value is intimately linked with the problem of autonomy of decision at the enterprise level in the field of investment, The Yugoslav authors have even formulated with regard to this a veritable new dogma which requires critical analysis: “Without the right.of the self-management: collectives to dispose of a con= siderable part of the social ‘surplus product, no genuine self~management."(4) (4) Thus | wont st Popovic, in an article Titled Self-Management and Pian— ning": "On the other hand, in the sector of expanded social reproduction, © in perfecting the system. of investment on the basis of the new reletions, our results are less conclusive, although the first steps have been taken in this direction. The establishment of nonadministrative relations, of economic relations, in this sphere, reverts quite simply to the establishment of credit-interest Lr] relations, and to taking them as the basis. a
"One must first of all counteract: the contradiction which arises from the fact that the resources serving social reproduction are deducted exclusively through administrative measures (taxes, duties, contributions) thus leaving free the organization of labor without the latter on the other hand becoming the 'proprietor!; the organization of labor evolves, in fact, into a unique system of credit in which these resources are at one and the same time 'theirs? and tcommon! (article 11)...
"Tt is possible to avoid, on the other hand, having subjective and political considerations as the only ones to be taken into consideration at the time of the adoption of the decisions concerning: investments. It goes without saying that this method cannot and must not ever be pushed to its final conclusion, But a system can be constructed in which the political decisions will bear on the general orientation of the political economy, | while the distribution of the means destined for investment is carried out in_ accordance with the credit mechanism, according to financial and material ] criteria fixed with more or less precision, In operating in this way the process of expanded reproduction is likewise 'Ydepoliticatized,!. This 'depoliticalization! is not absolute, It is carried out to the degree that _bureaucratism must be deprived of its base in this sphere as in the others." .My emphasis.] (Current Questions of Socialism, No.70, July-Sept, 1963. pp. 67+8,
, Wiad
This analysis must examine the problem from two aspects: economic effi-— ciency’ (criteria for choosing one investment. project rather than another), and social and political efficiency (success in the struggle against the bureaucracy and bureaucratization).
The more backward a country is, the more the conditions of almost universal scarcity rule not only in- the means of production but for much of the means of industrial consumption (at least for the great ma jority of. the population), and the more detrimental the practice of sélf-management . is the more detrimente is it to permit the self-management collectives _ to determine for themselves the projects for priority of productive invest-~ ment.
It is evident in fact that under conditions of almost general scarcity of industrial commodities, almost all the investment projects can be econ= omically profitable, no matter how gross the economic errors that are committed, Almost every profitable | industrial or agricultural enterprise (providing funds for investment) is like an island in a sea of unsatisfied needs, The natural tendency of self-investment is therefore to attend $0.0 what is } most pressing, both locally and in each sector. 7
In other words: if the self-mane gement enterprises hold Large funds for self-investment, they will have a tendency to orient their investments either toward the commodities which they lack the most (certain equipment - goods; raw materials; auxiliary. products; emergency sources of energy), or _ toward the commodities which their workers or the inhabitants of the area. laek the most. Thus criteria of local. or sector interest are placed above national interests, not because the law of value is "denied" but precisely because it is a iieat This means, once more, to orient industrialization toward the “traditional road" which it followed in the historic framework of capitalism, in place of reorienting it according to the requirements of a nationally planned economy.
An attempt can be made to reconcile national pla nning requirements and allocating self-managed enterprises considerable funds for self-investment. ~The means chosen for this aim can be a levy-tax in behalf of national development funds and equalization funds. for regional development. This is. evidently a step in the right direction, but it does not at all resolve the problem,
Since an underdeveloped economy. is characterized precisely by the fact that the enterprises of high productivity are still the exception and not the rule, it is sufficient to leave them a part of their net surplus ~— product and the inequality of development between the industrialized local- . ities and the nonindustrialized localities, the inequality of development and of revenue between the archaic enterprises which enjoy only en average level of productivity and the enterprises technologically "up to date" will increase instead of diminishing, It is necessary moreover to insist on this fundamental idea of Marxism: any economic freedom, any “autonomy of decision" and any "spontaneity" increases the inequality so long as there exist side by side strong and. feeble enterprises or individuals, rich and poor, favored and unfavored from the point of view of location, etc, This is the reason why, it should be noted in passing, that according to Marx — the mechanism of the law of value leads to its own negation, competition inevitably ends in monopoly.
fie? fy A
“30:
The economic logic of a planned economy therefore speaks completely in favor of productive investments by budgetary means, at least for all 7 the. big enterprises, at must be left to the en erprises is an amortization fund sufficiently large to permit modernization of equipment with each renewal of fixed equipment (gross investment). But all net investments should be made in accordance with the plan, in the branches and places chosen according to preferential criteria selected for the society and its. economy as a whole, In this respect, too, the thesis of Comrade Guevara is correct,
The problem has been obscured, above all in the USSR, through associating it with the problem of heightening thé material incentives in enter~ — prises, Numerous Soviet economists have criticized the stimulants still _ employed today in the economy of the USSR to incite the enterprises (?) to carry out the plans. This criticism is in general pertinent, It has but. to repeat what the anti-Stalinist Marxists have said critically. for many years, Yet it is only necessary to examine closely the arguments of these economists to see that what is invulved in reality is heightening material incentives for the bureaucrats, for whom the growth of revenues must in some way be the essential stimulus for the expansion of production in the enterprises,
This is where certain partisans of ‘solf<management, particularly in Yugoslavia, maintain that decentralization of the decisions on_investment would be a powerful guarantee against bureaucratization. This thesis is ased on a fallacy, The Yugoslavs are right in stressing that the power of the bureaucracy grows in relation to its freedom in disposing of the surplus social product, But the technicians.and economists of the. planning commission "dispose" of the surplus product only in the form of figures.on paper; the real power of disposal is situated at the level of the enter~ ‘prises. (5) The more that means other than consumption funds (distributed revenues and social investments) are left at the free disposal of the enterprises, the more is precisely bureaucratization stimulated, at least ina climate of generalized soarotty and poverty; also the- ereater the tempta~ tion becomes for corruption, theft, abuse of confidence, false entries -temptations that do not éXist at ‘the level of the ‘planning commission, if only because of multiple checks, The concrete experience of Yugoslav “decentralization” has shown, moreover, that it is an enormous source of inequality and bureaucratization at ‘the level of the enterprises,
But doesn't the possibility of complete centralization of the means of investment at the state level create the danger of the whole political