>Hi Dragan,
>
>>
>>You haven't seen other ways. I have, and they can work. I've actually seen them work better in several aspects.
>
>Please give an example of the 'other way', why it worked better, and the reason why the 'other way' is no longer in place...

For one, the workers had the incentive, would come up with an idea, and there was a good chance the idea would be given a fair try. It largely depended on people, but then not just the narrow bunch on top, but rather on those who were involved at the practical level where it happened.

Specially in the throughout the seventies, the country was blooming. We had about a million turists from the West each summer, and have ourselves travelled a lot.

As for leadership, it was symptomatic that pretty much nobody wanted to get elected into anything, at least at the lower levels. I know the photography and amateur movie clubs of the time, which sprouted pretty much everywhere (I was a co-founder of one) - we all had trouble electing club presidents, secretaries... but didn't have trouble getting organized at all. I remember we once made a federal level exhibition of art photography by just doing most of the work by ourselves, and asked for some money from a few companies (for catalogs and mailing costs). We got the space for free because the City Youth House was also society owned, i.e. in some part owned by ourselves and our visitors as well. And we did have exhibitors from all over the country.

Such initiatives existed everywhere - and as long as what you wanted to do wasn't against some Party bighead's convictions, you could get away with a lot. And you didn't have to wait for orders to come from anywhere.

The roots of the fall were in the overall rule of The Party. Self-management is all fine, the people have the incentive, the productivity rises, the people are getting to live better and better (I remember having helped the traffic police document the traffic jams in 1971, so they'd get traffic lights for the city) - but then some of these self-managed companies have grown too big, and their internal Party organs may grow to be more important than regional or city ones... so some people were accused of technocracy, anarcholiberalism, whatever - and removed from politics and economy. Or, your fellow workers managed the company smartly, created a hefty profit, and then they'd come up with a campaign that the surpluses created by privileged position in the market are an anomaly, and actually belong to the society. So the Party members in the Worker's Council (equivalent to Board) would push for a vote that this extra money be given to whichever worthy cause, usually to help the fellow workers who don't share the privilege. The underprivileged ones were actually doing bad mostly because of mismanagement, theft or sheer stupidity... the self-management was thus officially pushed for, but in practice discouraged. The system didn't live up to its promises, and (I've written about this before) was eventually toppled by the "thugs among our ranks".

>Are you referring to Yugoslavia?

Yes, in the timeframe given. The more I memories I dig up, the more I think it was just too good to be left in piece. One piece, I mean.