834707469

the money/goods relationships are transformed into »socialist money/ goods relationships«, and the market is changed into a »socialist mar-ket«, so that the Capital, with its profit logie, is transformed into »so-cialist capital«. Such nonsense is stressed so as to make everybody forget that the Capital market, with its laws of supply and demand, has already undergone important limitations not only because of so-cialization (societal control of the means of production) of production and distribution, but rather and because of the rofe of worker s syn-dicates (control of so called »indirect wages« and social contributi-ons). Social intervention which fundamentally differs when we spealc about the production of consumers goods or of production of the means of production and especially when we speak of the development of the labor force in the form of a scientific-technological factor (education of cadres, organization of production, etc.) has already brought about a polymorphic economic structure, so that the market (even if we dis -regard the role of contemporary arms production in the development of the labor force and research) has acąuired a secondary importance.¹

Political decentralization had not only been recognized as identical with the abandonment of centrally administrated planned economics, but also with every planned developmental concept (regardless of whether it will be realized from either above or below), that is to say whether on the level of »self-management conferences« or on the level of »representatives of self-management enterprises«, planned with regard to a long term social development, which under the conditions of modern technological develoopment is a condition sine qua non of a harmonious and speedy social development. Naturally, the submission of economic development to the inherent logie of the market cannot prevent the occurence of a whole series of internal contradictions and irregularities in the development of various enterprises and branches of production, and of various forms of disloyal competition and con-flicts, especially under our »Balkan conditions«, which will constant-ly search for compromises and a single arbiter in the settlement of resulting disagreements. Who will assume the role of this arbiter? Will a certain »coordinating organization« composed of producers, as Proudhon already suggests, or a political representative of society’s long-term interest, that is the communist party, as has been suggested in our country, or will it be a »mediator bureaucracy« whose precon-dition tor existence is political, economic and cultural atomization of society? it should be openly said that behind Yugoslav self-manage-ment there is hidden a vertical organization of societal power, which is represented by the communist party, which is trying to play all three of the above mentioned roles. With what success we will see.

382

1

Several years ago a representative of the British liberał party wanted to be-come acquainted with our workers’ self-management because he had received an assignment to modernize his party’s social program and social philosophies. He re-turned disappointed after having been told by the district leaders that we are trying to prepare our workers to inerease their income by means of market competition, and having found out that they were implementing obsolete capitalistic notions.