834707268

However, top bureaucrats, who dispose of the power to make decisi-ons about reforms, have expressed an amazing ignorance of the theory, for they do not appear fit to make up their minds and support even that which could reallv increase the economic efficiency of socialism - which has been marked as the item Number One on their program-me. The bureaucrat sees poison in anything that has not come out of his own kitchen. Therefore, he happens to refuse even some good and healthy food.

*

* #

Yugoslavia has been now facing its third attempt to reform its own economic system and social relations. The first two attempt have failcd. This has been recognized by everyone today, and even by those who used to swear to success and presented data on how the »reform« was being carried out well and in accordance with the programme suggcsied«. I have no intention of dealing now with some extremely complex circumstances and numerous problems our society had to cope with during the last decade, sińce the reform has started. I shall try to answer only one question: Why have we not been able, in spite of a number of decisions reached by the Party congresses, Party bo-dies, assemblies and executive bodies, to conduct the reform to its end, and why has there been a discrepancy between words and deeds?

The reform, which is not essentially a reform but a revolution under Yugoslav conditions, car.not be - like an armed revolution - carried out ?n the name of the workmg class but must be its own act. That class, however, does not still dispose of either economic or political opportunities and means to make the reform its own act. The social and economic status of the working class in our country do not allow it to take the destiny of the reform in its own hands, sińce the accu-mulation or labour surplus have been still governed by the State, and lately, by banks (naturally, not only by federal banks as some »natio-nalists« would convince us but also by republic, »national« ones),⁹ and by large-scale exporting-importing enterprises (reexporters) which have joined the state.

—    Confusing the value surplus with the labour surplus without which no civiliz-ed society could ever cxist;

—    Ali this realing to the fact that Sik’s economic model of democratic socialism is, in fact, that of the soc:a!lv and humanistically oriented capitalism, directed against the »model« of the cgocentrically and idly or expansively consuming oriented capitalism;

—    A restrictcd, newspaper-like conception of the rcvolution as a revolt, rebel-lion, coup, etc. misunderstanding of the cpoch-making character of the revolution«.

The reader might, of coursc, gain a better insight into the above problem by referring to the alrcady mentioncd issue of »Kulturni radnik*, which published both Sik s postulations and Sutlić’s "Comments*.

⁸ It is characteristic of »our« nationalists, regardless of the type of social or Professional set they belong to, to see the power alienated from man and the bureau-cratic danger exclusivcly among federal bodies from and in other republics, their banks and recxporters. They are absolutely blind to the danger of their »own bureau-cracy« to which Marx, Engels and Lenin so frequently draw proletarian’s attention, including almost all of Yugoslay marxists. On the contrary, nationalists have, on

482