834707493

sible for a work organization to bełiave as a self-managing unit sińce the organs of the State at the higher level retain the right to make decisions about the distribution of the surplus of value; second it is the directors as representatives of the State who make decisions con-cerning the means of production in a work organization (to do with funds for reconstruction and reproduction, with the utilization of work capacities, and with the adjustment of the existing financial means to the needs of the workers); finally, it is the »experts« (the technical ones as well as the »managers«) who make decisions in connection with the organization and conditions of work, i. e. in connection with everything that falls in the area of »management« in the classical terminology. The majority of members of the work organization is thus not in the position to make basie decisions most essential for the life and work of the given social group (not to mention the decisions essential for the life of the social community as a whole). »Self-man-agement« is thus practically reduced to discussions about income, which creates an atmosphere in which the lack of solidarity is pre-valent. Its vital rights restricted by the State, and with the majority of its members deprived of participation in the exercise of the rights stemming from social property (through the legalization of the dif-ferential rights of various strata in the group), the work organization functions morę in accordance with the principles of »decentralized etatism« than with those of self-management. Therefore, in my opini-on, the term »group property« does adequately reflect the naturę of this hybrid form of property existing in Yugoslav society.

The basie problems is the failure to discover and define the true dimension of sociability with respect to property in the Yugoslav system. The social, common, is still exclusively in the hands of the State (this includes the federal, republic, and local organs of the State, for their naturę is the same irrespective of the level), and ways are not elear in which the State will wither awav in this area, and to whom it will transfer its functions.¹ The group (collective), the »socia-bility« of atomized units, is presented as the only form of direct sociability, which, in tum, reduces it to »particular sociability« which does not have characteristics essentialy different from those of alienated sociability.

What about the second premise, i. e. how has the problem of the position and role of the »producer«, the working class above all, been institutionally solved in our system? Is the cause of various problems which morę and morę freąuently manifest the powerlessness of the

406

1

No institution in the present Yugoslav system is capable of playing the role of the »withering« mechanism of the State in this area. Transfer of functions from the federal organs to the republic ones is only a particularization of sociability, rather than a realization of the true social property. Working bodies in the National Assembly are also a special, professional particularization of sociability, sińce they close professions and strata into their own ranks. Chambers of commerce and cultural communities in the present system are nothing but an extension of the State, not examples of free association even by form, which is obvious both from the functions which they carry out and from the functionaries - taken over from the organs of the State. All these institutions are new only by name; they are old with respect to the character of management and social power.