CONCEPT OF ANTISYSTEM IN THE STUDY OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC REFORMS OUTPUT

The new economic reality established in the modern world forces researchers to attend to a very promising for the science accustomed to the precise boundaries of disciplinary research problem of finding new opportunities for the development of the economic theory, sufficient to reveal qualitatively new phenomena caused by the interaction of transformation processes of different nature. At the same time, the interdisciplinary approach aimed at combining and intertwining resources of various research areas and consequently, at synergistic effects, is naturally the focus of attention. One of the most popular interdisciplinary opportunities in this case is the concept of antisystem, formed in social-historical and ethnological research areas. Antisystems as the results of social and economic transformations arise on the basis of setting, social acceptance and implementation of transformation goals, negative for the development of the society as a whole; long-term functioning of such system formations leads to useless waste of social resources, formation of many destructive for the functions and structure of the social and economic system products, destabilization of social and economic communications and actual suspension of the evolutionary process. Antisystems implement a certain set of ideas negative in terms of the evolutionary approach which for some reasons received a temporary recognition of society as a whole or some part of it; in this respect, antisystems act as the results of negative strategizing of the development of social and economic relations. Accordingly, the destruction of antisystems involves a multi-stage social denial and debunking of this idea-complex, which burdens social development with additional costs of profound and large-scale transformations. The polarization of modern Russian society creates conditions for the lack of demand and reduction of the subject potential of many of its participants, which in its turn ensures the formation and "silent" raise social and economic transformations of ideological constructs that do not stand up to scientific criticism and are destructive for social and economic practice to the rank of goals. In particular, the noncritical borrowing of foreign institutional forms and the consequent bureaucratization of the sphere of education and science of modern Russia conditioned the formation of an antisystem in this sphere, many of the results of its functioning contribute to deepening the crisis situation in the national economy and reduce to nothing the achievements in the sphere of education and science obtained in previous years.

междисциплинарный подход, антисистема, поляризация, развитие, общественное признание, методология, стратегирование, субъектный потенциал, редукция, преобразования, interdisciplinary approach, antisystem, polarization, development, social acceptance, methodology, strategizing, subject potential, reduction, reforms

1. Арриги Дж. Долгий двадцатый век. Деньги, власть и истоки нашего времени. М.: Территория будущего, 2006.

2. Борта Ю. Откуда миллионы у ректоров // Аргументы и факты. 2017. № 25.

3. Бузгалин А В., Колганов А.И. Глобальный капитал: в 2 т. 3-е изд. М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2015.

4. Гумилев Л.Н. Струна истории. Лекции по этнологии. 6-е изд. М.: Айрис-пресс, 2013.

5. Гумилев Л.Н. Конец и вновь начало: популярные лекции по народоведению. М.: Айрис-пресс, 2015.

6. Ермоленко А.А. «Крутизна» экономической политики в отсутствие политической экономии // Вопросы политической экономии. 2015. №3.

7. Клейнер Г.Б. Мезоэкономика развития. М.: Наука, 2012.

8. Мамедов О.Ю. В поисках «внеэкономического производства» // Terra Economicus. 2016. Т. 5, № 4. С. 6-17.

9. Минакир П.А. Антикризисная программа: заблуждения и ожидания // Пространственная экономика. 2015. №1. С. 7-13.

10. Мизес Л. Человеческая деятельность: трактат по экономической теории. Челябинск: Социум, 2005.

11. Торчинова О.В., Ермоленко А.А. Феномен социальной ответственности в условиях развития интеграционных процессов. Краснодар: Изд-во Южного института менеджмента, 2015.

12. Сапир Ж. К экономической теории неоднородных систем. М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2001.

13. Холодков В.Г. Причины кризисного экономического развития России // Вопросы политической экономии. 2015. №3. С.89-98.

14. Albertazzi D., McDonnell D. (eds.) Twenty-First Century Populism. The Spectre of Western European Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

15. Egidi M., Rizzello S. Cognitive Economics: Foundations and Historical Evolution. Working paper No. 04/2003. Universitа di Torino.

16. Maddison A. World Economy: a Millenial Perspective. OECD. 2001.

17. Motrenko T. До питання про логіку розгортання форми вартості (логіка Гегеля і логіка «Капіталу» К.Маркса) // Вісник Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Державне управління. 2014. № 1.

18. Olson M. Why is Economic Performance Even Worse After Communism is Abandoned? Fairfax, Virginia, 1993.

19. Popov V. Mixed Fortunes. An Economic History of China, Russia, and the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

20. Rifkin J. The Age of Access. The New Culture of Hypercapitalism where All of Life is a Paid-For Experience. N.Y.: Putnam, 2000.

21. Rossi E. The institutional structure of production revisited. Journal of Institutional Economics, 2015, vol. 11, is. 2.

22. The Institutional Economics of Russian Transformation. Burlington, Ashgate, USA, 2005.

23. Stirling А. Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science, 2014, no. № 1, pp.83-95.

24. Walliser B. Cognitive Economics. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2008.

25. Вопросы региональной экономики / В.М.Юрьев, С.А. Андросова, Ю.В. Вертакова, В.Г. Воробьева, Е.А. Колесниченко, Э.Н. Кузьбожев, А.М. Муратов, Я.В. Сергиенко, М.А. Смирнов, О.В. Согачева, С.Ю. Шутилина // Сер. Экономика. Книга 3. Направления стабилизации функционирования региональных социально-экономических систем. Тамбов, 2009.

26. Вертакова Ю.В., Согачева О.В. Исследование социально-экономических и политических процессов: учебное пособие. М., 2009.