Enver Hoxha

Yugoslav "Self-Administration" 




"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 do not exist. There only exists 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 Titoites 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 up by Lenin based on the immense experience of the Paris Commune was disregarded, the Yugoslavian revisionists labelled it "forms of state organising which create personal power".

Developing the revisionist idea of "specific socialism", the Titoites sometime in the fifties declared in the face of the whole world that they would ultimately renounce the socialist state system and had replaced it with a new system, the system of "self-administrative socialism", in which socialism and the state are alien for each other. This revisionist "discovery" was nothing less than a copy of Proudhon's and Bakunin's anarchist theories about the "workers self-management" and the "workers' factories", which have long been exposed as crude corruption of of Marx and Lenin's true ideas about the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Karl Marx writes:

Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is 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" has not only nothing in common with the dictatorship of the proletariat but is even opposed to it. This system is constructed after the model of the administration of the united States of America. Kardelj himself wrote about the Yugoslav "system of self-administration": ... we could say that this system is more similar to the organisation of the executive power in the United States of American than in Western Europe..." (p. 235)

From this follows clearly that the fact, that the organisation of the Yugoslav government is a copy of the organisation of capitalist governments, is not denied but what could be discussed is the question: which capitalist government has been imitated the most, the American or one of the Western European governments. And for this discussion Kardelj provides the solution when he says: the organisation of the executive power of the United States of America has been chosen as model.

The Yugoslav revisionists' views about the state are trough and through anarchist. As is well-known anarchism demands the immediate elimination of every form of state, so of the dictatorship of the proletariat, too. And the Yugoslavian revisionists have eliminated the dictatorship of the proletariat and in order to justify this betrayal the speak of two different phases of socialism -- "state socialism" and the "true humanitarian socialism". According to their opinion the first phase contains the first years after the victory of the revolution, in which the dictatorship of the proletariat exists, which expresses itself in the "etatist-bureaucratic" state, just like in capitalism. The second phase is the phase of the overcoming of the "etatist-bureaucratic state" and its replacement trough "direct democracy". With those views the Titoites not only deny the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat in socialism, but also contrast the terms socialist state, dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy with each other.

They pay no attention to the classics of Marxism-Leninism which teach that the socialist state is continuously consolidated during the whole historical period of transition from capitalism to communism. Therefore E. Kardelj writes that society in Yugoslavia is less and less based on the role of the state apparatus. According to him the state in Yugoslavia is allegedly withering away.

But with what does Kardelj replace the role of the state apparatus? He replaces it by the "initiative of the workers"! He expresses it this way: "... 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) An absurd judgement! To speak of the initiative of the workers means that the workers above all have to be free and organised, inspired by clear directives, have to take measures to implement those initiatives. Who concerns themselves in Yugoslavia with organising and inspiring the workers through clear directions? The "self-administrated community", says Kardelj in his abstract judgement. He leaves the leading part in this sort of community to the individual "in the united self-administrated work of his interests". What is meant by this "self-administrated unity" of the individual's interests, which stands in the centre of Yugoslav society, is nowhere clearly explained. But what emerges of this idea is bourgeois individualism which puts the absolute rights of the individual in society and its complete independence of this society, the priority of personal interests over the interests of society first.

According to this "theoretician", who permits himself to such judgement the consolidation of the state and its apparatus is characteristic for the forms of "government property of the socialist relations of productions..." (p.8). In Yugoslavia in contrast, he says, the process of consolidation of the "self-administrative" role of the working class will develop in contrast to the state. According to this "philosopher" man cannot be free and master of his fate in a genuine socialist state where Marxist-Leninist science and the Leninist revolutionary practice are applied, but is transformed into a machine. In Yugoslav "self-administration", in contrast, the worker allegedly assumes great importance and precisely in this "self-administration", in the "democratic mechanism of delegation of Yugoslav society", he understands his great role! Which classes do these state organs represent, which ideology guides them, on what principles have they built their activity and to what forum do they render account? Of course no clear answer to these all these questions can be found because any accurate answer would shed light on Yugoslavia's capitalist political system.

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

Here the tendencies for spontaneity in the anti-Marxist theory of "socialist self-administration" are brought to surface quite clearly, according to which the working class needs not organise itself in the party or the State to achieve its aspirations but will find the happiness it looks for even while wandering in the dark as time goes by.

To anticipate the question: "If the state is unnecessary why is it not eliminated in Yugoslavia then?" Kardelj wrote: "The State... must interpose in the role of the arbiter only in those situations when the self-governing agreement cannot be achieved but it is essential from the aspect of social interests that a decision is made" (p. 23). And to prove that allegedly the need for state arbitration to settle disagreements is rare, Kardelj says: "The free exchange of labour has an essential influence on reducing the antagonisms between physical and mental work. In this relations 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: is it possible that the author talks about the Yugoslav social order here? Since when have the antagonisms between mental and physical work been reduced in Yugoslavia?!

The reality of development in Yugoslavia proves the opposite. There are essential distinctions between mental and physical work which cannot be reduced by words. It is really astonishing that there is talk about the reduction of antagonisms between mental and physical work in the Yugoslav state, it is known that alone the wage differentials between a worker and an intellectual there, not to speak about other distinctions -- have reached 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 realisation of the democratic rights of working people and citizens in the running of the state, or respectively, of society. Self-government is also the material basis 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 the great minds of Yugoslavia have allegedly "discovered" for us, Kardelj resorts to twisted phrases and ecclesiastical language, preaching a long sermon but essentially saying nothing. He lines up contradictory ideas about "scientific socialism" and uses lengthy expressions in order to give his words an alleged profound philosophical meaning.

But how is the Yugoslav political system carried out in practice? When it comes to answering this question, Kardelj is forced to admit: "In this respect there are excessive weak points in the system. A whole series of weaknesses in the functioning of the organizations and institutions of our political system rightfully gives the impression that powerful sources of bureaucracy and technocracy are still operating, that our administration is complicated and that it is therefore is overgrown with bureaucracy, that some organs and organizations are secluding themselves, that there are many gaps and cases of duplication of work, that the forms of democratic communication between self-governed and state organs and the entire social structure are weakly developed, that we hold many useless and fruitless 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 to overcome the administrative obstacles etc." (p. 193). So if the system of "self-administration" chokes on bureaucracy, if the state and administrative organs are secluded, make 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 efforts 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 dark sides of his system -- even what he admits is enough to realize the truth.

Kardelj writes: "Both the structure of delegates' assemblies and the way decisions are taken there are organized in such a way that they in principle ensure the leading role of the united labour in the whole system of making state decisions" (pp. 24-25). With these words he is trying to create a focus to show that the "delegates' assemblies", which in reality are very similar to the assemblies 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 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, this here is about changing the class character of the socialist state, so that not the working class but the new bourgeoisie holds power. It is not difficult to see that these positions aim at justifying 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 correct and acceptable, the Titoites oppose it to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat. For the Titoites all other political systems, without making distinction between capitalism and socialism, are "dogmatic". First they call their phantasms "system of socialist self-administration", then, 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 "multi-party system", for otherwise they would expose themselves as advocates of bourgeois parliamentarianism, which Marx and Lenin sternly criticised in their time. Therefore they declare that it would be a mistake to consider this political form of the bourgeois state as having a universal and eternal character. The whole world knows that Kardelj was not the first to "criticize" the bourgeois ideologists' notorious thesis about the universal and eternal character of capitalism. In refuting the views of social-democracy the classics of Marxism-Leninism proved scientifically that the capitalist system is by no means universal and eternal, that it is doomed to die, that the capitalist state, which is the offspring and bulwark of this system hostile to the people, must be destroyed to its foundations and in its place the 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 and therefore, immediately after criticizing it, he praises its contribution to the democratic development of mankind to the skies and makes a fetish of it. In order to exaggerate this contribution in such a way that the reaction character of today's bourgeois parliament pales into insignificance and in particular to show the "organic link between parliamentarianism and democratic human rights", for the first time he quotes (or rather mutilates) Marx: "The parliamentary regime lives on debate, then how can it ban discussion? Every social interest and institution is transformed into general ideas here, is treated as idea so 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 does not want to take decisions?"

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

This attempt on the author's part is unsuccessful because everybody knows Marx's stance who, when criticizing the bourgeois parliament and the bourgeois theory of the division of powers, never said that representative institutions should be done away with and that the principle of elections should be abandoned, as it was done in Yugoslavia. In fact 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 legislative at the same time." (K. Marx / F. Engels, Selected works,,vol. 2, p. 544, Tirana 1975, Alb. ed.)

Bourgeois parliamentarianism has gained "great strength" because, as the author of the book claims, socialist practice, with the exception of Yugoslavia, has been unable to develop new forms of democratic life corresponding to socialist relations of production more rapidly and extensively. The new form of democratic life, according to Kardelj, has allegedly been realised under "socialist self-administration" which crossed the Rubicon of class state power of the owners and of the technocratic-monopolistic managers of capital. One can only be amazed at him describing 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 of the bourgeois-revisionist forms of government, original and socialist! If there ever was fraud in the construction of governing it is to be found in the first place in the anti-Marxist and anti-democratic theories of the Titoites' self-administration Regardless of the numerous deceptive statements made about it, Yugoslav "self-administration" is a copy of bourgeois parliamentarianism 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 the revisionist ideologist would have had to explain at this occasion how the political system of "socialist self-administration" has solved the problem of nations and nationalities in Yugoslavia, he forwent 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 there was any talk about nations and nationalities.

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

After Second World War, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia launched the slogan "unity -- fraternity" but this slogan proved quite inadequate to solve the differences inherited from the past, therefore the old conflicts, the unrestrained 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 correct 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 "self-administrative socialism" has, apart from its demagogy about the" self-governing community of nations and nationalities of a new type", done nothing about the implementation of the sovereign rights of these different nations and nationalities in the republics and regions of Yugoslavia. The Kosova region, for example, with an Albanian population almost three times bigger than the population of the Republic of Montenegro, has a distinct economic, political, social and cultural backwardness in comparison with the other regions of Yugoslavia. In the larger Republics, too, impermissible distinctions exist in all fields compared with the other Republics. This situation is the weakest spot which is shaking the Federation of the Yugoslav revisionists to its foundations. Pious hopes about a solution to the old and new differences among Yugoslavia's nations are futile.

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, unless the capitalist so-called self-administrative order is overthrown.

The Titoite renegades feel this danger and therefore, if they have to mention the problems of nations and nationalities, they try to bridge the gap 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 the bitter truth of this problem will still haunt them beyond death.

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

Continuing his explanations about the policy of the Yugoslav state, the cunning revisionist Kardelj claims that this policy is "... no longer the monopoly of professional politicians and political cartels behind the scenes" but instead it becomes "a matter of direct activity and of direct decision-making by the self-governors and their organs..." (p. 25). Behold, Kardelj wants to say, henceforth do not criticise us for betraying the interests of the working class anymore because the Yugoslav worker is master of the policy of the country and of the defense of his "self-administrative" interests, unlike in the other States where professional politicians are the masters. And here, too, in bad faith he makes no difference between capitalist and socialist countries but lumps them all together because in this manner it is easier to present black as white.

Kardelj knows that in order to realise the dishonest aims he has in mind he has to trivialise the manifestations which expose the "self-administrative" reality in every way. Therefore he belittles the fact that the Yugoslav worker has no chances of realising his rights in the political and economic field and explains that this "is due to a series of objective and subjective reasons -- among which, undoubtedly, the still relatively low level of education and culture and the level of the application of science belongs -- the worker is not yet able to dominate, orientate, or completely control in a conscious and creative manner all the processes which the his social and economic position imposes on him." (p. 27). It is obvious that this was written in order to defend anti-worker and anti-socialist positions. At present the Yugoslav worker understands nothing of this illusory theory and he also 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 ruling elite in this "socialist community". Under these circumstances decisions will be taken in most instances 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 is diminishing? There is no doubt the blame lies within 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 avoid to mention the fact that in practice decisions are taken by a relatively small percentage of people in Yugoslavia. However, he has nothing to say about the fact that this is precisely the way 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 themselves against and combat, is particularly striking in their so-called political system of "socialist self-administration".

In the "self-administrated" 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, building social relations by the way of 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 is not the correct way. The correct way, according to Kardelj, is that of building "new" social relations without the participation of the state!

These ideas are an expression of pure anarchism. All these phrases are are only there to obscure anything good a genuine socialist regime offers and to treacherously claim 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 any mention of the violent overthrow of the capitalist state, of the seizure of power by the working class and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor can there be. Although he quotes Marx's words that "at given moments we have to resort to violence which will finally constitute 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 revolution, but in alliance with the various political parties of the capitalist countries. Kardelj has copied this cunningly way of 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:

"The reference to what Marx... said about the possibility of peaceful transition to socialism... is the argument of a sophist, which means in ordinary words, of an imposter, who is juggling with quotations and references for his trickery." (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 107, Alb. ea.)

Kardelj needs these falsifications in order to lend a hand to the "Eurocommunists", with whom he is in complete accord. The revisionist parties of Italy, France and Spain have declared that they will allegedly achieve socialism through the development of bourgeois democracy and freedoms, through the force of the ballot in parliamentary elections. According to the "Eurocommunists" the ability of the working class will be expressed in the question to what extent it it will gain the key positions in the structure of capitalist society and the state, as well as in the running of society. This way, they say, the transformation of the character of the capitalist relations of production to "self-administrative" or "socialist" relations of production will become possible. It is precisely on this issue that the Titoite theory and the theory of "Eurocommunism" are united. The "Eurocommunists" are obliged to accept European bourgeois political pluralism and the unity among bourgeois parties in order to -- allegedly through reforms -- be able to ensure many rights for working class and then, enable the transformation to "socialist" society on this way. Kardelj calls these efforts of his friends "structural changes", which must exert without doubt such an influence that the process develops and thereby transforms both the position and role of the parliament itself.

Therefore Kardelj's theory claims that the "communist" parties of Western Europe under the conditions of the crisis of the capitalist system, while preserving the parliamentary system whose democratic achievements -- as he says -- cannot be denied, must find an appropriate way to secure an alliance with the broadest "democratic" forces for the working class. Through this sort of alliance, according to revisionist logic, a more favourable "democratic" situation can be created in the parliamentary system and in the long run the parliamentary system -- who knows how -- will be "transformed" into a decisive power of the people! This is the course Titoism sets for the other revisionist parties to come to power on the peaceful way.

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 they appoint the government, which is under their command and acts as an official administrator of their wealth. 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 necessary. To fail to see this reality, which life is confirming every day, means to close your eyes and indulge in day-dreaming. If the "Eurocommunists" do indeed succeed in gaining one or more positions in the bourgeois government they will in fact get 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 dictates in various forms everything from outside. The different forms of the real power exercised "behind the scenes" get their nuances trough the various parties represented in parliament as well as the trade-unions which allegedly fight to defend the workers. In reality all the bourgeois-revisionist parties and trade-unions in the capitalist state, regardless of the names they assume, are dependent on the owning class.

Kardelj says the "Eurocommunists" are right when they link their political struggle for "socialism" with the 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, as well as to link it with the other democratic forces of the peoples. Only this can essentially strengthen the social and political positions of the working class, i.e., make it capable of not just criticizing society but also changing it." (p. 41).

Expressing 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 against the attacks of the reactionary forces of bourgeois society..." (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 the working class will become capable of changing society!

From the facts mentioned above it becomes clear 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 understand that the author of the book recommends a transition from the "consumer society", in which the technocrats have allegedly seized power, to a "self-administrative" society in which "the individuals are associated in 'common labour' " -- and this transition can be called a triumph of socialism then! There is nothing resembling genuine scientific socialism in these judgements and stands of cunning renegades. As loyal servants of the capitalist bourgeoisie, the Titoites deny the proletarian revolution and the class struggle with their writings. In claiming that the "consumer society" can be transformed into socialism gradually without violent revolution but "by the Holy Spirit" they 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 the idea as his own observation, which was expressed by Lenin 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 the worry about Lenin nor Leninism that concerns Mr Kardelj. He is afraid of the "politicism" as well as of the "political monopoly" of Leninism, although it pleases him "to politicise" 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 obviously escaped this danger as if trough a miracle because they have divided the competences "in a precise manner" (p, 235). Apart from this the political strength in Yugoslavia is, according to Kardelj, concentrated in "... the delegates' assembly and moreover not just in this but in the interconnection of the assembly with the whole social structure" (p. 235). This "delegates' assembly", in regard to its "full powers and authorityť, reminds 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 questions of tinning washbowls." (V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 10, p. 366, Alb. ed.)

It is said that under "workers' self-administration" the "delegates" voice their opinions freely. In theory, of course, not only the "delegates" but also the workers have all rights, but in practice they enjoy none at all. In the political system of Yugoslav "self-government" everything is decided from above and nothing from below. The protests of the Yugoslav workers against the enrichment and corruption of leading officials, their demands for the elimination of economic and social distinctions, the abolition of private enterprises, restraining of political and moral corruption, protests against national discrimination etc., are well-known today. The book is full of long-drawn-out phrases which are intended to make the reader weary and thus make him believe the abstract idea that "socialist self-government exists in Yugoslavia" and that "workers' self-"administration reigns", at a time when the workers have nothing to say. The keys to the government of the country are held by the new Yugoslav bourgeoisie which operates from rightist positions while disguising itself with leftist slogans.