUMX In the European part of the country, the number of farms with one horse or without horses at all has sharply increased. Agriculture lagged behind both technically and agronomically, which affected both the general economic condition of the country and social tension, since the rural population reached 85% of the total. Low yields were the cause of periodic food shortages in the country. The extremely difficult situation of the peasants was aggravated by several years of poor harvests in a row, which caused a terrible famine in 1891, which affected more than 40 million people. The main parties and associations of the early XX century. they called for a resolute end to land shortages by forcibly expropriating the lands of the landowners for a ransom (the Constitutional Democratic Party, or Cadets) or without any ransom (the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, or Socialist-Revolutionaries). All this aroused among the peasantry the mood of a "black redistribution" on the principle of equalization in order to resolve the agrarian question as quickly as possible. 6. Agrarian reform P. A. Stolypin The main direction of the reform, begun during the revolution, was the destruction of the community. The decree of November 9, 1906 on the transfer of communal plots to the private ownership of individual peasants “worked” in full force already in post-revolutionary Russia. A number of additional decrees of 1907-1911. The government clearly defined its goals not only to secure communal lands for individual owners, but also to put an end to the common striping of the community. Strong owners were aimed at turning their farms into hamlets isolated from each other. Where, in the conditions of a striped peasant economy, this was not allowed due to impossibility, it was recommended to bring your allotments together, into sections, even if located at a distance from the peasant estates. The local administration by all means forced the process of destruction of the community. At the same time, it was not only the nascent rural bourgeoisie, which had long since become burdensome both mutual responsibility and constant redistribution of land, hastened to take advantage of the Stolypin decrees. The ruined poor also began to leave the community, striving to strengthen their land in order to sell it and move to the city or to other, more prosperous places. These "poor" lands were bought by the same strong owners, who thus enriched themselves even more. Another direction of the reform, also strengthening the layer of wealthy peasants, was connected with the Peasants' Bank. It was an intermediary between the landowners who wanted to sell their lands, and the peasants who bought them. For individual peasants, the bank provided loans on preferential terms necessary for such a purchase. Stolypin wanted to solve the difficulties of the rural poor by resettling the masses. Due to this, he hoped to ease the land hunger in the central regions and move the dissatisfied to the outskirts of Russia, away from the landowners' estates. The bulk of the settlers went to Siberia. This process was poorly organized. Quite often the peasants were thrown to the mercy of fate, a significant part of them fell into bondage to the local kulaks. About 16% of migrants returned to their native lands. The disregard of the authorities for the poor, shown in such an important issue, further embittered her. LECTURE No. 18. Economic thought in Russia (second half of the XNUMXth - early XNUMXth centuries) 1. The place of N. G. Chernyshevsky in the history of Russian and world economic thought The economic legacy of Chernyshevsky is multifaceted and impressive. He is the author of numerous works, polemical and critical publications. It is possible to single out the following areas of Chernyshevsky's work in the field of socio-political and economic topics. 1. Active criticism of the serfdom. An irreconcilable democrat, an excellent connoisseur of the peasant question, Chernyshevsky put forward and defended a program for the abolition of the serf system, the elimination of landlordism, and the transfer of land to the peasants without redemption. After the reform of 1861, Chernyshevsky reveals its real meaning. The cycle of works of the scientist and publicist is completed by "Letters without an address". The main conclusion is that the desires of the peasants will not be carried out by a reform "from above", only a revolution can do this. 2. Analysis and detailed analysis of the works of famous economists, including the works of D. Ricardo, A. Smith, J. S. Mill. Chernyshevsky recognizes the validity of the classics' starting points, but finds contradictions in their works and believes that there should be no monopolists in economics as a science. Mill and other writers often treat particulars without noticing or ignoring general issues. 3. Development of your own concept (“Capital and Labor” - 1860; “Essays on Political Economy (according to Mill)” - 1861, etc.). Based on the labor theory of value, on the provisions of the classical school, the scientist put forward his own interpretation of labor, its structure and significance. Productive labor is directed towards the satisfaction of material needs. Political economy is not the science of wealth, but is "the science of human well-being, insofar as it depends on things and conditions produced by labor." The beginning of economic science, which is contained in the works of Ricardo and Mill, must be developed further and conclusions drawn that allow overcoming the limitations of bourgeois theory, rejecting the distortions introduced by vulgar economics, and presenting and substantiating the general features of the society of the future. The scientist offers his interpretation of the main categories: value, capital, money, wages, profits. Exchange will play a minor role. Money will lose its true value. In the future, the system will be based on "intrinsic value", which can be represented as the need of people, the usefulness of the goods produced. It will not be about price, but about a more efficient distribution of forces between industries. The theory of the political economy of the working people, opposed by Chernyshevsky to the system of capitalist production, had a considerable influence on the formation of public consciousness. Chernyshevsky became one of the forerunners of populism. 2. Economic views of V. I. Lenin Numerous works are devoted to the analysis of populist views: "On the so-called question of markets"; "What are 'friends of the people' and how do they fight against the Social Democrats"; "The economic content of populism and criticism of it in the book of Mr. Struve"; "The development of capitalism in Russia" and others. In fact, V. I. Lenin summarized all arguments directed against the concept of populism and the model of agrarian socialism. First of all, Lenin considers unjustified the initial statement about the admissibility of the formation of a non-standard nationally oriented form of social structure. According to Lenin, finding original features in agriculture is nothing but a justification for backwardness. Relying on Marx's schemes of reproduction, Lenin (like the "legal Marxists") rejects Vorontsov's postulate that society's limited demand hinders the formation of an internal market. The market is growing due to productive consumption. Capitalism is ruining the peasantry, dividing the direct producers into workers and capitalists. And this forms the internal market for capitalist production. In the work "The Development of Capitalism in Russia" the process of formation of the Russian market and the involvement of peasants in the system of market relations is considered. Arguing with his opponents, V. I. Lenin substantiates the conclusion that capitalism actually already exists in Russia. Lenin considers the agrarian question to be the main one in assessing the future socio-economic development of Russian society. Since Lenin did not share the views of populist economists regarding the specificity of the peasant reform and the possibility of the Russian way of eliminating landlordism, he proceeds from two possible variants of transformations. In accordance with this, the thesis about two ways of improving capitalism in agriculture (American and Prussian) is explained. Arguing with R. Hilferding and K. Kautsky in his work "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism", the author describes the main features of capitalism at the imperialist stage. 3. The first socialist transformations. War communism as a stage in the formation of the command-administrative system (1917-1921) The Bolsheviks sought the complete destruction of private property. In December 1917, foreign trade was placed under the control of the People's Commissariat of Trade and Industry, and in April 1918 it was declared a state monopoly. The refusal to pay the royal debts and the debts of the Provisional Government was announced. The system of commodity exchange was introduced everywhere. On November 14, 1917, a decree was adopted on the establishment of workers' control in production. However, due to the sabotage of the industrialists and the inability of the workers to organize the management of enterprises, in May 1918 a policy of nationalization and state control over the nationalized enterprises was proclaimed. Large banks, enterprises, transport, large trading enterprises were nationalized. This became the basis of the socialist way of life. 120 Control functions were transferred to the Supreme Council of the National Economy. An 8-hour working day was introduced, the use of child labor was prohibited, and the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits became mandatory. In the spring of 1918, a decree on land was put into effect, while the Bolsheviks supported the rural poor, thereby causing discontent among the wealthy peasants - the main producers of marketable bread. By refusing to hand over their grain, they put the Soviet government in a difficult position. In May 1918, the state declared a food dictatorship and began the forcible seizure of grain stocks from wealthy peasants. The estate system was destroyed, pre-revolutionary ranks, titles and awards were abolished. Electiveness of judges was established, secularization of civil states was carried out. Established free medical care and education. Women have equal rights with men. The decree on marriage introduced the institution of civil marriage. The church is separated from the education system and the state. Much of the church property was confiscated. On July 4, 1918, at the V Congress of Soviets, the Soviet Constitution was adopted, which proclaimed the creation of a new state - the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR). The bourgeoisie and landlords were deprived of their rights. "War communism" - the socio-economic policy of the Soviet government during the civil war - provided for a very rapid transition to communism with the help of emergency measures. In the economic field, these were: surplus appropriation in the countryside, the complete nationalization of industry, the ban on private trade, the rejection of market forms of economic regulation, forced labor mobilization. In the political sphere - a dictatorship based on emergency bodies that replaced the Soviets. In the ideological field - the concept of socialism as a social system with the dominance of the state form of ownership and non-commodity production, the idea of a quick victory of the world revolution, the course towards building socialism in the USSR. For the period of "war communism" were familiar: 1) unsettled life, famine, epidemics, increased mortality; 2) "a man with a gun", his behavior influenced the behavior and thinking of people during the years of the civil war - mobilization, confiscation, "emergency", "fast" sentence, "red" and "white" terror; 3) moods of fear and hatred, rupture of family and friendship ties, readiness to fight, kill and be killed. 4. Growing crisis phenomena in the economy and the beginning of the NEP By 1921, Russian industrial production was at the level of the times of Catherine II. The Bolshevik Party won, but emerged from the war divided by the struggle of factions, platforms and programs. No sooner had one civil war ended than a new one, even more terrible, was ripe in the country. Peasant unrest broke out across the country, fueled by the ongoing surplus-appropriation policy. As soon as foreign intervention and white resistance began to weaken, the peasantry immediately declared its rejection of the surplus appropriation. If in the civil war that ended, the Bolsheviks defeated the white minority with the support of the peasant majority, then in the brewing civil war, almost the entire peasantry (except the poor) could resist them. Under these conditions, the retention of power by the Bolshevik party became questionable. The last fact that showed the intolerance of the situation with the surplus was the Kronstadt rebellion, because one of the forces supporting it, the army, came out against the authorities. In March 1921 the question of the tax in kind arose. Thus began the New Economic Policy. The following measures were taken: the food tax replaced the food appropriation (2 times less), business and private trade were legalized, as well as the use of hired labor of farm laborers in the countryside. The NEP declared civil peace instead of civil war, but at the same time in 1921-1922. The first political trials of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries began, as a result of which these parties were banned by law, and persecution began against their members. At the same time, the intelligentsia was deported from the country. The initiative of the party members was constrained; they could not conduct a discussion and even the usual exchange of opinions, so necessary for the only ruling party, when there was no serious scientific and political examination of the decisions it adopted. But despite all the difficulties and difficulties, crises and conflicts, the NEP surprisingly quickly produced beneficial results. For 5 - 7 years, NEP Russia restored the pre-war (1913) level of production, that is, during this time it did as much as it took tsarist Russia a century and a quarter. The New Economic Policy made it possible to optimally combine the interests of the state, society and the worker. Tens of millions of people got the opportunity to profitably work for themselves, the state and society. And this concerted effort has made a salutary breakthrough; in addition, NEP found the optimal combination of capitalism in the basis, i.e., in the economy, and socialist ideas in the socio-political sphere - what will later be called a mixed economy and a welfare state. It is also necessary to take into account the enthusiasm of the Soviet people, who themselves created their own destiny, wrote the history of the country and even world history. But such an effective policy, albeit not devoid of internal contradictions that were worth solving, was abandoned by the Soviet government. In October 1929, the NEP was finally curtailed. Some members of the party understood that the continuation of the NEP for them could result in a loss of power. There were also social rank and file, which existed during the civil war at the expense of state distributions, and now have lost this convenient source of subsistence. In addition, the workers of the defense complex during the years of the NEP détente began to live worse than the proletariat of civilian industries. They also turned out to be dissatisfied with the NEP and became the social support of the supporters of its curtailment. The administrative-command system, which was formed mainly during the years of the civil war, received "room for development" after the collapse of the NEP. 5. Changes in the monetary and credit-financial sphere To carry out the NEP, a stable monetary system and the stabilization of the ruble were necessary. People's Commissar for Finance G. Sokolnikov was against the issue of money, but was not understood. The issue continued, and only by a miracle did not materialize the plan of the complete annulment of money and the closure of the People's Commissariat of Finance as unnecessary. To stabilize the ruble, banknotes were denominated, and in 1922 Soviet signs were issued. The new ruble was equal to 10 former rubles. In 000, other Soviet signs were issued, 1923 ruble of which was equal to 1 rubles issued in 100. Along with this, a new Soviet currency was issued - a chervonets, equal to 1922 g of pure gold or a pre-revolutionary gold 7,74-ruble coin. The value of chervonets was high: the monthly salary of skilled workers was about 10-6 chervonets, but no more. They were intended for lending to industry and commercial organizations in the wholesale trade. The State Bank was forbidden to use chervonets to compensate for the budget deficit, which ensured their anti-inflationary stability for 7-3 years. In 1922 stock exchanges opened. There was a purchase and sale of government bonds, currency, gold at a free rate. The State Bank bought up gold and foreign currency, if the gold exchange rate exceeded the official parity, issued an additional amount of money, and vice versa. Therefore, during 1923, the exchange rate of the chervonets exceeded the exchange rate of foreign currencies. The final stage of the reform was the procedure for the redemption of Soviet signs. In February 1924, the USSR began issuing change coins in denominations from the ruble to the kopeck. At the same time, tax reform was carried out. The main source of state budget revenues was not taxes from the population, but deductions from the profits of enterprises. The transition from natural to monetary taxation of peasant farms was the result of a return to a market economy. Taxes are imposed on matches, tobacco, beer, honey, spirits, mineral waters and other goods. The credit system was gradually restored. In 1921, the State Bank began its work again. Lending to trade and industry enterprises on a commercial basis has started. In the summer of 1922, a subscription was opened for the first state grain loan. It was another step towards stabilizing the financial system. A network of joint-stock banks is being created. The shareholders were the State Bank, cooperatives, syndicates, foreign entrepreneurs, individuals. Basically, these banks lend to certain industries. Commercial credit was often used - mutual lending by various enterprises and organizations. The money supply continued to increase. From July to December 1925, compared with 1924, it increased one and a half times. There was a threat of inflation. In September 1925, there was an increase in commodity prices and a shortage of essential products. The measures taken by the government only led to the depletion of foreign exchange reserves. Since July 1926, it was prohibited to export chervonets abroad. This was done to exclude the sale of foreign currency, which was only allowed to be carried by those traveling abroad. LECTURE No. 19. Economic development of the USSR 1. The economy of the USSR on the eve of the Great Patriotic War The share of the USSR in world industrial production in the late 1930s - early 1940s was 10%. The USSR occupied first place in the world in the extraction of manganese ore and in the production of synthetic rubber, first place in Europe and second place in the world in oil production, and in terms of the gross output of tractor and machine building. One of the leading places in the world and in Europe was occupied by the Soviet Union in the generation of electricity, aluminum, steel and iron smelting, coal mining and cement production. The result of forced industrialization in the country was the creation of a powerful coal and metallurgical production in the Kuzbass and the Urals, the development of a new oil-producing region between the Volga and the Urals began, and new railway lines were built. Completely new industries were formed for the country - automotive, bearing, aviation and many others, the absence of which would make it difficult to equip the Red Army with military equipment. State resources and powerful mobilization reserves were created. In 1940, a state system of vocational training of young people ("labor reserves") was created: railway and vocational schools, factory training schools. However, the overall figures do not yet give a general idea of the state of the economy before the war. Even according to official data, from 1937 until the first half of 1940, ferrous metallurgy did not regularly fulfill the plan. During this time, production in the electrical and automotive industries has declined, the production of road equipment, tractors and other products has decreased. The reasons for this were not only the previously impossible targets for the third five-year plan, but also the ongoing repression among engineering and technical workers and directors of industrial enterprises. General suspicion led to the fact that enterprise managers were afraid to introduce technological and technical innovations into production that did not immediately produce results, lest they be accused of sabotage. Storming was successful at enterprises when the monthly plan was fulfilled in the last 10-12 days, since in the first half of the month there were no semi-finished products and raw materials for normal work. It was not so much the individual people who were to blame, but the command system itself. In Europe, the war began and the leadership of the USSR began to show greater interest in the needs of the armed forces. Just before the start of the war, the transition to a unified personnel system for recruiting troops was completed. There were great difficulties in the technical equipment of the army. Until the mid 1930s. often used even pre-revolutionary weapons, as well as foreign-made weapons. The re-equipment of the army, which began during the first five-year plans, proceeded extremely slowly. Soviet industry delayed the introduction of new types of tanks, aircraft, and artillery into mass production. However, the technical equipment of the Red Army gradually increased. By the middle of 1941, more than half of all Soviet aviation was stationed near the western borders, moreover, the most combat-ready units and formations were located here. The aviation forces of the Soviet Union exceeded the enemy forces by more than 2 times. An even more noticeable difference was in the tank forces. Soviet tanks had more powerful guns, they developed a higher speed. The Soviet artillery also had great advantages. The German troops were noticeably superior to the Soviet ones only in equipping them with motor vehicles and automatic weapons. By the middle of 1941, more than half of all the means and forces of the Red Army were located in the western military districts. With proper preparation and organization, they could have repelled the enemy's advance, but this did not happen. And the reason here is not only a sudden attack, because it was not such, it was expected. The strongest damage to the combat readiness of the Red Army was caused by repressions among officers of the middle and higher command staff. 2. Soviet economy during the war The first six months of the war were the most difficult for the Soviet economy. Industrial production decreased by more than 2 times, rolling of ferrous metals - by 3 times, production of ball bearings - by 21 times, non-ferrous metals - by 430 times, etc. The production of tanks, aircraft, ammunition was greatly reduced, since during this period the main power moved to the east of the country. In this difficult time, the super-centralized directive management system showed itself rather energetically and promptly. Under the extremely strict leadership of the State Defense Committee (GKO), established on June 30, 1941, factories and factories were evacuated and the civilian sector of the economy was transferred to a war footing. But it was possible to take out only a small part, many factories and factories, livestock, food warehouses, vehicles fell into the hands of the enemy. Enterprises evacuated to the east relatively soon began to produce products for the front. In general, despite the huge disparity in the economic potential of Germany and the USSR at the beginning of the war, the Soviet economy during this period turned out to be more efficient. During all the years of the war, almost twice as many military equipment and weapons were produced in the USSR. Every ton of cement, metal, coal, every kilowatt of electricity, every piece of equipment in the Soviet Union was used better than in Germany. Based on a thousand tons of smelted steel, Soviet industry produced 5 times more tanks and weapons than German industry. Of course, this is mainly the merit of the workers, peasants, and all citizens of the country who have shown labor heroism. In the fall of 1942, the amount of human resources approached a critical point. By this time, the territory where almost 80 million people lived before the war (42% of the total population of the country) was occupied, and only about 17 million people were able to evacuate or join the army. A significant part of the male population went to the front. Their place was voluntarily taken by women, teenagers, and elderly people who were forced to work in difficult conditions as blacksmiths, stokers, in metallurgical production, in coal mines, etc. From February 1942, a planned mobilization was carried out for industrial enterprises and construction sites among the able-bodied urban population, including 14-year-old teenagers, who were hastily trained in any profession and put on machine tools on a par with adults. Later, this system extended to the rural population. Along with the loss of people during the hostilities during the war years, the Gulag system continued to operate, where there was a colossal number of people declared "enemies of the people." Since the main material resources were spent on military needs, the economic situation of the Soviet people was extremely difficult. At the very beginning of the war, a rationing system was introduced; it satisfied the population of cities with food only to a minimum. There were several categories in the distribution of products. But the card distribution constantly failed, people had to stand in long lines to get food, and often they could not buy anything with these cards. In the markets, prices were so high that most of the population was not able to buy food. Almost all the wages of the townspeople went to buy food. Often, urban residents were forced to go to the countryside to exchange shoes, clothes and other things for food there. Enterprises and institutions were allocated collective farm lands to grow potatoes and vegetables on them for additional nutrition of their employees. It was simply impossible to buy clothes, shoes, fabrics in stores. Businesses and institutions had to issue warrants to buy these things, but this was very rare. In Central Asia, in the Urals, Kazakhstan, and Siberia, the housing issue became much more complicated, since the bulk of the evacuated people were sent there. However, other areas also had their hardships. Agriculture experienced enormous difficulties during the war. Cars, tractors, horses were mobilized for the needs of the army. The village was left almost without draft power. Children, women, the elderly, the disabled remained in the village. But they also worked to the limit of their capabilities: the country needed food. State and collective farms were obliged to hand over almost the entire harvest to the state. These were mandatory deliveries. After the implementation of this plan, the farms often did not have grain left for sowing. Agricultural productivity fell catastrophically during the war years. Since cards were not issued for the rural population, the villagers survived only at the expense of their own household plots. The products grown on them were used for personal consumption, as well as for sale in the markets or exchanged with the townspeople for consumer goods. But despite the enormous hardships and sacrifices, the Soviet people stood up against the enemy in a monolithic and united manner, showing unparalleled heroism and courage on the fronts, behind the front line, in the rear. In all regions captured by the enemy, partisan detachments were formed. They carried out underground and sabotage work, preventing the Nazis from using the economic potential that fell into their hands. In the rear, many thousands of Soviet people of various nationalities invariably helped the soldiers. Donations were collected everywhere for the Motherland Defense Fund and the Red Army Fund. The population voluntarily handed over things, government bonds, family values, warm clothes, deducted part of their wages to these funds. Funds were collected across the country for the construction of aircraft and tank columns. Thanks to ordinary residents of the country, several thousand tanks, artillery pieces, more than 2,5 thousand combat aircraft, more than 20 submarines and military boats, and much more were built and transferred to the army. Residents of the country showed constant concern for the health of the Red Army soldiers. Everywhere people were on duty at railway stations, hospitals, and river ports where the wounded arrived. Schoolchildren performed concerts in hospitals. More than 5,5 million people regularly donated their blood, which was necessary for the treatment of the wounded. All this proved the close unity of the front and rear, based on a deep sense of patriotism and state self-preservation, realized by the peoples of the country during the years of mortal danger hanging over the Fatherland. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the unity of the USSR during the war years was totalitarianism, the daily strict state and party regulation of the lives of individuals and entire nations, terror against real and imaginary opponents of the regime. It is necessary to say about the external factor, as a factor that played a significant role in the victory. Great Britain and the United States immediately after the start of the war came out with support for the Soviet Union in its fight against fascism. The victory of the USSR in World War II is indisputable. The eastern front was the main one in the entire war: here Germany lost more than 73% of its personnel, up to 75% of tanks and artillery pieces, and more than 75% of aviation. However, the price of victory was excessively high. The consequence of all this was not only the purposeful policy of the Nazis to destroy the Soviet people and state, but also the disregard of Soviet military and political leaders for people's lives. 3. Post-war development of the national economy The war caused direct damage to the economy of the USSR, which amounted to almost a third of the entire national wealth of the country. Since 1943, as the invaders were driven out, the USSR began to restore the economy destroyed by the war. In addition to these works, it was necessary to carry out the conversion of industry, since by 1945 more than half of the volume of industrial production accounted for military products. But the conversion was partial, because simultaneously with a decrease in the share of produced ammunition and military equipment, new types of weapons were being developed and the military-industrial complex was being modernized. In September 1949, newspapers wrote that the first atomic bomb had been successfully tested in the USSR, and in August 1953, a hydrogen bomb. During these same years, mass demobilization took place. The personnel of the armed forces decreased from 11,4 million people in May 1945 to 2,9 million people in 1948. However, the size of the army soon increased again: in the early 1950s. it reached almost 6 million people. In 1952, direct military expenditures amounted to 25% of the state budget, i.e. only 2 times less than in the war year of 1944. As in the years of the first five-year plans, most attention was paid to improving heavy engineering, the fuel and energy complex, and metallurgy. In general, during the years of the 4th Five-Year Plan (1946-1950), more than 6 thousand large industrial enterprises were restored and rebuilt. The light and food industries were financed, as before, on a residual basis, and their products did not even meet the minimum needs of the population. The production of consumer goods by the end of the 4th Five-Year Plan had not reached pre-war levels. Post-war economic growth in the USSR had several sources. First of all, the directive economy was still a mobilization economy, as in the years of the first five-year plans and during the war years. The Soviet Union received reparations from Germany in the amount of $4,3 billion. At their expense, industrial equipment, including entire factory complexes, was exported from Germany and other defeated countries to the USSR. However, the Soviet economy was never able to properly manage these rich resources. 1,5 million German and 0,5 million Japanese prisoners of war worked in the Soviet Union. In addition, the Gulag system during this period contained approximately 8 - 9 million prisoners whose work was not paid. One of the sources of economic growth was the ongoing policy of redistributing funds from the social sector to heavy industry. Every year, the country's population was obliged to subscribe to government loans for an average of 1-1,5 months' salary. As before, the main source of funds for heavy industry was agriculture, which after the war was very weakened. In 1945, agricultural production fell by almost 1940% compared to 50. The severe drought of 1946 again significantly undermined the economic strength of the collective farms and state farms. As in the pre-war years, non-equivalent trade between town and country continued with the help of pricing policy. State procurement prices for the main types of products changed extremely slowly and showed no change in production costs. The peasants, receiving almost nothing for their workdays, lived thanks to their personal subsidiary plots. But since 1946, the state began to reduce household plots and impose large monetary taxes on farms. In addition, each peasant household had to pay taxes in kind. In 1948, the collective farmers were strongly "recommended" to "sell" small livestock to the state, although the collective farm regulations allowed them to be kept. In response to this "recommendation," the peasants began to secretly slaughter cattle. It became increasingly difficult for collective farmers to sell their products on the market, as taxes and fees on sales income increased sharply. In addition, it was possible to sell products on the market only if there was a special certificate stating that the relevant farm had fulfilled its obligations to the state. The country's leadership tried to ignore the deep crisis in agriculture, and any proposals and recommendations to reduce command pressure on the countryside were invariably rejected. To increase the efficiency of the agricultural sector of the economy, the construction of huge hydroelectric power stations began on the Volga, Dnieper and other rivers. All these stations were put into operation in the 1950-1960s. In 1952, the Volga-Don Canal was built, connecting five seas into a single system: the White, Baltic, Caspian, Azov and Black. Until the end of 1947, the USSR maintained a card system for industrial goods and food for the population. Its abolition took place only at the end of 1947. The Soviet Union was one of the first countries in Europe to abolish card distribution. But before abolishing ration cards, the government established uniform food prices instead of the previously existing card (ration) and commercial prices. Because of this, the cost of basic food products for the urban population has increased. On December 14, 1947, the Decree of the Government of the USSR "On the implementation of the monetary reform and the abolition of cards for food and industrial goods" was issued. Old money had to be exchanged for new money in a week at the rate of 10:1. At the same time, all previously issued state loans were consolidated into a single new 2% loan. Thus, the withdrawal of excess money supply took place, and the reform itself acquired a mainly confiscatory character. The housing problem was still extremely acute. During these years, housing construction proceeded on a very limited scale. But huge funds were invested in the construction of high-rise buildings in Moscow, designed to symbolize the Stalin era. The main appropriations from the state budget went to the military-industrial complex, heavy industry, and the energy system. The Soviet government generously distributed gifts to friendly foreign countries in the form of university buildings, cultural centers, hospitals, as well as in the form of direct military assistance. The further development of the USSR economy was based on excessive centralization. All economic issues were resolved only in the center, local economic bodies were strictly limited in resolving any cases. The main monetary and material resources that were necessary for the implementation of planned targets were issued through a significant number of bureaucratic instances. Departmental disunity, confusion and mismanagement led to regular downtime in production, huge material costs, storming, senseless transportation from edge to edge of the country. After the war, various administrative reforms were carried out several times, but they did not introduce fundamental changes into the essence of the planning and administrative system. 4. The country on the eve of reforms Since the Soviet Union suffered huge casualties during the war, back in 1948 the Soviet leadership ordered that prisoners be used more "economically" in the Gulag system, i.e., to prevent their mass death from malnutrition, overwork, lack of medical care. A small salary was set for "drummers", and the norms of rations were increased. But these measures did not give the expected results. By 1956, the Gulag system was abolished and the process of rehabilitation of those convicted for political reasons started. At the XX Congress of the CPSU in February 1956, a critical assessment was given to all these events and a line was drawn under the whole era. Despite the disagreements and the costs, this was the first step towards civil peace in society, towards cardinal reforms in all areas, primarily in the economy. The rehabilitation of the innocently convicted was not only a political, but also a purely economic growth factor, since millions of specialists left the camps, received their lost civil rights, and were able to apply their knowledge and experience in the national economy. 5. Reforming the Soviet economic system Political transformations in the USSR had to be supported by changes in the economy. G. M. Malenkov at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in August 1953 clearly formulated the main directions of economic policy: the rapid growth in the production of consumer goods, significant investment in the light industry. One of the most important tasks was to resolve the food issue and bring the agricultural industry out of a protracted and deep crisis. It was decided to ease state pressure on agricultural workers and find ways to increase the profitability of collective farm production. One of the first measures of the new government of the country was to write off tax arrears for the past years, lower the agricultural tax, increase the territory of private subsidiary farms of collective farmers and household plots of employees and workers in towns and cities. The norms of obligatory deliveries of livestock products to the state have been lowered, purchase prices for the products of state and collective farms have been increased, and opportunities for the development of collective farm markets have been expanded. Since the mid 1950s. agriculture became profitable for the first time in many years. State allocations for the formation of the agrarian sector have increased significantly. The flow of tractors, motor vehicles, combines sent to the countryside has increased. Thousands of agricultural specialists go to the village. Since 1954, the development of virgin lands begins. Much attention was paid to the technical level of industry. Thanks to a very high concentration of material resources, human efforts and the development of science, positive results have been achieved. New industries appeared in the national economy - nuclear energy and the nuclear industry. Nuclear-powered ships and aircraft are being built. The world's first artificial satellite and the first spacecraft with a man on board, Yu. A. Gagarin, are launched into near-Earth orbit. The power industry, chemical and oil and gas industries developed at a high pace. The electrification of the village is almost completed. However, the development of industry occurred due to extensive factors. In 1958, the government liquidated the machine and tractor stations, the collective farms had to buy their equipment. There was a merger and enlargement of collective farms, the transformation of collective farms into state farms. The program of chemicalization of agriculture has come into effect. Bulk bought bread abroad. Scientists-economists and practitioners proposed new approaches in the field of long-term forecasting and planning, finding strategic macroeconomic goals. But the country's leadership needed real results immediately, so all efforts were spent on constant adjustments to current plans. Enterprise-level planning was low. Fruitless efforts were made in the country to improve the structure of the state apparatus, endow it with increased rights or, conversely, reduce powers, separate existing planning bodies and create new ones, etc. There were many such attempts in the 1950-60s, but none of them they did not really improve the functioning of the command system. On January 1, 1961, old money began to be exchanged for new money in a ratio of 10:1. In fact, it was a denomination, but the purchasing power of money continued to decline. The government cuts production costs in industry, reduces prices by about 30%, while prices for meat and meat products rise by 30%, and for butter - by 25%. This causes dissatisfaction among the workers. In June 1962 in Novocherkassk the largest demonstration of the workers took place, which was brutally suppressed. Tanks and firearms were used against the workers, dozens of people were killed, 9 were sentenced to death, many people were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. Information about this appeared in the newspapers only in the late 1980s. 6. Transformations in the social sphere In the mid 1950s. a draft of measures designed to improve the lives of the population was developed. Wages were systematically increased (about 6% annually), especially for workers with a minimum income. The working week is shortened from 48 to 40 hours. Paid maternity leave has been increased. Benefits for families with many children and payment for temporary disability are being increased. The issuance of obligatory government bonds has ceased. A law on pensions was issued, increasing them by 2 times for workers and employees. Pensions were established for collective farmers in 1965. All types of payment for education are abolished. The consumption of basic foodstuffs increased significantly: vegetables and fruits - more than 3 times, dairy products - by 40%, meat - by 50%, fish - almost 2 times. At the end of the 1950s, compared with their beginning, the real incomes of employees and workers increased by 60%, and collective farmers - by 90%. Mass housing construction developed at a rapid pace. For 1956-1960 About 54 million people (a quarter of the country's population) received new housing. At the same time, the housing standard itself was changing. Increasingly, families received from the state for free not rooms, but apartments, albeit small ones. But the queue for apartments moved very slowly. Under N. S. Khrushchev, spiritual life was liberalized, the so-called "thaw". The party proclaimed the entry of the USSR into the period of the extensive building of communism. 7. Economics of developed socialism. Search for new forms and methods of management. Reforms of the 1960s-1970s: essence, goals, methods and results In 1965, the division of the party apparatus according to the production principle was eliminated. The practice continued when the party apparatus controlled everything, but was not really responsible for anything. He made decisions, gave instructions, and in case of failure, the heads of industries, enterprises and institutions answered. The clause on mandatory rotation included in the CPSU Charter in 1961 was canceled: at each election, it was supposed to change 1/3 of the members of the party committees. Thus, the principle of instability of party workers was introduced. They were categorically against it. In 1965, economic reform began to be carried out. It did not affect the foundations of the directive economy, but provided for the material interest of producers in the quality and results of labor, the mechanism of internal self-regulation. The government again wrote off debts from state and collective farms, increased purchase prices, and a surcharge was established for the sale of products to the state in excess of the plan. Significant finances were directed to the agricultural sector of the economy. At their expense, complex mechanization of agricultural production, melioration and chemicalization of soils began. But the effect of the transformations was short-lived, since inconsistent measures to reform the economic mechanism were ineffective. The second reason for the slowdown in economic growth was that the directive economy itself was at the limit of its capabilities. This was explained by the contradiction between the colossal scale of the industrial potential of the USSR and the prevailing extensive methods of its development. Agriculture also fell into decline, whose resources were actively used by the directive economy. In industrial construction, during the 9th Five-Year Plan period (1971-1975), dozens of gigantic territorial production complexes (TPCs) were created. The Baikal-Amur Mainline (BAM) was laid, and it was planned to build a network of new TPK along it, but there were practically no funds for this project. BAM is still making losses. In order to avoid economic collapse, the USSR increased the supply of energy carriers to the West, moreover, their prices there increased only in the 1970s. almost 20 times. LECTURE No. 20. Economic development of Russia in the period of perestroika 1. Background of perestroika. Prerequisites for its occurrence After the death of L. I. Brezhnev on November 9, 1982, the struggle for leadership began again in the highest echelons of power. Its severity is evidenced by the fact that in a short period of time 2 times the post of general secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU turned out to be persons who were physically weak and because of this, obviously "temporary" as leaders of the ruling party: Yu. V. Andropov and K. U. Chernenko. The first of them, a communist-conservative by conviction and a long-term chief of the KGB, was remembered by the people for the fact that he began a serious fight against corruption, including the middle and highest levels of the state apparatus, and strengthening labor discipline. The second general secretary began by inviting about fifty high-ranking apparatchiks demoted by Andropov to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Again, propagandistic fanfares about the unprecedented successes of socialism and the "visible sprouts of communism" sounded all over the country. Meanwhile, in the aging party-state elite, the positions of relatively young and energetic politicians gradually strengthened, not only fighting for power, but also ready, to a greater or lesser extent, to update the system. In March 1985, M. S. Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and N. I. Ryzhkov became the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR (in December 1990, he was replaced by V. S. Pavlov). Thus began the next and last stage in the history of the USSR, which was soon called "perestroika". The main task was to stop the collapse of the "state socialism" system, as well as to guarantee the interests of its ruling elite - the nomenklatura, which formed these politicians and pushed them to the top (moreover, the first part of the task was subordinate to the second and pretty soon it was discarded). The chosen means is a cautious transformation of social structures, primarily the economy. However, there was no coherent and predetermined concept of how to do this. The decisions of the Gorbachev administration often did not go ahead of social processes and did not direct them, but followed them - with zero effectiveness in such cases. To a large extent, this was due to the belatedness of the reforms, the depth of the general crisis that had managed to cover the main links of the system. Another circumstance also played a negative role - in the first years of "perestroika" there were no serious socio-political forces capable of putting pressure on the state leadership, prompting it to look for effective and adequate solutions to the situation. There was only a rather abstract desire for change in society; before the conscious readiness of the broad masses for radical transformations, for a change in the model of social development, there was still a long and difficult way to go. 2. Reforming the political system. Electoral reform. Analysis of liberal and other movements. Experiencing growing difficulties in the economy, the country's leadership, headed by M. S. Gorbachev, from the summer of 1988 decided to reform the political system of the USSR. Another circumstance pushed him to reforms: the emergence of new political forces that threatened to further undermine the CPSU monopoly on power. At the first stage, the goal of the political transformation was to strengthen the leading role of the CPSU in the country by revitalizing the Soviets, establishing the separation of powers and elements of parliamentarism in the Soviet system. A new supreme body of legislative power appears - the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and the corresponding republican congresses. Elections of deputies took place in 1989-1990. alternatively. The permanent Supreme Soviets of the USSR and republics were formed from people's deputies. A new position was introduced - Chairman of the Council (from Supreme to District). The Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR became the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee M. S. Gorbachev (March 1989), the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR - B. N. Yeltsin (May 1990). Even earlier (since the middle of 1987) a policy of "glasnost" was proclaimed. This was government-controlled easing of censorship over the media, the elimination of "special depositories" in libraries, the printing of previously banned books, etc. Activities began to rehabilitate the victims of repression. The process of formation of new political parties with an extremely narrow social base, but of the widest spectrum, from monarchist to anarchist, has sharply intensified. Mass movements and parties of national (and often nationalist) orientation appear in the republics. In the Baltic States, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova, they received a stable majority in the Supreme Soviets. In a number of large cities of Russia, similar socio-political formations also arose, differing in composition and goals. Most of the new political parties and movements openly adopted anti-communist and anti-socialist positions, reflecting the growing dissatisfaction of the people with the inability of the ruling party to stop the collapse of the economy and the fall in living standards. The crisis is also affecting the CPSU. Three main trends emerged in it: social-democratic, centrist and orthodox-traditionalist. There is a massive exodus from the Communist Party. In 1989-1990 The Communist Parties of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia announced their withdrawal from the CPSU. New centers of real power are beginning to emerge in the country. These were republican congresses of people's deputies and the Supreme Soviets, where politicians of a liberal-democratic orientation, who entered the "parliaments" on the wave of criticism of the CPSU, and old experienced partocrats were blocked. In the spring and summer of 1990, the union republics adopted declarations of state sovereignty that established the priority of their laws over the laws of the Union. The country has entered a period of disintegration. For decades, the center systematically pumped material and financial resources from Russia to the national republics, seeking to speed up the development of backward regions, where to “appease” the peoples forcibly included in the Soviet empire with a higher standard of living compared to the whole country. But, having turned Russia into a "donor" and bled it dry, the leadership of the USSR did not succeed in removing the tense relations between the nations. An important role here was played by too strong centralism in management, and instructions from federal bodies on what should be done in the field of the use of natural resources, the demographic, social and economic development of the republics without due consideration of their own interests, and numerous facts of disrespect for national culture, language, and customs. It seemed that everything was calm, speeches were made about the friendship of peoples, but in fact the centers of interethnic hatred, misunderstanding and disagreements did not die out. Communist ideology was permeated by the idea of the right of nations to self-determination up to secession. A single state - the USSR - in all constitutions, starting from 1924, was officially considered as a "voluntary union of sovereign Soviet republics" with the right to freely secede from it. In the republics, the bodies of power and administration, which did not differ much in real powers from similar bodies in the regions of the Russian Federation, nevertheless had all the attributes of their own sovereign statehood: legislative, executive, judicial, ministries, etc. During the further weakening of the CPSU, all these constitutional provisions began to work against the center with increasing force, creating, among other things, a favorable international legal background for its collapse. In such circumstances, the Gorbachev administration, losing the initiative, moved in the spring of 1990 to the second stage of political reforms. Gradually, they spread to the sphere of the state structure of the USSR. The salient features of this stage were: 1) post factum recognition of shifts in public sentiment, in the actual alignment of political forces and their legislative registration; 2) refusal to support the disintegrating CPSU in its former form and the desire to rebuild the party on the model of Western social democracy in order to find support from the communist reformers; this program was developed by the Secretary General and his associates, it was approved, but it was never put into practice; 3) the introduction of a new highest state position - the President of the USSR and the concentration of power in the presidential apparatus at the expense of allied Soviet structures that were losing control over the situation in the country and authority in society; in March 1990, the III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR elected MS Gorbachev President of the USSR; 4) direct negotiations of the President of the USSR with the leaderships of the republics on the conclusion of a new Union Treaty. 3. Economic reforms. Economic Reform 1987 500 Days Program In April 1985, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU proclaimed a course towards accelerating the socio-economic development of the country. The scientific and technological revolution, the technological re-equipment of mechanical engineering and the activation of the "human factor" were considered its levers. The enthusiasm of the workers was assumed, but it was not supported by the necessary equipment and qualifications of the workers. This did not lead to a reduction in the terms of work, but to a significant increase in the number of accidents in various sectors of the national economy. The largest of these was the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986. In the mid 1980s. two administrative campaigns are being launched throughout the country: the fight against alcoholism and "unearned income". The bureaucratic zeal and excitement resumed again. A sharp reduction in the supply of alcoholic beverages, cutting down vineyards, and an increase in alcohol prices led to an increase in speculation in alcohol, home brewing, and mass poisoning with surrogates. The fight against "unearned income" was reduced to the next offensive of the rural authorities on personal subsidiary plots. The authorities turned to the actual economic reform in the summer of 1987. The rights of enterprises were noticeably expanded. In particular, they got the opportunity to independently move into the foreign market, to conduct joint activities with foreign firms. The number of ministries and departments was reduced, and "partner" rather than command relations were proclaimed between them and enterprises. The directive state plan was replaced by a state order. In the countryside, 5 forms of management were established: state farms, collective farms, agro-combines, rental collectives and peasant (farm) farms. In 1988, laws were passed that opened up more than 30 types of production of services and goods. A side effect of this was the actual legitimization of the "shadow economy" and its capital. The Law on Leasing and Leasing Relations, adopted in November 1989, gave urban and rural residents the right to lease land for hereditary use for up to 50 years. They were free to dispose of the resulting products. But the land, as before, was in reality the property of the local Soviets and collective farms. And they were reluctant to meet new farmers. Private entrepreneurship in the countryside was also constrained by the fact that lease agreements could be canceled unilaterally by the top officials with a 2-month notice. The next step in the economic reform was the resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the concept of transition to a regulated market economy", and then a number of other legislative acts. They provided for the gradual demonopolization, decentralization and denationalization of private entrepreneurship, etc. However, the mechanism and timing of the implementation of these measures were outlined approximately, vaguely. Their weak point was the study of socially painful, but vital for optimizing production issues of reforming credit and pricing policies, the supply system for enterprises and wholesale trade in equipment, raw materials, and energy carriers. At the same time, an alternative "Program of 500 days", prepared by a team of economists headed by G. A. Yavlinsky and S. S. Shatalin, was offered to the attention of the public. It was planned to carry out in a short time a radical privatization of state-owned enterprises with a focus on a direct transition to free market prices, to significantly limit the economic power of the center. The government rejected this program. In general, the economic policy of the Gorbachev administration was characterized by inconsistency and incompleteness, which increased the crisis of the national economy, the imbalance between its various structures. This was also facilitated by the fact that the absolute majority of the adopted laws did not work. They were spoiled by the local bureaucracy, which saw in the unusual undertakings of the center an open threat to its well-being and existence. The economic situation continued to deteriorate. Since 1988, a decrease in production in agriculture as a whole began, since 1990 - in industry. Inflationary tendencies increased strongly due to the gigantic budget deficit. The standard of living of the population was rapidly falling, making for ordinary people the disputes of the authorities about reform in the economy less and less credible. In conditions of inflation, money lost weight, and the rush demand for goods rose. In the summer of 1989, the first wave of mass workers' strikes swept across the country. Since then, they have constantly accompanied the "perestroika". 4. Dialectics of "new thinking". The beginning of disarmament. Unblocking regional conflicts. The collapse of the socialist system Having come to power, the Gorbachev administration confirmed the usual priorities of the USSR in the field of international relations. But already in 1987-1988. fundamental corrections are introduced into them in the spirit of the “new political thinking” already popularized by M. S. Gorbachev. The turn in Soviet diplomacy was dictated by the urgent need to give a fresh impetus to the foreign policy of the USSR, which had come to a standstill in many serious positions. Basic principles of "new political thinking": 1) rejection of the fundamental conclusion about the split of the modern world into two opposite socio-political systems, recognition of its interdependence and unity; 2) proclaiming as a standard method for resolving international issues not a balance of power between the two systems, but a balance of their interests; 3) rejection of the principle of proletarian (socialist) internationalism and awareness of the priority of universal human values over any others (national, class, ideological). The implementation of this course, on the one hand, had positive results, on the other hand, ended in foreign policy failures of the USSR. A characteristic feature of the new stage of Soviet diplomacy was the annual meetings of MS Gorbachev with US leaders. The treaties concluded with the United States on the destruction of intermediate and short-range missiles (December 1987) and on the limitation of strategic offensive arms laid the foundation for a trend towards the reduction of nuclear weapons in the world. At the same time, long negotiations began to reduce the level of conventional weapons. In 1990, an agreement was signed on their significant reduction in Europe. Also, the USSR unilaterally decided to reduce defense spending and reduce the number of its own Armed Forces by 500 people. The successful formation of relations with the capitalist countries also affected Japan, which was greatly facilitated by MS Gorbachev's visit to Tokyo in April 1991. The Soviet delegation showed readiness to revive bilateral ties and officially recognized the existence of the question of the state ownership of the four islands of the South Kuril chain. The new foreign policy methods of the USSR showed themselves positively in eliminating hotbeds of international tension and local armed conflicts. For May 1988 - February 1989 Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan. After that, the II Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR recognized the "undeclared war" against the neighboring country, which used to be a friendly, gross political mistake. Gorbachev's diplomacy made a lot of efforts to stop civil wars in some countries (Angola, Cambodia and Nicaragua), form coalition governments in them from representatives of the warring parties, to win the apartheid regime in South Africa through major political transformations, and to find a just solution to the Palestinian issue. Sino-Soviet relations are improving. As conditions for this, Beijing put forward the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and Mongolia, and the Vietnamese - from Cambodia. Moscow complied with these conditions, and after Mikhail Gorbachev's visit to China in the spring of 1989, border trade was restored between the two countries, and a series of agreements on political, economic, and cultural cooperation were signed. The same year became a turning point in the relations of the USSR with the countries of the "socialist commonwealth". Forced withdrawal of troops from Soviet bases in Central and Eastern Europe began. To the fears of many leaders of the socialist countries that some specific decisions dictated by "new thinking" could lead to destabilization of the socio-political situation there, the Gorbachev administration responded with economic pressure, threatening, in particular, to transfer economic mutual settlements with friendly countries to freely convertible currency. It was soon done. This aggravated relations between the CMEA member countries and caused the rapid collapse of both their economic and military-political union. Officially, the CMEA and the Department of Internal Affairs were disbanded in the spring of 1991. The leadership of the USSR did not interfere in the processes that quickly and radically changed the political and socio-economic image of the former allied states. Almost all the new governments of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe also took a course towards moving away from the USSR and establishing closer ties with the West. They were immediately ready to join NATO and the Common Market. The USSR was left without old allies, but did not acquire new ones. Therefore, the country was rapidly losing the initiative in world affairs and found itself in the wake of the foreign policy of the NATO countries. The deterioration of the economic situation of the Soviet Union, which was facilitated by a landslide decline in supplies to the countries of the former CMEA, forced the Gorbachev administration to appeal in 1990-1991. for financial and material support to the leading powers of the world, the so-called "seven". During these years, the West provided the USSR with humanitarian aid in the form of food and medical goods (but it mostly went to nomenklatura circles or fell into the hands of dealers in a corrupt trade network). But there was no substantial financial assistance, although the GXNUMX and the International Monetary Fund promised it to the USSR. They were more inclined to support individual union republics, encouraging their separatism, and less and less believed in the political capacity of the President of the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union made the United States the only superpower in the world. LECTURE No. 21. Economic development of Russia since the early 1990s. 1. Russia in the first half of the 1990s. Changes in Russian political life began in May 1990 with the election of B. N. Yeltsin as Chairman of the Supreme Council, and also with the adoption in June 1990 of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the Russian Federation. In fact, this meant the emergence of dual power in the country. By this time, the authority of the CPSU was rapidly declining, society increasingly ceased to trust MS Gorbachev. Perestroika, which was based on the ideas of democratic socialism, failed. Yeltsin's demonstrative victory in the presidential elections in Russia on June 12, 1991 testified to the beginning of the collapse of the foundation of the country's old power. The events of August 1991 led to a fundamental change in the situation in Russia. All executive authorities of the USSR that worked on its territory were now directly subordinate to the Russian president. He ordered to close and seal the buildings of the Central Committee of the CPSU, archives, district committees, regional committees. The CPSU ceased to exist as a power, state structure. The Supreme Council became the supreme body of power in the Russian Federation, but the real power was increasingly collected in the hands of the president. In the spring of 1992, the balance of political forces changed dramatically. The opposition that appeared in parliament tried to weaken the presidential structures and establish control over the government. The president's allies came up with a proposal to dissolve the parliament and stop the activities of the Congress of People's Deputies. In order to eliminate the confrontation between the legislative and executive authorities, which had reached dangerous limits, B. N. Yeltsin proclaimed a special procedure for governing Russia. The rule of the president was literally introduced in the country. A referendum on confidence in the president and his draft constitution was scheduled for February 25, 1993. Although the referendum strengthened the presidential position, it failed to overcome the constitutional crisis. On the contrary, his character became more and more menacing. The opposition was going to limit the power and powers of the president. Then the president announced the dissolution of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council and the holding of a referendum on December 12 on the adoption of a new Constitution and elections to the bicameral Federal Assembly (the State Duma and the Federation Council). This was followed by a confrontation between the parliament and the president, which ended in dramatic events in October 1993 in Moscow that shook all of Russia. 2. Continuing the course of reforms, shock therapy In its pure form, shock therapy is the liberalization of prices, which was carried out in early January 1992 by order of Deputy Prime Minister E. Gaidar. Now no one limited or controlled prices for goods and services. And they immediately shot up sharply. There is only one reason: liberalization of prices in a monopolized economy does not lead to an increase in output, but to a persistent rise in prices. Gaidar's government promised to increase prices by 2-4 times, but they increased hundreds and thousands of times. The savings of the population instantly depreciated; the amount of their deposits at that time was considerable - up to 500 billion rubles. Soaring energy prices led to a billing crisis, and there was not enough cash. Barter transactions have become the norm of life both between individual enterprises and between entire regions. All this led to the collapse of the financial system and the loss of control over money circulation. Only in the first 2 years of reforms there was a decline in production by almost 30% in terms of the most important indicators. This decline was not structural, but general. Most of all, it negatively affected progressive and high-tech industries. The inflationary shock led to a sharp imbalance. The gap in prices for agricultural and industrial products has put the village on the brink of survival. Gaidar's "shock therapy" was not based on serious calculations and knowledge of life, but was based on political ambitions and, naturally, could not lead the great power and its people to positive results, to an improvement in social living conditions. In December 1992, the 1994th Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation assessed the work of the government as unsatisfactory. E. Gaidar was replaced by V. Chernomyrdin. He confirmed the course towards a market economy, but promised to make adjustments to it. By the end of XNUMX, inflation rates were reduced. The second stage of privatization also began - through the free sale and purchase of private and joint-stock enterprises on stock exchanges at the market rate. But it was not possible to achieve any noticeable growth in industrial production. Moreover, the solution of economic problems was hindered by the political confrontation between the two main branches of power: the legislative (the Congress of People's Deputies of Russia and the Supreme Soviet elected by it) and the executive (the President and the government appointed by him). The transitional nature of Russian statehood led to the growth of contradictions between them. The conflict between B. Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet headed by R. Khasbulatov (supported by Vice-President A. Rutskoy) led to a direct clash with the use of weapons. 3. Questions of preserving the unity of Russia. New constitution The referendum on the draft Constitution, prepared under the leadership of Boris N. Yeltsin, ended with its approval. The Basic Law says that Russia is a democratic federal state of law with a republican form of government. The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people. The subjects of the Russian Federation do not have the right to free exit, but within the framework of the Federation they receive a high degree of independence. The Constitution recognizes the highest value of a person, his rights and freedoms; ideological and political diversity; equality of state and private property, including land ownership. According to the Constitution, the Russian Federation is built as a presidential republic. The president, elected by popular vote for a term of 4 years, has extensive powers: he determines the main directions of the country's foreign and domestic policy; is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of Russia; presents to the State Duma candidates for the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Prosecutor General, judges of the Constitutional, Supreme and Supreme Arbitration Courts; appoints federal ministers, decides on the resignation of the Government; has the right to dissolve the Duma and call new elections if the Duma rejects the candidacy of the Prime Minister 3 times in a row. The Constitution fixed the obligatory approval of the state budget and the approval of candidates submitted by the President for the highest state posts by both chambers of the Federal Assembly. The complex processes that took place in Russia could not but affect the relations of the center with the autonomous republics, regions, national districts that were part of it. All the republics that were part of the Russian Federation proclaimed their sovereignty and renounced the status of autonomies, the autonomous regions (except for the Jewish one) called themselves sovereign republics. Some of them attempted to set a course for a consistent exit from the Russian Federation (Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia), and the leadership of the Chechen Republic cut off all ties and relations with the federal authorities and declared their readiness to defend the independence of Chechnya with the help of weapons. Some of the Russian republics have stopped transferring taxes to the federal budget. Along with the adoption of the new Constitution, the Federal Treaty signed in Moscow in March 1992, which specified the relationship between the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, was aimed at preserving the unity of the country. The Chechen Republic refused to join the treaty. Tatarstan approved this document only in 1994, stipulating special conditions for staying in the Federation. Soon, similar agreements were signed with other republics, regions and territories of the Russian Federation. However, they did not solve all the issues of relations between the federal center and the subjects of the Federation. Meanwhile, ethnic conflicts led to clashes between Ossetians and Ingush. At the end of 1992, Moscow had to use the army to separate the opposing sides. After 2 years, an armed conflict began between the military formations of the President of Chechnya, General D. Dudayev, and the forces of the local opposition, supported by the federal government. On December 11, 1994, troops entered the territory of this subject of the Russian Federation to restore constitutional law and order there. The troops faced fierce resistance. By the end of the summer of 1996, about 100 servicemen, armed separatists and civilians had died in Chechnya, and more than 000 people were injured and shell-shocked. The events in Chechnya seriously aggravated the political situation in Russia. On August 31, 1996, representatives of the federal side and the separatists signed important documents: "Joint Statement" and "Principles for determining the foundations of relations between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic" (the so-called Khasavyurt agreements). According to them, military operations were stopped in Chechnya, a "Joint Commission of representatives of the authorities of the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic" was established, and the final agreement between the federal Center and the Chechen Republic, "determined in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law", was postponed until December 31, 2001 . By mid-January 1997, all federal military units had left the territory of Chechnya. On January 27, the elections of the president of Chechnya and the parliament of the republic were held here. 4. Privatization At the end of 1992, the privatization of state property began. Its first stage was carried out on the basis of vouchers (non-registered privatization checks) issued free of charge to all Russian citizens. They could be invested in shares of privatized objects. In Russia, 40 million shareholders appeared, mainly nominal ones, because up to 70% of the shares through the free sale of vouchers were concentrated in the hands of the former managers of state property (administrative bureaucracy), owners of financial and commercial structures, legalized participants in underground business, as well as organizers of numerous “check investment funds": for future mythical dividends, they issued unsecured shares to the population in exchange for vouchers. The authorities were unable to establish a system to counter this process, especially in a situation where they sought to quickly create a layer of large and medium-sized entrepreneurs as the main driving force of market transformations and the guarantor of their irreversibility. Since the autumn of 1994, the second stage of privatization began: through the free sale and purchase of shares of private and joint-stock enterprises on stock exchanges and auctions. The commodity market was supplemented by the capital market. In 1997, the public sector accounted for only 7,8% of industrial production, 8,8% of agricultural, and 8,3% of retail trade. Everything else was produced and sold in the private sector of the economy, as well as in the mixed sector. Foreign capital occupied a serious position in industry. Authors: Eliseeva E.L., Ronshina N.I.
▪ Social statistics. Lecture notes
Artificial leather for touch emulation
15.04.2024 Petgugu Global cat litter
15.04.2024 The attractiveness of caring men
14.04.2024
▪ To get on a plane, just show your watch ▪ Solar energy will recharge the mobile phone ▪ GeForce GTX 770 SAC graphics accelerator from ELSA
▪ site section Power supply. Article selection ▪ article Don't teach me how to live! Popular expression ▪ article What material trace can lightning leave in the ground? Detailed answer ▪ article Crane operator (driver) of a jaw logger. Standard instruction on labor protection
Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews
www.diagram.com.ua |
We recommend interesting articles Section 
See other articles Section 
Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:
All languages of this page