Secret files will set us free!

Secret files will open our eyes! Secret files coming to the light will make our lives better!

Prospects of government running out of money to procure bread are looming, so in order to keep the nation in high spirits, rulers need to put up circuses!

I haven’t got the faintest idea whether it was unfettered greed, desire to vindicate her late husband or plain crass stupidity that incited widow of general Kiszczak to contact IPN and let them know about documents stored by the general for several years. I am not fond of conspiracy theories so I am ruling out the story that Mrs Kiszczak had been manipulated and intimidated by secret services, although I cannot say such version does not hold water at all.

Since as it turned out the documents had been kept by Mr Kiszczak at home illegally, IPN investigators swiftly seized six cardboard boxes, one which included documents pertaining to Lech Wałęsa. For no apparent reason the remaining five boxes have gone to archives and will be carefully scrutinised by historians. But for some not necessarily apparent reason, files on Mr Wałęsa have been publicised almost instantaneously. Without expert analysis whether the documents had been counterfeited, the president of IPN (Mr Łukasz Kaminski, whose term expires this year) adjudicated, they were authentic, but not certainly true. A quick look-up in the Polish language dictionary tells us words autentyczny and prawdziwy are synonyms. Mr Kaminski probably meant the documents were genuine, but their content might not have been true, but who cares about details. The compilation of signatures speaks for itself…

Yes, whose cares. The whole agitation around Mr Wałęsa’s alleged collaboration with communist secret services will make few adults change their perception of the former president. For some he is a hero and will remain, for others he is a traitor and will remain. Debates on shameful past of Mr Wałęsa have lasted for many years and will continue even after his death.

For me, even if he signed a declaration to collaborate with the secret services, he remains an icon of Poland’s most recent history. Mr Wałęsa was a young, simple worker and reality of those times tough and anything but black and white. What matters more is that files bring no evidence of any link between Mr Wałęsa and the secret services after 1976 (some would argue, but no one will forbid them tale-telling). But what matters the most is how he prevaricates today over those events. Had Mr Wałęsa been a wiser man, he would have handled it much more sensibly, instead of dragging himself down. Making a clean breast of this anything, but glorious episode, would not damage his credentials.

The case is nevertheless not about Mr Wałęsa and his merits, it is about rewriting the history of Poland of the last fifty years, denigrate those who are now enemies of the dobra zmiana and replace them with different figures, particularly with another Lech. Once PiS and their henchmen paint a picture of abhorrent III RP being an awful child of PZPR, communist secret services and corrupt opposition leaders being in liaison with apparatchiks, they will earn a strong mandate to tear down the state built since 1989. The core driver is the revenge. Kaczynski brothers were ousted by Mr Wałęsa from his office in 1992 and tossed into political non-existence for several years. The same desire goes down to masses of ordinary people who have either not benefited from the transformation into market economy, or in some other way have had it uphill in life, are worse-off than their peers and blame the system for it.

Oddly enough, a short reminder for those who have not noticed where the divide line lies. It does not matter where you were before 1989. It only matters where you are now. The example of Mr Piotrowicz, a rising star of PiS who before 1989 was an ardent communist prosecutor (therefore fits well the ruling party) proves it best.

Also, the files taken over by IPN are likely to be used selectively, when opportune moments arise. The so-called historians could assume the whole content of secret service files are home truth, as rascals serving the principals from Moscow were beyond all doubt truthful and honest functionaries. If so, all their archives should be disclosed to the public. But they will not. They will be used selectively and wait patiently their turn for a moment when their content can hurt the most.

And scarily, the same people who talk so much about przemysł pogardy (the industry of contempt / disdain), whenever any of their supporters dares to criticise PiS, they set in motion the mud-slinging machine against them. This happened to professor Jadwiga Staniszkis recently. For years she would never hide her preference for PiS, but once she passed an unfavourable judgement on recent moves of the party, believers of the prezes put dragged her name through the mire. So voter beware!

Bogowie - film review

Customarily, long overdue, yet up for the release. The film biography of professor Zbigniew Religa, outstanding Polish cardiac surgeon, who first carried out a successful heart transplant in Poland, was hailed one of the best Polish films that went to the silver screen in 2014. The film received accolades and awards predominantly for the superiorly played role of the main character, so hats off to Tomasz Kot who did a splendid job of rendering what Mr Religa was like. The film is not just the memoirs of one of the most prominent individuals in the history of Polish medicine, or the homage paid to professor Religa. Its plot is multi-faceted and thread of Mr Religa’s endeavours to perform a successful heart transplant is intertwined with many other themes, likewise imperative to make the film whole.

Bogowie is about attaining the impossible. The plot is set in the 1980s and covers only a few most important years in Mr Religa’s biography; the period when as a surgeon in his mid-40s against all odds he attempts to overcome numerous impediments and perform a surgery that to almost everyone else seems out of reach.

The obstacles Mr Religa faces broadly have two ever-lasting dimensions: the system and the people. Bear in mind the story plays out in Poland in post-martial-law bleak mid-1980s; times of economic misery and social indifference. The slowly crumbling communist system was depicted incisively and with details worth remembering. The film can remind younger audience health care was quite well-developed in countries of the Soviet bloc. In terms of progress in medicine and access to health-care institutions communist countries had probably the littlest distance to catch up with the higher developed West. Talented young doctors, mostly those inconvenient for their superiors, were allowed to take internships in Western clinics and see cutting-edge development in the medicine. Obviously, they had to meet sullen individuals from the communist secret services and sign relevant papers; of course the choice criteria for foreign internships were flawed, yet plenty of young, up-and-coming doctors could bring a breath of fresh air to the Polish backwater. At that time the system, if you did not try to overthrow it, was not your biggest enemy and as it turned out, if you could make some concessions (Mr Religa at first avows he will never join the party and then goes back on his own promise to get a state subsidy), it could play along with you and somehow help you do your bit.

Much more nefarious than the system were the people. Depiction of senior, hard-line doctors, reluctant to move the Polish medicine ahead, discouraging the young generation from striving to attain the impossible, and laughing off their ambitions, is repulsive. In medicine, if the picture in the film is not distorted, the people, not the system, were to blame for backwardness of Poland. The ossified system, founded on the domination of old professors, was a drag on medical progress. In the film you could see something common back in the 1980s, namely the convention of addressing your superior per pan, while your superior would turn to you per ty, lack of symmetry today unthinkable in most places.

The film highlights the dark side of the Polish nature. “A Pole envies a fellow Pole even a calamity”, the sentence of a doctor who first, unsuccessfully, attempted to carry out a heart transplant, is meant to tell you in this cruel world you should not count anyone would support you, if you pull it off, your accomplishment will be detracted from, if you slip up, your failure will bring joy to your foes.

The film is about balancing humility and resilience. Knowing one’s own limitations is essential in doctor’s work and pursuit of one’s ambitions at all costs is absolutely reprehensible. Yet, some sort of obstinacy and determination not to give up is crucial if the path towards success is long, winding and full of obstacles. Stumbling, falling and the rising up must be counted in at the onset of the pursuit.

It is a film about ethics and risk management. The link between the two is elusive, yet worth paying attention to. In theory of economics you distinguish between pure risk and speculative risk. The former is observable when the outcome can be either neutral or negative. A good example is a risk of having a traffic accident – you either do not have an accident and are neither better off, nor worse off, or you have an accident and are worse off. An example of the latter is speculation on financial market – prices can move both favourably and unfavourably for you, you stand a chance of either losing or wining. At first glance, in the case of the heart transplant neither type of risk is exhibited. You face a situation which in theory of economics should never occur. The outcome might be either neutral or positive. A patient can either die soon or their life can be extended. From the ethical point of view, the dilemma is however more complicated, since by attempting to perform a heart transplant you might also accelerate the patient’s decease. The decision what to do rests than with a doctor who has sworn “not to harm”. The definition of harming can be vague as well. For older, backward doctors, putting the life of a patient who was bound to die within a few weeks at peril, fitted the definition of inflicting a harm. For Mr Religa, this was the price to pay for progress allowing to extend by several years lives of thousands of people.

Finally, the film is about striking a balance between career and personal life. Mr Religa in his pursuit of a method of saving lives of millions neglect his family. It not because he loves his job that much, it is because he wants to help people so much. The question which arises naturally then is whether outstanding individuals who want to sacrifice their lives to do something for posterity should raise families? Or maybe their families should be more lenient?

The film contains scenes of surgeries on open heart and it reminded me why I could not be a doctor. At such sights I nearly feel like passing out. Well, if everyone was cut out for every role, economic progress would have been far slower I guess…

Psalm stojących w kolejce / Queuers’ psalm

Za czym kolejka ta stoi?
Po szarość, po szarość, po szarość.
Na co w kolejce tej czekasz?
Na starość, na starość, na starość.
Co kupisz, gdy dojdziesz?
Zmęczenie, zmęczenie, zmęczenie.
Co przyniesiesz do domu?
Kamienne zwątpienie, zwątpienie

Bądź jak kamień, stój, wytrzymaj
Kiedyś te kamienie drgną
I polecą jak lawina
Przez noc.
Przez noc
Przez noc.

What are they queuing for?
For greyness, for greyness, for greyness.
What are you waiting about for?
For old age, for old age, for old age.
What will you buy when it’s your turn?
Tiredness, tiredness, tiredness.
What will you bring home?
Doubt, doubt, stone doubt.

Be like stone, stand, withstand.
We will leave no stone unturned.
And they’ll slide like an avalanche
Through the night
Through the night

I can’t proudly admit I managed to retain the rhythm, singing my translation would be a breakneck task, but there’s a reason to look back on the bleak days just before Solidarity rose up.

Labour day after-thoughts

I spent the entire first day of May strolling around Warsaw, serving as a guide. In the early afternoon, at the corner of Nowy Świat and Al. Jerozolimskie my guests and I ran across one of the May Day marches organised by leftist organisations, lunatic-fringe parties or trade unions. As far as I know there were a few demonstrations in Warsaw on that day. The event we kept away from and just watched by could have sparked off a ferocious row over the political views, but I managed to head off that possibility and no one fell out over who to vote for and against, nor whose vision of Poland is the only right.

Apart from seeing the next divide lines I could discern my views, though still in a state of flux, have crystallised and I developed some gut reactions to some certain types of rhetoric.

According to what I’ve read later on the website of Gazeta Stołeczna, the demands of the protesters were the following:

1. Every woman and every man should have a right to pension off after respectively: 35 and 40 years of working. This actually means if they enter the labour market at the age of 22 (on average) they would retire at the age of 57 (women) or 62 (men), so earlier than now. But thanks to the advancement of social welfare and better quality of healthcare, technological development etc., they will live longer than their parents and work shorter. Who will pay for that? Just one question, but makes a considerably big crack on their demands.

2. As Mr Careerist Napieralski pointed out, Poland is still far from the welfare standard old countries of European Union stand for. Which countries? Germany, which is struggling to carry the burden of ageing society? France, paralysed by strikes whenever unionists don’t get a pay rise or when someone brazenly tries to extend the 35-hour workweek? Or maybe Greece which is paying the price for its welfare standards?

3. Some demonstrators trotted out the old buzz-phrases, such as: “the rich should pay for the crisis”, or “it’s your [employers’] crisis, not ours”, “Greek strikes show us the way”. Now let’s face it – the crisis had its roots in the USA and not only bankers are to blame, but also the subprime borrowers who took out loans they would never have stood a chance to pay back. And it is our crisis, also mine, because the labour market will not be as brisk as it used to be in 2007 or 2008 and I will not enjoy such career opportunities and will not be paid as generously as a few years older graduates of SGH. But if they trade unionists think their employers should bear the burden of cost-cutting, lower demand and pay claims on their own, then good luck and strangle your companies to death. It is easier to have a lower salary and make and ends meet or to live off social security? Maybe the latter, at least they don’t have to wake up and work for eight hours every day.

4. Not surprising were the calls to stop exploitation, comparing capitalism to cannibalism or even ideas to set up a Polish Soviet republic..

The common denominator of the claims above is economic illiteracy. There are some rules you cannot circumvent, like the simplest one, that if you don’t work for something, you don’t get it. Even you don’t work but grow richer it is because some else pays for it and you are sponging on them. Working less and getting paid more is like having a cake and eating it – not that easy in reality.

Alright, but let’s tackle the problem from a different angle. Why trade unions exist? Their origins can be traced back into the first half of nineteenth century, when they really had to fight for civilised working environment and human treatment. The creation of trade unions and emergence of socialist movement was a natural aftermath of primeval capitalism. These days in the companies where workers are treated decently and paid well nobody thinks about membership in trade unions. So the key to the door is to treat employees fairly. At least those well-educated will pay you back by not hampering your life.

On the other side of the barricade employers have their associations which pursue their goal. If trade unionists want to work less and get paid more, the employers would prefer to have their employees work more and pay them less. If both groups are to outwit each other, they will get nowhere.

In the evening I saw a coverage from street riots in Athens. The first thing I spotted was a policeman set on fire by protesters. As a child I saw accidentally a man ablaze and such a sight will probably always be traumatic for me. But hang on, how inhuman and cruel it is to set fire to a fellow man and watch him burning? It is beyond my comprehension that such uncivilised nation is in the European Union. They resorted to lies to enter the eurozone. Lies, blatant lies, statistics, Greek statistics, will it get worse? Now when their country is on the brink of bankruptcy instead of humbly getting down to work to lift it up they take to the streets. Ruling elite is to blame, but I have no sympathy for the ordinary Greeks who appear as coarse rabble.

So what can be done for the poor. The Labour-day protesters want more redistribution. I opine no redistribution, but the low-paid workers should not pay income tax and other quasi-taxes employers withhold. Currently a company has to spend around 2,000 PLN on an employee who gets paid around 1,300 PLN net. And if they got paid 2,000 or at least 1,800, wouldn’t they be better off? Socialists want higher taxes for the richer, “typical” liberals want lower taxes for the richer, I want lower taxes but mostly for the poorer. For my ideas of tax system click here.

There are also proposals to abolish the Labour Day as a relic of PRL. As many Poles I am against, not because I care about the marches, trade unions, etc. As many Poles I want to make the most of long weekend and the gust of spring warmth. Additional day off is a good occasion to cycle, take a trip, have a barbecue, work in the garden and for many other outdoor activities!

The white hole in Polish history

I suppose within my lifetime there will not be a consensus on how to assess the period of PRL comprehensively. There will be no unambiguous review for a simple reason – millions of people lived in that country and each of them might have a different view on those times. The spectrum is wide and covers opinions from moderately positive, focusing on social security and social advancement to clearly and extremely negative which point at enslavement, felony and lies as main pillars of People’s Poland. I would dare to claim there is no truth about PRL, there are facts (deniable or not) and interpretations, subject to endless debates. The biggest problems is that truth will not always out in this case.

Poland in its pre-WW2 shape was wiped off the map of Europe on 17 September 1939, the day when Soviet army invaded us from east. The man who signed a command to wreck the Polish state in 1939 and annihilate Polish elite in Katyn in 1940, in 1945 insisted on creation of Polish country, with new borderlines and in Soviet sphere of influences. Mr Churchill and Mr Roosevelt succumbed to his pressure, as Soviet Union, which had sent millions of its citizens for death on battleground, had had a significant contribution in defeating Nazi Germany and its allies. Thus Europe was carved up into two blocs – a Soviet one with Poland as one of satellite countries and a Western one, built on foundations of free market and democracy.

I cannot agree PRL ended up in the same form as it was set up. There were different periods and different shades of grey that could describe it. I could distinguish a few periods and milestones.

1945 – 1956 – the time of building communism, cracking down on the elements of pre-war Poland and those who fought for Poland on the wrong side. In this period Poland had most political prisoners, many of whom were sentenced to death. Meanwhile it was the time when many people still thought communism could bring paradise on earth, justice, equality and happiness for all. Some of them thought the ones who did not want to build the ideal system should have been eliminated, some were totally unaware of cruelty of the system. The pursuit for communism eased a bit in 1953 when Stalin died.

1956 – was the first short period of moderate (but relatively huge within the system) liberty. In that time totalitarian system thawed out and turned into authoritarian regime, whose power worn off gradually until 1989. In 1956 Poles were full of hopes for a new beginning, for a socialism more friendly to people, symbolised by Władysław Gomułka, Polish communist who spent many years in Soviet prison. He took over as first secretary of ruling party in October and soon kept a tight rein on Polish society. Four months earlier, in June, a first crack appeared on the countenance of Polish socialism – workers from rail construction factory in Poznań went on strike. Actually it was the first time in the world history when factory-owners went on strike.

1957 – 1970, so called “small stabilisation”, period of greyness and austerity. Most of national income was invested, little spent on consumption, it was the first time when ruling “elites” and ordinary people struck a deal “you’ll let us rule, and we’ll let you live (rather normally). In this period first dissidents voiced their protests against the system, accusing rulers of betraying the ideals of Marxism. Student demonstrations in 1968, anti-Jewish campaigns and brutally put down strikes in December 1970 brought Władysław Gomułka down and undermined the foundations of socialist system.

1970 – 1980, known also as “Gierek era” or “golden decade”. Many Poles recall those years as time when Poland made a big stride, standards of living were higher. It was indeed a time of liberalisation, it was easier to get a passport and go abroad. But in the same period, socialist inefficient economy reached the limits of its capacity and indebtedness. In 1976 workers once again protested against price hikes and first attempts of reglamentation. The consecutive years saw the formation of first dissident organisations and on 16 October 1978 Polish cardinal, Karol Wojtyla was elected Pope. This came as a bolt of the blue to the rulers. In 1979 Polish GDP shrank for the first time since WW2, Polish economy was on its knees until the system ultimately collapsed.

1980 – 1981, Solidarity and carnival of freedom – 16 months of liberalisation, authorities allowed to create independent trade unions. It was the big success of fledging civil society but in economic terms it caused Polish economy to falter even more. As we look today at some demands of protesters, we saw they demanded the same what today the most extreme leftist organisations want to put into practice.

1981 – 1985. The carnival soon ended. On 13 December 1981 the movement was clamped down on and Poland immersed into eight-year period of torpor. On that day general Wojciech Jaruzelski declared Martial Law. Among the most often cited reasons for that decision were threat of Soviet intervention and fear that the socialist regime could have been toppled. I also add the threat of civil war and economic hardship. The martial law dashed hopes and stifles zeal to fight for independent Poland but did not break Poles’ bones.

1985 – 1989. The declining years of PRL. The system once again began to thaw out as the Gorbachev came to power in Soviet Union. In those times there was still no free speech and many civil liberties were out of reach, but then when you could do and say anything except for declaring openly you wanted to topple socialism. The economy was still in a free fall and the government tried to resuscitate the corpse. Those attempts could have been successful, if it hadn’t been for lack of support from Polish society. Faced with Soviet Union going under and dramatically bad economic performance, the rulers decided to share responsibility for the country with the opposition, putting the late dissident on the spot…

Poles somehow had to get on with the system. Some, like Polish poet and Nobel prize laureate Wisława Szymborska declare they really believed the communism would bring collective happiness. For some, including Home Army Soldiers this was the biggest tragedy in their lifetime (those who remember the last scenes from “Katyń film know what I mean). Some tried to make careers, make a pile. This group can be divided into two subgroups – first were real communists, who also deeply believed in the system, the second were opportunists, who did not believe in the fairy tales of equality and justice, they wanted access to privileges and power and got it their own way. Quite numerous, at least in 1980 and 1981 was the group of opponents of the system. Most of them wanted to civilise the socialism, leave the economic foundations of the system which guaranteed social security intact, but held out for civil rights. And very few of them can be named pioneers who paved the way for market economy, because they defended working class. But the most important group numbered in millions were ordinary people who did their bit and kept their mouths shut. Those people proved for me Poland after 1956 was authoritarian (not totalitarian) and socialist (not communist) country. If you kept your mouth shut and did not stick your neck out, you could basically feel safe in that country. It wasn’t the Soviet Empire of 1930s when anyone could drag you out of your house and arrest on trumped-up charges. Doing nothing, which was also giving silent consent for misdeeds of the party, guaranteed some kind of safety.

There are also many theories concerning the collapse of socialism. A big role is put down to Lech Wałęsa, Pope John Paul II is credited with many merits. In my humble opinion those were economic difficulties and fall of communism in Soviet Union that played a major role. Mr Wałęsa and Pope had their contributions which cannot be forgotten but if it had not been for the factors above, they would have just dealt a blow to socialism, but it would have been still hard to overturn it.

And let’s have a quick overview of Polish “uprisings” in PRL and the reasons behind them.
1956 – economic reasons.
1968 – social issues
1970 – economic reasons
1976 – economic reasons
1980 – economic reasons, but demands regarding social issues
Poles protested against low salaries of price hikes, the free speech and other issues were in the background.

Many people still yearn for PRL. The reason is also simple – they miss the social security the system offered (in return for acceptance of its flaws). The responsibility which in liberal system is in hands of an individual was shifted into the state and many people found it convenient to have someone else taking care of their well-being and to have someone to blame for their failures.

So is there a truth? My father while listening to one of lunatics from IPN summarised the balanced view on Poland: “We could not fart without asking Soviets for permission but it was still Poland”. And I can go along with this assertion. Between 1945 and 1989 Poland was a lame and dependent country, which in spite of its subservience to Soviet Union was on the map of Europe, unlike Lithuania or Latvia which were Soviet Republics, and was recognised by other countries. Moreover, it was a country in which millions of people worked, not to build communism and support the felonious system but to do something good for fellow people. It is a subjective view, but it is what the blog is for…

Nightmare of the past – episode 28

We have plenty of phrases to describe what happened twenty eight years ago: Wojna Polsko – Jaruzelska (Polish vs. Jaruzelski war), Dzień, w którym Jaruzelski wypowiedział wojnę Polakom (The day Jaruzelski declared war to Poles), or maybe simply Stan wojenny (Martial Law).

Each year, around 13 December the topic of martial law is revived, victims are commemorated, opponents stage demonstrations in front of general’s house in Warsaw. Each year historians, journalists and ordinary people ask if it really had to happen.

My take on this is that we will never find out the truth on the backstage of the martial law. Probably Polish society will be divided in its views on martial law.
Those who claim it could have been prevented point out that Jaruzelski and his henchmen (the biggest part was played by Czesław Kiszczak) were preparing their crackdown on Solidarity since August 1980 and the risk of Soviet intervention in late 1981 was diminutive. They also argue the CPSU leaders were reluctant to offer military help to Poland, as the Soviet economy was on its knees, war in Afghanistan stirred up more troubles than expected and they were afraid of the reactions on the international political arena.
The supporters of the imposition of martial law remind that Brezhnev doctrine was still in force and the threat of Soviet invasion was real. Moreover, they say solving the problem with our own hands was lesser of two evils and if Warsaw Pact armies had trespassed onto the territory of Poland, death toll would have been much higher.

This year, the Institute of National Remembrance published in its bulletin the alleged evidence that general Jaruzelski had been asking or even insisting on [military] help from the Soviets (the article is available only in Polish, the quality of English-language releases from IPN leaves a lot to be desired). I took the trouble to read the short paper, which consists of introduction and the record of conversation between Jaruzelski and Soviet general Kulikov, which took place four days before martial law was declared. In the introduction professor Dudek from IPN asserts Wojciech Jaruzelski declared martial law in spite of Soviets’ refusal to cross the borders of Poland. Meanwhile in the document Mr Kulikov mentions the operation “Shield-81” (a plan of Warsaw Pact military intervention in Poland, known also as ZAPAD-81), though he hopes Polish army will put down the counterrevolution.

Documents, though patchy and from dodgy source (I would like to point up that for no apparent reason documents drawn up by Russians and Secret Service Officers are the most reliable source of information for IPN. For sure Russians, who have always hated Poland and wanted my country to be subjugated to theirs, had always clear intentions and Esbecja officers were morally impeccable and always told and wrote the truth!) show Jaruzelski’s determination to clamp down on Solidarity movement and his fear that Polish army forces would not be up to the task of restoring the law and order of socialism. Historians argue Jaruzelski can be accused of treason on the basis of those documents, the general asserts the notes had been fabricated, former president and former PZPR member Aleksander Kwaśniewski says what Jaruzelski did was a well-thought-out stratagem aimed to outwit comrades from USRR. This is a step too far, but I have another supposition. Jaruzelski tried to sound Soviet military leaders out. Bearing in mind his war experiences and the fact he had been in charge of Polish military units which had taken part in the military operation in Czechoslovakia in 1968, I conclude he must have been afraid of the implications of military support from allies.

In 1981 Jaruzelski found himself between the devil (opposition in Poland) and the deep blue sea (Soviet comrades). The choice he made is controversial but cannot be judged easily – he might have tried to save the domination of communist party in Poland (what he actually succeeded in), it have might have been an adroit coup d’etat, or it could have been the measure taken to prevent a bigger tragedy – the words from general’s speech sound still enigmatic to me.

I was born six years after the incidents I describe had taken place, so I cannot remember those events, that is why apart from reading and listening to the accounts of martial law I am provided by the media, I asked my parents and grandparents how they had felt before and after 13 December. Like millions of Poles, neither affiliated with the party, nor keen to join the opposition, the feared the Russian invasion. No wonder, they had heard about what had happened in Hungary in 1956, remembered well disgraceful operation in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and knew that our potential to put up resistance against Warsaw Pact forces would be much stronger than in the other countries of Soviet Bloc. Even in the Polish army anti-soviet moods prevailed. Those who served there only in the minority were the ones who had voluntarily reported, on account of their desire to defend the socialist homeland, most of the soldiers were called up and if the push had come to the shove they would have started a rebellion.

But the fear of Russian intervention was not the worst. What really filled them with dread was the possibility of CIVIL WAR. Almost nobody mentions that aspect today, everybody focuses on military problems. According to their descriptions of those days, never, after WW2 had the Polish society been so divided as then. The majority backed Solidarity, this part of the nation was numerous and well-organised, the minority followed the line of the party. There were the splinter groups stemming from the Solidarity, whose members wanted to solve the problem of communist power in a very radical way. The chant:

A na drzewach zamiast liści,
wisieć będą komuniści.

(On the trees, instead of leaves,
those to hang will be communists.)

best summarised their intentions of overthrowing the system. On the other side Polish army would not hesitate to put down the counterrevolution. After twenty eight years it is still beyond my comprehension that Poles wanted to kill one another. According to what I have heard directly from many people, Poland was on the verge of fratricidal carnage and it, in their view, justified the martial law. I deeply condemn both parties that stood on the opposite sides of the barricade. Radical anti-communists’ ideas were based on primeval, though kind of natural instincts of getting their own back on their oppressors – but slaughter is not a civilised way of handling conflicts (look at the example of Romania – it probably must have happened, but their tyrant had been much more cruel than our leaders, but is there anything to be proud of?). And the determination of party or military authorities to hold on to their privileges under the system was reprehensible as well…

As an economist I cannot leave out another facet of the problem, also omitted by historians. Those from IPN claim Jaruzelski intimidated Poles with a “vision of cold and hunger”. Indeed in 1981 Polish economy was in the state of collapse, firstly because of all the flaws of socialist concept of extensive development had already come to the light, secondly because it had been paralysed by ongoing strikes. All the current economic liberals would bridle at the economic postulates of Solidarity, which boiled down to a few demands: work less, earn more and maintain the social security offered by the socialism. Their approach in the tough political and economic circumstances is still hard to assess. Soviet Union was unwilling to offer us military help, but cutting off economic aid would cost them much less…

The defenders of general Jaruzelski say martial law paved the way to democratisation and round table sessions, his adversaries state it suppressed our aspirations for independence. My opinion is somewhere in the middle. Before Gorbachev came to power in 1985 chances to secede from the Warsaw Pact and Socialist Bloc without running the risk of military intervention and economic breakdown were tiny. What paved the way for round table session were perestroika in USSR and economic decay of socialism. When the system was at the end of its tether, leaders of People’s Poland decided to share the responsibility for the country with the opposition, at least this is how I see it.

The further we go from the socialism, the more myths arouse. The social support for Jaruzelski’s decision is gradually falling and what is characteristic is that the older the surveyed are, the bigger the per cent of general’s supporters is. The older remember those days better and are more aware of historical situation, the younger, who were either too young to understand what had happened or so young that they were born after 1981, tend to be regard the martial law as a crime. I wonder to what extent the older have been manipulated by the communist propaganda and how the younger are manipulated by the one-sided picture created by Institute of National Remembrance, which has a monopoly for dealing with the modern history of Poland.

History is a part of our identity. I find it highly alarming when the young people asked by a TV journalist on street about the martial law declare they know very little about it. The remembrance of those events and victims of those days should be nurtured. But the whole debate over the martial law which is conducted every year does not move Poland forward. Mr Kurtyka will not build motorways, Mr Gontarczyk (Polish chief expert in decrying former presidents) will not solve the problems of higher education system, Mr Dudek will not simplify Polish tax code. But their merits in undermining the social trust and spreading hatred are indisputable. I partly blame them, whenever I see the youngsters, born like me in the late eighties, who chant the song bringing on hanging communist on the trees. They, who have never been persecuted, imprisoned for their political views, beaten by the milicja during the street demonstration, those who have never experienced shortfall of goods or lack of future prospects find it very easy to air their views in a free and independent country. In my perception, they are eaten up with hatred. History may judge Jaruzelski, but have the youngsters right to do that?

I can only recommend the English website prepared by the IPN. Unbiased and with decent content, but as usually done by amateurs – for sure they have not consulted any native English speaker before publishing it – the mistakes are typical for inexperienced translators (I know something about it from my own experience and mistakes I used to make and sometimes still make – see the problems they have had with word order for instance).

I appreciate it, if some of you shared your recollections of 13 December 1981. What were you doing? What did you feel? And please don’t write: “I hate that guy, he took away my Teleranek”.

Czwarty Czerwca

The title of the book I read last Sunday – going through the 260 pages long paperback took me a bit more than two hours. Reading a book from cover to cover is usually doable when it grabs your attention and you can submerge yourself in the content. This one, written by Joanna Szczepkowska (the Polish actress famous for announcing the end of the communism in Poland) is an outline of her memories of living in People’s Poland.

With some conflicting feelings about the content, I hail the book as readable, gripping and all in all rather well-balanced. At the beginning my approach to the work was rather negative. The first years of Szczepkowska’s life were presented in rather one-sided and selective way. Picture was kind of gloomy – Labour Day parades, the rally in front of the Palace of Culture after Gomułka took over power, moral dilemmas and bickering over the system between her parents. Here the balance is already struck – mother is shown as a hard-line anti-communist figure, father does not support the system but tries to get by in it, hammering out as much freedom as possible without incensing the party dignitaries. Actress’ adolescent years are described as a series of events depicting the evil of communism – forbidden religion classes, children telling on one another, cracking sounds of drowned out Radio Wolna Europa, schoolmate proud of her father taking part in military intervention in Czechoslovakia, events from March 1968, one history taught officially, another passed on at home. The facts to describe were chosen rather selectively, but along the timeline world from black and white takes on the variety of all the shades of grey.

In 1969 an insurgent who fought in Warsaw Uprising pays visit to her parents. His story bears testimony of the big bravery, but as he leaves the flat young Szczepkowska challenges him by telling him what she had heard at school – that the Uprising had been a mistake. He admits, but signifies he’s afraid to said it aloud as everyone who says so is thought to be an Ubek.

In the early seventies actress-to-be flies to France for a theatre festival – here’s where a reader sees what the socialism was – not only lack of free speech, omnipresent lies, political prisoners, etc, but also backwardness. Students from France in colourful outfits making laugh at the poor student from behind the Iron Curtain.

Further comes the delineation of struggling the system, making concessions, fighting for the rights of people, joy with the foundation of Solidarity movement, later on the shock of Martial Law and the subsequent years of gloom. The chapter of 1983 is followed by the one of 1988 – an annoying gap for me. In the last passages the system is already falling apart, the Solidarity elites are divided into the one in favour of carrying on clandestine activity and blowing the system up and the one who incline towards talks with the ruling party. Szczepkowska is for give and take, Szczepkowska does not try to model herself on a person with a anti-communist biography – she was only flesh and blood, she had the moments of weakness.

The very last part is a detailed description of the recording of Dziennik telewizyjny, when she uttered the famous sentence “Ladies and gentlemen, on 4th June, 1989, the communism in Poland came to an end". As I watched the very short fragment of it, I could resist the impression of unnaturalness and theatrical gesture made by the actress – my right, but the fact it was not broadcast live and was not edited out by the censors symbolised the ultimate decay of the socialism – although the party still kept public broadcaster in a grip, the days of communists in power were numbered.

Beneficiaries and losers of Polish transition of 1989

Every revolution eats its children – the adage proved true by the fate Vladimir Ilyich Lenin met in the early twenties could also be substantiated by the calamity of Law and Justice party in the elections of 2007. The Polish transition of 1989 in its economic respect was also a revolution, but this one took place as an evolution, tough, full of sacrifices, turning many spheres of the social life, reducing some of the Poles to the beggars, meanwhile letting the others grow from rags to riches. The changeover, known as Plan Balcerowicza, was the unprecedented attempt to bring the central planned economy onto the market economy, what meant the presumptive results and spin-offs were almost unpredictable. I have to pay homage to the architect of the operation, he showed a utmost bravery by taking up the drafting and execution of the plan, still bearing in mind how difficult it would and how many grudges would some Poles hold against him. The latter statement is of note if we recall catchwords like “Balcerowicz musi odejść” (EN: Balcerowicz has to leave) and the likes (here Balcerowicz can be seen as a victim of his reforms as he took the fall for their ramifications). I can speak highly of him as of the governor of the central bank, but on the flip side I cannot forget about his dogmatism and oversimplified prescriptions for economic problems. Free market is like democracy – nothing better has been figured out and it’s not downside-free. Self-regulating mechanism do not have to reach the equilibrium every time they are facing shocks, so I am calling for more pragmatism.

The person of Balcerowicz is not the core of my today’s reflections. Following the previous post I take the liberty to outline the mark left by the implementation of market economy.

BENEFICIARIES

1) Small entrepreneurs – to quote Balcerowicz it was the biggest success – over a million of self-proprietors, small entrepreneurs, pioneers of fledging capitalism. Many of those businesses went bust, but many turned profitable and their founders are millionaires today. And the stalls put up on fairs, pavements, roadsides are probably etched in our memories as a landmark of the early nineties…

2) All the group which were granted several privileges during the martial law, in the eighties or during the transformation – uniform services’ employees, miners, customs officers, trade unionists, former members of PZPR – they all enjoy not only living in a free and democratic country but also excessive privileges of early retirement, high benefits, job security and so they retain the pick of the previous system.

3) Young, ambitious, go-ahead, clever, determined, add a few more adjectives to this list and you will get the portrait of Poles born in the late sixties who entered their adulthood twenty years ago – they got the unrepeatable chance and many of them knew how to not to waste it. Today they are at the top, they do not have to worry about financial security, their children lead the problem-free life. Many of instead of politics focused on “grilling” and enjoy the time of their lives.

4) International corporations which entered unsaturated market of Poland and built their structures here. Their advance to Poland was a race against time – the ones that found a gainful market niche hit the ten, for many of them Poland, country on the make is a dreamt-up cash cow.

5) The… Should I call it “układ”? There is a grain of truth in it – the last group consisted of the ones who set themselves up where the politics and business met. That was where the great deals could be made. Prosecutors carry out the investigations on some of the privatisation transactions, in some cases the truth will never come to the light – but hundreds of folks benefited from it without remorse, although in fact they had been stealing away the national property. What belonged to the state was built with the hands of its citizens – so factories, plants, etc. were not no-man’s property.

LOSERS

1) Ordinary people who went through an ordeal of inflationary spiral, job insecurity, worsening living standard – that was tough but necessary.

2) Employees of PGRs – collective farms. Under the Plan Balcerowicza all farms were liquidated within a few months. The vast majority of farms were unprofitable and were the great example of “moon economy”. Inefficient, obsolete are now considered the relic of those times. The people once fired in the 1990 or 1991 descended into durable joblessness, many of them got addicted to alcohol. Those losers are irrevocably in the point of no return, however, their habits and attitude will be inherited by their children and the chances to cure the disease are diminutive…

3) The long-term structural unemployed, in simple words the ones, whose qualifications do not fit the employers’ requirements. Usually laid off from wound down factories, unskilled, or semi-skilled, maladjusted to the economy partly ruled by the law of jungle, with computer illiteracy, who do not speak foreign languages, unable to adapt to challenging work environment. Quite often immobile, the stay where they had been born and where they had lived for all their lives. This often means that demand on workforce in Warsaw does not meet the disproportionate supply on province…

4) All the ones who profited from the absurdities of the previous system. The ladies selling meat under the counter, clerks corrupted for making favourable decisions, the ones who had a cushy “czy się stoi, czy się leży, dwa tysiące się należy” (EN: no matter if you stand or lie, you deserve to be paid two thousand) job of putting the papers from one pile to another.

5) For Moherowe berety see he post below…