Polish workers strike to repulse austerity plans Poland: Over 30 years of struggle

Socialist Action, Vol. 6, No. 6, June 1988 · scan pp. 9–11 · about 4,443 words

Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 9 →

Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.

Scan page 9

Polish workers have fought against the Stalinist bureaucratic machine for over 1956—Workers at engineering plant in Poznan strike over wages, food prices, and working conditions. As many as 70 killed; hundreds injured. Wladyslaw Gomulka, released from detention in the Soviet Union two years earlier, installed as premier. Promises political freedom and economic reform.

1968- Students like Jacek Kuron and Karol Modzelewski demonstrate for political and cultural freedom after government bans student play.

1970-Porty-two percent of working-class families receive less than adequate diet. More price increases. Demonstrations in Gdansk and other coastal cities lead to Gomulka's fall. Replaced by Edward Gierek, who defuses protests by making incredible promises. ("Every Pole will have a new home by 1985|") This begins Poland's catastrophic dependence on loans from 17 capitalist governments and 1976—Doubling of prices leads to strike wave. Government forced to retreat. But Lech Walesa and other strike leaders fired from their jobs.

1980—Price increases set off strikes. Formation of independent union, Solidarity. Gierek ousted as Premier. Replaced by Stefan Kania, who is replaced one year 1981-Martial law imposed on Dec, 13. Solidarity banned a few months later.

1985-Government announces price increases for many basic goods. Operating underground, Solidarity calls for general strike but withdraws call when gov1988 Price increases from 40% to 200% lead to series of strikes and factory occupations. Some wage increases. Stalemate on political demand to legalize SolleraI the )litiIces. ided yard n to deowa d to : re.O0C are lary stodest nor, ure. ‹an'hey s of lern 'aribeEmlem ted, the owIve"

act nUrbeholthe Itral enithree decades:

501 banks later by General Wojciech Jaruzelski, emment modifies increases idarity. -C.F.

The Gdansk shipyard workers soon ended their occupation after it became clear that national support actions would not occur. It was a stand-off. Lech Walesa, chairman of Solidarity and strike leader, accurately declared it a "truce, not a defeat."

Living conditions getting worse In the last seven years, martial law has been lifted, a large number of political | risoners released, and an amnesty for for mer underground Solidarity activists declared. But no real changes in bureaucratic rule by the Polish Communist Party have occurred.

About a million survivors regrouped around the ancient Armenian capital of Yerevan, located in area alternately under Tsarist Russian and Turkish rule. During the years of civil war, the Armenians maintained a precarious existence as an independent nation-constantly threatened by invasion by the dreaded Turks.

Revolution guarantees national rights With the triumph of the Russian Revolution, the Armenians chose, in November 1920, to become one of the 15 autonomous Soviet Republics within the USSR. Prospects for the Armenians-and the other national minorities in the Soviet State-looked good in 1920.

Lenin had said, "The dictatorship of the proletariat has opened up for the first time the possibility of a correct solution to the national question." The Soviets proclaimed the right of every nationality to the use of its own language, the preservation of its culture, the maximum local autonomy, and the right to secede from the union.

Statutes on paper, however, could not alone overcome generations of domination by the European Russians-the so-called Great Russians, who constitute 51 percent of the population of the USSR. Lenin demanded the utmost vigilance by the Bolshevik cadres to repress every manifestation of Great Russian chauvinism.

These principles did long survive the Living standards in Poland have steadily and sharply deteriorated. In 1982, 30 percent of the population lived below the poverty line. The price of flour, cheese, and rice rose from 30 percent to 40 percent in 1985. Later, fuel and energy prices were boosted an average 22 percent to 30 percent.

Today is not any better. The average waiting time for a new apartment is now 25 years. The workweek has been stretched to 46 hours. Long lines and a scarcity of basic food items are an everyday fact of life.

These conditions have spurred a new generation of workers into action. The latest degeneration of the revolution under Stalin. Great Russian boots stamped out every independent thought in the national republics. While some minorities retained their language and culture, others were branded traitors by collective guilt.

The Crimean Tartars were accused of collaborating with the Nazis and banished thousands of miles to Siberia. The Baltic states were incorporated into the USSR as subject peoples, occupied by the Red Army.

Under Stalin, race and national prejudices survived. Old antagonisms festered and grew.

Quiet did not 100,000 thousan, Nonetheless, the workers were not sufficiently prepared to respond to the price increases. Solidarity itself was caught off guard.

Although Solidarity union leaders fully supported the strikes, Walesa admitted that they had done nothing to organize the spontaneous outbursts and, in fact, considered them to be premature.

The Solidarity leadership failed to politically prepare the workers to confront the economic-reform measures of the regime. In fact, on the economic level, the current program of Solidarity's leadership is quite close to the regime's "market oriented" reforms.

The National Executive Commission (KKW) of Solidarity has stated that it wants the "economy to be based on the sound foundations of the market, for an individual's success to depend only on their work and their abilities." (Bulletin d'Information Solidarnosc No. 178, 1987.)

This is quite different from 1981, when the First National Congress of Solidarity called for workers' self-management and democratic control over the planned economy.

The latest policy statement of Solidarity's leadership, in contrast, jibes with Premier Wojciech Jaruzelski's economic plans to experiment with market reforms borrowed from capitalism.

Austerity pays the banks Understandably, these reforms were drafted at the behest of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, representatives of the world's largest capitalist banks. Poland now owes $37 billion in foreign debt-the largest of Eastern Europe and substantially higher than the $23 billion owed in 1980.

Quite symbolically, Jaruzelski's 1985 price increases coincided with Poland's request for membership in the IMF. It was a signal to the rich capitalist bankers that the Stalinist bureaucrats were ready to drive forward with austenty.

The Moslems dominating the administration of Azerbaijan did not permit the Armenians living there to open churches or Armenian language schools. The Armenians of Nargono-Karabakh are reminded of the oppression of the Turks. They want to join their compatriots in Soviet Armenia.

Old antagonisms revived

appeals to the authorities in Moscow get much attention, even though out of 140,000 signed petitions. But Is of people marching in the streets availability of basic consumer items, Jaruzelski is implementing austerity measures common to any capitalist country. They are designed to earn export dollars needed to pay the banks.

This is accomplished by cutting domestic consumption, by decreasing imports, and by slashing wages and social services—in short, by attacking the living standards of the workers.

This prescription is just what the doctors (or bankers) ordered for Poland. Eugenio Lari, director of the World Bank, said: "Poles should support the program of reforms presented by the government. This is a historic opportunity for the Polish people."

And a U.S. State Department official chimed in by describing these attacks on the working class "as being a basically sensible program.

The Polish Communist Party's embrace of a "radical market reform of the economy" fits in with IMF demands to jettison traditional social benefits guaranteed workers in non-capitalist countries. Introducing aspects of the market economy is an attempt to apply some of the mechanisms of capitalism— the model of a market economy.

But capitalism operates in a fundamentally different way than the economic system in Poland. Working people in a capitalist country do not have any social guarantees to a job, education, healthcare, or housing—unless they can pay for them.

Workers under capitalism are also held responsible for downturns in the economy. If profits are low, the workers may lose their jobs or have their wages lowered. If produc tivity is down, workers lose their bonuses. Under capitalism, the workers are forced to pay the bill.

How can "productivity" be raised?

It is quite different in non-capitalist countries. Revolutions in Eastern Europe overturned capitalism after World War II. Historic economic advances were achieved for working people, despite the imposition of Stalinist dictatorial political rule.

Essential social necessities such as healthcare, education, and pensions are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. Everyone has a right to a job.

The danger of introducing capitalist market mechanisms in Poland is that the capitalist method of making workers bear the costs of economic slumps also will be introduced.

And that's exactly what is happening-all of Yerevan could not be ignored. The first response of the Kremlin was repression.

To set the tone, Pravda printed an article condemning the petitioners as "antisocialists." The article was signed by three names, among them that of Paruir Airikyan, a Communist Party member and Armenian correspondent of Pravda. In an unprecedented gesture, he sent a telegram repudiating the article. If he had been the author of such an article "it would shame him before his people," he said. He has since been imprisoned.

Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met in t Poli WOI mar Poli derr plar thre plan men crati ers 1 of a full! mec trac faca lead defe FI wan ber for 1 ures an a the forn Mar nik by 1 to u Dec sals mar ty. t are non the atior with seric sami to th TI dem on. seati Azel city WOU baja Arre dem troo: pres and Krei lem min‹ ing Balt iled publ Si cant restc retul time Part TI the 1 lin s Alm nati"

a mr stac Crir turn

Scan page 10

SOCIALIST ACTION JUNE 1988 9 Quiet did not 100,000 thousan strike wave spelled an end to the regime's hopes of destroying the legacy of Solidarity.

Reforms disorient Solidarity leadership Nonetheless, the workers were not sufficiently prepared to respond to the price increases. Solidarity itself was caught off guard.

Although Solidarity union leaders fully supported the strikes, Walesa admitted that they had done nothing to organize the spontaneous outbursts and, in fact, considered them to be premature.

This is quite different from 1981, when the First National Congress of Solidarity called for workers' self-management and democratic control over the planned economy.

The latest policy statement of Solidarity's leadership, in contrast, jibes with Premier Wojciech Jaruzelski's economic plans to experiment with market reforms borrowed from capitalism.

Old antagonisms revived

appeals to the authorities in Moscow get much attention, even though out of 140,000 signed petitions. But Is of people marching in the streets By raising prices and cutting back the availability of basic consumer items, Jaruzelski is implementing austerity measures common to any capitalist country. They are designed to ear export dollars needed to pay the banks.

This is accomplished by cutting domestic consumption, by decreasing imports, and by slashing wages and social services—in short, by attacking the living standards of the workers.

And a U.S. State Department official chimed in by describing these attacks on the working class "as being a basically sensible program."

The "market economy"

Workers under capitalism are also held responsible for downturns in the economy. If profits are low, the workers may lose their jobs or have their wages lowered. If productivity is down, workers lose their bonuses. Under capitalism, the workers are forced to pay the bill.

How can "productivity" be raised?

Essential social necessities such as healthcare, education, and pensions are guaranteed to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. Everyone has a right to a job.

The danger of introducing capitalist market mechanisms in Poland is that the capitalist method of making workers bear the costs of economic slumps also will be introduced.

And that's exactly what is happening-all of Yerevan could not be ignored. The first response of the Kremlin was repression.

Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev met in the name of increasing productivity. The Polish bureaucrats are demanding that the working class pay the price of decades of mismanagement.

Productivity can be increased by giving the Polish workers control over the factories and democratic control of the national economic plan. Workers' control is the answer; not threats of layoffs, decreased bonuses, and plant closings.

While the capitalist banks and governments may be cheering on the Polish bureaucrats, millions of angry and frustrated workers remain poised to challenge the next round of austerity measures. But unless the workers fully understand the risks of market-economy mechanisms, their struggle can easily be sidetracked.

Debate in Solidarity

Blinded by the razzle-dazzle democratic facade of the market economy, the Solidarity leadership has failed to adequately organize a defense against its effects.

For example, Solidarity offered only lukewarm opposition to a referendum in November 1987 which asked Poles to vote approval for the government's economic reform measures. Solidarity was paralyzed from launching an ambitious "vote no" campaign because of the union's ambivalence on the market reforms.

Nonetheless, the referendum was defeated. Many Solidarity leaders such as Adam Michnik and Zbigniew Bujak were "still stunned" by the rejection of the reforms and "unable to understand what happened." (Libération, Dec. 2, 1987)

Voting against the market-reform proposals of the government, the people were marching ahead of many leaders in Solidarity. As a result, a broad debate has opened up.

Many former national leaders of Solidarity are calling for more resistance to the economic attacks on workers and for rebuilding the Armenian protests by combining conciliation with the threat of force. He consulted with Armenian leaders and promised to give serious consideration to their petition. At the same time, he sent 28 plane loads of soldiers to the region.

The Armenians agreed to suspend their demonstrations for a month, while talks went on. Then an ominous manifestation of deepseated race hatred occurred in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani mobs attacked Armenians in the city of Sumgait, leaving scores dead and wounded.

Again, on May 17, Armenians and Azerbajainis clashed in the Armenian town of Arrarat. The Armenians responded by a demonstration of 100,000 in Yerevan. Soviet troops were flown in to restore order. The presidents of both the Armenian Republic and Azerbaijan have been removed by the Kremlin.

Gorbachev can no longer ignore the problem of nationalities. The discontent of the minorities could become the most destabilizing aspect of Soviet life. In the Ukraine, the Baltic states, Alma-Ata, and among the exiled people in Siberia, groups are forming, publishing samizdats, and being heard.

Defying the bureaucrats

Simple measures of repression will no longer work. Minorities demanding their rights cannot be dismissed as anti-socialists out to restore capitalism. Most protesters call for a return to the true socialism of Lenin. Sometimes officials of the republics, Communist Party members, are among the petitioners.

They feel strong enough sometimes to defy the bureaucrats in Moscow. When the Kremlin sent a Great Russian to be party boss in Alma-Ata, the citizens demonstrated until a native Kazakh was appointed in his place.

While Gorbachev can make concessions of a minor nature, he runs into formidable obstacles in restoring all national rights. The Crimean Tartars now have the right to return from exile, but few can resettle in the Firnest Marde market.....

integrin USSR Gorhachen aspwach ol new mastifiction »!

SPECIAL PRATURE

LIBERATION THEOLOGY • Mrs... the union's presence inside the factory.

This orientation poses a direct, if unstated, challenge to the market orientation of Jaruzelski. Others are more explicit in their opposition to the recent policy of top Solidarity leaders.

Igor Lewy, editor of the independent journal Robotnik (Worker) and one of the founders of the recently established Polish Socialist Party, wrote in May 1987:

"It seems that the Polish version of perestroika will fulfill the dreams of some people by its free-enterprise character and the extent of the re-privatization.

"We will then have an enlightened market communism in which ... limited companies and their corporations will spring up like mushrooms, and social protection for the disadvantaged will be considered another 'error of the past.' It is in that framework that we will have to live and act.

"The cost of the Polish road to capitalism that Jaruzelski and his team want to take in order to save the 'socialist camp' from bankruptcy has to be calculated and weighed up before it is too late."

Capitalism will not be reintroduced into Poland simply through the adoption of incorrect policies which are modeled on capitalist economics. It would take a violent counterrevolution to re-establish the reign of large landowners and millionaire capitalists, hiring and firing at will. Poland is a long way from that.

But the new measures being introduced in Poland will mean a painful reduction in the standard of living of the population and a closer reliance on capitalist bankers.

The powerful Polish working class is capable of reversing this trend. It must begin by opposing the economic reforms of the bureaucracy and laying claim to its own rightful place as master of the economy.

Crimea because there is no provision for housing or jobs. Bureaucrats in the Crimea don't want to be upset by thousands of returning Tartars.

Problems like these indicate that the problems of the nationalities cannot be solved within the limits Gorbachev has set on glasnost and perestroika. As a Soviet official said in an interview, "If Nagorno-Karabakh is given to Armenia, land on the Black Sea will be given to the Crimean Tartars, and the process will never stop."

The Soviet people do not want the process to stop until socialist democracy is achieved in all phases of their country's life. That will involve extending glasnost far beyond the limits set by the bureaucracy. The aroused Soviet nationalities will be one of the levers to accomplish that.

Le 130 November ?}.1987 5085. 82. C$2 50.12FF Subscribe today to International Viewpoint!

A biweekly magazine published under the auspices of the Fourth International. Introductory sub: 3 issues for $3. Six-month subscription: $25. One-year subscription: $47.

3435 Army St. Rm. 308, S.F., CA 94410.

Scan page 11

at critical crossroads (continued from page 1)

Sandinistas implement the 17 constitutional reforms drawn up by the internal capitalist opposition before a peace agreement could be reached. These reforms include:

the call for elections to Constituent Assembly, • the immediate suspension of the military draft, • the separation of the armed forces from the Sandinista government, the dissolution of the Sandinista Defense Committees, the return of all confiscated properties to their previous owners, and the right to have a private TV channel.

According to Paul Reichler, an American lawyer who was part of the Sandinista negotiating team on May 26-28, "the (Sandinista] government has accepted every single point on the contras's list." (New York Times, May 29)

According to Reichler, the Sandinistas, for the first time, were willing to accept changes in the structure of the army and the police, placing "these institutions... at the full service of national interests, as opposed to party interests."

The Sandinistas, Reichler continued, also offered to reduce the role of the Sandinista Defense Committees and to consider allowing some contra commanders to join the army as officers.

In addition, according to Reichler, the Sandinistas agreed to allow the contras to remain fully armed in the cease-fire zones— and even to conduct military maneuvers— while political talks between the government and the contras are underway.

Talks between the Sandinistas and the contra leadership are scheduled to resume on June 6 and to last another three months.

If by Sept. 1 the contras are still not satisfied with the political "reforms" made by the Sandinistas, they could resume their war against the Nicaraguan Revolution. They would then be able to appeal for increased U.S. military and economic aid on the grounds that the Sandinistas had "betrayed" their promises to "democratize" Nicaragua.

Allowing the contras to keep their guns throughout the negotiations on political issues is a key concession by the Sandinistas. The U.S. government needs to keep the contras on the back-burner to maintain a continued military threat against the Sandinistas to force further concessions.

Nonetheless, at least for now, the center of gravity has shifted from the military war to the "class war" inside Nicaragua-a process some political observers have called the "Chileanization" of Nicaragua, in reference to the U.S. role in toppling the government of Salvador Allende in 1973.

Shift toward internal opposition This shift in U.S. policy toward the internal Nicaraguan opposition was spelled out candidly by Sen. David Durenburger (R-Minn.) in a statement on the Senate floor on Feb. 4, 1988. He said:

"The United States should refocus its efforts from the armed opposition ... to support for the internal opposition that has remained in Nicaragua and fought valiantly for democracy for the last decade. Aiding the internal opposition does not simply mean providing money; it means diplomatic support and it means using the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This means using a variety of affiliated national and international institutes to their full capacity."

William I. Robinson, editor of the English-language edition of the Central America Information Bulletin, spelled out the meaning of this shift in U.S. policy in an April 17, 1988, article published by the Agencia Nueva Nicaragua. Robinson wrote:

"The internal front and the contras have been moving toward an organic fusion. On Jan. 14, 1988, for instance, 12 top leaders of the opposition met in Guatemala City with the 'directorate' of the 'Nicaraguan Resistance,' the contra umbrella group.

"The opposition is organized into the Nicaraguan Democratic Coordinating Committee (CDN); an umbrella group of four small parties; two trade-union federations; several miscellaneous political associations; and the big-businessmen's association, the Superior Council of Private opposition, particularly the free press and the democratic political parties. ''' The $250,000 amendment to the foreign aid bill for fiscal 1988 was sponsored jointly in the Senate by Senators Durenburger, Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass), and John Kerry (DMass), among others.

Backdrop of economic chaos One of the factors responsible for pushing the Sandinista government to make political concessions to the contra leadership is the dramatic economic crisis gripping the country.

New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer put it this way:

"The reasons Sandinistas made such dramatic reversals [in the Sapoá truce agreement] are varied, but several stand out. The country faces an economic crisis that is becoming explosive and an insurgency that so saps its resources that no material or social progress is possible.

"For reconstruction, Nicaragua needs a major infusion of foreign aid. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Soviet Union is not interested in taking on another charity case. And the West has refused to provide substantial aid because many Western nations disapprove of the Sandinista political system." (New York Times, March 26, 1988)

Nicaragua's economy is collapsing toward chaos. According to official Nicaraguan government figures, by December 1987 the average purchasing power of the Nicaraguan workers had declined to 11 percent of what it was in 1980. The maximum official salary is about $45 a month. The average salary is $28 a month, or the price of an expensive lunch.

According to the Sandinista daily Barricada (Dec. 4, 1987), the contra war and the economic boycott of Nicaragua have cost the country a total of U.S. $3.5 billion. In addition, half of the government's budget (58% in 1987) has gone to defense.

Business Week (Dec. 21, 1987) noted: "War, a U.S. trade embargo, and falling commodity prices have combined to devastate the country. Exports have tumbled from $680 million in 1978 to a projected $260 million in 1987. Foreign debt of $6 billion [other sources place it as high as $10 billion-A.B.] is deemed unserviceable."

The annual average inflation rate went from 35.4% in 1984 to 219.5% in 1985, to 657% in 1986, to 1800% in 1987. The growth of the GNP per inhabitant has been negative since 1984. Nicaragua produces too little and has too much currency, favoring the development of speculation and a thriving black market.

As Business Week put it: "About 40 percent of the economy is state-controlled. Sandinistas are chronically cash-short. They

----- pull-quotes -----

t Union: ities are v & justice

strike to y plans

LANIINH ECONOMY