834707471

c)    that they stifled the normal expanding reproduction of produ-cing organizations, by investing financial resources using a speculative logie in places where a profit could be quickly realized, and especially the modernization of producing in harmony with the development of modern technology (which works with shortened amortization cycles and cannot successfully progress without the help of State subsidies, in other words a developmental strategy of the whole economy);

d)    that with their investment orientation successfully blocking eco-nomic development (however, the so-called economic reform is also to blame), brought about a mass emigration of our workers, inflation and negative trade balance due largely to the importation of largely un-necessary consumer goods (this import serves and enriches a smali sector of the population);

e)    that they brought about in recent years a financial boom for the so-called middle class and a certain elite linked to financial and trade Capital, but at the same time brought about the impoverishment and emigration of large portions of the working class;

f)    with regard to the fact that the new centers of financial power located mainly in the place where the de-nationalized State Capital was located, its liberation and »style of business activity« immediate-ly sharpened the internal national relationship in Yugoslavia (some representative from Dalmatia were speaking of signs of »colonialistic exploitation«).

Ali of these indicators show in the last several years that the working class was economically exposed to great difficulties which is also demonstrated by the morę than 1000 strikes during the past two years while at the same time our streets choked by automobiles, expensive imported goods (a pair of shoes for 30,000 dinars which represents one half of some workers salaries), a deluge of weekend houses, etc. show that one part of society got very rich. People who visit our country are often of the impression that it is not a country of workers and workers self-management, but of nouveau riche. A great segment of our press, perhaps the part that is most read, has greatly contributed to not only the creation of an »enterprising spirit« but also to the crea-tion of a »consumer’s culture« with all of its’ petite-bourgeois stupi-dity and snobbism. We have already mentioned that the democratic-liberal concept of worker’s self-management is based on a certain ato-mization of society. This also applies to the working class. The working class was put into self-managing organizations which seemingly had the same rights and liberties but which in the market situation proved to be uneąuals and dependent. Besides, they were taught an enterprising spirit for competitive market relations which meant ap-proval of the differences in salaries and uneven compensation for the same work (for the same work in one enterprise a worker was receiv-ing two to three times as much salary as a worker performing the same work in another factory). Worker’s syndicates were forbidden to fight for a uniform standard by which laborers were to be compensat-ed. As this would oppose the logie of the realization of profit through competition, which was euphemistically called »according to the re-

384