834707477

As was previously mentioned, political and economic decentraliza-tion are in the true spirit, not only of our theory of the withering away of the State, but also with the modern concepf of a morę dynamie and immediate way to govern the development of society. Of course, under one condition: that we know and rationally and clearly State what exactly should be de-centralized, in what manner and with what goals in the conditions of the extremely complicated organization of our modern society, and which, besides, wants to accelerate its dev-elopment, so as to take its place among the industrially developed countries. We are missing exactly such a concept and that is the reason why rational argumentation is replaced by cheap demagogery. It is evident that it was impossible to find a common dialogue in a multi-national society, while the newly created centers of financial and trade power threatened to destroy the balance of inter-national relationships. So, in reality, the »national problem« was resurrected along with the class problem, and the further development of our inter-national relations will greatly depend on the manner in which the class relations are solved. Naturally, those who presently try to solve this situation with political means do not want to speak about how it was brought about. How did it happen that the surplus value of labor was first taken away from the working class to form »state Capital*, and how could this »state capital« again be taken away by a political decision to be tumed into »group capital«, i. e. twice- alien-ated Capital, into Capital that has been »normalized« in its functions in the traditional capitalist form.¹

It is very symptomatical that when some politicians have suggested a »nationalization of financial/trade capital« they encountered the strongest opposition from other politicians, although nationalization is

389

1

In conncction with the problem of de-governmentalize financial and trade Capital from the State, wc read in the mentioned Assembly report from last year the following: »Well known are the discussions about the alicnated tluid Capital; about the unique positions in which three federal banks found thcmselves thanks to State capital, tne positions of a few big export-import houses in the capital (Belgrade) who took the torch from the State monopoly in foreign trade, including some insurance companies. Such a distribution of free money resources was cffected by many circumstances in which cycles of social rcproduction under the conditions of the centralistic State administered economy and the cycles of the transformation of alienated State property, most of all money resources, into resources that are now at the disposal of specific organizations of associated work (sic!). This concerns resources which under centralistic administrative administration alienated the State from the economy and from the work (complete amortization funds, pension funds, fluid reserves) and which it according to the logie of State property, placed in pro-cesses of rcproduction that it might later reproduce as alienated money substance, as financial capital*.

This situation is well-known and a lot has been said about it in the most know-ledgeable places, but the question rcmains open: have these resources been the first of all separated from the working class and producers with the help of the state, transformed into resources of »associated (financial trade) work* that is to say transformed into independent centers of financial/trade power, according to the logie »of state administered economy*, or according to the logie of de-government-alization, namely giving these centers of financial power the status of independent self-managing organization. It seems to us that this latter instance is the case, and that means that it is not a problem of etatism, but a specific concept of self-management.