834707439

There is no doubt that thc highest interest and thc most lively discussions were aroused by Josip Żupanov*s paper. Egalilarianism and Industrialism. Basing himself on the opinions of some authors (Edward F. Dennison) that łagging of the develop-ed Western European countries behind the United States is due not so much to the economical but rather to the so-called »residual« factors, meaning cultural factors which are not knowledge and education as such but rather a system of values and cultural norms governing the degree of knowledge utilization, Żupanov believes that the dominant values in Yugoslav society are living standard and consumption (»enrichment«) on the indivduail level, the »heroic complex* on the national level, and egalitarianism on the societal level.

How is egalitarianism as a dominant social va!ue reflected upon the economic development and economic life of Yugoslav society? According to Żupanov, expe-riencc so far strongly suggests the hypothesis that egalitarian distribution inhibits thc growth of economic aspirations (page 4). He points out that criticism is already being levellcd against egalitarianism, which is being blamed for various difficulties and problems in Yugoslav cconomy and society (p. 5). Why should it be so? It is only because egalitarianism can have different meanings, as held by Żupanov, or possibly also bccause different segments of the social structure take a different view of it?

The problem of egalitarianism and its effect on the economical sphere are seen by Żupanov in (a) distribution of status positions in relation to the economic, Professional, and political structure, and (b) in social rewards (premiums) which include property and sources of revenue, social power and social prestige. Having analysed th is problem, Żupanov concluded that egalitarianism as an implicit value is equa-lity in thc distribution of all social rewards - it simply means an outright level-ing - while at the explicit level there are two conceptions. According to one, the distribution of income, social power and prestige should be egalitarian, whereas according to the other, there should be an egalitarian distribution of public jobs (all should have equal chances of competing for public posts, but all shall not be equally successful), whereas the distribution of income should be according to work done. Howevcr, in practice, »distribution according to work« is constantly being substituted by wage-levelling because »to equalize the conditions of production* means to equalize the results of production. This is how Źupanov defines this situation: ^distribution according to work« rationalizes the wage-levelling, and the »theory of equal conditions of production« rationalizes the »theory of equal sto-machs* (p. 8). It follows, then that egalitarianism in the Yugoslav society means egalitarian distribution of »social rewards* regardless of any other circumstances, including ability and the distribution of positions in the economic, social and political spheres.

Another important problem is whether or not egalitarianism is functional in an industrial society. Żupanov believes that egalitarianism is functionally related to global productivity. The functional character of this connection is clearly seen if we analyse the components of the so-called egalitarian syndrome. These compo-nents, according to Zupanov, are as follows: (1) the prospect of »limited goods* as a cognitivc component, (2) »redistributive ethics*, (3) the norms of egalitarian distribution, (4) »obsession about the private entrepeneur* which is seen in (a) enrichment-phobia or a natural aversion to anything that causes enrichment, (b) »state-ownership« complex, or the »ideological obse$sion«, (c) anti-entrepeneur men-tality, (5) anti-professionalism (curbing the experts^ł functional authority, pressure on the expert to act against the norms of professional ethics, abolition of the pri-vatc practice of »frec professions«, abolition of professional titles, lowering criteria for entering a profession, lowering the value of professional work, negative attitude to a professional organization), (6) »anti-intellectual wage-levelling*, (7) anti-intellectualism. Having thus determined the components of the ^egalitarian syndrome*, Żupanov summarizes the antinomy betwcen egalitarianism and industrialism. In contrast to egalitarianism, industrialism opens up productiyist prospects in social production, develops the ethics of manufacturing and income earning, and encourages upward aspirations as the main motive force of the economic system (introduces a different motivational structure). In contrast to the »private entre-preneur obsession* which freezes the economic structure, and in contrast to anti-intellectualism and »anti-intellectual wage-levelling* as marks of egalitarianism, industrialism encourages the development of tertiary activities where personal work and initiative play an essential role; it leads to greater professionalization and regards creative potentials as the most productive sources. Finally, whereas egali-

658