Ljubisa R. Mitrovic
The analysis of the experiences gained so far by the transition countries has shown that most of Southeast European countries follow the neoliberal strategy of the shock therapy and dependable modernization which leads those societies in the zone of semi-peripheral capitalism of the Latin American type. Through the process of re-privatization and a radical social division into layers a new bourgeoisie is coming into being in those countries. In addition to the enterprising fraction of the class that has a progressive role there is also a layer of lumpen bourgeoisie that has sociological traits of the comprador bourgeoisie which is servile and submissive to the external centers of power while it is cruel and unscrupulous to the working class and its own people in its exploitation of them. Its promotion is today helped by conservative corrupted parts of the former structures (mafiocratia) as well as the emerging fractions of comprador intelligentsia that, like “troubadours and trouvers” produces new forms of ideological apology of neoliberal philosophy of development and the “new world order.”
In the FR of Yugoslavia in the last ten years there was the strategy of neoconservative transition and deformed modernization. Behind the manifestly declared socialistic model, what was generated in practice was political capitalism with nomenclature bourgeoisie as the dominant fraction in social relations and political processes. All this gave rise to the phenomenon of blocked transition with numerous negative consequences upon modernization, reform and social development. After October, 5, 2000, the new political elites inaugurated the liberal-democratic model relying upon neoliberal philosophy of development and the dependable modernization strategy. Though the carriers of the current government openly refer to the European (socialdemocratic) model of transition and development, more careful analysts stress that in the FR of Yugoslavia there is the process of institutionalizing (by the laws brought about in the Assembly) the American, that is, the Anglo-Saxon neoliberal model of social development in the form of the dependable modernization strategy. The consequences of this are the creation of a dependable society of semi-peripheral or peripheral capitalism. [20]
The postsocialist societies at the Balkans are found torn between the processes of re-traditionalization and modernization, between the past and the future. They should, along with preserving their own cultural identity and integrity, by relying upon scientific exploration and positive experiences in Europe and the world at large, build their own transition strategy just as they should cherish an active attitude towards the globalization process as the surest way of their own involvement into the international labor division as well as the courses of the regional, European and world integration. Without this, they would be doomed to stagnation and further destruction of their own potentials.

* * *

The future of mankind is uncertain. At the threshold of the new millennium it has found itself again at the crossroads. We are witnessing the dying-out of alternatives as well as an aggressive invasion of the protagonists of neoliberal social-Darwinistic philosophy of development that, by its effects, destroys the institutions and relations of solidarity at the national and international levels. The profit is again placed above people; the apartheid between the North and the South is again getting the stronghold; the Euro-model of development (that used to bring into accord the market and the social solidarity) is attacked undergoing the crisis. Has the socialdemocratic model already become the past or is the social-Darwinism our fate?
Though every anticipation of the social development is a tricky thing to do, it should be said that the future of mankind will depend not only upon the objective-historical tendencies but also upon the actors of social changes, their projects, strategies of action and practice of social struggles. Unlike the neoliberal conception of development and globalism as a project of new inequalities at present, there is an increasing number of authors who not only criticize this model of development as well as the international relation model (that is in the function of large capital and multinational financial elites) but who are also engaged in elaborating an alternative project of social development. Among those authors in the West today the most prominent ones are Immanuel Wallerstein, Anthony Giddens, Alain Touraine, Pierre Bourdieu, Edgar Morin, Sami Nair and Ignacio Ramonet.
In the papers written by the above-mentioned and other authors there is a request for re-affirming the socialdemocratic model of development and the concept of a stable and ecologically sustainable development, for the renewal of some principle of the Neo-Kenzian policy and welfare state, for the development of socially-oriented market economy and a radical reform of the international economic institutions and relations to serve the majority of the world population. [21] They are advocating for a concept of multipolar mondialization that would be “socially good”, for “the development that would give a chance to humanism and emancipation”, for a new policy, for another “new Deal of civilization” that would be centered upon life quality, humanism, solidarity, dignity, joy of life and responsibility, for an active policy of resistance to all the new forms of exploitation, violence and degradation of people’s lives in modern world, for the renewal of ethics and hope into the possibility of emancipating man and the world. [22] They also search for new alternative actors of social changes, of postcapitalist development of modern world society and human emancipation.
The globalization and transition processes represent development megatrends of modern society. Regarding the character and direction of these processes in modern science there are different theories and controversial views.
In the paper the author deals with the theoretical issues related to the relationships among the globalization and the transition processes in the modern world society. He first discusses various theoretical approaches and their cognitive-methodological achievements in defining and exploring the given phenomena and then he proceeds with the more precise conceptual distinctions between globalization and globalism by defining different types of globalization and transition models. Finally, the author points to the relations among the globalization and transition processes in the current practice as well as to the need for the societies in the transition to create an active attitude towards the globalization process instead of the dogmatic-nihilistic one. In the end the author presents his statement for a multipolar globalization concept and for the socialdemocratic model of the transition strategy (“transition with social responsibility”) unlike globalism as a project of new inequalities and the neoliberal variant of development having a high price of “social costs” leaving negative effects upon the development and the social relations in the world nowadays.
  • Amin, S., Houtart, F., Mondialisation et alternatives, Geneve, 2000.
  • Amin, S., L’hegemonisme des Etats-Unis et effacement du projet europeen, L’Hartmattan, Paris, 1999.
  • Amin, S., Les Defis de la mondialisation, Paris, 1996. 
  • Attali, J., Dictionnaire du XXI siecle, Fayard, Paris, 1998.
  • Avramovic, D.,Tranzicija u istocnoj Evropi (Transition in Eastern Europe), Belgrade, 1994. 
  • Bourdieu, P.,Signalna svetla - prilozi za otpor neoliberalnoj invaziji (Contre-feux. Propes pour servir a la resistance contre l’invasion neoliberale), Zavod za udzbenike, Belgrade, 1999.
  • Chomsky, N.,Profit Over People:Neoliberalism and Global Order, Sever Stories Press, New York/Toronto/London, 1999.
  • Francais Houtart, L’outre Davos: mondialisation des resistances et des luttes (L’Hartmattan, Paris, 1999.
  • Frederik Major, Sutra je uvek kasno (Tomorrow Is Always Late), Jugoslovenska revija, Belgrade, 1991.
  • Genov, N. Iztocna Evropa v globalnite procesi.Univerzitetsko izdatelstvo “Sv. Kliment Ohridski”, Sofija, 2000.
  • Giddens, A., Posledice modernosti (Consequences of Modernity), Filip Visnjic, Belgrade, 1988. 
  • Held, D., Demokratija i globalni poredak (Democracy and Global Order), Filip Visnjic, Belgrade, 1997.
  • Held, D., McGrew A., ..., Global Transformations, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2000.
  • Ilic, B., Aktualna pitanja savremene politicke ekonomije (Current Issues of Contemporary Political Economy), Savremena administracija, Belgrade, 1995,
  • Lazic, M., and assoc., Racji hod - Srbija u transformacijskim procesima (Pace of the Cancer - Serbia in the Transformation Processes), Filip Visnjic, Belgrade, 2000. 
  • Mitrovic, Lj., La globalisation et les acters, Belgrade, 2001. 
  • Mitrovic, Lj., Savremeno drustvo - strategije razvoja i akteri (Contemporary Society - Strategies of Development and Actors), Belgrade, 1996.
  • Morin, E., Nair, S., Une politique de civilisation, Arlea, Paris, 1997.
  • Naisbitt, J., Aburdene, P., Megatrends 2000, New York, 1990. 
  • Naisbitt, J., Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives, New York, 1982.
  • Pecujlic, M., Izazovi tranzicije - novi svet i postsocijalisticka drustva (Challenges of Transition - New World and the Postsocialist Societies, Belgrade, 1997. 
  • Pirec, D., Popov, Dj., Imperijalizam ili dominacija, Ekonomika, Belgrade, 1988.
  • Pokrajac, S., Tranzicija i tehnologija (Transition and Technology), Belgrade, 2000.
  • Pusic, Lj., Odrzivi grad ka jednoj sociologiji okruzenja (The Sustainable City Towards a Sociology of Environment), Slobodan Masic, Belgrade, 2001.
  • Robertson, R., Globalization, Sage, London, 1992. 
  • The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997.
  • Touraine, A., Beyond Neoliberalism, Polity Book, London, 2000.
  • UN Human Development Report 2000
  • V. Draskovic, Pojam, uzroci i posledice globalizacije (Notion, Causes and Consequences of Globalization), Zbornik “Globalizacija i tranzicija”, Institut drustvenih nauka, Belgrade, 2001.
  • Vidojevic, V.,“Antagonisticki drustveni identitet i neototalitarizam” (“Antagonistic Social Identity and Neototalitarianism”), Treci program, No. 102, Belgrade, 1995.
  • Vidojevic, Z., Tranzicija, restauracija i neototalitarizam (Transition, Restoration and Neototalitarianism), Belgrade, 1997. 

  • Zunjic Vratusa V., Tumacenja globalizacije i interesi drustvenih aktera (Interpretations of Globalization and Interests of Social Actors), Zbornik “Globalizacija i tranzicija”, Institut drustvenih nauka, Belgrade, 2001
    20. Professor Miodrag Zec in his interview on “Serbia and Privatization: We are moving to American capitalism,” says, among other things:” Here there is much talk about the social state and  the German model, while the financial market institutions are in essence moving towards the American model. Here there is much insistence upon shareholding capital, upon stock exchanges. The German economy is ruled by groups of bank more than by individual holders. Here the main tendency is towards individual investments and individual holders. This model of privatization and the whole reform are moving towards the American model.” (Ekonomska politika,Belgrade, No. 2562, may, 28, 2001, p. 10) back
    21. S. Amin, F.Houtart, Mondialisation et alternatives (Geneve, 2000) back
    22. Edgar Morin, Sami Nair, Une politique de civilisation, Arlea, Paris, 1997, p. 138-139 back
     Web-designer: Plamen Ivanov - KOTA - Sofia - Bulgaria