834707444

and equality. Bourgeois egalitarianism cannot be separated from demands for equa-lity before law. The revolutionary proletarian movement wants to implement the principle of equality in all spheres of lifc. One gains the impression that for Żu-panov no egalitarianism is possible without burcaucracy, which is unacceptable.

(3)    Through re-evaluation physical work is placed in a morę favourable position than white-collar work. However, the bureaucracv and army were excepted. Nor was the principle of equality applied in the distribution of apartments. Only a strong proletarian movement can achieve equality.

(4)    Milić received the impression that Żupanov referred only to individual re-muneration, whereas no advanced society can function without a ęrowing sharc of public spending (public health services, education, the judiciary) in addition to individual remuneration. If these institutions are equally accessible to all citizens. then the differences in personal incomes are less important. And the availability of schools to children from different strata is outrageous.

(5)    2upanov accuses egalitarianism of having an avcrsion to private entrepre-ncurs, which is to beg the qucstion. No one is against individual work, but what we are against is exploiting others by virtue of owning the means of production.

(6)    Żupanov explains poor professionalization by the lack of trained managers. If this society wants to be a self-managing one, then, according to Milić, it cannot support managers. This is quasi-professionalization. Milić counters the idea of a managerial class with the idea of a collegiate form of work, as in universities, with pcriodical exercise of functions as would suit the self-managing conccpt of an organization.

(7)    In order to disprove the thesis of anti-intcllcctualism as one of the compo-nents of the »cgalitarian syndrome*, Milić stated that therc was no feeling of anti-intellectualism among workers and that somc of the symbols of Yugoslav revolution were intellectuals (Dr. Mladcn Stojanović, Slavisa Vajner-Ćića, etc.). In Milić‘s opinion there is a conflict between the bureaucratic apparatus and certain groups of intellectuals, which acr not the same groups in all cases. What is morę, he secs no reason for relating this problem to egalitarianism, particularly sińce various groups of intellectuals were not all in favour of egalitarianism.

(8)    In conclusion, Milić pointcd out that egalitarianism was not a basie social value in Yugoslav society, and not even a verbal stand. Some sectors of the popu-lation accept egalitarianism, and some do not, to mention those who use egalitarianism as afront. How was it, for instance, that in the survey on problems of in-come distribution somc deputies expresed ideas that were different from those they had voted for in the Assembly?

In contrast to Milić, Josip Obradorić criticized Żupanov^łs paper from a strictly positivist position and madę the following points:

(1)    Żupanov’s mistake was that he forgot he was using a set of hypotheses on the basis of which he stated what ought to be done. In fact, his conclusions did not stand up, because they were not based on firm foundations.

(2)    Żupanov referred to egalitarianism as though it were a dominant value in Yugoslav society. Yet the facts that he adduced indicated differently. Egalitarianism could be said to be a dominant va!ue of certain social groups, but that was not true of Yugoslavia as a whole, sińce there were those who were not in favour of equality.

(3)    According to 2upanov, there was a negative correlation between egalitarianism and industrialism. This hypothesis. however, was not tenable, because there were highly devcloped countries in which egalitarianism was the dominant social value. Thercfore, could not be claimed that there was an incongruity between egalitarianism and industrialism.

(4)    Żupanov spoke of an »ega1itarian syndromem and cited anti-intellectualism and anti-professionalism. However, there was no proof at all for this. Furthermorc, Obradović felt that self-management was the most radical form of anti-professiona-lism. Did this mean that self-management was dissonant with industrialization?

In other respect Obradović gave Josip Żupanov’s paper a high praise, as did many other participants in the discussion. Silvano Bolćić, for instance, thought that Żupanov's* work was yaluablc for relating the problems of culture with those of economic development. It was significant that attention was given to the develop-ment of technology in an egalitarian system of values. Within these terms of refer-ence, Bolćić wonaered whether there were any home-grown ethics that could pro-mote productivity of labour. Humanist criticsm must apply itself to investigate how to realize humanist ideals in conditions of economic underdevelopment.

663