Petar Gošev, 1948 Economist, politican, President of the League of Communists of Macedonia from 1989 till 1991 Object: Marx, Frano Kršinić, 1947 (bronze), gift from the United Syndicate Recorded in Skopje, September 30, 2016 Duration: 10’ 32” People of my age had the opportunity to live in two systems: in the previous, so- called socialist system and then in the capitalist system. From this perspective, and having experienced both, I can only express disappointment, which I share with most citizens in my republic. In socialism we lost the race with the modern world, with the developed countries, due to poor productivity of the system. It managed to survive, as we know, for a few decades but then we realized that development juices had dried up and the system simply had to collapse. Sadly, many citizens still don’t understand that, including many who belong to the intellectual class. The idea of equality dominated in that system and it was exercised in a well-known way - through small difference in workers’ salaries. Precisely that was the reason of unproductivity. As this system everywhere collapsed we had hopes that a change would yield results, hoped to harmonize the organizational forms with the most productive systems in the world. Though capitalist systems differ around the world, capitalism still is the most dominant system today. However, barely 20% of the world functions successfully. Thus, disappointment in this system is equally strong, and expectations of a vast majority of people have been betrayed. Social certainty i.e. uncertainty has peaked. Inequality has risen to the highest level. Using the example of Macedonia, I can say that inequality in this country, which came out of an egalitarian system, is the highest in Europe. We can talk of inequality similar to that in South American or some African countries. For example, the coefficient of revenue inequality in Macedonia is forty. Even more than forty! That inequality is slightly higher than the one in neo-liberal America. Should such a situation continue, it’s likely to bring down this system too. Should it continue in the world, because all around the world inequalities are huge, this model of capitalism, this so-called modern, or “surrogate” capitalism as Stiglitz dubbed it, will be threatened as well. Stiglitz says that market functioning isn’t the problem, but according to him the problem lies in the political system that doesn’t allow fair market competition. This generates inequality and takes us back to Marx’s considerations on capital and wages. According to the standard economic theory capital yield was supposed to decrease. With it the wealth of the owners of capital was supposed to decrease, instead of assuming these cosmic proportions. But, we now have a reverse situation that Piketty described in his book “Capital in the 21st Century” published some two-three years ago. While praising Piketty for approaching Marx’s view of capital and wage relation, Stiglitz rightly concludes that the issue is not the capital in the 21st century, but rather democracy in the 21st century, since the economic inequality created in the period after the fall of socialism along with the differences created in neo-liberal countries produced economic inequality that prevents development of democracy in these societies. Rich people and large corporations can exploit anyone as they Petar Gošev continued see fit now. Such a society again is perceived like an incorrect, unfair society. That’s why there are growing protests in the world, dissatisfaction and conflicts of various forms. And they are shifted to the ground of nation, ethnicity, religion. Modern humanity must find the answer to this question. The name of such a system does not matter. There is no point in pondering whether it’s socialism or capitalism. Equality among people is what we should discuss. What a fair and a just society is - that is what we must discuss, and once society reaches a consensus on relations thus defined being fair, the name of the social system will come by itself. This is the key issue: how to ensure democracy in a society, how to ensure justice in a society, how to ensure fair relations in a society. In ex-Yugoslavia, including Macedonia, we are moving away from this idea. Thus, problems are shifted to the inter-ethnic sphere through stimulation of national- chauvinism. There will always be conflicts if we reduce people’s identity to two main elements: ethnicity and religion. The identity of man is a much broader component. In the power struggle those who crave power and authority constantly play with these issues. But they are irrelevant if you think about the overall human identity and integrity. Much needs to be done in that domain. Conflicts in the former Yugoslavia will be extended if no results are reached in this area, and if we keep insisting on reduced identities, on producing inter-religious conflicts, if we keep discussing unresolved territorial issues. All this still exists in the Balkans, including the former Yugoslav republics. These issues draw away attention of the citizens from more important ones like economic prosperity or overall social progress, from the questions what is democracy, what is a fair society. Jože Menciger, 1941 Economist Object: Portable TV “Iskra“ Recorded in Ljubljana, February 2, 2017 Duration: 9’ 29” I deal with the history of socialist economics, including that of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia greatly differs from the other socialist countries. What was deemed dissent elsewhere, was policy in Yugoslavia. If we consider the development, it’s obviously linked to what we produced, and periods before and after 1953 should be viewed separately. That year the new constitutional law was passed and with it the decision-making rights were partially transferred to the companies. So, companies decided what to do and how to do it. This is the period in which Yugoslavia began production of consumer goods like TVs, cars etc. There was a ground- breaking shift from one socialist thought to another. It was a relatively successful period - from 1953 to 1965, when a new period started. Yugoslavia then gradually abandoned hard-core socialism for something called Yugoslav market economy. Two things must be noted here. First, unlike other socialist countries, decentralized decision-making was introduced. This led to the production of consumer goods, and weakened the power of politics at the same time. We were free and I can say that Yugoslavia developed in the right direction until 1970. After that a reversal took place, a clash between the bureaucracy and technocracy. This generated an economic system that could not function. Yugoslavia still managed to develop rather successfully, and it was self-management and social ownership, strange as it may seem, that enabled the decentralized management. Thus, transition in Yugoslavia could have been conducted differently than in other former socialist countries. Within Yugoslavia Slovenia had a big advantage because it has always been “the first farmer in the village” but after reaching Europe we’ve become “the last townsman”. “The first farmer in the village” was, in fact, the one that took most of the decisions about the economic system in Yugoslavia. After all, there was the troika - Kardelj, Kidrič and Krajger - the decision-makers. All in all, I’d say that Yugoslavia had a very specific development path compared to other countries. Unfortunately, we didn’t use that in transition. Slovenia has had a special role in it. In the 1970s Slovenia embraced the idea of so-called “dispersion economy”. No major cities were built in Slovenia. Ljubljana is still a relatively small town and rural environment was not at all disadvantaged compared to cities. One could even say that the village live better than cities, since it was decided to move the factories where the people are, and not move people to where the factories stand. This enabled highly dispersed development of Slovenia and created a compact society at the same time. Most of the workers were farmers or semi-peasants who owned some arable land. When transition brought on social problems, they were much smaller in Slovenia than elsewhere. Slovenia was also substantially more developed than the Yugoslav average. The gross domestic product was almost always twice that average. Therefore Slovenia had good conditions for transition. I remember that in the 1990s Slovenes claimed to have been exploited in Yugoslavia. Something similar is now happening in the EU. I call it the “Yugoslav syndrome”. Everyone Jože Menciger continued 1941 Economist Object: Portable TV “Iskra“ Recorded in Ljubljana, February 2, 2017 Duration: 9’ 29” thought they were exploited, but that is economically meaningless. Since stagnation lasted almost 10 years in Yugoslavia, Slovenia began to seek a way out in the 1990s. After Tito’s and Kardelj’s death, we lost the men who always knew what to do. A dispersion period started. We got apparatchiks unable to continue running things. In those bad times of stagnation accusations of being exploited began. Nationalism surfaced in individual republics, and some suffered a major setback with their leaders. I must mention Croatia with Tudjman, who was a strong nationalist, and Serbia with Milošević on the other hand. In Slovenia we were lucky to have a normal man as Milan Kučan. I think he contributed the most to our peaceful transition from one social system to another. Unfortunately, we Slovenes didn’t use the advantage accumulated in the long years spent in Yugoslavia with its specific economic system and the major dispersion of industry in Slovenia. All this made privatization relatively simple, and it was clear to me that in this case, employees of the enterprises were the ones that cared the most for them.