In the last parliamentary elections, like a individual with leftist views, I did not vote for the alleged left, or fresh Left and Together. I voted for Law and Justice due to the fact that this party, alongside Together, is the only leftist organization in Poland, i.e. based on a social model in opposition to neoliberal, which requires community thinking, not individualist thinking. After all, under the slogan "Polish solidarity, not liberal" the Law and Justice won the first elections, which should not be forgotten, and took power from the hands of the absolutely discredited Civic Platform.
In my university-intelligence environment, my voice is always surprising. What do you mean? Do you vote for "conservation"? Do you support homophobic language and abortion bans until week 12? I have heard these questions so many times, and almost never without genuine curiosity, and always with a barely hidden instruction that I have decided to compose about why a leftist is voting for the Law and Justice.
Why didn't I vote for the left?
Firstly, due to the uncritical approach to the European Union, which is reflected in the general approach and in the individual actions. The Left does not see an economical game of interest on the part of Germany, among others, believing that our national interest is always in line with the European Union's interest: we carry out the latter, we carry out Polish. Left-wing policy, if it wants to be effectively pursued, must be based on a strong, efficient, independent and sovereign state (so far as I think there is no better solution).
The Left voted in favour of the federalisation of national states, which I consider to be wrong. The left almost all and frequently apt criticism of the European Union's actions on the part of the Law and Justice sees it as Germanophobia, claiming that the enemy is on the East, not on the West. Of course this is the case, but it should not be uncritical of all the actions of Brussels, as it frequently pursues the interests of the strongest countries at the expense of the smaller and/or weaker ones. An example is the German policy conducted above our heads and our part of Europe (Nord Stream).
Secondly, which is connected to the above, the left did not recognise the threat from Russia, which recognized the Law and Justice, especially in the individual of president Lech Kaczyński. It was only after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2022 that she began to change her "pacifist" optics, in which the issue of safety was frequently brought to safety on the road (by the way, it was the Law and Justice that introduced improved security), due to the fact that "war will not be." More crucial than the army was to build kindergartens. In this sense, the PiS was for them, as well as for KO, rusophobes. The reality of Russia's actions has given PiS the right.
The 3rd issue is the credulity in the liberal media transmission, e.g. in relation to migration. Shortly after the election, an article by writer “Gazeta Wyborcza” Małgorzata Tomczak was published, in which she explicitly admitted that for a long time journalists “made false knowledge”, i.e. they simply lied about the crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border. Even after it was clearly said that they were lying, and it is apparent that it is an component of the hybrid war, 1 of the MPs of the left, and so it did not change its humanitarian optics, which although noble (that is what Putin and Lukashenko are using) is simply dangerous. Migrant on the Polish-Belarusian border is simply a hybrid entity, which makes it hard to make decisions on a either-or-or basis (it may even be impossible to work out a solution that reconciles the "humanitarian narrative" and the "safety-oriented narrative".
Fourthly, the Left lacks any Community narrative, although it declares social solidarity etc. In the statements of her politicians, there is simply a barely hidden aversion to patriotism and attachment to tradition (some even a minimum patriotic) at the expense of praising everything that seems to be progressive and modern, or "western", and yet individualistic, and covering mainly alleged worldview issues. This is an appropriate issue He utilized to play. Remigius Okraska. I have very akin observations. I believe that a Community narrative, and in a way patriotic, understood as a concern for its country, is essential for its survival. On the occasion of the war in Ukraine, it is evident that any men of draft age, for bribes, flee from the defence of their country. Just walk down the streets of Wrocław to see how many healthy Ukrainians live here in draft age). Experts following the war in Ukraine indicatethat the army of this country consists mostly of men of mediate age (40 plus). A country cannot be defended without human resources, determined to defend a country. For this reason (of course more of them exist), it is very likely that Ukraine will lose the war, just as any country whose enemy has a greater morale or can force the force of its citizens to fight (as Russia does). The war in Ukraine shows that a country that wants to face the attack must not only have a good army, but besides reserves capable of replacing the regular army, as it will perish. Without the return of compulsory military service, which is simply a necessity (as in Israel) and in an equal way, i.e. for men and women, the attacked country will not manage. I have witnessed many highly negative emotions erstwhile the government has only signaled the possible appointment of certain years for military exercises. If you don't want to take part in the drills, what happens if there's a real threat? You can mock the communicative of Hussaria and the cursed soldiers, which PiS cleverly hinted on any young people excluded economically and culturally-symbolically, but it is better than hyper-individualism and talking about Poland per ‘this country’.
Sometimes I ask students who would defend Poland if she was attacked by Russia. Everyone but for the exceptions says that they would leave the country due to the fact that they have nothing in common with him, his destiny is indifferent to them, "this country has done nothing for them." They are all anti-PiS because, as they say, they do not imagine voting for a organization that bans abortion and “harass” LGBTQ+ people (if I agree that many PiS politicians usage homophobic language, the word “harassment” is besides strong). likewise to the Polish intelligent hierarchy of values, it focuses on these 2 issues. specified an approach, in which the word “Poland” or patriotism does not pass through the throat, is simply a visible sign that – in colloquially speaking – something went wrong, due to the fact that utilizing this logic, we are no longer as a state. Then who would defend us? PiS's concrete, which is more patriotic than anti-PiS, including all those with whom an intelligent and large part of the young generation so much despises: "sebixy", "kibole", working class men, precariaries, Confederate voters (in test The percent of those declaring defending the country was 1 of the highest in this group), by the word of all those who, alternatively of large-town coaching, received a patriotic, of course "kissy" (how easy to laughter at patriotic clothing, side by side to break) communicative about Hussaria and the cursed soldiers.
Furthermore, the left fetishises the “young” who supposedly “turn left” and expects the most from them. Meanwhile, “to the left” here means simply progressive world-view liberalism. Incidentally, the left eye looks at women more tenderly, proclaiming even the very uninclusive slogan that "Left is simply a woman." I consider this naivety, due to the fact that first of all, only a part of a young generation is progressive worldview (which is not related to being left-wing in a social sense) and does not equal being on the side of the poorer. Rather, 1 believes in the communicative of self-success, individualism, consumer choice as having political advocacy, self-interest, not others. Solidarity and inclusiveness concern alternatively circumstantial number groups, not threatening the economical interest, due to the fact that in cases where part of your income for individual else needs to be abandoned, this attitude becomes increasingly problematic. Secondly, by observing the students of 2 universities, I would say that they are much more "centered" than progressive, and many of them are not at all in favour of "written handouts".
In addition, there is simply a large gap between men and women. In this view, the left made a mistake by stigmatizing a large proportion of the men who ex-definitione appeared to be forces hostile to women. In the sex struggle, she has mostly sided with women, only late looking at men as subjects of many social pressures and frequently injured in certain areas (pension age, military service, etc.). In a word: the left neglected men, hence it is not amazing that they are heading towards those for whom they are crucial or there they find any communicative that makes the planet more meaningful.
Fifthly, a large proportion of left-wing voters are not left-wing. It's neoliberal. What prompts her to vote on the left is worldview or liberal-progressive approach to sexual minorities, abortions, dislike of the Catholic Church. It is crucial that if its voters are not left-wing, they will force non-left solutions on the parties, while the party, in order to exist, will do what it wants and what its voters are, due to the fact that it is dependent on them. An example may be approach to working on Sundays Left-wing voters: 66% of its voters want to return to work on Sundays, unlike PiS voters, whose only 13% expects the abolition of the trade ban on Sunday. So for the voters of this party, worldview issues are more crucial than the better life of the working class. Moreover, left-wing politicians are besides not left-wing politicians, but neoliberal, in the sense that they defend solutions of the class of wealthy people, due to the fact that they themselves belong to them. Members of the Left, specified as Maciej Gdula, Krzysztof Śmiszek or Dariusz Wieczorek, have respective apartments, and this last 2 houses. They argue the introduction of cadastral tax, which is simply a higher taxation on more than 1 property. No wonder they're defending their class business. Their twisted logic was perfectly exposed by Robert Mazurek in conversation Darius Evening.
Sixthly, much of the left-wing electorate I know, especially from university circles, barely conceals his dislike, or sometimes even contempt, of the folk class, which differs from them world-viewally (it is not so progressive and "progressive", even if it is not peculiarly conservative), but besides its tastes ("how can you like disco polo?"), habits, widely understood way of being.
This is clearly seen in Didier Eribon's book "Back to Reims," in which the author speaks straight and honestly of his reluctance to the class from which he is derived, and which, as he is inherently evil, he must exorcise. The left can besides be chamophobic, supporting the de facto perception of the folk class by liberals as a civilizational pastime that needs to be "educated" to halt being who they are, due to the fact that in specified a form it is simply a scourge of the modern planet and blocks worldviewal progress. Her customs, always observed with an intelligent distance, should be laughed at, showing in a curved mirror.
One of the more interesting articles on the mistakes and misunderstandings of the state as the main area of the folk class's life is the text of Arkadiusz Bednarczuk "The Sources of Left's Aversion to the Activism of Local Groups" ("Rural Zeszyta" 2023, p. 29). In it, the author argues that left-wing criticism of local activism is based on schemes derived from modernization discourse and frequently reveals classism towards poorer layers of society. Moreover, the author, left-wing criticism of local activism, frequently repeats the values that were utilized in the 1990s strategy transformation, serving as an ideological justification for exploitation and advanced secondary class advantage. All this makes left-wing criticism of local activism de facto class criticism, conducted in the interests of the mediate class, which involves changing the conventional left-wing discourse and refocusing it on cultural issues, as well as political improvement of the large-town mediate class. The radicalisation of demands in relation to the sphere of culture for the political acquisition of the mediate class makes the left-wing discourse from the position of local communities loses its credibility as a force capable of changing the strategy and reducing poverty.
Seventh, I am disturbed by the “in love” of the left in Donald Tusk. I have not heard a single clear criticism of the neoliberal regulation of this policy, as well as of many errors related to its policy of "reset" with Russia, which is to make Poland a weak country and dependent on stronger neighbours, the consequences of which are always the poorest (both during peace and during the war, as seen in Ukraine). frequently the “scene”, repeated argument, is that it is simply a communicative that should not be dealt with; “scually” 1 can hear that “Tusk has changed”. I think it's absolutely naive due to the fact that why would he change? Change its neoliberal and pro-German political course if it wins elections and can make a government with a organization that has left-wing postulates in the program but most likely will not implement most of them? Why criticize neoliberal capitalism if now there is simply a policy that has led and will proceed to prosecute the same policy?
Furthermore, the left has entered into an alliance with politicians who clearly carry out illegal and illegal acts. I mean Joanna Scheering-Wielgus, who is Deputy Minister of Sienkiewicz and sanctions his actions. He made a forceful acquisition of the Polish tv and shut down the broadcast of TVP Info, which met with criticism of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights. Interestingly, Adam Bodnar, Minister of Justice, was active with the Foundation, but he now "has full assurance in the Minister", and he has small interest in the Foundation. 8 years of opposition shouted: "Constitution", "lawfulness", and the first thing he does after the election is to break it, in which he sees nothing wrong, due to the fact that it is simply a state of "higher necessity", as Minister Sienkiewicz said. The point is that the speech of hatred against Paul Adamovich pouring out of TVP Info was liable for his death. This is simply a translation that only the party's voter can be fooled by (a thorough analysis of the facts does not confirm anything like this), let alone that even the court sentenced the murderer of the president of Gdańsk, indicated that the political inspiration of the killer cannot be mentioned. Here it is worth recalling the words of Maciej essential in 1 of the publicist programs, who said that he did not like specified actions towards TVP. He added, however, that this is only his private opinion. This confirms my reflection that the party's actions together are equal to zero. I am glad that they have left the ranks of the fresh Left, but at the moment, firstly, there is no meaning, secondly, the fact is that they have given the current government a vote of confidence, which is unforgivable to me. In addition, her constituents recognized in my field of digital visibility for the mistake of not entering the government and are in favour of being expelled from the Paulina Matysiak party.
In conclusion, due to the erroneous, basic coordinates of reality, the mislabelling of landmarks and the designation of social territory, I do not trust the Left due to the fact that it is de facto implementing the plan of neoliberal politicians, in addition to the superstructure, in fact, conservative. For these reasons, I was skeptical of the actions of the Left. utilizing the word "mistakeful", he thinks that left-wing communicative loses in a collision with the social reality of the actions of another actors and their images and structures: Russia proved to be a deadly threat.
The bitterness was conveyed by 1 message that was made in the election debate on TVP Info, where Levica was represented by Joanna Scheering-Wielgus, who previously belonged to the ultraneliberal modern party. Accepting the fact that it is possible to change my mind, I would like to note 1 message that, in my opinion, showed that the fresh colors of leftistness do not change her reasoning about social classes, more broadly – their existence. “ Each of us erstwhile wanted to go to another country for a better life, ” she asked. I left myself erstwhile I was a student, went to London, and worked on a dishwasher. And so people come to us for bread and better work.” I worked a year in Ireland right after college (previously, between the 4th and 5th years of study, 3 months as a student). I worked on unloading the tires, in the hotel, take away, the Centra store (like our Żabka) to yet scope archaeological companies. I lived in respective places in Carlow, but always with folk-class boys a fewer years older than me: tiny towns, workers, without a higher education. no of them wanted to go for a better life, as the MP of the Left sees, but was forced to do so by the economical situation in Poland, which led to the governments of the neoliberal Civic Platform (I remember the statements of the politicians of this organization that if individual is bad here, they are open borders). It was not their choice due to the fact that no of them wanted to leave their planet (wife, children, families, friends, etc.) and go to another. For them it was not a summertime journey of a student or a multicultural adventure, but it was not easy to stay there for years. There is so no "we" of which she speaks – in this sense her approach is non-left, for her classes and their economical and existential situations disappear, and so does the neoliberal. In short, the point is not to gotta leave, so you gotta build your own wealth so you don't gotta leave. The MP of the Left presented this kind of journey as a hassle-free and individual decision to search a better life, while the "conditions of a better life" are not described at all.
Incidentally, these young men (today we would say "winners"), with any stigma of defeat that always accompanies migrants, found themselves well in Ireland despite mediocre English knowledge. They could fix cars, sale them, organize their own home gyms. erstwhile they felt they were making good money, they put money distant due to the fact that it was starting to make sense. They were frugal, they cooked well, they were most resourceful. Thus, they showed themselves, under favourable economical conditions, good workers, people who were able to adapt to fresh conditions, if any country, like Ireland, gave them an chance which they did not have in neoliberal Poland.
You can now ask if it was a good choice. "No" I would besides say to the left for the second time.
Why?
Firstly, erstwhile entering the coalition with neoliberals and average conservatives, i.e. people polarally distant from each other, they supported the government which exploited, exploited and will exploit a large number of Poles, led to greater unemployment, dismissals, poverty, failure of quality of life and health. Neoliberal simply can't do anything else, and anyone who remembers the first regulation of the current Prime Minister knows that. There's nothing fresh Left can do. Representatives of the fresh Left even managed to finish something that has been destroyed for decades, or Polish science. By getting specified a tiny ministry they could prove themselves. Minister Dariusz Wieczorek and Maciej Gdula proved to be a “significant”...
This pseudo-left should be absorbed erstwhile and for all by the PO and vanish from the political stage. It is time for a new, different left, due to the fact that the present may constitute something on the basis of the "left" post-political wing of the PO, which can only destruct with support, openly or silently, the fresh Left.
Dr. Michał Rydlewski
This text is simply a revised version of the article, which was previously published in the letter "Diskurs and Dialogue". photograph in text header: Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.
