MODELEWSKI AND KURON -- DEFENDERS OF THE GAINS IN POLAND
By Joseph Hansen
The summer issue of Partisan Review, the well-known American literary quarterly, published a communication from Michael Shute, organizer of the ad-hoc. committee of Polish Political Freedom at the University of California, on the views of Karol Modzelewski, Jacek Kuron and Ludwik Hass, who were imprisoned in Poland last year because of their oppositionist political. views.
Although Modzelewski and Kuron were the defendants in one trial, and Hass in another, and the prosecution, from all accounts, made no attempt to link the cases together organizationally, Shute identifies them as constituting.a single group.
"After thirty-five years," Shute declares, "Trotskyism is being given new life in the Communist world by a small but highly serious group of revolutionary activists. One of their leaders is Iudwik Hass, an 'old' Polish Trotskyist who has spent almost twenty years in Soviet forced labor camps. Hass and four younger members of the opposition have been imprisoned by the Polish government on charges of 'possessing and distributing pamphlets...detrimental to the interests of the Polish state and dealing with political and social relations in Poland.' Two trials were held; testifying at the first, Hass affirmed his Trotskyism, and defended revolutionary socialism.
Since Shute sent his communication to Partisan Review, Hass has. been released. Modzelewski and Kuron, however, are still being held in prison. They were the authors of an "Open Letter" to members of the Communist party in which they explained the views they had advocated in the party and which had brought about their expulsion. The "Open Letter" was used in court as the major piece of "evidence" against. them.
Shute does not distinguish between Hass on the one hand and Modzelewski-Kuron on the other, but appears to assume that the three belong to a single group and that their views are identical. The available avidence is not sufficient to Judge | the accuracy of this assumption. .
In any case, Shute appears to assume that the "Open Letter" is a common programmatic document, representing the views of all three of these revolutionists although it bears the signatures of only Modzelewski and Kuron. Shute. continues: :
"The pamphlet which provoked the arrests is a 128-page manifesto which argues that the Polish Communist state does not represent a socialist order, but rather a new ruling class; and characterizes the regime as a 'dictatorship of the bureaucracy' which has arrogated to itself the 'workers' property.' The writers of the manifesto distinguish themselves from Titoists by rejecting the claims of the so-called workers councils of Yugoslavia to democratically represent the will of the Yugoslavian workers.
They call for a ‘return to proletarian internationalism' and attack the Polish clergy for what they. term a 'reactionary' role."
Shute recounts Hass.'s remarkable history as a long-time opponent of Stalinism, the many years he spent in the labor camps and the courage with which he again put forward his Trotskyist views publicly upon finally being released and repatriated to Poland in 1957.
We then come to an expression of Shute's own opinions concerning the position presented by the "Open Letter." Shute declares:
"The Hass group's Trotskyism is Trotskyism considerably updated, a Trotskyism which views the Communist states as no longer progressive in any sense of the word. Hass is familiar with the earlier 'new class:.' theorists, and they have clearly had their impact. But Hass and his group utilize the past selectively, with a discrimination shaped by the needs of their struggles. For new class theory corresponds to their experience in attempting to create a new beginning for a struggle against the Communist state. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, the Hungarian working class seized control of the means of production, replacing Communist factory managers with democratically elected. workers councils. The first real revolution against Communism transferred the means of production from the hands of one class, the bureaucracy, ‘to those of- another, the working class. And the idea. that. the bureaucracy constitutes a new social class which own the means of production through its political- control .of the state is the core of the new Polish Trotskyism....The efforts of Hass and his comrades are a milestone in the socialist revolution against Communism, for this group has at least begun to educate a cadre of socialists to a realistic view of Polish society in particular and the Communist bloc in general."
Again it should be noted that it is not at all clear why Shute identifies Hass so. closely with the "Open Letter" signed by Modelzewski and Kuron, but leaving this aside and considering merely the document itself, Shute's conclusions appear to suffer from some. exaggerations that are not helpful to the cause of Polish Trotskyisn.
The text of the "Open Letter" is unfortunately not yet available in English. [Merit Publishers have announced that they are bringing out a translation.] A French translation is available however.* Study of this document fails to reveal any statement that could legitimately be construed as maintaining that .""the Communist states" are "no longer progressive in any sense of the word."
The point is crucial since it determines the stand taken by the authors of the "Open Letter" in relation: to the defense of Poland against imperialism. Trotsky was very clear and firm on this question. More than once differences over the question of defending the Soviet Union led to splits, for Trotsky was adamant in sticking to "unconditional defense"; i.e., defense regardless of the attitude, line or actions | of the bureaucracy.
Despite the growth of Stalinism, Trotsky considered the Soviet Union completely progressive in the sense of being superior to capitalism. In fact his views on — Stalinism cannot really be grasped if his opinion on the progressive nature.of the Soviet Union and the need to defend it against imperialism in not understood. Trotsky distinguished between the Soviet state, which he considered to be highly progressive, and the Soviet bureaucracy which he regarded as a parasitic formation. Thus he held that what was required was not a social overturn (which would have meant demolishment of the state) but a political revolution, a cleansing operation that would actually strengthen the existing Soviet state by replacing the arbitrary bureaucratic regime with a better alternative, a regime based on proletarian democracy. This position has been maintained by the Fourth International which was founded by Leon Trotsky. It is a position distinctive of genuine Trotskyism.
On this question, the "Open Letter" written by Modelewski and Kuron does not speak as clearly as Trtosky. But if it errs, it would seem to be on the side of granting too much credit to the bureaucracy.
’ This emerges most markedly when the authors speak of the progressive role played by the bureaucracy in industrializing the country. The "new power," they say, "carried out this objective despite the particular interests of the other classes and layers; hence, to a certain degree, against them." They declare again: "Under these
* Lettre ouverte aux membres des sections de l'université de Varsovie du Parti ouvrier |
Paris 2, France. 100 pp. US#1. .
conditions, the relations of production founded» on “bureaucratic ‘property,. assured a . rapid development of the economy, thanks to which possibilities were opened up for the. other classes and social layers for progress.and an improvement in living conditions, a perspective of expanding within the very framework of the bureaucratic system."
The achievements made possible in Poland after the overturn of capitalisn are further indicated by Modelewski and Kuron:
"Industrialization opened up for the broad masses of the underdeveloped country a road toward an improvement in living conditions through a massive shift of the classes and layers least favored materially, socially and culturally, toward the classes and layers standing at a higher level -- from the countryside into. the ranks. of the technical cadres, white-collar workers, intellectuals and technicians --.all ~ this thanks to the expansion of education on all.levels. The social advancement of the masses, the liquidation of overpopulation in the countryside and of unemployment, were accompanied by a growth in the cultural level of the population, medical aid, social services, education, etc. Thanks to this, and despite the terror and the constraint, the bureaucracy met with wide and enthusiastic support in all circles of society.'
Let us note: "despite the terror and constraint..." But then the advances were not made through the terror and constraint. They were made by. other means. It takes © no genius to discover what these were. The means consisted of state planning instituted after the shattering of capitalist property.forms -- state planning basically proletarian in character however far removed from the democratic norms that would have lent it maximum.efficiency. The progress, in short, was made possible by a type of state superior. to the old capitalist state. To credit the bureaucracy for the progress ss made instead of the state is a mistake rooted in failure to distinguish between the basic economic institutions and those in charge of them (or the methods or political institutions through which they are selected). What is primary is mixed up with what is secondary. This kind of error is common enough, unfortunately.
It is true that Modelewski and Kuron find that the bureaucracy, which. they. credit with having advanced Poland along the road of industrialization, has exhausted its progressive role. Thus, insofar as they do not distinguish between the state and the bureaucracy, their position is open to misinterpretation. However, taken in con- __ junction with their platform which calls for a political revolution, it does not seem to be-an accurate estimate to say that they consider the degenerated or deformed workers states -- to use the right term -- to be "no longer progressive in any sense of the word."
Study of the "Open Letter" also indicates that the position taken by Modelewski and Kuron is much more nuanced than Shute indicates. The "Open Letter" distinguishes between the technocratic layers of the bureaucracy and the central political command. They apply the label "class" to the latter sector. They do not, it is true, compare their position with the one argued for by certain tendencies in the West, who consider that a "managerial class" or some variant: thereof has developed in the Soviet Union and the other workers states. But, again, their political conclusions, as well as the distinctions they draw between sectors of the bureaucracy indicate that their views have little in common with those of the theoreticians of the "managerial society" and its variants.
A final observation. should be. made concerning the loaded epithets employed by — Shute. The Trotskyism of the Hass group, he says, is "Trotskyism considerably updated..." It is a "new" Polish Trotskyism. It offers a "realistic" view... An updated, new, realistic theory is, of course, much to be preferred to an outdated, old, unrealistic one. The trouble is that the “new class" theorists really offer nothing new. Their views are so old, in fact, that all their main propositions were well known to Trotsky and he considered their lack of validity on various occasions. His arguments against the "new class" position have never been refuted. To my knowledge the "new class" theorists have never even considered them in an objective way.
Before pinning the label of "updated" on. any variation of the "new class" theory it would. seem to be in order to first update the consideration of ‘Trotsky’ s observations on this question. : ; .
This criticism, it is to be hoped, will not be misinterpreted as directed in any way at Michael Shute's efforts to defend the Polish oppositionists. He supports them because they are revolutionists and internationalists opposed to all oppression and striving for a society run by the people themselves. This is the basis for the demands seeking their immediate release that have been directed to the Polish government by a wide spectrum of socialists and antiwar fighters on an international scale.
A united front on this basis is completely legitimate. Socialists should not permit differences over questions like the class nature of the state in Poland and the role of the bureaucracy to stand in the way of further efforts to win the release of all those imprisoned in Poland because of their political views.
BERTRAND