Suchergebnisse

This article reconstructs and interprets Bakaric's views on the causes of reproduction of extensive economic development in Yugoslavia in the historical context. Emphasis is put on Bakaric's political-economic criticism of the ideology and practice of Yugoslav socialism. His research into the causes of the economic structure's lack of balance and the consequences thereof starts from the etatist relations of production, which were the basic framework and an insurmountable obstacle to the possibility of their liberalization. He found the causes of imbalance in the bureaucratic relations and in the basic motives of the governing stratum to ensure -- through incessant new big investments -- mass employment, improvement of the standard of living, additional influx to the budget and preservation of the monopoly of party power. A long process of gradual, slow and uneven development of self-government in an unequally developed multiethnic community did not make it possible to break out of the vicious circle. Frequent normative and organizational changes concealed constant political debates and conflicts regarding budget distribution and fiscal solidarity among the republics and regions. Bakaric was critical towards the governing stratum, which focused on distribution instead of fulfilling prerequisites for far-reaching changes of the economic and social system, and this resulted in a general crisis and in the collapse of the Yugoslav model of socialism. Adapted from the source document.

The author reflects on Dag Strpic's book Karl Marx and the Political Economy of Modernity, in particular on the part in which Strpic laid out the scientific results of his research into the applicability of Marx's critique of political economy from the viewpoint of commodity production on the theoretical level of "capital in general". Furthermore, she draws attention to Strpic's discussion of the causes of appearance of various forms of globalizing modern totalitarianisms (political and corporate), which can also be recognized in the contemporary neo-liberal order. This is so in spite of the fact that the latter is legitimized theoretically and ideologically as liberal, and that, in principle, it has retained its form of modern development. Adapted from the source document.