834707221

above mentioned events did have a definite purpose is demonstrated by Milan Marić’s excellent essay entitled »Strah na tekućoj vrpci«,⁹ (Fear on the Assembly Linę). The publishing of the above mentioned serialization was not accidental but is characteristic of our large cir-culation newspaper which were pushed to the right by the student revolt. Since the newspaper were unable to criticize the students with-in the framework of Marxist logie, they resorted to open and defacto acceptance of non-Marxist conception in their criticisms.

Leaving aside extreme right wing cases which are markedly reac-tionary we shall consider relativelly moderate way of dealing with the students which is however typical for the theoretical shifts and re-presents the thinking of society’s upper levels and which also contains significant political implications. I have in mind D. Janćar’s article »Za beogradski lijevi radikalizam iii za funkcionalizam«, (For Bel-grade left-wing radicalism or for functionalism) which was published in the Zagreb periodical »Kritika« no. 7, 1969. In his argumentation the above mentioned author leans heavily on the London »Economist« which on Nov. 27, 1968 published an article entitled »I it possible to be only half liberal?« This article maintained that the demands of the Yugoslav students in spite of stating the contrary, were aimed against the Yugoslav economic reform. That is shown by the fact, according to the »Economist«, that the government under student pressure, had to limit private initiative even though it had proved beneficial. The »Economist« further States that the students demanded a reduction in the differences between the Northern and Southern parts of the country by means of subsidies and income taxes which would create funds for the building of new industries in underdeveloped areas and in this way solve the unemployment problem. The »Economist« does not ask whether these demands are justified, it merely States that they hindered further economic liberalization. The »Economist’s« conclu-sion is that one cannot wish for greater political, cultural and intellec-tual freedom without a liberalization of the economy. He who uses the methods of etatistic force in dealing with the economy is not going to act any differently when dealing with culture and politics.

In keeping with the above mentioned statements, Janćar takes issue with the Belgrade students who in the time of the scientific revolution demand class struggle. He thinks that they are looking for something where it does not exist and that besides, the contemporary world has quite different dilemmas. For instance, the difference between the developed and underdeveloped. This relation does not contain class significance neither in Yugoslavia nor in the world. Within Yugo-slavia there are differing economic spheres which started at different levels and have differing rhythms of development which means that the North cannot wait for the South to develop. This framework serves for interpreting the differences between the slogans of Belgrade and Ljubijana students. While the former stress the slogan »We fight for the better man and not for the better dinar«, the latter think that we must start from the economy and not from man. The former are

* NaSe teme, no. 6, 1970.

434