Economics and Political economy textbooks: 28 years of interaction

The article analyzes the methodology of modern economic theory. The advantages and disadvantages Of the McConnell and brew economies are analyzed. It is compared with the textbook "Political economy" of the period of the USSR and Soviet Russia. A literature review has shown that many authors are critical of Main stream and are looking for alternative theories and methodologies. The article analyzes the institutional reasons for teaching Economics. Given the growing global crisis of industrial civilization and, in particular, the systemic crisis of its economic and political leader-the United States, the question is raised about the need to create a new type of textbook on economic theory. The article describes the philosophical roots of Economics and Marxist political economy. According to the authors of the article, these two areas of science and education in the twentieth century became examples of a "secular form of religion", since their ideological orientation prevailed over the scientific content. "Russian Economics" is a textbook for undergraduates that has broader system relationships with other Sciences (sociology, political science, Cybernetics, zoopsychology, etc.) and applies, along with well-known models of Economics, also qualitative methods and models of classical political economy within the framework of a systematic approach. The article describes the methodological principles of a new type of textbook that reflect the basic provisions of traditional European culture and can serve to form the concept of the "third way economy", as an objectively emerging model of a mixed economy.


Introduction
Consider international publications on the Main stream methodology or Economics. Main stream is criticized for a purely mechanical approach to understanding social and economic phenomena [1]; for formalism, expressed in the predominance of the use of "obedient" models [2]; for similarity to physics [3]; ignoring the question of distribution, which avoids the ethical question of social justice [4]; ignoring the endogeneity of distortions in transition economies [5]; for adherence to economic imperialism, zeal to export narrow concepts of rationality [6]; contradictions in methodologies -especially those related to postmodernism, positivism and philosophical realism, in the traditions of thinking that have emerged since the Enlightenment [7], the inability to interact with criticism and alternatives [8].
In General, it is necessary to form a new economic paradigm at the intersection of Sciences [43]. Therefore, we propose: the paradigm of ethicological value creation [44], "eclectic paradigm" based on the new institutional economy [45].
The importance of ecological Economics is proclaimed [46,47], which can contribute to sustainable development, structural efficiency and compatibility of the biosphere and the new digital world, social justice with a General reduction in the anthropogenic load on the biosphere [48].
Some authors recognize that the mainstream economy has already become more interdisciplinary [49]. Thus, J. Jhun found significant parallels between economic methodology and thermodynamics [50].
R. Kapeliushnikov expressed a pessimistic assessment that there is no triumph or crisis in modern Economics. The period of great theoretical ideas for it seems to have ended, as a new atheistic tendency is growing in it [51].
Few authors defend traditional principles and methods of Economics: they note a noticeable increase in quantitative research among economic historians over the past few years [52]. G. Soldatos and E. Varelas point out the importance of preserving the institutional nature of capitalism as a free enterprise and competitive system under government in the service of the private sector [53].
Still, many are critical of the Mainstream. Socio-economic analysis uses significantly less formalism than Mainstream. Five different formal approaches are discussed regarding their adequacy for socio-economic analysis: matrix approach to social structure, institutional analysis and development structure, system dynamics, (evolutionary) game theory, and agent-based computational modeling [54].
By research G.Racko, studying the Mainstream of Economics leads students to an increase in the value of hedonism and power, and a decrease in the importance of purposefulness and universalism [55]. S. Puehringer and L. Baeuerle received empirical evidence of a loss of interest in the study of Economics, a lack of real orientation in economic education. They suggest applying a qualitative methodology and focusing on the student perspective of economic education [56], taking into account issues of ethics, moral reasoning, and social interactions [57,58], since the nature of a human being is kindness, cooperation, and sharing [59]. Undermining the authority of Orthodox Economics makes it possible to include socio-economic ideas in the Business school curriculum [60,61].
Few authors write about Marxist theory. For example, the author describes the thoughts of the philosopher Kornelius Castoriadis about economic methodology in the neoclassical and Marxist traditions, which he subjected to constructive criticism [62]. Oktay Mamedov raises the question of defining an "elementary particle" of Economics [63], similar to how Marx highlighted the significance of a commodity. He also analyzes the micro -and macro -levels of the economy and concludes that it is necessary to leave the positivist paradigm, which does not make a fundamental development between them [64]. In the article "the Third life" of political economy. Working..." he, being the coordinator of the International Association of political economy of the CIS and Baltic countries, describes the discussions at the second Congress of the Association in May 2015. The Congress noted that the education system in Russia in the post-Soviet period rightly turned away from the dogmatically contested "quasi-political economy", but this led to systemic "costs" for all social Sciences in Russia [65].
The article by R. Westra introduces the work of Roy Bhaskar in the UNO-Sekin tradition of Japanese Marxism [66]. Marxist political economy has significant methodological potential [67], since it is based on "dialectical historical materialism" [68]. A. Siqueira offers an explanation of the stable tradition of deduction and empirical realism in economics from a Marxist point of view [69]. E. Cheng suggests synthesizing the methodology of Karl Marx and economics, creating an economic theory of five main components: ultramicroeconomics, microeconomics, mesoeconomics, macroeconomics, and the world economy [70].

Methods and materials
When obtaining research results, we mainly used a systematic approach, methods of scientific abstraction, formal logic, dialectical-theoretical methods, the method of institutional analysis, and other economic methods.

Research result
Discussions about the possibility of combining classical political economy and marginalism, which is the basis of Economics, in Russia began in the early twentieth century. In 1890, M. Tugan-Baranovsky wrote that the doctrine of marginal utility not only does not refute the theory of D. Ricardo and K. Marx, but that, "on the contrary, this theory, correctly understood, constitutes an unexpected confirmation of the doctrine of the value of these economists." Later, he formulated a law according to which the marginal utility of freely reproducible economic goods is proportional to their labor costs. This poly-economic formula became the basis of many studies of Russian mathematical economists (A. L. Lurie, N. A. Stolyarov, V. K. Dmitriev), and then was accepted by foreign researchers [71. P.191-192].
Already in the 90s of the XX century, simultaneously with the growth of market reforms in Russia, their criticism began, and accordingly, attempts to revive the old ideology in university teaching. One group of scientists who tried to revive Soviet political economy is the Tsagolov school, named after N. A. Tsagolov, author of the main Soviet textbook on political economy [72. P.106-114]. They critically evaluate Economics, offering to supplement it with political economy and revive the corresponding departments of A. A. Buzgalin [73], M. A. Korobeynikov [74].
S. V. Braginsky and Ya. A. Pevsner in their monograph in 1991 conducted a comparative analysis of classical political economy and neoclassical theory, finding they have a lot in common. For example, they consider that the theories of labor value and marginal utility are united by a more general neoclassical theory of equilibrium [75. P. 79].
In 2008, MSU published a collection on "Capital" and Economics. It contains the materials of the "round table", which worked during 1994-1997. The authors compare the common features and differences between Capital and Economics (both as a textbook and as a neoclassical direction in general). At the same time, V. V. Radaev [76], A. I. Moskovsky [77], N. M. Rozanova [78], K. A. Hubiev [79], T. A. Agapova [80], A.V. Sorokin [81] admit the possibility of their synthesis. The latter, for example, sees the possibility of convergence of Marx's theory as a fundamental science and Economics as an applied one on the basis of creating a "new theory of costs". Chekanskaya calls Economics a modern stage in the development of political economy, in fact, denying Marx's theory a place in its proposed structure of teaching economic theory at the Economics Department of Moscow state University [82].
Yu. V. Taranukha admits the possibility of only creating a third type of textbook, calling attempts to simply combine them "eclectic" [83]. Z. A. Grandberg rejects "fragmentary use of certain provisions of Marx's economic theory" in the general course of economic theory, where the course is based on Economics, believing that this distorts the true content of Marxist theory [84].V. A. Frolov recognizes the fact of the synthesis, but condemns it as erroneous [85].
In 2003, one of the issues of the journal "Questions of Economics" was almost entirely devoted to the discussion of the need to change the paradigm in the development of economic science. For example, L. Abalkin's article differs in its deep analysis [86].
The participants of the international conference "Political economy: reactualization of the classics and a new theory of social and economic development" in April 2010 in Moscow also noted the need to supplement the Economics with political economy [87].
V. M. Efimov argues about the crisis of modern economic science and believes that only institutionalism from the three directions of economic theory (classicism and Neoclassicism, Marxism and institutionalism) is not politically motivated [88].
In practice, in the early 90's in Russia, textbooks and manuals began to appear that combine Marxist positions and Economics to varying degrees: edited By V. V. Radaev [89], edited by A.V. Sidorovich and F. M. Volkov [90], textbook by V. D. Kamaev [91] and others.
Characteristics of Marxist political economy.
In the early 90-ies of the XX century, the world's most widely used textbook on economic theory was published in Russia for the first time. The creator of this type of textbook, Paul Samuelson, in his theory of "neoclassical synthesis", tried to combine the then prevailing theories of Keynesianism and Neoclassicism in the West [92, P. 274].
This was the time of the "Golden age" of capitalism, when the United States emerged from world war II with minimal losses and became the world's economic leader. With the creation of television and satellite communications, the promotion of the American way of life has become global. And now there was a popular textbook that began to promote the American way of life in the economy around the world.
The breakthrough into the educational space of the former socialist countries of Economics and other Western educational courses and textbooks was an ideological victory for capitalism. Thus, in Russia, the radical rejection of teaching the Marxist course of "Political economy" that existed all the years of Soviet power was carried out.
Political economy, which became a dogma and performed a political and ideological educational function rather than a scientific one in the XX century, had a number of significant shortcomings that objectively predetermined its fate at the stage of transition to a legal market economy: -it lost the dialectical method, which was one of the main advantages of the theory of Karl Marx, since its main provisions, which were valid for the time of writing "Capital" (first of all, the existence of cruel exploitation of wage workers by the owners of capital), but lost their adequacy to the real situation in the early XX century, were preserved as a religious dogma. The need for creative development of Marxist economic science in relation to the new situation was ignored by the party leadership.
Similarly, the theories of "scientific communism" and Marxist-Leninist philosophy were based on the dogmas of "Capital", which reflected the conditions of pre-monopoly capitalism, as well as revisionist models of the social structure of V. Lenin and I. Stalin. Social science under socialism as a whole has lost its characteristic works of Karl Marx and F. Engels' dialectics and materialism. Dialectics was replaced by dogmatics, and materialism-voluntarism in the views of society and the role of the subjective factor in history; -political economy was strictly limited by the framework of "economic determinism", which did not allow it to use the then existing achievements in sociology, psychology, Cybernetics, etc.; -at the same time, the Stalinist-Leninist political economy did not sufficiently take into account the same fundamental principle -the principle of "economic determinism", which was violated by the introduction of Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution into Marxist science. Marxist principle of primary economic development (basis) in relation to the political superstructure in practice in Russia, it was replaced by the thesis that, allegedly, due to the prevailing circumstances (Russia is the weakest link in the chain of world imperialism), a group of armed revolutionaries can take political power into their own hands in order to "tighten" the underdeveloped (feudal) basis in Russia to a socialist superstructure. It is known that the Mensheviks, led by the oldest Marxist in Russia, G. Plekhanov, opposed this revision of Marxism and the October revolution committed by the Bolsheviks. They rightly judged that it is impossible to switch to socialism in Russia without a developed market and capitalist system, which was confirmed by the collapse of the socialist economy during perestroika.
Political economy was too politicized to the detriment of economic content. Moreover, it is one-sided politicized-with an exclusively Communist (Bolshevik) orientation.
Characteristic of Economics. Subjective factors in the transition to teaching in universities and implementing the principles of Economics in practice were the defeat in September 1991 of the State Committee for emergency situations, the collapse of the USSR, the dissolution of the CPSU and the coming to power in Russia of the government of young reformers -supporters of market methods (E. Gaidar, G. Yavlinsky, A. Chubais, etc.).
To date, the practice of teaching Economics and conducting market reforms in Russia has firsthand revealed the advantages and disadvantages of the Orthodox economic theory "Mainstream economics" that underlies them. The main methodological features of Economics and political economy are presented in the Table 1. The methodological basis of Economics is the neoclassical theory, created in the end of the XІX century by the leader of the Cambridge school of Economics, Alfred Marshall. Marshall combined the theories of supply and demand created before him, the theories of marginal utility and marginal productivity, and the theory of factors of production, thereby synthesizing the principles of accounting for producer costs and consumer psychology into a single microeconomic theory of equilibrium price. Thus, a step was taken towards creating a more complex economic science than classical political economy, in the direction of reconciling the extremes of classical political economy and marginalism. Thus, the modern direction of economic science was created for that time, which more adequately reflects the market model of the industrial mode of production at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries.
Economics, as a textbook, is quite easy to learn. It clearly demonstrated the most typical situations and behavior of economic entities in the market of perfect competition on diagrams (graphs, tables). The introduction of issues related to the functioning of monopolized markets, state economic policy, the actions of trade unions, and consumers has made Economics a universal textbook on micro -and macroeconomics for colleges and universities around the world.
Nevertheless, both in Western science and outside of it, voices have become louder and louder criticizing the most typical shortcomings of Economics, which do not allow it to adequately reflect even the mixed model of the American economy, on the materials of which it was mainly created. Notable critics include D. Bell, J. Galbraith, and others. First of all, Economics describes only one of the national models of a mixed economy -the US economy. At the same time, it is presented as the ultimate truth that can be applied in any market country. Ideologically, it can be regarded as one of the ways to promote the "American way of life".
Secondly, Economics describes the behavior of market economy subjects as the embodiment of «homo economicus»-a reasonable, rational egoist, driven in the market by an "invisible hand" to create economic goods for the purpose of subsequent exchange and satisfaction of their individual needs. It is believed that economic actions have as their goal the maximization of income -especially profit. This is the main motive of market participants. Economics does not consider non-profit activities -such as charity, and ignores the functioning of non-market sectors of the economy, primarily the sector of nonprofit (non-governmental) organizations.
Third, Economics does not take into account the peculiarities of national psychology and other geo-political realities of most of the world economy's functioning territory. Therefore, it is not adapted to those countries where it is taught in colleges and universities to bachelors as the main economic discipline.
Fourth, Economics suffers from excessive schematism, formalization, excessive abstractness, one-sided Economism and mathematization, avoiding the analysis of sociopolitical processes, for which it is criticized by Western scientists, in particular J. Galbraith [93. P. 6].
Economics presents its own schemes, abstracting from many factors. Thus, it is assumed that market participants interact most often in the market of perfect competition, which is not true. It is assumed in advance ("all other things being equal") that all participants in market transactions are rational in nature and behavior. Thus, a rational consumer should have the following list of qualities -first of all, he should know the quality, prices of goods, the general utility, the marginal utility that he can extract from each unit of the consumed good; navigate the market; know your needs well; do not go beyond your budget; spend money in such a way as to get maximum satisfaction, i.e. maximum overall utility. The consumer is like a computer, which must constantly count its expenses and income.
Leon Walras' theory of General equilibrium, based on similar principles, is used as one of the most important elements in Economics. Naturally, in reality, the situation in the markets (and in the economy as a whole, which includes not only the market sector) is much more complex and fluid than is allowed in Economics. Economics describes the economic situation statically, i.e. ignoring the dynamics and, above all, the cyclical development of economic systems.
The exaggeration of the principle of "economic determinism", especially in line with modern Liberalism leads to the neglect of the complex non-economic factors of modern society -spirits-term, political, social spheres, which in the end, again, reduces the effectiveness of state regulation of economy and provoke (or prevent them) devastating financial, cyclical, and as the former socialist countries -and systemic crises.
Most models of social science of the XІX-early XX centuries repeated simple interdependencies: capital and labor (in the form of constant and variable capital in the Marxian system; in the form of production function in neoclassical theory), supply and demand, the balance of power and trade. As closed systems based on opposites, they are very attractive analytically, but simplify a complex world. With the progress of science, we are no longer dealing with a small number of interdependent variables, but with the ordering of large numbers. The main intellectual and sociological problems of postindustrial society are the problems of "organized complexity" -managing large-scale systems with a huge number of interacting variables in order to achieve certain goals [93. P.37]. The disadvantage of the economized model is also the inability to distinguish between technological and institutional processes [93. P. 386]. The economized model is based on the assumption that the link where benefits and costs should be evaluated is individual satisfaction. This is an atomistic view of society, reflecting the widespread misconception that the total sum of private decisions constitutes a public decision. In contrast to the economized way of thinking, it is necessary to create a sociologized model of "public interest" [93. P.383-384]. We still consider a person as a source of public choice (and in such matters as planning the number of children or market preferences, it can really be considered as such), but in most issues that affect the distribution of resources or change the social appearance of the country, such a unit is a group of people or a government, and we do not have an adequate theory of public goods and social choice [93. P. 407]. This was the opinion of the famous American sociologist D. Bell.
A well-known critic of Mainstream Economics is J. Soros. The negative aspects of globalization make us look at the prevailing economic theories and political concepts based on them in a different way. "Human behavior," George Soros observes, " ... is easily influenced by theories... but in social, political, and economic matters, theories can be effective and yet not be effective… The search for truth ... forces us to recognize that social phenomena may be influenced by the theories that have been developed to explain them. As a result, the study of social phenomena can be motivated by goals other than the search for truth" [94. P. [38][39].
Combining such ideologically divergent textbooks as Economics and Political economy, in our opinion, and creating a new, comprehensive one, is possible in the following areas and principles (Table): 1. Mutual addition and mutual enrichment of missing topics and educational models, for example, Economics does not disclose the issue of labor, its nature, social essence, etc. The concept of the factor "labor" is much poorer in content than Marx's theory of labor. Marx also has a developed theory of the commodity, reproduction, and the theory of money as a commodity. There are original theories of property and the state. At the same time, Economics has an original theory of consumer behavior, accounting for psychology, which is not present in Marxism; 2. Attracting the achievements of other Sciences in the framework of a systematic approach -sociology, Cybernetics, biology, quantum physics, zoopsychology, etc.; 3. In general, it is necessary to create a comprehensive methodology based on the outstanding achievements of well-known scientific theories -dialectics, institutionalism, structural and functional analysis, system theories, of course, based on the best models of microeconomics, macroeconomics, and political economy.
In the construction of the methodology, the initial principle can be taken as an anthropological one, that is, to create a paradigm, secondary principles and basic models based on the understanding of the essence of a person. This approach is a continuation of the historical tradition that defined the basic methodological principles of many social Sciences. For example, the liberal economy is based on the axiom of A. Smith about "economic man". All left-wing theories are based on the idea of man as a collectivist being. The creator of the general theory of systems, physician-biologist L. von Bertalanfi, rejected the understanding of the human body as an open system [95. P. 94]. Religious theories are based on the image of a person in the corresponding Holy Scripture. Thus, in Christianity, a person is described as an "image of God", a creature-a creation of God, a "servant of God", etc. Fascist theories grow largely out of racism, etc.
We propose to proceed from the understanding of man as a socio-spiritual-biological entity, i.e. to build a model of man, using the achievements of not only science and modern management practices, but also traditional cultures. From here, logically, we will overcome the antagonistic contradiction with the dogmatized paradigm of O. Conte's positivism and recognize the need for a new paradigm, for example, the paradigm of equilibrium: "the idea of restoring the balance of man with nature, society and God" [96. P. 373].
The economy in an equilibrium social system, according to the structural and functional analysis of T. Parsons, should perform the function of adaptation [97. P. 34]. And according to the theory of socio-cultural dynamics of P. Sorokin, a more complex and humane ideational culture should replace the modern sensual culture based on the market economy, the ideology of liberalism and permissiveness [98. P.811]. In the economy, this should correspond to a kind of post-market stage [99. P. 296]. Therefore, it can be called the "third way economy". The "third way economy" should not be built for the sake of the economy itself or the "bright future" under communism, and not for the sake of instant enrichment of some while ruining others, but for the sake of preserving the life, health, material and spiritual well-being of people right now. Accordingly, the ideology of liberalism, which gave rise to a global crisis in many respects, requires its radical transformation, and in many cases, radical replacement with a different worldview.
Therefore, in the future, the education system will also undergo global changes. Along with mass e-education, which provides undergraduate education with minimal costs, an elite system of higher education should be formed based on old traditions, which gives not a functional, but a systemic vision of the world. Accordingly, new textbooks, such as Russian Economics, are also required

Conclusion
Thus, we come to the following conclusions: 1. A literature review has shown that many authors are critical of Mainstream and are looking for alternative theories and methodologies; 2. The change of the course of Political economy by Economics in Russia was natural. However, due to the need for accelerated social development in Russia, the Economics no longer meets the requirements of the time; 3. The analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of Political economy and Economics is necessary to develop recommendations for creating a new type of textbook, which is their dialectical synthesis at a new, post-market stage of economic development, taking into account all system relationships; 4. The balance paradigm and the anthropological principle (man as a socio-spiritualbiological being) logically follow the other elements of the methodology for building the textbook Russian Economics, presented in this article.
The main principles of the methodology of Russian Economics were previously described by the authors in monographs [100][101][102][103] and textbooks [96,104].