834707472

sults of one’s work« on the competitive market (not taking into account the monopolistic positions of certain enterprises, non-equivalent ex-changes and so forthl, so the working class remained fragmented, bound to the interest of its groups’ Capital taught the profit logie of monev/goods relations, and furthermore the working class was madę to believe according to the same logie that its exploiters are »workers« and »self-managers«. The atomization had two consequcnees. The first less important is that the working classes do not appear as an economic factor in the equalization of average market levels that is to say as a stimulus of economic development. This was also attempt-ed by means of economic reform. The second consequence was that the workers became disorganized because the roles of the syndicate be-came irrelevant. In the same way as the vertical organization of poli-tical power has retained the features of etatist socialism so the syndicate has in our country kept the tvpically etatistic socialist role, na-mely that it be the working classes teacher of discipline. There was no longer anything that the syndicate could teach the workers because this role had been taken over by the experts of enterprise. Under the new conditions the syndicates did not retain their traditional role as defenders of the working classes’ immediate interests. that is whv the numerous strikes appear as wildcat strikes, without the participation and against the will of the syndicate leadershin. The absenre of the syndicate class role brought about not only a dimishing of its influence

•    0

but the formation of cliques in enterprises so that the workers self-management existed morę on paper than in reality.⁵

While Shlapnikoy in a discussion in 1921 demanded that the work-er’s syndicates take over control not only of entire enterprises (in these syndicates there were not only factory workers but office personnel as well) but that these syndicates should control all branches of produc-tion and the whole economy, in the Yugoslav system the worker’s councils and councils of producers are given precedence over the syndicates, though the producers counciles have no directive power in the economy because this power has bcen retained by the State apparatus (no matter on a federal or republic level). The idea that the Congress of Self-managers could become a supreme law-making body has not as yet been seriously considered. Regardless of how far the yertical organization of power of self managers and self-managing organiza-tions may go there is no doubt that the syndicates have lost their role: to defend the worker’s immediate class interests in this society which has not lost the characteristics of a class society, but has even streng-thened them due to its market economy. If, in the near futurę the present concept of workers self-management undergoes some improy-ement to the effect that the self-managing enterprises actually get control not only of widened reproduction of capital but also the cir-

* Sociological resarch that I conducted in 20 factories in 1966, while the situation was better than it is today, showed that the workers repcatedly listed the power and influence of the syndicate as the least important or ncxt to the least important. The standing as far as influence is concerncd is rcflected in the following listing: 1. director, 2. management committees, 3. technical council, 4. workers council, 5. communist party, 6. workers, 7. foremen, 8. syndicate, 9. administration.

385