POLAND
"If we continue in the framework of the system, the breakdown will be
JAN LITYNSKI took part in organizing help for Ursus and Radom strikers who fell victim to repression in 1976. He worked with the Workers' Defence Committee (KOR), joining in 1977. He then founded the journal Robotnik, the first opposition bulletin intended for workers. In 1980, he became a Solidamosc expert.
Arrested on December 13, 1981, he escaped and went underground. A member of the Warsaw Regional Executive Commission, he is a close collaborator of Jacek Kuron and Zbigniew Bujak. W HAT can you say about the results of the referendum? Obviously, they were a surprise for everyone, because even if you take as good coin the official explanation given by the authorities, you don't hold such a referendum in order to lose it. But the results were unambiguous. The government lost. You might wonder why they didn't fake the results in order to be able to announce that they had an absolute majority of positive responses. I think that they were so certain of winning that total"
Interview with Jan
Litynski they were not prepared for falsifying the returns. Maybe, and that is giving them the benefit of the doubt, they didn't want to falsify the results — but that doesn't seem to me to be very likely.
The outcome seems clear as regards the general assessment of the situation. Whatever the government does, whatever kind of propaganda it engages in, it does not have the confidence of the society. This is all the more so because the campaign conducted before the referendum testified to a lack of respect for the society. The questions were not clear. And even though they announced that they would clarify the meaning of the questions, they did not do so.
Today, it has become evident that the authorities engaged in a form of blackmail. "You'll get reforms, maybe you'll get a better life, there may even be some political changes. But to get that, you'll have to accept a big price rise." What seems to me to have been the big success in the referendum was that the society refused to grant such confidence. And in my opinion a lot of those who voted "yes" in the referendum did so only because they are convinced any reforms will have to come from this government.
On the other hand, a lot of those who voted "no," or who abstained, and in that case those who did so in response to Solidarnosc's appeal, were also convinced of the need for reforms, but thought that this go. 15 emment was incapable of carrying out the
January 25, 1988 • International Viewpoint
POLAND reforms that it proposed. In my opinion, this was a signal for the government. Without real reforms today, the situation cannot improve. As regards Solidarnosc, the result shows first of all that its decision to ignore this referendum was proved to be correct.
Secondly, the result shows that there is a possibility for overcoming the social apathy that has prevailed for rather a long time in our country if Solidarnose shows that it is able to stimulate the potential for social activity indicated by the referendum results, that we can expect quite significant changes, over which the society will have an influence.
• But in calling for ignoring the referendum, in its first appeal at least the
National Executive Commission of Solidarnosc (KKW) did not mention the question of the price rise. You say that today there is a possibility for remobilizing society. Around what axes can this be done, and what place should be reserved in this for the workers' material demands?
I think that that is not the only axis, although material demands are indispensable. What is more, since 1982, it has become apparent that the spontaneous resistance to the price rises and the struggles that developed spontaneously for wage increases have been useful, because they have prevented the government from getting a surplus at the expense of the society alone. All this resistance, this wage fight, has been a struggle for reforms, because it has forced the regime to undertake structural reforms. I think that that was something very valuable. On the other hand, today, while such resistance is necessary, it is not sufficient.
Today, we need social activity in a lot of different areas at once. First of all, there is the problem of self-management at the enterprise level. The councils are functioning in one way or another but they should increase their activity. There is the fundamental problem for Solidarnosc of finding ways to rebuild the union — a process that is beginning through the creation of Solidarnosc organizing committees in the enterprises. There is the question of democratic self-management at the local government level.
If reform gets off the ground, its fate will be decided on the local level. The present structures, the various cliques, or even mafias, have to be dismantled. They serve as a straitjacket because of the ties that exist between the administration, the nomenklatura and even a section of the private entrepreneurs. If all this can be destroyed, to the benefit of local self-management, normally functioning industries and cooperatives, as well as private economic activity, then the reform will be successful. The success of the reform, therefore, will be determined on two levels. The first is the dismantling of the nomenklatura and the cliques in the 16 stronger industries. The second, perhaps more important, is the local level. International Viewpoint • January 25, 1988
• Don't you think that the essential question is that of the central government?
It is obvious that it is the system that is in question. But this system is evolving under social pressure. What is at stake is getting the central power to give up control of economic and social life. In order for it to do that, appropriate pressure will be necessary, because it functions in such a way that its natural tendency is to fill up all the gaps in social life. On the contrary, the society must penetrate into all the breaches that open up. I do not see today any possibility of solving this problem centrally, in the sense of the system being transformed overnight into something else. This can only be a process advancing as the system evolves.
• When you talk about economic reform, are you thinking about a market reform?
Yes, of course.
• But don't you think that the society's response to the referendum has been a rejection, if not of the market reform project, at least of the social cost involved in introducing such a reform, no matter in what form and regardless of who carries it out?
I think that it is incorrect reasoning to say that the reform involves social costs. Maybe that is so, I don't know. Social costs do not flow from the reform but from the debits piled up by the totalitarian economic, social and political system that has dominated our country. We have to accept these costs. We are in a situation where the standard of living is going to continue to decline.
The question is whether, with this declining standard of living, we can carry out reform. The question is therefore not whether we want a market reform or non-market reform, but only —and that is much more essential - who should make the sacrifices. If there is no activity and organization by the society, then it will be the weaker social groups that will bear the weight of the sacrifices. If we manage to force the acceptance of independent unions and local self-management, then there is a chance that the costs will be borne by those who have caused them, that is the apparatus and its clientele.
The fundamental problem, which no one has yet raised, is that of the military complex, of the administration, the army and the police. In the present situation, if Gorbachev's policy is really aimed at reducing the arms race, then that should have a real effect in Poland by leading to a reduction in production for the army, in the costs of administration and in the military and repressive apparatus. That is where the reserves have to be found that can make it possible to distribute the costs more equitably. • In 1980, at the time of the struggles that culminated in the founding of Solidarnosc, one of the demands put forward was rationing around the argument that everyone has the same kind of stomach. But the market method, on the other hand, leads to distribution on the basis of money, and so in this context the less well-placed groups naturally pay the costs of this option.
Yes. That is why mechanisms must be introduced that will guarantee a certain minimum for the more disadvantaged groups.
But such mechanisms can only be introduced on condition that Solidarnosc and other real unions can exist legally.
I do not see any other way to develop the country than the one that involves the market, or in other words the one that leads to capitalizing actually existing socialism.
This does not mean that social forces that will take up the defence of the weak groups should not exist in this process. On the other hand, the road of rationing leads to strengthening the central apparatus and creating a group of people with an interest in perpetuating the system. • In 1981, Solidarnosc demanded social monitoring of rationing. Don't you think that that could be an alternative solution?
I don't think so. The rationing system involves the existence of a developed bureaucratic apparatus, and it is no solution to set up an apparatus for social inspection standing above the society, one that will naturally tend to degenerate. In that way we would have apparatuses that in monitoring each other would paralyze social life. I am, of course, in favor of social inspection, but this must be done through democratic mechanisms, whether of a parliamentary or market type, and through various social groups. This applies, for example, to the question of the environment, where pressure and social monitoring are necessary. • In what way can Solidarnosc exert its influence today with a view to getting such changes?
First of all, Solidarosc organizing committees must be formed in the factories. If we don't achieve this, we will get nowhere. Even if it was not inevitable, today one can see clearly that the regime on its own will not authorize trade-union pluralism. Rather strong pressure will be necessary.
There are today in our ranks two conceptions of these Solidarnose factory committees. One is that it is enough to form these committees and expect that when they are numerous enough they will force acceptance of Solidarnosc. The other, toward which I incline much more, is that the committees should be established, go through a stage of organization and begin immediately to act. This would be an indirect way of continuing the work that Solidarose did in 1980-81. However, today this is no longer enough. For years we have called for giving Solidarnosc a chance to exist at plant level in the framework of reform. But this is no longer
adequate. We have to take up organizational activity at a higher level than that of the plants. And I don't think we can afford to be slow about undertaking this. For some time, we have been seeing a tendency to abandon clandestine activity, which at present seems quite pointless, in favor of open activity. • In 1981 you wrote an article arguing that the time had come to begin to divide. In Solidarnosc today, differences are appearing more and more clearly, including at the central level. I am referring here to the letter of the 22 Solidarnosc leaders to Lech Walesa.
I am for expressing differences, if they are around real tendencies, different programs, and not differences over the question of who is or is not in the leadership. It seems to me that the letter of the 22 was an error. Today, calling a National Commission would serve no purpose. Solidarnosc is what it is. That is, it is weaker but continues to exist in the framework of certain structures. It is in this framework that it has to start to act, and that has to be done with the support of other people who also want to act in Solidarnosc. This is not the time to question whether what is needed is National Commission or the KKW. The KKW was set up. I think that it was an organizational step forward, because it eliminated the quite artificial and harmful division that existed between a clandestine and a public part of the leadership.
The KKW is the only possible leadership today. It emerged in a natural way, although its composition is partially the result of chance, since it is made up of people who headed clandestine structures in their regions, or who had a great authority there. In such a situation, to raise the question of convoking the National Commission instead of acting in collaboration with the KKW seems to me to be an error. I say this even though I know that a number of the signatories of the letter of the 22 are active leaders in their regions and that they do good work. • But the signatories of the letter of the 22 are not just demanding the convoking of the National Commission of Solidarnosc. They are are criticizing the weakening of Solidarosc's trade-union character, its lack of concern for defending the standing of living and other material interests of the workers.
I agree with the criticism that Solidarnosc is not paying enough attention to material questions. That is correct. But you have to take into consideration the fact that until now, most of Solidarnosc's documents have gone unnoticed because such documents have to be coupled with a certain level of activity. What purpose would a
Solidarnose report on working conditions in the plants have, if there were no possibility for struggles to improve these conditions? In fact, people prefer to work in bad conditions and earn more money.
I think that for a union the problem of working conditions is fundamental but should be put in a more general context, that of a movement. And today we do not have any chance to create that. While it is true that various leading bodies in Solidarnosc are neglecting a number of social questions and this is a mistake, this error stems from the general situation and not any bad will. There is no point in issuing yet another appeal. We might have acted, not through appeals, but as Zbigniew Rosazewski proposes, for example, by organizing massive leaflet distributions on working conditions in the Silesian mines or in the Lodz textile plants. We probably did not have the means to do it, and this was an error. • With respect to the Solidarnosc leadership itself, you mentioned differences that emerged around the question of clandestine or public activity. This difference seems to me today to be a thing of the past. But I have the impres sion that another, deeper one has emerged. It might be described schematically as a counterposition between those who stress the question of a market reform and are therefore prepared to envisage the workers making certain material sacrifices, and those who stress the fight against austerity at the plant level. The second option appeared, for example, in an article by Henryk Wujec and Maciej Jankowski and in some positions defended in the magazine Robotnik.
As regards the document — a very good one in my opinion — by Wujec and Jankowski, it presents the position of Solidarnosc. It has not, unfortunately, had the impact that it should have. That is, it has not helped to get things moving in the plants. This document is not at all in conflict with the reform. In Solidarnosc's view, it is necessary to organize actions for immediate demands in the plants in order to defend living standards, and it is necessary to carry out the reform. These are two different levels.
In other words, introducing the reform is inseparable from the struggle for what is involved in the reform, and on this terrain various social groups are going to act in order to defend their interests. This may slow the tempo of the reform, but it will be useful. In fact, what the government proposes is some kind of economic jungle, free enterprise à la Milton Friedman, and Solidarnosc must, of course, defend itself against that. But an economic jungle is one thing, and a market system is another.
On the other hand, it is possible that Robotnik's position is based on another point of view, that is the conviction that a market economic reform means lowering the standard of living of the workers. I do not agree with such an analysis. I think that it is necessary to make normal economic decisions, and that the question of how everyone has to defend themselves is sec-
POLAND ondary. In other words, in the framework of the present system we have nothing to defend because we are living in a country that is not only in an economic crisis but in a state of economic breakdown. What is at stake is ending this breakdown. It is obvious that through material demands alone and maintaining the existing structure out of ideological attachment to such a structure we will get nowhere. On the other hand, I think that the economic reform would make it easier to defend the standard of living, because it would lead to an economic redeployment, there would be more goods in the stores, and it would be easier to defend the standard of living. • If I understand your point of view, you think that the introduction of the market would mean that more goods would be produced?
Yes, I think that the development of the mechanism of the market, of private enterprise, of cooperatives, of local industry and self-management are the only way today to increase the supply of goods. It is clear that the present system, by its very nature, treats consumption only as a necessary evil. • In the framework of the present sys tem, private enterprises can seem more efficient because they operate in areas neglected by big industry. But it is equally true, I think, that if the Polish market were opened up to international trade, that could lead to a deIndustrialization of the country. The productivity of Polish industry is in fact far inferior to that of the developed countries, and it would not stand up against international competition.
But de-industrialization and all that has already happened. We have machines that are out of use, the air is polluted, the soils have been impoverished and so on. If we continue in the framework of this system, the breakdown will be total. The Poles will become a degenerate nation in the heart of Europe; we cannot permit that. This system can no longer be saved; it has no more reserves. Reserves can only arise by the people's initiative — that is, if people create private enterprises, if the state enterprises cease to be that and begin to operate normally on the market, if there is normal competition. There are obviously a mass of problems tied up with that.
The question of private enterprises, moreover, is peripheral. What is important is for people to be able to work with a hope of making gains, that they produce with the idea of selling what they produce. In this country, thousands of millions have been squandered. I know no other solution, if we want to see a radical improvement in the situation, than the one that involves the market. I agree that it is necessary to have mechanisms for defence against the effects of the market, but how can we defend ourselves against something when we do not 17 even know what it is!
January 25, 1988 • International Viewpoint
POLAND
• In 1981, the National Congress of
Solidarnosc declared for a new system of managing the economy based on a combination of democratic socialized planning and workers' and social self- management, not only at the plant and local level but also at the national level - with a chamber of parliament representing the self-management bodies -and with market mechanisms. Since then, this project seems to have disappeared from Solidarnosc's proposals, in favor of a system based essentially on the market.
It disappeared because since then a number of new facts have come to light. It has proved simply impossible to patch up the system, and what is more, the Polish crisis is not a specifically Polish one. That is, it is not due to any particular corruption of the Polish regime or any particular revolt of the Polish people, but it is a general crisis of this type of system. The arrival on the scene of Gorbachev in a way testifies to this. Discussions about some hypothetical ideal system do not interest me. It is clear that the socialism that exists, that actually exists," as they love to repeat, is a system that leads to a total impasse. And we have no other alternative model to that of the market; no one has dreamed up any others.
So, that is what we have to head for. We are aware of the enormity of the problems we will face. The problem is knowing what public enterprise should do in the framework of the reform. It is not in the first instance to open the way for the development of private enterprises, even if that is certainly necessary and useful. In this case, free-enterprise is utopian. Our free enterprisers think that once the state allows private enterprises, we will see a boom and we will live happily ever after. That is wrong. There will be social problems to solve, but in the framework of a process leading to the introduction of a normal market. Economic development, all economic factors, have to be governed by the market and not by central planners, because they cannot do it. • A little while ago, the Polish Socialist Party (PPS) was formed in Poland. What do you think of this initiative?
First of all, I would like to stress my personal point of view. I am not interested in working in a party. I prefer to act through social movements and a union, not through a political party. In this sense, the PPS does not interest me either, and in general, I am not interested in parties whose programs aim at taking power. But I am not against the formation of such parties, because I am in favor of a multi-party system.
So, I have an outsider's point of view. I think that when groups that identify with the right are very active, the appearance of a group that says "We are socialists, we are left," is a good thing. In this way, the life of the society is enriched. Instead of taking 18 the form of attacks by right-wing groups on Solidarnosc, political discussions take on International Viewpoint • January 25, 1988 the character of a discussion between two opposing political orientations.
On the other hand, it seems to me that forming political parties today is a bit premature, but that's not my business.
Finally, and this is the most important aspect in my opinion, it is a bit anachronistic today to divide along left and right lines. In some ways reality seems to prove me wrong, because this cleavage does exist and it has to be taken into consideration. But I think that this sort of polarization is not relevant to the practical tasks in the present situation, although it is possible that that may change in the future.
For example, in the documents of the right-wing groups there are a lot of things that I agree with. Although they are expressed in a language that is not to my liking, I agree with some of their practical conclusions. In particular in Polish conditions, I am afraid that left-right counterpositions might take the rigid form of ideological contention. I would rather see differences appear around practical questions: what concrete solutions for questions such as that of the social costs of the reform, or that of common action with other peoples in the Soviet camp, or the question "People n have anyt JOZEF PINIOR is the regional treasurer of Lower Silesian Solidarnosc. He gained a place in history as the person who, shortly before the institution of the state of war, withdrew 80 million zlotys from the bank, money that served to finance the union's underground activity. In November 1982, he took the leadership of the Lower Silesian of what attitude to take toward the reforms.
If it doesn't happen that way, too bad. In any case, the formation of the PPS helps to enrich the political map, even if, in my opinion, the political picture does not fall into a left-right pattern.
• Don't you think that the emergence of political parties and groups should find an expression inside Solidarnosc, or even in its leadership, which might precisely become a common framework for concrete action for various ideological currents?
To know whether activists from such groups should or should not come into the leading bodies of the union, you would have to know whether they have made up their minds or not to act within it. By its nature, Solidarnose has to be pluralist, to include various currents.