The article examines the development of Soviet economists' views on the scientific-technological progress consequences, the advantages of socialism associated with it, as well as the prospects for building the material-technical basis of communism. The author identifies four stages in the evolution of approaches to these problems. At the first stage, prior to the XXII CPSU Congress in 1961, as the scientific-technical revolution took shape, the emerging ideas had not yet been formalized into a single theoretical system. At the second stage, which took place in the first years after the XXII Congress, the key points were established and developed into widely recognized conceptions. Special attention was paid to automation, chemicalization, development of new types of energy. In the late 1960s - early 1980s maintaining the previous theoretical foundations, more attention was paid to local aspects. At the final stage, with the beginning of perestroika, a number of key provisions were revised. These included recognition of a greater importance of the second industrial revolution, highlighting the leap in the development of microelectronics in the 1970s (later called the information revolution), etc. Changes in research approaches at different stages are associated with economic practice, successes and difficulties in introducing elements of the scientific-technological revolution into production.

Издание Института нового индустриального развития (ИНИР) им. С. Ю. Витте в сотрудничестве с СанктПетербургской региональной общественной организацией ООО «Вольное экономическое общество России» Входит в Перечень ведущих рецензируемых научных журналов и изданий, в которых должны быть опубликованы основные научные результаты диссертаций на соискание ученых степеней доктора и кандидата наук (Решение Президиума Высшей аттестационной комиссии Минобрнауки России от 2 февраля 2012 года № 8/13). Журнал включен в базу данных «Российский индекс научного цитирования» и размещается на сайте Научной электронной библиотеки (НЭБ).

The article describes the technological prerequisites for socialisation of economy. It is shown that the transition to a new technological level has highlighted market constraints throughout history. This necessitated external intervention, and these processes were reflected in various directions of economic theory. The approaches of the German historical school, the Swedish school, and German ordoliberalism are highlighted, in particular. The current challenges of the fourth industrial revolution are associated with the growth of externalities and increased international competition. The state is forced to play a more active role in national economies in new technological conditions. Socialisation processes develop within the «main lines» of capitalism development. One of them is presented in the modern concept of noonomy.

The article is devoted to the review of the international congress “Genesis of noonomics: scientific and technical progress, diffusion of property, socialization of society, solidarism” (SPEC-PSE-2020), which has united the “St. Petersburg International Economic Congress” (SPEC-2020) and the international congress “Production. Science. Education “(PSE-2020). This event became a platform for a comprehensive discussion of the topical issues related to the modern economy, the search for new strategies of civilizational development. The agenda included issues of the market economy fundamental changes due as a consequence of modern technological transformations, movement towards a socio-ecological and humanitarian-oriented development model. The congress participants emphasized that human creativity is becoming the main source and goal of production, as opposed to the market-centric attitude of maximizing material consumption.

The article discusses the developments of the Soviet school, the post-Soviet school of critical Marxism, the theory of NIO.2 and noonomics, as well as the concept of a common destiny for mankind as an adequate theoretical response to current practical challenges. The author claims that under the existing circumstances (technological shifts, the growth of creative labor, etc.) the changes in the socio-economic systems are needed promoting the priority of the development of human potential. The theory of human capital based on the outdated and shallow notion of Homo Economicus does not properly respond to modern challenges. The considered alternative theories, which have been developed by Russian and Chinese scientists, are largely rooted in the legacy of classical Marxism. Each of them has its own specifics, but they can effectively complement each other.