ON THE IMPORTANCE OF IMMANENT FEATURES FOR EFFECTIVE ECONOMIC PLANNING OF PRODUCTION OF COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS

In the article, the authors consider the importance of economic planning for the effective production of import-substituting products with the mandatory use of the systematic use of the concepts "consciousness" and" reasonableness " to guarantee the successful production of popular and competitive products. To achieve these goals, manufacturers need to rely not on policy, but on the results of scientists who form effective ways of economic development of the country. Only in such a Union, the enterprise is guaranteed its financial stability and obtaining high technical and economic indicators.

Man became aware of his intelligence and its advantages much later than homo sapiens. The understanding of reasonableness seems to have been influenced by the development of economic activity, specifically, in the historical period when the process of diversification of socially important labor beganproducing labor significantly displaced gathering, from among the hunters of products of purely natural origin, those who tamed and managed domestic animals, and farmers who first tested the design potential of reasonableness were distinguished.
It is still extremely problematic to build a productive way to get the desired result in the conditions of the domination of the natural order that was established long before your appearance, and in the early period of the history of human activity it was almost hopeless. Nevertheless, it was then that what can be defined as proto-planning or arch-planning was born. Man has turned on the reserves of his intelligence.
Reasonablenessthe ability of a person within the framework of systemic relations with the natural environment to complete the animal (biological) form of subordination to nature not only by the art of adaptation, but also by transformation.
Planning was born in the process of mastering the advantages of human intelligence. And here it is necessary to clearly dialectically contrast intelligence and consciousness as the specific characteristics of modern man. Reasonableness is primarily a biological feature, consciousness is its concrete historical development in the conditions of the social form of human life, a kind of way to realize the potential of reasonableness. In this connection, the systematic use of the concepts "consciousness" and" intelligence " differs. "Intelligence" is part of consciousness as a tool for building the latter. Intelligence has separated man from the totality of biological species, consciousness has allowed him to develop into a modern man and build his own human, social structure of relations, thanks to the ability to anticipate and plan, and by planning, to anticipate possibledesirable and undesirable-results.
Planning is an attribute of an activity, one of its qualitative features. It is twice as qualitative: both as a qualitative sign of activity,and as a measure of the level of perfection of activity. The art of planning shows the active side of homo sapiens. To a certain extent, this is a sign of the highest state of activity. Attempts to contrast planning and creativity are nothing more than a desire to limit the universality of planning, to simplify the nature of human intelligence. It is also a mistake to contrast planning with freedom of competition. Both creativity and competition are ways of manifesting activity, so they must contain all its attributes. Another thing is that the General is realized through the special and therefore in its reality is specific, concretized. S. V. Kovalevskaya ventured to the original solution of the problem of describing the rotation of a solid body with a shifting center of gravity-aerobatics in mathematics, according to the Paris Academy of Sciences, available only to L. Euler and J. Lagrange, planned her actions both in terms of subject and time, meeting the deadline. Even the ancestors of the current apologists for the fight against the planned economy -the pioneers of the development of the riches of North American landscowboys, who are considered to be free from everything, planned their actions within the limits of available knowledge.
In 2019, the world economy grew by three percent, the EU economy added about 2 percent, and did not lag behind its Western neighbors and the Russian Federation. The indicators can be qualified as satisfactory based on the conclusion of science that the basic indicator of social development in the conditions of ecosystem tension caused by exploiting technologies in industrial and agricultural production is the stability of growth, and not the absolute value.
Slowing down the growth in production may not be desirable in the context of present, present existence, but it is necessary as a temporary measure. It is more important for modern humanity to buy time, to give nature hope that the global nature of the environmental problem can be solved without a global cataclysm. Both nature and humanity have reserves. Now it is important not to increase the pace of production development, but to have time in the "reserve time" to develop sparing technologies and rebuild production on them, especially material and energy-intensive, with open cycles. The fate of humanity will depend on how intelligent it really is. It seems that homo sapiens is being tested for survival again, with the difference that this time it has forced nature to test itself for viability. Climate change is already calling into question the advertised possibilities of technological progress to protect people. Humanity as a whole does not yet feel this danger, but it already frightens the inhabitants of certain places, regions and continents, who recently looked prosperous.
The analysis of the situation is directly related to the Russian Federation. We will also have to move in a short time from the idea of absolute mass production and gigantomania in the centers of sale of goods to the relativity of subordination of the economy to the principle: "meet the customer's needs here and right away." The manufacturer must know his customer "in person", only then will the production costs acquire a rational scale and everyone will be happy: nature, the producer, the consumer. The functions of trade will also change, and it will become an industry that provides direct communication between the consumer and the manufacturer. The market will be forced to invest in science in order to have a real picture of the state of the market, to know the trends of the current movement of interests, consumer purchasing power, to be ready to promptly provide routes of goods from "porch to porch", to solve logistics tasks on the ground in real time. The "consumer society" will gradually return to the" production society", and consumption will again be closely linked by the public consciousness with participation in production. Fake laborthe product of the virtual part of "production" -will be reduced, fake workers will be legalized and will work for their own future. Big science, through systematic analysis, is designed to determine the optimal rate of economic growth on the scale of national, regional, continental and global progress, and not a phantom "world government" acting in narrowly accumulative interests.
At the beginning of the third Millennium, the most urgent question is how to optimize the organization and management of production development in the priority of consumer interests and environmental safety.
In underestimating the strategic scope of planning, there are evils born of an understanding of reasonableness, and ultimately defects in the reasonableness of those who are behind attacks on the universality of planning. In relation to planning, one can easily trace, first, the lack of panoramic thinking, and secondly, its ideological orientation to the narrow format of utilitarianism as a perverse progmatism.
The ideological pluralism that replaced the Communist ideology must be considered critically. The right to work is not the same as guaranteed employment. With the right to work, you can remain unemployed and complain has no legal meaning. Something similar is observed with ideological pluralism. The guaranteed right to adhere to the ideological concept that is closer to the values of your consciousness is blocked in the information society by ownership of the official and most significant sources of information. The Internet with its "toys" is portrayed as a competitive means of ideological monopoly, but in reality it is not. It is fair to compare ideological pluralism to a large river, for example, the don. A large river is not born big, it is made by it as small rivers and streams flow into it, the traces of which are dissolved.Rostov-on-don, by and large, is not on the don, but on the totality of water sources United in the Don. Only, all these sources will remain anonymous in Rostov. To the question: what is the river? The answer will be short: Don, and it will be on the map.
Pluralism is usually dominated by one thing that reflects the balance of power provided by economic interests and financial resources. Now the mass media, General and professional education programs, and pop-cultural practices are inducing the formation of a worldview in the direction of liberal values. At the same time, few people say that modern liberalism is not the democratic one, under whose banners the Europeans stormed the citadels of absolutism, and the bourgeoisie of the XVIII -XIX centuries won the historical right to build social relations required by the specifics of capitalist organization of production.
The founders of political economy as a science -A. Smith, D. Ricardo, D. Hume, J. Sismondi were based on the systemic value of labor in any production system, and were the first to realize the increasing importance of the qualification component of labor in connection with the scientific and technical equipment of the industrial form of labor organization, which manifests the reasonableness of human status. Capital, in order to reach its potential, had to grow in freedom of promotion, and the freedom of capital movement had a prospect only in the conditions of freedom of the subject of labor, its social independence, formalized in legislation and guaranteed by a new type of state. They were socially oriented liberals, the concept of "people" for them had a concrete historical meaning of the totality of people whose lives were determined by the development of production. Science, the subject of which was the organization and meaning of production and economic activity, was expected to protect the producer from arbitrariness.
The revolutionary bourgeoisie emphasized the value of fairness in distributionremuneration in any form should be tied to the quantity and quality of labor, and the place in the managerial hierarchy of production. It is no coincidence that A. Smith drew attention to the fact that the correlation between productivity growth and remuneration is widely violated. In the spirit of the times, a Scottish scholar attributed this to the moral decline of property owners. Sismondi, in his famous work "New principles of political economy" (1819), argued in favor of regulating economic competition and the balance between supply and demand, and initiated social reforms as a law of production development. His ideas were later guided by the classic of the XX century, J. M. Keynes.
The outstanding achievements of the classics of political economy should be attributed precisely to what the learned economists, who guard the interests of the present heirs of the revolutionariesthe bourgeois of the XVIII-XIX centuries, strive to carefully disguise: * the fundamental position in the production of labor that can be specifically measured in the product produced; * development of the theory of value in relation to such work; * freedom of the producer as a necessary condition for the development of production; • productivity is a crucial factor in the development of production, and the improvement of labor productivity is due to the division of labor, which also facilitates the introduction of scientific and technical achievements into production; • the goals of the economic movement are only partially located within the development of production, the main goal is determined by the systemic position of production itself in the life of man and society. Production is a tool for solving problems of social and personal development, therefore planning should be socially and culturally oriented.
It is interesting that all the leading theoretical economists of the EIGHTEENTH and early NINETEENTH centuries were noted in the history of thought as philosophers. So far, no one has tried to explain this fact, apparently believing it to be irrelevant. Vainly. The combination of philosophy and Economics in research turned out to be a tradition of later times -Proudhon, düring, Marx, Engels, mill, Spencer, the list can be continued. The essence of the explanation of this Union is in the specifics of the epistemological and methodological purpose of philosophy and science. Philosophy is more focused on the discovery and definition of development problems, science-on ways to solve them. Hence the normative nature of scientific knowledge. A. Smith and his contemporaries saw first of all the problems of the economic movement, that is, they showed their philosophical talents, then took up their scientific understanding.
The need for planning in the economy was initially discussed exclusively in the context of its optimization, because planning was provided for by the rational nature of the organization of production. Planning was a phenomenal expression of management, and management was an attribute of production. In the names of numerous studies of D. Ricardo, which served as material for his heirs-worthy and doubtful, there is no word "planning", but the content of the works is built as a superstructure over the process of planning appropriate actions of the economic order. Especially the British economist D. Ricardo was interested in pre-planning -a set of calculated operations of thinking that preceded planning at the stage of determining the subject actions-choosing the direction and nature of participation, and when evaluating the results, when planning subsequent actions.
The freedom of economic choice was not opposed to planning by either S. Smith, D. Ricardo, or Sismondi, and planning was not considered an action incompatible with economic freedom. They interpreted freedom within the framework of the political conditions of life, that is, in the spirit of the ideological positions of the class that solves the historical task of changing the socio-political, economic and cultural structure of social relations. It should be noted that a certain degree of progress was also characteristic of the methodological foundations of scientific research. They contained some limitations, but it is not difficult to see that these defects were actively overcome when it came to scientific calculations.
Unlike most of their descendants-current scientists of Economics, the classics of economic science sought to involve in economic analysis not so much mathematical methods and narrow content of the concept, but rather the fundamental categories of economic science. Their talent built a theoretical basis for science-specific analysis. In essence, the progress of scientific economic knowledge in the twentieth century was a superstructure on this basis, and what came out from above is more like the tower of Pisa.
Intensive discourse on the content of basic political economic concepts in the NINETEENTH century is not difficult to explain, the birth of a new theory requires methodological advances. To understand what the mechanism of pendulums of the clock should be, Huygens had to independently complete mathematical analysis in six directions. A. Smith, being a pioneer in economic theory, solved methodological problems and could not divide the purchased labor with the spent. Smith's mistake Was corrected by d. Ricardo, explaining that his predecessor did not notice that the cost of the product should be taken into account and the cost of production and operation of equipment. At the same time, D. Ricardo himself did not consider the cost of producing raw materials.
And Sismondi, and Smith, and Rikordo the cost was estimated by the relationship the main things. Historically conditioned relationships of people remained for them as if on the sidelines. Hence the inconsistency in understanding the political essence of industrial relations and their class character. For them, production was a stage where the production scenario unfolded as a relationship of partners. Some had the capital, others were able to do things. Everyone-part of the common cause. In this combination, the political essence of the economy is reduced to the basis of organization, development planning and distribution, that is, simplified to the level of expertise, moral responsibility and decency of the participants.
What does the above have to do with the theory and practice of modern planning? Straight. The previous analysis serves as a basis to assert that the effectiveness of the practical part of planning is directly dependent on the quality of theoretical understanding, which reflects the natural nature of the origin and development goals of production. The quality of the planning theory is determined by the methodology of its political and economic equipment. Planning shows the level of depth of knowledge of the economic process that requires management, and the degree of reasonableness of management actions. The latter needs special explanation.
Intelligence, as a phenomenon, has a double interpretation. In the philosophy of the past time and in the new century, "intelligence" was understood and is understood as an independent phenomenon that implements the identity of thinking and being, for example, in Hegel, the expression of this was an absolute idea; or it is considered as a unique ability of the subject -the highest level of the ideal ability to reflect reality. The characteristic of this level is determined by the adequacy of reproduction by thinking of what is happening outside of it.
Reasonableness is a guarantee that you can get a perfect copy of objective reality. The task of thinking with intelligence is to transform an opportunity into an appropriate result. The process of cognition-reflection of reality by thinking is natural, so it can and should be planned. Here the main condition for obtaining a product is to conform actions to the nature of the object. There are many obstacles on the way to the truth, both related to the specifics of the planned action and the specifics of the thinking itself. Thinking is capable of knowing the truth, but it also tends to move in a false direction, which may be a delusion, or may be deliberate in order to fit the result of someone's interests, or be the result of moral dishonesty.
Most of the flaws in the search for the right solutions to economic problems have fundamental foundations, they are associated with a single-sided understanding of the functions of economic research, in particular, the sequestration of the political essence of economic science. Planning as a tool is considered on a utilitarian scale, allowing you to simplify the process, leaving out everything that is not directly related to production.
The essence of economic transformations in Russia in the 1990s and their continuation in the "zero years" of the twenty-FIRST century was to remove responsibility for social development from the economy, which meant contrasting the economy with social policy. Politics is the business of the state and its institutions, and the new owners should only be engaged in production. In addition to what was traditionally considered non-economic, there was no less than what was traditionally referred to as the economy. All the additions were taken out by the new owners for "staff", considering all this to be production support, in other words, its infrastructure. And so we grew up sort of oligarchic capitalism: mastering with the help of the state's most costeffective property, outright theft through raids, the induction with the help of his people in a state of political activity in the direction of the objectification and legitimation of the "new economic policy".
Corruption is not the abuse of official authority in their own interests and not providing for bribes profitable economic projects, corruption is the fusion of business and government. Such a rich country as the Russian Federation could not become poor in ten years due to irrational economic policies and miscalculations in the organization of planning. Poverty did not come for economic reasons, it was the result of the usurpation of power by political clans that expressed the economic interests of those who wrongfully became the owners of national wealth. According to clearly understated statistics, at least 71 percent of the resources are currently controlled by one million owners, and 140 million even the remaining 29 percent can not be counted on, because the economic "reforms" that began in the 1990s are continuing.
Economic violence was carried out under political and ideological cover. The demreformers carried out a gigantic Scam, masking their actions by the need to fight decisively against the centralized planning model. Realizing that their own practice and theory was doomed to failure, the initiators of the collapse of the socialist economic system of the image was in a hurry to get to use by the people of this great country and scattered around the world, hoping to find shelter from its enemies.
The" scholarship " of the reformers was so high that it did not suggest to them the most elementary thing -the idea of socialism has long since become a political program in various parts of the world, including government parties. Socialism attracts by its concentrated expression of the logic of social progress and the meaning of the systemic position of production. The concreteness of socialism reflects the specificity of historical time and national history. In the socialist orientation and organization of production, the systematic beginning of social lifethe dialectic of the individual and society-is crystallized.
Society is a form of reality of human existence, but the reality of human existence exists and develops only thanks to the three hypostases of the individual. Social history begins with the individual, he is its main subject of promotion, and it is the goal of social progress. Production is intended to be the economic base of social practice aimed at creating socio-cultural conditions for the comprehensiveness and harmony of the human personality.
The economic policy that defines the image and purpose of planning may be different, but all this political and economic diversity is ultimately decomposed into two sets of actions. The first row is formed by programs that Express private interests and focus on the social benefits of representatives of these groups. Typical cases of such economic plans are the political programs of trump in the United States and Macron in France. These programs are real, but not historical. They focus on one side of productionstimulating its growth, but do not define the other -the final goal of the system status of production. The systemic place of production in social progress is being deflated. Let's repeat: production is a way of personal development. Through participation in production, the individual earns the reality of his existence and it is natural to wish that the way of his existence is development as the only opportunity to realize potential talents. In terms of the genius of Hegel, economic planning is divided into "real" and "reasonable", aimed at creating conditions for personal satisfaction with their development, and "situational", that is, beneficial to those social groups that create this situation in their private, rather than historical interests. Such a reality is possible, but it lacks the "reasonableness" that reveals the logic of social progress. Here you can get temporary and private satisfaction, for which all other generations will have to pay handsomely.
Actual history will necessarily pave its way through this kind of economic "blockages". But the" tax " of historical logic on the illogicality of human economic activity is very high. When they say: "measure it seven times, then cut it off", then, in comparison with the" tax " on the unreasonableness of economic policy, this ratio seems modest. There are calculations showing that for every year of "market"criminally arbitrary planning practices-the country can pay for an eighteen-year recovery.
The "pawnbrokers" of the 1990s did not win the planned economic development on a national scale. They were more active than the "masters" of the 1980s, confirming an old truth: history requires an active attitude. Naturally, the difficult history of the Russian Empire and the USSR did not deserve the continuation described above. Russia's economic status had to be activated in a different way. Russia will have to spend a lot of effort and money to restore its international prestige. Politicians like to write about how bad Americans and NATO deceived the first Presidents of the USSR and the Russian Federation. Much less common are analytical materials showing how Gorbachev and his company and Yeltsin and their associates deceived those in the world who looked with hope at the fate of socialism in the USSR and not without reason counted on an Alliance with the new Russia.
It would be interesting to go step by step along the route of the "road map" of the reformers of the 1990s, if only in order to bring their heirs to reason, who, two decades later, are not appeased by the current political liberals. Follow how they were looking for a replacement for the previous practice of economic planning, completely ignoring not only the national identity, which could somehow be explained, but also the specificity of the historical process. In search of a possible model, domestic engineers and economists went through States from all continents. However, it is still unclear what should happen after the "transition period"ends. What economic order we have to prepare for. The arrow is able to transfer us to capitalism, however, here we are a century and a half late, and to socialism, which seems to have renounced. Let's try to analyze the current situation the situation, using objective grounds.
Despite the differences in particulars, economic reformers remain within the General framework of the goalto clear the planning of economic construction from social aspects. If the banners of the revolutionary bourgeoisie were written liberte, which gave the name to liberals and demanded that the state grant civil liberties in full, the liberals of the new generation want to get freedom by removing the state from active participation in the development of production through planning and control. They are trying to decentralize the management of the economy, remove social responsibility from economic activity, forcing only the state to be socially responsible, while doing everything possible to prevent the actions of the state that lead to an increase in the social burden on the economic system profit. As a matter of fact, liberalleaning economists strive for a special freedom and privilege of their status within the state. Any objectively reflecting analyst will see a clear historical illogism: the founding liberals, who laid the Foundation of the liberal ideology, clearly identified the main value of liberalismequal freedom for all, as a necessary condition for social responsibility, and their successors in the twenty-FIRST century are eager to be free enough to not be responsible for social progress. By and large, this is nothing more than a 180-degree reversal of the model of social inequality. Social equality is built not only by the state as political subjects, but also by all other subjects of society. Even more than the state, they are obliged by their social status to be responsible for the exercise of constitutional freedoms. Redundancy in the liberal interpretation of the foundations of social relations can easily be forgiven. Smith, convinced of the systemforming status of morality, but after it became clear that morality has a historical appearance and is formed under the active influence of the economic basis, is not a unitary entityseveral varieties of morality operate simultaneously in society, it is immoral to separate the economy from direct participation in socio-cultural improvement, positioning its progress as a selfmovement, and plan to purge it from the socio-cultural load. The idea of "infrastructure" is possible and expedient acquisition of science, but not in the case of the economic movement.
Human intelligence has its own special history, but it is absurd to deal with it separately from biological evolution and the sociobiological continuation of natural history. Before human intelligence appeared as the special intelligence of liberal economists infected with the idea of reformation, it was itself a derivative product of labor activity, that is, the formation of economic reality.
The actual history of the mind is embedded by a natural historical process in the history of the development of what was eventually called the economy, therefore, the socio-cultural progress that reveals the potential of human intelligence must belong immanently to the economic movement. The concept of "superstructure" does not characterize some artificial structural addition to the main structure, it helps to understand the architecture of a monolithic structure. How not to portray the first floor and second don't call first, you won't be able to get rid of its structural unity, the second will be considered on the first and second will, thanks to the first: not the first, there will be no second. But the first without the second is quite independently real. Labor history has a natural beginning in the life of animals. It was in the world of animals that nature "worked out" the model of human reality and "realized" that without achieving a sociocultural effect in such practice-psychological progress; the transformation of intelligent thinking into conceptual thinking through the development of abstract ability; the establishment of the significance of a holistic perception of the world based on imagination and the strengthening of the social value of responsible behavior -that is, the formation of intelligence, labor will not be able to realize its potential. The history of labor, developed into a history of production, which became the special object of scientific analysis, which gave the subject of Economics is the story of a single interdependent process,sostoyaschego activity and its social and cultural support.
The problem can only be the extent to which the socio-cultural factor is economic?
Trying to be smarter than everyone else, liberal economists were both above science and above the achievements of a philosophical understanding of the reality of human existence. In the interests of business, they decided to reconstruct the logical structure of the system of social existence that has developed historically. To simplify the basic part of the social structureto separate economic activity from sociocultural activity, regardless of the objectivity of relations or the regularity of development. To this end, the reformers came up with a new schemeto close the socio-cultural sphere to the state.
The state does have this function, but it is not the only responsible social entity. Intelligence and sociality are the immanent attributes of all that constitutes social life. An attempt to get rid of" super economic " loads, referring to the need to rationalize and optimize the structure of relations -to change the directness of relations to mediate; economic policywe are taxes to the state, it works out socio-cultural responsibility for us-is a typically egoistic move. The goal here is obvious, and it is, unfortunately, not to make production more perfect, but to pay less for the right to produce, leaving yourself a larger margin. One example to illustrate: the first libraries, cultural institutions, and in many places schools in Siberia appeared only with the construction of the railway and with the help of the railway. Builders, railway workers and railway managers considered these activities do not burden the infrastructure, on the contrary, for them it was the Messiah of a new kind of transport. Compare what Russia received from the reform of railway management in the 1990s-2000s: only in the 1990s, the length of Railways in the Russian Federation decreased from 87,200 km to 86,000 km. The reformers did not build anything, they closed traffic along the rockade roads, sections connecting settlements formed on the sites of large-scale development of wood and peat, with the main course; they stopped the maintenance of socio-cultural development of residents, including railway workers. Thousands of localities and millions of people have lost their steady access to regional and regional sociocultural benefits. Planning turned exclusively in the direction of switching to full self-financing, which meant one thing-"optimization of the economy" by reducing expenditures, primarily "non-productive", which included the socio-cultural complex. In words in speeches and publicationsthe leaders called for mobilizing reserves to create sufficient conditions for the development of "human capital" as the main resource for the progress of production, but in fact it turned out to be quite different. The official apparatus did not deprive itself of the advantages of sociocultural support. Full self-financing in the Russian Federation during the full transition to the new economy was extremely simple in the planned context: not so much to increase labor productivity through scientific and technical equipment of production and the creation of sociocultural conditions for the growth of human capital, but to "optimize" expenses. Before the reforms of the 1990s, there was a long queue "for the driver", the reform reduced it and led to a deficit. There are many places, especially in Siberia, Transbaikalia and the far East, where the railway service would be depopulated if people had other jobs.
Railways are our main national mode of transport. Russia and the Soviet Union grew Railways, built them actively socio-cultural equipped, thinking about people. Socially and culturally equipped people-value in the state number 1, even Catherine the Great complained: I would be happy to build an enlightened society, but we do not yet have an enlightened people. Planned railway construction since the 1840s; Nicholas I personally appeared as a domestic hamlet-solved the problem:" to be or not to be " Railways. The court dissuaded the Emperor, persuading him that the Railways from Europe will roll revolutionary evil spirits, and in General our climate makes railway construction unprofitable. Scientists and entrepreneurs, cultural figures actively advocated for the railway future of the country. The destinies of economy and culture were still United in economic policy, revealing the dialectic of interdependence in planning economic and sociocultural interests. The reforms in Russia in the 1990s were economic in motivation and purpose, but they were essentially political reforms. It was only possible to redistribute state property between enterprising businessmen within 10 years, relying on the full support and patronage of the state. The result of the reforms was proportional to the new approaches to planning and management: the economy cannot recover in thirty years. The exception is the extractive industries that have increased production, developing mainly previously discovered fields. In agriculture, grain production has increased, and grain is an exported product. Construction has been launched, but none of the chronic problems of the population has been solved. The picture corresponds to the above analysis. Only exportoriented production is moving steadily. It is either owned by the oligarchs, or under their real control. We are ready to provide gas to the whole world, and our population can't wait, especially away from the main pumping. Gas and gasoline prices hurt those who are classified as owners of energy resources by advertising. Statement: Gazpromnational property " irritates more and more Russians.
Optimization in planning has destroyed the system of health care and education; forest fires have become regular disasters, and floods have been added to them, which are significantly different from the usual ones and have been known for a long time. The authorities try to blame them on the" natural disorder " caused by climate change, but few people already believe this explanation. The population is migrating from the Far East, Eastern Siberia, and Western Siberia is next in line.some 50 years ago, people actively went to these places to build , raise science and culture. BAM was built all over the world, finances were limited, but on social culture, even on a modest scale, money was found.
Those who developed plans understood from real experience that it is impossible to implement projects without something that serves the development of the individual, meets its cultural needs, and warms the soul. After all, people went to large construction sites from places inhabited and equipped. To the question: what is it? The answer is simple. In the described time of recovery, with all the punctures and costs, the goal was universal-the welfare of the Fatherland. Of course, even at that time, the benefits were not shared equally -there were both rich and poor, the main thing-the goal seemed to be the same and the opportunities to make a career equal. They did not build and produce for the pleasure of the "gold miners", they promoted the country and themselves along with it.
The liberal ideology of planning, which clearly dominates modern economic policy, reflects the objective state of society in a difficult situation of development, when the previous understanding of the political and socioeconomic prospects, either could not overcome the emerging crisis, or realized its creative potential, required a change. In both cases, the opposition forces claiming the right to resolve social contradictions were involved.
The growth of globalization has also affected the implementation of political and economic changes in the domestic reality. Our "messioners" were helped by their foreign colleagues to direct public consciousness to the path of liberal ideology, but the essence of what happened in the 1990s was not conditioned from the outside. A foreign policy conspiracy undoubtedly took place. This is evidenced by the collapse in the price of energy resources of clearly artificial origin, numerous false promises of assistance, and a demonstration of sympathy for change and a willingness to share the accumulated ideological experience. At the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the new decade, the world was still bipolar. In General, we never considered our competitors to be enemies. For us, they were adversaries. And suddenly the enemy appeared to be a friend, ready to help in every possible way.
The metamorphosis in attitude should have made you wonder: why such grace? The answer lay on the surface. New relations offered for a change of political and economic course, the beginning of which was supposed to be a radical methodological break.Gorbachev's" new political thinking " found objectification in "perestroika", which blurred the contours of social development guidelines. We went out of our way instead of repairing it again, as we did in much more difficult conditions. It is enough to recall the NEP: the socialist industrialization; the reforms of higher education that made it one of the best in the world; the creation of optimal conditions for the development of science, the mobilization of scientific and technical resources that made it possible to prevent the third world war; the initiative to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; the space exploration program, and much more. It was necessary not to "patch holes" in what had outlived its time, but to develop new versions of socialist construction on the former methodological and sociallyoriented platform.
Capitalism, again, for the twentieth century completed their "classical kind" story and was forced to rebuild, refusing forced from what helped him once quickly to build advantages: broke up, after a long struggle for independence, the colonial system; the war with the purpose of redistribution of property have become dangerous -could backfire; I had to accept the idea of peaceful coexistence; needed to strengthen economic policy social direction; there was a question about full load on natural environment. In the history of capitalism, there have already been different stages: primary accumulation of capital; revolutionary activity; monopolization of capital; concentration and domination of financial capital. In nature, there is a biogenetic law, according to which representatives of a more perfect species in the process of their uterine formation in an accelerated mode repeat the main stages of biological evolution. Thus, nature binds the course of evolution, ensuring continuity and strengthening the strength of evolution. Something similar can be conditionally distinguished in social history. At the turn of the twentieth and twenty-FIRST centuries, it is quite possible to try to become a capitalist, but it is very doubtful to become capitalism, to fit into the system of capitalism that has been formed for centuries as a socio-economic entity. The train was formed, and the locomotives, intended to be the driving force, were at the limit of their capabilities. The new "cars" threatened to slow down traffic, increase the frequency of "stops" in the form of economic recessions and exacerbate political tensions in social relations. The capitalist perspective of the Russian Federation was enjoyed exclusively by domestic liberals, who were blinded and stupefied by their hatred of Communist ideals. To them, and twenty years later, it seems that capitalism, and not communism, is the bright future of humanity. The metaphysical character of liberal thinking is manifested in the desire to strengthen the ideology of the position linearity of thinking, stop the historical development at the level of bourgeois social relations of capitalist to snatch the revolution from the spiral of social progress and to announce that at this stage the nature of the development of society has radically changed historical spiral straightened and became permanently straight. We could agree and accept their understanding as an option, if liberal reflection had an internal systemic form, would not simplify the vision of social development to the point of breaking system relations.
A liberal approach to planning economic activity, which removes the solution of economic problems from the systemic nature of social relations, and opposes the economy to socio-cultural improvement, leaves no grounds for compromise with adherents of the liberal course.
A critical analysis of the liberal planning methodology provides sufficient material for a number of fundamental conclusions.
First of all, it should be noted the desire of liberals of the XXI century to methodological simplification of knowledge and social construction, including planning, economic development. By actively involving the mathematical apparatus in economic science and turning to IT technologies everywhere, academic economists do not activate their own methodological resources of economic science. In comparison with what A. Smith, D. Ricardo, K. Marx, J. Miles, and G. Spencer contributed to the methodology of economic knowledge and transformation, the methodological acquisitions of the twentieth century look more like a deep depression of philosophical and scientific reflection. A small number of modern researchers continue to search for ways to move in the direction of dialectical and systematic approaches, realizing the limited capabilities of the mathematical apparatus. Mathematics for economic research is an auxiliary part of the methodological equipment of the search for solutions to the problems of development identified by research experience. It is not even able to formulate a problem; its capabilities help to quantify the state of movement of economic processes. Mathematical modeling is effective in terms of developing possible perspectives of natural and constructed processes, but it has never been "political mathematics" in contrast to political economy.
We must heed K.'s warning. Yaskers on the fundamental difference between the desire for simplicity of scientific thinking and simplification as a search for a way out of a complex scientific situation, sequestering its content. Simplicity is the path to true understanding, and simplicitarianism is a movement away from it under the guise of science. A direct confirmation of this conclusion is the recognition in economic research and projects of the "permissibility of speculation". Speculative thinking is a well-known phenomenon that occurs in philosophical reflection or in the course of scientific discourse. Its epistemological nature is well studiedthe non-systematic evaluation of certain aspects of the subject of thinking and, as a result, the absolutization of the meaning of these sides. Mental speculation falsely reflects objective reality, so it can be qualified as a cost in the production of the desired knowledge. Very rarely has speculation been the product of artificially inducing the process of knowledge in the wrong direction of movement. The "scientific acceptability of speculation" (by liberal economists) has a completely different epistemological mechanism of education, indicating that nothing is related to postulates, differentiating the scientific method of knowledge from non-scientific ones, not in their thinking. We must always clearly differentiate between philosophical reflection, scientific thinking, and non-scientific ways of knowing the world. The problematic nature of philosophical knowledge is logically compatible with the subjective costs of thinking. Falsifiability of philosophically identified problems is limited, since philosophical knowledge is conditionally normalized.
Scientific knowledge must be subject either to strict verification or to equally severe falsification. It does not reproduce in consciousness its relation to the object (object), it is, in content, a completely objectified process. It is regulated at all stages of knowledge, even the choice of the subject of thinking coordinate system, reference point, etc. When scientific knowledge is "enriched" by the "permissibility of speculation", this addition indicates one thing-the desire to modernize the post-nonclassical stage of the history of science by something that has nothing to do with the current time or scientific history at all. Allowing speculation not as a problem, but as a scientific phenomenon in the knowledge of economic movement, innovators want to squeeze subjective action into the chain of objective reflection of the developing reality, sliding in the future into solipsism. Scientific knowledge is objective, with objectivity begins the characteristic of scientific knowledge, if economic thinking seeks to be scientific, it must filter knowledge on the basis of objectivity. "The permissibility of speculation" is equivalent to its legalization in scientific knowledge. This is nonsense for the legal Sciences, logic, ethics, aesthetics, cultural studies, and a negative phenomenon for historical science, political science, and sociology. As a fact of objective reality, speculation undoubtedly exists, therefore, scientificeconomic, political, psychological, legal interest in it is justified, however, it is one thing for science to pay attention to the fact, and quite another -the desire to justify the regularity of the systematic belonging of speculation to economic science as a necessary condition for its development. "Speculation", by definition (omitting its philosophical interpretation as "contemplation, speculation") is "calculation, intent based on something, the use of something for self-interest". Therefore, law enforcement agencies should deal with speculation.it would be good for them to pay attention to speculative manipulations, those who are looking for an excuse for speculative actions in the economic and political Sciences. Political liberals, for example, make little secret of their desire for terrorists to bring to action those who are called political opposition, then terrorism would be easily ended. So the United States and its partners officially recognized the Taliban as an opposition political movement, that is, they legalized al -Qaeda and Isil -organizations banned in the Russian Federation. Speculators in Economics are no less dangerous in the context of social progress than lawyers for terrorists. Simply, the effects of their negative impact on economic and socio-cultural development are not so psychologically resonant, in addition, they have grown into the existing corruption scheme and look like their own for many.
The promotion of Economics, as follows from the above, is not accidental. It is primitive, manipulative, controlled, and it is not anchored by the requirements for objectivity and essential reflection of reality by scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge reveals facts in order to understand the regularity of their existence, and Economics scientifically describes the structure of facts.
The second main conclusion is no less obvious: on the platform of methodological simplification of scientific analysis, curtailing the system approach and abandoning the dialectical way of thinking in favor of methodological anarchism and borrowing, liberal economic theory systematically lowers the epistemological and sociological status of the concept of "planning". The task here is to simplify the concept to such a content that its scope of use opens up the possibility of a purely digital solution to all problems under the program of optimization of the economic component. Planning should be a technically feasible action, free of social policy. The main obstacle on the way is the increasing demand of social progress for the effectiveness of economic construction. If we convert the concrete historical content of the modern stage of social development into a purely economic process, that is, remove the socio-cultural construction, "pushing" it to the state, then economic planning will be completely freed and will move forward, driven by the prospect of maximum profit and the absolutization of competition.
Liberals hide the growing contradiction of Economics to everyone else. The day is not far off when mathematics will present its accounts to the liberal economists.
Economists, mercilessly exploiting mathematics, do not give the expected results either in the development of production management or in mathematics itself, and in fact they devalue the value of mathematical analysis by their extremely low productivity. Another" lifeline "to Economics was promised by political strategists who spoke in favor of the "digital economy", replacing the concept of" economy "with the concept of"production". Production will become digital. The economy has emerged, formed, and will continue to develop as a basic social tool of social progress, which, in turn, has been and will remain the main factor in the development of people. The economy must have a human face. All its other characteristics are derived from its humanitarian vector. But in the liberal -economic dimension, economic planning consistently moves away from satisfying personal development needs. It would not be so, it would not make sense to "learn speculation". Speculation is persistently tried to be presented as a necessary link in scientific thinking, and this is done in the interests of the minority that controls distribution and does not produce a real product. Within artificially constructed relations in the superstructure of the trade speculation has long legally thriving, but it is unnatural in the framework of the laws formed a system of production where everyone, regardless of their position, is a member and entitled to her legitimate share in the manufactured product. The order of distribution is determined mainly by ownership, and only then by the share of participation in the production of the goods. The gap formed in connection with the regularity of the development of production and social superstructure between two realities -labor and property, the direct Creator of a real product and its real owner opens up a real opportunity to Supplement the objectively natural reality, the reality of conditionally existing, virtual or speculative. This is what is seen as the path to property.
Speculation is a road map to the capital that can be sufficient to start a real business. And in this case, speculation has a real meaning, it can be a conditional fact of scientific research. But under the domination of financial, essentially speculative capital, Philadelphia, USA 240 speculation has become a stable Autonomous type of activity, detached from the production of a real product. Market speculation is an excessive form of intermediary activity. It has already become an obstacle to the development of production. And so it began to concentrate the costs of the social movement. By and large, speculation has matured, dissolved, and outgrown the limits of law enforcement reality. It is a typical phenomenon of the form of reality that slows down progress, wasting the reasonableness of its action, is subject to denial. However, everything will remain the same, because speculation has a reliable "roof" that protects it from political control, financial capital on a transnational scale. Thus, historical logic requires that economic activity planning should be carried out in a systematic form of expression, create optimal conditions for sociocultural development, and be consistently focused on the humanitarian result. Economic planning is determined by the solution of socio-cultural problems, so the models of economic planning should be complicated, not simplified. The economic analysis of the situation that precedes planning should be based on special scientific research and be conceptual. The deepening of the epistemological and methodological equipment of economic reflection implies the active use of the requirements of dialectical thinkingthe comprehensive involvement of historical dialectics and sufficient completeness of the analysis of the relevance of historical dialectics involvement, as well as the advantages of a systematic approach. Domestic specialists should keep in mind that foreign researchers also criticize liberal innovations, contrasting them with an objective analysis of trends in production development. We have something to be interested in. Let's take for an illustration the reasoning of the authoritative American expert J. Galbraith. In his famous book "the New industrial society", he critically traced the history of the modern industrial system of the twentieth century, which subordinated the formation of social relations and the human personality itself. In the end, J. Galbraith came to the conclusion that radical changes were needed, but not the ones the liberals were advertising.
J. Galbraith compared the development of industrial systems according to two significantly different scenarios: planned, which liberal economists identify with socialist management, and market, regulated through competition. The latter is always held up by liberals as the ideal embodiment of economic freedom. Based on the experience of the economic history of two-thirds of the twentieth century, which included both the rise and the" great depression", peace and war, the American scientist showed that economic progress does not contradict the planned activities of the state. Thanks to the analysis of economic processes in the format of social and personal changes. J. Galbraith convincingly demonstrated the limitations of the liberal concept of economic freedom.
Galbraith's conclusions are relevant for a correct understanding of what happened in the late twentieth century and the early decades of the twenty-FIRST century in Russian society, on the one hand, and for an adequate assessment of the futility in scientific and practical aspects of the ideas of domestic liberals who turned into conservatives. The industrial system is dangerous because of its high level of organization; it is becoming more and more a gigantic mechanism that acts according to its own order, tightening the personality functionally, subordinating its freedom to its organization. The industrial order, which is so important and profitable for the development of production, becomes a trap for the progress of the individual, and leads to the onesided development of the individual-the formation of the technical man. The "specialist" displaces the individual from the goals of social development. Economists need a specialist sharpened for the technology and organization of production, personal development for liberal economists seems to be transcendent for the purposes of production. Production requires for its development not a person, but a knowledgeable and able to work specialist. They also build the functions of culture and education for the training of a specialist. The arguments are not far to seek, there is no need to dive into the history of the United States, you just have to turn in the direction of modernization of Russian educationsecondary and higher, displacing all of the programs that contributes to personal development with the aim to focus the process on preparation of specialist in direction. The personal model of education has given way to the competence model.
The United States experienced this reform in the 1960s and, according to J. Galbraith, became disillusioned with the idea of training education to teach a specialty. Both in the field of foreign and domestic economic policy, Galbraith wrote, everything that is consideredand not without reason -as the automatically accepted or accepted position of the people now called "the establishment"is questioned. These attitudes need political guidance… This process of re-evaluating tasks arose because the idea of liberal reform is no longer quoted. In the past, liberals were seen as economic liberals; by reform, they meant economic reform. The task of this reform was invariably repeated in hundreds of programs, speeches, and manifestos. Production must grow; income must grow; income distribution must be improved; unemployment must be reduced. This is what the program of liberal reformism has been reduced to for decades. Even the ten commandments of the Bible are less well known, and certainly far less enforced, than these requirements… The role of a liberal reformer does not require effort, it is not associated with any violent disputes, scandalous discord, no one has to convince and persuade. You only need to stand still and bow when the Gross national Product increases again. At the end of his book, J. Galbraith concludes: "The progress that we are talking about at the present time (recall that the book was published in 1967) will be much more difficult to measure than the progress that is associated with the percentage of growth in the gross national product or with the unemployment rate. This is because the tasks set by the industrial system are so narrow that they can be accurately measured. But life is complicated. The definition of society's prosperity should be the subject of discussion." We also want to complete the study of the methodology for planning production development by listing the monographs of J. Galbraith: "American capitalism" (1952), "the Great crash"(1955)," the society of abundance "(1958),"the Time of liberalism "(1960)," the New industrial society " (1967). it Seemed that the author found a name for modern society, perhaps it was, but when J.
Galbraith revealed the essence of the" new industrial society", he realized that this society, despite its novelty, is outdated. What the future society should be, the scientist did not know, so he carefully defined the emerging society as a "society of prosperity", emphasizing the General significance of the sociohumanitarian goals of managing economic processes. J. Galbraith adjusted the status of economic science with the dynamics of welfare in society. As wealth increases, the role of economic research changes. When people are malnourished, poorly clothed, do not have decent housing and die of disease, the first tasks are those that contribute to improving material conditions of life, you need to look for economic ways to increase income -"the way to save the soul people most diligently seek with a full stomach." With a high level of income, there are problems that differ from physiological ones, and society is obliged to help its citizens solve them. The advantages of a comprehensive analysis of changes are significant, argued J. Galbraith. "The advantages of such an analysis of changes that goes beyond Economics are also greatand are becoming even greater over time. This is due to the fact that with the increase in people's welfare, economic science becomes less able to provide a reliable basis for judgments about social problems and guidance in matters of public policy." Galbraith generally followed the" General line " of modern interpretation of the subject and functions of economic science in the West. He distinguished scientific economic research from political problems, and the belief that their solution is beyond the competence of economic science, is the prerogative of the government itself. We will not judge how fair his position is. Let us only recall that there was a post-war period of clear success in capitalist construction, economic science was not relevant to an expanded interpretation of the subject of its research, to be political economy, to explain economic inconsistencies with political relations; secondly, we note that J. Galbraith felt very uncomfortable, realizing that by limiting, like liberals, economic analysis to a simple study of the dynamics of economic characteristics of production, he was driving himself into a dead end. A systematic approach is needed to understand the system.
Economic globalization is a policy that uses an objective trend of integration of national economies. This is clearly seen in the example of the WTO. The WTO, on the one hand, encourages a planned form of economic movement management, on the other hand, it strictly regulates the possibilities of planning economic development on a national scale, subordinating national interests to global goals, the justification of which, from a scientific point of view, looks insufficient and politically biased. Meanwhile, having joined the WTO, the country is forced to accept the terms of this largely political game.
National economic development projects are increasingly overloaded and adjusted not in the national interest, which has to be accepted as a cost of globalization. However, it should also be borne in mind that there is no alternative to integration. Homo sapiens exists as a universal species. The earth is its common home, and development is a common interest that synthesizes biological evolution and sociocultural development.
When planning, it is necessary to proceed from the dialectical requirement of comprehensive objective analysis of reality, once and it is necessary to act together in the common interests, twice. States have something to share, but you can not test the strength of history, the other humanity does not and will not. Dialectics has opened up to us a range of oppositions, both practical and theoretical. The struggle is reasonable only within the boundaries of unity, so contradictions should be filtered through the need to obtain a common result that corresponds to the regularity of the movement of human reality of being.
Scientific knowledge comes with costs. The scientist's understanding of what is happening does not always occur in the form of true knowledge; error is the natural movement of any knowledge, and it is important to have a critical attitude. To believe, a scientist should not, he must doubt. J. Galbraith is an honest scientist who is aware of the limitations of his scientific potential, he logically addresses the discussion, in scientific disputes he sees a way out of dead ends and questionable judgments.
Karl Marx took care of the mistakes of those who served science, believing that not politicians, but scientists are called to determine the path of economic development. Politicians should create political conditions for solving economic problems, following the recommendations of scientists. J. Galbraith is absolutely right when he speaks about the complication of social development and the need to consider economic knowledge and planning in a new, broad socio -cultural format. An American scientist with such a methodological attitude fell out of favor with the domestic reformers-liberals at the end of the last century, when the time of economic reforms was compressed, and then there was a trail of vices of their actions. The idol of our liberals was Soros-a typical financial and political speculator. Speculators without ideas found a speculator with ideas. As a result, instead of improving the methodology of development planning, Russia received the methodology of economic and sociocultural crisis.