Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

Se pot da douæ tipuri de ræspuns la aceastæ întrebare. Conform primului
tip de ræspuns, idealurile Solidaritæflii sînt legitime, dar sub presiunea circumstanflelor
– contextul internaflional capitalist – miøcarea s-a aflat în imposibilitatea
de a le pune în practicæ. S-a pierdut deci încæ o ocazie istoricæ pentru
depæøirea aøa-numitei false contradicflii dintre capitalismul privat øi socialismul
de stat.
Conform celui de-al doilea tip de ræspuns, ceva nu-i în regulæ cu idealurile
însele, iar asta trebuie acceptat cu onestitate. Abia aøa putem stabili ce anume
din moøtenirea Solidaritæflii mai poate fi continuat øi astæzi.
Autorul acestui articol e de acord cu cel de-al doilea tip de ræspuns. Visul
unei societæfli unitare, autonome fusese criticat încæ de la bun început chiar
din interiorul miøcærii. Dezbaterea despre programul economic al Solidaritæflii
a început deja la congresul din august 1981, dar criza politicæ din toamnæ,
iar mai tîrziu puciul au scos-o de pe ordinea de zi. Însæ, în 1989, cea care
a trebuit sæ formeze un guvern fusese deja Solidaritatea. Decizia a devenit
inevitabilæ, iar guvernul format de Solidaritatea a luat-o înspre democraflia
pluripartinicæ øi economia de piaflæ capitalistæ. Aceastæ opfliune nu reflectæ
însæ numai presiunea circumstanflelor.
Ne-ar plæcea sæ træim într-o lume în care oamenii îøi træiesc viafla conform
propriei lor înflelegeri a lucrurilor. Dar atunci cînd indivizii urmæresc scopuri
ce oglindesc dorinflele øi convingerile lor, conflictele sînt inevitabile. Acest
lucru poate fi demascat numai dacæ se indicæ un flap ispæøitor, care trebuie
eliminat din circuitul economic sau cæruia trebuie sæ i se ia bunurile, sau care
trebuie biciuit cu impozite speciale, dupæ care tofli ne vom bucura de cornul
abundenflei. Sæ numim aceastæ concepflie doctrina populistæ a solidaritæflii.
Aparflinem cu toflii aceleiaøi familii – mai puflin comuniøtii, marii capitaliøti, evreii,
imigranflii sau alflii.
Deøi luptele de interese din cadrul societæflii sînt inevitabile, de ce n-ar putea
fi ele coordonate oare pe baza asocierii libere a unor comunitæfli autodirijate?
În ce-l priveøte, Karl Marx avusese o concepflie despre cum ar putea
acorda între ele acfliunile indivizilor o economie lipsitæ de piaflæ, proprietate
privatæ øi stat. Aceastæ concepflie avusese ocazia sæ fie dezbætutæ, dar ea n-a
supraviefluit criticii teoretice. Nu e adeværat cæ numai præbuøirea sistemului
sovietelor ar fi fæcut-o – færæ niciun alt motiv – dubioasæ. Erorile ei organice
fuseseræ demonstrate încæ de pe vremea Uniunii Sovietice.
Apærætorii de azi ai societæflii autodirijate nu spun însæ nimic despre cum ar
coordona deciziile individuale o asociere a muncitorilor solidari. Pînæ cînd
nu vor clarifica acest punct, cuvintele lor exprimæ doar sentimente pur personale
øi nu descriu un model care ar putea fi supus dezbaterii publice.
Nu putem spune deci cæ Solidaritatea ar fi pierdut pe terenul pæcii [sociale].
Turnura din 1989 n-a fost nici mai puflin curajoasæ, nici mai puflin grandioasæ
decît lupta ce a dus, în 1980, la înfiinflarea organizafliei. Am avut pufline træiri
la fel de înælflætoare ca aceea pe care am simflit-o atunci cînd, în calitate de
ministru al muncii, Jacek Kuron a explicat muncitorilor polonezi rafliunea
restricfliilor [economice].
Turnura din 1989 n-a fost o rupturæ radicalæ. Mult din utopia Solidaritæflii trebuia
læsat în urmæ. E de regîndit pînæ øi principiul moral ce dæ numele ei. El
trebuie însæ clarificat, øi nu respins.
Atîta timp cît – conform concepfliei ei populiste – solidaritatea înseamnæ cæ
pot fi acceptate numai reguli sau decizii statale care convin celor mulfli øi nu
defavorizeazæ pe nimeni, ea e incompatibilæ cu ordinea libertæflii. Idealul libertæflii
nu poate fi însæ despærflit de idealul solidaritæflii. E important ca oamenii
According to the second answer, there was something wrong with the ideals
themselves, and it is high time people honestly faced this. To do so is the only
way to determine which parts of the Solidarity’s legacy are still viable.
The author of this piece favors the second answer. The dream of a unitary, selfgoverning
society was criticized from inside the movement from the very
beginning. The debate, with arguments for and against the economic program
of the Solidarity, reached its peak during the congress of August 1981, but the
autumn political crisis and the coup d’État obscured the matter. Then in 1989,
the Solidarity had to form the government. As such, it was forced to make a
decision and chose parliamentary democracy and capitalist market economy.
More than the constraint of circumstances alone governed this choice.
We would like a world of people free to follow their own ideals. Nevertheless,
conflicts are quick to arise whenever individuals pursue aims that reflect their
own wishes and convictions. This fact can only be masked by appointing a
scapegoat – a factor that needs to be eradicated from the economic system,
a group that should be depraved of its property or liable to pay extra taxes,
the result being universal access to the horn of plenty. Let us term this
approach the populist interpretation of solidarity. We all belong together,
with the slight exception of communists, tycoons, Jews, immigrants, and
a few other groups.
Nevertheless, even if clashes of interests are unavoidable in a society, why not
have the free association of self-managing communities coordinate them?
Well, Karl Marx had a certain vision of an economy without a market, private
property and state to coordinate the actions of individuals. This vision was
submitted to debate, but it did not survive theoretical criticism. It is not true
that only the collapse of the Soviet system has made it – without any other
reason – dubious. Its imperfections were highlighted already during the time
of the Soviet Union.
However, present-day followers of the self-managing society have nothing to
say about how an association of workers in solidarity would coordinate individual
decisions. Until they shed light on this matter, their words remain but
expressions of personal feelings, and fall very short of describing a model ripe
for open debate.
Consequently, we are not in a position to say the Solidarity lost peace.
The turn effected in 1989 was nothing less in bravery and brilliance than the
fight that had led to the 1980 birth of the organization. Few of my experiences
live up to that of watching on television Jacek Kuron as minister of
labor explain the meaning of [economic] restrictions to the Polish workers.
Moreover, the 1989 turn was not a complete breach. Many elements of the
Solidarity’s utopia had to be discarded. Even the moral principle behind the
organization’s denomination needs reconsideration. Yet things must be redefined
with more accuracy, not done away with.
If – according to its populist conception – solidarity only allows the acceptance
of state regulations or measures that are for the benefit of the many and
discriminate against no one, then solidarity is incompatible with the general
idea of freedom. In spite of this, the idea of freedom does go hand in hand
with that of solidarity. It is important for people to be free to follow their own
ideals, but this is equally valid for each and every individual. Freedom and
equality have the same root. Consequently, when society’s structure shifts,
those who benefit must not show indifference to the fate of those who do not.
The “winners” bear the responsibility of offering a humane existence to those
at a disadvantage. This is the liberal idea of solidarity.
162