Is There an Opportunity to Establish the Social-Capitalism in the Post Socialist Transition?

Recently Claus Offe has put the question that concerns the fate of the European model of social capitalism: Can the model of social capitalism survive the European integration in the context of certain contemporary tendencies? Offe has presupposed that the mentioned model is challenged by the processes of globalization and the integration of the post socialist countries into the European Union. The working hypothesis of the article is that there is an opportunity to provide a coherent answer to this question. The article consists of two parts. In the first part the author starts with the Polanyis socio-economic theory and emphasises the importance of this approach for the analysing of the tendencies of capitalism in Western Europe and in the post socialist countries. The author argues that with the Polanyis theory we are able to explicate the forms of the embedded liberalism in Western Europe after 1945 and the orientation of non-embedded neo-liberalism and the functioning of the workfare state after the crisis of the Keynesian welfare state. Despite the tendencies of the globalisation projected by neo-liberalism, the central element of the social capitalism, namely, the welfare state, remains with the dimensions of the continuity. In the next part the author points out that there is an asymmetrical structure between the Western-Europe and non-Western part of Europe concerning the socialisation of capitalism. The neoliberalisation in accordance with the model of the transfer of ideal-type of capitalism is more strongly implemented in the countries of transition. In addition, the mentioned theoretical approach provides opportunities to explain the failures of implementing of neo-liberalism in the post socialist countries. On the basis of the endorsing of the socio-economic aspects we can adress the issue pointed out by Offe.Karl Polanyi, Transition, Social capitalism, Welfare state

The World of Water, or Testing Neoliberalism: Is Water a Common Good or Private Property?

The backbone of neoliberalisation is privatisation of common goods from the perspective of market naturalisation and creation of a specific resource regime. It is of important to emphasis that neoliberalism coexists with other societal projects and we are witnessing simultaneity amongst different projects. The naturalisation of market structures and identification of market with competition produce intensified risk-related consequences for the society; actually, neoliberalism exposes the society to environ-mental risks with a number of concrete examples. The author analyses the importance of water resources from the economic perspective, especially with regard to the neoliberal perspectives on water resources. The modalities of market-based usage of water are pre-sented, constituting the property-rights regime. It is argued that an unconditional, socially irresponsible privatization does not take into account community-related management of common pools and dogmatically acknowledges only state and private forms of property. Such a critical view is supported with considerations that a) the ongoing form of economic globalisation does not maintain the development of the green market, b) water is a common good embedded in cultural and political relationships and filled with symbolic meanings. The impasse concerning the status of water takes place in the con-text where the Washington-consensus proved to be defective. At the same there is no other coherently formulated corpus of ideas to substitute the neoliberal canon. Water as a common good needs normative engagement and ecological economy has a task to participate in determination of sustainable levels of costs and prices of water resources.Neoliberalism, Water resources, Market-rower, Sustainable development, Ecological risks.

Neoliberalism: Befall or Respite?

The authors of this argumentative article emphasize that the range of the current crisis cannot be depleted in the diagnosis which is based on cyclic consideration. It is both systematic and structural, which is derived from the genesis and the modus of neoliberalism, which has become dominant during the previous decades. Other than that, it is emphasized that the current crisis is “great”, because it forces relevant actors to face the structural characteristics of contemporary shareholder-capitalism. The crisis also puts to a test the self-reflection of the economic science which faces certain deficits. The authors believe that, given the tendencies in today’s economy, there can be different scenarios for exiting the crisis and projecting a new modus of capitalism in the following period. Having in mind the openness of the present and the uncertainty of the future, the authors describe those scenarios without projecting which one of them will be dominant.Capitalism, Crisis, Neoliberalism, Cyclic, System, Structure

Stare/nove periferije Evrope

The author constrasts the normativity of Europe with the center-periphery issue. He argues that the normativity of Europe has been challenged by the center-periphery problem. In the first part of the article, the author discusses the normativity of Europe and proposes a new concept – embeded normativity. In the second part, he presents several theories on the center-perifery relations and stresses the relevance of structural assymetries. In the third part, Central and Eastern Europe is compared to Latin America in three historic sequences. The last part is a summary of the arguemts and their relevance for the present crisis that can be understood as an ensemble of structural and systemic tendencies.U članku se kontrastira normativnost Evrope sa problematikom centar/periferija. Tvrdi se da je normativnost Evrope izazvana pomenutom problematikom. Shodno tome, u prvom delu se razmatraju elementi normativnosti u Evropi i pokušava se promisliti kategorija utkane normativnosti. U drugom delu se tretiraju teorije o odnosima između centra i periferije, te naglašava se relevantnost teorija koje artikulišu strukturalne asimetrije. U trećem delu se logikom komparativne metode stavljaju u odnos postignuća Srednje i Istočne Evrope i Latinske Amerike, i tematizuje se analitička relevantnost pomenute komparacije s obzirom na tri izabrane istorijske sekvence. U poslednjem delu se rezimira izvedena argumentacija s obzirom na sadašnju krizu i pokazuje da se reperiferijalizacija krize može razumeti kao sklop između strukturalnih i sistematskih tendencija

Die Bedingungen des kritischen Wissens über den Kapitalismus oder: der Konflikt zwischen Wirtschaft und Philosophie

Počinjući s predstavljanjem asimetrije između filozofske i ekonomske refleksije, rad istražuje moguće efekte praktičke filozofije u odnosu spram kritičke analize neovisne oblasti ekonomije. Rad naglašava važnost političke genealogije kapitalizma koja objašnjava konceptualne mutacije što vode do a) autonomizacije ekonomske refleksije, b) samo-hegemonske ekonomske refleksije i c) dominacije »zbiljske apstrakcije« kakva odražava ne toliko mentalne operacije koliko društvenu praksu u kapitalizmu. Važno je osmisliti razlikovanja među ekonomikom, ekonomijom i ekonomskom oblasti, kao i uspostaviti medijaciju među ovim domenama. Važno je da se teorijska proizvodnja ne opaža kao pasivna refleksija vezana za zbilju, nego da se razmatra teoriju kao konstitutivno-praktički faktor, kao zgušnjavanje određenih društvenih odnosa. Za ekonomiku (»turobnu znanost«), to znači da je su-konstitutivna prema »ekonomskoj zbilji«. Praktička filozofija može doprinijeti samosvjesnosti ekonomske refleksije na tri područja: a) važnost ideologije u svezi s autonomijom ekonomske sfere, b) važnost mjere za ekonomizaciju, c) problem oblik–sadržaj. Na osnovi efekata spomenutih domena, praktička filozofija mogla bi pobuditi činjenicu da je jezgra ekonomije nešto što transcendira fenomen ekonomije. Osnove su ekonomije u ne-ekonomskim kategorijama.Beginning with a presentation of the asymmetry between philosophical and economic reflection, the article assesses the possible effects of practical philosophy in relation to the critical analysis of the independent economic domain. The article emphasizes the importance of political genealogy of capitalism which explains conceptual mutations leading to a) autonomisation of economic reflection, b) self-hegemonic economic reflection, c) domination of “real abstraction” that reflects not mental operations but social practice in capitalism. It is necessary to conceive differences between economics, the economy and economic domain, as well as to establish mediation between these domains. It is important not to perceive theoretical production as passive reflection in relation to reality, but to consider the theory as a constitutive-practical factor, as the condensation of certain social relationships. For economics (“dismal science”), this means that it is co-constitutive in relation to “economic reality”. Practical philosophy can contribute to the self-awareness of economic reflection in three domains: a) the relevance of ideology in relation to the autonomy of the economic sphere, b) the importance of the measure for the economizing, c) the form–substance problem. Based on the effects in the mentioned domains, practical philosophy could evoke the fact that the core of the economy is something that transcends the phenomenon of economy. The foundation of the economy is based on non-economic categories.En présentant, au départ, l’asymétrie entre réflexion philosophique et économique, l’article examine les effets possibles de la philosophie pratique par rapport à l’analyse critique du domaine économique indépendant. L’article souligne l’importance de la généalogie politique du capitalisme qui explique les mutations conceptuelles menant à a) une autonomisation de la réflexion économique, b) la réflexion économique auto-hégémonique, c) la domination de l’ « abstraction véritable » qui ne reflète pas tellement des opérations mentales, mais des pratiques sociales dans le capitalisme. Il est nécessaire de concevoir des différences entre l’économie, les sciences économiques et le domaine économique, ainsi que d’établir une médiation entre ces domaines. De même, il importe de ne pas percevoir la production théorique Comme une réflexion passive en relation avec la réalité, mais de considérer la théorie comme un facteur constitutif pratique, comme une condensation de certaines relations sociales. Pour les sciences économiques (« science lamentable »), cela signifie qu’elles sont co-constitutives par rapport à la « réalité économique ». La philosophie pratique peut contribuer à la connaissance de soi de la réflexion économique dans trois domaines : a) la pertinence de l’idéologie par rapport à l’autonomie de la sphère économique, b) l’importance de la mesure pour réaliser l’économie, c) le problème de la forme et du contenu. La base de l’économie repose sur des catégories non économiques.Ausgehend von einer Darstellung der Asymmetrie zwischen philosophischer und wirtschaftlicher Reflexion beurteilt der Artikel mögliche Auswirkungen der praktischen Philosophie in Bezug auf die kritische Analyse der unabhängigen Wirtschaftsdomäne. Der Artikel betont die Bedeutung der politischen Genealogie des Kapitalismus, die konzeptuelle Mutationen erklärt, die zu der a) Autonomisierung der ökonomischen Reflexion, b) selbsthegemonialen ökonomischen Reflexion und c) Dominanz der „realen Abstraktion“ führen, die nicht mentale Operationen, sondern vielmehr soziale Praktiken im Kapitalismus widerspiegelt. Es ist notwendig, Unterschiede zwischen Ökonomik, Ökonomie und der ökonomischen Domäne festzustellen, wie auch eine Vermittlung zwischen diesen Bereichen einzurichten. Fernerhin ist es wichtig, die theoretische Produktion nicht als passive Reflexion in Bezug auf die Realität wahrzunehmen, sondern die Theorie als konstitutiv-praktischen Faktor, als Verdichtung bestimmter sozialer Beziehungen einzuschätzen. Für die Ökonomik („düstere Wissenschaft“) bedeutet dies, dass sie in puncto „ökonomischer Realität“ mitkonstituierend ist. Die praktische Philosophie kann in drei Bereichen zur Selbstwahrnehmung der wirtschaftlichen Reflexion beitragen: a) die Relevanz der Ideologie hinsichtlich der Autonomie der Wirtschaftssphäre, b) die Bedeutung der Maßnahme für die Ökonomisierung, c) das Form-Inhalt-Problem. Basierend auf den Auswirkungen in den genannten Bereichen könnte die praktische Philosophie die Tatsache wachrufen, dass der Kern der Wirtschaft etwas ist, was das Phänomen der Wirtschaft transzendiert. Das Fundament der Wirtschaft fußt auf nicht wirtschaftlichen Kategorien