[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Thus the entire systemof self-management was really just a façade; it was designed to make the11 people feel empowered but, in reality, it retained the political monopolyof the party.Socially owned property was also a travesty, because itamounted to a  privatization of all nationalized wealth.by the polit-ical party which has secured, for itself, a monopoly over the general andindividual management of this property. 35 At best, one might add, sociallyowned property and the system of self-management were unworkable; atworst, they constituted  state capitalism, a term usually hurled by theYugoslavs with indignation at the Stalinist system.Furthermore, manage-rial professionals and technical experts, not politicians, need to be inposition to run a modern economy.Like the Praxis dissidents and other11 well-known Yugoslav dissidents such as Milovan Djilas, Bu%0Å„ar criticizedand fell foul of Yugoslav dogma; although the LCY had broken withStalinist orthodoxy, it established a new one, and independent thinkerscontinued to be punished.In more general terms, Leninism as a system became focused on short-11 term strategies for perpetuating itself; the communists had become an eliteThe breakup of Yugoslavia 10111 and had lost their connection to the society around them which had evolvedand grown more sophisticated and diverse and was becoming even moreso.In Bu%0Å„ar s words, the  difference between the social system and itssocial environment became ever greater, requiring the social system(Leninist party rule) to exert ever more energy or force to preserve itsdominant position.36 Fostering consumerism was one important way ofdistracting people from politics; the constant struggle to make ends meetheld down public consciousness and prevented the creation of too manydissidents.(One might add here that another famous Yugoslav critic, the11 Croatian essayist and novelist Slavenka Drakulić, condemned consumerismfor different reasons  precisely because it was too easy to satisfy wantsin Yugoslavia rather than too difficult.) Bu%0Å„ar even denies that Lenin was11 Marx s legitimate heir, since Leninism s  voluntarism meant that commu-nism came to power in under-industrialized countries; this represents ahistorical discontinuity since Marx foresaw communism springing uporganically in highly developed countries where the social system was readyfor a natural transition.Despite the attack on Leninism, Bu%0Å„ar defendedthe historical role of socialism.He saw much good in its extension ofdemocracy into the economic (rather than just the political) realm and in111 its humanistic appreciation of the equal value of all human beings.Earlycapitalism limited the freedom of many in order to boost the freedom andwealth of a few; late capitalism threatens to drown creativity and ethicalconcerns in a sea of materialism.This greed, inequality, and spiritualmalaise bothered him, and this skepticism about capitalism s level of socialjustice  even while recognizing its productivity  is a hallmark of Slovenesociety in general to this day.Some of Bu%0Å„ar s most interesting writing concerns the national ques-tion.His proposed solutions to Yugoslavia s problems focused on politicalpluralism, and not the splitting off of the national republics, but he does111 believe that secession can be a transmission belt for sparking all sorts ofother positive human-rights changes.But what separates his ideas fromthose of typical Slovene nationalists is his assertion that the real Slovenenational problem lies in the Slovenes relationship with the country-wideLeninist ruling party, not with other national groups! He soft-pedals popularSlovene concerns about living with  Balkan-type peoples such as theSerbs; likewise he mentions, but is little concerned with, the reconstitu-tion of a greater Slovenia that would include their co-nationals in Italyand Austria.For Bu%0Å„ar, it is natural that the Yugoslav communists thinkin pan-Yugoslav, federal terms, because that is the society in which the111 movement was founded and those are the borders in which the bloody,long war against the fascists was fought; territory means power, for partiesas for governments.The bigger the country, the better also for Yugoslavia sposition in international relations, not least of all because of Tito s policyof balancing between the superpowers and forging the Nonaligned Move-111 ment in the developing world.Thus, he denotes Yugoslavism simply as a102 The breakup of Yugoslavia1 Leninist nationality policy.A definitive break with the Yugoslav systembecame necessary after the attempts at recentralization by means of the(Serbian-instigated) constitutional changes of 1988; more than a matter ofpride or profit, Slovenes at that point  as in 1941, one might add  beganto feel that their very survival was at stake [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]