lion dollars in 1977. This is a catastrophe for Yugoslavia.

The entire country is in the grip of an unending crisis, and the broad working masses live in` poverty. Hundreds of thousands of Yugoslav workers > are out of work, are being thrown into

the s :reat or emigrating abroad. Tito has net

only acknowledged this economic emigration, this capitalist phenomenon, but has even recommendended that is should be developed. Unemployment cannot exist in a socialist country and the clearest example in this direction is Albania. Meanwhile in the capitalist countries, among which Yugoslavia is, of course, included, unemployment exists and is developing everywhere. When Yugoslavia has over one million unemployed, and over 1.3 million economic emigrants are selling their labour pourer in Federal Germany, Belgium, France, etc., when the wealth of individuals occupying important posts either in the State administration or in enterprises and institutions is increasing rapidly, when the prices of consumer goods are mounting day by day, when the bankrupt enterprises and branches number thousands, the system of Yugoslav  self administration  is proved to be a great fraud. And yet Kardelj has the temerity to write,  in our conditions, socialist self administration is the most direct form and expression of the struggle for the freedom of the working man, for the freedom of his labour and creativeness, for his decisive economic and political influence in society. (p. 158).

Going ever further in his bourgeois type demagogy of stale phrases, Kardelj reaches such depth of deception as to say,  With the Consti 

tutional and legal guarantee of the workers' rights on the basis of their socialized labour in the past, our society further extends the dimensions of real freedom for the workers and working people in the material relations of society. (p. i62!. And what does this apologist of the bourgeoisie have in mind when he talks of the extension of the  dimensions of true freedom for the workers? Is it the «f reedom  to be unemployed, the  freedom. to leave their families and homeland in order to sell the power of their muscles and minds to the capitalists of the Western world, or is it the  freedom  to pay taxes, to be discriminated against and savagely exploited by the old and the new Yugoslav bourgeoisie, as well as by the foreign bourgeoisie?

3.    Self  administration,, and the Anarchist

Views on the State

The National Question in Yugoslavia

In Yugoslavia organs of State power as genuine representatives of the people coo not exist. There is only the bureaucratic system called  the system of delegates», which is presented as the alleged bearer of the system of State power, and that is why no elections for deputies to the organs of State power are held. The Titoiites want to justify this fact by arguing that the representative organs are allegedly expressions of bourgeois parliamentarism and of the Soviet socialist State which, according to them, Stalin had allegedly turned into an institution of bureaucracy and technocracy. The experience of the Soviets of the worker and peasant deputies, set cep by Lenin

40

on the basis of the great experience °f the Paris Commune, has been cancelled in Yugoslavia, because they have been described by the Yugoslav revisionists as "forms of State organization which create personal power..

Elaborating the revisionist idea of ,specific socialism, around the '50s, the Titoites proclaimed world wide that they had definitively rejected the socialist State system and replaced it with some kind of a new system, «self administrative socialism», in which socialism and the State are alien to each other. This revisionist  discovery  was nothing but a copy of the anarchist theories of Proudhon and Bakunin on "work  self administration and  workers' factories., which have long been exposed, as well as a gross falsification of the real ideas of Marx and Lenin on the State of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Karl Marx wrote:

 Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period, in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat..'

The political system of  socialist self  administration. in Yugoslavia has nothing in common with the dictatorship of the proletariat, but is opposed to it. This system has been built on the model of the administration of the United States of

7 K. Marx   F. Engels, Selected Works, vol. 2, p. 23, Tirana 1975, Alb. ed.

,America. Talking about the Yugoslav system of  self  administration , Kardelj himself has written, «...we may say that this system' is a little more akin to the organization of the executive power in the United States of America than

Europe... (p. 235). to that of Western

Consequently, it is clear that here there is no denial of the fact that.the organization of the Yugoslav government is copy of the organization of capitalist governments. but what may be discussed is the question: which capitalist .government has been imitated more closely, the American government or one of the governments .of Western Europe? And Kardelj the answer to this question, when he sad gives g

of the executive power of the United States of America has been taken ague model.

The Yugoslav revisionists, views of the State :are completely anarchist. It is known that anarchism calls for the immediate abolition of any kind of State, hence of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Yugoslav revisionists have abolished the dictatorship of the proletariat and, in  order to justify this betrayal they talk about two phases of socialism:  State's socialism" and  true humanitarian socialism. 'The initial phase, according to them, covers the

the triumph of the revolution first years following ship of the proletariat exists, ~ when the dictatorin he «etatispt bureaucratic, exists, and is expressed in capitalism. The second pi State, the same as beyond the «etatist bureaucartic" is that of going replacement with  direct de, atic. State and its views the Titoites not only % democracy". With these the dictatorship of the prop deny the need for but also counterpoise to one Lariat in socialism,

another the notions

of socialist State, dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy.

They disregard the teachings of the classics of Marxism Leninism that during the whole historical period of the transition from capitalism to communism the socialist State is constantly strengthened. That is why E. Kardelj writes that society in Yugoslavia is based less and less on the role of the State apparatus. According to him, the State is allegedly disappearing in Yugoslavia at the present time.

But with what does Kardelj replace the role of the State apparatus? He replaces it with  the workers' initiative»! He puts it like this, «...the further functioning of our society will be based less and less on the role of the State apparatus, and more and more on the power and initiative of the workers... (p. 8). What absurd reasoning! For one to speak about the initiative of the workers, in the first place the workers must be free and organized, they must be inspired by clear cut directives, and effective measures must be taken for the implementation of these initiatives. In Yugoslavia, who is engaged in the organization of the workers and their inspiration with clearcut directives? The  self  administrative community,,, says E. Kardelj, reasoning in an abstract manner. He leaves the main role in this kind of community to the individual  in the united self administrative work for his own interests. As to what is meant by this  self  administrative community of individual interests which is placed at the centre of Yugoslav society, nothing at all is explained, but what is most striking in these ideas is bourgeois individualism, which exalts the absolute rights of the individual in society and

his complete independence from society, the putting of personal interests above the interests of society.

According to this  theoretician  who permits himself such judgement, the strengthening of the State and its apparatus is characteristic of the  State owned forms of socialist relations of production...  (p. 8), whereas in Yugoslavia, says he, the process of the strengthening of the  self  administrative  role of the working man will develop more in place of the State. Hence, in a true socialist State where Marxist Leninist science and the Leninist revolutionary practice are applied, according to this  philosopher., man cannot be free and master of his fate, but is transformed into an automaton, whereas under Yugoslav  self  ad min istration,, the working man allegedly assumes great importance, and precisely in this ,self  administration , in  the democratic mechanism of delegation of Yugoslav society», he allegedly understands his great role! Which classes these State organs represent, what ideology guides them, on what principles have they built their activity and to what forum do they render account? Of course all these questions remain without clear answer, because any accurate answer to them would shed light on Yugoslavia's capitalist political system.

Making no distinction at all as to what State, party or system he is referring to, and attacking the State in general for being inhuman, Kardeij sticks to his anarchist positions, when he writes,  Neither the State, nor the system, nor the political party can bring happiness to man. Man alone can bring happiness to himself (p. 8).

44

This is quite clear evidence of the tendencies to spontaneity in the anti Marxist theory of  socialist self  administration , according to which the working class need not organize itself in the party or the State to achieve its aspirations, because with the passage of time, even while wandering in the dark, one day it will find the happiness it is seeking.

To anticipate the question: since the State is allegedly unnecessary, why is it not eliminated in Yugoslavia? Kardeli writes,  The State... must interpose in the role of the arbiter only in those instances when the self governing agreement cannot be achieved, while from the aspect of social interests, it is essential that a decision be taken (p. 23). And to prove that allegedly the need for State arbitration to settle disagreements is seldom felt, he says,  The free exhange of labour has an essential influence on reducing antagonisms between physical and mental work. In relations of this kind, mental work is no longer superior to physical work, but is only one of the components of the free united labour and of the free exchange of different forms of the results of labour  (p. 24). Upon reading these phrases, the question arises in everybody's mind: can it be the Yugoslav social order the author is referring to? Whenever were antagonisms between mental and physical work in Yugoslavia so reduced?!

The reality of developments in Yugoslavia proves the opposite. Between mental and physical work there are essential distinctions which cannot be reduced by words alone. It is astonishing that there should be talk about the reduction of antagonisms between mental and

physical work in the Yugoslav State when it is known that there the differentials between work

ers' wages and intellectuals' salaries, alone, without mentioning other distinctions, have reach

ed a ratio of one to twenty, if not more.

Kardelj considers «self administration in the

united work  as  ..the genuine material basis for self administration in society, too, that is to say, in the socio political communities which exercise

State power from the commune up to the Federation, as well as for the realization of the democratic rights of working people and citizens in the running of the State, or society respecti

vely. Self government is the material basis, also, for the development of the worker as a creative individual in the utilization of all sorts of social means...,. (p. 24), and many other such phrases.

Seeking to present the so called self administration as the material premise for man's happiness which has allegedly been discovered by

the great brains of Yugoslavia, Kardelj resorts to twisted phrases and ecclesiastical language, preaching a long sermon and saying nothing.

He lines up contradictory ideas about  scientific socialism, and uses lengthy expressions in order

to give his words the appearance of an allegedly profound philosophical meaning.

But how is the Yugoslav political system working out in practice? When it comes to answering

this question, Kardelj is forced to admit:  in this respect, the system itself has too many weak points. A whole series of weaknesses in the functioning of the organizations and institutions of our political system quite naturally creates the belief that powerful sources of bureacuracy and technocracy are still operating, that our admi

46

nistration is complicated and that is why bureaucracy is rampant, that some organs and organizations are closed in on themselves, that there are many gaps and cases of duplication of work, that the forms of democratic communication between self government and State organs and the entire social structure are weakly developed, that we hold many useless and improductive meetings, that the meetings and decisions are frequently insufficiently prepared from the professional viewpoint, that in the fight for his rights the citizen often has difficulties in overcoming administrative obstacles etc." (p. 193). When the ,self  administration system has been overwhelmed by bureaucracy, when the State and administrative organs are closed in on themselves, take worthless decisions and shut out the citizens who want them to do something about their many troubles, then who, apart from the Tito clique, needs this system? How can the Yugoslav citizens govern themselves when they cannot overcome the  administrative obstacles ? Despite all the great desire of the devil not to show his cloven foot, despite all the reservations and efforts to round things off by the Titoite ideologist in order to cover up the ills of his system, still even from what he admits, the truth leaks out.

Kardelj writes, ,Both the structure of delegates' assemblies and the way decisions are taken in them are so organized that, in principle, they ensure the leading role of the united labour in the whole system of taking State decisions  (pp. 24 25). There he is juggling with words in order +o show that the delegates' assemblies», which in reality are like the assem

blies set up by capitalist trade unions, where the trade union members indulge in idle talk, can allegedly exercise State functions. Therefore, according to him, the State of the dictatorship of the proletariat is superfluous.

Here, of course, it is not just a matter of replacing the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which terrifies the bourgeoisie and the revisionists, with another name    delegates' assemblies». No, the question here is about the change in the class character of the socialist State, so that not the working class, but the new bourgeoisie, has power. It is not difficult to see that the aim of these stands is to justify the course of returning to capitalism, and as far as possible, the Titoite betrayal.

In order to present their notorious system of ,socialist self administration. as fair and acceptable, the Titoites oppose it to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Making no distinction between capitalism and socialism, the Titoites consider all other political systems  dogmatic . After calling their dreams the  socialist system of self administration., in order to demonstrate the superiority of their system, they compare it with the capitalist social order.

Of course, the Yugoslav revisionists cannot fail to ,find fault with the parliamentary political system of bourgeois society, which Kardelj defines as a system of  many parties», for otherwise they would be exposing themselves as advocates of bourgeois parliamentarism, which Marx and Lenin sternly critized in their time. Therefore, they declare that it is a mistake to consider this political form of the bourgeois State as having

a universal and eternal character. It is common knowledge that Kardelj was not the first to  criticize­the capitalist ideologists' notorious thesis on the universal and eternal character of capitalism. Refuting the views of social democracy, the classics of Marxism Leninism have proved scientifically that the capitalist system is by no means of a universal and eternal character, that it is doomed to extinction, that the capitalist State, which is the offspring and bulwark of this anti popular system, must be destroyed to its foundations and instead a true socialist system must be established, but not a bastardized system which starts from capitalism and returns again to capitalism, as the Yugoslav political system of  self administration. does.

Kardelj ,criticizes. the bourgeois parliamentary system, but lightly and gently, because it hurts him to do so, therefore immediately after criticizing it, he lauds to the skies and makes a fetish of its contribution to the democratic development of mankind. In order to magnify this contribution to such an extent that the reaction character of today's bourgeois parliament pales into insignificance and, in particular, to show the  organic link between parliamentarism and man's democratic rights», for the first time h2 quotes (or rather misquotes) Marx:  The parliamentary regime lives on debate   then how can it ban discussion? Every social interest and institution is transformed here into genera! ideas, and it is as such that they are thrashed out how is it possible, then, for any interest or institution to stand above all ideas and impose itself like a religious dogma? . . . A parliamentary regime allows the majority to decide everything

how is it possible Then, that the overwhelming majority outside parliament can fail to want to take decisions?»

This quotation from Marx is like a square peg in a round hole in the context et this book, therefore it can hardly serve to prove what Kardelj wants. Marx's idea, out of context and impermissibly mutilated, in the tricky way it was quoted by this revisionist, casts doubt on the undeniable fact that Marx was absolutely opposed to the venal and rotten parliamentarism of the bourgeoisie.

This is an abortive attempt on the author's part because Marx's stand is publicly known In criticizing the bourgeois parliament and the bourgeois theory of the division of powers, Marx never said that representative institutions should be done away with and the principle of elections abandoned, as was done in Yugoslavia, but he wrote that in the proletarian State such representative organs should be set up and operate that are not  talking shops, but real working institutions, built and acting as

...a working body, executive and le

gislative, at the same time».1

Bourgeois parliamentarism has gained  great strength, because, according to the author of the book, socialist practice, with the exception of Yugoslavia, has allegedly been unable to develop new forms of democratic life corresponding to socialist relations of production more rapidly

1 K. Marx   F. Engels, Selected works,,vol. 2, p. 544, Tirana 1975, Alb. ed.

50

and extensively. The new form of democratic life, according to Kardelj, has allegedly been realized under socialist self  administration» which has crossed the Rubicon of the class State power of the technocratic monopoly owners and managers of capital. It is surprising that he should describe all the efforts of the democratic forces to find forms of democracy as  artificial constructions of the bourgeois Parliament, as attempts to unite  several things that cannot be united, whereas he calls the constructions of Yugoslavia's  socialist self administration, these bastardized grafts on the bourgeois revisionist forms of government, original and socialist! If ever there was fraud in the construction of the government it is to be found, in the first place, in the  self administration., concocted according to the anti Marxist and anti democratic theory of the Titoites. Regardless of the numerous deceptive statements made about it, Yugoslav «selfadministration» is a copy of bourgeois parliamentarism and of capitalist relations of production; it is a chaotic appendage of the world capitalist system, of the structure and superstructure of this system.

 Our socialist democracy, writes Kardelj,  would not be an all embracing system of democratic relations without the relevant solution of the problems of relations among Yugoslavia's nations and nationalities. (p. 171). Although it was the occasion for the revisionist ideologist to explain how the political system of <.socialist selfadministrationion has solved the problem of nations and nationalities in Yugoslavia, he has skirted so widely around this major problem, so serious and delicate for his Federation, that after

reading his book of 323 pages, one can barely recall that it made any mention of nations and nationalities.

How does the problem of nations and nationalities in Yugoslavia stand? The Yugoslav Federation inherited deep rooted conflicts in this field. The policy of the Great Serbian Kings and reactionary chauvinistic circles in Yugoslavia was such that, historically, it stirred up conflicts and enmity among nations and nationalities.

After the Second World War, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia launched the slogan of  unity fraternity, but this slogan proved quite inadequate to solve the differences inherited from the past, therefore the old conflicts, the savage craving for domination over others did not disappear.

Tito and the renegade clique around him did not carry out a Marxist Leninist national policy in regard to the tendencies of republics and regions to break away from the Federation. On the contrary, the relations among nationalities remained the same as in the time of the Kings, and in regard to some nationalities the genocide went on as before. This policy served to fuel the hatred and quarrels among the nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia. The  unity  and  fraternity. of peoples about which there is a great deal of talk in Yugoslavia, has never been presented on the just basis of the economic, political, social and cultural equality of nations and nationalities.

Without achieving equality in these fields the national question in Yugoslavia cannot be solved correctly. For three decades now, apart from its demagogy about the self governing community of nations and nationalities of a new

52

type», the  self  administrative socialism has done nothing about the implementation of the sovereign rights of these different nations and nationalities in the republics and regions of Yugoslavia. For example, the Kosova region, with an Albanian population almost three times greater than the population of the Republic of Montenegro, has a marked economic, political, social and cultural backwardness, in comparison with the other regions of Yugoslavia. In the larger Republics, too, as compared with the other Republics, impermissible distinctions exist in all fields of life. This situation is the weakest spot which is shaking the Federation of the Yugoslav revisionists to its foundations. Pious hopes about ti ;e solution to the old and new differences among Yugoslavia's nations are devoid of prospect.

From an objective and scientific analysis of this very difficult and troubled situation, the incontestable conclusion emerges that the national question in Yugoslavia will not be solved unless Marxism Leninism is implemented there, that is to say, unless the so called self administrative capitalist order is overthrown.

The Titoite renegades are aware of this danger therefore when they have to mention the problems of nations and nationalities, they try to skate over it with pompous statements, without getting to the crux of the problems, or by seeking false testimony from other revisionists, as they did when they gave great publicity to the declarations of the Chinese revisionists about the Marxist Leninist solution of the national problem in Yugoslavia.

In words, the revisionists may present the

relations among the nations and nationalities of Yugoslavia as they like, but they will still be terrified of the bitter truth of this problem when they are in their graves.

The national question in Yugoslavia will be solved by the peoples of the present Federation, and not by those who, regardless of what they say, in fact are still pursuing the reactionary, chauvinistisc policy of their predecessors.

Continuing to deliver his judgements, speaking about the policy of the Yugoslav State, the inveterate revisionist Kardelj says, ....this policy is no longer the monopoly of professional politicians and the political cartels behind the scenes, but instead it becomes a matter of the direct activity and taking of decisions by the self governors and their organs .... (p. 25). There! says Kardelj, henceforth do not criticise us for betraying the interests of the working class because the Yugoslav worker is master of the policy of the country and of the defence of his «self administrative» interests, unlike in the other States where professional politicians are the masters. And here, too, with evil intent, he does not differentiate between capitalist and socialist countries, but lumps them all together in the same bag because in this manner it is easier to present black as white.

He knows that in order to further the dishonest objectives he has in mind, the manifestations which expose the «self administrative reality must be minimized in every way. Therefore, he belittles the fact that the Yugoslav worker has no possibility of exercizing his rights in the political and economic field, and explains that this "is due to a series of objective and subjective

54

reasons, among which, undoubtedly, is the relatively still low level of education and culture, and the level of the application of science   the worker is not yet able to master, orientate, or completely control, in a conscious and creative manner, all the the processes which this socioeconomic position imposes on him. (p. 27).

Obviously this is written in an effort to defend anti worker and anti socialist standpoints. At present the Yugoslav worker understands nothing of this illusory theory, and does not see any of these false and absurd ideas which are unacceptable to him, being implemented in practice.

Since the low cultural and scientific level of the workers is an obstacle, as Kardelj says, the main role in the ,self  administrative. society is played by the educated and skilled people, who are the elite ruling in the  socialist community. Under these circumstances, in most instances, decisions will be taken precisely by this elite, by the cultured element of the new bourgeoisie which makes the law in Yugoslavia. Who is to blame that the elite is becoming prominent and the role of the workers diminishing? There is no doubt the blame lies with the very social system which generates the new capitalist class and provides it with the possibilities to strengthen itself economically at the expense of the workers and become educated, while the working class is left at a low level. Kardelj cannot deny the fact that, in practice, decisions are taken by a relatively narrow stratum of people in Yugoslavia. However, he has nothing to say about the fact that this is precisely how the political monopoly of the elite in taking decisions and in the

division of the income in the enterprises of  socialist self administration is created. This political monopoly, which the Yugoslav revisionists allegedly guard against and combat, is deeprooted in their so called political system of  socialist self administration».

In the  self  administrative society, as Kardelj expresses it,  ...instead of the old relationships: the worker   the State   social activities, a new relationship must inevitably be constituted between the workers engaged directly in production and the workers in social activities. (p. 23). According to him, the correct way to build social relations is not that followed by a socialist regime where scientific socialism is applied, where there is unity between the workers directly involved in production and the workers engaged in social activities, where there is vigorous socio political activity and an organization of the economy in which the principal role is played by the working people organized in their socialist State. The correct way, according to Kardelj, is that of building  new  social relations without the participation of the State!

These ideas are expressions of pure anarchism. All these phrases are poured out to obscure every advantage a genuine socialist regime offers, and to make people believe that in Yugoslavia they are allegedly marching towards the unity of the workers and intellectuals through the  free exchange of labour», which reduces their antagonism as if by magic.

In Kardelj's  theory. there is not, nor can there be, any mention of the violent overthrow of the capitalist State, the seizure of power by the working class and the establishment of the

58

59

dictatorship of the proletariat. Although he quotes Marx's words, ,violence is precisely what we are obliged to use at the given moment, i.e., in order to give definitive legal sanction to the power of labour, he does this only to prove that Marx allegedly leaned more towards the triumph of the proletarian revolution by peaceful means, while considering violence an exception and making it conditional on some particular social circumstances. And with such sophistry, Kardelj seeks to create the impression that the working class nowadays can achieve its historical interests not through the revolution, but in alliance with the various political parties of the capitalist countries. Kardelj has cunningly copied this quotation to pit Marx against Marx in regard to the possibility of the peaceful transition to socialism, from his revisionist predecessors, against whom

Lenin wrote,

In the bourgeois States, however, power is in the hands of the capitalists, the national businesses and cartels and multinational companies. These forces of capital have the main keys to the management of the economy and the State firmly in their hands, they make the law and, through a fraudulent democratic process, appoint the government, which is under their orders and is presented as an official administrator of their assets. The bourgeoisie does not safeguard its power in order to hand it over to the «Eurocommunists», but in order to protect its class interests, even with bloodshed, if need be. To fail to see this reality, which life is confirming every day, means to close your eyes and indulge in day dreaming. If the  Eurocommunists­do indeed succeed in gaining one or more positions in the bourgeois government, in reality they will rI o there as representatives of capitalism, just like the other bourgeois political parties, and not as representatives of the proletariat.

The bourgeois pseudo democracy, the Parliament which allegedly chooses the government, is nothing but a puppet in the hands of the power of capital which operates  behind the scenes  and, in various forms, dictates everything from outside. The various parties represented in Parliament, as well as the trade unions which allegedly fight to defend the workers, give various nuances to these different forms of the real power exercised «behind the scenes. In reality, all the bourgeois revisionist parties and trade unions in the capitalist State, regardless of the names they assume, are dependent on the awning class.

Kardelj says the  Eurocommunists  are right when they link their political struggle for  socialism. with defence of the institutions of pluralism

of political forces, because, as he puts it, "...in the present situation of the countries of Western Europe, this is the only realistic road to the unity of the forces of the working class itself, as well  as to linking it with the other people's democratic forces, this is the only thing which can essentially strengthen the social and political positions of the working class, i.e., make it capable of changing society, and not just of criticizing it. (p. 41).

Speaking about the links, solidarity and unity of the League of ,Communists. of Yugoslavia with the «Eurocommunists» and all the other revisionist parties which, in one way or another, in this or that form, defend capitalism and fight the revolution and true socialism. Kardelj says,  ...We have reason to defend the parliamentary system and political pluralism when the reactionary forces of bourgeois society attack it .... (p. 61). This "ideologist" wants to say that the working class and the pseudo communists of Western Europe are right to unite with the capitalist institutions, Parliament and the bourgeois government, because through this union and only in this way will the working class become capable of changing society!

From the foregoing it comes out clearly that the Yugoslav «self administrative>, society is for the close alliance or fusion of capitalism and socialism, because the present day capitalists allegedly have no objection to the building of a new society in which the working class will gain the ability to fully assume its democratic  self administrative. rights. Hence it is not difficult to see that the author of the book recommends ;hat there must be a transition from the ,consumer

60

society, in which the technocrats have allegedly seized power, to a  Self  administrative society in which the individuals are associate: in «common labour, and this transition can ce called a triumph of socialism! There is nothing resembling genuine scientific socialism in these judgements and stands of inveterate renegades. As loyal se

r 

vants of the capitalist bourgeoisie, the Titoites deny the proletarian revolution and the class struggle with these things they are u,^ritina. In claiming that the  consumer society can be transformed into socialism gradually, without violent revolution, but by virtue of the  Holy Spirit., seek to disarm the proletariat and smash its Marxist Leninist Party.

In the capitalist countries,  reveals. Kardelj, the executive power is linked with political forces which act and impose their policy from outside Parliament. Here, again Kardelj is saying nothing new, but simply repeating as his own observation that idea which Lenin expressed in his masterful exposure of the falsity of the bourgeois democracy. It is a fine thing to assimilate and repeat Lenin's ideas, but it is neither Lenin nor Leninism that concerns Mr. Kardelj. He is also afraid of the  politicism­and the  political monopoly of Leninism, although it pleases him  to politicize. others and make them believe that under capitalism the executive power is really manipulated by forces outside the State organs, whereas in Yugoslavia, the Presidency of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Executive Council which constitutes the government, have miraculously escaped this danger because they have allegedly divided their competences  in a precise manner. (p, 235). Apart

from this, in Yugoslavia still according to Kardelj, the political strength is concentrated in ....the delegates' assembly, and moreover, not just in this but in its interconnection with the whole social structure  (p. 235). In regard to its  full powers and authority», this  delegates' assembly is reminiscent of the so called councils of local self government in the bourgeois countries, which Lenin, has ridiculed, saying that they

«. . .may be 'autonomous' only in minor matters, may be independent only in tinkerin with wash basins.>1.

It is said that under «workers' self administration., the  delegates. voice their opinions freely. Of course, in theory, not only the  delegates., but also the workers have all rights, but in practice they enjoy none. In the political system of Yugoslav  self government. everything is decided from above, and not from below. The protests of the Yugoslav workers against the enrichment and corruption of leading officials, their coming out with demands for the elimination of economic and social distinctions, the abolition of private enterprises, checking political and moral corruption, protests against national discrimination etc., are already well known. The book is full of very long phrases which, by wearying the reader, are intended to make him believe the abstract idea that «socialist self government exists in Yugoslavia , that  workers' self administration reignsthere, at a time when the only keys the workers hold will open no doors. The keys to the govern 

1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 366, Alb. ed.

ment of the country are held by the new Yugo 

slav bourgeoisie which operates from rightist positions, while disguising itself with leftist slogans.

4.   The System of  Self  administration,, and the

Negation of the Leading Role of the Party

The Yugoslav revisionists also maintain an anti Marxist stand towards the leading role of the communist party in the construction of socialism. According to Kardelj's  theory., the party must lead no economic or administrative activity. It can and should exercise its influence only through its educational activity among the workers, so that they understand the socialist system well.

The negation of the role of the communist party in the construction of socialism and the reduction of this role to an  ideological. and  orientating. factor is in open opposition to Marxism Leninism. The enemies of scientific socialism substantiate this thesis by  arguing. that leadership by the party is allegedly incompatible with the decisive role which should be played by the masses of producers, who, they claim, should exercise their political influence directly, and not through the communist party, because this would bring about  bureaucratic despotism»!

Contrary to the anti scientific theses of these enemies of communism, historical experience has shown that the undivided leading role of the revolutionary party of the working class in the struggle for socialism and communism is absolutely essential. As is known, leadership by the party is a question of vital importance for the fate of the revolution, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

It reflects a universal law of the socialist revolution. Lenin says,

...the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be realized except through the Communist Party»1.

The direct political influence of the working masses in socialist society is not in any way hampered by the communist party which represents the working class, whose interests do not run counter to the interests of the other working people. On the contrary, it is only under the leadership of the working class and its vanguard that the working masses participate broadly in governing the country and realizing their interests. In a genuinely socialist country, such as Albania, the opinion of the working masses on important problems is directly solicited. There are countless examples of this from the discussion and approval of the Constitution to the drafting of economic plans, etc., etc.  Bureaucratic despotism. is a characteristic of the capitalist State, and it can never be attributed to the leading role of the party under the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which from its nature and class character, is sternly anti bureaucratic.

Continuing the exposition of his revisionist views on the role of the party, Kardelj writes, that, although it must fight for the key positions of State power to be in the hands of those subjectivist forces which are on the side of socialism and socialist self administration, the League of  Communists  ....cannot be a class political party

1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Woks, vol. 32, p. 226, Alb. ed.

(p. 119). So that is the sort of the party the Yugoslav revisionists want! They do not want, and in reality do not have, a political party of the working class, but a bourgeois organization, a club which anybody may enter or leave, when and how it pleases him, provided only he declares he is a  communist,, without needing to be such. Of course, this is quite normal for such a party as the League of  Communists  of Yugoslavia, which has nothing communist about it.

There has never been a classless party or State, nor there will ever be. Parties and the States are class products. That is how they came into existence and how they will be right up to communism.

Although Kardelj imagines that the leading role of the League of  Communists. has been liquidated, still, for demagogical purposes, he does not forget to say that this League,  with its clear stands (which in fact are far from being clear but on the contrary murky and turbid) must do a great deal to find means to solve many problems about the ways and forms for the further development of the political system of socialist self administration. If the happiness for the people cannot come from the State, or the party, as the renegade Kardelj writes, then why does he seek that these prerogatives be given to the League of ,Communists. of Yugoslavia? If, as is claimed, the Yugoslav society of  self administration  has no need for the leadership of a single political party, why then, should it need the leadership of the League of  Communists. of Yugoslavia?

Whereas Marx stands for a genuine party of the working class, which must lead this class

and make it conscious of its historic mission, according to Kardelj, the proletariat can carry the country forward and realize its aspirations in a spontaneous manner, even without the leading role of the party. He says this in order to justify the theory of self administration, a theory which also stands for political pluralism, that is, for the unity in the so called Socialist League of Working People of all social forces, regardless of their ideo political differences, and for a party which has no communist value at all, but to which he attaches the label of leader in the whole antiMarxist system of  self  administration..

The revisionist Kardelj refers to the bureaucracy of the Western parties of capital. Here, too, he has discovered nothing new, because it is well known that bureaucracy is part of the nature of capitalism and characteristic of it. But he denounces bureaucracy in other parties not in order to criticize them, but to hide the bureaucratization and then the liquidation of the Yugoslav communist party and the stripping of it of all prerogatives that belonged to it. The Titoites call the displacement of the party to the tail end of events, phenomena, or processes of political and social life and its transformation into a party of the bourgeoisie, de bureaucratization and, in order to cover up their betrayal, they have left it flaunting the name the  League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

Whether or not a party is communist, whether or not it is a party of the working class, cannot be judged from the name it bears, but especially from whom it has as its leadership and what activity it carries out. Lenin said,

66