834707217

form routine physical functions in the process of materiał production belong to the first class and all the remaining people belong to the remaining class. Aside from the fact that this division is not in keep-ing with Lenin s demand, having as it does imprecise critena, it is not very suitable for the understanding of occurrences in question nor for many other conflicts in our society. That is why we think that because of real and ideological reasons the category of counter classes should be discarded and the people included in it should be divided into two basie groups: bureaucracy and middle class. We are conscious of the fact that this division has its weakness especially concerning the noti-onal definition and the differentiation of the middle class from the workers and the bureaucracy. However, this heterogenous social group which is placed between the administering elite and the workers is rapidly growing and their influence is becoming ever greater in all areas of social life and especially in the field of culture and ideology. It represents the majority of people who have taken all the better positions in the socialist sector and they are the main supporters of our »speedy entry into Europe« at any price. As a criterion for the differentiation of the middle class from the working class, aside from the position and role in the social organization of work and the manner of acquisition and size of earnings, we should take into consideration life style and aspirations.¹

IV.

The above mentioned conditional population groupings, at least in generał terms, makes for better observations of the social conflict dynamics, as articulated by student unrest. In spite of the fact that the students themselves are a heterogenous grouping, which in these situat-ions create relatively independent, authentic and homogenous styles of thought and behavior, a glimpse into the social background and situation of the students, espeically those who form a part of the core of the movement, is necessary for an understanding of the essence of the events. Naturally, we can’t go into that here sińce sufficient proof is not at our disposal. However, it seems to us a plausible hypothesis that a comparative analysis of social background and materiał position of corresponding groups of university students in Belgrade and Zagreb would yield little contribution to an explanation of the large difference in type of activism between these two centers during the

time of the June manifestations. Reasons for that explanation must be sought elsewhere.

When we read the documents: proclamations, slogans, press react-ions, speeches, we come to the conclusion that the »dynamics of con-flict« along with their adopted schemes were channeled into a tri-

430

1

According to the Italian press, whose reports our press also carried, (sec Po-liłika of Dec. 15, 1970) on the occasion of the holiday of November 29 last year 245,000 Yugoslavs travelled to Italy and spent at least seven hundred million lira. The total of Yugoslav investments for ten months of the same year was 29,5 million lira. This fact, if accurate, sufficiently demonstrates the buying power of our middle class.