Whistle Green organization leaders at the CODE demonstration showed that social inequality and class divisions are the largest taboo of the 3rd Republic. On another issues, considerable advancement has been made over the past fewer years.
Still in 2005, the failure to be Catholic was perceived as an insult to the large Pole. Urban's conviction for insulting the Pope with a final judgement in 2006 was approved by all media. And today, please, the same media can even, ho ho, criticize the teaching of the Church (happyly unaware that the conviction of 10 years ago created a dangerous precedent).
Even more interesting evolution has taken place on LGBT rights (I know there have late been any fresh letters, but forgive me for sticking to this version). In 2005, Father Oko's obsessions were inactive considered acceptable in public discourse, even his manifesto was printed in “Electoral”.
At that time, the most extremist option of tolerance was to “let them exist, so that they do it in secret at home and not flaunt it” (this is Polish liberalism). anno 2007!). Today, the attitude of “do it at home in secret” continues to draw the line, but now the another 1 – a moher-conservative one, due to the fact that Father Oko flew out of mainstream.
In this case, then, we have undoubtedly made progress. A left limited exclusively to widely understood vice will be welcome in the media, crucial editors will come into her manifes and parades, her representatives will be invited to comment on current events.
But individual say something, let's say it's about redistribution or class divisions. The Wuwuzele will do “wiuu!”.
In this respect, there is simply a regression alternatively of progress. In the 1995 election campaign, Aleksander Kwasniewski suggested introducing a fresh (fourth) taxation rate for the best earners. His successor Leszek Miller introduced a linear taxation for entrepreneurs, and PiS deleted the 3rd rate.
And here, which is peculiarly interesting to me, there are no differences between Kaczyński, Petru, Schetyna or Nowacka. The legend of the "social sensitivity of the PiS" is simply a legend. After all, the 500+ programme was besides designed so that the mediocre childless would fall on the household SUV for the mediate class with 3 children.
His social discourse of the Law and Justice is designed as if class divisions did not exist. The origin of poorness is always the invisible System, which is yet oppressive. Roman Kluska, as well as the cleaning woman in Optimus.
So there is never any specified “take the rich to give to the poor”. This is de facto inverse, specified as taxation advantages for the wealthiest and withdrawing from promises that the poorest would benefit from (e.g. expanding the tax-free amount).
We pay as a society the price for letting ourselves believe that class divisions were in the 19th century, and now they are something obsolete. “Everybody has a chance to succeed”, it is simply a continuous message of neoliberal media, which thus raised the electorate of PiS – voters convinced that they would win if only the Pact stopped harassing them and the state supported Polish entrepreneurship.
The only social division that can be spoken of without violating the taboo is the division between “transformation beneficiaries” and “transformation victims”. The division was meaningless due to the fact that everyone gained something in the transformation and they all lost something, but in the case of most of us, our current position on class ladder III of Poland was determined by the position on class ladder PRL of our or our parents.
Therefore, since “everyone has a chance of success”, the logical conclusion of individual who has not achieved success is more or little imaginary self-identification in a function “damaged by transformation”. However, the fact is highly archenemy: NOT EVERYONE CAN TAKE SUCCESS.
It's just that taboo works just like that, you don't talk about an elephant in a room, and that's it. Hence the anger of the cool Poles from the CODE on the Green organization activists who raised the forbidden subject.
If I had a tenner for all publicist text of the kind “Party Together Should Join the CODE”, I would be a successful man (especially that for a dry man “should be called Separate, le hurr de le durr” you should have a double stake). Interesting in these texts is the asymmetry: the claims are only to Together, but there is never a question whether the CODE provides for cooperation with anyone another than “people of success” like Giertych, Petru or Nowacka.
We already know not so much. But the alternate is simple – or it will adapt to this adviceor lose as the opposition in Hungary.
