834707468

surplus work to the state because it is a question of principle. There has even been formed a special ideology of »socialist money/goods relationships« and »the theorv of a socialist market«, in spite of the fact that the market laws work in the same wav in capitalism and so-cialism and in any other society that is based on a monev/goods ex-change. There is no doubt that this democratic-liberalistic tvpe self-management organization resembles our workers self-mana<?ement and points out some problems and contradictions that can also be found in our svstem. Let’s try now to look in a morę concrete wav at the tvpes of problems and results that had to arise from the aonliration of democratic-liberal concepts of workers self-management in our society. Above all, in the spirit of middle-class liberalism, the concept of social organization is individualistic or atomistic, so that all econ-omic associations are equalized in their legał status and are on an ideał social piane (as was the case of the middle class as owners of the means of production in classical democracy). Production organization is defined primarily politically and not functionally in an economic sense with regard to the complexity of the social divisions of labor and the differing roles in the economic system. So it happened that a certain type of political democracy defined the naturę of »economic democracy«; furthermore, the legal/political equality quickly led to economic inequalitv among the producing organizations. In our country, it has been conditioned the same as in classical middle-class liberalism with a Iow level of development of social organization in generał and especiallv by division of labor (and with this the cor-responding concepts of »societal work«) the same as with legał formal-ism legally equalizing all productional or economic organization is not capable of grasping their basically different functions in society. In our country this legał formalism is a consejuence of the still dominant role of the »shyster« as opposed to the professional intelligentzia especially the part linked to social organization.: economists, sociolog-ists, engineers.³

The freedom of social activities is first of all regarded as a free agent’s liberty, the main role of which is the exchange of production in a competitive market with the assumption that supply and demand

best regulate industrial development. It is not assumed that the deter-mining factor for economic growth is the development of modern technology, possession of a developmental strategy or principles in regard to the distribution of personal and collective incomes. Furthermore, even though it is nowadays recognised that the market no long-er plays the same role that it did in the last century, and that it has experienced various limitations and is no longer the regulator of economic development, we can derive a sort of »socialist ideology« where

^a The author of these lincs has been living for quite a whilc in the illusion that the markedly economic orientalion of our political Icadcrship has drawn into the State the most prominent economic experts but the economists theinselves have dissuaded him łrom this belief. The economists have already lor ten years been advising the establishment ol a separate economic body working in conjunction with the gov-ernment but the politicians have been actively rejecting this. It seems that this ap-pears to them to be a form of »technocracy«.

381