UDC 338.246.025.88 (497.11) Originalni naucni rad

IV. Social-capital after the political breakthrough: the path-dependences, and the intention of constitution of new market order First, at the beginning of the new order (2000) should be the strategically decision concerning the new constitution that binds and is charged with the complex task: to provide both the ethical basis and stability of community. Turning to the future is to be based on the ethical overcoming of the legacy of past loaded with unethical aspects, connection amongst the war, criminalized economic activities, and moral crisis of society. The deep ethical reflection calls for the constitution of the new social environment. This widespread ethical reflection failed in Serbia, and the government took another pathway devoted to the reorganization and pragmatic restructuring of society. But the belief in the emancipator power of the economic and social reforms proved to be naive; the cost of failed ethical reflection is, among others, the left over the dichotomy of newly emerging market and ethicality. The government's chance is to enhance its credibility through signaling reform commitment and hoping that real economic improvements will in time feed back into a higher level of social trust. However, the pragmatic legitimating of the speed ofstructural adjustments subordinated the need for the ethical reflection. I This lack of initial ethical reflection refers to the insight that generalized morality is one of the crucial ingredients of social trust. Again, the form of governance is also influenced by the existing set of moral norms. The framers of new order in their decision seem to have overlooked the burden of the past lacked the ethical institutions. It mirrors the problem of reinforcing moral norms primarily effected through demonstration effects

Biopolitics and/or biopower

The author of this article thematizes the meanings of life in political philosophy. There are two answers to the question concerning the legitimacy of life in the political philosophy. The first, negative, answer is connected to Arendt, the second is connected to Michel Foucault who has delineated the genesis of the biopolitics in the Western tradition and argued that, since the classical age, "deduction" based on the practice of sovereign power has become merely one element in a range of mechanisms working to generate incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize and organize the forces of life. Nowadays, the capacity to manipulate our mere biological life, rather than simply to govern aspects of forms of life, implies a biopolitics that contests how and when we use these technologies and for what purposes. The author of this article emphasizes the significance of the common treating of the biopower and sovereignty, but he critizices the concept of biopolitics based on the idea of the emancipation of the subordinated body. Polical philosophy demonstrates that there is an irreducible difference between these types of power, but it is necessary to analyze them simultaneously. There are a lot of tendencies (for example, biosecurity) that prove the importance of sovereign power for the practice of biopower. However, the sovereignty without biopolitics is exposed to weaknesses and regression. The task for political philosophy is to articulate the dynamic relations between sovereignty and biopower today

Transformation of Ivan Stojanovic's Thought: Before and After Yugoslavian and Serbian Transisiton

As the title of this paper implies, we will analyze transformation and evolution of Ivan Stojanović’s thought. The goal will be to juxstapose his ideas and approaches before and after transition in Yugoslavia and Serbia. By (re)reading his books and papers, we came to conclusion that he underwent transformation in attitude towards market, state, socialism, capitalism, privatization, transition, financial markets, etc., along the lines of prevailing intelectual current of that times, but, due to his theoretical sophistication, he never became market fundamentalist

Neoclassical economics: science or neoliberal ideology?

This paper calls for a new approach to economic theorising in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2007–2008. We examine two key theories which suggest that markets are stable self-correcting efficient systems. These theories, namely General Equilibrium Theory and the Efficient Markets Hypothesis, are at the heart of neoclassical economics and give neoliberal ideology much of its intellectual legitimacy. We demonstrate the flaws in these theories and the misleading prescriptions they provide for public policy. We suggest that these theories have survived, despite their inherent weaknesses, not as objective science but as ideology, and specifically allied to neoliberal ideology. We advocate a fundamental change of approach