Over the last four decades, the neo-liberal1 school of economic thought rose in prominence en route to achieving its current status of dominance. During that time, the world has effectively become the sum of many neo-liberal societies that have adopted single systems of beliefs, reasoning, thinking, lifestyles, practices, goals, technologies, institutions, etc. Throughout human history, no other ideology, school of thought, political, religious or military institution, kingdom, or empire has ever experienced such success in terms of shaping people’s ideals, goals, and values on a global scale. However, this acceptance of a single belief system and uniform ways of thinking and behaving in a vast number of domains and activities, even when there is no monetary and material gain involved, is dangerous, because it neglects the importance of alternative beliefs, ideas, values, and goals. It also diminishes the roles of the particular historical development of societies, critical thinking, and moral and ethical reasoning .
The dominant position of neo-liberalism as the leading program of economic research has led to its theorists and adherents ignoring its limitations, while also being unaware of, or disinterested in, other economic schools of thought that existed throughout the history of economics . Accordingly, they have advocated for treating different areas of life as though they are business transactions, meaning that choices are to be made based on the economic efficiency and economic benefits they generate, instead of factors like traditions, customs, habits, ethical and moral values, compassion, sympathy, convictions, etc. The application of the neo-liberal economic approach, or economic reasoning in a narrower sense, to different aspects of human life has drastically impacted societies by transforming the nature of relationships between individuals, as well as the ways in which people interact with their surroundings, including other species. Consequently, societies around the world have been faced with an increasing number of similar problems and issues, including social and economic inequality, the unprecedented exploitation of people and natural resources, a biodiversity crisis, the destruction of rainforests and oceans, threats of electromagnetic radiation, corruption, climate change, etc. This combination of factors, among others, has led many scientists to speculate whether humanity, and many of the species it shares the planet with, have any future at all.
Neo-liberalism first began to noticeably thrive in the 1970s, when the Vietnam War and the 1973 oil crisis led to stagnation (i.e. inflation, rising unemployment, deep recession, etc.) in Western economies, to the extent that questions were raised about the reliability of Keynesian economics. Up to that point, Keynesian economics was the leading program of research within the discipline of economics and in the development of state policies, a status that it attained immediately following the Great Depression. Subsequently, neo-liberal economic views began to gain prominence with a focus on restructuring the economic system and implementing new reforms and policies. The implementation of neo-liberal reforms and policies reached its first peak in the 1980s, during the Reagan-Thatcher Era. Technological, institutional, social, political, economic and cultural practices started to change considerably during that time, and have continued to do so ever since.
Since the 1980s, elite economists at leading universities, academic journals, major graduate research institutions, important international and local organizations, and democratically elected governments have focused their efforts on the study, application and promotion of neo-liberal economic principles, approach, models, reforms and policies. However, the official triumph of neo-liberal economics over all other systems was not solidified until the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Subsequently, the world experienced radical changes in terms of the understanding and definition of man, the goals and nature of society and its institutions, and the role of the state. In other words, neo-liberal economics has very subtly and systematically influenced virtually every aspect of society by transforming everything into something calculable and exchangeable, much like a commodity or service in the market place. In fact, since the 1980s, all areas of social and political life, enterprises, governments, interest groups, associations, universities, institutions, technology, the arts, scientific research, and modern systems of justice and administration, have been implementing the principles of neo-liberal economics within their fields. However, this widespread adoption of neo-liberal values, principles and views in every aspect of life, to the point of domination, could be described as an era of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Consequently, people have been unable to lead free, meaningful, and autonomous lives based on their own will, thoughts, reasoning, values, convictions and conscience; instead, they determine their goals and ends according to the prescriptions and values of neo-liberal economics, which were originally developed for the marketplace.
Despite the fact that neo-liberal economists frequently claim that economics is a branch of the natural sciences , their sophisticated and abstract mathematical models did not allow them to recognize the warning signs of the impending financial crisis and global recession in 2008, nor did it enable them to provide effective solutions in their aftermath. Consequently, a number of studies have been published that not only emphasized the severity of the economic crisis, but also accentuated the role that neo-liberal economics played in facilitating its onset. In particular, heterodox economists believe that neo-liberal economics is fundamentally flawed in its present form and, as such, advocate for significant changes or the emergence of a new paradigm. Most of the critiques put forth by this segment of economists revolve around the fundamental assumptions and methodological monism within the discipline of economics. Additionally, some of them focused their criticisms on the extensive application of highly sophisticated mathematical models on the part of neo-liberal economists. Unfortunately, this important body of work did not receive the respect and attention it warranted, because neo-liberal economists generally exhibit a hostile attitude towards any work criticizing their fundamental assumptions, methodology, and models. This is a consequence of neo-liberal economists having a monistic approach2 to the discipline of economics, whereby they view their paradigm as infallible and rigorous, much like a paradigm of the natural sciences. Actually, this represents a clear point of contrast between economic and the natural sciences . Unlike neo-liberals who are into...