Critical analysis of the principles of economic thinking of modern societies

Clarification of the state of modern economics and education shows that the attraction of the post-communist legacy over them makes it difficult to choose economic thinking that is adequate to the ability of societies to respond to current global challenges. Published in Ukraine, professional sources on economic issues under the guise of scientific

64

innovations suggest the renaissance of political economy. The authors of these publications argue about the transformation of political economy into political neo-economy, which seems to lay the foundation for a renewed paradigm of economic knowledge [5]. It should be noted that such publications are consistent with the persistent positioning of the authors of the humanistic dimensions of Marxism [6].

The more than 1,000-page monograph by authors representing the views of academics and university professors in Ukraine and Russia also affirms political economy, moreover, not so much in the past as in the future. Professional reading of the monograph and reviews of it allows you to understand what the future is about. After all, the book is named after the slogan of the inspirer mentioned on p. 8 prefaces [7]. And the tireless inspirer under the guise of prospects for civilizational development continues to position the slogan “Marxism yesterday, today, tomorrow”.

Upholding the novelty of political economy can be found in modern foreign literature on economic issues. Social scientist of German origin Ulrich Beck, known to experts as a researcher of globalization and global society, advocates a new world political economy [8]. He carries out his intentions to approve it from openly declared cosmopolitan positions. This makes it difficult to clarify the pragmatic meanings of his book for the Ukrainian specialist: after all, according to the existing dictionary definition, cosmopolitanism (from the Greek kosmopolites – citizen of the world) “justifies the rejection of national traditions and culture, denies state and national sovereignty”.

The insufficiency of theoretical economy, due to the dominance of political and economic principles, is accompanied by a lack of historical and economic knowledge. It does not adequately reflect the achievements of European physiocracy, which even respected historians of world economic thought attribute to political economy. And the unorthodox economic legacy created by Ukrainian ascetics over the past 140 years has not yet been included in the history of either world or national thought. To this day, experts are not provided with the possessions that determine the assertion of earthly immortality, which are the quintessence of historical and economic knowledge.

An uncritical study of the state of economics on the basis of results similar to the above may lead to the erroneous conclusion that “the idea has really won in the world: there is a single science called political economy, it covers all scientific trends without exception relate to economic problems” [3, p. 386]. After all, based on the provisions of

65

these monographs, their authors continue to talk to this day, if not about the overt or covert declaration of the political economy of Marxism, then at least about its “renaissance”. Instead, in the textbook on the History of Economics, called “classical university”, claiming the status of the most respected in Ukraine, we read that the methodology of modern historical and economic analysis is based on the rejection of dogmatically one-dimensional understanding of the history of economics universal economic theory…” [9, p. 31].

Naturally, the question arises: what is proposed for study today instead of the “only correct” economic theory or “dogmatically one- dimensional” understanding of the history of economics? The authors of this textbook point to the need to recognize the “pluralism of forms of theoretical reflection of economic reality”: therefore, it should be regarded as one of the leading theoretical and methodological foundations of modern economics [Ibid].

In view of this, there is a need to clarify the acceptability of pluralism as a component of the methodology of historical and economic analysis for the study of the origins and development of economics. Impartial reading of the textbook requires tracking the content and sequence of coverage of key provisions of the history of economic thought. Given the importance of the issues raised for further research, it is necessary to verify compliance with the principle of pluralistic principles in order to comparatively analyze the achievements of the classics of European economic thought.

Symptomatic in the mentioned textbook is the text about the economic doctrine of physiocrats: it states that A. Smith – … is “the founder of economics, a bright representative of classical political economy” [9, p. 191]. It is further noted that the young A. Smith “respected the teachings of the Physiocrats, although he did not agree with all its provisions” [Ibid]. At the same time, in the same textbook, the same author in a text on the peculiarities of A. Smith’s methodology points out that the young scientist’s interest in economic problems was facilitated by his acquaintance with physiocrats (F. Quesnay, A. Turgot), which took place during a trip abroad scientist…” [9, p. 209]. The question arises, what were for A. Smith his trip to the continent and acquaintance with the Physiocrats: the beginning of growing interest in economic problems or the assertion of the status of a classic of political economy?

Unorthodox Ukrainian economic literature contains the answer to this question since the second half of the 80s of the twentieth century. However, this is literature that has been neglected by the above-

66

mentioned researchers of the theory and history of national and world economic thought for more than three decades. But it says that when Versailles, home to the famous economist and his followers on the continent, was visited by a future critic from England, “Quesnay did not argue with him – the doctor saw that the Englishman was too far from understanding the foundations on which his theory is based. … He was sure that the theory, which is not a reflection of the laws of nature, will inevitably remain outside of science” [3, p. 389].

Along with the raised, open question about A. Smith as the “founder of economics”. After all, the same textbook indicates both the formation of the first in the history of economic thought of a real scientific school, which “later became known as the school of physiocrats” and the fact that the young A. Smith attended “meetings of the school of physiocrats” [9, p. 191]. Based on the above provisions, the question remains relevant: is it appropriate to consider A. Smith the founder of economics, if during his trip to the continent and acquaintance with physiocrats there was already the first real scientific school in the history of economic thought, which was attended by a young scientist?!

Thanks to the works of Ukrainian ascetics of unorthodox economic thought, the solution of this issue was introduced into scientific circulation in the first half of the 80s of the twentieth century. “… In Quesnay, Turgot, and their followers, the economy was purely physical”. “Adam Smith and then Ricardo laid the foundations of the science, which was called the actual political economy” [3, p. 354].

A critical examination of the above provisions shows that this is the end of the pluralistic approach proclaimed in the mentioned textbook as one of the foundations of historical and economic methodology. This examination reveals that the dominance of political economy is actually hidden under the guise of a declared pluralistic approach. Obviously, the pluralism under study should provide for the possibility of choosing the most acceptable of the comparable economic doctrines. The impossibility of choice testifies to the declarative pluralism of forms of “reflection of economic reality”.

The comparison of economics by F. Quesnay and A. Smith in the textbook testifies to the inadequacies that are unacceptable for science and education of the third millennium. It is not an excuse that they continue to exist in the Western world, where F. Quesnay’s theory is not just forgotten (and long forgotten), but causes an ironic smile. Adam Smith won “…, because” F. Quesnay is still not understood – the vast majority of Western economists still put him below Smith” [3, p. 424, 461].

67

… Education – the most important area of conveying scientific knowledge to the public, especially to the youngest generations – is designed to promote and implement the achievements of economics. According to the results of the study it is necessary to state the incompleteness of the existing volumes and distortion of the structure of economic science. Since the country’s independence, young people have been doomed to study economic disciplines based on the same principles that led to the collapse of the USSR. Although Ukraine is almost the only country in the modern world that is able to offer studies the scope and structure of universal economic thought, which it really is for more than two centuries.

Thus, the political and economic dominance that characterizes the current state of economics is doomed to be disseminated through educational publications of theoretical and economic content. Economic theory is interpreted in these publications as political economy: and the “tone” set by the capital’s professors is forced to support the professors of regional universities [10].

As a result, the scientific schools of Ukraine’s leading higher education institutions continue to impose on young people the belief that apart from political economy in the world, there really is no science that is acceptable for solving economic problems. With the appearance of declared pluralism, they confirm both the “renaissance” and the dominance of political economy.

But the usual essence of political economy is not changed by arguments such as that it is built on the principles of neoclassicism, neoclassical synthesis (P. Samuelson), neoliberalism and monetarism (M. Friedman), supplemented by the concepts of Keynesianism (J. M. Keynes), neo-Keynesianism. (R. Harrod, E. Hansen) and post- Keynesianism (Joan Robinson, P. Sraff), “or retains at its core the deep structural elements of the subject of classical political economy, finds its manifestation and development in concepts: neo-Marxism, neo-orthodox political economy, radical political economy; K. Polanyi’s substantive political economy; new political economy; international (or global) political economy; middle-class political economy; political economy of transformational states of economic systems, etc.” [11].

The results of the studied state of economics and education indicate the importance of exposing the “renaissance” and the dominance of political economy. This is only then “it would be true if we agreed to throw a death blanket on the physiocracy” [3, p. 386].

68

economy requires answers to the questions raised several decades ago, namely: why “Marxism could not grow out of F. Kene’s scientifically sound theory” in any way? Why is “physiocratic theory” not suitable for the creation of so-called proletarian political economy? And why “on the physiocratic theory of pure product Marx could not develop the doctrine of the dictatorship of the proletariat”, and “the teachings of Quesnay are by no means given to destructive experiments” [3, p. 469, 387-388, 459]?

On the other hand, if Smith’s “labor theory, which is still dominant in the West, has won”, why did Smith and Marx’s inadequacy and erroneous determination of the substance of value “make the twentieth century the bloodiest period in earthly history” and now threaten planetary decline or even destruction civilization?” What is most important about Smith’s teaching, “if it could be used so apocalyptically?” Why “on his bright and spiritually pure work grew the poisonous toadstools of Marxism?” [3, p. 482, 477-478, 459, 470]

Due to the lack of unbiased answers to these questions, socially conscious young people, especially students, are unable to make adequate choices of economic knowledge to modern challenges. Because it is deprived of access to theoretical and applied economic disciplines other than political economy or developed on the basis of its scientific principles. Economic thought remains hostage to the described political and economic “renaissance” and dominance. Incomplete volumes and distorted structure, which contradict the realities and capabilities of Ukraine, deprive the mastery of the fundamental basis of applied economic disciplines.

Deprivation of modern generations of access to unorthodox economic heritage, primarily created by Ukrainian ascetics, is caused, on the one hand, by the worst kind of idealism – economic idealism, “which grows not from philosophical beliefs, but from scientific helplessness and laziness of thought” [3, p. 360]. On the other hand, it deprives teachers and future economists of not giving them the professional skills to meet non-alternative goals. As a result, the possibilities of ensuring the manageability of socio-economic processes, adequate to global challenges, are significantly impoverished. Instead of enriching modern generations with life-giving knowledge and educating the defenders of the interests of descendants, their intellectual theft takes place.

And instead of self-affirmation of countries that preserve the intellectual heritage of ascetics, whose possessions are saving for all mankind, they are forced to disseminate and consume knowledge that

69

has the status of insufficient. Particularly dangerous is the fact that this knowledge is positioned and imposed under the slogans of market economy and democratization. They fit into university textbooks, are introduced into student audiences, becoming part of the pipeline of formation of hostages of deadly ideas.

Lack of economic knowledge is caused by the lack of humanistic foundations in modern economic education. This inadequacy turns economic education into a criminal sphere. Designed to form a generation of “descendant lawyers”, it disseminates knowledge, the threat of which is to train “descendant executioners”. The staffing of the economy created by the current education determines the training of blind performers for the sphere of management, which from the point of view of sufficiency in the studied sense develops meaninglessly. Economic education is moving away from its most important purpose – to serve universal goals, designed to convey to descendants the saving meanings of economic knowledge.