You can always infer whatever you wish, just like anyone else. If you feel iinsulted, I gladly apologise because it was not my intention to insult you, I had had a lot of respect for you. However, to say to anyone that he is „insulting, unpleasant, or eaten from within” by whatever, is quite an emotional statement; it also seems, erm…, insulting, unpleasant and eaten from within by selfconsuming rage. I was hoping for a debate about politics but, hey, I don’t mind, I still think it was worth it.

Michal: I may be slow, or even stupid, but not so stupid as to think you treated my remarks on Pareto or Schumpeter with the thought or fairness they deserved. But more than all this, I am out of patience with the insults, and the disrespect. I wanted to pay tribute to Fighting Solidarity and Macierewicz. Do we find a Macierewicz in Germany, in France, in Spain or Britain? If it is ridiculous to pay tribute to those in Poland who are opposing the Kremlin, then I will remain ridiculous — even if you sneer at me.

What has been wrong, and what I have imperfectly sidestepped all this while, is best characterized by your last outburst, where you write: „I don’t need lessons from you about respect for thinkers (sic) because the last thing thinkers need is respect.” Call me ignorant or pitiful as you like. Say I am inconsistent, that I know nothing about you. Say, if you will, that I cannot infer from this that you are insulting, unpleasant, or eaten from within by contemptuous thoughts. The impression given in these exchanges is indelible, and may be read by all who have eyes.

That I “exaggerate” and “mischaracterise your views” would be a serious accusation but to say that such tricks are “fundamental to my argument” is indeed difficult to accept. Do you mean “my argument with you”? Or do you mean the argument I put forward in defence of my anticommunism? Either way, this is serious. The trouble is I try not to engage in arguments in (a sense of quarrels) and surely did not engage in one with you. I merely reason. I establish my position and put forward arguments to support it. This position is not sacrosanct, I am prepared to change it and by doing so, to improve my view. To make my views more adequate, I engage in debates, in discussions – “what do you do, sir?” It is generally accepted that to enter into a discussion of someone else’s opinion, one ought to summarise it first, if only to put the point one wishes to make into sharper focus. And thus I never claimed that you uttered the words “Poland is a ray of sunshine on the European firmament”, I merely rephrased your statement (I quote): “Poland is a front line state in the struggle against Russian power, and everything that happens in Poland today is decisive for Europe.” This was my interpretation with a hint of irony: if what happens there is so decisive, than it offers a ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak picture, doesn’t it? But I will gladly apologise if I misunderstood. I would only submit, however, that perhaps you ought to take some blame for this misunderstanding too. Based on what you said, it seemed to me that your views about Poland were based on a misinterpretation of the real situation. When an anticommunist, whom I slavishly translated and published on this very website, says something that I feel opens him to ridicule, should I point it out or should I keep quite? “What would you do, sir?”

As for Yushchenko, this is a different case. Your words were: “Do not despise humble beginnings. Did you know? The president of Ukraine will not go to Moscow.” They were subsequently elaborated on by Serge Kabud and I am probably guilty of putting your views in the same bracket. Mr Kabud saw fit to write as follows on a forum you frequent (and of which, I think, you are an administrator): “This Michael Bakowski CONSTANTLY attacks Yushchenko in his posts. Usually with a probability of 99% that means that the attacker is an enemy; if he is just stupid – it is even worth (sic!).” You did nothing to disassociate yourself from this. (But please do not get me wrong: I’m not saying that you should! I am still to blame.) Would it be an “exaggeration and a mischaracterisation of his views” to say that Kabud defends Yushschenko “passionately”? So, yes, mea culpa, I confused your stance on Yushchenko with Kabud’s. Perhaps you should have made the differences clearer.

But hang on, you clearly misrepresented my views in our debate too. You mischaracterised my opinions many times, only – I’m used to it, I understand the reasons behind it and (in the most) I really don’t mind. I like a robust debate and despise sycophantic choruses of sidekicks so I understand that a summary of one’s position could stray and yet could remain truthful in essence. Intellectual engagement requires that our views should be vivisected, however painful that may be. Some say that a good discussion is a spice of life; I’d say it is the very essence of life. I’d rather debate Pareto and Schumpeter – oh, by the way, you misrepresented what I said about them too – than Kabud or Yushchenko but I find it difficult to understand why you would engage in a debate with someone whom from the first you saw as an ideologue. What the hell for? I wouldn’t! I wouldn’t because I loathe ideology in every shape. Ideology replaces Truth as the object of human enquiry and whether it replaces it with good of the nation of world revolution is equally despicable so never ever enter into discussions with people you regard as ideologues. That I am not an ideologue I do not intend to try and demonstrate.

And finally, Jeff, I really don’t need lessons from you about respect for thinkers (sic!) because the last thing thinkers need is respect. You know nothing about “one” nor “many”, you know nothing about me because the knowledge afforded you by google translate applied to the Foreword of my book is pitifully embarrassing and embarrassingly pitiful so, with all respect, you cannot take me to any task because it simply is beyond you.

But it was pleasure, nonetheless, and I am very grateful. It was – how shall I put it? – interesting…

I yet maintain that Golitsyn’s work is worthwhile and should be promoted in every language; that America is going to suffer a devastating blow, that the decisive battles of the future (like those in the past) will play out in Europe; that Moscow’s plan cannot succeed in achieving its ultimate aim, but will only leave destruction in its wake. Such are the conclusions I have come to, and hold by. At different times I have found different ways to express these conclusions, showing how current developments continue to affirm them. I have long been sickened by the intellectualizing, and the „reifying,” of political concepts which — in the last analysis — are full of sound and fury, yet signify nothing. When our time has passed away, ask yourself what will be remembered, and what will be the result.

It is always an error to say that our situation is all black or all white, that nothing good can come. Yet Mr. Bakowski says „nothing good will come.” He dismisses Pareto as a „sociologist.” He dismisses Schumpeter as erroneous. He lacks respect for these great thinkers, and thereby loses the advantage of knowing them. It seems he relies on one writer, and one thinker, instead of the many whose wisdom may be profitably consulted. He berates me for not knowing ONE. I take him to task for not knowing MANY. My sense of things comes from reading a lot of history, and putting that together with the political and social analysis rooted in history. Bawkoski, however, sounds like an ideologist. And that has, indeed, rubbed me the wrong way from the first.

I’m not sure about this „slowly inching”, though. The process seems to have gathered some speed. You are right, I will fight the commies whoever they are and wherever they are. I guess, so would you. The trouble is that your definition of what constitutes communism is so narrow that it excludes people like Putin or Ahmadinejad. So sadly, you again are correct, I don’t envisage visiting Moscow or Kiev, or Warsaw for that matter, in the near future.

You were very diplomatic in avoiding to mention „pessimism”. So how is it now? After his unexpected turn to optimism, does Nyquist still make you suicidal?

I don’t think Jeff and Michal completely agree about who exactly that enemy is.

I think that if Communists were in charge in Washington and anti-Communists were in charge in Moscow, Jeff’s patriotism would prevent him from joining anti-Communist ranks. Jeff’s essential problem is that he cannot understand that nationalism is one of Communism’s many manifestations. One cannot be both a nationalist and an anti-Communist.

And that’s why Jeff defends people like Yuschenko with such a passion. But the real reson he defeds Yuschenko has less to do with Yuschenko’s Communist or anti-Communist symathies (real or alleged). For Jeff, Yuschenko is clearly anti-Russian and anti-Moscow. And that’s more than enough to support him.

Michal, on the other hand, couldn’t care less if Yuschenko is pro-Russian or anti-Russian. What’s important to him is whether he is pro or anti-Communist. If Communists were in charge in Washington and anti-Communists were in charge in Moscow, Michal wouldn’t hesitate for a second to move to Moscow and work for them.

But Michal has another problem. Even if United States would nationalize its entire economy and closed its borders, while in Russia taxes would be low and there was a perfect press freedom, Michal would still hesitate which country is really Communist based solely on the fact that a Russian president used to work for the KGB, while the American president used to work for the CIA.

Of course, this is a purely theoretical discussion. United States is far from being Communist (although it’s slowly inching in that direction) and Russia definitely doesn’t have press freedom (although its taxes are probably lower now than in United States). So on many issues, Michal and Jeff are in perfect agreement. But it’s just a coincidence.

I really can’t agree with Schumpeter’s remark. Marxism in practice is known as communism. Full stop. Introducing “fascism” into this only fudges the issue although I’d agree that it is of questionable taste. Pareto is even worse but I never expect any insights from sociologists. Ideology is a bastardised view of the world, where the place of Truth, as the ultimate goal of our perception, has been taken by “something else”, be it the good of nation or a class, or even the success of my football club. OK, the last ought not be raised to the level of ideology but it nevertheless well demonstrates a world view where everything is subjected to one idiocy. Pareto’s point is merely true about people that one would not wish to meet in a dark alley but one would not want to meet them anyway, whether they found cover in some distasteful ideology or not.

All this only leads me to a conclusion that I think communism represents much more than the instinct of periodic plunder. Much more. And is much more evil than that.

You had a wrong impression. You are actually the best example of the harm done by the publication of Golitsyn because you now mistakenly think that today’s Poland is somehow a “ray of sunshine on the European firmament”. No, it isn’t. It is a sovietised creature, a pure continuation of “polish people’s republic” but much stronger – stronger in the support of people like Macierewicz. Never, ever, did I equate Macierewicz with Yushchenko, though. One was an anti-establishment figure under commie rule, the other, Yushchenko, is a member of what Ukrainians brilliantly call “demokratura”, i.e. the old soviet “nomenklatura” with pseudo-democratic veneer. The alleged spats between him and Yanukovich, between Timoshenko and him are nothing but a re-run of the old “power-struggles” played out on the Kremlin and in every other commie capital for the benefit of silly Western journalists and the so-called “sovietologists” who made a decent career out of observing this nonsense.

You say above that I have “conceded that ‘perhaps after all Nyquist is right….’ Indeed, it would be difficult for him to argue that Yushchenko is Moscow’s loyal agent after they poisoned him. Better to retreat on this issue than appear ridiculous.” I invite you to read that passage again, it has irony written all over it, but it is also an attempt at considering all options; the words you chose to quote are surely not the final conclusion, so to call it a “positive statement” is a bit OTT.

Would it really be so difficult to argue that Yushchenko is Moscow’s agent after they poisoned him? Would it? Commies often put pressure on people who they expect to break, persecute those, who are close to them in order to turn them into loyal servants or use them in any other way. Do I have to mention Trotsky, Bucharin, Zinoviev etc.? They also persecute people to create their myth, as heroic opponents of the evil oppressors; personages such as Adam Michnik or Vaclav Havel spring to mind. They are good examples but for Yushchenko’s case there is a better analogy: Gomułka. The only problem is that if one was to limit one’s knowledge of Gomułka, and his role in forming the long term strategy, to Wikipedia or google translate – than God help us!

My point about Yushchenko and Saakashvili is this: I DO NOT KNOW whether they are loyal Moscow’s servants but there is enough information about them in the public domain to warn me that they could be just another pair of frontmen in the soviet game plan; enough info to be cautious about them.

Fuss? Hullabaloo? No, just an old-fashioned, full-blooded debate. Where should we discuss our differences if not in The Underground? Who should we debate with if not with those we fundamentally accept? Debating anything with people of fundamentally opposing views is actually a waste of time, it’s like playing tennis over an abyss, it’s hardly satisfying. When you say to a leftie that Hitler was on the Left of the political spectrum, all they ever reply is: „oh, no he wasn’t!” I don’t find Punch & Judy shows a high class entertainment.

On the other hand, debating finer points of our views with people who fundamentally agree with us, is extremely rewarding because it allows us to fine tune our own thinking. It also allows us to further our own understanding – and that after all, is the real purpose of intellectual engagement.

But your last point is the most relevant: we should fight the common enemy. This is the crux of the matter: what do I care if some numskulls propose Yushchenko as an anticommunist? What’s that to me? There are lots of them out there and I am happy to ignore them. But Jeff Nyquist?! Darek Rohnka was so astounded by this sudden change that he said to him clearly: “In last article [“Common usage…”] you wrote that Mr. Bąkowski, who would seem dismissive of Macierewicz and Kaczyński, should explain his stance. I have no idea what he is planning to do, but I think his stance does not require as much explanation as yours because, to my mind, you seem to have changed your viewpoint quite radically.”

When Jeff Nyquist ignores ample warning signs, it matters. It matters because if he can accept people such as Yushschenko as genuine than, ironically, there is probably no hope at all. Which, incidentally, is fine by me. If I had much hope, I’d be with Antoni Macierewicz, trying to pull this or that out of the sovietised area. I tried that approach until I realised that it was futile and that all it ever achieves is furthering of soviet goals. So, as things stand, I am in The Underground.

—
By the way, Michal, you write splendidly as well, but why so much fuss over Jeff’s optimism? His logic seems perfectly reasonable to me. It doesn’t appear that Jeff is married to his optimism either. Why so much hullabaloo when you both agree on the essentials and work to fight the same enemy?

I think you have missed the point. My opinions about Macierewicz have not changed since 1992 and my point was that you could not possibly have known that nor, by implication, have judged that. You don’t know what I thought, where, if at all, I published it, and yet you see fit to pronounce that I have retreated… I have not and see no reason to do so. I hope you will agree it is rather strange or, to quote from a living classic: „It is very human, but nonetheless egregious to use a simplistic formula to judge…” Yeah, it is very human so perhaps you should be forgiven.

If I understand you correctly you are prepared to assess my position based on rather flimsy knowledge of that position. This is a bit as if you were trying to speak with authority about a book written in another language, which you do not possess (or „have limited ability to read”) on the basis of an unauthorised and incoherent translation of a part of the Foreword conveniently published on the internet. This rates, in my book… Oh, well, let’s say that it rates very low. Frankly, I’d rather you didn’t.

Now to Macierewicz. The position is much less complicated than you suggest. Macierewicz earned many people’s respect in the Seventies and Eighties. His work in establishing KOR was unfortunately hijacked by others, individuals such as Michnik and Kuroń, the “false opposition”, ex-party members, declared communists, revisionists etc. Macierewicz was prepared to work with them to defend workers thrown out for protesting in 1976 but he knew all along that there were fundamental differences between these Leftists (they called themselves the „lay left”) and the group surrounding him with strong roots in Catholic scouting movement.

In 1989 he did not (at least ostensibly) accept the secret talks, which led to the formation of the current “third republic” and yet in 1991 he joined the Government. As a commentator by the name of Mark ironically points out under my text (The Third Echeleon): “perhaps he didn’t take part in round table talks simply because no one invited him?” Then they DID invite him and off he went.

He had some credit in our eyes, otherwise, neither Darek Rohnka nor I, would have ever written to him. If it wasn’t for that basic respect, he would not have been the addressee of our open letter; we do not intend to correspond with the Yushschenkos and Wałęsas of this world. But “gentle chastisement”? No, there was nothing gentle about our open letter. There is nor room for gentility here, and I can assure you that I will always be as forthright as possible in questions as fundamental as this one.

We all know that road to hell is paved with best intentions. But it is also littered with sloppy analysis, full of potholes of “hoping for the best” and hasty conclusions. Please, let’s not go down that road.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that Macierewicz means well, but he is making mistakes. This rates, in my book, as „chastisement,” though it is „gentle chastisement.” To say that someone means well is often the prologue to saying that he has done ill. And certainly, you credit him with more than one mistake.

Jeff Nyquist does not know what or where I have written about Antoni Macierewicz. His comments above on the subject are, therefore, by definition, misleading. I hope Nyquist is not one of those people – there’s plenty of them everywhere these days – who would form an opinion without any foundation. Surely, he would not judge a book by its Foreword. Or would he?