In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

319 Document No. 57: Notes of Solidarity National Coordinating Commission Conference in gdańsk July 24, 1981 In the period after the Ninth PUWP Congress, the Solidarity leadership continued to face fundamental questions about what direction the union should take and what means it should use to achieve its goals. These revealing notes of the first day of debates at the conference describe some of the issues being discussed, such as whether to support self-government in the factories, and, even more importantly, whether to press for Polish national sovereignty or remain a member of the Warsaw Pact. While PUWP critics often accused the party of having no strategic vision, the same might have been said about Solidarity’s leadership in these uncertain times. These notes also convey an interesting suggestion of the dynamics of NCC debates. The Socio-Political Situation in the Country. Workers’ Self-government. Introduction to the discussion by A. Celiński. He says that so far the Union has only addressed its demands to the authorities, leaving the method of meeting these demands to the government. Solidarity was afraid to include the proposal for restructuring the state in their program. Facing the monopolistic position of the ruling party and fearing internal divisions, Solidarity did not want to take any responsibility for the situation in the country. Meanwhile, it was forgotten that the “political game” is based on economic issues. The government did not make any decisions that would allow it to overcome the crisis, which, in Celiński’s opinion, was an element of the game as well as a result of the government’s weakness. Therefore, the original concept failed due to an unjustified faith in the authorities and a belief that they also want reforms. The Union’s demands did not get through to anyone. Celiński believes that at the moment society is very rebellious; anyway, in the area of awareness encouraging such feelings would be a mistake. So far, too much attention has been devoted to emotions, which the NCC should have subordinated to a reasonably established hierarchy of tasks. According to Celiński, emotional attitudes also reveal themselves in the Union’s press, in which too many of the “obsessed ” are employed—those who were silent before August 1980 and who are now trying to “compensate” for that silence. Society accepts their publications with eagerness because they alleviate the stress that accumulated before August. However , it is necessary to assume some hierarchy for Solidarity’s tasks and to undertake concrete actions. Otherwise, in case of a collapse, it will be difficult to answer society ’s question: “What have you done?” So far, a kind of dogma about the NCC’s infallibility has existed, and failures have been blamed on the mistakes of particular 320 individuals; scapegoats have been sought. Meanwhile, rules of action need to be established. For a long time we blamed the system’s flaws on people’s mistakes but after September, after their removal [from office], it turned out that they acted with iron logic. According to Celiński, the Union is self-governing, but it lacks independence because the timing of each of the four most serious conflicts so far has been determined by the authorities. The Bydgoszcz provocation proved the existence of centers striving for confrontation within the authorities, but the organizers and coordinators of the provocation have not yet been held responsible. So far, the Union has avoided confrontation thanks to society’s consolidation around Solidarity’s leadership during the crisis, the mediating activity of Church and its hierarchy, and the lack of another acceptable political conception for the country. However, the Union is becoming weaker after every crisis. After each crisis, personal disputes emerge among the leaders about strategies for overcoming the crisis, despite the fact that these ideas do not differ greatly. Celiński says that although in the past he was against revealing what went on inside the NCC, he now thinks that the motives behind the decisions that have been made should be open to the public. The activity of the Union’s leadership declines after each conflict; the authority they have gained is wasted. And so, for instance, after the Bydgoszcz conflict no one managed to show society what, in Celiński’s opinion, was most important—that Solidarity and not the authorities was the sole factor responsible for the future of the country. Celiński says that the economic apparatus of the country and, to a lesser extent, the...

Share