834707224

tions we posed at the beginning. First, was the June action of our students diachrony, and second, has it meant the real and potential slowing of the rhythm of production in our country?

The answer to the first question can be arrived at by means of an indirect route. We must establish, which is not difficult, that the ad-ministrative elite against whom the student actions were directed are supporters and defenders of synchrony which is defined as develop-ment in space but not in time and whose priority is growth technology and standards but neglects human relations. However this leaves pos-sibilities for mystification because our bureaucracy is not united but divided into several groups that fight each other which can give the false impression that some groups yearn to revolutionize the social system itself. But these are only verbalizations, because a deeper in-sight reveals that this is just fighting for a re-distribution of power and influence within the existing structure. We find immediate proof as to truth of this assumption in the fact that each of these groups ac-cepts and defends some form of nationalism as its basie starting point. The students, however, opposed nationalism with the old slogan of »brotherhood and unity«, which is obvious not only from the fact that during meetings all those who took nationalist positions where whist-led and shouted down. From the speeches of participants at the student meetings it is obvious that they diferentiated between the politics of safeguarding national equality and the politics of building one’s own nation. Namely, no matter how much nation building is neces-sary at this stage or our development in the struggle against unitarism and centralistic monopolies, we must not disregard the fact that the exclusive building of one’s own nation is a bourgeois motive which regularly presupposes the existence of a privileged caste above society and its working class. Accordingly, the destruction of centralism does not automatically bring about self management of working people because the political sphere can be taken up by competition and con-flitcs of national oligarchies and other right-wing forces who have their own vital interests. In such a situation the only reliable baro-meter is class relations. If massive unemployment should arise which primarily affects the poor strata of society, and social distinctions are strengthened, then in the conditions of a generał economic stagnation every discussion of socialism becomes forced and hypocritical. The student movement grew from this cause and sought the reestablishing of a socialist perspective which in consonance with our approach has a diachronic character.

To the second question which is a type of modification of the first one, which expresses the viewpoint that the student revolt slowed down the rhythm of our progress, we could give a negative answer on the basis of the aforementioned facts. However a clarification is ne-cessary because for those who defend the already mentioned view-point progress is merely inereasing the per capita income figures. We think that aside from this there is a type of progress in human relations that progress in the economy does not necessarily bring about progress in the field of human relations. In other words this means that the mere expansion of the economic system, based on the develop-

436