Both areas are so important for the normal functioning and development of countries that a crisis in one leads to negative consequences in the second. Conversely, progress and recovery have a beneficial effect on the processes occurring in another system. It is necessary to reveal the essence of the concepts themselves:

• Politics is a concept that includes not only the activities of government bodies and public administration. There is another definition. Thus, politics is the management of resource allocation. One of its functions is to regulate and establish the order of the conditions of material production in the country and the joint labor of the population;
• economy is a historically defined set of social-production relations. At its core, the country’s economy is a single national economic complex, covering all links of the P.R.O.P. (production, distribution, exchange and consumption).

How can politics affect the economy?

When the subjects of production processes begin to conflict, then political intervention in these economic relations in nature becomes necessary.

It should be noted that the political system is still distinguished by greater independence in decision-making compared to the economic one. But there is one nuance - the political course largely depends on intrastate economic relations. Although external political pressure (for example, international sanctions) leads to changes in the structure and principles of running the economy in the country.

You can rely on various doctrines, but Engels’s economic theory gives a clearer idea of ​​how differently a political system can influence the system of economic relations.

Three key aspects:

• politics slows down the development of the economy, then there will be discontent among the population due to the decline in living standards;
• politics can serve as a catalyst for individual economic processes, which can lead to both positive and negative consequences;
• The political power elite has the ability to influence (suspend and redirect) resources in accordance with their interests in one or another segment of the economy.

The instruments of economic policy are: the state budget (fiscal policy) and the Central Bank (monetary policy).

How does economics influence politics?

The influence of the economy on the political system is obvious, because it is its material component. Any political ideology cannot exist separately without some kind of financial basis; it needs a reliable production basis.

The economy of any country and in any industry segment always tries as much as possible to adapt, take into account and satisfy the economic needs of citizens. The political system has to take these trends into account and reinforce them at the legislative and law-making level:

• If for a stable economic situation in the country it is necessary to support and help small and medium-sized businesses develop, then state policy should directly contribute to this. For example, reduce interest rates on loans for individual entrepreneurs;
• when a crisis occurs in a country due to a decline in production and a lack of financial resources, the government must pursue an active policy aimed at attracting foreign investors.

The modern economic system, thanks to the process of globalization, is becoming increasingly independent. Now the state cannot categorically dictate to the population what to produce and in what volumes. But the political system retains the important function of regulating certain economic processes (for example, the antimonopoly service monitors price levels).

POLITICS AND ECONOMICS

Introduction

1 Correlation and relationship between politics and economics (methodology of the problem)

2 Means and methods of political regulation of the economy

3 Policy of the relationship between the state and the market

4 Gas policy of modern Russia.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Economics and politics is the problem of the relationship between politics and economics, studied by political science in its main aspects such as the influence of politics and certain political actions on economic development, as well as the political consequences of economic changes in society. This problem is of particular interest in relation to Russia, which is in the process of transition to a market and democracy.

Economic policy is the solution by political means of economic problems: production and exchange. This is due, first of all, to the transition of many countries to post-industrial production, globalization and changes in the structure of the world economy, a powerful wave of industrialization and the destruction of pre-industrial production.

Political decisions were required, first of all, to create conditions for the effective use of high technologies, as well as to regulate globalization - the growing interdependence of production and exchange of all countries, the economic integration of entire regions and even continents.

Without political decisions, it would be impossible to change the structure of ownership, the relationship and interaction of its various forms - private, cooperative, municipal, state, transnational.

1 Correlation and relationship between politics and economics (methodology of the problem)

In political science and sociology, two methodological approaches to considering the problem have developed: Marxism gives primacy to economics, and modern Western theories consider these areas as equal sides of a single process or consider politics to be primary. Since all phenomena, events, processes of real life are interconnected, each phenomenon is simultaneously political and economic. Attempts to contrast politics and economics are therefore untenable.

It is impossible to consider the economy as a certain independent sphere of social life without connection with politics, law and other areas. “Property”, “exchange”, “production” are not only economic, but also sociocultural, political and legal phenomena.

Modern science is dominated by approaches that reject economic determinism. Two aspects of the interaction between economics and politics can be distinguished:

1) economy and power, two historical types of their relationships;

2) the role of the state in the economy and the main models of its economic policy.

1. The initial category of politics is “power”, and the starting category of economics is “wealth” (which is understood as everything that has market value and can be exchanged for money or goods). Power and wealth, including property, are interdependent in real life. The latter plays the role of one of the most important resources of power and at the same time requires state-legal support, and the state-guaranteed compliance by all participants in economic relations with certain rules. That is why politics acts as a structure-forming factor that establishes and maintains a certain social order, without which the functioning of economic institutions becomes simply impossible. Economy in this relationship acts as a process occurring within the framework of a political and legal structure.

2. Historically, relations of power - subordination arose earlier than property relations. Subsequently, two main types of relationships developed: a) “power - property”, i.e. the dominance of political power in society and the subordinate, derivative position of property; b) “property is power.” The first type is characteristic of “Oriental despotism”, the “Asian mode of production”, in which K. Marx identified the following characteristic features: firstly, the absence of a sufficiently developed institution of private property; secondly, the merger of property and state power with the dominance of the latter; thirdly, the dominance of bureaucracy in economics and politics. Power in this type of relationship becomes a means of obtaining wealth. Economic development occurs through the economic and organizational activities of the state. At the same time, the state itself unsatisfactorily performs its socially useful functions, since it serves the private interests of bureaucrats who use power for their own enrichment. The second type of “property-power” relationship has developed in Western society. Its distinctive feature is owner autonomy combined with market-oriented commodity production. This form arose for the first time in the ancient world. Even in the Middle Ages, the formation of civil society structures with its main elements continued: an independent commodity producer based on the institution of property. Economic power was increasingly separated from political power and even opposed it, defending its rights. This is how the main system-forming elements of society emerged: private property, the market, separation of property and power, the autonomy of individuals (citizens), their equality as independent participants in economic and political life. In the middle of the 18th century, thanks to the enlighteners, a corresponding ideology arose, preaching the slogan “lese fair, forest aller” (French: let us act, let circumstances develop on their own). The emphasis was placed on free competition and market self-regulation, thanks to which the “invisible hand” (A. Smith, 1776) will help meet people's needs for goods and services. The state was assigned the role of a “night watchman.” The demand for “less government!” has become popular among liberals. The viability of this model has been confirmed by the high economic achievements of Western societies.

2 Features of interaction between the economic and political spheres of society in modern Russia.

The interaction of the economic and political systems of society is based on general laws. A number of them have been noted in this chapter. However, there is no doubt that at different times and in different countries this interaction has specific features. In this regard, the example of modern Russia is indicative. Within the framework of the interaction of economic and political systems in the country, problems are being solved that in other states have already been solved long ago or have never been relevant. A broad political program is aimed at transforming the economic sphere of Russia. First of all, the most complex process of determining the new place of the state in the economic life of the country is being implemented. There is a search for answers to the most difficult questions: what part of the economy should be given to non-state enterprises? What exactly should remain the property of the state? By what methods and in what forms should state enterprises participate in the regulation and management of the general economic process in the country?

The interaction of economic and political systems in modern Russia can safely be called unique. No other state had such a large-scale and specific political program for economic reforms in terms of conditions, means and goals. This is manifested in the fact that the country is simultaneously implementing such complex processes in all respects as:

Formation of diversity of forms of ownership;

Development of a variety of forms of entrepreneurial

activities;

Modification of the participation of organizations and individuals in
formation of budget revenues (creation of a new
tax system);

Solving national problems unknown in the past
scale: inflation, unemployment, organized
crime, etc.;

Formation of a system of legal support for economic processes, etc.

If we add that the interaction of economic and political systems in Russia occurs in conditions of intense political struggle for power, then in the absence of a unified concept for transforming economic life, the complexity of the situation will be assessed quite fully. However, optimism is inspired by the fact that Russia has followed the path that developed democratic countries have been following for many decades, having achieved significant success in the development of economic and political systems.

3. POLICY OF RELATIONSHIP between THE STATE AND THE MARKET

However, in contrast to the traditional approach, based on an analysis of the degree of participation of the state in regulating market processes, awareness of the mutual influence of the parties - the constitution of the market by the state and the participation of the market in the formulation of policy and its implementation by the structures of political power - involves considering the qualitative element as fundamental when assessing the interaction of the state and market.

Given the almost universal participation of the state in regulating economic processes and, accordingly, building relationships with market participants, the key becomes the nature of such relationships and their impact on economic development.

The quantitative relationship between the state and market sectors fades into the background, and the key issue for analysis becomes “the nature of the ways of integrating the two types of structures and two types of institutionalized rules.

Today, the legitimacy of the exercise of power by private actors is often ensured through market mechanisms of competition. However, it is the responsibility of the state to determine, through democratic and judicial procedures, the range of power functions that can be delegated to private actors (and therefore left to market competition).

It is this sphere of authority of the state that is fundamental, since the actions of actors to whom any functions have been delegated cannot be legitimized directly through market competition as such; this is only possible through the democratic and judicial practices of the state.

The state provides a constitutional framework within which discussion can occur regarding the transfer of certain functions to the private sector.

And only after the state has approved in principle further privatization, representatives of the private sector can expect the social approval necessary for the transfer of power functions.

Taking into account these factors, we can talk about the expansion of the influence of the state in modern conditions of denationalization of the structures of political power while modifying its essence from a monopolist to a manager of political power. Accordingly, the state remains ultimately responsible for all acts of political power.

The most significant example of the primary role of the state in ensuring economic development is the developmental state, which implements policies in the name of economic development.

In general, developmental state intervention embodies three main components.

First, direct ownership and control of industrial production is secondary to the process of creating economic infrastructure through education, training, and research.

Secondly, the state performs key functions in ensuring the relationship between labor and management.

Third, it takes the lead in creating competitive advantage.

As part of its efforts to create conditions for economic growth, the state, refraining from direct control, coordinates and largely builds market processes.

The development of the provisions on the developmental state was the concept of “built-in autonomy”, which implies:

1) distancing state power and apparatus from interest groups;

2) building networks and connections in the market structure.

Compliance with these conditions is seen as the key to successful government intervention in the design of market processes.

While embeddedness allows the state to obtain information and mobilize resources, autonomy ensures that the state remains focused on development goals.

In contrast to developmental state theory, the distinctive feature of the “embedded autonomy” thesis is the understanding of social and cultural embeddedness as a key factor in shaping differences in a state's ability to support autonomy.

However, changing conditions on the world stage are also changing the role of the developmental state. New regimes of governance at the transnational level are narrowing the “development space” for states that have successful forms of industrial policy.

Transnational structures reduce the capacity for institutional innovation required for successful social development.

Global institutions in their current form are a serious obstacle to institutional innovation at the national level. Accordingly, these factors also raise the question of the possibility of a developmental state in the context of globalization.

Considering the changing conditions for the functioning of states, including developmental states, and the change of focus in research on the role of states in the modern world and the nature of their relationships with economic agents, an urgent task is to search for new models of state behavior and formulate alternative explanations for the dynamic development of a number of economies.

4. GAS POLICY OF MODERN RUSSIA

Currently, the problem of the image of the state is one of the central topics of discussion in the international community. The existing image of the country is beginning to leave an increasingly significant imprint on the nature of its interaction with other states and the possibility of realizing geopolitical goals.

The participation of countries in international clashes inevitably develops into an information war, victory in which sometimes plays a more significant role than the results of resolving the conflict.

A striking example of this fact is the gas clash between Russia and Ukraine at the beginning of 2009 and the image consequences of this problem.

The “gas conflict” that broke out between Russia and Ukraine at the beginning of 2009 had a huge response in the condemnations of the world community, including in the media. Russia's actions were described in extremely ambiguous terms. In international discussions and in the media, the country is characterized as:

O political intriguer and blackmailer, whose goal is to prevent the rapprochement between Ukraine and the EU, as well as to destabilize the Ukrainian political elite;

O an imperialist state seeking to strengthen the mechanisms of influence in the post-Soviet space;

O an unreliable business partner who has jeopardized Europe's energy security;

O victim of theft and failure to fulfill contractual obligations on the part of Ukraine.

The agreement reached following the conflict was also received ambiguously.

On the one hand, Russia is characterized as the initiator of resolving the problem, which helped stabilize the energy situation in Ukraine and Europe.

On the other hand, Russia is called an inept negotiator, who ultimately signed an agreement that was not beneficial in the long term for either party. Thus, the “gas conflict” was resolved, at least until next year.

However, during the conflict, Russia acquired several fairly stable, mostly negative images, which will undoubtedly influence the future foreign policy life of the state.

An analysis of materials in the media and comments from politicians and experts allows us to draw an unambiguous conclusion that Russia has suffered serious reputational damage as a result of the “gas conflict”; the country’s image has deteriorated significantly.

The most obvious thing is that Russia has lost its status as a reliable supplier of energy resources. As a result, negotiations on finding alternative energy sources have intensified in Europe.

This situation may deprive Russia of a significant share of the European gas market within the next few years.

In addition, the overall level of trust in Russia due to the conflict has dropped significantly. Undoubtedly, this will affect Russia’s status as an international actor and the course of international negotiations with the country’s participation.

The first results of surveys indicate that the “gas conflict” also affected the image of Russia among the civilian population of different countries. The situation has had a mostly negative impact.

The most negative perceptions of Russia are, again, residents of states where Russia has the lowest rating positions.

The attitude towards Russia on the part of Ukrainian citizens has deteriorated significantly.

However, the positive thing is that, unlike many other international conflicts, in this case Russia managed to organize information support of the situation quite professionally.

A powerful political resource was deployed, a number of high-level negotiations were held, and most journalists received timely information about the conflict and the necessary comments.

A significant part of the information work was taken over by the professional press service of the Gazprom company, but one way or another, this time they performed with dignity in the field of information support for Russia.

A pattern can easily be seen in the international information field: the worse the image of Russia in a particular state, the more negative reviews and publications are noted regarding the “gas conflict.”

First of all, this applies to the British-American camp, the Baltic states, the Czech Republic and Poland. An alarming signal is the significant number of negative reviews in the German media.

It is important to note that the Russia-Ukraine “gas conflict” was accompanied by intense discussions about the reputational losses of the parties and their role in shaping the further geopolitical balance of power. In particular, not only serious business and highly specialized publications, but also mass, general information media took part in this discussion.

This fact indicates the increasing importance of the state’s image in international politics, which exists not only in the circles of the highest political elite, but also in the civil environment.

Conclusion

So, as a result of considering the interaction of the political and economic systems, we can conclude that political relations have grown into the economic system, like the roots of a tree into the ground. In turn, we can talk about economic relations that are also deeply rooted in the political system.

Not a single industrialized country or one that has embarked on the path of industrialization can do without political decisions that provide the necessary conditions for industrialization and increasing the efficiency of production and exchange. Political decisions are especially important for the improvement and strengthening of financial systems, money circulation and economic financing. It is no coincidence that budget laws in all countries are among the most important. Economic policy everywhere is aimed at finding a relationship between production and consumption that corresponds to changing interests and opportunities.

Even the reduction of the direct economic functions of the state in many countries did not change the general trend of expansion and intensification of economic policy as a whole. Widespread mechanistic arguments about the superiority of economics over politics or politics over economics, as well as calls to engage in economics without politics, are untenable and interfere with overcoming economic difficulties through political means, especially in the Russian Federation.

Bibliography

1. Krivoguz I.M. Political science: Textbook for students. higher education institutions. - M.: VLADOS, 2003. - 288 p.

2. Political science: textbook / author. count – M.: Delo, 2002.

3. Gadzhiev K.S. (2007) Geopolitical horizons of Russia. Contours of a new world order. M.: Economics.

4. Russian statistical yearbook. 2010. Rosstat. M., 2011

5. Gorfinkel V.Ya., Shvandar V.A. Small business. M., 2008

6. Galumov E.A. (2008) International image of Russia: strategy of formation. M.: Izvestia..

One of the most important areas of political activity is economics. The latter is a complex formation that is theoretically reflected in thousands of economic concepts and categories. And the term “economy” itself has many meanings. Three of its most general meanings can be distinguished.

Firstly, the economy is a system of relations that develop between people in the sphere of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of material goods and services. These relationships can be expressed in direct relationships between individuals (for example, labor cooperation), in an objectified form (products, money, etc.); in the interrelations of objectified forms that hide the relationships between people (thus, behind the price, which acts as a relationship between goods and money, the relationships between the seller and the buyer, the producer and the consumer as subjects of the economic process are hidden).

Secondly, the economy is understood as the totality of various sectors and productions that form the national economy of the country. In this case, we are talking about industry, agriculture, transport, construction, etc. in their certain proportions and relationships.

Thirdly, economics is a branch of science that studies the above-mentioned realities in various aspects.

The polysemy of the terms “politics” and “economics” determines the variety of meanings of the category “economic policy”. However, we will dwell only on the actual political science significance of (588) economic policy. In this aspect, Economic policy is the activity of political entities (state, political parties, movements, public organizations, etc.) to develop and organize the implementation of a system of practical measures in order to influence the economic state of society.

The scope of economic policy is the intersection and interaction of economics and politics. In this interaction, various elements are in relationships of direct and feedback, coordination and subordination.

It is unlikely that anyone will deny in the most general form the dependence of politics on economics. After all, political subjects themselves grow out of the economic structure of society. If, say, we are given an industrial society in which the main part of the social product is created by industry, then the commodity nature of social relations, the existence of the necessary product in the form

wages, surplus - in the form of profit, and also the fact that some individuals will inevitably become subjects of hired labor, and some will be represented by entrepreneurs using hired labor. As subjects of the economic process, employees and entrepreneurs have common and different, including opposing, economic interests. For example, both are interested in dynamic economic growth, since in this case both wages and profits increase. But at the same time, wages and profits are only parts of the created product, therefore an increase in one part leads to a reduction in the other, and vice versa. In this regard, the interests of employees and entrepreneurs are opposite. Therefore, there is a need to uphold and protect the interests of each of the public entities. And for this we need an organization that would enable subjects to adequately understand the economic situation and express it in a generalized form.

in addition to their economic interests, to achieve their realization. Such organizations are political parties. "The retention of competing interests within certain limits, the creation of conditions for a certain balance of them are ensured by the state. Thus, politics in this aspect is nothing more than (589) as a generalized and concentrated expression of the economy.

However, the opposite dependence of the economy on politics is also obvious. In the sphere of production, there are people endowed with will and consciousness, united in economic organizations, enterprises and pursuing their economic interests. In the process of this activity they transform economic reality. And, naturally, the state of the economy depends on what the economic policy will be. If, for example, the government imposes too high taxes, then incentives for economic activity will decrease, which will lead to a drop in production. If, in order to reduce unemployment, public works are organized and additional jobs are created, then employment will increase, but at the same time inflation will increase, which negatively affects the economy, etc. Consequently, the state of the economy very significantly depends on the ongoing economic politics / which in this aspect takes precedence over economics.

But the last statement is in clear contradiction with the previous one. One states the dependence of the economy on politics, the second - the opposite connection. Which one is true? Since no formal logical errors were made in the previous reasoning, it would seem to be necessary to admit that both statements are true, but in different situations and in different aspects. This recognition is, of course, necessary, but not sufficient, since it remains unclear in which situations one thing is true and in which another. Such a statement only mechanically complements one statement with another, the opposite of it. The true relationship is opposite

false dependencies turn out to be unclear.

In order to understand the relationship under consideration, it is necessary to introduce the concepts of fundamental and actual structures of the relationship between economics and politics. The fundamental structure is understood as the interconnection of elements (economics and politics), reflecting the general historical pattern of the generation of one phenomenon by another. Here, both phenomena are considered only in objectified and institutionalized forms, while the subjective characteristics (590) of the implementation of relationships, although assumed, do not become the subject of analysis; only the objectified results of conscious activity are examined. In contrast, the actual structure captures the logic of the momentary relationship between economics and politics, the logic of the implementation of a specific action and its consequences at a given moment.

Just as general historical patterns are realized through specific actions at a given moment, so the fundamental structure of the relationship between economics and politics, in which the first generates the second, is realized through the actual structure, where politics at any given moment determines changes in the economy.

When analyzing the interaction between economics and politics, its multi-level nature should be taken into account. If, for example, some economic decision is made at the government level (say, about changing the pricing mechanism), then although the decision itself is an element of economic policy, it does not lead to any real economic changes. If, further, the decision begins to be implemented, and producers, having received the opportunity to independently set prices, change them and (hang up new price tags), then this is already formally an economic act, but

and here real economic changes have not yet occurred, but if higher prices will lead to a reduction in demand, and subsequently production, then these are real changes in economic relations. However, the latter are formed not as a result of the volitional decisions of the subjects (as was the case in our example with setting prices, but in addition to them, as a result of objectively developing relationships (cash money and commodity supply, supply and demand, etc.). Those consequences that objectively develop after a subjective impact on one of the economic values, may be completely different from what the subject expected if he did not take into account the entire complexity of economic relations.Objective processes, changing, lead to the need for subjects to understand them and make appropriate decisions in the economic sphere politicians.

An example of the relationship between economics and politics can be seen in the events that unfolded before our eyes since 1985. The slowdown in the pace of economic development of the USSR and difficulties in solving set tasks led to the realization of the need to accelerate socio-economic development and develop an appropriate economic policy. The emphasis was on technical re-equipment, the primary development of mechanical engineering, and the acceleration of scientific and technological progress. However, the plan could not be implemented due to command, non-democratic methods of economic management. Therefore, the next steps were aimed at democratizing governance. And since economic management was merged with political management and was carried out by a single party-state and economic apparatus, it was only possible to democratize society as a whole, in the unity of its economic, social, political and ideological spheres. On this basis, a radical economic reform was conceived, designed to provide greater independence to enterprises, develop economic accounting, and strengthen economic incentives. The implementation of such an economic policy in the context of large imbalances in the national economy and the absence of self-regulating market mechanisms led to the development of uncontrollable economic processes. All attempts to solve economic problems using old administrative command methods only deepened the development of crisis phenomena. In these economic conditions, a fundamentally new economic policy was proposed, aimed at the transition to a market economy. But it was frozen at the level of concepts, programs, partial innovations that did not fundamentally change the situation. Meanwhile, the economy became increasingly unmanageable, and the crisis deepened. These processes gave rise to political disintegration, which became an independent political factor that actively influenced the economic situation. The former Soviet republics declared independence and introduced a number of economic restrictions on the movement of material resources, goods, money, etc.

If we generalize these processes from the point of view of the relationship between economics and politics, then there is their constant interrelation and interaction: the state of the economy and pressing economic problems determine a certain economic policy, while the implementation of the latter changes the economic situation, which, in turn, requires an appropriate politicians.

A deeper analysis of this interdependence reveals the fundamental importance of economics for politics. All interactions of political and economic changes are ultimately designed to bring managerial, social, political and other structures into line with the achieved level of material forces, to create a development mechanism adequate to this level.

Thus, economics determines politics,

Politics determines the economy, but the deeper the level of the economy, the weaker the influence of politics. The most profound economic processes occur regardless of politics. On the contrary, the most profound political changes are a direct consequence of the economy. Therefore, the fundamental basis for the constant and multi-level interaction between politics and economics is the latter.

Economic policy can be structured in terms of subjects, objects and ways of influencing subjects on an object. The subjects of economic policy in political science are the state, political parties and movements, public organizations, etc. The objects of economic policy are the economic state of society and the economic processes occurring in it. The ways in which subjects influence objects are represented by economic and legal categories that can be subject to volitional change, but at the same time included in the real economic process (taxes, interest rates, prices, etc.). In accordance with this, economic policy can be defined in its various components as tax, price, credit, etc. Due to the fact that economic and legal levers of influence on the economy are included both in the sphere of strong-willed political decisions and in the economic sphere, it occurs in to a certain extent, the merging of methods of influencing an object with the object itself. Thus, tax and monetary policy can be understood as both a mechanism of influence on the economic state of society and direct changes in the objects themselves (taxes, quantity and structure of funds). This is even more clearly manifested in such definitions as foreign economic policy, employment policy, income policy, etc.

The main instrument for implementing economic policy is the state. Therefore, political parties with different economic platforms and concepts are fighting for state power, which allows them to translate the concepts into real life.

The organization of social production with its inherent social division of labor and the underlying property relations is the root of the activity of social groups, the interaction of which, their struggle for their interests, is one of the foundations for the formation of political relations and political activity.

A consequence of the market relations emerging in modern society has been the emergence of new social groups such as small, medium and large entrepreneurs. A certain differentiation can be seen within these layers. Let's say, in the last mentioned, a group formed from the managers of enterprises in the fuel and energy complex, who have become the actual owners and are connected by strong economic ties with part of the state bureaucracy, has its clearly defined boundaries and its own specific interests. A separate group in the same layer is formed by the heads of transformed (but not very significantly) enterprises of the agro-industrial complex.

Within the same layer, some small but influential groups have emerged based on competing financial and financial-industrial structures, each of which is also associated with different groups of the state bureaucracy. Considering the totality of the listed social groups, which represents only part of the social structure of Russian society, we can once again draw attention to the fact that this structure in modern conditions is much better described in terms of the theory of social stratification than using the concept of “class”.

The struggle of social groups, in particular those mentioned above, for their economic interests inevitably moves into the sphere of politics. In order to ensure their interests in the power structures, the adoption of the laws they need, the distribution of state resources beneficial to themselves, the mentioned groups - each on its own or in alliance with each other - create organizations of a more or less pronounced political nature(for example, the “Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs”), pressure groups, which are very characteristic institutions of the political system in modern society, and even parties (the Agrarian Party). Thus, economic interests become political, lead to the creation of political organizations, and as a result, political activity in society turns out to be, to some extent, a direct product of economic factors.

Similarly, the economic interests of other social strata - hired workers, the essence of which is to ensure a higher standard of living, determine a significant part of the content of the political activities of other organizations that are one way or another involved in political life. Trade unions exert corresponding pressure on government structures. Political parties also strive to ensure the interests of these layers, and parties of different and sometimes even opposite political orientations: left, center, and right.

The economic system of a society, its social structure, and political life are more or less adequately reflected on the scale of any local community. Here, too, there is a struggle between various political forces for the possession of power on an appropriate scale, and each of them relies on certain social groups, and therefore seeks to ensure their economic interests. The challenge is to understand the essence of these interests as accurately as possible. Practice shows that they are not always correctly understood by local politicians (as well as by politicians at the national level), and this gives rise to serious errors in determining the goals and methods of political activity.

The connection between economics and politics is also reflected in the fact that the needs of economic development set many policy goals, developed by state authorities, and on a local scale - by local governments. Thus, it was economic necessity that became the main reason that the leadership of the Soviet state in the mid-80s put forward and began to implement the political goals of the so-called perestroika. According to the plan, it was supposed to breathe new strength into the Soviet economy, which was in deep stagnation and extremely ineffective, when its lag was rapidly increasing not only from economically developed countries, but also from many that had recently lagged behind, but began to gain rapid momentum thanks to the advantages of a market economy . The need to change the difficult economic situation gave rise to the mentioned political goals. Today, it is economic needs that dictate the urgent need for government authorities to set political goals that meet these needs. The need to overcome the protracted economic crisis of the last decade, to carry out a structural restructuring of social production and its revival on a new basis - these economic needs require the development of an effective political course, the implementation of which can ensure their satisfaction.

Thus, a significant part of the content of the activities of power structures is determined by economic needs and impulses emanating from the economy. In turn, politics, including such a direction as economic policy, has a significant impact on the economic life of society, on the course of economic development of the country. Thus, the successful economic development of China over the past two decades is the result of a thoughtful policy pursued by the state government, which promptly abandoned utopian experiments, but also did not let go of political power. On the contrary, various kinds of mistakes and miscalculations in politics have a painful impact on economic development. Being largely determined by the economy, politics, in turn, influences the course of its development.

The economy also provides the material resources necessary for the exercise of political power. They are required for the maintenance of the government and administrative bodies themselves, and for the performance of military functions, and for solving social problems, i.e. for the implementation of social policy, which can only be strong if there are sufficient material resources in the hands of the authorities.

So, between economics and politics there is undeniable two-way communication. However, when understanding the nature of the interaction between these two spheres, it is necessary to overcome some simplified schemes that have taken root in our social science. According to these ideas, the economy ultimately determines the functioning and development of all spheres of social life and is the basis of society. Politics, political relations, political institutions, etc. represent, in accordance with this concept, a superstructure over this basis, i.e. are generated by the economy and are influenced by it. They spoke, however, about the relative independence of political phenomena and processes, about their reverse influence on the economy. But all this did not change the main thesis about the determining role of the economy in relation to political phenomena, processes and institutions.

Meanwhile, socio-historical practice does not provide sufficient grounds to confirm this concept. The emergence of various political movements and organizations, the political goals they put forward and the interests they defend are generated by the action of various factors, including in many cases economic factors directly or indirectly. But often the effect of such factors, even if indirect, cannot be identified. For example, what impact of the economy can be seen on the emergence of parties, organizations, movements of a monarchist type that appeared in Russia, Georgia and even in Estonia (which never had its own monarchy), not to mention some parties defending the “interests of sexual minorities” ? What economic need or necessity prompted the national strata in the republics of the former USSR, Yugoslavia to pursue an irreconcilable policy of separatism, isolation and the interests of which classes does this policy express, which - as is obvious to everyone - leads to a deterioration in the economic situation and a decrease in the standard of living of all social groups in all those formed by such way of independent states? If we can still say about the initiators of such a policy, narrow groups of the national political elite, that they are driven by selfish economic interests (also among other reasons), then such economic reasons often cannot be seen in the behavior of the broad masses who follow them. Apparently, the corresponding political phenomena are caused not by economic, but by completely different factors in nature.

Political conflicts and antagonisms cannot always be explained by economic reasons. And here a critical revision of some of the ideas rooted in our social science is necessary.

According to them, the main political conflicts within society (and this is also projected onto interstate relations) are generated social antagonism. The latter is an inevitable consequence of an economic system based on private property and giving rise to the exploitation of man by man, as a result of which society is split into opposing classes, hostile to each other, which are in constant and inescapable - within the framework of this system - struggle among themselves. According to this concept, social antagonism between the working class and the bourgeoisie is especially acute in a capitalist society. Antagonism in political life between opposing forces is a direct consequence, a product of social antagonism. Social antagonism finds its completion and resolution in a revolutionary political explosion, as a result of which the given social system is destroyed. Finally, in accordance with the initial provisions of this theory, the elimination of private property and the transition to socialism eliminates social antagonism.

Historical experience, however, shows that such an interpretation, although it corresponds to some social and political situations, cannot be considered generally valid or universal. Private property in modern capitalist (which is more accurately called post-capitalist) society, while maintaining a dominant position in its economic system, does not in itself give rise to social antagonism between the working class and the bourgeoisie, because the enrichment of entrepreneurs does not lead to the impoverishment of workers, but to their rise ( as well as the whole society) well-being. At the same time, various kinds of social antagonisms arise there (but are also resolved and overcome, albeit painfully, but without revolutionary explosions), the nature of which is by no means connected with private property and the struggle between labor and capital, for example, acute contradictions between individual socio-professional groups or between them and the social system as a whole, contradictions between socio-demographic communities (for example, generational conflicts), clashes between socio-ethnic groups, etc. If we talk about socialism, then, by eliminating private property, it, as it turned out, automatically does not free society from social antagonisms. A deep social contradiction arises primarily between broad layers of workers and the inevitably emerging privileged “new class” - the bureaucracy, the “nomenklatura”, and this antagonism finds a variety of manifestations, including mass protests, despite all the harshness of the political regime.

In the life of any society, confrontations and clashes of political forces occupying opposing positions are not always caused by reasons rooted in the social or economic spheres. Social contradictions also do not always result in confrontation between political forces (which often manifests itself in interethnic clashes). At the same time, political contradictions and clashes are sometimes caused by reasons not of a social or economic nature, but are generated by the own logic of the development of political processes, the relationships of political forces, for example, clashes between political parties and movements regarding the need for the post of president in the state or the type of electoral system.

We can finally call features of organization and functioning state power and local self-government, which are absolutely not determined by the economy. Its influence cannot explain the establishment of the modern political system in Russia, the specifics of the structure of its state power (why it has the post of President, why the Federation Council is formed this way and not otherwise, etc.) and the system of local self-government (for example, why it has established only one level of municipality). It is impossible to explain by reference to economics the activities of both of these power structures in the field of culture, environmental protection, etc.

Even from the few examples given it follows that political events and processes arise primarily under the direct influence of their own causes, internal to the political sphere, which may or may not have economic conditionality and develop according to their inherent patterns, according to their own logic. Consequently, it is impossible and unnecessary to try to explain any political phenomena, events, processes necessarily by the action of economic reasons, even if only “ultimately”. But the above does not exclude the fact that many political phenomena arise under the influence of economic reasons - directly or indirectly. Due to the noted points, political sociology is called upon to find out in each case what specific reasons cause certain political phenomena and processes, and whether there is a connection between them and the functioning of the economic sphere of society.

It unites relations between all social groups, determines the forms, goals, methods of government, and its main tasks.

Economy refers to all economic activities of the state, production processes, methods of distribution, exchange or any other consumption of goods.

The relationship between politics and economics is inextricable; it is a very important problem for the life of any society. This problem has been present since the very beginning of social relations, but is modified at the historical stages of its development.

It becomes especially important at turning points, when one changes to another, carrying with it political views and worldviews.

Politics and economics are directly related, but economics plays a leading role in their relationship. The development of any processes occurring in it determines politics, constitutes its material basis, and, therefore, determines political actions and decisions, which should be determined by the interests of society and individuals.

There is an opinion that a real, correct policy is considered only such a set of groups or relationships that are capable of consciously and rationally using economic laws for the benefit of society.

Politics and economics are capable of the opposite interaction. It was defined by F. Engels. He noted that politics can influence economic processes in three ways:

• Develop in parallel, in the same direction. In this case, the influence of politics on the economy accelerates the development of society.
• Develop in the opposite direction, leading to the collapse of the state.
• Obstruct the development of the economy, which can lead either to failure or to the choice of a different political and economic path.

If politics and economics oppose, as in the last two cases, then the economy is seriously damaged, and human, material, and other resources are wasted.

All three solutions in their pure form are rarely found in real life. Politics and economics are connected more subtly than in theory. An example of this can be the history of the Russian Federation, in which more than once, along with progressive government decisions promoting the development of society, destructive steps were taken.

Politics and economics that do not take into account their interrelationships very quickly collapse completely.

Politics is a solution

Economics is the material basis of politics.

Problems arising in society can be successfully resolved only with competent, timely analysis of them, taking into account the point of view of society, the course of history, and social development. If only a narrow circle of people interested in their own benefit solves problems, then the state can quickly end its existence, and the economy gets out of control. The consequences of such phenomena are the emergence of conflicts and instability (social, political).

A policy that ignores economic laws will achieve the same result.

Politics and economics are interconnected in many ways. Violation of this entails negative consequences. Being “eternal”, the question of the relationship between these concepts at each historical stage of social and state development sounds in a new way, especially acutely - in Russia is going through such a difficult time today.

Today, the state of the country’s economy is affected by all the previously made political mistakes: the long-term dominance of the command-administrative system, illiteracy that took place during perestroika, thoughtless borrowing from the West, etc.

What can lead Russia out of the crisis today is not political expediency, but the decisions taken.