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
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.
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 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, Solidarnosc has to be pluralist, to include various currents.
I think, precisely, that there is room in Solidarose for differences over practical and not ideological questions. Solidarosc has contained different points of view, and will continue to do so. But I think it would be a good thing if it could free itself from the weight of political differences in a strict
"People no longer
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 framehave anything to work 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
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 In November 1982, he took the leadership of the Lower Silesian lose"
Interview with Josef
Pinior Regional Strike Committee (RKS) and came into the underground national leadership (TKK) of Solidamosc. He participated in the development of the "line of the factories" — a militant orientation that was put into practice in his region. Arrested in April 1983, he was released in the summer of 1984. Subsequently, Pinior was ordered
by the courts to pay back the 80 million zlotys used to finance the union. From September 1986 to October 1987, he belonged to the Provisional National Council (TRS) of Solidamosc, which operates openly.
In November 1987, he took part in the founding of the Polish Socialist Party, and he is the vice-president of its General Council. Since then, he has not participated in the leading bodies of Solidarnosc.
W HAT DO you think of the
referendum results? In my opinion, they reflect above all a lack of confidence in the regime, in the whole policy that General Jaruzelski has been carrying out since 1981, and not just a lack of confidence in the proposed changes in the economy. Poles said "no" to this regime. The society is in favor of political and economic reforms, but real ones and not a facade that was to be legitimized by the referendum. • But the introduction of enormous price rises is one of the aspects of General Jaruzelski's economic reform. Wasn't the referendum result also a rejection of these rises?
People find it hard to accept a growing pauperization, especially without any of the guarantees offered by the possession of civic and political freedoms, even at as elementary a level as trade-union pluralism and the right to defend your own interests through independent trade-union represen-
When you have such rights and guarantees, then you can discuss price increases and material sacrifices. But such a discussion is impossible in the absence of elementary political and trade-union freedoms. It is evident that the referendum result was also a response to the government's schemes for raising prices. • Do you think that the workers would be ready to accept price rises in exchange for trade-union pluralism, and that they would not immediately take advantage of a legalization of their independent union to win wage rises to compensate for the price increases?
No. That is something unimaginable.