Jan Bisztyga, 2. 6. 1987, ?

TranscriptPlease note that this transcript is based on audio tracks and doesn't have to match exactly the video

You are in charge of propaganda and cultural affairs at the central committee. It must be a difficult task in a country which is overwhelmingly Catholic.

We should have the knowledge that Poland has always pluralistic society is considered ideological problems and if somebody is not respecting it, he's making two errors. We after the 1981... We are building the concept of our information, our propaganda based on the knowledge about thepluralistic society. Of course, there is not... Of course there is... You mentioned the church influence, but not only church. We have the influence of the full information going on from abroad. We have the pluralistic press. It seems to me that the pluralistic press in Poland is much more different as a pluralistic way that in the West, if we take under consideration the communist press and the Catholic press, if you will take under consideration differences... Thus, there are even much broader...

Is much broader?

Is much broader than in some Western countries. So what is the issue of it? First. To give full information whatever is possible to give to the people, especially the information showing the different aspects on the problem. So for example, you could notice that our TV, our radio is giving a lot of information that a lot of people are not agreed with, is complaining, is discussing and so on. Second problem, what is the most important that we are coming to the conclusion we know about is the form of new information. This is a very important aspect of the satisfying of the people by this information. If you're just sitting in the TV and saying to somebody, it is the form that some people are not respecting it, they are not. They are not approving. Some people, they want to have not only a different view, but also in form much more admissible to the concerns of the people. So, for example, a young generation, they want to have very quick information, information that is going just immediately after the events. So I would like to tell you that there is the policy of our department in central committee. So it means to give to the people as much as possible variety of information. It means full information. Second, to pay attention to the form of information and the third to pay attention to the speed of information. Who is giving the first information is right. I would like to tell you there is the rule that there is in the West as a principle respected. Also the same we want to obtain...

Who decides what kind of information can be published or not?

Chief of redactor or journalist. Or these people who are owner of this press because we have not private owners, but the press belong to different organizations. So I would like to tell you there is not true that the decision about who is giving some information is centralized and especially in the central committee, it is not true. What Central Committee is doing is giving some guidelines as concern the concept of the commenting, informations. I would like to tell you focusing on some problems, and I would like to tell you that I notice in the West you have the same even better stimulation or direction of the press that we have. But it is not true that in our country or any now socialist country, there is the stiff decision what could be published or what could be not published. I would like to see very small problems is considered by the censorship, very small amount. I would like to tell you that even it is not possible to say what is the percentage, per mill and not the percentage when the censorship is intervening. What is the main problem of censorship? There is not the internal problem I would like to tell you. There is a mainly the problem of our alliances. There is the problem of our foreign policy and there is a problem of moral aspect. No more.

There seems to be a retreat there for the party from ideological control the way it functioned before. There seems also to be a certain retreat of the party from the economic sphere. How does one square that with the idea of the leading role of the party, that the party should guide the society?

It seems to me that it is completely untrue what you say. The party is retreating from the from the sphere of influence on the ideology, especially on the economy. But problem is there is quite different means of influencing of it. Party don't want to interfere in detail aspects. Party has lines of political and ideological activity. And this line is followed by the people who are responsible for different areas, for different spheres of activity, ideological of economical. And I would like to tell you that problem, not belong if some gentlemen belong to party or not. If he's able to lead the group that easily, if he is able to manage of the industry or other organisation of economy, that the problem of the policy party. So it means not direct influence, not direct how to say, manoeuvring by hands, but to lead by the people able people, there are... They have the possibility to fulfill the policy, the guidelines of the party in their concrete activity.

So they their role is to implement the policy...

Exactly.

The party gives the policy, their role is to... the political participation is in the implementation of the party voice.

You are right.

Now you've just returned from the Soviet Union.

Yes.

What is your impression about the reforms there and what is, of course, their relevance to what is going on here?

If you allow me first, I will start from differences. It seems to me that what's going on in Soviet Union there is the fact of very deep analysts of the leadership of Soviet Union made in the last few years. You could feel when you are in Soviet Union and you are talking with different people, how deep analyzed they made of all skill of political, economical, social life in Soviet Union. I would like to tell you that they are very critical, but I must say they always are constructive also to the past. So it means nobody in Soviet Union is saying - what it was before, everything was wrong. And what it is now and will be in the future, there will be the bright resolvement. They have this, how to say, very logical approach to the processes, the process has the beginning. They have not beginning and they have not end. And they are cooling like the river. It seems to me that there is the effect of the intellectual work, intellectual activity that in Soviet Union long time ago they started.

So it's inspiration for you.

Exactly. Considering the situation in Poland. Our changes, our reforms were arranged in a very difficult situation. In very difficult situation, not due to the economical situation or difficulties and so on, but also some internal pressure that was from different, different forces. We were in this time, for example, when we started the economic reforms in very difficult situation. We were not this regulate economy. We had not stabilized situation... political situation in our country. We have immobilized big group of society. So I must say that our reforms, they have some stigma of difficulties that we had till now. Problem...

Your reforms come from below, whereas Gorbachev's reform comes from above.

Exactly. So that the reason that if you now saying that we are on the same wave of changes now we are closing to each other due to the policy of party in Poland, we are leading of intellectual process what to do in the future. So it means to lead the changes in our country in the future. So I would like to say you that my impression now that now we are in the situation when we are closer to each other as concerns the future resolving of the problems in the sphere of economy, in the sphere of rebuilding the party, of reconstructing the party, of the changes in the sphere of ideology and so, and so...

How do you assess the strengths of the opposition in Poland and is it a serious challenge for the party today?

First, your question, it seems to be, is not correct. You use the word strength. I would like to say nothing offensive today to these people. That's my call to say approach. But when I'm looking at their of their activity, it seems to me that they're all... what they are doing, they behavior like generals, They have the [inaudible]... they have no army. That the problem of the situation in Poland, they could give the orders, you know, they could write the appeal and so on. These people have no soldiers to be successive and that's the situation in our country. They lost the workers. Now in Poland there is reverse what said Gramsci. Workers start to believe what party is doing. I would like to give you some, some my experience. Workers on the meeting of the party, they are very critical. They are very, how to say, sometimes even aggressive about the activity of the party. And I would like to tell you - a few weeks ago, I had such a meeting with the workers of the Silesia and they were very critical about different things in Poland, especially in the sphere of economy. And so. And I would like to tell you, they were so critical Then some moment of this discussion, I became a little bit sad. Probably I lost, you know, the temper side was silent and probably it was visible in the in the audience, one of the workers said: Mr. Bisztyga, don't worry. We are criticize you... We are criticize you as we are criticizing our wives, because they are our wives and you we the right to criticize. The same.. our approach is to our party. So I would like to tell you now we have the situation that is completely reversed. What it was a few years ago. Workers criticize the party from the side. Now they're criticizing many problems, including the party, taking under consideration that they are in... What they are saying is respected by the policy of the party.

But we've also seen many workers in the churches, we've been in Nowa Huta and we've seen the workers at mass...

I would like to tell you, I would like to tell you that it does not means that the workers are against the policy of the party or the workers are against the party. I would like to tell you that now we have eight and point three millions of workers. Six millions of these workers, these are the first generations workers. So it means they came from the village in the first generation and they came to the town. I would like to tell you that they pass to the town, all behavior that there is in the village, you notice in Nowa Huta. People that are going to... Yes, of course. I would like to tell you that among these people probably there are the members of the party, too.

So one can be a good communist and a good catholic.

Exactly. Could be, especially if he's a worker.

So does it mean you have a historical compromise between the party and the church?

There is not the question of the historical compromise because we are respecting what the reality in Poland is. Probably the children. We had a quite different view what the father they have, probably grandchildren. They have quite different, you know, [inaudible] that their grandfather have. So we are looking for the evolution for the process that should go in Poland and is going on in Poland. So what is the most important the policy of the party that we are Marxist and as you know, probably in the United Kingdom, you have much better admission to the original what Marx said. He said that in Marxism there is a method, nothing more. In Marxism there is a method of critical analysis of the real facts. So we are analyzing of the real facts and towards the real facts we are directing our policy. So I'm not... I'm sorry to say, I don't see the controversy. What you ask me if there is the member of the party and he is going to the church and that he is building socialism, there is no controversy in it.

But there is a contradiction between the values of Marxism and the values of Christianity of the Catholic Church.

As concerns the workers. He's not thinking in this category what you what you mentioned to me. He's thinking in the category of good man or bad man, for him to be member of the party. There is to be good worker, to be good citizen, to be good man toward his surrounding. And when he is going to the church, I cannot see. I would like to judge what he's thinking. I would like to tell you that the majority of the people that are going to the church just as the element of his culture, as his belonging to the Polish culture. And I would like to tell you that we are respecting this fact. This situation, probably once again, I'm saying probably it will be changed after generation. It is not possible, I would like to tell you, in any structure.

But that was the initial hope in the 1950s when Nowa Huta was built, they thought there was a new worker will be... will come into being. He will drop the Catholic Church. And 30 years after they had Solidarity, which started towards the strike and a mass.

Maybe that there were such a people that they thought that it is possible to just to screw one head and to screw the second one and everything will be OK. But I would like to tell you that never we thought in the category, that building the socialism, there is just the acts. So it means to build a Nowa Huta and immediately people will be changed there. We never thought in the category... Maybe that there were people that thought in this category, they were primitive. History shows that they are primitive. Maybe there is the cost of our learning. Maybe. Because, as you could notice in Poland, what is the most characteristic now that you are not thinking in the category of facts changed immediately, just acts that are... tomorrow are giving the facts. We are thinking in the category of processes sometimes very painful, sometimes requiring time, and that the problem that you could notice in our party now is as the rule of activity of communism in Poland.

How did the Party recover after the Solidarity crisis of 1981?

Crisis in Poland covered all the sphere of political, economic and social life. So, including the Party, affected also the Party. Visible aspect of these difficulties: it was about one million Party members quit the party, majority of them there were the workers. That means workers reacted angrily. Some even said they were betrayed by Party. You could notice that Gramsci once he wrote that when the worker is feeling that his party is not representing his interest, he is quitting the party and immediately he's creating the new party. And ideology of this new party, always is syndicalist. You could say that if Gramsci lived now, he could see that Poland was example of his theory. We could say now that crisis in the Party is…

In other words, workers are responsible of the failure of the Party, then?

I wouldn’t like to say a failure of the Party. I would like to say that it is the normal reaction of the workers when the Party is making the errors. There is not a question of failure, failure of the Party is when Party don't want to admit that it is true what workers are saying. As you could notice at the 9th Congress of the Party, we analyse very thoroughly these situations. Especially the relation between the workers and Party. And then, it was said, it seems to me, a crucial phrase. Workers reactions, it was not against the socialism. It was a reaction against the lack of socialism. I must say that it was a basis for the policy of the Party. So, it means to look for what is this lack of the socialism in Poland? What was the lack of socialism? I must say that most important, it was not the economic problems. You could compare what was living condition in ‘79 and what was the living condition now. You could say the ‘79 people live much better than now. And then, in ‘79, people started to react angrily due to the lack of resolving many political problems in our country. Problems that compose the evolution of the system, the influence on the evolution of the system. If I could enumerate what problems are put into this process of evolution of the system, you allow me to say in such a, how to say? I'm sorry - kolejność, in such a sequence. [you could cut afterwards] First, there is evolution of the system in democratisation of it. We in Poland, we are very attached to the democratic system of the government. Democratic system of the dealing between the power and the society.

But what's your definition of what is the nature of democracy?

That people decide about themselves in all spheres of life, starting from the politics, economy, social life, and so on.

Not the Party? The people?

So there's not a question in Party. Party is representing the people. Representing of the members and what is the most important, that if Party want to lead any nation, it must respect what people want. At least must first listen but, indispensably must follow what the people want to have.

So in 1980, the Party failed to listen?

Exactly. Exactly. Seems to me that was most important blame of the workers – Party didn't listen to people.

But was it better equipped to listen after December of 1981?

It seems to me that people shouted much more loudly. So, that’s first and second, it was the reaction of the workers that they will not tolerate of such a concept of the ruling, of governing by the Party without listening what people want. I would like to tell you that I have a very critical approach to political sciences. That's, I know what they mean in our country, but I must tell you that I have respect to one scientific work that was done by our Agricultural Academy. Then it was doctor dissertation about the constructing of the green area in the town. And then it was presented two method. One method, it was, I mean just to put it in geometrical way, where to link to longest points. And second was such – to just plough the earth, afterwards to see the grass, and do nothing. Just to look where the people are walking, and where the people are walking there to make the way or pass or so on. And it seems to me that now we learn from it, that leading the nation, leading the country, there is not sufficient just to know the rules of geometrical construction of the path. You should to have the idea to plough the Earth afterwards to see the grass, and afterwards to look where the people are going. It seems to me that the problem what I called you listening of the people. And construct of called green area. I must tell you that what is the most important in the policy of Party to recover, It was to establish, re-establish the link between the workers and the policy of Party.

*

We had, what we call the 16th plenary meeting of our Central Committee that was discussed the relations between the working class and the Party, and discuss the policy of the Party to re-establish the link between the masses, if you could say this, or workers and the Party. I would like to tell you that during this plenary meeting it was enumerated four questions that Party should follow to have this link with working class. First, democratisation. Second, full information about the activity of Party and Government. So, what we call the curtain should go up. Now, workers are saying much more, not only curtain. Behind what is, they should to know also. So, it means what in Soviet Union they called glasnost. Poland has quite a different approach. Glasnost in Poland, it means especially the requirement of the workers to know everything – what is the policy of the Party, what is the policy of the of the Government? Third, what they said – reforms, economical reforms. And the fourth what they said is that Party should evolute. Evolute due to the changes of the Polish nation, of their intellectual liability, their knowledge about the world and so on. So now I give you how Party recovered, recovered by the following of the four principles that workers they wanted to obtain it.

You said a million people left the Party. Don't you prefer to have a smaller Party, more homogeneous ideologically, rather than to have a broad Party, but which collapse when the crisis, when the crisis comes?

Yes, of course, we want to have effective Party, as big as possible, as concern unification of the people on the similar ideological, political, political view. We are paying attention to augment the Party by the young workers. I would like to tell you that now, in admission to the Party and newcomers to the Party, we have about 51% of the young people, young workers. So, it means we are very pleased of such a process. But you are right, we are not forcing the admission to the Party, to have big Party and not, how to say, comprehensive in their ideological, ideological…

*

How do you assess the strength of the opposition in Poland and is it a serious challenge for the Party today?

First, your question it seems to me is not correct. You use the word strength. I wouldn’t like to say nothing offendive to these people. That’s my, how to say, approach. But when I’m looking on their activity, it seems to me that all what they are doing, their behaviour, they behave like the generals. They have the [unclear] but they have no army. That’s the problem of the situation in Poland. They could give the orders, you know, they could write the appeal and so on. These people have no soldiers to be successive. And that’s the situation in our country. They lost the workers. Now in Poland there is reverse of what said Gramsci. Workers start to believe what the Party is doing. I would like to give you some my experience. Workers, on the meeting of the Party, they are very critical. They are very, how to say, sometimes even aggressive to the activity of the Party. I would like to tell you few weeks ago I had such a big meeting with the workers on the Silesia and they were very critical about different things in Poland, especially in sphere of economy and so on. And I would like to tell you they were so critical that at some moment of this discussion I became probably a little bit sad. I lost, you know, the temper, so I was silent. And probably it was visible in the audience. One of workers, he said: Mr. Bisztyga, don’t worry, we are criticise you like we are criticise our wives. Because they are our wives and we have the right to criticise. The same our approach is to our Party. So, I would like to tell you now we have the situation that is completely reverse to what it was few years ago. Workers criticised the Party from the side. Now they are criticise many problems, including the Party. Take it under consideration they are in. What they are saying is respected by the policy of the Party.

But we've also seen many workers in the churches, we've been in Nowa Huta and we've seen the workers at mass...

I would like to tell you, I would like to tell you that it does not means that the workers are against the policy of the Party or the workers are against the Party. I would like to tell you that now we have eight and point three millions of workers. Six millions of these workers, they are the first generations workers. So it means they came from the village in the first generation and they came to the town. I would like to tell you that they pass to the town, all behavior that there is in the village, you notice in Nowa Huta pPeople that are going to... Yes, of course. I would like to tell you that among these people probably there are the members of the Party, too.

So one can be a good communist and a good catholic.

Exactly. Could be, especially if he's a worker.

So does it mean you have a historical compromise between the Party and the Church?

There is not the question of the historical compromise because we are respecting what the reality in Poland is. Probably the children will have a quite different view what the father they have, probably grandchildren. They have quite different, you know, [inaudible] that their grandfather have. So we are looking for the evolution for the process that should go in Poland and is going on in Poland. So what is the most important the policy of the Party that we are Marxist and as you know, probably in the United Kingdom, you have much better admission to the original what Marx said. He said that in Marxism there is a method, nothing more. In Marxism there is a method of critical analysis of the real facts. So we are analyzing of the real facts and towards the real facts we are directing our policy. So I'm not... I'm sorry to say, I don't see the controversy. What you ask me if there is the member of the Party and he is going to the church and that he is building socialism, there is no controversy in it. But there is a contradiction between the values of Marxism and the values of Christianity of the Catholic Church. As concerns the workers. He's not thinking in this category what you what you mentioned to me. He's thinking in the category of good man or bad man, for him to be member of the Party. There is to be good worker, to be good citizen, to be good man toward his surrounding. And when he is going to the church, I cannot see. I would like to judge what he's thinking. I would like to tell you that the majority of the people that are going to the church just as the element of his culture, as his belonging to the Polish culture. And I would like to tell you that we are respecting this fact. This situation, probably once again, I'm saying probably it will be changed after generation. It is not possible, I would like to tell you, in any structure.

But that was the initial hope in the 1950s when Nowa Huta was built, they thought there was a new worker will be... will come into being. He will drop the Catholic Church. And 30 years after they had Solidarity, which started towards the strike and a mass.

Maybe that there were such a people that they thought that it is possible to just to screw one head and to screw the second one and everything will be OK. But I would like to tell you that never we thought in the category, that building the socialism, there is just the acts. So it means to build a Nowa Huta and immediately people will be changed there. We never thought in the category... Maybe that there were people that thought in this category, they were primitive. History shows that they are primitive. Maybe there is the cost of our learning. Maybe. Because, as you could notice in Poland, what is the most characteristic now that you are not thinking in the category of facts changed immediately, just acts that are... tomorrow are giving the facts. We are thinking in the category of processes sometimes very painful, sometimes requiring time, and that the problem that you could notice in our party now is as the rule of activity of communism in Poland.

You're in charge of propaganda and culture affairs at the Central Committee. That must be a difficult task in a country which is overwhelmingly Catholic.

We should to have a knowledge that Poland has always pluralistic society is considered ideological problems. And if somebody is not respecting it, he's making two errors. We, after the ’81, we are building the concept of our information, our propaganda, based on the knowledge about the pluralistic society. Of course, there is, you mentioned, the church influence, but not only church. We have the influence of the full information going on from abroad. We have the pluralistic press. It seems to me that the pluralistic press in Poland is much more different as consider pluralistic way that in the West. If we take under consideration the Communist press and the Catholic press, if you will take under consideration differences, there are even much broader…

…is much broader, is much broader than it is in some Western countries. So, what is the issue of it? First, to give full informations. Whatever is possible to give to the people. Especially the information showing the different aspect of the problem. So, for example, you could notice that our TV, our radio is giving lot of information that a lot of people are not agreed with, is complaining, is discussing, and so on. Second problem, what is the most important, that we are coming to the conclusion we know about is a form of information. This is very important aspect of the satisfying of the people by this information. If you just sitting in the TV and saying to somebody, it is a form that some people are not respecting, they are not approving. Some people, they want to have not only different view, but also in form much more admissible to the conscious of other people. So, for example young generation, they want to have very quick information. Information that is going just immediately after the events, so I would like to tell you that that's the policy of our department in Central Committee. So, it means to give to the people as much as possible, variety of information. It means full information. Second, to pay attention to the form of information and the third, to pay attention to the speed of information – who is giving the first information is right, I would like to tell you. There is a rule in the West as a principle respected. Also, the same we want to operate inside.

But who decides what kind of information can be published or not?

Chief of redactor, or journalist, or these people who are owner of this press, because we have not private owners, but the press belong to different organisations. So, I would like to tell you that is not true, that the decision about who is giving some information is centralised and especially in Central Committee, it is not true. What Central Committee is doing, he's giving some guidelines as concern the concept of the commenting, informations. I would like to tell you, focusing on some problems, I would like to tell you that I notice in the West you have the same, even better stimulation or direction of the press that we have, but it is not true that in our country or any now-socialist country there is this stiff decision “what could be published or what could be not publish”. I'd like to tell you very small problems is considered by the censorship, very small amount. I would like to tell you that even if it is not possible to say what is the percentage, per mille not the percentage, when the censorship is intervening. What is the main problem of censorship? There is not the internal problem I would like to tell you. There is a mainly the problem of our alliances, there is the problem of our foreign policy, and there is a problem of moral aspects. No more.

It seems to be a retreat. Therefore, the party from ideological control, the way it functioned before that, seems also to be a certain retreat of the party from the economic sphere. How does one square that with the idea of the leading role of the party, that the party should guide the society?

It seems to be just completely untrue what you said that party is retreating from the sphere of influence on the ideology of the spheres, especially on economy. But problem is there is a quite different means of influencing of it. Party don't want to interfere in detail aspects. Party has lines of political and ideological activity, and this line is followed by the people who are responsible for the different areas, for different sphere of activity, ideological or economical. And I would like to tell you that problem not belong if some gentlemen belong to party or not. If he's able to lead the group, if he is able to manage of the industry or other organisation of economy, that the problem of the policy party. So, it means not direct influence, not direct, how to say, manoeuvring by hands. But to lead by the people, able people, they have the possibility to fulfil the policy, the guidelines of the party in their concrete activity.

So their role is to implement the policies, the party gives the policy, their role is to, the political participation is in the implementation.

Exactly. Exactly. You’re right, you’re right.

Now, you just returned from the Soviet Union.

Yes.

What is your impression about the reforms there and what is, of course, their relevance to what is going on here?

If you allow me first, I will start from differences. It seems to me that what's going on in Soviet Union there is effect of very deep analyse that the leadership of Soviet Union made in last few years. You could feel, when you are in Soviet Union and you are talking with different people, how deep analyse they made. Of all sphere of political, economical, social life in Soviet Union. I would like to tell you that they are very critical. But I must tell you that always they are constructive, also to the past. So, it means nobody in Soviet Union is saying –what it was before, everything was wrong, and what it is now, and will be in the future, that will be the bright result. They have this, how to say, very logical approach to the processes, processes and the beginning. They have not beginning and they have not end, they are cooling like the river. It seems to me that there is the effect of the intellectual or work intellectual activity that in Soviet Union long time ago they started.

So it’s inspiration for you?

Exactly. As considered situation in Poland. Our changes, our reforms were arranged in very difficult situation. In a very difficult situation, not due to the economical situation or difficulties and so on, but also some internal pressure that was from different forces. We were, in this time, for example, when we started the economic reforms, in very difficult situation. We were not this regulate economy. We had not stabilised situation in a political situation in our country. We have immobilised, big group of society. So, I must say that our reforms, they have some stigma off difficulties that that we had till now. Problem…

Your reforms come from below, whereas a Gorbachev's reform comes from above.

Exactly. So that the reason that if we now saying that we are on the same wave of changes now we are closing to each other. Due to the policy of party, in Poland, we are leading of intellectual process – what to do in the future? So, it means to lit the changes in the party in our country in the future. So, I would like to say that my impression now, that now we are in this situation when we are closer each other as concerns the future resolvement of the problems. In the sphere of economy, in the sphere of rebuilding the party, of reconstructing the party, of the changes in the sphere of ideology, and so on, and so on.