But it isn't true. They do not make the complete break you are talking about. On the contrary: many of them are supporters of an authoritarian system. They want to calm down the revolutionary upsurge in order to put through economic reforms, and then there is the scramble for the posts all kinder or antly Miser olis 11
CZECHOSLOVAKIA es...My criticisms of such practises are couched in a polite form at the moment, since the old regime has not been finally defeated. But I think this shows that my Marxism is more radical than their anti-communism.
This raises something very important from the point of view of my beliefs. I am interested in the emancipation of the individual, who changes from object to subject not only on the economic but also on the political level. What I want to discuss is not the words "socialism" or "Marxism" but the emancipation of human beings as the condition for social emancipation. • Yes, decades of Stalinism have confused the meaning of these words. Unfortunately we have to use words to think. In the Soviet Union, for example, there are lots of people who want to defend the interests of the workers and fight against growing corruption. Many of them are supporters of socialism. Unfortunately their spokespeople are too often connected - directly or otherwise - with the apparatus. There are also a lot of people who are fighting for democratic rights, national sovereignty, the right to initiative and responsibility and a radical break with the old system. Unfortunately, their spokespeople generally insist that there is no way forward except through the development of the market. These two groups hardly overlap at all; only a very few people consciously reject at one and the same time the capitalist and conservative solutions. On the other hand, there seem to be more supporters of the "third way" in East Germany. What is the situation in Czechoslovakia?
My own opinion is that the market must be allowed to develop in Czechoslovakia. This might seem a step backward from the communist ideal of a classless society, but it seems to me inevitable now. I am of course a supporter of a plan that is democratically worked out to decide the big questions, but we must avoid any illusion that it can regulate production down to the finer details. Only a market can allow real freedom of choice to the consumer for such things as footwear, ties and so on.
You will say that there is a problem of how far the market can impose its laws, how many employees an enterprise should be allowed in the private sector and so on. It is difficult to codify all this, but I think that, precisely because I consider a certain development of the market inevitable, it is necessary to give great weight to the problem of democratic control and the practical forms of workers self-management. This is even more true for investments by foreign capital: Poland 12 must have received massive foreign sup• port to get such a big debt, but it seems that, in the absence of workers (and consumers) control, little benefit came of it.
Unfortunately, not even a slightly worked out conception of economic and political self-management is current in Czechoslovakia. The other conception, that of full-scale privatization, has several times been discussed behind closed doors, but never openly presented. That will start with the legislative elections and will continue afterwards. All the political parties that are now being formed will have to take a position on this. As for the workers in the enterprises, I am convinced that they will be opposed to privatization and the domination of Czechoslovakia by the Western economy, if this means attacks on their living standards, working conditions and produces social differentiation. At that point, I think, the struggle for socialism will finally begin.
The question of ownership, and power to dispose of, the means of production, is very important for me. The day after my last release from prison there was a meeting of the Coordinating Centre of the Civic Forum in Prague — this was before the Council was formed - where its programme was adopted. I voted against with three others. There were five abstentions and 60 votes in favour. The basic reason for my vote was one phrase — although no doubt there were other things that could be discussed - that stated that all forms of property should be equal. I asked if the form of property where the Politburo — or the party and state leadership — decides everything and deprives the working people of all power was equal to a cooperative where, for example, 20 people decided on what to produce, on their conditions of work and so on. If these two things are really the same, then stealing and crime are equal to honest work. I cannot agree with that, Of course, in the way I put it, nobody in Czechoslovakia would accept that all forms are equal. Of course the formulation is there in order to legitimize private property. • You pretended not to understand....
Of course! Then, curiously, the phrase got into the outlines for a future Constitution, under an even odder form. There is no mention of the political system - it could be a monarchy; nor of the Federal Assembly, elections or the Presidency, but the phrase on the equality of forms of property is there. That did not get forgotten. Even so, I think that the great majority are clearly opposed to the privatization of the big enterprises. There are doubts about medium sized concerns and almost everybody, even me, is in favour of freedom of enterprise for artisans, family concerns and so on. This is almost a technical necessity. As I say, the real problem is not that of the number of workers or employees in this sector, but under what forms of control the economic opening to Western capital is going to take place. That is the
International Viewpoint #77 • January 29, 1990 real danger, because there is nobody in Czechoslovakia who could buy the enterprises. • Despite your disagreements, you are a member of the Council of Democratic Forum....
No, of the Coordinating Council of Civic Forum. Furthermore, I am not the only dissident. There is a small left inside the collective of a hundred.
• What currents are emerging an ow will Civic Forum approach th coming elections?
The "Left Alternative" (see /V 175) was created on November 17. Our theses were edited after that, but drafted before. The "Left Alternative", like the "Czech Children" - who are monarchists — or the "Association of Anarchists" are a part of the flowering of dozens of — often rather marginal — new groups. Several groups are bigger, and have hundreds or even thousands of members. In the latter category are the Social Democracy, of which there are three groups in the Czech Lands and another one in Slovakia; the Green Party or rather parties; the Christian Democratic Party; and finally the Liberal Democratic Party, known as the "Democratic Initiative". These last are the most dangerous. They are absolutely determined to be a part of CF and wanted to have a Council member. Now they have got one, and someone made the following remark to me: everybody wears pullovers and uses familiar forms of address, but the DI people wear ties and speak formally. They are perceived to be a bit odd, but everyone respects them.
The big struggles will begin during the election campaign. But I see another danger for CF, that of repeating the kind of electoral process seen in Poland. In the circumstances it was a necessity in Poland, but nothing obliges us to do the same thing here, that is: to present a single CF candidate in each constituency. In such a situation no other candidate has a chance. It would be possible for the CF as such to present no candidates and support all those who support a democratic system in general. Or there could be three or four CF candidates representing the different parties or opinions. Of course, in this case, parties not recognized by CF would have little chance. system or exterme it to to de • You mean parties tied to the old ties?
We should be careful before eliminating everything tied in whatever way to the old system. Take for example the Socialist Party and People's Party. They were an integral part of the old system: but there can be no question of throwing them out, because they were with us from the beginning — the Socialist Party helped us before November. Furthermore, these parties have carried out purges of their own at
"FOR OR AGAINST A. MARKET ECONOM 'en de different moments. Even in the Communist Party a Democratic Forum has arisen, although I do not know what support it has. Although they remain in the CP, their slogans and ideas are correct enough and really democratic and I think that they will be able to make an impact at the elections, especially if they take their distance from the CP. But then what will remain of the old CP? It is important to understand the relations between CF and members of the CPCz. In the Coordinating Centre in Prague there are no longer any party members. There were some at the start, but they have become ministers - Komarek for example. On the other hand, outside the capital there are often party members in the leadership of CF, which proposed members of the CP for the government. CF must be the guarantor of democratic elections in the future, and take part in all the preparatory and ballot-watching commissions. It must allow popular control from below, but should not present itself as what it is not: a political party. That would be a big mistake. The mistake is connected to the desire of many to enter into the system as it is: you can see the demand "the interior minister should not be a CP member" turning into "we want this ministry to be headed by Mr. X." And if Mr. X wasn't one of us at the beginning, he becomes Mr. Y, who was.... We are putting forward our own candidates to the Assembly deputies, to be coopted for a short period of perhaps six months. It is really anti-democratic, because nobody has elected them and no-one can recall them, when the old deputies are, in fact, recallable by their electors! • What is the reality of Civic Forum? Who can join it? What are its links with what is happening in the enterprises?
There is no worked out structure. The CF Coordinating Centre in Prague is more
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Y?" or less the 31 members of the Council, plus what could be called the apparatus, that is the unpayed helpers, perhaps 100 to 200 people. This centre rests on the Civic Forums in the city's ten districts and on the Prague Coordinating Centre, which is separate from us. Outside Prague the situation is every uneven. There are for example localities and enterprises where a third of the people have given their names as CF members. Elsewhere the CF consists of nothing more than a few individuals, but they are supported by numerous people who come to meetings. There are also CFs in the army. There are more than 10,000 strike committees in Czechoslovakia, sometimes alongside CFs in the enterprise, sometimes identical with them. There is an association of strike committees with a rather different function to that of the Forum. They have a trade unionist line; not to launch strikes, but to maintain a kind of state of alert. The strike committees have adopted the objective of cleaning out the trade unions. The Central Council of TUs collapsed and was replaced by an Action Committee that wanted to reform the unions. But the workers have not accepted this. They want to set up another union structure, using the buildings and infrastructure of the old. They want to regain what belongs to them, but change the statutes rather than merely the personnel, as the Action Committee wanted. This is a syndicalist line close to self-management. A year or six months ago all the enterprises became State enterprises. They were no longer national corporations, but had statutes giving them more autonomy than before. The direct dependence on the ministry was replaced by a double dependence of the management on the ministry and the workers. Formally, a system of workers control was established, described as self-management. It could be effective, if the workers really believed in it. But on the whole, they saw it as a gimmick by the authorities, and when they elected someone, they did it with a lot of suspicion. However, in some exceptional cases — 5 to 10% - the Councils were elected democratically, and these now coincide with the strike committees. And where this did not happen we often find that the strike committee wants to purge the "self-management" structure and replace the entire system. Having said this, attention now is focussed on the strictly political plane — the presidential and legislative elections and so on - and this kind of thing is not generally noticed. • Are the strike committees represented in the Civic Forum? Yes. Firstly, in the CF's Coordinating Council in Prague there is a so-called "liaison committee with the workers" whose official is also on the Council. Furthermore there is a workers' representative in the Council itself. The students are also represented in the Council, as are cultural workers.
But there is no division, for the moment, between a civil and political current and a current more directly tied to the workers. We all work together. • This is a key question. In Poland there is a division, if not yet an outright split between the "political" current, which is now in government if not in power, and a wing of Solldarnosc tied more directly to the enterprises.
But for the moment the workers in the factories are preoccupied with such things as Havel's election more than strictly social and economic questions. Also, although the economic situation here is hardly brilliant, it is far from dominating people's concerns as in Poland. • To return to strictly political questions. You said that the Socialist Party gave you direct help even before November. Can you tell us more about this party?
The Socialist Party is not all that socialist. It is a socialist/nationalist party. It derives from the old National Socialist Party of Benes, which always claimed the heritage of Masaryk'. Masaryk himself supported the social democracy. The old NSP was something between a liberal party and a social democratic party. It has always been a party of the intelligentsia of skilled workers and the liberal professions with socialistic tendencies. One might say, supporters of a "Swedish model" The SP had about 18,000 members and 16 deputies before November 17. Today they have doubled, maybe tripled in size. 13
The Social Democratic Party may be
CZECHOSLOVAKIA / ZIMBABWE more interesting. It has restored itself now, or is in the process of doing so. It refers to much more left-wing positions than the Socialist Party. The opposite of the West! • You have spoken of the relatively open attitude of Civic Forum towards the Democratic Forum in the CP. What do you make of this? A tendency towards compromise or a distinction between bureaucrats and Stalinists on the one hand and CP members considered to be honest on the other?
I am not certain. The spirit of compromise is strongest in Prague; elsewhere there is another problem. There are very few people qualified to take positions of responsibility. Party members thus step forward. There is friction and the more anti-Communist people say that those who were in the CP do not have the right to be in the leading group of CF...Such opinions are not found in Prague. • How do you see your activity now? You are both a CF militant and a supporter of the "Left Alternative". - Does this not present problems?
There is no contradiction for me. Other currents are also represented in the Forum. And, when they are — unlike us — big, they do not want to be there as individuals but as a current. This could present a problem because we do not want the CP to become another National Front.2 In fact, I do not have much time to devote to the "Alternative". It is rather my comrades that do this. I hope that in a few weeks