Property relations permeate all relations between people in the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services. The system of property relations underlies economic interests.

Economic interests are the incentives for people’s economic activity, determined by their place in the system of property relations, as well as their inherent needs.

The desire of people to satisfy growing material and spiritual needs pushes them to active economic activity, to improve production, and to introduce the achievements of science and technology.

Thus, economic interests act as the engine of economic progress.

Interests have a complex structure. A person simultaneously acts both as an individual and as a representative of certain strata of society. In accordance with this, he is the bearer of various interests. First of all, they differ in motivation. The direct type of motivation involves interest in the labor process itself and its results. The indirect type of motivation is based on material interest and prestige of a particular economic activity. Finally, the compulsory type of motivation is based on fear and obligation; this type of motivation prevails in conditions of social and political tension in society, when people’s living standards and confidence in the future decline.

Depending on the subjects of interest, personal, collective and public interests can be distinguished. Some interests may conflict with others. Thus, a person driven by proprietary interests can illegally take possession of someone else’s property and come into conflict with the interests of other people or the enterprise at which he works. The interests of employers in maximizing profits may conflict with the interests of employees seeking to increase their wages, as well as with the interests of society seeking to comply with the principles of social justice. The state and law are called upon to prevent contradictions generated by property and regulate the behavior of agents of production. In past centuries, conflicts of economic interests were often resolved through revolutionary means. In modern society, conflicts of this kind are resolved peacefully on the basis of the legislation of a particular country. Coordination of personal, collective, public, and economic interests is the basis for building an effective economic mechanism that stimulates intensive economic development. The system of economic relations must be built in such a way as to encourage people to work more efficiently and more fully satisfy social needs. This problem can be solved through the active use of socially oriented market relations in combination with government regulation of the economy.

There are various ways to influence people's interests. This may be non-economic coercion (forced forced labor of slaves, serfs); economic influence on people's behavior through material incentives for their activities; and the moral and social stimulation of activity.

The government's economic policy is determined by its economic interests.

In political economy, interests are considered as a category in which production relations between individual participants in social production (individuals, their groups, class communities) are manifested. Interests are divided into general, collective and personal.

General interest sys develop as the interests of the entire society, as the need to satisfy its total needs (stadiums, hospitals, schools, etc.).

Collective interest They express the need to satisfy the material needs of groups of people united by the same position in the system of social production (factory club, trade union health resort, etc.).

Personal interests express the need to satisfy the material needs of an individual and are determined by the socio-economic conditions of his life.

The need to realize economic interests is an incentive to work, the engine of economic life, which is reflected in Hegel’s well-known statement: “Interests move the lives of peoples.” In order for interests to be satisfied, people's economic activities must proceed in accordance with economic laws and be expressed in the following cause-and-effect relationship: economic laws - economic needs - economic interests - economic activity.

Like all links in this chain, economic interests are an objective phenomenon.

In Economics, economic interests are interpreted from a subjective position, as an element of people’s consciousness. At the same time, the driving force of the economy is considered not to be public, but personal interests, through the implementation of which general balance in society is achieved. Each business entity strives to do what is beneficial to it. Entrepreneurs set as their goal to maximize profits or, alternatively, minimize losses; owners of material resources try to set a high price for them; owners of their labor force want to receive high wages for it. In turn, consumers strive to purchase goods at the lowest price. Consequently, the motive of personal interest gives direction and order to the functioning of the economy, which without such interest would be extremely chaotic.

The public interest is seen as the benchmark for determining whether the policies pursued by all business participants are “good” in terms of their impact on economic efficiency and the consumer. For example, if a company sets a price for a product that brings only a “fair” profit, i.e. profits sufficient to ensure efficient supply of that product, then the firm is acting in the public interest. On the contrary, if a company increases its income at the expense of the consumer by charging an inflated price, then this is contrary to the interests of society.

Economic interests are a general form of manifestation of economic needs. The interaction of economic interests constitutes the main content of the economic life of society. Hence the urgent need to develop principles for the optimal combination of the interests of individuals and social groups, their harmonization. This is perhaps the main task of economic science and practice.

A one-sided view of economic interest allows us to identify only a certain set of its characteristics, without providing a complete picture of all its diverse content. Research on economic interests is very important, since each direction of economic and, more broadly, social thought, from the standpoint of its inherent scientific principles, makes its own special contribution to the development of the theory and methodology of knowledge of economic interest. At the same time, it seems increasingly obvious that it is necessary to unite the efforts of economists from all schools in order to complete the formation of a theory of economic interests, which would form the basis of a new paradigm of economic theory

Today in science there is no consensus on the concept and nature of economic interests and ways to coordinate them. Despite a significant number of works related to the analysis of various aspects of economic interests, a number of insufficiently studied theoretical issues remain. Among them: the historical, epistemological and ontological nature of economic interest, its determining factors; forms and conditions for realizing interests in modern conditions; the role and place of interests in the economic system of society; patterns of formation, functioning and development of the system of economic interests; trends of its transformation.

Many scientists agree that the form of manifestation of economic needs is economic interests. Economic interests serve as a mediating link between the needs of subjects and their incentive for production and other social practices; they are a socially and historically determined need to satisfy needs. In turn, needs constitute the material basis of economic interests, since interest is born in the process of specific actions aimed at satisfying needs. From here it is clear that when studying the concept of “economic interest”, one should, first of all, pay attention to such categories as “stimulus” and “stimulation”.

In the economic literature there is no single approach to the issue of forms of manifestation and implementation of economic interests. In some studies, the forms of their manifestation and implementation are identified with any economic practice. According to such ideas, specific forms of manifestation of economic interests are incentives, various forms of incentives, and financial results of activities. Meanwhile, the characteristics of the categories “stimulus” and “stimulation”, as well as the interests themselves, are ambiguous. Thus, incentives and interests are often identified, and incentives themselves are interpreted as the objective basis of economic interests.

Without going into details of this issue, one can join the position of those authors who believe that incentives are conscious interests, and stimulation is a system of certain measures and actions through which economic interests are realized. Stimulation is always an action, a mechanism that encourages a subject to move in a certain direction, as a result of which his interest can and should be realized, without which this action would be meaningless. Stimulation encourages certain actions and, depending on its forms, can be material and moral. The implementation of economic interests (stimulation) is in many ways a self-adjusting process.

Thus, we should recognize the fact that economic interests, having arisen, are realized, and the most important form of their implementation is stimulation. Economic stimulation is a factor that determines targeted actions, a means by which one of the subjects of interest influences another, for which various economic forms are used, including pricing, wages, lending, management, taxation and others.

Economic interests affect all spheres of human activity, forming a complex multi-level system, which manifests itself, among other things, in the form of economic needs. There is no single view on the relationship between interests and needs. Some researchers consider interests to be an expression of needs (or conscious needs), others believe that the concepts of “need” and “interest” are identical. The identification of the categories “need” and “interest” in economic science has acquired an almost “official” status, as evidenced by the definition given in the political economic dictionary: “economic interests are the objectively necessary material needs of a society, class, social group or individual.” It seems to us that such an identification of the concepts of “need” and “interest” is unacceptable, “otherwise one of these categories would not be necessary.” A category has the right to exist only if it reflects the specifics of economic phenomena that are not covered by other categories. Many researchers reasonably believe that:

Firstly, need is a broader concept, since it is a general category for organic and social forms of movement of matter and expresses the properties of both the animal world and society. The concept of “interest” is applicable only to the characteristics of social life.

Secondly, these concepts are “targeted” at different objects, “...need,” says A.G. Zdravomyslov is focused, first of all, on the subject of its satisfaction, while interest is directed towards those social relations, institutions, institutions on which the distribution of objects, values, goods that ensure the satisfaction of needs depends.” Interests reflect not only needs, as a product of the natural world, but also the social side of living conditions; they are associated with economic relations.

Thirdly, need and interest play functionally different roles: need acts as a factor in the development of production, and interest acts as a factor in the development of society itself. In particular, the “interest” is aimed at increasing efficiency, at the optimal ratio of costs and profits, but the need does not have such a focus. “Interest” plays a social role, focusing the possibilities of resolving the contradiction between unlimited needs and limited conditions for their implementation, in particular through the comparison of costs and results.

At the same time, the point of view about the relationship of economic interests and needs as an objectively existing form of relations that arises in the process of the activities of various subjects of these relations is widely recognized.

It is known that man and society act to satisfy certain needs, based on their economic interests. Interests are the impetus for the development of production. Economic interests continuously appear before production as an ideal image of the means of production, consumer goods, and services necessary for people, as a “social order” for production. The production process is the main stage in satisfying economic needs, a process that generates new interests leading to new needs.

Already many thousands of years ago, since the advent of Homo habilis, the frontier of consumption began to expand. But it was still physiological in nature. In the process of evolution, this boundary went beyond the limit of purely physiological need. In modern times, the needs for beautiful clothes, delicious food, and the pursuit of fashion and prestige are so urgent that employment in the labor market and the development of both large and small businesses depend on them.

It is worth repeating and noting that economic needs are part of human needs, the satisfaction of which requires the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services. They are the ones who participate in the active interaction between production and the unsatisfied needs of people, creating the preconditions for new interests, complicating the system of economic interests with each turn. As for production, it directly affects needs on several levels at once.

It creates specific benefits and thereby ensures the satisfaction of certain human needs. The satisfaction of these needs and the already consumed useful thing, in turn, lead to the emergence of new requests. In turn, the acceleration of scientific and technological progress globally updates the objective world and way of life, and generates qualitatively new needs. Needs, being a product of production, like a “genie out of a bottle,” increase, become more complex (the law of rising needs operates in society), come into conflict with production and require its further development, and the further development of production gives rise to more and more new needs that again come into conflict with production, and so on endlessly.

Production largely influences the ways in which useful things are used, and thereby shapes a certain everyday culture. In turn, economic needs have an inverse impact on production.

Firstly, needs are an internal motivation and a specific guideline for creative activity.

Secondly, people’s needs tend to change quickly in quantitative and qualitative terms. Because of this, economic needs often outpace production.

Thirdly, the leading role of needs is clearly manifested in the fact that they cause the movement of economic activity - from the lowest level to increasingly higher levels, which again complicates the system of economic interests and relations of society.

We can, in a certain sense, view the entire history of the economy, and society as a whole, as the history of the formation of an increasingly higher level of needs. Modern civilization (the current stage of development of the material and spiritual culture of society) knows several levels of needs:

Physiological needs (food, water, clothing, shelter, reproduction);

Security needs (protection from external enemies and criminals, help with illness, protection from poverty);

The need for social contacts (communication with people who have the same interests; friendship and love);

Needs for respect (recognition from other people, self-esteem, acquiring a certain social position);

The need for self-development (to improve all human capabilities and abilities).

The listed forms of human needs were first clearly formulated and ordered by A. Maslow in his so-called pyramid of needs.

A. Maslow pointed out that a person should be considered not only as an economic person, but also as a social person. Some economic schools viewed man as a purely economic being, in isolation from his social life and cultural environment. The result of the conflict between traditional approaches to the study of economic man and social man is a multitude of opinions and theories that are inconsistent with each other.

The needs of a person as a social being can be satisfied in various ways: in particular, the range of existing technologies for the production of the same material goods and the principles of their distribution among peoples at different stages of development, from indigenous tribes to higher civilizations, is enormous. The role of interest in this dynamic is extremely important. For example, if there had been no desire to satisfy needs “at the least cost,” the trajectories of social progress might have been different. Thus, interest is presented as a meaningful side of the process of social development.

The progress of society is clearly manifested in the action of the law of increasing needs. This law expresses the objective (independent of the will and desires of people) need for growth and improvement of human needs with the development of production and culture, i.e. the following axiom applies: “a high level of production... always entails a high level of consumption. Some scientists argue that people’s needs are constantly growing without limit. However, in reality, the increase in needs does not consist in a simple proportional growth of all their types. have a certain “limit of increase” of the needs of the lower (physiological) order, and the demands of the higher order - social and intellectual (spiritual) - are practically not sated. Man with his needs, goals, interests, ultimately, is the highest goal of any social production. develops its existing powers and abilities on the basis and in the process of material and intangible, spiritual production.

To summarize, it is worth giving some summary of the topics covered:

Interests are one of the most comprehensive and defining phenomena in the life of society, with which the everyday economic activities of people are directly related. But conceptually, interests, especially in their economic aspect, still remain a category whose place and role in economic theory require significant clarification.

Economic interests are the starting point for determining all other forms of interests. Economic interest is a real, conditioned by property relations and the principle of economic benefit, motive and incentive for social actions to satisfy dynamic systems of ideal needs. It is a creation and social manifestation of need. Interest arises when the satisfaction of a need is perceived as a specific goal (maximization of profit, appropriation, use or possession of a certain good). Consequently, economic interests are the conscious needs of the existence of various economic entities.

Economic interests are not identical to needs. Interest acts as a central link in the “need-interest-motive (stimulus)” chain. Economic interests are expressed in set goals and actions aimed at satisfying needs. Needs and ways to satisfy them reflect the reason and form of manifestation of economic interests.

Economic interest always expresses the appropriate level and dynamics of satisfying needs.

Economic interest is the reason and condition for the interaction of economic entities. Each individual economic relationship first exists potentially, in the form of expectations of a person’s not yet satisfied demands.

Economic interest is a dynamic system of economic relations determined by property relations to satisfy the existing and developing material needs of society, a group, and an individual.

Economic interest is the behavior of people based on the principle of economic benefit. Economic interests are objective, because economic relations themselves are objective.

Each person has different interests. Driven by his own interests, a person can come into conflict with the interests of the entire society, since in every economic relationship there are elements of struggle and cooperation. The interaction of interests is the driving force of socio-economic development.

The main interest of a market economy in the hierarchy of interests is self-interest, which characterizes the most important feature of a modern market economy.

Thus, interest is a category that reflects the self-affirmation of the subject and characterizes his social status. Social status is characterized by the position of the subject in the system of economic relations. The motive is the subject’s desire to fulfill his interest; it is a kind of impulse to begin action. The formation of motives in subjects, as it were, completes the process of realizing interest. The very realization of economic interests consists in the improvement of one or another social action, during which the subject seeks to increase its social status, that is, its position in the system of economic relations.

The category “economic interest” is more clearly revealed in the relationship of needs and interests. It is generally accepted that need means a lack of something, a need for something for the normal existence of an individual, a social group, a state, or society. The existing focus on creating and assimilating needs acts as interest. The presence of a need does not yet explain a person’s actions and behavior. Needs only determine activity, but the very content of the direction of activity is determined by interests. Identical needs can be satisfied by different actions; on its basis, interests of different content and nature can be formed. To study interests means not only to find out the content of needs, but also to determine possible ways, methods and forms of their satisfaction.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Subject and method of economic theory. Benefits, needs, resources. Society's production capabilities and economic choice

State educational institution.. higher professional education.. Petrozavodsk State University..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

Economic relations and interests

“If the economists of the backward school understood the inevitability of the influence of the state on economic relations, they would probably, instead of empty talk about a utopian system of non-intervention, begin to define truly useful objects and truly reasonable limits of inevitable intervention.”

N.G. Chernyshevsky

The key issue in the economic policy of any state is increasing the rate of economic growth. It depends on many factors. The decisive one was and remains a person interested in the results of his work. Economic interest expresses the objective need for an active position of the employee in the process of economic activity, the reason for people’s social actions and the motives for these actions.

With the socio-economic development of society, there is a constant improvement in the production relations that make up the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure is based and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond.

Since economic interest is directly related to production relations, which do not remain unchanged and develop, the economic content of interest changes in accordance with the level of their development.

Bogdanov said that the development of humanity begins with a phase of absence of collective differentiation, when “the group lives as a whole” and, accordingly, thinking has a “solid” character, not yet knowing the personal “I”. He criticizes the idealization of this primitive collectivism, since “the simplicity and elementaryness of life do not yet constitute its harmony, because harmony is the reconciliation of contradictions, and not their simple absence, the unification of the diverse, and not simple monotony.” Gradually, as experience expands, the initial homogeneity of the group is lost and division into “ organizer"group life and mass" performers", a new type of relationship between people is being established.

Industrial relations are the attitudes of people in the process of production and distribution. They are based on relations of ownership of the means of production. They determine the socio-economic nature of a given method of production, the entirety of its production relations and manifest themselves primarily as economic interests (public, collective and personal), as incentives for activity determined by the place of people in the system of property relations and social division of labor.

All connections that connect human unions are divided into interests and relationships. Political and economic life is not something integral and homogeneous. It is dominated by polar opposite principles: in the political - the general, in the economic - personal material interest.

Interest- a purposeful attitude of a person (class, society as a whole) towards any object, its needs. Interest manifests itself as an impulse, a volitional impulse that directs his actions. Conscious interest acts as a motive, an intentional, consciously set goal. In sociology, people's interest is considered as the driving force behind the activities of individuals, which reflect their social relationships.

Defining the differences between interests and relationships, V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote that some elements of community life are the motivations or needs that cause communication between people, others are the very norms or constant rules established by habit or coercion. He called the first interests, the second relationships. Political and moral ideas are of one order; life, relationships - different. It is impossible to live between two opposing orders, the order of ideas and the order of relationships.

Interest is the most powerful engine of economic, scientific, technical and social progress. The need to take it into account forces the use in the management of social production of a number of measures that realize these interests and represent economic incentives. Economic interests are always objective, whether we are talking about an individual as their bearer, or about a collective, a social group, or society as a whole.

Economic growth and increased efficiency of social production are closely related to the system of economic interests that encourage the social activity of workers. When an individual worker or a work collective is interested in productive labor, then high growth rates are ensured, and vice versa, the rate falls when this interest decreases or disappears. If economic policy goes against the interests of the bulk of the population, this almost automatically leads to serious difficulties in the economy.

Thus, despite the growth of productive forces in the 70-80s of the last century, the state of the agro-industrial complex remained ineffective: capital productivity decreased, material intensity increased, and labor productivity grew slowly. The reason is the lag of economic relations from the rapidly growing productive forces, the lack of appropriate economic interest. The management system and economic mechanism did not meet the requirements of life and did not stimulate producers to increase production volumes and increase its efficiency.

An employee's interest in high work results increases his involvement in solving production problems - the primary condition for success. Therefore, the main thing in the problem of economic growth is the system of incentives, taking into account economic interests, and ensuring on this basis the social activity of the population. “The idea invariably disgraced itself as soon as it was separated from interests.”

Human society is made up of two eternally conflicting principles: public interest and limitless private benefit. There is no gradualness and constancy in their development; they are characterized by discontinuity. Social freedom expands and contracts, and personal self-awareness rises and falls. Public and personal interests are constantly in conflict. Self-interest by its nature tends to oppose the common good. In contrast to the state order, based on authority and obedience, economic life is an area of ​​personal freedom and personal initiative. Morally, by fulfilling his duty to society, a person ultimately serves the general interest, which develops as the total interest of society, as the need to satisfy its total needs; collective - express the need of groups of people in the production system, which creates a community of interests of a given social group; personal - express the needs of individuals and are determined by his socio-economic life needs. The differences between these interests lie in the area of ​​distribution. The system of economic interests is realized through overcoming a system of contradictions. These include:

First. The contradiction is based on the principle “today is better than tomorrow.” Its meaning is that in order to raise people's living standards, improve working conditions, ensure growth in productivity and production efficiency, and create conditions for the comprehensive development of the individual, it is necessary to invest in production and personnel training. Without investments, and they represent well-functioning consumption, economic growth and an increase in the living standards of workers are impossible. Therefore, it is important to determine the correct balance between consumption and accumulation.

Second. Scientific and technological progress as the most important condition for increasing the efficiency of production and its competitiveness leads to a reduction in individual forms of production, requires expanding the scale of production to the level of rational use of its factors, the transition to collective-group forms of organizing labor, production, and exchange. Collective ownership of the means of production objectively gives rise to a community of interests and goals, unity of action.

Third. The objective law of the primacy of large-scale production over small-scale production is opposed to the primacy of “mine is better than ours.” Despite the high interest of the employee in the conditions of individual production, small commodity producers cannot withstand competition with large ones, as they are unable to effectively use industrial technologies. Consequently, the larger the production, the greater the contradictions between personal and collective interests.

Fourth. There is a contradiction between personal interest and social justice, on the one hand, and the efficiency of social production and the growth of labor productivity, on the other. Yes, freedom of private activity and social justice are important links in economic relations. Social justice is achieved when each producer has a personal material interest (benefit).

But “... no matter how important the point of view of social justice is,” wrote Tugan-Baranovsky, “we must not forget a fundamentally completely different point of view - productivity. ...And if the transfer of land into the hands of farmers resulted in a reduction in agricultural productivity, this would threaten the country with great danger. A sufficiently high level of agricultural productivity is necessary from the point of view of social justice. ... Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the division of large estates between numerous small producers in itself, regardless of any conditions, tends to reduce productivity.” (“How can we organize peasant life.” Penza. 1997. Collection of written evidence for 130 years. P. 226).

Fifth. Diversity of interests of rural producers and other areas of the agro-industrial complex. The meaning of this contradiction is that despite the unity of purpose for all sectors of the agro-industrial complex - providing the country's population with food in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices, each sector is controlled by different uncoordinated regulators and has its own interests.

Under these conditions, one of the most important tasks of improving the economic mechanism is to ensure a combination of personal interests with public ones, using them as a driving force for accelerating the rate of economic growth, increasing production efficiency and labor productivity.

The level of personal development determines the potential and power of social production; it is the personal development of workers, their experience, knowledge and hard work that social progress is largely measured and assessed. Self-interest is the desire to own land and other means of production. Full ownership of them is called ownership. Production is at its best when the product is the property of the person who produces it.

The wealth of a country is created by the labor of its citizens, and people participating in social production are the main productive force of society. Their production experience and knowledge, hard work and activity, level of development determine the economic potential of social production. It is the personal development of the population that social progress is largely measured and assessed.

The growth of social labor productivity can be higher when self-supporting economy forms the social economy of labor. Such a connection between local indicators and general ones opens up additional opportunities for the implementation of initiatives of those working in the direction necessary for society, ensuring compliance with the necessary national economic proportions while maximizing the growth of social labor productivity and realizing the material interests of workers.

N.D. Kondratyev in his work “Main problems of economic statistics and dynamics” wrote that society is a real collection of people, and man is an element of this collection. From an individual point of view, the struggle for life and for its level comes down to the struggle for the satisfaction of personal needs, therefore, individual need is a completely objective property of a person, and it is obvious that with the development of human society the content of interests becomes more complex. Since society is a collection of people that exists thanks to connections and relationships between them, the properties of this collection cannot be understood without taking into account the psychophysical properties of a person. However, a person, as an element of the system, himself is influenced by the conditions of social life and changes under their influence. In society, these connections and relationships of people exist, first of all, on the basis of their activities or behavior, the motives of which are needs. Since there is a community of people who perform diverse acts of behavior, they inevitably enter into various connections with each other. Entering into these connections and relationships, they are influenced by the conditions of social life and change under their influence.

Cooperation or the performance of common work on the basis of a simple or complex division of labor is the basis of social production, representing not just a connection between people, but a connection - interaction. This connection brings the collaborators closer together mentally. To one degree or another, their individual traits are smoothed out and common features appear, making them as if part of some unifying whole, a common rhythm in work is created that subordinates them. And if cooperation produces more in its effect than the corresponding simple sum of unrelated individuals, then this is the undoubted result not only of the purely material connection of the collaborators and the technical advantages of cooperation, but also of the said psychic connection. The fact of belonging of each of the participants in the collaboration and the connected totality appears” (47-49). For this reason, each historical stage, based on the needs and objective capabilities of the country, requires its own approach to solving its socio-economic problems, developing appropriate goals for economic development, investment, structural, financial, scientific, technical and social policies.

The problem of property and interests existed in different socio-economic formations. Aristotle, Marx, Chayanov, Plekhanov and others wrote about it. “Personal interest is the main engine of production,” wrote N.G. Chernyshevsky. - The energy of production, which serves as a measure for its success, is always strictly proportional to the degree of participation of personal interest in production. It seems that we are speaking thoughts that no economist has ever deviated from... ...production is in the most favorable conditions when the products are the property of the worker working on his production. In other words, the employee must be the owner of the thing that comes out of his hands” (N. Chernyshevsky, P.S.S. vol. VI. p. 12).

Economic interests motivate people to engage in productive activities and represent economic incentives that drive economic life. Being the motivating reason for human actions, the motivating motive for production activity, they are determined by the place of people in the system of property relations and the social division of labor. Interests, like the economic relations of people, do not fall from the sky ready-made, but are formed in the process of development of social productive forces.

With different methods of production, different production relations develop between people in the process of production and distribution, and, accordingly, different economic interests.

Connections and relationships between people in society exist primarily on the basis of their activities or behavior. Behavior is always motivated by needs. N.D. Kondratiev wrote: “It is easy to see that cooperation, once it has been established, is, first of all, a material, physical connection between people. By performing this or that work together by physically influencing things, people are physically, materially connected with them, and through them with each other.”

N.A. Berdyaev wrote that in relation to economic life, two opposing principles can be established. One says: pursue your personal interest and this will contribute to the economic development of the whole, it will be beneficial for society, the nation, the state. The second says: serve others, society, the whole, and then you will receive everything you need for life. In a word, if you bring benefit to the hive, you will bring it to the bee. Such motivation for work is more consistent with human dignity. But this problem cannot only be a problem of a new organization of society; it is inevitably a problem of a new mental structure of a person, a problem of a new person who cannot be prepared mechanically. We need spiritual re-education of a person” (N.A. Berdyaev. “The Origins and Meaning of Russian Communism.” Publishing house “Science”. 1990). To give birth to such a person, it is necessary to raise the cultural and general educational level of citizens, to develop new social values ​​and a common worldview. Bourgeois political economy, which invented, as Berdyaev said, economic man and eternal economic laws, considers the second principle utopian, because social justice is achieved, they say, only when each producer has a personal material interest (benefit), when he, at his own discretion, disposes of what he produces. products. According to this premise, the commodity producer, not being the owner of the means of production, becomes enslaved and cannot consider the produced product his own. Not labor for oneself, but the produced product can be “one’s own” only in the case when all three factors of production: owner, master and worker are combined in one person, i.e. when the owner of the land cultivates it with his own hands without hiring hired labor.

According to opponents of large-scale production, only small private enterprise is capable of managing efficiently, wisely using production resources, and firmly connecting peasants with the land and other means of production. Without this, they believe, there can be no rational renewal of society, revival of the countryside, emancipation of the economy and the necessary dynamics in its development. They are not at all embarrassed that this path leads to a primitive subsistence economy, which in reality means nothing more than the strengthening of the most primitive, crudest and most merciless forms of exploitation of the producer.

I think that the question of which direction our agriculture will develop: within the framework of small-scale production or mainly on the basis of large enterprises, cooperatives, and integrated formations has long been resolved by world science and practice in favor of large-scale production. The WHALES advertised by some scientists are just reformist romanticism and have long since sunk into oblivion.

A.V. Chayanov, substantiating the trends of the so-called labor-consumer balance of the peasant economy, wrote that “a person who works on the land with his own labor is not an entrepreneur. His farming is purely natural...”

The form of management, when the owner, owner and worker were united in one person, took place only at the early stage of capitalism.

Scientific and technological progress requires increasingly higher costs of labor and capital, highly productive equipment and technologies, deepening the division of labor, and, consequently, a transition from an individual to a collective-group form of organization of labor, production and exchange. An increasingly large part of the cultivated land is cultivated by hired workers who do not control the results of their labor and therefore are not interested in it. At the same time, economic contradictions arise between the owner and hired workers regarding the intensity of work and wages. The owner is interested in greater work intensity and lower wages for the worker; the employee, on the contrary, strives to work less and receive more.

A. Smith wrote: “In that primitive state of society that precedes the emergence of private ownership of land and the accumulation of capital, the entire product of labor belongs to the worker. He does not have to share with either the farmer or the owner. However, such a primitive state of society, in which the worker receives the entire product of his labor, could not be preserved after the emergence of private ownership of land and the accumulation of capital. This state of affairs has passed. ...The product of labor, or the value of the product of labor, no longer belongs to the worker (Russian translation, vol. I, pp. 60-61). And further: “Since all the land in one country or another has become private property, landowners, like all other people, want to reap where they did not sow, and begin to demand rent even for the natural fruits of the earth... He (the worker) must give up to the landowner a part of what he collects or produces with his labor. This part, or, what is the same thing, the price of this part, constitutes ground rent...” (ibid., p. 47) (Marx - 49).

Thus, as A. Smith said, only in the primitive era the farmer is both master and worker at the same time. The position that the farmer can dispose of the received products and income at his own discretion involuntarily calls us back to the primitive era. The effectiveness of large-scale production is evidenced by the experience of developed countries. So, due to the lack of competitiveness of small enterprises in 1950-1995. The number of US farms has decreased by almost three times, in some years up to 200 thousand of them disappeared. Per 100 hectares of land they require 5-10 times more equipment and other resources, labor is used less efficiently, and output per worker is significantly lower.

Current Russian experience also shows that many large enterprises and integrated associations using scientific and technological progress are achieving high economic performance.

Today, the most important problem is to get the employee as interested as possible in the results of his work, to bring the employee’s personal interest closer to the social, collective one. The main question: how to ensure the motivation of a farmer who is not the owner of the means of production, how to combine two forces: “mine is better than ours” and “the primacy of large-scale production over small-scale”, how to ensure the interest of a person working either for the owner-owner, or how member of a cooperative based on joint means of production. Science, instead of abstract reasoning about property and interests, should look for ways to solve this particular issue, i.e. increasing the interest of employees in a large enterprise.

Private land ownership leads to the fact that most agricultural land is cultivated not by owners who have a direct interest in improvements, but by hired workers who, by improving the land, benefit not themselves, but the owner, and therefore have the least interest in the results of improvements. Therefore, cooperatives are more conducive to the success of agriculture than private land ownership.

N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “Inevitable economic laws are an invention of bourgeois political economy. There are no such laws. Marxism crushed these laws, although not completely.” History, which already seemed to be placed within a doctrinal framework, each time made turns that led it away from the networks woven by the limited human mind” (N.A. Berdyaev. “The Origins of Communism.” Publishing house “Science”. 1990. P. 119).

The transition to socialist principles of management required a new motivation for work, a new collective person. The work to create such a person was carried out constantly. “The struggle for socialism,” wrote A. Bogdanov, “is at the same time positive creative work - the creation of new and new elements of socialism in the proletariat itself, in its internal relations, in its everyday living conditions: the development of a socialist proletarian culture (A. A. Bogdanov “On proletarian culture”. Moscow-Leningrad, 1925. P. 96).

Due to the Christian understanding of life by Russians as serving not oneself, but the great whole, it was easier to create a new person in our country than in Western countries, where the bourgeois psychology of individualism took deep roots. In the Soviet Union, as a result of a well-thought-out social policy, a new position was gradually created for young people, who were able to enthusiastically devote themselves to the implementation of five-year plans, ready to go to great construction projects in Siberia, to develop virgin lands. These people understood the task of economic development not as personal interest, but as serving a common cause. Unfortunately, due to subjective reasons, this process gradually began to fade. And yet we can say that socialism has proven the possibility of the existence of interest based on naked individualism.

Theoretical ideas of economic interests and incentives, since ancient times, have been studied by many authors, while considering the organization of the economy, commodity production, labor and the standard of living of people. In such a study, the main place was occupied by the conclusions that “... the comprehensive nature of the development of the personality of citizens” “... becomes one of the most important goals of production, and personality acts as the main form of wealth.”

An important question: where is the worker more interested in the results of labor - when he uses the means of production owned by the “owner”, or in a cooperative, with joint collective ownership?

On this occasion we read from Academician A. Nikonov: “The depravity of the Soviet, state system of agrarian relations, the reason for the crisis, and, in fact, the slow agony, was that a person, deprived of property and economic freedom, of any right to choose, had no incentive to show his abilities, was not interested in working well." But excuse me, why was it only under the Soviet system of agrarian relations that a person was deprived of any right of choice, had no incentive to show the ability and interest to work well, and do hired workers on a large American farm (mostly Mexicans) have the right to choose, have an incentive to show their abilities? ? It seems that to please the detractors of socialism, A. Nikonov is being dishonest here. But this is from another story, which has nothing to do with science.

When in 1991, at a Soviet-American symposium, our democrats began to squeal about what awaited Russia in the near future in a free market environment, talking about the “Japanese economic miracle,” the Japanese billionaire Heroshi Takawama gave them an excellent rebuke: “You’re not talking about the main thing.” . About your leading role in the world. In 1939, you Russians were smart, and we Japanese were fools. And in 1955 (after Stalin’s death!) we grew wiser, and you turned into 5-year-old children. Our entire economic system is almost completely copied from yours, the only difference being that we have capitalism, private producers, and we have never achieved growth of more than 15%, while you, with public ownership of the means of production, reached 30% or more. All our companies display your slogans from the Stalin era.”

At one time, N.G. Chernyshevsky wrote: “We must not forget that the preference for collective ownership to the unlimited expansion of private land ownership is based primarily on the fact that collective ownership seems to be the only way to preserve every villager-owner in the rank of land owner” (Chernyshevsky, t 4. P. 95).

Neither the Russian landowner nor the English lord worked on their land. K. Marx was right when he said that private property separates the owner and worker from the land. The owner of the land can live his whole life in Constantinople, receiving tribute from the land, which is located in Switzerland. Both the manager and the workers are hired people, they think only about wages, they are not at all concerned about the effect of investments in land and the overall final results. The majority of Russian landowners lived in St. Petersburg or even Paris, drawing funds from their estates for a wild life. From the diary of the poet K.N. Batyushkov, who was the owner of a number of estates, we see that, while living in St. Petersburg, he became acquainted with the state of the situation in his villages according to the notes of the manager and every month demanded money: “If there are still souls not in mortgage, then send a certificate”, “Is it possible to pledge the redeemed 1815 souls again and count them for the amount that I now have to pay?” In a letter to N.I. Gnedich, he writes: “I’ll pawn part of the estate and go to foreign lands,” “Petersburg is an abyss that swallows everything,” “Dear friend, try to sell Vanka, and with his wife, even for 1000,” “ Is it possible to sell the wasteland to pay off the debt?

And one more question: is it only property that attracts a person to work? Hired labor has no interest only when the salary does not pay for itself. If a person can earn a higher salary as a hired worker than by working for himself on his own land, such a person gives up his land and goes to the city. Today, in both Europe and America, young people are less and less engaged in agricultural work, more and more land is leased, and their owners prefer to engage in non-farm activities as hired workers. During the 10 years of the Stolypin reform, peasants were forced to sell more than 3 million hectares of land. Over the years of the current reform, more than 80% of agricultural land has passed into private hands. But already now more than half of the workers do not have land ownership, i.e. sold their land shares and became hired workers. It is permissible to ask the question: “Has the interest in the work of peasant farm laborers increased compared to collective farmers?” I'm sure it hasn't increased. By the way, the low interest of collective farmers was largely explained by reasons beyond this form of management.

Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Iowa State Agricultural Bank J. Crystal, when meeting with Russian specialists in 1991, said: “The American saying says that you need to cut the wool where it grows. It seems you don’t really take this simple wisdom into account. In my opinion, Soviet agriculture is, in principle, not bad. Collective and state farms are promising forms of business organization. The severity of your food problems begins outside the farms, that is, in the sphere of purchasing raw materials, their transportation, storage, processing and trade. From the dissolution of collective and state farms they will not decrease, but on the contrary, they will increase.” Indeed, collective and state farms and the entire system of relations needed certain adjustments to the economic mechanism.

The alienation of labor from the management of the means and results of production led to the fact that workers did not feel responsible for either one or the other. Marx believed that the replacement of state property with private property would put an end to the alienation of people from the means of production and the product produced. But the nationalization of enterprises does not automatically transform these relations into socialist ones. Workers experience alienation if their personal material interests do not coincide with the interests of the enterprise. Hence the main task is to ensure encouragement of personal initiative.

The disadvantage of agricultural policy in the pre-reform period was the ineffective economic mechanism aimed at stimulating the production of cheap products. The estimated indicators, although important for production, were not final, for example, the number of livestock, the timing of work. Farms tried to preserve livestock at any cost; even with a shortage of feed, they kept livestock until the beginning of next year. This is evidenced by data on the sale of livestock and poultry to the state: in the whole country in January 1986, they were sold to the state in live weight by almost 40% more than in December 1985, in January 1987, compared to December 1986, - almost by 32%. A similar situation, only more pronounced, existed in the regions.

Sales of livestock and poultry to the state (thousand tons)

Region	December 1986	January 1987	January 1987 as a percentage of December 1986
Krasnodar region
Tatar ASSR
Belgorod region
Lipetsk region
Omsk region

Under these conditions, in the last months of the year, meat processing plants were underloaded, and in January and even in February, some of the livestock ready for sale on farms were not accepted due to their overload. The deadline for the delivery of livestock was delayed, its maintenance became more expensive, increasing the consumption of feed per unit of production, reducing the efficiency of fattening. This had a particularly detrimental effect on the operation of complexes for fattening pigs and cattle, violating the technology of their maintenance. The population did not receive enough products, and monthly fluctuations in the volume of supplies of livestock and poultry disrupted the work of meat processing plants.

Departmental disunity had a negative impact on the efficiency of the agro-industrial complex. Writer Ivan Vasiliev wrote: “The rural industry is going through a period of reproduction. "Children are separated from their parents." The latter suffer from the division - the “cubs” pretty much “pluck” them. Enterprises and organizations, designed together with collective and state farms to increase and reduce the cost of production of the final product and improve its quality, were in fact separated from the farms and confined to their own departmental framework. They often received unreasonably high profits at the expense of the village. Assessing the work of industries related to agriculture by the “gross”, i.e., essentially, by the volume of funds spent without taking into account the return on them, led to an inflation of the reporting indicators of “efficiency” of individual industries. For this purpose, the most expensive and heaviest construction projects were selected so that it would be easier to carry out the construction and installation work plan at a cost. The builders were not interested in the fact that the powerful “long-term fortifications” they erected for decades would be a heavy burden on collective and state farms, increasing the cost of their products. The same is true for enterprises and organizations of the land reclamation system, the State Committee for Agricultural Equipment, and procurement - due to lack of capacity for processing agricultural products. Three quarters of vegetables and fruits did not reach the consumer. The USSR produced 30% more milk than the USA, and consumed 30% less milk protein.

The imperfection of production and economic relations between agriculture and other sectors involved in food production led to an increase in the share of intermediate products in the gross social product and restrained the growth of efficiency and labor productivity.

The mechanical expansion of outdated technical means did not allow for the technical reconstruction and modernization of the mechanical engineering industry itself, or the re-equipment of sectors of the national economy with highly efficient resource-saving systems and sets of machines, and technological lines. This caused a slowdown in economic and social development and a decrease in the efficiency of the entire mass of production resources.

But even under these conditions, collective and state farms produced more agricultural products per capita than many countries: more grain and legumes, sugar beets, potatoes, meat, eggs, fruits and eggs, vegetables and melons than in Sweden and Great Britain; more than in Finland - meat of all types, milk, eggs, vegetable oil, and grain almost eight times, potatoes - more than four times. But at the same time, per capita food consumption in the USSR turned out to be much lower due to incredibly large losses of products during storage, transportation and sales. But what do collective and state farms have to do with it? These paradoxes were created outside the agricultural enterprise. Moreover, they were not necessary attributes of socialist principles of management. They are the result of the ineffective work of government officials who shaped relationships between industries and levels of government.

The reforms of the 90s should have been aimed at eliminating the reasons hindering the efficiency of agro-industrial production, at creating a new system of economic relations that would expand the initiative and independence of enterprises. But this approach did not suit the authors of the reforms. For achieving their goal, they accepted what constituted the height of economic stupidity, the height of slander against human nature. Instead of following the path of qualitative improvement of economic relations, clearing them of what deformed their rational nature, the problem was transferred to the political plane. Overnight they wanted to remake peasant life, the customs of the villagers, not realizing that this was impossible, because a cavalry charge could not remake the internal beliefs of the peasants, the standards genetically transmitted and accumulated by the experience of village life and agricultural labor.

The Khlestakovs in power, who studied Russia from foreign sources, were not going to take into account the interests of the country as a whole, the peasantry in particular, they obviously thought according to P. Stolypin, who said that “the people are dark, they do not understand their own benefits, and therefore their life should be improved without asking his opinion about it.”

As a result, we have a corrupt government, on the one hand, and a poor people, on the other. In civilized states, property, market relations, spiritual culture, and the ruling elite are formed over decades, or even centuries. At the same time, property is created legally, through labor and frugality, and the ruling elite learns to serve its country, its people. We have both, the third was created in 5-10 years. Property, culture, and the ruling elite appeared as a premature fetus with all the negative consequences. We are not like others. Most of the precocious owners are uncomfortable in their own country, and therefore the loot is exported abroad, the principle of “rob the loot” works, and the redistribution of property continues. The image of the new owners is extremely low. Under these conditions, there is no need to talk about any market ethics. Business lives by the principle “you can’t cheat, you can’t survive.” Therefore, a significant part of the goods: medicines, food, alcoholic drinks, mineral water, etc. are counterfeit. Everyone lives one day at a time. And as a result, the country is in 70th place in the world ranking in terms of investment attractiveness.

Someone said that veterinary, cooking, samovar and whatever other art or knowledge you want is recognized as an art or knowledge in which only those who have studied this area are competent; in matters of morality, everyone considers themselves competent.

The new, precocious ruling elite, without any reason, considered itself competent in governing the state and, according to the principle “to straighten a crooked stick, you need to bend it strongly in the opposite direction,” they began to change the social order and forcibly establish social relations unusual for Russians.

So, the main thing in agrarian reforms is production efficiency, ensuring the country’s food independence, increasing living standards, which are firmly linked to the agro-industrial production of the rural population.

The most important conditions for the effective competitive functioning of the agro-industrial complex are:

Application of modern technology and the latest resource-saving technologies;

Formation of an effective incentive mechanism, a management system based on adequate intra- and inter-economic relations with strict commercial cost accounting in all departments, including the management bodies of the enterprise and association.

But where, in what organizational and legal forms is capital, expensive machinery and equipment best used? Of course - in large-scale production, where the cost of the resources used is transferred to the product to a lesser extent than in small-scale production.

Scientific and technological progress forces agricultural producers to acquire the latest high-performance equipment and use highly efficient technologies. This, in turn, forces production to increase. Their combined action leads to an increase in labor productivity, reduces the number of employees, increases profitability, and therefore competitiveness.

The famous American sociologist Decardie Houmans wrote that close interpersonal relationships are an essential component of any society, and that people who do not develop a sense of social responsibility will lose their sense of community. It may be that a society that loses the ability to produce close interpersonal bonds in one generation will produce generations with an even less sense of community.

Ultimately, we will turn into a heterogeneous mass of unrelated individuals.

History of Marxism. T. 3, part I, issue two.

Marx K., Engels F. Soch. v. 2. p. 89.

World history of economic thought. T. 1. - M.: thought, 1987., p. 33.

A.A. Nikonov “Spiral of a centuries-old drama.” 1995. p. 429.

The development of the economic life of society and, above all, the method of production is subject to certain objective laws, which, of course, does not exclude the action of accidents in the economic sphere. Any objective law is presented as a necessary, essential and recurring connection between the phenomena of nature and society. Such a connection exists between many economic phenomena, for example, between the price of a product and the amount of labor spent on its production, between socially necessary labor and free time, production and consumption, demand and supply. These natural connections develop objectively, that is, regardless of the consciousness and will of people. This is their objective character. We can name such objective economic laws as the law of value, the law of pricing, the law of saving time, the laws of capitalist accumulation and social reproduction. All these and other economic laws express deep objective connections between economic processes and appear as the dominant trends in economic development. Compliance with these trends, i.e., deep connections of economic phenomena, contributes to the sustainable development of the economy. Deviation from them interferes with the normal development of the economy and destroys it. Therefore, it is necessary to fully understand the effect of economic laws and build your economic activity in accordance with them. It is important that this is understood not only by individual entrepreneurs and other participants in social production, but also at the state level. Economic relations between people play a major role in the economic life of society, along with laws. Their role in the development of productive forces was discussed above. Not only the development of the production method, but also the social balance in society and its stability depend on the perfection of economic relations. Their content is directly related to the solution of the problem of social justice, depending on the social significance of a particular type of activity, its necessity for society, in particular, for the realization of people’s economic interests. The economic relations of people directly reflect their economic relations. The economic interests of people express ways and means of satisfying their needs. We can say that the interaction of economic interests constitutes the main content of the economic life of society. Hence the need to develop principles for the optimal combination of the interests of individuals and social groups, their harmonization. This is perhaps the main task of economic science and practice. Conscious influence on economic processes is a manifestation of rationality, the intellectual principle in the economic life of society. In our time, the role of scientific rationality, that is, reasonable influence on economic processes, is growing. Of course, this does not mean ignoring psychological factors. The state can play a large role in the rational influence on economic processes, the capabilities of which are determined by the presence of appropriate levers of power. This is not about detailed regulation of the economic life of society on its part, but, first of all, about creating the necessary conditions for the successful development of social production. These conditions include: introduction into production of the results of modern scientific and technological progress; creating the necessary proportions between sectors of the economy, including through its structural restructuring; identifying priority areas of economic development; implementation of effective tax policy; improvement of financial mechanisms for the functioning of the economy. The evolution of the economic life of society does not exclude the possibility of structural restructuring of the economy, fundamental changes in the field of relations of ownership of the means of production, the monetary and financial system. At the same time, it is important for reformers to understand what works for the future in economic development, to understand the current and long-term interests of various social groups in society, as well as the immediate and long-term consequences of the actions taken.

Scientists of different eras paid great attention to the problems of economic interests. They were concerned with the questions: what is economic interest, what is its origin, what are the forms of its manifestation, what role does it play in the development of society, etc. As a result of their research, they discovered different views and views on these problems.

In the economic literature, the concept of “interest” is defined ambiguously. Many economists proceed from the position of Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) that “the economic relations of each given society manifest themselves primarily as interests.”

The authors of the economic encyclopedia give the following definition: “Economic interests are the manifestation of production relations in the form of an objective direction of people’s economic activity, which reflects their place in the system of social production.”

Interest is one of the most complex economic categories. In recent years, many scientific articles, monographs, studies of scientific seminars and conferences have been devoted to the analysis of economic interests. Many authors include this category in their studies.

There are authors who have been working in this area for many years. Among them are B.Ya. Gershkovich, N.I. Gvozdeva, A.G. Zdravomyslov, V.P. Kamankin, N.D. Kolesov, I.F. Komarnitsky, F.P. Koshelev, V.I. Livshits, I.S. Pastukhov, V.V. Radaev, I.G. Sayapin, T.I. Trubitsyna, V.M. Yuryev et al.

Although many scientific publications have been devoted to the problem of interests, there is still no unity of views even on general methodological issues about the essence, nature, and structure of economic interests.

Need is the starting point, the basis of interest. It is the need, as a need or lack of something, that is the internal stimulator of activity and the formation of interest.

The economic development of society is based on two fundamental economic axioms: first, the needs of society (individuals) and institutions in their dynamics are limitless; the second is that the resources of society necessary for the production of goods to satisfy needs are limited or rare. This contradiction creates the need for choice. People have to decide which goods and services should be produced and which should be abandoned under certain conditions. The problem of choice is closely related to interests. Since a person has a great many needs, he also has a great many interests. Both interests and needs are closely interconnected and act as an essence and phenomenon.

Needs determine the need for active actions, relationships between people as conditions for self-affirmation, self-movement, and self-development of the subject of the need. The economic relationship between people represents the interaction of people’s interests regarding limited goods. Economic interests are a subsystem in relation to production relations. It follows that the social activity of the masses is dictated and determined by the requirements of economic laws, on the one hand, and economic interests, on the other.

Thus,

Economic interests are objective motivations for people’s activities that express the connection between the position of workers in the social production system and their needs.

Like industrial relations, economic interests are hierarchical. The most external, the most visible are the specific economic interests of economic entities in their specific economic relations. At this level, economic interests are mediated by the consciousness of people and appear in the form of economic (material) interest.

IN AND. Lenin noted that the larger the scale of social transformations, the greater the mass of people should participate in them. The deeper the planned transformations, the more it is necessary to raise interest and a conscious attitude towards them, convincing more and more millions and tens of millions of this necessity.

Each market transaction passes through the consciousness of the subjects of this transaction. The economic interests of the subjects of a particular transaction (producer and consumer) are multidirectional in nature, and it is this multidirectionality that connects them in the same way as a product connects producer and consumer.

There are also economic interests that reflect one or another way of participation of a person, a social group in the system of social reproduction (national, regional, family, etc.). All these groups form an integral, organically interconnected system.

Consequently, the realization of economic interests in their totality and interrelation represents the process of movement of the production relations themselves. Economic interests are not only a side, a manifestation of an economic relationship, but also a dynamic driving force that determines the activity of its bearer.

Based on the above, we can give the following definition of economic interests: economic interest is a way of participation of a subject in economic terms, determining its behavior. Like economic relations, economic interests are a form of resolving the contradiction between unlimited needs and the limited goods necessary to satisfy these needs.

Economic interests are an indispensable link in the formation and mechanism for the implementation of objective economic necessity and economic laws. They are organically connected with forms of ownership. This must be taken into account when developing the state’s socio-economic policy in economic and management practice. Economic interests are the core, with the help and under the influence of which objective economic laws are implemented.

As rightly noted by V.M. Yuryev, “the interaction of the requirements of economic laws and economic interests determines the form of social activity of people. As a result of their social activities, the economic and social conditions of society change, which is reflected in the nature of the operation of economic laws, in their requirements, in economic interests, etc.”