Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
"Economics is a special world, with it's own laws and problems, dramas and
contradictions" The textbook "Modern Economics"
Respectable colleagues!
It's unlikely, that I need to explain to any of you, what place in our life the
phenomena of economic order has achieved. The well-known "market
attitudes" have penetrated into practically every, sphere of our life, even
most intimate. The leading economists, beginning from Marx and ending with
the present "liberals", habitually incur the role of critics and prophets,
predicting the possible and even the certain future. In their own declarations,
they have the right to do it, because of a vast knowledge of the nature of
economics.
"Economics has it's own special, immutable, iron laws, which no one can
violate with impunity. Our task is - to study it carefully (through an economic
science) and try to follow it all the time". These calls, metamorphosing
sometimes into exorcism, are often forced upon us. Some even compare
economic laws on power to the natural laws- such, say, as the law of world
gravitation (which all are obliged to follow); and on clarity to the table of
multiplication.
All of it, together with the aggravated economic concern, has resulted in an
occurrence of the original worldview - economic fatalism, which by it's
popularity can be compared only with the astrological fatalism.
I believe, that economic fatalism (as any fatalism) does not, by any means,
promote normal development of the economic sphere, and consequently, I
consider it my obligation to convert it into a subject of critical research.
It is doubtless, that within the basis of all economic life lays the simple, and
apparently, really "iron" principle: the economy (housekeeping) is necessary
for survival. But even here there is something to muse upon. It is no secret
that the instinct for survival (under any conditions) is, by no means,
characteristic to all. There were, and are, people who prefer a proud death to
a base vegetative existance by any means. It would be too hasty to announce
them from the doorstep as abnormal and sick. For this it is necessary, at least
at first, to comprehend in a general way the blind instinct of survival (why
survive?), to make from this instinct a rational principle, which is not too easy.
Moreover, the word "survival" itself can be understood differently: some have
only in view not dying from cold and hunger, others - to preserve the status
quo, that is, to not lose the obtained positions, which sometimes can be
rather high.
soup line to another, and selecting clothing for themselves in a rubbish heap.
This fact (sad in itself) testifies, however, that with the existence of a well
developed charitable system, housekeeping for the physical survival of the
individuals is absolutely not necessary. The people voluntarily engaged in an
economy, are quite able to very poorly dress and feed their less lucky cocitizens. Generally speaking, the "economical" resources of the human
organism are really inexhaustible. A precious example: Indian yogis, a certain
sort of leaders in asceticism - some of them suceed in feeding not by the
famous bread and water, but by, strange to tell... air! Certainly, on all
similar "miracles" there leave years of wearisome trainings, but, you see, the
search for appropriate work, (for any fan of tasty eating), can also require
considerable efforts.
Under the "life" it's usually understood not the life itself, but a certain
sensation of life, as opposed to mere existence. And what's more, the subject,
which evokes this sensation differs not only in every separate man (someone
needs for "life" a bottle of vodka; another - a villa on the Canary Islands; a
third - a new wife; a fourth lives only when he is playing "with a big stake"),
but also within the same person in the course of time.
Really, to consider someone's life in possession of a certain statisticallycalculated things, is obvious, though a very ancient illusion. That fact, that
millions are working zealously for the benefit of this illusion, speaks only
about the power of habit and about the low level of education in the given
area. It's clear, that in the course of time, and with the development of
critical thinking, less and less people will be fascinated by this illusion, until it
lastly it will be converted into some museum artifact.
After all said above, it becomes clear that the economic activity, as such, isn't
something compulsory, hanging, so to say, as a Damoclov's sword (an evil
fate) upon each of us, but it is a subject of choice, a desire, or, if you like...a
calling. With such an approach the "social base" of notorious economic laws is
rather essentially reduced - namely, from "everyone" to "anyone who
wishes". But even within these, much more narrow limits, the effectiveness of
the above mentioned laws doesn't look completely obvious.
Let's take, say, the most simple and less controversial of these laws, namely:
the price of goods or services determined by the correlation between supply
and demand. That is, the greater a requirement of a product the greater its
cost, and vice versa. Imagine an elderly woman, rather well-to-do, who rents
a room to the young graduate student working upon his dissertation. By
some situational reasons, the demand for the rented dwelling place
increases, and the hostess of the apartment would, by idea, desire to
increase the rental payment. But here, she, from compassion for the awkward
material condition of her lodger, prefers not to increase the price for the flat
to the "balanced" level, and leaves it, lets suppose, at the former level. From
the point of view of economic fatalism, by this action, she commits a crime.
But somebody would disagree with me, and say: though the crimes of the
given economic law are possible, it does not pass unpunished. Let's look,
I, however, do not assert, that now, all relations between lodgers and
landlords are based on the "humanitarian" principles of compassion and
mutual aid. But this, in general, regrettable fact testifies not to the power of
the economic laws, but more about the lack of humanity of the average
person. Well, even the most ardent supporter of following the "laws", would
hardly say, that our "aged landlord" behaved in a bad way, by leaving the
price at the previous level; or that the poor graduate student, (and nowadays,
rich doctor), behaved badly by thanking her properly.
"The case with the hostess and her lodger is their own matter, which they can
decide by their own discretion, and at their own risk. The other matter macroeconomics, is an entirely different sphere. Here the law of supply and
demand works at full force." Is this right?
It is rather easy to notice, that all of the motives, by which the economic
"laws" were broken in these examples, are motives of the moral or
psyhological order - compassion, gratitude, fear, philanthropy (human
kindness). Thus, we find, an essential part of economics depends on ethics
and psychology.
It is important to notice, that the last time the absolute fatalism in the
economic area is replaced by a liberal one. "Ironness" of the economic laws is
accepted here, but, most probably, not as inexorabliness, but as
heartlessness, hardness, and cruelty. "The laws of the market are cruel, but
the society, by means of the state, can interfere with its actions, in order to
bridle the passions and mitigate the consequences of the spontaneous
market". Thus, in the given case, though the objective force of the economic
laws is admitted, at the same time, it shows their moral defectiveness, which
makes them rather alien and hostile for the majority of the people. Here, the
government is offered a little comic role, as a "lubricator" of the iron laws (to
keep them from clanking) without, indeed, any hope for improvement. The
supporters of the "regulated market ", if I am to understand, are trying to
remain seated on two chairs at once, and, as a rule, are falling from both.
The unsteadiness and ambiguity of the moderate fatalism induces the most
active minds to pass to the following step - to reject completely the abstract
economic laws and to declare government as a sovereign ruler and legislator
of the economic life. Namely, the government, here creates and legally fixes
"uniform rules of the economic game", which all of it's participants, managing
in the given territory, are obliged to observe strictly. Thus, the once almighty
economic laws receive the modest role of national customs or peculiarities,
which should be taken into account while drawing up of rules of game. But
who, tell me, presently may vouch for viability of any cabinet? As a result, the
Thus, we notice in the present economics two sorts of actors: on the one
hand - unfortunates, "eaten" by the everyday life and humbly toiling on
housekeeping troubles; on the other - players, making their economic career
at the expense of others. All this can cause, for every balanced and nonsuperstitious man, an impression, that the economy (just like politics) is a
business, if not dirty, then at least not serious. But before coming to such a
conclusion, we need to see whether there is any other way, or any other
stimulus for economic activity?
If from the point of view of economic fatalism, both absolute and moderate,
economy is a certain kind of black hole, inevitably entangling each of us for
the supposed needs in economic activity; an endless detective, fraught with
external conflicts and internal compromises. Then, with a more balanced
approach, we, like a personage of one well known tale, who has said:
"Shadow, know your place!"; we speak: "Economy, know your place!"
But it is one thing to proclaim, and another - to fulfill. How do we become the
hosts in our own economy? Some hints can be found in the very definition:
rational housekeeping. In order to be the hosts in our own house, it is
necessary to keep it. In essence, namely this question is, on my sight, the
basic question of the philosophy of economics, which, in the given case, can
be treated in two ways: either as a philosophical department of economics
(not very numerous nowadays, it is necessary to admit), or as an economic
department of philosophy. The second question: how is it best to "keep the
house" (in the "capitalistic", "socialistic", or "statistic" way), contains, in it's
turn, the main task of the applied economic sciences and depends on specific
times and places, traditions and historical peculiarities. If the philosophy of
economics is occupied by definition with the best goal of the whole economic
development; then "economics" itself is working out the methods, and ways
for most quickly achieving this goal. Thus, they supplement and support each
other: because the best philosophy is fruitless, if it can not be applied
anywhere, and the most developed and refined "rules of the game" cannot
make it attractive for the seeking the higher sense.
And the last. In the mass consciousness, it has already strongly taken root,
the representation of the so-called economic mechanism. I would appreciate
this as one of the numerous consequences of the well-known in the
philosophical environment doctrine: Decart's of a matter and spirit. This
dualism, on my look, can be surpassed only by the introduction in use, the
notion of the economic organism and accordingly, organic economy. Such
approach, such point of view, undoubtedly will meet the considerable
counteraction on the part of admirers of economic mathematics and
geometry, but it is doubtless also, that it corresponds better to the deep
expectations of the modern life, and, that's why, for it, the future. Besides, for
me personally, it is obvious, that the coming organic economy (with it's
correct understanding) hardly will come to reject all accumulated experience
(in that number by the supporters of the mechanical approach), but will try
to, so to say, assimilate, that is to take on the arms of all the most valuable
and useful experiences. Only in this case can it execute the main task - the
maximum - to ensure a worthy life to mankind and to the world organism as a
whole!