‘We are an integral part of workers’ power’

Hungary’s union reply to Solidarity —

At the first part of its congress in
ansk in September, the Polish

| Union Solidarity issued an “appeal to

allworkers of Eastern Europe” calling

'| 9nthem to follow the Polish example.

tade unions of several countries

-_ have replied to Solidarity’s letter. The
| 8ttumn issue of Hungarian Trade

Union News carries the reply of Hun-

| Batian trade unions. Due to its length,
| We are reprinting its key sections.

* * *

: Hungarian workers looked to the con-

[ _ ss with interest. They thought that

ler a year of difficulties, Solidarity

_ Would act in the interests of Polish work-

| Sand Polish society, would contribute

| lo arresting the economic decline and to
-Onsolidating the socialist system.

Unfortunately this was not the case.
congress did not take a position for

-ONciliation, restoration of cooperation,

order and calm.

It raised to programatic level what had
fore only been the demands, of anti-

| SOcialist groups who had taken shelter in

the leadeiship — the complete disruption

Olthe economy and society, creation of a

Political party directed against workers’
PoWer and, finally, dismanteling of the
"conomic and social foundations of
Socialism and the breakaway of Poland
Tom the socialist community.

‘Free’ trade unions

Solidarity’s letter (to us) to follow the
Olish example and ‘‘set up free trade
Unions” (that is: disrupting internal or-

der, breaking down social discipline and
perpetuating misery) is especially offen-
sive. Despite the fact that almost 1.5 mil-
lion Poles visited Hungary this year, the
authors of the message didn’t take the
trouble to visit us.

If they had they would have seen
something of our efforts for advance-
ment, of our economic and cultural
achievements, of our political atmos-
phere and the social relations in which
Hungarians live. :

‘This is based on the work our people

- do, on their often difficult and complex

struggles which take the form of aiding
the attainment of our national economic
goals, of protecting and representing our
members’ interests.

We know from our own experience
workers can only expect improvement in
their situation by their own labor. Our
security in social and material life results
from hard work by millions. Our history
teaches us there is not a single example of
the capitalist class giving disinterested
support to working class struggles.

Solidarity accuses us of not being free
and independent. But from whom and
what should we be free and independent
in a socialist society where workers hold

power?

Whose interests?

Should we be independent of the work-
ing class which built the unions to repre-
sent and defend its own interests? Should
we be independent from the working
class which shook off capitalist exploita-
tion and took power?

We are an integral part of workers’
power. We operate independently and
freely, with the commitment and social
responsiblity of participation in this
power.

Under socialist conditions, opposition
— and that’s what Solidarity’s message
meant — means opposition to workers’
power and the interests of our people.
But we struggled for a century to win
power. And today, at great cost and
sacrifice, when we have power, should
the trade unions turn against it? Whose
interest would this serve?

Solidarity’s leaders don’t understand
our conditions and how we work. They
are not informed that we operate with full
freedom, with full legal and political
guarantees. -

We consider the strike a senseless tool
because it cannot obtain satisfaction of
demands where material conditions do
not exist. In Hungary decision cannot be
made anywhere on matters concerning
our members without the unions.

A sense of
responsibility

We exercise our freedom of opinion
and action without restriction. We de-
bate, criticize, support or reject ques-
tions and proposals. In our country, re-
spect for reality, commitment to work-
ers’ power and a sense of responsibility
for it are expected of our unions. Without
this, we would achieve nothing — how-
ever loudly we proclaimed our views.

Our attitude has been, and is, guided

by responsibility for the cause of social-
ism. Let there be no doubt about this. We
are militants of the international labor
and trade union movement. We cooper-
ate with all who serve the unity of this
movement, human progress, and the
cause of socialism and peace.

We say this to make it clear: Solidarity
has sent its message to the wrong place.

‘We can’t understand how Solidarity,
with barely one year’s experience, is able
to send messages and dispense advice

_ with such confidence as though it has

decades of successes behind it.

Lack of modesty

It can hardly point to achievements or
hold itself up as an example. Un-
fortunately, a lack of madesty customary.
in the labor movement and, above all, a
misguided goal, must have prompted the

-‘tappeal to workers of Eastern Europe’’.

Or does it serve interests and goals far
from and contrary to socialism? Hunga-
rian trade unions are not partners in this.

Our unions support all honest aspira-
tions and actions aimed at overcoming
the Polish crisis, at strengthening work-
ers’ power and socialism and in advanc-
ing its achievements.

We are convinced the overwhelming.
majority of Polish workers and intellec-

tuals support socialism. Their work and |

efforts can be the basis for overcoming
the crisis. It would give Hungarian work-
ers the greatest satisfaction to see their
Polish class brothers and sisters find a
way out.

INTERNATIONAL FOCUS

By TOM MORRIS

Generosity
beyond belief

“There’s a growing feeling
We've done our share,’’ one
Western diplomat is quoted,
Tefering to the $230-million in
“humanitarian aid’? donated
by western states to Kam-

Puchea’s emergency relief

fund since 1979.

The remark concerns future
Contributions by western
agencies to the ongoing inter-
National work to help put
Kampuchea back on its feet
following four years of Khmer
Rouge genocide and years be-
fore that of war damage by the
United States. It seems some
Western states are losing inter-
€st in the problem.

_ There isn’t a concerned ob-
Server anywhere who is not
familiar with what Kampuchea
Suffered: a devastated
€conomy, 4 million killed,

Infrastructure dismantled in a

aoist experiment beyond de-
Scription. ; ;

The $230-million was cer-
tainly welcome. But compared
to the problem, or to the capa-
City of ‘‘western states’’ to as-
Sist, the sum is paltry.

The figure represents what it

Costs to build one twenty-sixth

_ Of one Trident sub. It’s 80% of

What is being spent to re-fit the
SS New Jersey, a30 year-old
battleship. ;

Fortunately, the figure is
what western agencies spent,
not the total of aid received by
Kampuchea from its socialist
friends, which, by the way, 1s
not being cut back.

There’s something else: The
U.S. government which
flattened the country under
B-52 raids, hasn't given a
dime. China, under whose

‘We've done our share ...’

direction the Khmer Rouge did
its work, hasn’t give a renmin-
bi.

‘More: China, the U.S. and
other western states have
blocked UN recognition of the
present Kampuchean govern-
ment. They (Canada included)
still recognize the butcher Pol

sel Hele:

Chinese and U.S. money
finance the Khmer Rouge
bands roving the
Kampuchea-Thai border.
These two nations lead the at-
tack on Vietnam.

It is to be hoped that western
agencies will continue, even
step up, their economic aid to
Kampuchea. But if any think
that aid will buy Kampuchean
independence or subvert its
government, they should spare
themselves the effort.

A wooden beast
without a brain

The critic of Reagan’s “‘tax
cut’’ plan said it was a Trojan
horse’’ designed to help
America’s wealthy. He told
reporters it was poorly man-
aged, hastily enforced and ig-
nored ‘‘blatant inefficiency”’
by the military.

‘*Hell, I think there’s a kind

of swamp of $10- to $20- to°

$30-billion worth of waste that
can be ferreted out if you really

- seniors’

push hard. But the Pentagon
got a blank check ... they got
so goddamned greedy that they
got themselves strung way out
there on a limb,”’ he charged.

Was this critic U.S. Com-
munist Party leader Gus Hall?
Or AFL-CIO chief Lane Kirk-
land? Was it a spokesperson
for chopped-up medicade,
education, environmental or
programs? Was it
Johnny Carson?

The outspoken (for a mo-

ment) critic was Reagan’s.

Budget Director David Stock-
man, the “*bright, young archi-
tect’’ of Reagonomics, talking
to Atlantic Monthly Magazine.

When the article was pre-
viewed by White House
troubleshooters, all hell broke
loose. Called before The Pres-
ence, Stockman quickly re-
canted. He told Reagan his
comments were ‘‘careless
ramblings”’ and, in what must
have been a touching scene,
likened ‘himself to the Trojan

horse, ‘‘a wooden beast with- ~

out a brain...”

Stockman grovelled some
more, thanking Reagan ‘‘for
this second chance’’ to keep
his job.

Interestingly, the substance
of the criticism didn’t come up,
only Stockman’s disloyalty.
Sighs of relief, however, were
heard throughout the admin-
istration. Commented’ one

so S.2 yl not
Nicaragua, replied: ‘“‘No, I

senior White House official:
‘“The decision was made
Stockman should be saved.
He’s the only one we’ve got
who really knows the bud-
gets?

The comedy continues.

The velvet glove
or the iron fist

Nicaragua seems to be an
obsession with Washington.
Speaking to a convention of
realtors (who else?), vice-
president Bush appealled to
Nicaragua to return to the fold.
*“‘Join the community of free
America’s,’ the former CIA
chief urged.

Decades of the Somozas we-
ren’t enough, Bush figures.
The ‘‘community of free
America’s’? he touts is
Pinochet's Chile, Duvalier’s
Haiti, or the torture chamber
called Uruguay.

It’s Duarte’s El Salvador
and Seaga’s Jamaica. It’s the
other U.S. ‘‘friends”’ including
the drug merchants who run
the regime in Colombia.

And in case the Sandinistas

don’t like the velvet glove, |

they can have the iron fist. Sec-
retary of State Haig, asked if
he would give assurances the
invade

would not give you such an as-
surance.”’

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—NOV. 27, 1981—Page 9

1