Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)
Dupæ tine însæ, pare cæ dupæ atîtea decenii (øi secole) am fi ajuns iaræøi la
înflelepciunea mandevillianæ, dragæ Adam Michnik. În opinia lui Mandeville
(øi a unora dintre economiøtii liberali), acfliunile oamenilor sînt animate de
motive rele (egoiste), dar rezultatul e binele public. Cui nu-i place asta, øi
pe deasupra mai este øi redactorul-øef al celui mai vîndut ziar polonez, admirat
øi særbætorit în lumea întreagæ, acela îøi poate permite sæ fie cinstit. De
hobby. Asta e ce rezultæ din afirmaflia (dupæ mine) falsæ, conform cæreia „revoluflia
democraticæ a învins“.
Scrierea lui János Kis e mult mai profundæ øi mai coerentæ decît aøa ceva.
El spune: „«Sindicatul independent, autodirijat» pornise ca o miøcare
îmbræfliøînd întreaga societate. În schimb, dupæ 1989, s-a descompus în partide
aflate în concurenflæ. El promisese cæ fiecare individ øi grup va fi protejat
de comunitatea socialæ autonomæ, pentru a nu mai fi expus consecinflelor
defavorizante ale deciziilor de stat. Dupæ 1989, guvernul Solidaritæflii a trebuit
sæ execute una dintre cele mai dureroase operafliuni de stabilizare economicæ
ale istoriei. Majoritatea conducætorilor øi membrilor Solidaritæflii
visaseræ la o lume în care ordinea producfliei øi a redistribuirii se bazeazæ pe
asocierea liberæ a unor unitæfli autonome – dupæ 1989, guvernul Solidaritæflii
a trebuit sæ înceapæ trecerea la o economie de piaflæ capitalistæ. Ce s-a întîmplat
cu idealurile Solidaritæflii?“
„Se pot da douæ tipuri de ræspuns la aceastæ întrebare“, continuæ János Kis.
„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.“
Acesta e unul dintre ræspunsurile posibile, spune János Kis.
„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 [respectiv János Kis] e de acord cu cel de-al doilea
tip de ræspuns.“
Asta-i o afirmaflie destul de stranie. Cel puflin dacæ interpretæm lucrurile –
dar, cum vom vedea, asta nu e ceva necesar – în aøa fel încît sæ ajungem
la concluzia cæ „nu e totul în regulæ“ cu idealurile care, dintr-un motiv sau
altul, n-ajung sæ fie puse în practicæ. Acceptarea øi validitatea unei afirmaflii
(teze, teorii) sînt douæ lucruri diferite. Despre afirmaflia cæ „asta poate fi corect
dintr-un punct de vedere teoretic, dar nu e valabil øi în practicæ“ deja Kant
arætase cæ e de nesusflinut. Desigur, nu asta spune János Kis. Totodatæ însæ,
chiar dacæ într-o altæ manieræ, mai interesantæ poate decît contrastul sec dintre
„ideal“ øi „realitate“, el creeazæ impresia cæ opune „idealul“ aøa-numitei
„realitæfli“ – deøi atari opuneri: ideal øi realitate, teorie øi practicæ, intelect øi
rafliune, politicæ øi moralitate, politicæ øi economie sînt, cu toatele, particularitæfli
ale societæflii burgheze, deci ele nu pot explica societatea burghezæ. În opinia
lui János Kis, Solidaritatea (în parte explicit, în parte tacit) promisese cæ „ordinea
producfliei øi a redistribuirii [bogæfliei sociale] se [va baza] pe asocierea
liberæ a unor unitæfli autonome“. Dacæ aøa stau lucrurile, atunci Solidaritatea
øi-a încælcat promisiunea, chiar dacæ deliberarea colectivæ a organizafliei în
privinfla acestor aspecte a fost stopatæ de puciul lui Jaruzelski din decembrie
1981. În 1989, Solidaritatea, scrie János Kis, „[…] a luat-o înspre democraflia
pluripartinicæ øi economia de piaflæ capitalistæ. Aceastæ opfliune nu reflectæ
însæ numai presiunea circumstanflelor“.
(and centuries) we bump again into Mandeville’s wise words? According
to Mandeville (and to certain liberal economists) people’s actions are driven
by evil (selfish) impulses, the result being public benefit. Those who dislike the
situation, especially if they are the world-famous editors-in-chief of the most
marketable Polish newspaper, can cultivate honesty instead. In other words,
honesty as a hobby. This stance might emerge as the outcome of the – in my
opinion – mistaken statement “the democratic revolution was victorious.”
The article by János Kis is a deeper and more coherent piece of writing.
He writes: “The ’independent, self-governing trade union’ emerged as a genuine
social movement, but after 1989, fragmented into a host of competing
parties. It promised, as a self-organized social community, to protect each
group and individual against the negative effects of state measures; nevertheless,
after 1989 its own government performed one of the most painful operations
of economic stabilization in history. Its leaders and the majority of its
members dreamed of a system wherein the order of production and redistribution
[of social wealth] were built upon the free association of self-managing
units; yet, after 1989 its own government initiated the shift towards a capitalist
market economy. What had happened to the ideals of the Solidarity?
There are two possible answers to this question [János Kis continues]. According
to the first, the said ideals are still valid, but under the circumstances –
the pressure of the international capitalist environment – the movement could
not sustain them. Thus, another historical chance for overcoming the so-called
false opposition between private capitalism and state socialism
was lost.”
According to János Kis, this is one of the possible answers.
“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 [namely, János Kis] favors the second answer.”
This is a rather strange statement, at least if we interpret it – and as we shall
see, we are not compelled to do that – as a suggestion that “there is
something wrong” with unfulfilled ideals. The acceptance and the validity
of a certain statement (thesis, theory) are two completely different matters.
Kant already demonstrated the impossibility of the statement “this might hold
in theory but will never work in practice.” János Kis says nothing like that.
Nonetheless, he still seems to oppose “the ideal” to the so-called “reality”
– although these contrasting pairs, ideal and reality, theory and practice,
intellect and feeling, politics and morality, politics and economy are characteristics
of bourgeois society, thus they cannot explain bourgeois society – even
if he does so in a more interesting manner than simply contrasting “ideal” and
“reality”. In his view, (in a partly overt and partly concealed manner) the
Solidarity has promised “the order of production and redistribution [of social
wealth]” would be based on “the free association of self-managing units”.
If this be true, the Solidarity failed to keep its promise, irrespective of the setback
in the organization’s collective way of thinking effected by the 1981
December Jaruzelski-coup. All the same, writes János Kis, the Solidarity
in 1989 “. . . chose parliamentary democracy and capitalist market economy.
More than the constraint of circumstances alone governed this choice.”
Whatever had happened in seven years, the Solidarity did not make the radical
change in its political ideals and plans explicit (if the story told by János
Kis reflects the facts, which in order to keep things simple I now accept).
165