834707492

both with the direct objectives of the society and with the »higher« objectives of socialism? In other words, is the social interest in this country truły social or is it particular? Have appropriate forms of social control been planned and deve!oped in the Yugoslav socialist system, in order to make the creation of a monopoly of economic and political power impossible, and to protect the »producer« from the new forms of exploitation and subordination?

The first condition necessary for such radical changes in the society to occur is the completion of the process of socialization of the means of production, and the formation of social property as a higher quality in comparison to State property. The second necessary condition is a radical change of the position of the »producer«, the working class above all, both economically and politically. Basic elements oł the workers' alienation must have been abolished such as the State of affairs in which the workers hire themselves out, ineąual-ity bordering with exploitation and cultural inferiority.

A theretical distinction is madę in this country between State property and social property; social property is defined as a higher form of socialization of property. However, in my opinion, the concept of social property has not been fully defined which makes it possible to treat the hybrid form existing in this country as if it represents the finał form in the process of socialization of property. This problem has already been given attention by other authors, but their conclusi-ons should be re-examined. The majoritv of authors speak of »group property« rather than of social property.⁰ However, if the term »pro-perty« is taken to mean the right to free utilization of the surplus of work and the opportunity to gain control over this part of the social product (over its distribution and use), does »group property« exist in Yugoslav enterprises?

In his article »Sources of Strength and Weakness of Self-Man-agement«, O. Kozomara pinpoints the central problem (although she also accepts the notion of »group property«):^{1 2 3 4}

»It has been revealed that the property-owning functions are taken over by the organs of the State or by experts. Through the process of self-management, these functions should be transfer-red to all emf)loyed in an enterprise: Not only should private property be abolished, but social property should be established«.

In other words, »group property« as a partial form of social property does not exist in enterprises, sińce the right to free control over the surplus of work and to decision-making with respect to production and distribution has not been transferred to the work organization as a social group on one hand, nor are they the right of all of its mem-bers, on the other. This conclusion can be documented by the follow-ing: first of all, there is the essential restriction which makes it impos-

405

1

* S. Stojanović in the mentioned book, and O. Kozomara in the article »U ćemu

2

su snaga i slabost samoupravljanja« (Sources of Strength and Weakness of Sclł-

3

Managcment), Glediśta, 11, 1968, also discuss »group property*.

4

O. Kozomara, Op. cit., p. 1521.