834707467

processes, and appropriate interventions. Our practice in this respect is even morę liberał than Proudhon s concept and about the conse-

quences we will say something later.

Fourth point, contractural relations govern not only in the economic sphere but in the political sphere of social life as well. »lnstead of laws we would have agreements. No laws would be passed, either by majority vote or unanimously. Each Citizen, each community or Corporation, would make its own laws.« (p. 99) A literał enactment of the principle of political de-centralization eliminates generał laws.

Additionally, society’s integration will start from below on the basis of economical relations and not on the basis joint political decisions: »Instead of political power we would have economic forces.« (p. 99)

Then the division of society into classes will be replaced by socio-professional and corporate divisions. »Instead of the old class divisions of citizens into nobility and commoners, bourgeoisie and Droletariat, we would have categories and classes relating to various functions: agriculture, industry, trade, etc.« (p. 99)

Lastly, Proudhon was enough oi a dialectician and sufficiently de-void of any political pragmatical capabilities for »zigzag-politics« to realize that his society based on self-managing voluntary associations would not be able to avoid inner conflicts. Upon having eąualized the democratic liberał trade exchange with free and independent ac-tivity, he realized that the market exchange necessarily destroys the equality among producers and their solidarity. That is whv it seemed to him impossible to realize equality without the use of laws, that is to say certain generał regulations which regulate exchange. »The community seeks eąualiiy and law. Property, which is born of autonomy of reason and respect for individual merits wants above all things in-dependence and proportionality.

But the community, mistaking uniformity for law, and leveling down for equality, becomes tyrannical and unjust. Property, through its despotism and its infringement of rights, soon becomes oppressive and works against the interests of society.

What the community and property intend is good, but what they both in fact produce is bad. Why should this be so? It is because each is exclusive and each overlooks two elements in society. The community rejects independence and proportionality, while property does not fulłill the conditions of equality and law.« (ibid. p. 92-93).

Proudhon suggests that the following four mutually exclusive elements should be distributed proportionally: equality, law, ownership, and proportion. In our workers self-management system we find the same paradox and the same dilemma: on the one side the granting of fuli operational autonomy, which in the market economy necessarily leads to inequality in profit and salaries, resistance against levelling, i. e., respecting »proportion«, rewarding as to the overall effectiveness of the enterprise and not as to the individual work; on the other side, there are the working people pressing for equality of rewards and social position in the name of society. Our system has given fuli free-dom to market money goods relationships: we are not taking into ac-count thoses limitations which arise from the giving of a part of the

380