834707271

them, and that practice has deviated from beautifully conceived ideas. It is not true that it is only the idea which should always be blamed. At the Third Conference of the Central Committee of the Yugoslay Communist League in 1966, E. Kardelj declared bravely and openly that we seemed to be hesitant about some »fundamental issues« for quite a long time. »As a matter of fact«, said Kardelj then, »we had to face very often the following dilemma: Should the communists struggle for some paternalism of the State, i. e. for a reliable govern-ment which would humanely take care of the good but »stupid« people. or for a true socialist self-management of the working people. i. e. for the establishment of such socio-economic conditions (and materiał ones), and such democratic forms within which the working man will be able to take care of himself«.ⁿ (Underlined by A. Żvan)

Kardel j says we have »cleared up that dilemma on paper only«, and that »many problems have emerged in practice because the battle for a fundamental orientation has not been fully won«.¹²

If, consequently, in 1966, when the Yugoslav society attempted -for the second time - to carry out the reform, there was a dilemma: paternalism of the State or self-management? If that dilemma has been still discussed by the people at the social top, it is then compren-hensible why the reform could not have been conducted with the firm-ness which required such a project.

If we add. moreover, the inefficacy of many officials who have been responsible for the reform, who have been unable to formulate clearly and precisely the purpose. goals and concrete tasks of specific social subjects, the methods and realistic deadlines when the reform is ex-pected to be completed, then it is not difficult to see that the obstacles which the Yugoslav society has been undergoing in its endeavours to transform itself have been somewhat »normal«. I mean »normal« in-sofar as all the three reforming atempts have confirmed the fact that the reform cannot be carried out in the name of the working class but it must be its own act. Will the third lesson be sufficient for us?

*

* *

The cyclothymic course in the development of contemporary social-ism. that periodical alternation of enthusiasm and depression, which can be today easily noticed even by quick observation, is nothing else but an expression of crisis. The quintessence of that crisis lies in the coflict between the privileged political bureaucracy and the working class, including the classes (primarily the humanistic intelligence) which sees in the workers’ struggle the old aspirations and man's fight for freedom and human dignity. The cause of the crisis, it appears to me, is based on the fact that socialist revolutions of our century have won mainly in the countries with an underdeveloped working class.

¹¹ Third Conference of the Central Committee of the YCL: Current Issucs in the Struggle of the YCL for the Implementation of the Reform; Komunist, Belgradc, 19G6, p. 298.

«* Ibid.

485