One year after the signing of the historic Gdansk agreements the Polish crisis has taken new forms. The Solidarity and party congresses failed to resolve the central problems of power that are increasingly coming to the fore. Martin Meteyard spoke to Jan Kowalski, a revolutionary Marxist active within Solidarity, about the current stage of the struggle in Poland.
The worsening economic situation is the most obvious aspect of the crisis in Poland today. What lies behind this?
Actually it's more helpful to talk about a general social, political and economic crisis as I'll try to explain later.
It's difficult to say exactly why the economic crisis has accelerated as fast as it has. The government isn't giving any satisfactory explanation, except for the level of foreign debts — particularly the question of debt repayments — and the fall in production, which they blame on the lack of labour discipline.
Since no one else in the country has complete access to the relevant statistics and economic information, it's very difficult for even the economists in Solidarity to come up with an explanation. Obviously to a certain extent the factors cited by the government are behind it. But you begin to get into a vicious circle once there is that level of economic crisis.
Take the question of production levels. Since the queues and shortages really took off after Easter, when the first ration cards were introduced, people have had to spend huge amounts of time in queues — so it's not surprising there's been a fall in production.
The introduction of rationing has led to the appearance on a much bigger scale of things like profiteering, the black market, and speculation. This in turn has made the situation in the shops worse, because people can see how much the black market pays, that it's worthwhile; and therefore very often [illegible] to the shops, they simply go [elsewhere].
The government also instituted the ridiculous policy of putting out ration coupons and at the same time legalising a free market in meat; which means that it practically doesn't pay the peasants at all to sell meat to the state shops. For instance, Solidarity estimates that eight out of every ten pigs killed in the provinces which supply Lodz with meat now, don't go to the state shops. This is a much bigger proportion than before rationing [was] introduced.
[The proportion] of the goods that are rationed was much greater before rationing was introduced. Some idea of [the] general [illegible] one [illegible], when asked why there wasn't enough food in the shops to cover the ration cards, answered that if there was then there would be no point in introducing rationing!
The economic situation really highlights the social and political crisis in Poland. Perhaps the most significant feature is the total crisis of the government's power, They really are in no position to govern the country.
There are two main theories about this in Solidarity. One is that the government is simply so weak that it has lost credibility with everyone, to the extent that it is incapable of doing anything about the mess — it's simply powerless.
The other theory is that the government is deliberately not governing the country, in order to try to starve the population into submission. But either way it amounts to the same thing: the government is not running the country, it is not governing. This is the case even in elementary areas such as linking up rail transport facilities with production, with the docks, etc. The mess and chaos that always existed has got very much worse since April.
That must place a great responsibility on Solidarity as the only apparent alternative.
[Solidarity is, in the context] of this crisis, the only force which has the confidence of the mass of the population. For a long time this actually caused problems for Solidarity because it didn't have a programme. It's only in recent months that it has come up with what amounts to a programme: proposals for economic reform which are grounded in the concept of workers' self-management of industry and workers' control of distribution.
However, the situation is slightly complicated by the fact that there are a number of other issues of conflict between the government and Solidarity at the moment. These concern the [trade union] Bill, the question of censorship, and access of Solidarity to the mass media.
As conflicts with the government loom over these questions, it's clear that the only way that Solidarity can defend the gains it has made is by putting forward to the population a coherent programme which provides an answer to the question of how we get out of the crisis. But it also has to link getting out of the crisis to the existence of Solidarity itself as the only body capable of effecting that change, and thereby ensure the support of the population for Solidarity's line on all these issues.
The basis of that programme is certainly going to be the proposals drafted by Solidarity on the question of workers' self-management. It is here that Solidarity points to a possible escape route from the crisis.
These proposals have really only received a lot of attention over the last two months. They were originally drawn up by the 'Network of Leading Factories', which is not an official union body; that's to say, it's officially recognised by the leading bodies of Solidarity, but it's not integrated into any of its structures — it simply advises the regional commissions and the national coordinating council.
These proposals are very far-reaching indeed. They give the workers' self-management councils in each enterprise the right to make all decisions which affect production and distribution of the products of the given factory; also the type of production which is carried out. They allow them to decide how that given factory fits into the larger bodies, combines and cooperatives, in Polish industry; to take decisions regarding imports and exports; and a number of other things like this.
Most importantly, the proposals give them the right to choose the manager. The impact of this on the power of the bureaucracy should not be underestimated. When you add up all the managers nominated by the government throughout the country, together with those who in turn depend on them — their families, the deputies and supervisors they appoint, etc — that's a significant social layer which helps to prop up the bureaucracy.
Solidarity's national council only agreed to centre its proposals for reform on the question of workers' self-management at the end of July. By then the party leadership had already launched a big attack on the whole idea, claiming that full workers' self-management would mean group ownership of the means of production as opposed to their social ownership — which is ridiculous.
Solidarity, however, has begun to tie in the question of workers' self-management to a series of issues involved in getting out of the crisis, especially as to the type of economic reform which needs to be instituted. For instance, the main plank of the [government's] proposals [is price] reform. Solidarity's position is that it won't agree to this unless it is linked to a general reform of the economy which is based on workers' self-management. In addition, Solidarity also says that a system of financial compensation for the lower paid must be accepted by the union through a referendum of all union members.
In other words, Solidarity fairly clearly links its acceptance of price rises — which the government presents as the main plank of economic reform — to the question of self-management. Moreover, it also says that in order to effect these price rises with the consent of the Polish population, it will be necessary for Solidarity to have full access to the mass media.
In this way the question of the mass media, and also of censorship, comes into play. What Solidarity is saying now is that we are really the only ones who can get the message across to the population that price reform will be necessary, and we're only prepared to say that if we can put price reform forward as part-and-parcel of a much wider programme of reform which includes self-management, and if we're satisfied that the necessary compensation will be provided for the lower paid.
How do Solidarity's proposals differ from those already been applied in Yugoslavia, for instance? How does it intend to link in self-management with a mechanism for centralised planning?
The example of Yugoslavia is a very good one, actually, because it's one of the arguments that the government also uses. They point to Yugoslavia and say: look, you have full self-management there, and what goes wrong is that you have inflation and unemployment.
There are a couple of very big differences with self-management as it's proposed by Solidarity. The first thing is that in Yugoslavia market forces are given very wide rein. Self-management therefore becomes a fiction, because the idea of self-management is that the workers are allowed to run their factory in accordance with the needs of the working class. This is impossible either if you have bureaucratic dictates from above, or if you are prey to the mechanisms of the market.
Secondly, workers' self-management councils in Yugoslavia are limited to individual factories, whereas in Poland we're talking about a national network of self-management councils. In fact, the fledgling councils of workers' self-management which are growing up now have already begun to link up on a regional basis. The first regional coordinating committee was set up in Warsaw, but by the end of July another five or six such regional coordinating committees had been set up, and I think that this process will continue to proceed apace.
However there is, as you rightly point out, one question which is left open. That is the question of centralised planning, the role of the state and the government in the economy. The proposals for workers' self-management put forward by Solidarity leave a lot of room for government intervention to shape the lines of national functioning in specific ways.
What obviously must be the next step is the possibility of the workers themselves intervening in that decision-making process. A demand that Solidarity has already raised is that it should be allowed to have 'legislative initiative' — that is, that Solidarity should be allowed to put Bills before the Polish parliament, the Sejm. This arose after Solidarity worked out compromises with negotiating committees on various questions and then these compromises were rejected and totally different Bills were brought onto the floor of parliament.
In the short term I think that will be very useful, but obviously it's an impractical way of solving the problem in the long term. And that's why so much interest has been focused on [illegible] the governmental and other representative institutions in Poland. In fact as early as March, during the Bydgoszcz affair, a number of regions wanted to put forward a proposal to add the demand for electoral reform to the list of demands which Solidarity was putting forward then. This said that all legalised social organisations should be allowed to stand in elections, and that there should be new elections to parliament and to the provincial and city councils.
So it's clear that, hand-in-hand with the idea of economic reform based on self-management, we're going to see much louder demands for electoral reform in the very near future. And that must be the first demand in taking up the question of the reform of the state and governmental apparatus in Poland — a demand which, even before it is popularised, obviously has the support of at least 90 per cent of the population.
However that also poses a problem, because if you're talking about electoral reform you're either talking about Solidarity standing in elections as Solidarity, or you're talking about the creation of new parties. The leadership of Solidarity, with the exception of Lech Walesa — who keeps claiming on television that Solidarity is just a trade union, and who has been reprimanded on numerous occasions for doing so — considers Solidarity to be a social movement. However, they do not make any claims that it is or should be a political party.
Therefore what we would seem to be suggesting in proposing electoral reform is proposing the legalisation of other political parties. Indeed, at the moment in Solidarity there is a very wide current of opinion suggesting that Solidarity should already begin to set up — or rather activists inside Solidarity should begin to set up — political parties. This is particularly connected with the chairperson of the 'Network', who is putting forward the idea of the creation of a labour party, a party of labour.
Most of the leadership of Solidarity accept that in the long term this must be fought for by the union, and that this will happen. At the same time most of the leadership consider that at the moment it is premature; that openly fighting for these demands right now would be a provocation, and an open invitation to the Soviet army to intervene.
Therefore the course that seems likely to be taken in the short term is that workers' self-management will be the first, preliminary step in the reform of the whole Polish economy and State apparatus, and that after the founding and the institutionalisation (in the best sense!) of the process of democracy and self-management, the question of electoral reform will be taken up on the basis of these councils.
Indeed, one idea that has already come up is to reform the Sejm into a two-chamber parliament, with the lower chamber being made up of representatives of the self-management councils — probably called the chamber of self-management. This in the medium term would provide a solution to the problem of how the workforce could intervene in the decision-making process at the level of the economy.
However, that in itself does not answer the problem of how to fill the political vacuum which has been created by the collapse in the credibility of the Communist Party. For that reason, whether the leadership of Solidarity want it or not, demands for general electoral reform are likely to be raised in the very near future, and political parties will begin to spring up like mushrooms after the rain. A number of political parties — all very small — have already been set up, and the breakthrough point will come when a large sector of Solidarity sets up its own political party.
What does this mean in terms of building a revolutionary party in Poland?
We've reached the situation in Poland where a general strike is impossible today — because it would be tantamount to taking power, and there just isn't the political cohesion yet to make that possible.
I think it's likely that a revolutionary party will emerge in answer to this problem, but it will probably look very different from what you might expect. Most likely it will be a fusion of unions, political parties, journals, groups of 'Network' activists, and so on. And it would be a big diversion to say that the central task now is to build a revolutionary party.
The most important thing today is to develop the movement for workers' self-management. Because this will create the space for a revolutionary current to develop its influence and organisation.
What is the influence of revolutionary Marxist ideas in Poland today?
Very few people see themselves as revolutionary Marxists as such. But there are a number of journals today which put forward revolutionary Marxist ideas; some, such as NT7JO in Warsaw, openly describe themselves as such.
What you have, though, is a large section of activists who in practice behave as revolutionary Marxists and put forward a revolutionary Marxist programme, including the use of some Marxist terms. All democratic demands in Poland today immediately become transitional demands in the most important sense that they promote the self-organisation of the working class.
The jump from demanding a 10 per cent pay rise to demanding the opening of the books is really very small when you don't have to contend with the mystification of property relations.
Could you explain how the struggle of the working class in Poland differs from that in capitalist countries?
Well, the workers have been told for 35 years that they are the ones who govern the country; now that they actually believe it, they merely seem to be claiming their natural birthright. It seems elementary for workers in Poland to throw the managing director out of the factory when they go into struggle. But in Britain it's far different. The question of ownership is very important. British workers don't normally challenge capitalist property relations explicitly, and of course that affects how they see the boss.
In Poland it seems perfectly normal to demand the removal of bureaucratic privileges. But how many workers in Britain would demand that the boss's £100,000 house be taken away from him? The revolutionary leap in consciousness which has to take place in Britain before workers take over the economy doesn't have to take place in Poland — it's only control, not ownership, of production that's at stake.
In general that's a distinction that's blurred — but it becomes absolutely crucial when workers move into struggle. Even if it's only sub-conscious, they begin to put forward demands whose logic is the political revolution. It really doesn't take a big step in consciousness to say the workers should run the factories themselves — after all, it's supposedly even guaranteed in the constitution! The key change is that workers move from political passivity into activity.