industry, and John D. Rockefeller andnthe oil industry are the focus of thisnintriguing economic history which isnsimultaneously scholarly and immenselyninteresting. Folsom presents the subjectsnas they were, warts and all, avoidingnshrill accusation or exoneration ofnshortcomings. When the state has dabblednin economic development throughnsubsidies, tariffs, regulation of trade, andnother interventions, it has often failed,nand the view that government interventionnin the economy was required tonsave the public from greedy businessmennis misleading. While we did havenindustrialists such as Jay Gould andnHenry Villard, who mulcted government,nset up shoddy enterprises, andnran them into the ground, the story ofnAmerican business also includes uniquenand significant contributions of entrepreneursnwho took the risks, overcamenstrong foreign competition, and pushednAmerican industries to a place of worldnleadership.nFolsom demonstrates that the “robbernbaron” concept of American entrepreneursnis only partially correct. Historiansnhave failed to distinguish betweennthe “political entrepreneurs” and “marketnentrepreneurs.” Forrest McDonaldnnotes in the introduction that the formernwere comparable to medieval robbernbarons, for they sought and obtainednwealth through coercive power of thenstate and points out that Folsom’s studynhas profound implications for Americannhistoriography: while the Whig Party ofnHenry Clay and the Republican Partynof Abraham Lincoln and William Mc-nMOVING?nLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address on this form withnthe mailing label from your latest issue ofnChronicles to: Subscription Department,nChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,nIllinois 61054.nNamenAddress.nCitynState. .Zip_n38 / CHRONICLESnKinley engaged in a great deal of probusinessnrhetoric, they advocated subsidies,ngrants of special privileges, andnprotective tariffs. The Jacksonian Democrats,non the other hand, advocatednpolicies to remove or reduce governmentalninterference in private economicnactivity, thus freeing market entrepreneursnto go about their creative work.nMcDonald’s conclusion is: “Politicalnpromotion of economic development isninherently futile, for it invariably rewardsnincompetence; if incompetence isnrewarded, incompetence will be thenproduct; and when incompetence is thenproduct, politicians will insist that increasednplanning and increased regulationnis the appropriate remedy.”nTommy W. Rogers, former member ofnthe faculty of sociology at NorthwestemnLouisiana and Georgia SouthernnColleges, resides in exile in Jackson,nMS.nFraud in Belgradenby K.L. BiUingsleynYugoslavia: The Failure of “DemocraticnCommunism,” edited bynLeonard R. Sussman and JirinPehe, New York: Freedom House;n$8.50.nIn a century of socialist failure, Yugoslavianhas shown remarkable stayingnpower as a model of “socialism with anhuman face,” an “independent” Communistncountry that actually works. Butnis it independent, and does it work?nLast year, 14 emigres and dissidentsnfrom Yugoslavia got together to discussnthe state of their native land. Yugoslavia:nThe Failure of “Democratic Communism”nis essentially a transcript otnthat meeting, organized by the NewnYork-based Freedom House.nThe group included, among others,nMihajlo Mihajlov, Vladimir Mijanovic,nMomcilo Selic, Mathew Mestrovic,nand Rusko Matulic of the Committeento Aid Democratic Dissidents in Yugoslavia.nMany of those present had beennjailed for their writings or dissidentnactivities, and one, Sami Repishti, hasnseen the inside of slammers in Yugoslavianand Albania. One can understandnwhy they landed in such places.nAs with most dissidents from social­nnnist regions, their minds are largelynuntainted by Marxist superstition. Indeed,nthe only places one finds enthusiasmnfor Marxism would be Westernnuniversity faculties, or the old-linenProtestant denominations, a kind ofnFirst Church of Christ, Socialist, wherenliberal clergy stumble on this decrepitnideology with all the joy of Archimedes.nBut as far as these products of thensystem are concerned, Marxism isndead. These are people who see clearlynand talk plainly; they think, and write.nThey provide some idea of what thenleadership of a free Yugoslavia mightnbe like. But as Orwell put it in J 984,nthe party does not care for such people.nThough they differ on certain issues,nsuch as whether Yugoslavia ought to bendivided, all seem agreed that the notionnof “democratic communism” in Yugoslavianconstitutes, in Churchilliannterms, a fraud inside a hoax wrapped inna myth. One points out the obvious,nthat in Yugoslavia 7 percent of thenpopulation is Communist and rulesnover the other 93 percent. The state’snhegemony over the eight national regionsnis described as “colonial.”nThe moderator, Leonard Sussman,nasks if the government can continue itsn”policy of weakening central control”nwithout dismantling the one-partynstructure. Replies Momcilo Selic:n”There has never been an attempt ofnthe Communist government to dismantlencontrol. They have been tryingnto supplant one type of overt controlnfor another more subtle type of control.”nAccording to Mathew Mestrovic,nYugoslavia’s “self-management” systemnhas no economic foundation whatsoever.nRather it was simply “a politicalnresponse to the Soviet Union in thencrisis with Stalin.” Selic adds that it wasna “cosmetic reform” accepted by Titonfor “manipulative purposes” andnwhich further fragmented the country.nSelf-management was “always used forncontrol of the workers, instead of thenother way around.” In the best socialistntradition, the trade unions perform thensame function.nThis vaunted self-management mayngive hope to the Michael Harringtonsnof the world but has done little for thencountry itself. According to Mestrovic,nYugoslavia is poorer than any nation innEurope except Albania. What prosperitynexists, others say, is largely due ton