The author puts forward and justifies the concept of the modern economy’s objective development which call attention to a confrontation of its «micro» and «macro» levels. It may seem to non-economists to be a private matter; however, neglecting the complex conflicts that arise between these two levels of the national economy, it is impossible not only to accelerate economic growth, but also to increase the social efficiency of production. From this perspective, it follows that it is necessary today to fill the characteristics of micro- and macroeconomics with political and economic content, to go beyond the limits of the obviousness imposed by positivism. Moreover, the reduction of micro- and macroeconomics only to sections of economic education actually masks the sharp, but still not emphasized by the economists, contradiction between the micro- and macroeconomic spheres of the national economic system. The author concludes that the idea of micro- and macroeconomics only as sections of the training course on economics has long turned into a primitivization of the real economy. The statement of the problem in the article involves justification of the following theses: 1. Micro- and macroeconomics –are two extreme (and therefore – contradictory) modes of organization of the national economy. 2. Microeconomics emerges as a «natural» result of the evolutionary development of the economy, historically growing as the transformation of «production»– into «economy». 3. Unlike microeconomics, macroeconomics’ existence is dualistic: as an organic system, it has «built-in stabilizers» which provide it with an spontaneous balance. 4. Microeconomics represents the sphere of self-arising (and therefore self-organized, and spontaneously-functioning) production, being subject to the imperatives of competition, benefits and conjuncture. 5. Microeconomics forms the material basis of the vital activity of the civil (informal) society; in contrast, macroeconomics forms the material basis of the vital activity of the state.6. The need to differentiate the national economy into micro- and macroeconomics does not mean their equal relevance. 7. Microeconomics is a part of the economy, through which the people are fed, the self-employed population, small and medium business; macroeconomics is a part of the economy that meets public needs, and through which the state and bureaucratic elite are fed.