Biography of Tugan - Baranovsky:

TUGAN-BARANOVSKY Mikhail Ivanovich (1865-1919) - economist, theoretical scientist.

Born into the family of a retired captain of the hussar regiment, Ivan Yakovlevich Tugan-Baranovsky, in the village of Solenoye near Kharkov. The family belonged to an ancient family, whose roots can be traced back to the 15th century. Tugan-Baranovsky’s father, Ibrahim Yakubovich, in connection with the adoption of Orthodoxy, renamed himself Ivan Yakovlevich. After graduating from high school in 1883, Tugan-Baranovsky entered the first year of the natural sciences department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of St. Petersburg University. His university friends were students who soon became very famous people. These are future writers V.V. Veresaev and A.S. Serafimovich, natural scientist I.N. Chebotarev.

At the end of 1885, student communities were organized, whose members went “to the people” to agitate against the monarchy. But when in a village near St. Petersburg the peasants shouted: “On their pitchforks!”, the student agitators began to run. Tugan-Baranovsky later said that this incident taught him a lot.

During the speech of the Union of Fellowships at the memorial service on November 17, 1886 on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the death of N.A. Dobrolyubova Tugan-Baranovsky was detained and sent to the police station. He was sent to the Kharkov province where his parents lived. Expulsion meant expulsion from St. Petersburg University. Tugan-Baranovsky's father managed to obtain permission for his son to continue his studies at Kharkov University; in 1888, Tugan-Baranovsky graduated from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics. He soon began studying law. He continued his education in Moscow.

The first scientific work (1890) was devoted to the doctrine of marginal utility. His passion for political economy may have come to him at Kharkov University. He defended his master's thesis on the topic “Industrial crises in modern England, their causes and impact on people’s life.” Tugan-Baranovsky published a lot in the World of God, as well as in other publications. At the same time, he worked on the book “The Russian Factory in the Past and Present,” which he defended as a doctoral dissertation in Moscow in 1898.

In the spring of 1901, he again took part in a student demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral. Tugan-Baranovsky and Struve were arrested, then the government banned them from living in both capitals, university cities, as well as Riga and Yaroslavl. Struve went abroad, and Tugan-Baranovsky settled in the village. Lokhvitsy, Poltava province. He lived in exile until 1905. The Poltava period was creatively very fruitful, although from 1899 to 1905 he was removed from teaching in both Moscow and St. Petersburg.

During the Revolution of 1905-1907. Tugan-Baranovsky returned to teaching at St. Petersburg University and the Polytechnic Institute, joined the Cadet Party, taught at the Bestuzhev Higher Courses and at the People's University. In 1912, the University Council elected him as a professor, but the ministry did not approve this resolution - the reason for this was his political views.

Tugan-Baranovsky finally moved to St. Petersburg in 1911, when he received government permission. He not only headed the journal “Bulletin of Cooperation”, but was also an active participant in the cooperative movement.

In August 1917, Tugan-Baranovsky accepted the offer of the head of the Ukrainian Central Rada to manage finances. He was actively involved in work in Ukraine, taught at Kiev University, and in 1918 became dean of the Faculty of Law at Kyiv University. At the end of 1917 - January 1918 he was Minister of Finance. He realized his passion for the cooperative movement as chairman of the Central Ukrainian Cooperative Committee and editor of the magazine “Ukrainian Cooperation”.

After the fall of the Central Rada, Tugan-Baranovsky came to Moscow in January 1918, gave lectures, and chaired the council of cooperative congresses. During these days he became close friends with the anarchist P. Kropotkin. In July 1918, Tugan-Baranovsky settled on an estate in Lokhvitsa, then returned to Kyiv. He retired from political activities: he received a chair at the university, at the same time he was the dean of the Faculty of Law, and was involved in the creation of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. In those days, he completed the work “The Influence of Political Economy on Natural Science and Philosophy,” which was published after his death. Died at the age of 54 on January 8, 1919.

Main works:

• 1. “Russian factory in the past and present” (1898)
• 2. “Essays on the modern history of political economy and socialism” (1903)
• 3. “Modern socialism in its historical development” (1904)
• 4. “Theoretical foundations of Marxism” (1905)
• 5. “Fundamentals of Political Economy” (1909)

Historical context for the development of economic thought:

Historical and economic aspect: If we turn to history, we will see that Russian economic science by the beginning of this century had gone through a rather complex and unique path, which was explained by the peculiarities of the development of Russia. And without understanding the results of the development of Russian economic thought in the 19th century. it would be difficult for us to understand its history in the present century.

Russia moved towards capitalism only as the peasant reform of 1861 was implemented, with all the complications caused by the consciously and deliberately retained remnants of feudalism. Before this, there is still no need to talk about any capitalism in Russia. The process of this movement was complicated by the fact that the reform being carried out in its content and consequences was not equivalent to the bourgeois-democratic revolutions that took place in Europe back in the 17th - 18th centuries. and opened up wide scope for the capitalization of the economy, quickly destroying the foundations of previous relations. In Russia, the reform was carried out, naturally, from above, quite long and painfully. Therefore, the main attention of Russian economic thought in the post-reform period was focused on the question of peasant and landowner landownership, taxes and duties of peasants, the consequences of the reform of 1861, and finally, the question of the prospects for the Russian national economy and the future social structure of the country.

The consideration of all these, as well as other, issues was often based on positions close to classical bourgeois political economy. And this is understandable, since the history of the latter is connected with the process of the decomposition of feudalism and the formation of capitalism. It was this process that gradually took place in Russia, and therefore the ideas of the classics were in tune with the problems of the time that had come in Russia.

However, when characterizing the economic thought of Russia in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, we cannot limit ourselves to this. In Europe during the formation of capitalism, the classical school dominated. In Russia we did not observe such dominance, and those characteristics of science discussed above related, and even then not to the fullest extent, only to one of the directions of domestic economic thought - bourgeois-democratic.

In addition, many representatives of this trend had a great deal of sympathy for Karl Marx and, naturally, for many of his fundamental ideas. Things got to the point that within the framework of this direction, a movement took shape that was called “legal Marxism.”

The largest theoretician of legal Marxism was M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky. An encyclopedic educated thinker, he created a number of fundamental works on the theory of socialism, the development of capitalist production and socio-political relations.

Historical, methodological and cultural aspect: Tugan-Baranovsky’s conceptual position on reconciliation of the theory of marginal utility and the labor theory of value. These two theories are opposite, but not at all contradictory. There is a definite relationship between the value of a product and its labor cost. In accordance with this, Tugan-Baranovsky substantiated the position according to which the marginal utilities of reproduced products are proportional to their labor costs. Labor value is the determining factor, the utility of the good is determined.

Historical and ideological aspect: M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky considered political economy as a science about the national economy. He unconditionally gave preference to the latter in public life and its development. He defines the national economy as a set of legally independent, but connected in the process of exchange, individual economies, subject to specific laws.

The scientific value of political and economic research by M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky is largely determined by ideology - a combination of theoretical and historical approaches. This allowed the scientist, when developing theories of money, cycles and crises, and cooperation, to draw conclusions that still deserve attention today.

Opinion of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky about the features of Russian economic history, which reflected many political, ideological, moral processes in our country, has become even more relevant at the present time. The scientist was one of the first analysts to draw attention to the special role of the middle industrial class in the process of formation and development of the capitalist system. But he believed that in Russia there is no traditional for Western countries, inherited from the times of the guild urban economy of the middle industrial class, and this factor influences neither the process of concentration of production, nor the development of contradictions inherent in a market economy. The scientist made a great contribution to the study of the macroeconomic sphere.

Inside - the scientific aspect: Views on socialism

M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky considered the transition to socialism inevitable, since under capitalism a small group of people profit at the expense of the rest of the large part of society. The basis of socialism is the idea of ​​the equivalence of the human personality (this idea was borrowed from I. Kant). M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky distinguishes three types of socialism:

• 1. state - a system in which the economic unit is the state;
• 2. syndical - a system in which a significant role of the state is combined with the autonomy of production units;
• 3. communal - a system in which the role of the state is insignificant.

Tugan-Baranovsky’s contribution to economic science:

• · In-depth analysis of the works of theorists of various directions;
• · Contribution to the theory of economic cycles and industrial crises;
• · Scientific sociology of Russian industry of the 19th century - an example of historical and economic; research raised to the heights of the theory of economic development;
• · Development of problems of the cooperative movement;
• · Study of socialism as a positive doctrine; development of the principles of ethical socialism, at the center of which is the greatest possible freedom for each individual.

His contribution to the cause of Russian cooperation was very great. In 1916, the book “Social Foundations of Cooperation” was written, which is an example of achievements in methodology. This work included a combination of historical and theoretical analysis, a socio-economic approach, “testing of theory with facts,” and very specific proposals in the field of economics. For the first time, such theoretical questions are considered that Western economists thought about only decades later. Tugan-Baranovsky’s original ideas were picked up and developed already in the 20s by his student N.D. Kondratiev in the planning theory he developed. “Mikhail Ivanovich’s work on cooperation issues must undoubtedly be recognized as outstanding, one of the best not only here in Russia,” wrote N.D. Kondratiev in 1923

The innovative work “Industrial Crises in Modern England, Their Causes and Impact on People’s Life,” which was published in Russia in 1894, and which was published in 1901 in German, made a stunning impression in the West. The famous American economist E. Hansen noted that this theory of Tugan-Baranovsky “burst into science like a fresh sea wind...”. The book under review provides a special analysis of the dynamics of the position of the working class under capitalism and under the influence of its cyclical development. The Russian scientist was at that time perhaps the only researcher of cycles and conjuncture who paid attention to their social component. Tugan-Baranovsky's study of the place and role of trade unions and other public organizations in a developing market economy is evidence of the search for some kind of social model, some methods of social orientation of the capitalist economy, a search that was continued in the subsequent works of the scientist. The author was the first Russian economist to gain worldwide fame. Even during Tugan-Baranovsky’s lifetime, German (1902) and French translations of “Industrial Crises” were published; There were publications in England (1954), Germany (1969), Japan (1972).

Scientists from different countries, belonging to different areas of economic science, developed and supported the ideas of Tugan-Baranovsky. Among domestic economists, V.Ya. joined his concept. Zheleznov, I.M. Kulischer, V.K. Dmitriev. N.D. assessed the theory of his teacher as an outstanding study in the field of conjuncture. Kondratiev, emphasizing that she posed and solved the problem in such an original and profound way, “so clearly revealed the nature of the capitalist national economy as a whole and was so generally confirmed by reality that she rightfully brought him world fame,” created a whole school on this issue, to which, with one or another reservation, was joined by such prominent economists of Western countries as Spiethoff, Eulenburg, Pohl, Schmoller, Lescure and others. Even opponents of his theory, like W. Sombart, recognized it as an extraordinary step forward. One of Tugan-Baranovsky's Western followers, A. Shpitgof, called him the best theorist of economic conditions. The author of the most extensive work at that time on industrial crises, Professor Jean Lescure called his book the most original and most significant work in all the economic literature of this time.

M. Tugan-Baranovsky “gave a new direction to the analysis of this problem,” wrote decades later the famous American economist A. Nove about the theory of industrial crises. Tugan-Baranovsky’s research was continued in the 20s by N.D. Kondratiev, who made a giant step forward in this field, also gained worldwide fame and recognition.

Tugan-Baranovsky’s scientific and journalistic heritage is quite extensive. Lenin once called Tugan-Baranovsky a “cadet professor.” And this professor warned: if the social environment is not ready, then socialism will not succeed in it, it will turn out to be a system of lower productivity than capitalism. Society will come not to progress, but to regression. And socialism - instead of becoming a kingdom of freedom and universal wealth - will become “a kingdom of slavery and general poverty.”

Tugan-Baranovsky gave an explanation for the unique features of Russian development. It is, first of all, that our country did not know such a category as a European free city of free masters. In the Middle Ages they said that “city air gives freedom.” We did not have this air of an industrial city - and therefore there was no soil for freedom. In the West, serfdom slowly died out - in our country it evolved and finally turned into pure slavery.

All this left a heavy imprint on the economic, moral, and political image of the country. Traces of this imprint can still be felt today. And in the 19th-20th centuries, according to Tugan-Baranovsky, this gave only large owners; we did not have a large army of wealthy small entrepreneurs.

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, Tugan-Baranovsky’s beliefs about socialism remain controversial. He is for socialism, but “modern”, genuine, without distortion. In a word, for something that has never happened before. State socialism, in his opinion, should protect people from the state. And the most important guarantee of this should be free cooperatives that do not use hired labor.

The question of the cost and value of goods occupies a special place in the works of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky. Here he argues with Marx and his theory of value. Existing theories, he believed, are each correct in their own way, but one-sided, since they explain the value of the goods produced either only on the basis of objective factors (the theory of labor value) or only subjective ones (the theory of marginal utility). And they need to be considered together, since they are inextricably linked. “With a proportional distribution of production, the marginal utilities of products must be proportional to the labor values ​​of the latter... In reality, goods are valued according to marginal utility, and commodity prices retain a certain rough proportionality in relation to the labor values ​​of products.”

Thus, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky substantiated the position that the marginal utility of freely reproduced economic goods is proportional to their labor costs. In economic literature, this position is called M.I.’s theorem. Tugan-Baranovsky.

Significant contributions were made to the theory of distribution. In it, the distribution process was viewed as a struggle between different classes for a share in the social product. In the growth of the product itself, i.e. All classes are equally interested in the development of production. This approach was later developed in the works of many Western economists (Schumpeter, Hicks, etc.)

Tugan-Baranovsky's legacy became the foundation on which the first theories of economic growth and the concept of state regulation of the economy were built. He always discussed issues of state economic policy, the historical approach to economics, the synthesis of macro- and microeconomics, problems of social distribution and much more in a bright, original and unexpected way for his contemporaries.

Outstanding Russian scientist-economist N.D. Kondratyev, tortured in Stalin’s dungeons, wrote: “Mikhail Ivanovich in the field of economic theory was the first who forced European thought to seriously listen to its movement in the East, in Russia... He became not only on a level with the era, not only on a level with scientific and economic thought of advanced countries, but he contributed to its progress, and because of this, he, more than anyone, contributed to putting Russian economic science on a par with European science.”

List of used literature

• 1. History of economic teachings: a textbook for students studying economics / ed. A.N. Markova, Yu.K. Fedulova.-2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2009 - 471 p.
• 2. History of economic doctrines: Textbook. - 4th ed., revised. and additional Yadgarov Ya.S. - M.:INFRA-M, 2004.- 480 p.
• 3. Economists theorists of the past and present: Textbook / Coll. authors; Hand. auto count Antonova I.V./Ed. A.A. Zubareva. - Tyumen: Felix, 2005.-254 p.
• 4. History of economic doctrines: Textbook. manual. - M.: INFRA-M, 2008. - 271 p.

Alexey Chichkin

Many economic views of the outstanding Russian scientist, to whom this article is dedicated, remain relevant in our time. Some of them have found application in other countries.

“We can safely say that M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky in the field of economic theory was the first who forced European thought to seriously listen to its movement in the east of Europe, in Russia... Analyzing problems, even in their general foundations, he often highlights those features that these problems acquire in the conditions of Russian reality, he orients them on the material of Russian life,” this is how the great Russian economist Nikolai Kondratiev assessed Mikhail Ivanovich.

At the age of 23, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky (1865-1919) graduated from Kharkov University in two faculties: natural sciences and law. But he chose political economy and economics as the main area of ​​his research activity. In 1894, having published the work “Industrial Crises in Modern England, Their Causes and Impact on People’s Life,” he became a world-renowned economist.

Title page of the book by M. Tugan-Baranovsky “Industrial crises in modern England, their causes and impact on people’s life.”

With the thesis that periodic crises are based on a gap between the processes of savings and investment, which was demanded by science decades later, Tugan-Baranovsky anticipated the idea of ​​the Keynesian investment theory of cycles, entering economics textbooks in the West as its author. In 1901, the book was translated into German, and in 1905 into French. For this work, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky was awarded a master's degree from Moscow University in 1894. And in 1895 he became a private assistant professor in economics at St. Petersburg University.

In the same year he was accepted as a member of the Imperial Free Economic Society. However, in 1899, due to political unreliability - closeness to the Social Democrats, Tugan-Baranovsky, despite all his academic degrees, was deprived of the right to teach at universities in St. Petersburg.

Six years later he returned to the department of St. Petersburg University - again as a private assistant professor. He was prevented from becoming a professor by a denunciation from a colleague who was jealous of the scientist’s popularity.

In 1898, Tugan-Baranovsky, based on his socio-economic research, completed the fundamental work “The Russian Factory in the Past and Present,” which presents the main options for the development of capitalism in Russia, especially in industrial sectors. The scientist predicted rapid industrial growth and socio-political stability in our country - if capitalism was not comprador, not anti-social... In the same year, Tugan-Baranovsky successfully defended this work at Moscow University as a doctoral dissertation. The defense became an event and caused a great resonance. One has to be surprised at how quickly (since 1894) he wrote this work. At present, it would take at least 10 years to collect materials alone. Moreover, it should be taken into account that before this the author of the book dealt with completely different problems. Of course, his work in the 1890s in European libraries helped him a lot.

The scientist was passionate about the issues of the cooperative movement. Since 1908, he has been a member of the leadership of the All-Russian Committee of Rural, Savings and Industrial Partnerships. In 1909, he began publishing the journal “Bulletin of Cooperation,” and in 1916, one of his main works, “Social Foundations of Cooperation,” was published.

In the collection “Towards a Better Future,” published in 1912, Tugan-Baranovsky identifies ten types of cooperatives: credit, consumer societies, construction societies, purchasing partnerships, sales partnerships, partnerships for processing products of small producers, mutual insurance societies, production and auxiliary artels, labor artels, productive artels.

Cooperative workshop for the production of road carriages.

Cooperatives are interpreted as non-capitalist forms. They exist as a means of self-defense of workers and only in their environment. They do not pursue profit, but increase the total labor income of their members or reduce their expenses for consumer needs.

According to the scientist, the cooperative movement can not only stimulate the socio-economic development of Russia, especially its agriculture and food industries, but also become a kind of competitor to large monopolies, which, in turn, will avoid dictatorship in all spheres of the economy.

The scientist drew attention to the successful development of various forms of cooperation in Scandinavia, primarily in Sweden, which ensured a high level of employment, social and economic mutual assistance of the population, and in a broader context - “nationwide economic solidarity.”

He paid great attention to the problems of Russia's possible transition to the socialist path of development. The two main contradictions of capitalism, according to the thinker, turned this system into a brake on the development of creative forces: firstly, between production as a means of satisfying human needs and as an end in itself for the sake of creating capital; and secondly, between the organization of labor within a single enterprise and the disorganization of the entire national economy.

At the same time, he warned that “in an unprepared social environment, socialism, instead of becoming a kingdom of freedom and general wealth, must become a kingdom of slavery and general poverty.”

Tugan-Baranovsky did not consider both existing theories of profit - those coming from labor theory and from marginal utility - to be correct. He put forward a different, his own explanation, but at the same time consistent with both theories. In society as a whole, and not in a private economy, profit arises, as the scientist showed, due to a quantitative increase in the total product. The share of entrepreneurs can grow simultaneously with the increase in the share of means of production, which play exactly the same role in the formation of profit as workers.

The position of the scientist, for all his fame, was very controversial. At the universities and colleges where Mikhail Ivanovich taught, he enjoyed extraordinary popularity and authority. He was considered an encyclopedist and was approached as an arbiter in scientific disputes. At St. Petersburg University, he gave lectures only in the assembly hall, since all other audiences did not accommodate those interested. At the same time, his refusal to “blindly believe in the dogma” of Marxism, criticism of a number of postulates, which initially aimed at their “more solid justification,” aroused the hostility of future overthrowers of the regime. Having accepted the economic theory of Marx and based their slogans on it, the Russian intelligentsia did not want to return to the theoretical analysis and criticism of their teacher. But, having been translated into European languages, Tugan-Baranovsky’s works were highly appreciated in scientific circles, and his conclusions were perceived abroad as breakthrough.

Socialism was considered by Tugan-Baranovsky in a narrow and broad sense. In a narrow sense - as a specific form of commodity economy, where elements of capitalism and the so-called are rationally combined. "Indicalism". The latter was understood as a system in which the workers of a particular enterprise are directly involved in the management and distribution of the produced product.

It was this concept that was implemented in Yugoslavia during the “Titov” period (1948-1980) and in 1981-1991 - within the framework of workers’ self-government, when enterprises in almost all industries, with the exception of defense, were led by elected councils, and not by directors and directors appointed “from above”. party organizers

A similar system was introduced in China in the 60s and early 70s in the form of “people's communes”, the leadership of which was chosen from among their members. There it continues to exist partially in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Similar "people's government councils" or "workers' committees" have existed since the early 1970s in Libya under the concept of a "People's Self-Governing State". Some elements of workers' self-government have been introduced in Cuba. Tugan-Baranovsky’s works have been published more than once in both the SFRY and the PRC.

But the final “product of development” - socialism in the broad sense - appeared to be a society where a higher level of productive forces is accompanied by the emergence of a new type of person. There is an “organic combination of centralized state management with the use of means of production by cooperatives of labor collectives.” Here we can see elements of a number of theories - the “people's state” of Sun Yat-sen, the concepts of Ivan Ilyin, Pyotr Struve, Dmitry Merezhkovsky, the utopian socialists Charles Fourier, Thomas More, Tommaso Campanella.

Artel labor was used in most peasant crafts. Semenov spoons. Their product was in constant demand.

Tugan-Baranovsky argued that the basis of socialism as a doctrine of a just society should be the ethical idea formulated by Immanuel Kant about the equivalence of the human personality, about the individual as an end in itself.

“Men are equal in their rights to life and happiness, equal in the respect with which we should regard the interests of them all; they are equal in the infinite value that the personality of each of them possesses,” noted Tugan-Baranovsky. Under socialism, in his opinion, “the development of the individual becomes the main social goal.”

Within this area of ​​his research, Tugan-Baranovsky distinguished state, communal and syndical socialism. He believed that “it is state socialism that gives proportionality and planning to social production and makes it possible for the rapid growth of social wealth.” Moreover, state socialism, according to
According to the scientist, a system can be called in which, if not the only, then the main economic unit is the state.

Tugan-Baranovsky understood syndical socialism as a form in which the means of production belong not only to the state, but also to individual groups of workers who use these means. Moreover, each of the groups is an autonomous and self-governing production unit. But here, again, “the state can coordinate the actions of various workers’ associations.” What was practiced in Yugoslavia in 1948-1991. However, other basic, primarily socio-economic conditions there did not “reach” the maximum effectiveness of self-governing socialism. Dependence on oil and gas imports, growing foreign debt, economic and geographical disproportions between regions and national-religious tensions - all this taken together neutralized self-governing socialism, and ultimately led to the collapse of the SFRY.

Under communal socialism, as Tugan-Baranovsky believes, the role of the state is reduced to very minor functions. An attempt to introduce just this form was made in China in the 1950s - mid-1970s.

Moreover, Tugan-Baranovsky considered all these types of socialism not as successive stages of development, but as varieties. The scientist was also a historian of socialism, and enthusiastically studied the programs, the main features of the ideology, the literary and practical activities of the leaders of its various directions, including the utopians.

Tugan-Baranovsky considered, for example, the concept of “guaranteeism” of Fourier to be quite relevant. It was about a system in which private interests would be countered by guarantees of public interest: state insurance, regulated factory legislation, assistance to the unemployed, the creation of public associations, the right to work and decent pay. The development of municipalities, workers' unions, and the growing cooperative movement of small producers, especially peasants, according to Tugan-Baranovsky, prepared the ground for the coming socialist society.

Title page of the collection of articles by M. Tugan-Baranovsky “Issues of the World War.”

In his works on this issue, the scientist also explored pricing issues. In his opinion, to construct an economic plan, a socialist society “will draw utility curves for each product and their labor cost curves, and at the point of their intersection the optimal price for all types of products will be found.” And in this forecast the great Russian scientist turned out to be a seer. In the 1960-70s, the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute (CEMI) of the USSR Academy of Sciences carried out in-depth research on the development of an optimal control system based on the widespread use of economic-mathematical methods and electronic computer technology. Models of current, medium-term and long-term development of the national economy and its units were created.

Considering state socialism, Tugan-Baranovsky noted that although the latter ensures plannedness, proportionality of development and the priority of social needs, it still retains elements of coercion and contradicts the idea of ​​complete and free development of the individual. Therefore, “although the creation of social wealth has significant positive value, it cannot come at the expense of the debasement of the human person.”

Tugan-Baranovsky (as did Berdyaev and Bulgakov) considered personal freedom to be the first of all blessings, without which satiety is nothing. Disagreeing with Vladimir Solovyov, he stated that socialism is not philistinism, but a means of salvation from philistinism. “I am convinced,” the economist wrote, “that Marxist socialism is coming to an end and that an idealistic interpretation and justification of socialism is now necessary...”

Tugan-Baranovsky considered an important feature of Russia to be the “idealistic” nature of the Russian intelligentsia, which has always stood outside bourgeois culture for the simple reason that there was none in our country. For Mikhail Ivanovich, it is precisely this trait that is more important than the rest - spirituality with the socialist idea, and not with one’s own class instincts. The socialist ideal, in his opinion, is given by ethics and metaphysics, and does not flow directly from the economic situation of the workers and their group struggle.

Tugan-Baranovsky proposes to supplement the system of state socialism with elements of communal and trade union socialism - in close combination with cooperation. “A society of completely free people,” he believed, is the ultimate goal of social progress.

The scientist is directly, one might say, “involved” in the modern theory of investment cycles. In a number of works, he noted that the main factor in their cyclicality is the disproportionality in the allocation of capital, which has increased due to the limited banking resources. And the phases of the industrial cycle are determined by the laws of investment. A disruption in the rhythm of economic activity, leading to a crisis, occurs, according to Tugan-Baranovsky, “due to the lack of parallelism in the markets of different spheres during the period of economic growth, the discrepancy between savings and investments, due to the disproportionality in the movement of prices for capital goods and consumer goods. In turn, an increase in loan interest is a sure sign that the free loan capital in the country is too small for the needs of industry.” From here Tugan-Baranovsky concluded that the immediate cause of crises is not an excess of loan capital that does not find application, but its lack.

The validity of this theory is shown, for example, by the current crisis in the eurocurrency area, where the initial unevenness of socio-economic development of many EU member countries was complemented by imbalances in the monetary policy of both the European Central Bank (ECB) and the private financial structures of the eurozone countries. And the limited banking, including lending, resources of the eurozone, which complements these factors, does not allow the ECB to systematically lead Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy out of the current crisis. In addition, the number of crisis countries in this region is constantly growing...

Tugan-Baranovsky rightly criticized theories that explain crises by violations only in the sphere of money and credit circulation. Let us note that such views, which actually ignore the close relationship between the situation in the financial sector and the state and prospects of the production economy, are now very popular. Including in Russia...

In a word, the ideas of Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovsky not only arouse theoretical interest, but also deserve to be practically in demand. First of all, to prevent systemic socio-economic crises.

Biography of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky

Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovsky (January 8, 1865, Kharkov province, January 21, 1919, near Odessa), Russian economist, historian, one of the representatives of “legal Marxism.” He joined the Cadets Party during the Revolution of 1905-07. At the end of 1917 - January 1918 he was Minister of Finance of the counter-revolutionary Central Rada. Graduated from Kharkov University (1888). In 1895-99, private associate professor at St. Petersburg University in the department of political economy; from 1913 professor at the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute. Received a master's degree in political economy for his work "Industrial Crises in Modern England, Their Causes and Impact on People's Life" (1894). Tugan-Baranovsky saw the main cause of crises not in the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private capitalist form of appropriation, but in the peculiarities of the movement of loan capital, in the limited banking resources. The result of studying the history of Russian industry was the book “Russian Factory in the Past and Present” (vol. 1, 1898), the factual material of which and a number of particular conclusions and observations have retained their significance to this day.

In the 90s Tugan-Baranovsky studied the works of K. Marx, but took the position of “legal Marxism”; actively participated in disputes with liberal populists, proving that capitalism in Russia is progressive and historically conditioned. Since the 1900s openly defended capitalism with revisionist criticism of the basic tenets of Marxism. He published “Theoretical Foundations of Marxism” (1905), in which he declared Marx’s theory to be only “partially correct,” and “Fundamentals of Political Economy” (1909). V.I. Lenin classified Tugan-Baranovsky as a bourgeois democrat, “...for whom a break with populism meant a transition from petty-bourgeois (or peasant) socialism not to proletarian socialism, as for us, but to bourgeois liberalism” (V.I. Lenin ., Complete collection of works, 5th ed., vol. 16, p. 96). Tugan-Baranovsky participated in the cooperative movement, to which he devoted a number of works; the most significant is “The Social Foundations of Cooperation” (1916). In 1917--1918 was the Minister (Secretary) of Finance of the Ukrainian People's Republic. He took part in the creation of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He died on January 21, 1919 in Odessa in a train carriage, which was traveling as part of the Ukrainian delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference.

M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky on socialism

The humanistic principles of early Marxism were at the center of the philosophy of Russian populism. Socialism, according to the populist concept, is a necessary stage of social progress, because it realizes the inherent features of collectivism and solidarity in humanity. Types of popular forms of production were supposed to include not only self-government of specific economic units, but also an egalitarian principle. Moreover, the egalitarian principle was considered by the “populists” as the driving element of the transition to socialism. The views of P.L. Lavrov are of interest.

The leading direction of the late nineteenth century were representatives of the Marxist movement, called “legal Marxism” (P.B. Struve, Tyugan-Baranovsky, S.N. Bulgakov, N.A. Berdyaev). With their works they contributed to the development of Marxism, from the theory of value to the theory of economic conditions. N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948) and S.N. Bulgakov (1871-1944) laid the foundation for modern concepts of ethical socialism, focusing on the problem of spiritual values: they considered the human personality as the absolute value of existence.

The famous Russian economist M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky also pays great attention to the problems of economic and socio-political development of Russia. In 1906, he published a special work, “Modern Socialism in Its Historical Development,” and in 1918, “Socialism as a Positive Teaching.” In these works, socialism was considered in the narrow and broad sense of the word. Socialism in the narrow sense of the word was presented as a specific form of commodity economy, which combines elements of capitalism and Indianism. The latter was understood as a system in which the workers of a given enterprise directly participate in its management and distribution of the resulting product.

The final product of development - socialism - in the broad sense of the word was presented as a kind of anarchic communism, where a new level of productive forces is combined with the emergence of a new type of person. There is an organic combination of centralized state management with the use of means of production by cooperatives of labor collectives.

In contrast to representatives of populism, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky believes that Russia has already embarked on the path of development of capitalism and the whole question is whether capitalism brings death or “with it the dawn of hope lights up.” In the traditions of Russian socio-economic thought, he criticizes the capitalist economic system, noting that under this system the vast majority of the population are doomed to constantly serve as a means to increase the welfare of other social classes, incomparably less numerous. Therefore, the transition to a socialist society is inevitable. The goal of socialism, as M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky notes, is to arrange life on the principles of freedom, truth and justice. He believed that the basis of socialism as a doctrine of a just society should be the ethical idea formulated by I. Kant - the idea of ​​​​the equivalence of the human personality, of the human personality as an end in itself. M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky writes, “...that people are equal in their rights to life and happiness, are equal in the respect with which we should treat the interests of all of them, they are equal in the infinite value that the personality of each of them has them." Under socialism, in his opinion, the development of each individual becomes the main social goal.

M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky pays great attention to the analysis of the types of socialism, highlighting state, communal and syndical socialism, while believing that it is state socialism that gives proportionality and planning to social production and makes it possible for the rapid growth of social wealth. state socialism, according to M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, can be called such a system of socialism in which the entire state would be an economic unit. By syndical socialism, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky understands a form of socialist system in which the means of production belong not to the entire state as a whole, but to individual groups of workers working with the help of these means of production. Moreover, each of these groups of workers is an autonomous and self-governing production unit. However, with this type of socialism, the role of the state remains very significant, since only the state can coordinate the actions of various workers' associations.

Under communal socialism, the state completely disappears or its role is reduced to very insignificant functions. M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky considered Charles Fourier to be the most remarkable representative of communal socialism.

In his work “Socialism as a Positive Doctrine,” M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky emphasized that to build an economic plan, a socialist society will draw utility curves for each product and their labor cost curves, and at the point of their intersection the optimal price for all types of products will be found .

Considering state socialism, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky notes that although the latter ensures plannedness, proportionality of development and the priority of social needs, it retains elements of coercion and contradicts the idea of ​​the full and free development of the human personality.

And therefore, according to the conviction of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, although the creation of social wealth has “significant positive value,” it cannot come at the expense of the humiliation of the human personality. The reduction of a working person to a simple cog in a huge state mechanism, to a “simple subordinate instrument of the social whole” cannot be considered a public good. Therefore, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky proposes to supplement the system of state socialism with elements of communal and syndical socialism. He believes that the most consistent form of labor organization with the Ideal of free human development is cooperation, since it is built on the mutual consent of members with freedom to join and leave the cooperative organization.

The trend, according to M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, is that society should completely turn into a voluntary union of free boats - become a completely free cooperative.

It should be noted that the social ideal of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky is not social equality, but social freedom. A society of completely free people is, in his opinion, the ultimate goal of social progress. The entire historical progress of mankind lies in approaching the socialist ideal. This position clearly has much in common with the idea of ​​Marx, who views the future society as a union of free people working with common means of production and systematically spending their individual labor forces as one common force.

Tugan Baranovsky Marxism investment cycle

Tugan-Baranovsky Mikhail Ivanovich (1865-1919) - an outstanding Russian economist, historian, sociologist, author of works on the history and theory of socialism, one of the representatives of “legal Marxism”. At the end of 1917 - January 1918, Minister of Finance of the Ukrainian Central Rada.

A world-famous scientist and economist, Tugan-Baranovsky was born into a noble family. His family originates from the Lithuanian Tatars, whose ancestors trace their ancestry to Genghis Khan. The second line goes to the Baranovsky family of Polish nobles. While still a high school student, he became interested in Kant's philosophy.

After graduating from a classical gymnasium, in 1888 he entered the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Kharkov University, from which he was expelled for participating in the student revolutionary-democratic movement. In 1894, after extremely hard work in the largest libraries of London and St. Petersburg, M. Tugan-Baranovsky presented an extensive study “Industrial Crises” as a master’s thesis. The dissertation immediately made the name of the scientist famous in domestic and world scientific and economic circles (a few years later the work was republished in German and then French). In 1895, M. Tugan-Baranovsky became a private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University, teaching a course in political economy, but in 1899 he was dismissed by the Minister of Public Education as unreliable. In 1898, he received a doctorate from Moscow University for his dissertation “The Russian Factory in the Past and Present,” but only after the February Revolution of 1917 was he confirmed with the rank of professor.

In March 1901, he was arrested and expelled from St. Petersburg for participating in a demonstration. Until 1904 he lived in the Poltava region, where he took part in the cooperative movement. In 1904, M. Tugan-Baranovsky returned to the capital to his previous position, but already seriously carried away by the ideas of cooperative construction. Since 1908, M. Tugan-Baranovsky has become one of the leaders of the Russian cooperative movement, primarily as a theorist. Since 1914 he became a professor of political economy at the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute. In 1915-1916 he was a member of the Petrograd Duma. He received the February revolution with enthusiasm. In April 1917, he headed the agrarian commission, which developed a program of agrarian reform in Russia. He did not accept the October Revolution. He collaborated in the magazines “World of God”, “Nachalo”, “Bulletin of Europe” and others. Together with M.M. Kovalevsky and M.S. Trushevsky edited the publication “The Ukrainian People in Its Past and Present.” He did not accept the October Revolution. After a short stay (1917-1918) as Minister of Finance of the Ukrainian Central Rada, Tugan-Baranovsky retired from public activities, focusing on teaching and science. On January 21, 1919, on a train on the way to Paris (between Kiev and Odessa) he died from an attack of angina. In numerous obituaries, contemporaries, shocked by the unexpected and absurd death of the 54-year-old scientist, praised both the personality and scientific merits of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky in the highest words. The complete list of his works to date, including reprints, numbers about 300 titles.

His ambiguous and largely contradictory personality still gives rise to a lot of controversy among historians and specialists. Tugan-Baranovsky appreciated the teachings of K. Marx, although he did not share all of his views. In the 1890s. he studied the works of K. Marx, but took the position of “legal Marxism”; actively participated in disputes with liberal populists, proving that capitalism in Russia is progressive and historically conditioned. Since the 1900s openly defended capitalism with revisionist criticism of the basic tenets of Marxism. He published “Theoretical Foundations of Marxism” (1905), in which he declared Marx’s theory only “partly true,” and “Fundamentals of Political Economy” (1909). Tugan-Baranovsky, who considered himself a consistent supporter of Marxism, was, however, not accepted in the camp of orthodox Marxist-Leninists. V. Lenin ranked him in the Menshevik camp. Tugan-Baranovsky participated in the cooperative movement, to which he devoted a number of works; the most significant is “The Social Foundations of Cooperation” (1916).

Two works - about the factory and crises - made their author not only all-Russian, but also all-European famous. Tugan-Baranovsky’s theoretical works - “Essays on the Contemporary History of Political Economy and Socialism” (1903), “Theoretical Foundations of Marxism” (1905), “Socialism as a Positive Teaching” (1918), etc. - formulated a realistic program of economic development. He believed that cooperation based on free self-organization is a prototype of the future society. Tugan-Baranovsky actively participated in the cooperative movement, promoting it in scientific works and in the journal “Bulletin of Cooperation,” which he led since 1909.

The main work on capitalism is his essay on industrial crises, in which he develops a theory of the sale of products in a capitalist society. In the first edition of this book, difficulties in selling products, worsening to depression and crises, were explained solely by the disorganization of capitalist production. In the second, seriously revised edition of the book, Tugan-Baranovsky connects the process of implementation not only with the “lack of planned organization,” but also with other features of the capitalist system, in which production ceases to serve as a means of satisfying human needs, but becomes an end in itself, technical aspect of capital creation. The laws of capitalist competition require not only the excessive exploitation of people, but also the technically advanced development of organization within a single enterprise, which, paradoxically, is combined with the disorganization of all national production.

The indicated features of capitalist production make general overproduction, as a moment of development of the capitalist economy, necessary. An in-depth analysis of the history of crises allowed the scientist to identify three of their common main characteristics: the state of the commodity market, which he defined as overproduction, changes in the field of monetary circulation and fluctuations in credit. In his opinion, the main of these characteristics is the first - “overproduction”, which was the cause of most economic crises in the world. In contrast to the theory of reproduction of K. Marx, M. Tugan-Baranovsky believed that the cause of the crises that periodically shake the capitalist economy is rooted not in the absolute underconsumption of the masses, but in the disproportionate development of the basic sectors of the national economic systems.

In the book “Industrial Crises,” Tugan-Baranovsky conducted a special analysis of the dynamics of the position of the working class under capitalism and under the influence of its cyclical development. His conclusions refuted K. Marx’s position on the inevitable impoverishment of the proletariat under capitalism. M. Tugan-Baranovsky was at that time perhaps the only researcher of cycles and conjuncture who paid attention to their social component. His research was continued in the 1920s by N.D. Kondratiev, who also gained worldwide fame.

The result of a long study of the history of Russian industry was M. Tugan-Baranovsky’s book “The Russian Factory in the Past and Present” (1898), the factual material of which and a number of particular conclusions and observations have retained their significance to this day. This is one of the most fundamental works on economic sociology and sociology of labor. It was a doctoral dissertation. The history of socio-economic thought knows another similar example - Emile Durkheim's doctoral dissertation “On the Division of Social Labor” (1893), which was also included in the number of fundamental monographs.

Its author set out to depict “without unnecessary details,” as he himself put it, apologizing, perhaps, for an incomplete list of the entire set of facts relating to the history of domestic industry, “changes in the internal structure of the Russian factory under the influence of changes in the socio-economic environment. I wanted to show how the original merchant factory, which arose out of the economic conditions of Peter’s Russia, transformed during the 18th century. to a noble factory based on forced labor; how this latter gradually died out in the Nicholas era and was replaced by the latest capitalist factory, partly growing out of a makeshift hut; how the composition of the factory class changed in different eras and how the class of factory workers was formed. I tried to outline the mutual relations of large and small industry in serf Russia, when the Russian factory still knew almost nothing about the machine, and in our time - the time of the dominance of the machine... I examined factory legislation and the views and views prevailing in society on issues of the factory system , as an expression of a given balance of social forces."

The grandeur of the plan required more than one volume for its implementation. Unfortunately, the second volume of “Russian Factory” was never published. In the same way, K. Pajitnov’s plan to present the history of the formation of the working class also did not fit into one volume and he needed three of them for this.

Not the least place in his creative heritage was occupied by the problems of socialism. Realizing the need for political struggle and dreaming of socialism, which he understood as a society without exploitation, in which it would be possible to reconstruct the entire spiritual culture and the flourishing of a harmonious personality, Tugan-Baranovsky based his faith on the postulates of I. Kant, believing that “as the supreme goal in itself , man can never be converted into a means for other ends,” and therefore denied Jacobinism. In 1906, M. Tugan-Baranovsky published the work “Modern Socialism in its Historical Development”, and in 1918 - “Socialism as a Positive Teaching”. In them, socialism was considered in the narrow and broad sense of the word. Socialism in the narrow sense was represented as a specific form of commodity economy, which combines elements of capitalism and syndicalism. The latter was understood as a system in which the workers of a given enterprise directly participate in its management and distribution of the resulting product. The final product of development - socialism - in the broad sense of the word was presented as a kind of anarchic communism, where a new level of productive forces is combined with the emergence of a new type of person. There is an organic combination of centralized state management with the use of means of production by cooperatives of labor collectives. Similar reformist ideas, according to M.V. Shishkin, were formulated in the works of A. Isaev, I. Ivanyukov, A. Shor. Tugan-Baranovsky believed that cooperation based on free self-organization could be a prototype of the future society. Dreaming of socialism, which he understood as a society without exploitation, in which it would be possible to reconstruct the entire spiritual culture and the flourishing of a harmonious personality, Tugan-Baranovsky based his faith on the postulates of I. Kant, believed that, as the supreme goal in himself, man can never be turned into a means for other purposes, and therefore denied dictatorship and violent methods of changing the political system.

Developing the labor theory of value and the theory of marginal utility, Tugan-Baranovsky formulated a well-known theorem: marginal utilities are proportional to labor costs. Based on this theoretical position, his follower N. Stolyarov mathematically proved its truth. M. Tugan-Baranovsky wrote that the theory of marginal utility and the labor theory of value are not mutually exclusive, but, on the contrary, complement and confirm each other. He formulated the famous law according to which the marginal utilities of freely reproduced goods are proportional to their labor costs. Tugan-Baranovsky made a significant contribution to the theory of distribution. In it, the distribution process was viewed as a struggle between different classes for a share in the social product. All classes are equally interested in the growth of the product itself, that is, in the development of production. This approach was later developed in the works of many Western economists (J. Schumpeter and others). Tugan-Baranovsky also contributed to the theory of cycles, in which he anticipated the modern concept of “savings - investment”; the main factor of cyclicality, in his opinion, is the disproportionality in the allocation of capital, which has increased due to limited banking resources.

Tugan-Baranovsky became the first Russian economist to proclaim the need to combine the labor theory of value with the theory of marginal utility. The greatest contribution was made by M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky in the theory of markets and crises, analysis of the development of capitalism and the formation of socialism, development of the social foundations of cooperation.

Working as an associate professor and eventually as a professor at St. Petersburg University, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky trained another outstanding scientist, N.D. Kondratiev, who discovered large cycles of conjuncture in the early 1920s. In 1923, N.D.’s book was published. Kondratyev about M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky. In it, he noted that it was thanks to Tugan-Baranovsky that economic science in Russia was raised to the European level. According to Joseph Schumpeter, “the most outstanding Russian economist” M. Tugan-Baranovsky was the first in the world to develop the doctrine of the cyclical pattern of economic dynamics associated with the periodicity of industrial crises, as a factor that influences changes in people's life.

Economist, sociologist, historian. Author of works on the history and theory of socialism. One of the most talented and original representatives of the so-called. "legal Marxism", criticized populism, left a deep mark on political economics, developing the theory of cooperative organization of industrial and agricultural production in relation to the conditions of Russia.

Origin and education.

He came from a noble family of Lithuanian Tatars. Having received his primary education at home, he graduated from the 2nd Kharkov gymnasium. An early awakened interest in the natural sciences led the inquisitive young man to the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of the Kharkov Imperial University. For his participation in the student revolutionary-democratic movement he was expelled from the university, but did not become a revolutionary. In 1888 he graduated from the university, receiving the title of candidate. natural sciences. I passed the exams for the Faculty of Law as an external student.

Service and first works.

Since 1893 he served in the department of the Ministry of Finance. In 1894 he received a master's degree from Moscow University for his work “Industrial Crises in Modern England, Their Causes and Impact on People's Life,” which became widely known not only in Russia but also abroad.

In 1895 he became a private assistant professor at St. Petersburg University. In 1898, for his study on the history of capitalism, “The Russian Factory in the Past and Present,” Tugan-Baranovsky received a doctorate in political economy from Moscow University. He belonged to the “legal Marxists” and wrote that “he was never an unlimited admirer of Marx and was always critical of his theory, recognizing its strengths.”

He taught at the Women's School of Commercial Accounting, St. Petersburg University (among private assistant professors in 1895-1897 and 1898-1899) and at the Higher Women's Courses. In 1899, for Marxist beliefs and “political unreliability,” Tugan-Baranovsky was removed from teaching, and in 1901 he was expelled from the capital to the Poltava province, where he actively participated in the cultural movement, and at the same time in the government program for preparing the Stolypin reform , was elected as a zemstvo councilor.

He was able to return to St. Petersburg and continue his teaching career only after the revolution of 1905 from 1909. A member of the Cadet Party, Tugan-Baranovsky was nominated to the State Duma, but was not elected. Since 1913 - professor at the St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute.

Ukrainian period.

After the February Revolution, in the summer of 1917, he left for Ukraine, where he served as Minister of Finance under the Central Rada until January 1918, after which he returned to Moscow. Here he gave lectures, was involved in the affairs of the cooperative movement, and was invited to teach at the Cooperative Institute that was then created. However, he refused the offer and left for Ukraine, where he was mainly engaged in scientific and scientific-organizational activities. In 1918, he was part of the team created in Kyiv under the leadership of V.I. Vernadsky of the special commission that prepared the creation of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. As a member of the commission, he prepared a “Note on the Department of Social Sciences,” which, in particular, proposed creating an institute in this department “for the statistical study of the population of Ukraine.” When the Academy began to work, such an institute was created - as part of the Socio-Economic Department of the Academy, which was headed by M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky. The new scientific institution was named the “Demographic Institute”, and M.V. Ptukha was elected its director.

Mikhail Ivanovich is the author of about 200 published works. Among the most significant are “The Russian Factory in the Past and the Present” (1898), “Essays on the Contemporary History of Political Economy and Socialism” (1903), “Modern Socialism in its Historical Development” (1904), “Theoretical Foundations of Marxism” (1905) , “Fundamentals of Political Economy” (1909), “Social Theory of Distribution” (1913), “Social Foundations of Cooperation” (1916), “Paper Money and Metal” (1917), “Socialism as a Positive Doctrine” (1918).

He died on January 21, 1919 in Odessa in a train carriage, which was traveling as part of the Ukrainian delegation to the Versailles Peace Conference.

1. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Social foundations of cooperation. - M.: Economics. 1989.

2. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Towards a better future. - M. ROSSPEN. 1996.

3. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Russian factory in the past and present. - M.: Science. 1997.

4. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Periodic industrial crises.-M.: Science. ROSSPEN. 1997.

5. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Fundamentals of political economy. - M.: ROSSPEN. 1998.

6. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Economic essays. - M.: ROSSPEN, 1998.

7. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Socialism as a positive doctrine Ed. 2nd, stereotype. M., 2003.

8. Tugan-Baranovsky M.I. Theoretical foundations of Marxism Ed. 3rd, stereotype. M., 2003.