First Published: Unity, Vol. 5, No. 5, March 26-April 8, 1982.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
I was glad to read your strong stand in support of Poland’s workers in your recent article on Solidarity and the Polish crisis. (UNITY, January 29, 1982) However, I have to disagree with a couple of things also in the same article.
First of all, the article states something to the effect that “since the 1950’s” the government of Poland had (not) represented the workers. Many of us in the Marxist-Leninist Left still cling to this and other fantasies, but the facts in existence tell us “it just ain’t so!”
I’m sure you must know that Poland’s post-war form of government was imposed on Poland from the outside, and it surely couldn’t be said to represent the workers, as power was concentrated in the hands of a very few, with elections only for the least powerful officials, and then with only one Party-designated candidate, as it was with the Soviet Union then as well as now (and with repression in response to criticism a characteristic also).
Before you all jump up and yell “Trotskyist!” let me make it clear that I don’t support his vision of socialism either. But if you consider the old Soviet version of socialism as ideal, then your concept of socialist democracy is weak, indeed, and furthermore, will never be accepted by the American masses as an alternative form of government.
Secondly, the UNITY article correctly criticizes the Polish system of “nomenclature,” under which most officials are appointed rather than elected. But you do this without recognizing the historical source of this system – Stalin’s Soviet system. You seem quite unaware of the fact that a socialist country that you support – China, has very much the same system with all but the lowest officials appointed by the Party, and with even many of those low-level elections set up so that the favorites of the local Party apparatus can win. This was quite obvious during my fairly long stay in China recently.
In short, the article was all right as far as it goes, but it didn’t go nearly far enough. And if you don’t start dealing with these questions, your readers can only assume you are either hypocritical or that you actually support the establishment of a similar system in the U.S.A., something that most Americans would find most intolerable, under any circumstances.
Sincerely yours,
S.G.
Brooklyn, NY
We would like to respond to several points in your letter.
Communists developed a mass base in Poland during the 1930’s and were among the first attacked when Nazi Germany invaded in 1939. Because of severe repression, many communists and other anti-fascist fighters went to the U.S.S.R. during the war. Poland was liberated from German occupation by the Soviet Red Army with the support of the Polish people. Communists with a long history of revolutionary activity returned to Poland and became the leaders of the new Polish socialist government.
While there certainly were shortcomings in the post-war Polish government, it was not just “imposed from the outside” as you claim. The property of the Polish bourgeoisie and fascist collaborators was collectivized and a socialist economy established. Poland was recognized as socialist by all the socialist countries of that time, including China and Korea. The decline of socialism in Poland – as well as the U.S.S.R. – certainly needs more study. But simply blaming everything on Stalin is not the answer either.
We also disagree with your implication that Poland and China are equally undemocratic. Using fascist tactics, a junta rules Poland today and has little popular support. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, enjoys the respect and confidence of the people. The Chinese people and party are experimenting with a wide range of democratic reforms, including election of factory managers and at-large elections of local government officials.
In China, there is discussion of how to streamline the national legislative bodies to become more efficient. Differing opinions of how to build socialism are being discussed in the national and local press. It is very clear that the Chinese party and government have firm commitments to the development of socialist democracy.
These reforms are being undertaken due to the recognition that there have been shortcomings in the area of democracy in the past. Some have been quite serious, as during the purges of Stalin and the Cultural Revolution in China. But these errors took place in the context of a social system that is still very new in the history of the world. Lenin’s Russia and China today are countries that did not have long histories of bourgeois democracy. Unfortunately, in Russia, the weakness in socialist democracy was an important factor in the eventual overthrow of socialism there.
We cannot be idealists about socialism. We must judge the success or failure of a social system in its historical context. The socialism of Stalin, of Poland in the 1940’s, and the socialism of China today were the result of the struggles of millions of people – not a vision imposed on those societies. There was sweat and blood, trial and error. Each society had to deal with its historical legacies.
The form which socialist democracy will take in the U.S. will be different than in either the U.S.S.R. in the past or China today. The U.S. has a highly industrialized economy; a relatively developed educational and cultural system. We have our own traditions of popular democracy. We can also learn from the strengths and weaknesses of other countries, but we will develop our own socialist democracy based upon the realities of our own society.