21NEOPRAGMATISM IS AGAINST NEW NATIONALISM, NEOLIBERALISM OR NATIONALISM
Alisher Berdiyevich Rayimkulov
Andijan Agriculture and Agri-technologies Institute Email: rayimkulovalisher@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In the article, the current situation aims to create a new secular basis of social consciousness, pragmatic aspects based on compassion and, through it, to improve the health of the human community, the socio-political environment. are given. New forms of nationalism, on the other hand, are described as a situation that hinders the teachings that seek to create such a noble goal.
Keywords: Pragmatism, neoliberalism, capitalism, xenophobia, nationalism, mainstream, globalization, Gini coefficient, GDP, egalitarian society.
INTRODUCTION
In the post-Soviet period, the world is in the process of reshaping its worldview; in the former socialist bloc countries such as the Czech Republic, Romania, and Slovakia, development platforms such as adaptation to state capitalism, economic protection based on social security, rational use of pragmatism, protection of spirituality from mercantilism.
Nationalism-based forms of pragmatism have emerged in countries such as Russia, China, and Vietnam, which is interpreted as a theory of the capitalist system for consumption. Changes in the world system are also reflected in the socio-political life of Central Asia. However, in the republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan, a form of pragmatism based on nationalism has emerged. The analysis of the philosophy of politics in Central Asia requires a separate scientific study. philosophers interpret it as a novel. It would not be a mistake to say that the ideas of neoliberal capitalism are a manifestation of the organization of economic policy in Uzbekistan based on the mentality of post-independence Uzbekistan.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Analysis of the literature and field information methods available in this scientific article have been used. Analysis of sociological survey results reviewed. If
these analytical opinions are applied in the practice, they will be effective and the disclosure will be communicated and promoted.
The confrontation of two views of modern capitalism - neoliberal capitalism, which has caused the world economic crisis, and the state capitalism, in its various forms - has provoked a surge of xenophobia and false patriotism that is more often called "new nationalism." Although the failure of neoliberalism and the flaws of state capitalism - as different as the latter is in China and Venezuela, in Russia and Zimbabwe, in Saudi Arabia and Vietnam - should determine the New Pragmatism, it is not necessarily the case. Unfortunately - because it is regrettable if not just risky and dangerous for the future - the new nationalism is getting momentum, also in quite different forms, as shown by Brexit, Trumpism, or strengthening the populist parties and movements, primarily though not exclusively in Europe. Yet, in the longrun, neither of these three ideologies and policies will succeed.
RESULTS
In the future, the world economy should go along the path of New Pragmatism. This is the time of heterodox economic approach to the challenges faced by the contemporary world. Such a shift from the economic mainstream occurs. Still, it is far from being the new mainstream upon which the monetary policy for growth and strategy for social development should rely.
How to reconcile the practical approach with an approach which is fundamentally moral? Is it possible to practice economic pragmatism and remain a man of principle? Is it worth it? It is, indeed, both likely and worthwhile. If we want to live in a world of peace and harmonious development - and we certainly do - new values must be introduced to the process of economic reproduction, however without disregarding the requirements of pragmatism, which is a fundamental and indispensable feature of rational economic governance.
We need to adopt a more pragmatic approach, favoring multiculturalism and one emanating from a system of values that promote:
• inclusive globalization;
• social cohesion;
• and sustainable development.
There is no contradiction, as the core values underlying the social management process and its economic purposes are concordant to no small extent. The most important aspect of the two approaches is a balanced, long-term socio-economic development. Its equilibrium should be three-fold:
(1) balanced economic growth associated with goods and capital markets, as well as investment, finance and labor;
(2) socially sustainable growth associated with a fair, socially acceptable distribution of income and an appropriate participation of the main population groups in essential public services;
(3) environmentally sustainable growth associated with maintaining good relations between economic activity and nature.
Therefore, we do not have to sacrifice basic principles on the altar of short-term economic matters or tactical issues but, instead, adapt practical strategic activities to these principles. These imperative charts are the evolutionary path for the political economy of the future. Income relations are of crucial importance for long-term economic growth (Therborn 2013).(1)
A balanced distribution of income mainly enhances the latter. This conclusion is drawn from a comparative study of long time series and is indisputable.
Economic growth is more sustainable in countries with relatively low-income inequalities (Milanovic, 2011)(2)
What is more, income relations in these countries proved more critical for their economic growth than the liberalization of trade or political institutions' quality. This observation points at aspects to which future development policies should pay particular attention. The possibility of achieving two goals in one go is significant. It is viable because one goal - namely the socially sustainable income distribution - is also a means to achieving the second, namely economic growth.
This relationship was not to be apprehended by the neoliberal economic thought and monetary policy based upon it.
DISCUSSION
Consequently, it has generated a severe crisis through which it is destroying itself. The economic thought discarded that drove different facets of state capitalism. For this reason, the latter cannot even expect a bright future ahead of itself. Today, the time has come for New Pragmatism (Baltowski 2017).(3)
I am far from underestimating the importance of the rivalry between neoliberal capitalism and state capitalism, but this dichotomy will not be crucial for the future. Its shape will depend on the fallout from the confrontation between these two views of modern capitalism with a social market economy that will take on the form of the New Pragmatism. The third mainline of conflict will run between neoliberalism, struggling to regain his strength, position, and state capitalism. This time is with the
addition of an unsympathetic new nationalism flavor, which is hostile to it, and the concept of genuine economic and social progress. It should benefit the masses, and not only the narrow social circles whose actions are fueled by individual interests and supported by well-paid lobbyists who represent them in the world of politics, the media, and the social "sciences," unfortunately including the biased economics (Rodrik 2015).(4)
There is no future for any political system perpetuating the situation in which a large economically disadvantaged group labeled the "margin" of social exclusion coexists with a small group referred to as the "elite" and basking in luxury. The economic system and economic policy that acts for a few's profits at the cost of many can't stand the time's test.
It is significant that even the International Monetary Fund, for many years the hub of economic orthodoxy, admits that the policy aimed at surmounting the crisis and conducted by the developed countries - both the United States and the European Union. Instead, it focused on increasing tax revenue (primarily from the wealthy population's strata) than on cutting budget expenditure (primarily targeted at the more inferior social groups). We must immediately add that increasing tax revenue does not always raise taxes because this goal will be achieved by eliminating tax exemptions and improved tax collection. This generally leads to the introduction of pro-growth changes to the structure of final demand and reduces the scale of income disparities. Thus both the causes of the crisis and its consequences are eliminated, or at least limited. Similarly, the redistribution of income aimed at reducing inequalities contributes in the long-run to the economic development of the emancipating economies.
Moreover, up to a particular national income level, a more significant increase in social satisfaction can be achieved through its less disproportionate distribution than quantitative growth. Let this be a crucial hint for economic policies; moreover, it should also inspire the entire educational system. The better we understand it, the easier it will be to pursue that direction. Simultaneously, there is a risk involved because a policy that adheres to this thesis may steer towards populism instead of being pragmatic. Unfortunately, this is the case in countries where the new nationalism is gaining momentum. The difficulty is even more incredible if we consider that production growth is relatively easy to quantify; conversely, we can easily manipulate the social satisfaction measures
Social satisfaction can be noticeably improved if we reduce the Gini coefficient by a specific fraction of a point instead of forcing the traditionally calculated GDP up
by several percent. Economic policies of the future will increasingly have to resort to such a course of action. It will be much more straightforward. On the one hand, the absolute level of production and consumption is rising. On the other hand, the present scale of income inequalities is even more significant than the previous one.
In other words, when it comes to inequality, there is ample room for improvement. While developing countries' economic growth will remain an essential factor for many years to come, in the majority of rich countries - except social market economies characterized by a low level of inequalities - targeted changes in income distribution will be of crucial importance.
Unjustified inequalities, especially those arising from the pathological distribution relations, should be decidedly countered. They undermine mutual trust between people and consequently affect social capital, which plays a vital role in the development process. If different professional and social groups distrust each other if society does not place their trust in the government, and the latter reciprocates such an attitude, if doubt reigns in relations between entrepreneurs, social capital becomes eroded instead of thriving. Ultimately, the economy resembles a family: even if money were to be no issue, but there is mistrust among people, things can turn ugly.
And what about the accumulation of capital? After all, it is necessary for the normal functioning of the economy, primarily for investing in the modernization of existing production capacities and creating new ones. Won't a shorter ladder of income weaken the public's propensity to save and thereby generate capital with which to invest in a better future? Not at all. If this were true, we should not take any measures aimed at reducing income disparities. However, with a few exceptions, this is not the case. No empirical or theoretical evidence exists confirming that societies with a more homogenous income structure save more and invest less. It is enough to study the course of relevant capital formation processes in Austria, France, or certain other countries, especially in Scandinavia. We can see that their more egalitarian societies were just as capable of saving as countries' elitist type of income division relations.
It is also confirmed by conclusions that can quickly be drawn from comparisons between the so-called "large state" economies with "small state" economies. Over several decades (1960-95), in countries where the state's participation in the redistribution of national income five was limited to approximately 30 percent (and therefore countries with more significant distribution inequalities), the investment rate, or its percentage share in GDP averaged 20.7 percent.
On the other hand, in countries with a larger-scale budget redistribution, with an approximately 50-percent share of the state in GDP (and therefore with relatively lower income distribution discrepancies), the investment rate averaged 20.5 percent. The difference is, therefore, almost nonexistent. A country can have the same capacity to generate capital, which affects economic growth in the future, with a less unbalanced income distribution, which determines social satisfaction with the present financial situation. This is another important guideline for the economic policy of New Pragmatism. Hence, this is what we should aim for in the future.
The constant proliferation of human needs, coupled with the irresistible desire to satisfy them, is a double-edged sword. It breaks through many barriers and, through permanently stimulating the economy, constitutes a vital link in the process of expanded reproduction, that is, economic growth. Simultaneously, it is a destructive force, capable of blurring human minds, spoiling preferences, encouraging reprehensible qualities, and, consequently, introducing irrational elements to the economy.
The continuous expansion of consumer aspirations is a significant problem. The latest profound crisis has, at most, slightly toned them down and shifted them in time. This phenomenon is also the product of a particular system of values. A few centuries ago, humanity broke free from the chains of simple reproduction - a period when the size and the conditions of production and consumption were reproduced from one period to another without any changes. This later evolved towards quantitative growth, which has meant that production has grown from one period to another, and appetites always remain unsatisfied.
In the past, a usual person needed just enough to maintain his or her standard of living on a level comparable to that of the previous year's; today - the more, the better. But does it represent progress? Regardless of the quantity produced and consumed, we inevitably demand more. Some believe that our appetite grows with eating: hence the economic greed remains rampant and, consequently, leads to financial obesity and many social pathologies deriving from it. The economy needs a healthy diet just as much as any well-functioning body does. The economy of the future also needs moderation.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
In conclusion, we see that Western scientists, American philosophers of economics, political economists are trying to substantiate new ideas, at least in part, in Uzbekistan, in the mentality, tolerance, gratitude, patience, and perseverance of the
population in the state economy. Increasing the welfare of the state, the people, and the individual in collaboration with the philosophy instead develops new ideas and theories of strategies to improve the individual's well-being and present them to science. In developing national philosophy, it is necessary to critically look at the old worldview of the concepts of pragmatism given in the Soviet interpretation. It is expedient to use the state of pragmatism in contrast to nationalism and nationalism, creating innovations for the people's benefit.
REFERENCES
1. Acemoglu, Daron i James A. Robinson (2012). "Why Origins of Power, Prosperity Nations Fail. The, and poverty", Crown Business, New York
2. Aiken, Scott F., and Robert B Talisse. 2016. Pragmatism and pluralism revisited. Political Studies Review .
3. Alston, Margaret, and Wendy Bowles. 2013. Research for Social Workers: An Introduction to Methods, 3rd ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
4. Ansell, Chris, and ArjenBoin. 2017. Taming deep uncertainty: The potential of pragmatist principles for understanding and improving strategic crisis management.
5. Baker, Max, and Stefan Schaltegger. 2015. Pragmatism and new directions in social and environmental accountability research. Accounting
6. Biesta, Gert. 2010. Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 2nd ed. Edited by Abbas Tashakkori and Charles Teddlie.
7. Boisvert, Raymond D. 1998. John Dewey: Rethinking Our Time. Albany: State University of New York.
8. Baltowski, Maciej (2017). "Evolution of economics and the new pragmatism of Grzegorz W. Kolodko", TIGER Working Paper Series, (3)
9. Galbraith, James K. (2016). „Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know", Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York
10. Milanovic, Branko (2011). "The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality", Basic Books, New York (2)
11. Rodrik, Dani (2015). "Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science", Norton, New York (4)
12. Therborn, Goran (2013). "The Killing Fields of Inequality", Polity Press, Cambridge.(1)
