Abstract

The subject of this paper is a critique of the quasi-neoliberal violence of alternative institutions, which are the most problematic and most threatening brake phenomenon of transition. They have been produced, strengthened and reproduced by the authorities of most post-socialist countries in the last three decades. The aim of this paper is to demystify neoliberalism, its ideological, philosophical, and monistic absolutizations, as well as quasi-neoliberal manifestations, which in many post-socialist countries were carried out directly under the auspices of alternative institutions. Also, the goal is to shed light on the causes of the long-term crisis, chaos, institutional violence, and lawlessness, and to enable the recognition of too visible (albeit blurred), rhetorical and “messianic” recipes, which are, in fact, developmental shackles. The paper is based on two hypotheses: first, that alternative institutions have abused and enslaved formal and informal institutions in most transition countries, which has led to numerous economic and social problems, including threats to the rule of law, freedoms, and civilizational development, and second, that a transitional hindering mechanism was created, which generated a neo-exploitative, apologetic, neo-totalitarian and crisis environment. The paper uses common methods of social and economic sciences, including the methods of generalization, description, abstraction, comparison, induction and deduction. In conclusion, it is stated that the phenomenological identification and critical demystification of the interest connections and conditioning of neoliberalism, alternative institutions, and the crisis have been carried out, and that their exponents (alleged reformers and new elites) had an extremely negative impact on social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural and institutional development, because they degraded and destroyed them.

Highlights

  • Neoliberalism as an ideology has many negative and dark sides, which its proponents have never pointed out or commented on

  • That is why we have tried in many works to prove that mysticism and simulacrum have no place in economics, and other social sciences, because civil behavior, rational choice, and competition are the essence of optimizing the social life

  • Neoliberalism as the ideological foundation of alternative institutions in transition countries has failed to satisfy any element of the lowest common denominator of economic success: integration into the world economy, high labor mobility (Radukic, et al, 2019), large savings, significant investments, strengthening government competencies, commitment to economic development and social welfare, etc

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Neoliberalism as an ideology (and especially quasi-neoliberalism as its abuse) has many negative and dark sides, which its proponents have never pointed out or commented on. If we view the the multiple crises in most post-socialist countries through the prism of basic causes (sophisticated forms of dictatorship, dogmatization, absolutization, ideologization, quasi-institutionalization (Draskovic, et al, 2019), neo-totalitarianization, and neoimperialization), it can be seen that all these processes were mainly based on monistic and privileged uncontrolled by people centers of power In such a context, economic freedoms, competition, private property, and entrepreneurship (Panikarova, et al, 2000) as a desirable democratic phenomenon, remained just a slogan and a promise. The iterative reproduction of the multiple crises, including the transitional one, cannot be explained without critical light shed on alternative institutions as its main cause and instrument of governance and enrichment For, they (as a specific form of informal and illegal rules of conduct) essentially denied and subordinated all formal and informal institutions to their influence. The paper attempts to explain: relations of connection and interdependence between neoliberalism, alternative institutions, and the transitional crisis, fact that neoliberalism in its pseudo form of manifestation has immorally legitimized egoism, i.e. individualism of narrow and privileged strata of society, and phenomenology of alternative institutions

Neoliberal ideology
Destructivity of neoliberal philosophy and phenomenology
New shackles from the aspect of generating areas
Alternative institutions
Environment of the alternative institutions
Interrelated developments in the social system
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call