Solidarnosc

[Pogue]

What did they want, as a movement? Libertarian socialism? (In the sense we'd know it).
Obviously they were anti USSR which translates to many as 'anti-communism', but were they anarchist, neo-liberal, etc, in their outlook, plans, goals and demands?

[Trystan]

They were nationalists; "national liberationists" I suppose. Quite Catholic, too. But they were proletarian, and they were revolutionary.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Obviously they were anti USSR which translates to many as 'anti-communism'

Pfft. Anyone who thinks that needs to get their head examined.


but were they anarchist, neo-liberal, etc, in their outlook, plans, goals and demands?

There were some genuine socialists and syndicalists in that group, but eventually the movement got co-opted.

[rednordman]

Though I do not disput what any of you have said so far, i'm very sceptical of Solidarnosc. Simply this is because of when talking with Polish people at work, they mostly say very bad things about Poland as a country in the sense that the price of living is now high, but the average wage is shamefully low (£300 a mounth for 40hours hard work, most people work 3 jobs is something that i hear alot).
The majority of the ruling parties and prime ministers since the fall of the eastern block where to do with the solidarity movement, and though they may have made the cities prettier and more tourist friendly, the commen people of poland are missing out due to companies refusing to pay higher wages.
I must stress here, that this is not from my experience, but from the mouths of my polish works mates. Mabey there is someone from Poland on the board here who could tell us like it is, if they are not:)?

[communard resolution]

Solidarnosc was initially a working class movement encompassing the entire anti-government spectrum. How high the percentage of leftists was I cannot honestly say, but given that the Polish masses were predominately Catholic, anti-communist, and desired nothing more than to have it 'as good as people in the West', I would guess the leftist percentage was minimal.

I don't think it was funded by the CIA from the off as some Marxists-Leninists will claim, but I don't exclude the possibility it received some help once it gained serious momentum.

Either way I find it impressive how they brought down the regime, and maybe there's some lessons there to be learned for us. On the other hand, the history of the PRL confirms to me that the broad masses will not rise as long as there's still enough food on the table for most. In Poland, this was the case up until the late 70s.

[Yehuda Stern]

It's complicated - there's no doubt that Solidarnosc had a mass working class base, and that there were many radical elements in there, but on the other hand there's no doubt that the group received CIA funding. Then again, that's not so unusual - rival imperialist powers often fund opposition forces in their enemy's country. Take, for example, the post-counterrevolution USSR's funding of CPs in western imperialist states (and all over the world, for that matter).

The mainstream Walesa leadership of the group was anti-communist and very conservative in general, though I don't remember if it was always like that. Still, like in every movement battling a dictatorship, I would say that the revolutionaries' role was to try and win away the more radical and revolutionary elements away from Walesa and co. That could include entryism for some limited period (certainly at no point later than the setting up of the CP-Solidarnosc coalition).

[Pogue]

I heard someone claim they supported setting up working councils, is that true?

[Yehuda Stern]

In a somewhat deformed way, yes. They also supported "workers' control," but on a pretty reformist model. Some of the more left-wing elements had more radical models, but they too remained in the realm of capitalism.

[Yehuda Stern]

Of course, supporters of Stalinism don't let the fact that Solidarnosc was a genuine workers' organization prevent them from supporting the crushing of the organization by the bourgeois state. Solidarnosc received support from western imperialism, that's true, but it doesn't condemn it anymore than the support of Soviet imperialism to western CPs condemns them as workers' organizations. A revolutionary would not support their crushing by the bourgeois state either way.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It was the driving force that destroyed the bureaucratized proletarian state in Poland (and the gains it represented)No, Poland's "socialist" government collapsed with a whimper in 1989 because the people of Poland didn't think that the bureaucracy's "gains" were worth a damn. You can blame the reactionaries like Walecha all you want, but the fact is that the greedy, anti-Semitic oligarchy that lorded over Poland was something that no one particularly cared for, which is why it vanished from the world stage with little fanfare.

Personally, I think that Gomulka and his ilk were less than scum.

[Yehuda Stern]

If by "revolutionary" you mean third campist Shachtmanite, then yes, you're correct.I am not a Shachtmanite, but it's quite common for the supporters of murderous Stalinism to throw that slander around when their precious "workers' states" are criticized.


Solidarność was founded by the anti-communist, anti-semite Lech Wałęsa and a group of cohorts. It was a political vehicle for counterrevolution in Poland, and with the help of imperialism of the Vatican, it carried it out. It was the driving force that destroyed the bureaucratized proletarian state in Poland (and the gains it represented) so that the ultra-reactionary capitalist state that exists today could be constructed.Solidarnosc took part in a political (not socialist) counterrevolution against the bureaucratic capitalist state, that much is true. It did so with the support of the western imperialists - also true. But that's as far as it goes. Solidarnosc was a workers' organization, and even if one could label Poland at any point a workers' state, it certainly would not justify supporting the bureaucratic dictatorship against the workers, no matter what leadership they had. The revolutionary position, if Poland was a bureaucratic workers' state, would be to attempt to create a revolutionary proletarian organization from the more advanced elements of Solidarnosc and with this organization carry out a political revolution. PoWR, the Spartacists, and others, instead take a position of political support for Stalinism. In reality, the reactionary nature of Solidarnosc's mainstream leadership is just an excuse.


Talk of "Soviet imperialism" is as ludicrous as the "new class" theory. It's not within the scope of this thread to get to deep into that, but...You say this is not in the scope of the thread, but then talk about it for three paragraphs. So, is it or isn't it? Your concept of imperialism is shallow and limited and clearly you're distorting Marxist theory in order to "prove" that the USSR was not imperialist.


Calling the USSR and the other bureaucratic-socialist states "imperialist" gave the various people who did so the go ahead to line up with imperialism in its drive to destroy them.That is certainly the demagogy I would expect from a pro-Stalinist - it reminds of Stalinists who accused Trotskyists of being pro-Nazi because they opposed WWII on both sides. Either way, opposing Stalinist imperialism does not mean supporting western imperialism - it means supporting neither and fighting against both. Since I am not a Cliffite, am a member of a group that opposed the Vietnam war, and opposed Mao's regime as well, the slanders here are just lies made up by people with nothing actual to say.

[Demogorgon]

No, Poland's "socialist" government collapsed with a whimper in 1989 because the people of Poland didn't think that the bureaucracy's "gains" were worth a damn. You can blame the reactionaries like Walecha all you want, but the fact is that the greedy, anti-Semitic oligarchy that lorded over Poland was something that no one particularly cared for, which is why it vanished from the world stage with little fanfare.

Personally, I think that Gomulka and his ilk were less than scum.

Aye, I always find it telling that above all else that when the various Eastern bloc regimes collapsed the protest from the workers, the attempts to defend the so-called "worker's states" and so forth were conspicious only by their absence. To be sure a sizeable minority these days miss the old system but that is because the neo-liberal reforms turned out as shit as what they had before, as was only to be expected. But if the "socialist" states really were worker run and benefiting the workers, no matter how flawed, there would surely have been some effort to keep them.

As for Solidarity, whatever its leaders may have been, there is no denying that is actual membership was largely composed of workers sick of their conditions striking in order to try and achieve improvements. For any socialist to defend a Government that banned strikes and independent trade unions where it could against a workers campaign to improve their conditions is pretty outrageous.

[RadioRaheem84]

Didn't their leader end up supporting shock treatment in Poland? Most of the Solidarity members split into capitalist pro-free market camp and social democrats.


They did mobilize the workers but then turned their backs on them as soon as the Wall fell.

[DancingLarry]

Recommended reading on Solidarnosc:

Class Struggle in Classless Poland (http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Classless-Poland-Stanislaw-Starski/dp/0896081397)

The Solidarity Sourcebook (http://www.amazon.com/Solidarity-Sourcebook-Henry-Flam/dp/0919573053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223884807&sr=1-1)

Here's a couple keys. Anybody who tries to give you a simple answer, that Solidarnosc was just this or just that is strictly full of shit. Particularly in the period August 1980 through December 1981 Solidarnosc was a highly complicated, diverse organization with many influences, that was trying not only to keep up with its own growth and dealing with the state's reaction, but found itself thrust into a dual role of trade union and social movement, all the while trying to develop a cohesive political and ideological program. The two books I referenced above were put together in that period and in the immediate aftermath of the martial law crackdown of December 1981, and give a real feel for the density, intensity and complexity of that period.

The political impact of the crackdown on Solidarnosc was to empower the most reactionary elements in the now underground organization. Deprived of its ability to gain strength by public mobilization of the Polish working class, the centers of power within the underground organization were those with access to resources, money, communications networks, print shops and safe houses. Not surprisingly the elements with the most access to such things were either (a) the ones most closely supported by the Catholic Church, (b) the ones at the CIA pipeline, or both. By the 1988 reemergence, the large and genuinely radical, even often revolutionary, socialist and syndicalist elements of the organization had either been directly shattered by the martial law crackdown, or suffocated out of existence in isolation under martial law.

[Yehuda Stern]

From the makers of entryism into bourgeois parties comes entryism into imperialist fronts!

Are you high? We don't currently advocate entryism into any party, much less into bourgeois parties. Besides, I have only said what the logical conclusion of your argument should be, as opposed to your pro-Stalinist position. I have merely illustrated that the reactionary nature of Solidarnosc is not really what is important to you but is just an excuse to support the Stalinist regime.

And where's the reply to the rest of my post? I guess I shouldn't be surprised that all you can do is make another out of context, nonsenical comment. It's no wonder - it's always a pleasure, seeing Pabloists twist around, trying to explain:

1. How a state is a deformed workers' state if the workers' have no control over it;
2. How a workers' state turned into a bourgeois state without a civil war;
3. Why workers did not defend "their" states against the so-called "counterrevolution."

[communard resolution]

Solidarność was founded by the anti-communist, anti-semite Lech Wałęsa a

Poland was run by an anti-communist, anti-semitic bunch of parasites known as the PZPR.

Since you've linked to the earlier thread, I won't repeat myself and my numerous expletitives in regards to the PRL.

I regret Poland changed to what it is now and not to something better, but the previous system is nothing worth crying over. You're hard pressed to appreciate the "gains" of your system when the party and the police dine on luxury goods while sending in the military to put undernourished you in your place.

[communard resolution]

So I guess you don't defend unions either. To Paraphrase you: You'd be hard pressed to appreciate the "gains" of your union while the its bureaucratic leaders dine on luxury goods while sending millions in union dues to the Democrats, right?

Most of all, I'm very hard pressed to remain polite when revleft users defend the Polish communist mafia that walked over bodies out of self-interest and nothing but. I appreciate the fact that there's a variety of opinions on here, but this kind of thing will eventually put me off revleft for good.

[communard resolution]

Why do you refuse to answer the question?

Because the moment I hear someone defend the PZPR I stand up and leave the room, no matter what they may be shouting at me as I do so. This is to avoid strangling them with my bare hands.


No one has defended the bureaucracy that sat atop the Polish state in this thread.You may not have done that explicitly, but your manner of evoking "the gains of Polish workers after World War 2" when the discussion is clearly about the Solidarnosc era implies that you still somehow wish to defend that regime through the backdoor. If that's a misunderstanding, please clarify inequivocally.

[communard resolution]

It was a political vehicle for counterrevolution in PolandLogically speaking, this stament implies that you think of the Polish regime of the time as revolutionary.


The issue of why workers didn't fight to defend the gains represented in the bureaucratic-socialist state is a little more complexAnd here you're stating that the regime represented gains made for/by the Polish workers, and you're implying that you deem these worthy of defending. What exact gains are you referring to, and how do these gains stand up next to the exploitation and brutal repression of workers by the regime?

Please clarify.

[Yehuda Stern]

I would just like to note meanwhile the NHIA has refused to answer my last two posts to any meaningful degree - this should signal to readers that he really has nothing to say in response.

[PRC-UTE]

I would just like to note meanwhile the NHIA has refused to answer my last two posts to any meaningful degree - this should signal to readers that he really has nothing to say in response.

It's difficult to talk when others shout.

[Yehuda Stern]

Also, when you have nothing to say.

[Revy]

It was a bourgeois union. The state was authoritarian, bourgeois state capitalist (if you cut through all the "degenerated workers state" crapola). I don't support either. I would appreciate them if they took a stand against both the regime and capitalism.