Descarcă revista în format PDF - idea

verso: revoluflii în oglindæ (mirroring revolutions)
duce, în Republica Popularæ Chinezæ, la un glorios øi bun sfîrøit revoluflia burghezæ
împlinitæ, îmbinînd dominaflia extremæ a capitalului cu dictatura de tip
stalinist, care a ræmas aproape neschimbatæ. Nu asta au vrut nici sindicaliøtii
catolici polonezi, nici flæranii revoluflionari chinezi.
Ceea ce s-a întîmplat a avut loc nu fiindcæ aøa deciseseræ liderii Solidaritæflii,
respectiv ai CAM øi CAS [Comitetul pentru Apærare Socialæ] – ei, la rîndul
lor, øi-au dat seama de ce se petrece abia dupæ ce totul va fi fost deja decis
–, ci fiindcæ forma aceasta risipitoare, rigidæ øi putredæ a capitalismului de stat
poate fi la fel de puflin ræsturnatæ cu mijloace socialiste ca imperiile semifeudale:
de pildæ, cel flarist, otoman sau habsburgic. E adeværat însæ cæ pentru
regimul de azi, iubit de foarte puflini (øi pour cause!), poporul polonez n-ar
fi adus sacrificiul imens pe care l-a adus. Prin ce a devenit Solidaritatea, cei
mai de seamæ reprezentanfli ai poporului polonez nu numai cæ i-au tras pe
sfoaræ pe adepflii lor, ci s-au amægit øi pe ei înøiøi. Lucrurile probabil cæ nu se
puteau întîmpla altminteri. Numai cæ toate astea nu spun nimic – nici în sens
pozitiv, nici în sens negativ – nici despre idealul autodirijist øi nici despre celelalte
idealuri puse în joc de Solidaritatea. Cred cæ întrebarea la care János
Kis dæ ræspunsul dramatic pe care-l øtim e, de fapt, o pseudoîntrebare.
Dramatismul ar fi totuøi justificat dacæ ar exista destui lideri ai Solidaritæflii øi
intelectuali de opoziflie care sæ asume faptul cæ idealurile pe care le-au dus
în luptæ nu corespund politicii pe care au ajuns sæ o practice odatæ ajunøi la
putere. În felul acesta, am mai fi avut poate ocazia sæ asistæm la cîteva tragedii
morale – dacæ agreæm genul. Totuøi, aceastæ conexiune simplæ
e ignoratæ de János Kis øi de aici provine aceastæ afirmaflie,
dupæ mine monstruoasæ, din interesantul sæu eseu:
„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]“.
Înælflætoare?
Tragice, poate, sau de coømar. A înfrunta, în numele noii „realitæfli“, substanfla
amarnicæ a unei viefli de luptæ, de eforturi, de sacrificii, de suferinflæ, de înfrîngeri
suportate stoic øi de glorie acceptatæ cu modestie, færæ a læsa pe alflii sæ
facæ treaba murdaræ: asta poate fi, într-un anume sens, onorabil, oricît de
demoralizantæ øi de dramaticæ ar fi înfrîngerea. Dar înælflætor?
Cititorului nu-i vine sæ-øi creadæ ochilor.
Aproape toate felurile de înfrîngere pot fi stilizate øi transformate în victorii,
mai puflin înfrîngerea moralæ. E de înfleles cæ ne vine greu sæ privim senini
eøecul prietenilor noøtri. Nu m-aø fi aøteptat însæ ca excelentul autor al Politicii
ca problemæ moralæ sæ n-aibæ ochi pentru tragedia celor ce sînt cel mai
aproape de el. Parcæ în frumosul necrolog pe care l-a scris la moartea lui
Jacek Kuron (Magyar Hírlap), János Kis mai øtia cîte ceva despre asta.
János Kis se apucæ de distrugerea postumæ a idealurilor Solidaritæflii – pe care
le prefluise øi el cîndva – fæcînd deosebirea dintre „solidaritatea“ în general
øi versiunea ei „populistæ“. Pe aceasta din urmæ o supune unei critici devastatoare.
El zice: „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“. Chiar dacæ expresia „ordinea libertæflii“ e uøor obscuræ,
fraza ar putea fi totuøi acceptatæ. Singura problemæ e cæ punctul de vedere
cæruia i se opune, pe drept, János Kis nu e revendicat de nimeni. Nu gæsim
niciunde un egalitarism atît de radical – poate doar în scrierea mea anarhosindicalistæ,
Ochiul øi mîna (samizdat, 1983), dar chiar øi acolo a fost vorba
Events transpired this way not because of a decision made by the Solidarity
and the leaders of CSS [the Committee for Social Self-Protection] and CPW
– everything had been settled by the time they became aware of it – but
because this squandering, rigid and rotten form of state capitalism could be
overthrown by socialist means just as much as the semi-feudal Tsarist, the
Ottoman, or the Habsburg empires. Nevertheless, the Polish people would
have not made the huge sacrifice they did had they known it was today’s
rightly unpopular political system at stake. Leading the lines of the Solidarity,
the greatest of the Polish people deceived not their adherents, but first of all
themselves above all others. There was probably no other way for things to
happen. All this says nothing of the ideals of self-management, neither in
a positive, nor a negative respect. I believe János Kis provides a dramatic
answer to what is a pseudo-question.
A tragic approach would not entirely be inappropriate here, had there been
more Solidarity leaders and oppositionist intellectuals aware of the fact that
the politics they were to lead after gaining political power did not at all match
the ideals that had triggered the entire struggle. For those who enjoy the
genre, this would have been a perfect occasion for moral tragedy. János Kis
happens to overlook this simple correspondence, and this is the fountainhead
for the following (in my view, horrific) sentence in his interesting essay:
“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.”
What was so uplifting here?
It might have been tragic, perhaps infernal, but uplifting?
To confront, under the sign of the new “reality”, the substance
of a life full of the most arduous, self-abnegating suffering, stoically
born defeat, and humbly endured victory, by not leaving
the “dirty work” to be done by someone else: in certain respects, this is an
honourable endeavour, despite the tragic, afflictive defeat behind. But what is
uplifting in that?
The reader is lost in bewilderment.
Rhetoric can turn almost every kind of defeat into a victory – but not the
moral one. This is why it is so unpleasant to witness our friends fail. I did not
expect to discover that the eye of the excellent author of A politika mint erkölcsi
probléma [Politics as a moral question] is insensitive to the tragedy of his
closest fellows. Although in the fine obituary he wrote on Jacek Kuron (Magyar
Hírlap), János Kis seemed to have sensed this tragedy.
János Kis proceeds to demolish posthumously the ideals of the Solidarity
– which he himself held dear some time ago – by differentiating the “populist”
version of the ideal of “solidarity” (as a general idea) and providing its
destructive critique. Thus: “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.” Although the expression “general
idea of freedom” is somewhat obscure, one could almost accept this sentence.
The problem here is that nobody claims the position János Kis rightfully criticizes.
There is simply no case of such radical equalitarianism on the face of
earth – except perhaps my anarcho-syndicalist piece, A szem és a kéz [The eye
and the hand] (samizdat, 1983), which is nothing but an idealization – consequently
János Kis confutes an argument that is incorrect on one hand, while,
on the other, everybody knows it is so. Revolutionary Marxist socialism
167