834707494

working class in our society in the fact that the conceptual model has not been sufficiently adhered to, or is the cause in the model itself, in its failure to bring about a radically different position of the working class in the present system? Let us consider which aspects, if any, are fundamentally changed by the system defined in this country as self-managing socialism, with respect to the position of the working class. Are the workers overcoming the status of hirelings, the status of com-modity which has to be »freely« sold at the market in order to exist; are they overcoming the poverty, a permanent companion to the above-mentioned status, and unemployment, a result, but also a cause, of the continuing dependent position of workers in relation to those to whom they sell their work?

In no socialist system has the working class gained the position of the »ruling class«; in the Stalinist model this fact was justified by the concept of socialism as a transitory state in which the State becomes stronger. In the socialism called self-managing there is no such justif-ication, and yet some of the basie elements which make possible the continued existence of the old position of the working class have not been overcome. The fact that workers hire themselves out is frequent-ly mentioned in the scientific literaturę in this country, yet this fact is completely ignored in the official documents. This is, however, the key problem with respect to the position of the working class in the socialist society. If one recognizes the possibility that the status of hir-ing oneself out may exist not only under the conditions of private pos-session of the means of production, but also when there is monopoly of the State property, sińce the position of workers remains essentially the same if all conditions of work and production are determined by the State (or its extentions within the enterprises) instead of by a private proprietor, the question concerning the existence of hired Iabor is still very appropriate in this country. In close connection to the rights derived from the character of property which has not be-come social in the true sense, the right to make decisions about the fundamental conditions of work is not be »producer’s«:it does not even belong to the work organization which employs them. (Organs of the State which make the most important decisions determine in the finał analysis the fate of both groups and individuals: through its decisions concerning the investments policy, the State can facilitate and make faster the development of some, and slow down others; by tolerating the present differences in the conditions of work between branches of industry and between enterprises within the same branch, the State creates favorable conditions for the development of major social differences, and distorts the effects of the principle of »amount of reward in proportion to amount of work«; by not interfering with the present system of distribution of national revenue, the existence of privileged social groups is implicitly acknowledged; etc.).

The fact that in this country the State in its classical form is joined in the exercise of the rights to make decisions about the conditions of work by a branched-out, decentralized system of State organs, together with a number of accessory institutions such as various chambers of commerce and »cultural communities*, does not make the situation

407