THE ELECTION IN POLAND

THOUGHTS ON GOVERNMENT AND CAPITALISM

As anarchists, we should avoid electoral games and manipulations and concentrate on grassroots organizing and direct action to build bases for self-management and self-organized societies without government. This is about the results of our elections and our campaign to spread our ideas, despite resistance in the most unfortunate of places - the activist community.

---

THE ELECTION IN POLAND:

THOUGHTS ON GOVERNMENT AND CAPITALISM

Background

As anarchists who espouse direct forms of self-management and organization, we do not go to the polls. We will not be governed. We do not even want to cross all candidates out because we are not implying that none of the candidates are good enough; we are saying that the whole system of representative democracy and government as it stands has got to go. This year, with both parliamentary and presidential elections held in Poland, the Anarchist Federation held a campaign to boycott elections. It included meetings with the public, debates, demonstrations, newspapers, bulletins, radio and TV appearances, guerilla art actions, happenings, direct actions and a web sight with many articles, photos, etc..

The campaign raised some debate in Poland. The President Elect, Lech Kaczynski, is best known in activist circles for banning the gay parade two years in a row and is a proponent of harsh punishment for criminals and the “decommunization” of Poland. In light of this, many people indeed got sucked into “the lesser of two evil” trap. In addition, there was some discussion about whether or not the boycott tactics were preferable to giving an invalid vote (if you could be so kind to label the sort of arguments on our e-mail forums “discussions”). Some of the thoughts below reflect these questions.

1. Class War or Culture War

There are two distinguishing aspects of Kaczynski’s politics; his social conservatism and his professed pro-social economics. (Not that we believe that it or any other form of capitalism is pro-social.) Despite insinuations made in the foreign press that people voted for Kaczynski because of some fondness for conservative values, it was really the public perception of the difference of degree of economic neoliberalism which gave Kaczynski the election. Really conservative parties, such as the League of Polish Families, actually lost a good portion of their support and places in Parliament. Likewise, the least popular of all the major political parties this year was the most economically liberal, the Democratic Party.

The above is admittedly a great oversimplification of the myriad of factors which swung the electorate. Conservativism played a role in that most people are conservative and the most popular parties only projected different degrees of such.

Many voters seem to have focused primarily on issues of culture rather than economics when making their choices. Conceptions and analyses of economic issues are either lacking or dull repetitions of market neoliberal dogma taught at business school and syphened to the public by experts. This phenomenon is nothing unique to Poland and has been described by many commentators around the world, including, amongst others, Thomas Frank. Frank has described how in the US, working class people can be swayed to vote for parties which do not at all represent their economic interests by focusing their attention on issues such as abortion; he labels these “cultural” issues.

It is clear that only a small portion of the electorate would actually benefit from the economic plans of Kaczynski’s rivals’ party, Civic Platform. For example, a proposed linear tax, combined with the liquidation of some of tax breaks most often used, would mean real tax savings of between 25 and 35% for the wealthiest Poles, and a maximum of 4% for the overwhelming majority of the working class. (Some studies have shown simulations where people in this tax bracket would actually pay more after the reduction of certain tax breaks.) This tax revolution would be accompanied, naturally, by privatization of most social services.

It is understandable that a certain portion of people either identify with the wealthiest or simply hate the poor; this segment of society generally supports the liquidation or minimalization of most social programs as they are convinced that the poor are poor because they are somehow morally inferior (ie. lazy or degenerate). What is more curious in this election is that a certain part of what in other circumstances might constitute a liberal or even left scene more closely identified with Mr. Tusk than Mr. Kaczynski.

Rather strict leftists or communists saw no choice between the two right-wing parties. However, many moderate leftists and liberals clearly saw Mr. Kaczynski as a greater threat. As Varsovians, we have already had many run-ins with Kaczynski and his crew. (Kaczynski was the President of Warsaw.) We completely understand what his party in power can mean for the state of our civil rights. First and foremost for the rights of sexual minorities. (Although on the other hand, for the last few years there have been mass waves of arrests and repression connected to anarchists and workers’ activists. For us, things are likely to remain more or less the same.) Nonetheless, it was disconcerting for us to see that a good portion of the liberals around us were unable to muster any critique of the economic program of Mr. Tusk’s party. Even more disconcerting was that it turned out that in this loose activist movement, which includes feminists, human rights activists, etc., some people argued for the introduction of paid higher education, the liquidation of public health care, etc., from the right-wing point of view.

I spoke with a number of supporters of and activists in the Democratic Party, which is headed by the extreme pro-business leader of a lobbying organization for private employees which has lead the attack on workers’ rights for years. Amazingly, people from this party have told me “I can’t stand the right”. When I pointed out that in economic terms they were the most right-wing of all the major parties, I even became the victim of xenophobic diatribes about how I don’t understand local politics. I should not be surprised that, for such people, the culture of the Democratic Party, which speaks of democracy, human rights in the Ukraine and Belarus (a smokescreen for pro-market policies they wish to spread) and tolerance of minorities, would attract them and would even obfuscate their economic programs. (Although after some longer discussions it just turns out that some of the “human rights” crowd are firm believers in the market economy and the miracles of capitalism.)

We have come up against the fact that not only society as a whole, but the local liberal scene and, unfortunately even some of the left and anarchist scene, are lacking a class analysis. Perceptions of lifestyle, personality, cultural habits and beliefs become a binding and mobilizing force. In accomplishing this, the capitalists (private and state) conquer the economy by managing to take it, as much as possible, outside the field of debate. We witnessed how in the last presidential debates, the candidates argued about whether diplomacy or hard-handedness is better with the Russians, about who had the dirtiest campaigns and so on. And, unfortunately, these were the issues that interested many voters.

The issue of class and economics however played a crucial part in the election, as perhaps did certain traditions; elections showed a clear east/west divide in the country. Populist, left and peasant parties received at least 1/3 of the vote. Ultimately, economic issues seemed to sway voters towards Kaczynski who promised a more social economic policy. While the farmers and populist parties like Self-Defence, as well as Solidarity, decided to back Kaczynski in the second round, left parties like the ruling SLD or the Social Democrats either backed Tusk or said that people could vote for the lesser of two evils, implying that was Tusk. This despite the fact that, economically, Civic Platform was miles away.

If the analysis of culture over class can be simplified to show working class people voting for the right because of cultural issues, we cannot say it is so simple in Poland. Some people did vote for their perceived class interests, even if this perception was clouded. In the US, the simplified (and perhaps incorrect) version is “right-wing economics, right-wing social issues”. In Poland, you have right-wing parties in economics divided into conservatives, ultra-conservatives, moderates and liberals, you have left-wing or left-of-center parties with liberal worldviews or moderate world views, you have populist parties which lean left or left of center in economics but are conservative or even fascistic, and you have parties which have incredibly eclectic programs, such as Self-Defence. (It recently declared itself as the only truly left party. It tends to favour many aspects of the welfare state, is against linear tax for individuals but has the most drastic tax proposal for corporations: a 10% flat tax. This, they are sure, will encourage investment in Poland and create jobs.)

2. The Poverty of Pragmatism

The most frequent argument we encountered from the left was that, as anarchists who support grassroots organizing rather than electoral politics, we were leading people astray. Somebody is going to be in power – it may as well be a leftist.

Our acquaintances from the left thus got behind different parties. It was amazing to see what kind of compromises people can make in the name of political pragmatism. Our favourite was related to the Labor Party (or Party of Work); although the Presidential candidate and leader of this party had run for president last time in a coalition with the fascist group NOP, and although a good number of people there have solid far-right credentials, many communist groups supported this party as it was full of trade union activists. In this respect, we did have one segment of the left that put the class war over the culture war.

This was a beautiful example of the politics of pragmatism. The pragmatist believes that power is a reality therefore, one must get into power. The system must be changed from within; changing it by popular movement is beyond the realm of conception.

The pragmatist also believes that one party can be substantially better than the other often because they concentrate on single issues or reform issues. The pragmatist votes for people who promise abortion rights as they see this as a concrete gain. The pragmatist can be bought of by any number of concession issues which parties are willing to make or promise. They will trade their gain for another person’s losses.

Above all, the pragmatist rejects the possibility of organizing the world without governing bodies. The pragmatist will always find arguments why people should vote for their party, some issues, we admit, being profoundly important for some people. But what the pragmatist fails to understand is that the reason why we have, for example, anti-abortion laws isn’t because people voted for the wrong party, but because we gave up the power to decide these things ourselves when we consented to be governed.

(BTW, one of the reasons some people voted for the left wing former ruling party last time was because they promised to legalize abortion. They gave this up and eventually made a deal to drop the issue in exchange for the church supporting Poland’s entrance into the EU. This is how pragmatists act; they change to the most politically expedient idea of the moment and carry on whatever manipulations they can get away with.)

3. Active or Passive Resistance

Another thought on the nature of government is on the act of voting itself. In anarchist thought, there is much debate over the issues of consensus and majority voting. As a strong believer in individual rights, I believe in the right of minorities to break away and do something other than what the majority wants, particularly when the majority vote for practices which support hierarchies and actually entrench the power of minorities, ie the rich. As an anarchist, I do not intend to follow a majority who, for example, creates and perpetuates political systems as we have today and I demand the right to live in community with others outside this system and to organize an alternative to it. However, I also understand that my ability or inability to do this often depends on the goodwill of the majority. Therefore, winning over the majority of people, if not to anarchism itself than at least to accepting the existence of anarchistically organized regions or communes, is part of our continued struggle.

I am not against voting, even majority voting if people consent to it and if they retain options to follow their conscience and act differently should the situation occur. But I am talking about direct democracy. I am talking about voting on concrete issues. I am not talking about electing representatives who will then decide everything for us.

Some people, even including some left-leaning anarchists, have argued that not voting in the elections is a passive activity but this is definitely not the case. It is, when combined with our activity, the most active form of resistance that we know.

When we boycotted the elections, we did not make a decision not to find out about the political programs of the candidates; we tend to know them better than most people who voted. We also did not make a decision not to have a voice. If anything, we were one of the few forces in Poland that had our own voice and was not absorbed into the game of political pragmatism. With this voice, we went directly to the public and spoke to them about why we are against all politicians and, more importantly, what we propose instead. Some people engaged in discussion with us, some people not. Some people thought we were super, other that we were idiots or clowns. (Ironically, our sharpest criticism tended to come from the left and liberals, not normal people.) Through active contact with people through every means we could possibly use, thousands of people came into contact with our ideas. And this is more active an act for us than going to a ballot box.

4. Class Consciousness

I’d like to comment on how the low voter turnout was perceived by society’s elites, which, it seems, also includes part of the left-liberal scene. As anarchists, we understand that when people do not vote, it is not for one reason only; at times it is a strong protest against the whole political system, at times it is apathy or a feeling of powerlessness and resignation. But it is also clear to us that in the system of representative democracy, where people do not actively engage in the decisions that affect their lives, there is a lack of responsibility and a feeling of real alienation. We also understand that this feeling of powerlessness is a conscious manifestation of the situation which people find themselves in. Not all classes of people are willing to accept that they are essentially robbed by the political system; often it is a consciousness which comes with being on the bottom rung of the class ladder. As anarchists who believe in direct democracy, and as people who have run into the direct consequences of apathy, alienation and the atomization of society, we are fighting against feelings of powerlessness, we encourage the people to seek real enpowerment through grassroots organization and direct action. Such a society as we want to build cannot exist in such a state of apathy.

However, we firmly reject the idea of those who claim that an election boycott encourages apathy and that even going to the polls and giving an invalid vote is better because it is an “active” form of protest. There is nothing in either our philosophy, or, more importantly, our practice, which encourages apathy; we encourage active participation of all members of society (including, BTW, those without voting rights like minors, foreigners and disenfranchised persons .(Some people couldn’t vote because of some antiquated residency/registration rules.) At our election day action, 80% of those involved did not have the right to vote for one of these reasons, but we all chose to exercise our right to discuss our opinions with society, despite the fact that one could get arrested for that.) And for us, a sign of passivity is rather deciding to vote once every 4-5 years for some representative who then will do all the thinking and decision making for you than to actively organize grassroots organizations where everybody takes an active role in decision making.

We were disgusted by articles both in the press, as well as comments in places such as the IMC which implied that people who did not vote were too stupid to do so. We were out yesterday on the streets of our district, talking to people. Many of them grew up poor, in disadvantaged situations and the class mobility of such people, as we know, tends to be very small. We often meet people who understand what we are talking about – but often they have little hope that they can organize something themselves and change things. But sometimes they see that it happens. Sometimes they see that social solidarity works. (For example yesterday one of our members intervened when the police started to fine a group of poor people selling locally produced vegetables on the street near the corporate supermarket Biedronka. Biedronka who is notorious for breaking workers’ rights, doesn’t want to see any street vendors near its shops. After the intervention, the police backed off and didn’t fine the vendors. It was a small action, but many people noticed then that you can successfully intervene in such situations and not just walk by apathetically and ignore what’s happening to your neighbours.) When people see small instances of social solidarity, they feel more enpowered. This is not something that they gain by voting; this is something they gain by the active support of neighbours and fellow workers in situations where they are fighting directly against oppression, injustice and exploitation. This is where the anarchist can make an impression – not at the ballot box.

The press writes that our neighbourhood is a typical shame. Only 10% of the people have higher education. The people at the polling stations comment that most of the people there can’t vote because they are behind bars. (Although prisoners usually can vote. We know that prisoner voter turnout was actually quite high and almost all of them voted for Tusk.) The turnout was the lowest in the city and, if we believe the press, it’s because people are simply not educated enough to make choices for themselves. This is the image of the poor which the elite wants to perpetuate so that they can continue to fuck them over.

The leftists’ and even some left-anarchists’ take on this is that, if only the poor would stop being so stupid, they would vote for those who protect their interests (ie. for them). Few of the real communists use these words, whereas the liberal “left” elite tends to say it more directly.

We do not agree that people without education are stupid; in terms of acting in accordance with their interest or not, we find that many middle class people act far more illogically in the political sense. We find that a leftist voting for a rightist because he’s the better of two right-wing people makes far less sense than sleeping all day. We find a lot of basic common sense among ordinary poor people who are fed up with the system and even many who in fact live in societies on its margins. This is not to say that we fetishize them as a revolutionary agent but that we see in reality how much of the educated classes not only actively support the politics of the elites, but also prefer to set themselves apart from and higher than the working poor. The amount of elitism we have encountered recently has truly upset us.

5. Anarchist Organizing and Resistance

We will not vote for or against anybody because the whole system is a complete waste of our time.

The government is used to protect, above all, the private property of the capitalists, and we include state enterprise in this category. To be governed is to lose your voice. To be governed is to hand over your money, the fruits of your labor, to others to do as they want with it. If you are lucky, they may give a shit about some social issues such as health care; if not, they will spend your cash on military operations, sweetheart contracts and themselves. To be governed means losing your rights in a society which is becoming more and more apathetic to what’s going on and more brainwashed by the elites in control of business, the government and the media. To be governed means to place your faith in those who control you and to stop believing in your own ability to self organize. Government is the increasing alienation of people from each other and the triumph of all the forces who intentionally try to break us apart and destroy human solidarity. It is the victory of the fearmongers, and the totalitarians, of the experts and the elites, of the most manipulative and unscrupulous.

We will not vote in the elections because we want to organize together with our peers, with co-workers, neighbours, friends and comrades, and this organization will be according to our principles. The have a long way to go to eliminate hierarchies of experts and leaders, to create and encourage more equally and egalitarian participation, but we want nothing less.

Only when we firmly believe that this is possible can we start to take steps to implement it. We understand fully that, for now, we probably we all accomplish things on a small scale, yet that won’t stop us like it stops the pragmatists who cannot understand the commitment to long term struggle we will have to give. Every small success we have in this area can inspire and spread to others and we can do this now; we do not have to wait until we get an electoral majority to start this work.

L. Akai

The Boycott Election website (in Polish) is www.bojokot-wyborow.org