What do you think?
Rate this book
Klęska Solidarności: Gniew i polityka w postkomunistycznej Europie
Fascynująca historia ewolucji społeczeństwa postkomunistycznego w Europie Wschodniej nowatorska teoria dotycząca roli gniewu w polityce książka oparta na prowadzonych przez lata badaniach terenowych w Polsce, wywiadach z robotnikami, działaczami związkowymi i politykami oraz wzbogacona wieloma materiałami źródłowymi
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
3 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 4, 2025
Pomimo tego, że ciężko mi się zgodzić się z wizją polityczną, która postuluje Ost na początku książki, jest ona świetna pod względem analizy losów Solidarności. Może to kwestia amerykańskiego stylu, ale przebieg wydarzeń na przestrzeni parudziesięciu lat jest przedstawiony w zwyczajnie wyciągający, a nie tylko faktograficzny sposób. Widać ogrom dobrze wykonanej pracy jeśli chodzi o źródła i pracę terenową. Klęską solidarności pozwala lepiej zrozumieć losy unionizmu w Polsce i jego paradoksy. Ost wykazuje jak Solidarność działała zasadniczo na rzecz osłabienia pozycji związków, a jego członkowie w sprzeczności do własnych interesów.
January 15, 2020
I strongly recommend this work as one of the finest studies of "the missing link" in democracy-building in post-Communist eastern Europe. The author's thesis is that the Solidarity opposition, even before 1989, lost its democratic basis as it grew in power. Its evolving ethos that "little people don't matter" - democracy is "too serious a business" to be left to the herd - echoed the political elitism which has always dominated this region, reinforced by contemporary "money first" free market Western pseudo-democracy.
Which brings me to two relatively mild critiques of Ost's presentation. Precisely because we're dealing with central Europe and aristocratic notions that persisted all through the "Peoples' Republic," Polish intellectuals still carried a residue of class snobbery, no matter how temporarily infatuated with Solidarity and "the workers" in 1980. They were thus primed by class culture to eventually turn away from their cross-class allies.
Only alluded to in Ost's work, but of equal importance, was the wining and dining of this "vanguard" on their Western junkets, filling their heads with schemes of personal enrichment, leading them to believe that the privileges pushed on them during these Western visits would continue to be theirs back home if they followed said advisers. NGOs - such as the National Endowment for Democracy - set an ideological agenda of free-market austerity for the masses along with "democracy promotion." What ensued was a pure case of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," without the redeeming epiphany.
The experience of Solidarity's leadership in the halls of the West is quite similar to that of the African National Congress of South Africa, as given in William Gumede's "Thabo Mbeki and the Soul of the ANC." In both cases the "vanguard leadership" of a radical, grass-roots organization was separated from its base in the name of furthering Western interests, to the lasting harm of the people they purported to lead.
Another aspect of Ost's work is his excellent description of how and why the Polish working class turned from the liberals to embrace a nationalist-"family values" platform that has nothing to do with their economic plight. But Ost tends to glide over the fact that the nationalist right could so easily take up this slack precisely because of its deep roots in Poland. Poland is like Ireland, in its wedding of underdog nationalism to Catholicism, and as in Ireland the Church has taken on itself the task of keeping a poor population content with its economic lot while turning anger elsewhere. There is nothing post-Communist in this, as witness Jan Gross' "Fear," describing how violent anti-Semitism wracked Poland across all class lines in the mid-1940s. Because of the deep-seated nature of Catholic nationalism it was poised to take over the social base of Poland, much more so than in Czechoslovakia or Hungary, unless liberals and social democrats could offer a competing ideal. The tragedy in Poland, as Ost so ably describes, was that they could have - but didn't want to.
Which brings me to two relatively mild critiques of Ost's presentation. Precisely because we're dealing with central Europe and aristocratic notions that persisted all through the "Peoples' Republic," Polish intellectuals still carried a residue of class snobbery, no matter how temporarily infatuated with Solidarity and "the workers" in 1980. They were thus primed by class culture to eventually turn away from their cross-class allies.
Only alluded to in Ost's work, but of equal importance, was the wining and dining of this "vanguard" on their Western junkets, filling their heads with schemes of personal enrichment, leading them to believe that the privileges pushed on them during these Western visits would continue to be theirs back home if they followed said advisers. NGOs - such as the National Endowment for Democracy - set an ideological agenda of free-market austerity for the masses along with "democracy promotion." What ensued was a pure case of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," without the redeeming epiphany.
The experience of Solidarity's leadership in the halls of the West is quite similar to that of the African National Congress of South Africa, as given in William Gumede's "Thabo Mbeki and the Soul of the ANC." In both cases the "vanguard leadership" of a radical, grass-roots organization was separated from its base in the name of furthering Western interests, to the lasting harm of the people they purported to lead.
Another aspect of Ost's work is his excellent description of how and why the Polish working class turned from the liberals to embrace a nationalist-"family values" platform that has nothing to do with their economic plight. But Ost tends to glide over the fact that the nationalist right could so easily take up this slack precisely because of its deep roots in Poland. Poland is like Ireland, in its wedding of underdog nationalism to Catholicism, and as in Ireland the Church has taken on itself the task of keeping a poor population content with its economic lot while turning anger elsewhere. There is nothing post-Communist in this, as witness Jan Gross' "Fear," describing how violent anti-Semitism wracked Poland across all class lines in the mid-1940s. Because of the deep-seated nature of Catholic nationalism it was poised to take over the social base of Poland, much more so than in Czechoslovakia or Hungary, unless liberals and social democrats could offer a competing ideal. The tragedy in Poland, as Ost so ably describes, was that they could have - but didn't want to.
October 17, 2021
Jeśli ktoś się zastanawiał jak doszło do tego, że w kraju, w którym obecny ustrój został wywalczony przez związek zawodowy, unionizm jest praktycznie nieobecny w świecie pracy, "Solidarność" w dużej mierze kojarzona ze środowiskiem Radia Maryja, a strajki w miejscu pracy obarczone sankcjami prawnymi, bardzo polecam tę książkę.
April 23, 2012
This book, by a liberal social democrat, contains several themes and observations of interest, specifically about the political consequences of the left abandoning class, and more specifically the working class, as a reference point.
The author argues that this is what was done in postcommunist Poland by intellectuals around Solidarity, and argues convincingly that a consequence of this was a rallying of many workers to the far right.
This dovetails with the observation people i knew in the 90s were making, that fascism was not the cause of the left's defeat, but rather a punishment for the left's failures. In the case of Poland, Ost shows how the failures of the "red barons" followed by the failure of the liberal intelligentsia and the Solidarity trade union itself to oppose neoliberal shock therapy pushed workers to the right.
the book also deals with the creation of a labor aristocracy in postcommunist Poland, and offers a few insights into some of the gender dynamics involved. this could have been explored at greater length.
the overarching theme is about the importance of consciousness in determining how people will rebel against capitalism. Ost argues that capitalism always creates anger within the subordinate working class, and that this can either be expressed in terms of class anger (which as a social democrat he sees as being healthy in a liberal democracy) or in "illiberal", i.e. bigoted ways. Again, this dovetails with observations that have been made in some antifascist circles in North America and Europe.
Other than his stated bias in favor of liberal democratic capitalism, i guess one place i feel his argument goes wrong is that while he describes consciousness and anger as self-generated, in his reading the form that they take seems to be a top-down dynamic. So the shift of Polish workers to the right is not only the fault of liberal intellectuals in alliance with a nascent labor aristocracy, but the implication seems to be that intellectuals were the only ones in a position to have done anything different. Don't know enough about Poland to argue the point, but it's a pretty pessimistic view. Mind you, i imagine that decades of dictatorship "on behalf of the proletariat" can do that to you.
The author argues that this is what was done in postcommunist Poland by intellectuals around Solidarity, and argues convincingly that a consequence of this was a rallying of many workers to the far right.
This dovetails with the observation people i knew in the 90s were making, that fascism was not the cause of the left's defeat, but rather a punishment for the left's failures. In the case of Poland, Ost shows how the failures of the "red barons" followed by the failure of the liberal intelligentsia and the Solidarity trade union itself to oppose neoliberal shock therapy pushed workers to the right.
the book also deals with the creation of a labor aristocracy in postcommunist Poland, and offers a few insights into some of the gender dynamics involved. this could have been explored at greater length.
the overarching theme is about the importance of consciousness in determining how people will rebel against capitalism. Ost argues that capitalism always creates anger within the subordinate working class, and that this can either be expressed in terms of class anger (which as a social democrat he sees as being healthy in a liberal democracy) or in "illiberal", i.e. bigoted ways. Again, this dovetails with observations that have been made in some antifascist circles in North America and Europe.
Other than his stated bias in favor of liberal democratic capitalism, i guess one place i feel his argument goes wrong is that while he describes consciousness and anger as self-generated, in his reading the form that they take seems to be a top-down dynamic. So the shift of Polish workers to the right is not only the fault of liberal intellectuals in alliance with a nascent labor aristocracy, but the implication seems to be that intellectuals were the only ones in a position to have done anything different. Don't know enough about Poland to argue the point, but it's a pretty pessimistic view. Mind you, i imagine that decades of dictatorship "on behalf of the proletariat" can do that to you.
April 22, 2025
Jest to dobra praca, ale patrząc na nią z perspektywy socjologa nie sposób nie odnieść wrażenia, że przez (głównie) politologiczne osadzenie, jej potencjał został znacząco zmarnotrawiony. Autor słusznie nawołuje do pójścia w stronę etnografii w badaniu transformacji, robi to sam, ale w książce brakuje odwołań do jego badań terenowych. To właśnie jest aspekt, który najbardziej 'boli' - autor siedział długo w terenie, kontaktował się z badanymi i zbierał materiały, ale w książce ubiera to w pewien abstrakcyjny, zdystansowany kostium. Książkę, także przez osadzenie ideologiczne autora czyta się momentami jak przewodnik dla liberalnych i socjaldemokratycznych partii politycznych, który ma im wskazać, co zrobiły źle. Gdyby autor po prostu nie przeprowadził badań, tylko pisał swoje przemyślenia 'z gabinetu' - nie byłoby problemu. Autor jednak przeprowadził solidną etnografię, której jednak, w mojej ocenie, później nie przeniósł w dostatecznym stopniu na łamy książki. Obciąża to także samą ramę interpretacyjną autora, która jest stricte zanurzona w sferze politycznej, jak również są proponowane przez niego wyjaśnienia. To są jednak uwagi pt. gdyby autor był innym człowiekiem, to by było lepiej. Ogólnie książką jest bardzo dobrym studium nie tylko nad upadkiem Solidarności, ale przede wszystkim nad źródłem wzrostu tożsamościowej prawicy nie tylko w CEE ale na całym kontynencie.
December 21, 2022
Książka przejrzyście wyjaśniająca problemy idei lewicy gospodarczej po '89, nadal bardzo aktualna prawie dwie dekady później
August 14, 2024
This book goes some of the way to answering a question that I've had for a while: given that Solidarity is credited with being instrumental in taking down the postwar regime in Poland and counting at one point a huge proportion of all Polish citizens as members, where did it go since? Compared,for example,to the USSR, where former communist opposition figure Yeltsin led the country for a number of years before handing over to Putin who was well-connected with the new elite and still leads Russia to this day.
It’s important to note that this is an academic book written as a sociological contribution, so it opens with a chapter on the theoretical basis of the findings and closes with conclusions. But the bulk of the book is a combination of historical narrative and personal anecdotes which is easy enough for the lay-reader (me!).
The book doesn’t go into too much detail about Solidarity’s early years, but what it makes clear is that by the time of the union’s legalisation, its leadership was not willing to fight for bread-and-butter workplace issues important to the rank and file. The author draws a distinction between ‘economic’ issues (eg (I think) wages, subsidies and benefits) and ‘political’ ones (constitutional changes, seats in the legislature etc). In the late 80s, Solidarity put all its efforts into lofty reform efforts (eg the Round Table agreements) and strikes were largely used as bargaining chips with the ruling parties. To the extent that Solidarity did ‘lead’ strikes, it tried to persuade the workers to drop demands for their economic issues and instead frame the issue as one that would be solved by privatisation and introduction of markets.
The book talks in the theoretical sections about the limits of formal definitions of democracy (such as a country with free elections and a free press), as being too minimal and not necessarily leading to a country where all citizens have choice and freedom. Solidarity at this time is a great example of this, since although it had a large membership base it did its best not to listen to it. Following the Round Table agreement and subsequent elections in which Solidarity won a landslide on a very low turnout, it gave itself carte blanche to implement privatisation and marketisation reforms without any further consultation of the country, and with direction from Western advisors in order to satisfy Western credit agencies. Solidarity was led by people who wanted to become, or enable, the new middle class, and their ideology inevitably trickled down the ranks in this period. The book describes how many shop floor leaders became apologists for privatisation and tried only to protect ‘skilled’ workers with little regard for wages and unemployment issues. Many former leaders left the union and entered professional roles in privatised spin-offs of former state enterprises, or took up roles in the new state administration. Unionisation rates were very low in the new privatised companies. The leadership did not at all encourage formation of unionised workplaces, even in foreign-owned companies where this was the norm in the West. To paraphrase the book, unionists’ attitude was that ‘under capitalism, you give up workplace freedoms but get paid more for working hard’.
It becomes clear that, despite its roots, Solidarity was only very briefly a fighting workers union - it very quickly set its sights on dismantling the socialist state, and only draped itself in the garb of a union in order to further those ends. It put up very little resistance to *capitalist* exploitation of workers, in fact it actively was a part of the process that made things worse in Polish workplaces in the early 1990s. What the book also goes into in some detail is the extent to which Solidarity was also allied to the conservative Catholic movement. An early constitutional change it made was to add a religious preamble. It also passed legislation to ban abortion. Any political opposition it made to economic reforms was in right-wing, conservative terms (eg blaming economic woes on communist holdovers, stoking ethnic tensions, etc).
As to my initial question, I’m left with the impression that Solidarity wasn’t long a mass movement with mass support, certainly not by the time it won power. It lost any remaining support it had by pushing through unpopular reforms and failing to represent workers. The right-wing trend it represented is still very much alive and well in Polish politics albeit under different names.
It’s important to note that this is an academic book written as a sociological contribution, so it opens with a chapter on the theoretical basis of the findings and closes with conclusions. But the bulk of the book is a combination of historical narrative and personal anecdotes which is easy enough for the lay-reader (me!).
The book doesn’t go into too much detail about Solidarity’s early years, but what it makes clear is that by the time of the union’s legalisation, its leadership was not willing to fight for bread-and-butter workplace issues important to the rank and file. The author draws a distinction between ‘economic’ issues (eg (I think) wages, subsidies and benefits) and ‘political’ ones (constitutional changes, seats in the legislature etc). In the late 80s, Solidarity put all its efforts into lofty reform efforts (eg the Round Table agreements) and strikes were largely used as bargaining chips with the ruling parties. To the extent that Solidarity did ‘lead’ strikes, it tried to persuade the workers to drop demands for their economic issues and instead frame the issue as one that would be solved by privatisation and introduction of markets.
The book talks in the theoretical sections about the limits of formal definitions of democracy (such as a country with free elections and a free press), as being too minimal and not necessarily leading to a country where all citizens have choice and freedom. Solidarity at this time is a great example of this, since although it had a large membership base it did its best not to listen to it. Following the Round Table agreement and subsequent elections in which Solidarity won a landslide on a very low turnout, it gave itself carte blanche to implement privatisation and marketisation reforms without any further consultation of the country, and with direction from Western advisors in order to satisfy Western credit agencies. Solidarity was led by people who wanted to become, or enable, the new middle class, and their ideology inevitably trickled down the ranks in this period. The book describes how many shop floor leaders became apologists for privatisation and tried only to protect ‘skilled’ workers with little regard for wages and unemployment issues. Many former leaders left the union and entered professional roles in privatised spin-offs of former state enterprises, or took up roles in the new state administration. Unionisation rates were very low in the new privatised companies. The leadership did not at all encourage formation of unionised workplaces, even in foreign-owned companies where this was the norm in the West. To paraphrase the book, unionists’ attitude was that ‘under capitalism, you give up workplace freedoms but get paid more for working hard’.
It becomes clear that, despite its roots, Solidarity was only very briefly a fighting workers union - it very quickly set its sights on dismantling the socialist state, and only draped itself in the garb of a union in order to further those ends. It put up very little resistance to *capitalist* exploitation of workers, in fact it actively was a part of the process that made things worse in Polish workplaces in the early 1990s. What the book also goes into in some detail is the extent to which Solidarity was also allied to the conservative Catholic movement. An early constitutional change it made was to add a religious preamble. It also passed legislation to ban abortion. Any political opposition it made to economic reforms was in right-wing, conservative terms (eg blaming economic woes on communist holdovers, stoking ethnic tensions, etc).
As to my initial question, I’m left with the impression that Solidarity wasn’t long a mass movement with mass support, certainly not by the time it won power. It lost any remaining support it had by pushing through unpopular reforms and failing to represent workers. The right-wing trend it represented is still very much alive and well in Polish politics albeit under different names.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews