The conspiracy of corporations or the struggle against theft?

Is ACTA aimed against citizens? Is the contract unprofitable for them? I am not a lawyer but all the information which I analyzed prove it is not. According to the discourse, it seems that the purpose of the treaty is to limit the freedom of Internet users with reference to the conspiracy of both politicians and corporations.

It could be quoted as a shining example of manipulating audience by the use of social engineering. Thousands of Internet users vehemently defend the endangered freedom of speech and the freedom of the Internet. I asked a number of people, who added photos entitled Stop ACTA on Facebook, what is meant by this danger. Hardly anyone answered the question.

ACTA, however, aims to protect property rights. The treaty is not the devil incarnate but the struggle with the omnipresent problem of robbing companies and producers by means of illegal copying. It should prevent the situations in which, for example, a company has invested billions of euro to produce a new generation drug, make some technological progress as well as improve the condition of the thousands of patients and, after putting the drug on the market, a competing company that spent no money for research has copied the drug illegally and sold at a cheaper price. This decreases the willingness to invest in research and development. As a result, technological progress becomes delayed and, when it comes to pharmacy, possibilities to produce new drugs for severe illnesses are reduced.

ACTA should popularize the standards of protecting property rights. The principles of the treaty seems legitimate, unless someone questions the validity of property rights.

The dilemma with ACTA concerns mainly liberals. Two liberal values oppose each other – the protection of citizens against groundless surveillance and the presumption of innocence vs. the observance of property rights. Our democratic-capitalist system of values and law is based on them. As a consequence of the era of the Internet (and regardless of ACTA), these two values suddenly became contradictory. It seems that the protection of property rights violates the struggle against surveillance and vice versa – the struggle against surveillance contributes to the violation of property rights. Is there any neat solution? No.

The idea of preventive measures allowing Internet service providers to cut off access to a particular service without any proof of guilt is undoubtedly against the law. But, according to the interpretations of ACTA that I familiarized with, the treaty does not stipulate it…

Moreover, the majority of commentators does not realize that both standpoints are supported by numerous corporate lobbies. Not only ACTA has influential supporters (such as the representatives of music industry or publishers). The statement that ACTA is supported by bigwigs and opposed by pro-democratic citizens seems wrong. ACTA is unprofitable for great Internet entrepreneurs who allow users to distribute music, films and other materials protected by intellectual property rights.

Such entrepreneurs make big money by means of selling a great amount of advertisements with reference to numerous website viewers (who distribute legal or often stolen material). In other words, they make money by means of turning a blind eye to the instances of theft that take place on their websites. It is worth nothing that the entrepreneurs do not reward producers.

If one guy robbed another during a party at my own home, I would be worried but my guilt would be very indirect. It would be undoubtedly moral to find out who did that. Such person should have not be invited again. The problem would appear if I started to invite pickpockets at my parties and, moreover, if I made money by such instances of theft.

Is the business fair? It is not. Why we do not condemn such procedure but we attack those who demand payment for their hard work? In addition, we paradoxically do it under the banner of the fight against system. We have been manipulated.

ACTA is aimed to persuade the owners of websites to take more care of materials published by users. But it should not come as a surprise. Lawyers need to explain what the abovementioned care will mean in practice. The government should specify that notion clearly. Any sanction must be proportional to guilt. Preventative measures aimed against website users must be avoided because they violate the presumption of innocence.

How does the digital era influence our value system?

The debate on ACTA is also the impulse to look into our value system that has been strongly influenced by the digital era. The Internet makes us stoop to actions which would be resisted in real world. The majority of readers would not leave a shop with a CD hidden in their coat pockets. The majority of us consider that is theft.

Everything changes when we turn on our computers. It is likely that most readers have illegally downloaded a CD once or twice. Hardly anyone may feel a pang of remorse for such behaviour. But it does not differ from stealing an original CD from a shop. This is also theft. People explain that they would buy CDs if they were cheaper. But if someone cannot afford a plasma TV or a Porsche car, it does not mean that he has the right to steal them.

Our value system becomes inconsistent. People do not understand that the virtual world does not differ from the real world. So why the virtual world should be governed by different rules?

The danger of constant surveillance

It is believed that the greatest danger of ACTA is the surveillance of the Internet users. I would feel uncomfortable if somebody knew in details with whom I communicate, where I spend my time etc. It would violate my privacy. This issue may be the source of tension between the liberal protection of property rights and the liberal protection of citizens’ privacy.

The problem is that our actions in the Internet are recorded anyhow (Has anyone watched the American film “Enemy of the State”?). It is beyond any doubt that Internet providers know in details which websites we visit. The EU Data Retention Directive obliges Internet providers to store itemized bills and data concerning users’ actions for two years, in case law enforcement agencies examine them. This serves as the example of surveillance. Legitimate protests against the Directive cut no ice. Polish law enforcement agencies may have access to the private data of citizens almost in any case.

Does ACTA make things worse? Let me repeat that I am not a lawyer but the truthful interpretations that I familiarized myself with prove it does not. So why we struggle against ACTA, which is aimed to protect property rights, instead of fighting against the repressive Data Retention Directive?

That dispute concerns the economic model of the digital era.

To be honest, the struggle against ACTA does not concern the treaty because hardly anyone understands its conditions. Having taken this into consideration, do the abovementioned issues make any sense? Yes and no. No, because Michał Boni  pointed out rightly that ACTA does not change anything in Polish law. It should be obvious for anyone who read the EP resolution of November 2010. “ACTA does not include provisions modifying the substantive intellectual property rights (IPR) law of the EU or the other ACTA parties, but rather establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive international framework to assist the parties in their efforts to combat IPR infringements effectively, and it does not therefore imply any change to the acquis communautaire.”, the resolution stipulates.

This is just prelude to the discussion that will soon heat up. The discussion whether cracking and the theft of intellectual property by means of Internet will become commonly allowed or not. Will we punish cracking or will we remain in turning a blind eye to it? Will the future business model be based on free access or rather on the sale of particular products, in other words, on the principal rule of free market economy? Which aspect will be more important – a website with content or a producer? How to reconcile the interests of producers with the interests of Internet users? Will the state agree to introduce the so called open public resources (with free access to any intellectual property that has been produced by means of public money), although they may be completely unprofitable for Polish culture and science?
That dispute concerns the business model that will dominate the digital era.

Translation: Aleksandra Kozłowska

European Commission against Hungary

That is why we should look with sympathy towards the European Commission’s statement, which clearly opposes the last decisions made by the Hungarian government:

• Limiting the power of the Hungarian Central Bank. The Parliament in Budapest passed the resolution for the expansion of the Monetary Policy Council’s equivalent, where members are appointed directly by the Prime Minister Orban. This way independence of the Central Bank becomes a pure fiction.
• Attack on the independent judiciary. Lowering the retirement age of the judges to 62 years resulted in removal of 200 key judges. They are replaced by the lawyers connected with Fidesz, appointed by the government.
• Attack on the law protecting Hungarian personal data. If the EU wants to maintain its values and its authority for the sake of the acquis communautaire  achievement, it must take straight actions against Hungary.

It would be logical to block the flow of the European funds to Hungary. Poland should clearly support the European Commission, despite the common history and sympathy for Hungary.

EU has to react

Support for the democracy in Budapest and maintaining the cohesion of the Union as a community of fully democratic member states definitely lies in Polish interests. It is worth mentioning that what happens today in Hungary goes beyond the plans that Jarosław Kaczyński wanted to introduce between 2005 and 2007 in Poland. If the EU during the time of crisis does not maintain cohesion and basic values on which it was formed, it will start to decay, lose its attractiveness and power to appeal as a great foreland of free world. What is frightening is the increasing number of voices from the Polish right and the church underlying the need to implement the Hungarian model in Poland.

However, it seems that soon costs of the economic policy carried out by Budapest will be so enormous (among others, increasing costs of the foreign debt, stopping the flow of the EU money, recession), so severe that nobody will want to follow Orban’s path.

It is a pity that it will surely have influence on the level of life and prosperity of all Hungarians…

Translation: Katarzyna Białecka

In the face of enormous changes in the global international relations and the consequences of the financial crisis Poland needs a review of its foreign policy. Thesis I would like to defend in this article assumes that Poland should opt for a close alliance with Berlin directed at the reforms and strengthening the European Union, at the same time redefining understanding of our interests in the European Union. A strong position of Poland as an ally of Germany and a reformer of the Union will ensure more security in a situation when the United States unfortunately are retreating from an active policy in the region of Central Europe. I am making this statement being fully aware of differences in perception of the principles of shaping the European Union’s Eastern policy among the Polish and German elites.

The US ceases to be a guarantee of security in the Central Europe

Polish security since the year 1989 has been built on the basis of belief in the power of the United States of America. Over the years we have been pursuing a policy directed at joining the military structures of the West, which was crowned with Poland joining the NATO in the year 1999. It seemed that Bronisław Geremek by signing the act of joining the NATO provided us with a long-standing security. Nothing surprising, popular theories about “the end of the history”, eternal Pax Americana seemed to be a certainty for the majority of analysts. It should be underlined that in the 90s such a policy seemed to be correct and de facto there was not any real alternative. Democratic Central Europe was both within the range and in the best interests of the power of the United States. Washington as a guarantee of a democracy and a free market was a perfect patron and ally for Poland. Today we would still like to pursue a foreign policy based on the American hegemony. The problem is that in the year 2011 considering ensuring the stabilization in our region only through the engagement of the US is a wishful thinking.

World Trade Center’s terrorist attacks from 2001 were a first sign of global changes in the balance of power. Today, after 10 years, it can be surely stated that such a change indeed happened. The United States of America are not an only global power. Unsuccessful interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and above all a financial crisis resulted in the US not having a potential to ensure a global peace anymore. Revolutions in the Arabic countries ruled by the pro-American satraps: fall of Ben Ali or Mubarak in the sphere of vital American interests are a perfect example of the end of a certain age. The US remaining in an enormous debt will be forced to retreat from an active policy in subsequent regions of the world. Obama gives clear signs and it seems that they are in line with current potential possibilities of the US. Securing the region of Central-Eastern Europe against a potential Russian expansion is not on the list of Washington’s priorities. Obama needs Russia as an ally. For bleeding American economy the Arabic world still remains a priority. There is an oil, the rise in prices of it can lead America to the bankruptcy. It is this region, not Russia, where the most unstable cultural element is, namely Islam, which America will try to control. On the list of American priorities there will be also China as the main banker of the US and other countries from the BRIC group, which the US need to keep the global peace. Washington will not have protection of the Central Europe against dependence from Moscow on its list of the main aims. In 2008 Putin tested American intentions through engagement in the conflict in Georgia. He received a clear answer: the US, when it comes to a real action, demonstrated desinteressment concerning the post-Soviet zone. Political changes in Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych coming to power – these events were in line with this process. Poland became a border country between two zones of influence. We came back to a situation which Józef Piłsudski tried to avoid in the interwar period. This situation does not mean that we should give up pro-American policy. But pursuing a security policy based on Washington (as the Law and Justice wanted) is a dangerous illusion nowadays.

Eastern policy

New situation defining security in Central Europe forces Poland to think over its policy towards Russia once again. Aleksander Plahr, one of the young leaders of political life in Germany, in an article Powrót gepolityki published in ‘Liberte!’ explains  German elites’ way of thinking concerning Russia, post-Soviet area and Poland. Germany wants to do business with Russia and does not see any real threat coming from it. For this price they are ready to accept the post-Soviet area remaining within the zone of Russian influence. They treat Poland as an integral part of the Western world and NATO. It seems that since 2007 Polish diplomacy concerning Eastern policy has been acting in the spirit of German thinking. Is it correct?

I think that there are no illusions concerning intentions of Moscow’s policy under Vladimir Putin. Right-wing Polish politicians are rightly pointing out a threat coming from Russia. Putin is rebuilding step by step Russian influence in Central Europe and is successful. Russia will consequently solicit its interests in this region the more, the weaker the American engagement is. Unfortunately the politicians of the Law and Justice having defined correctly the Russian threat, could not answer with a rational foreign policy. Public ‘waving a saber’ against Russia with parallel worsening of Polish relations with Berlin and Brussels was an idle politics, diminishing de facto Polish position and our security. It was and still is in the Russian interest that Poland showed itself as a country of irrational Russophobes, who would not be taken seriously either in Brussels or Berlin. This is why policy pursued by brothers Kaczyński was in line with the aims of Putin and limited our possibilities of influencing the European Union’s policy.

What did the Civic Platform change? Many aspects of a change in Polish foreign policy introduced by the Tusk’s government are assessed positively. A change in the language of a diplomacy should be underlined indeed. Poland started to be treated more seriously. It counts. The question remains if the positive assessment does not result to a big extent from a cultural and esthetic contrast with the former government and our neigbours’ longing for a ‘normal’ Warsaw, instead of achievements? Tusk’s government changed rhetoric towards Russia, which was exceptionally valuable and took the arguments away from Putin. Polish policy towards Russia should be full of friendly gestures but it should not influence realization of the Polish interests. Here however the Tusk’s government can be accused of mistakes and negligence in line with way of thinking about post-Soviet area among American and German elites. The first and the main accusation is giving up the realization of Polish Eastern policy drawn by Jerzy Giedroyc, namely consequent supporting our Eastern neighbours in their European aspirations. Polish raison d’etat is not to be a border state where “the Western world and democracy” end. Poland should pursue such policy as far as it is possible. Numerous arguments can be mentioned to explain this twist: weakness and inefficient governance of pro-Western forces in Ukraine or unfavourable attitude towards the Polish minority in Lithuania. It seems that facing these current problems Polish government forgot about principles of the Polish foreign policy, immersing itself into insignificant from the strategic point of view conflicts. Vilnius surely should treat our minority better but our stand on this issue should not influence negatively general relations with Lithuania. We should be also more sensitive towards our neighbour’s feelings. Everyone who visited Vilnius knows how much Poland and Poles influenced this city. Building our relations with Lithuania we should emphatically remember about our feelings towards rights of ‘expelled’ Germans and their postulates concerning so-called recovered territories. It is worth pointing out an analogy between feelings of Poles when the Federation of the Expelled reminds about German heritage of Wrocław or Gdańsk and the feelings of the Lithuanians when Poles mention Polish heritage in Vilnius. The situation with Ukraine is more difficult than the one with Lithuania. Ukraine is a real player in the Central Europe and it is unfortunately Ukraine that stopped the ‘march to the West’. It did it at its own request. It does not mean however that Poland should turn its back on Ukraine as the policy of Sikorski can be seen. We need a strategic plan of real activities of Polish diplomacy, economic activities which in a long run will increase the chances for the pro-Western discourse in Kiev. We need ideas how to involve German capital in Ukraine so that Kiev becomes a more serious partner for Berlin. Sikorski instead of acting in favour of after all democratic Ukraine, tried to talk with Aleksander Lukashenko. Attempt at warming the relations with Belarus ended in spectacular failure in shape of massive detentions and persecutions of the opposition by Lukashenko on the occasion of presidential elections. Rationally speaking, Poland got caught in the game of dictator from Minsk who tries to find a balance between Russia and the West, surely using Poland as an argument in talks with Russia.

It seems that the Tusk’s government failed to prevent one more negative process in the Eastern policy (the question is if it had any chance to do so?). After the Smolensk crash the Civic Platform failed to oppose the discourse imposed by the Law and Justice about Russia. As a result in the social perception there is a Russophobic Law and Justice and pro-Russian Platform. The Civic Platform did not manage to create its image of a neutral party. Tusk finally decided to use his authority in this discussion suggesting that Russia should be trusted. It seems that he gave in a friendly rhetoric of Putin and Medvedev forgetting that Russia realizes its interests independently from their empty gestures (history, immediate arrival of Putin to Smolensk) to which Poland adds an absolutely irrational meaning. As a result the report of IAC (The Interstate Aviation Committee) was used against the Civic Platform and in favour of the Law and Justice. Report which was in the media, strengthened and increased a wave of Russophobic, often idiotic commentaries concerning Russia, very much in the line of interests of Russia and the Law and Justice. It obviously weakened the position of Poland in the European Union as an expert on Russian issues, as well as Tusk himself. The Civic Platform did not try to read Russian interests. The Russian interest is Poland arguing with Berlin and Brussels, namely government of the Law and Justice.

To conclude it should be underlined that because of various factors Polish stand on the ‘Eastern front’ is much weaker than it seemed in the year 2004. It does not mean however that the principles of our policy in this region should be abandoned. The question is if we can do anything to create even stronger links with Berlin, to take steps which would on one hand increase our security against Russia (Warsaw as the main Berlin’s ally is an argument for Moscow) and on the other hand would give us a bargaining chip which we could use to engage Germany more into the Ukrainian issues.

How to define interests?

Building Polish position in the European Union is  a key to our security. This key can be found nowadays above all in Brussels and Berlin, not in weaker and distant Washington (even though the alliance should be of course kept). It seems that the Tusk’s government understood it right from the beginning. It should be considered however if the policy of the government is efficient in realizing Polish interests in the European Union. It is a truism to state that the policy of the Civic Platform is more efficient than the one of the Law and Justice. Changes in the international policy and economic situation cause however that the policy simply more efficient than the one led by the former Foreign Minister Anna Fotyga is not enough. It is worth considering if the government defines Polish interests correctly facing such violent changes? Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs review our strategic interests in a longer run? Does fighting for a bigger Union’s budget, which in theory lies within Polish interest because it finances the structural funds for our country, make sense in a wider context? Strong European Union which can safely go though an enormous financial crisis, in which Poland will play one of the leading roles, is after all a strategic aim of Poland. Potential disintegration of the euro zone, resulting from the finances blown out of proportions among the Union’s members, can have severe consequences, both economic and political. It can divert the integration trends in Europe, which will weaken position and international security of Poland. Shouldn’t Warsaw, bearing in mind the economic efficiency of the Union in a longer run, together with the United Kingdom and Germany be among countries taking care of savings budget states and call for freezing the budget of the Union? Fighting for the budget today we spoil the relations with important partners, fighting for means for realizing short-term and often not well thought over investments. Instead of staying in the trenches of traditional perception of Polish interest, wouldn’t it be better to think about serious reductions of the Common Agricultural Policy and general review of the Union’s policy? It might be in line with interest of more competitive Polish farmers and nowadays it costs the Union enormous amounts of money. Shouldn’t it be considered if all the Union’s money received by Poland are rationally spent? Moreover will we be able to keep some of these new investments when the money from the EU stop flowing? These are crucial dilemmas, which in majority lie also in the German interests. In Poland these issues are not touched on by any political party in accordance with the assumption that we are in the European Union to get as much money as possible. It is a policy of a beggar, not a leader. It has to be ended, we should start looking at what lies in a strategic interest of the European Union, meaning also in a strategic interest of Poland. Passiveness of the Tusk’s government which boils down to assuring Europe at the press conferences that Polish economy is in a great shape, facing the crisis can have disastrous consequences for us. The idea to organize key meetings of the leaders of 17 governments of the euro zone without Poland was announced at the beginning of February. Fundamental steps which governments are supposed to take in order to save the euro zone will be discussed at these meetings. These decisions will be crucial for the whole European Union! First, it means that Poland will have limited possibility of influencing basic economic actions in Europe. Secondly it means that Berlin came to the conclusion that having Poland on its board while fighting to save European finances is not in its interest. It is a very important signal indicating that the direction of Polish foreign policy aiming at rapprochement with Berlin, for which the government of the Civic Platform rightly opted, unfortunately did not bring any effects desirable and important for the Polish interest.

In spite of all Berlin

Why is it like that? Is seems that Poland too rarely tries to find common and real interests with its partners in the Union, above all with Germany. Behind rightful rhetoric there is not enough real action. Poland in its politics is a hostage of dominating etatist thinking, in which pluses and minuses of the European Union are perceived in the categories of the financing institution. This etatist thinking does not let Donald Tusk reach the same conclusions as David Cameron reached concerning the internal policy. British Prime Minister understands that the idea of welfare state facing the financial crisis has to be modified. Validity and efficiency of many politics coming from the redistribution have to be reviewed and some of them unfortunately have to be closed. It is also understood by Angela Merkel. The question remains about the scale of these actions. Poland does not participate in this debate. The Tusk’s government tries to solve current budget problems at the cost of future generations, liquidating part of the pension reform from 1999? At the same time German Chancellor Angela Merkel claims that the EU should aim at unification and rising the pension age. Polish government remains silent.

Berlin does not see in Poland an ally in fight against states’ debts and for the reduction of the Union’s budget, namely in the most important issue for Germany and for Europe. The question today is if we will be among the leaders of the European Union promoting and implementing changes or we will introduce them as stragglers, dreaming about joining the club of countries making decisions about the economic way of the Union. Poland should become an ally for Angela Merkel and make a step forward, suggesting whole package of changes concerning functioning of the European Union, which in a longer run will provide more rapid economic growth and stable finances. Poland should together with Germany start introducing rules which will severely punish countries too much in debt. Such an active policy can be kind of escape forward. Close Polish-German cooperation can result in establishing completely new leadership in the European Union, in which the role of Poland might be definitely bigger. It can also permanently link Polish interests to German ones. It would give more space for talks on the strategic safety of the country, for involving Germany more in the Ukrainian issue because Berlin would know that it needs Poland for reforms in the European Union. Example? Mobilizing Germany to force Gazprom to dig the pipes of the Nordsream at a depth that would not block a port in Świnoujście for big ships. What is more, it may be a historic contribution of Poland to essential reforms of the mechanisms of financing the European Union and this will translate into more dynamic economic development of the Union and of Poland in the future.

Very close relations with Berlin can be kind of a prosthesis of security in times of weakening global position of the United States and may drag Germany away from the cooperation with Russia. It can cause that the Polish voice on the Eastern policy will be better heard in Berlin. Obviously we will not turn German policy by 180 degrees, Europe has to do business with Russia. But in diplomacy seemingly small decisions and details might have a huge importance in the future, which will dissuade Russia from certain activities and will give at least a gleam of hope for Ukraine to get back to the way ‘towards the West’.

Translation: Martyna Bojarska

Karolina Wigura, during the mentioned congress as well as in “Kultura Liberalna” magazine, tried to define a new notion, which according to her should serve liberals well. She called it patriotism of dispute. Wigura described it as “a discussion of opinions (and sometimes a great debate of the fundamental principles). A bit modelled on the American patriotism, defined not by a given ethnicity or religious identity, but by loyalty to a certain set of rules”. I will not negate that interesting idea, which definitely needs elaboration, and I will endeavour to come up with a way to define patriotism which will fully answer the liberalism wants. I will let myself call it open patriotism.

While building up modern Polish patriotism, we should above all get rid of its national element. Patriotism should not conduce us to conclusions which will result in confiding a given group (national, ethic etc.) against the outer groups. Patriotism should not create confiding attitudes but it should entice the openness attitudes and building of the open society. New Polish patriotism should be open to Europe and European patriotism, so Poles could feel in Europe at home which they love and which they are responsible for. Open patriotism should look for its new myths which would shape Poles to be ready for picking up the great gauntlets, for positively seeing the world. To be the people who can win and are proud of that. The Polish romantic martyrdom of failed uprisings, which the right wing close to the Law and Justice (not only, though. The Civic Platform is not innocent here) try to built patriotism on, is a dead end. Poles, who are supposed to be proud of their country and their achievements, have to stop thinking of themselves in terms of permanent victims, stop nurturing the moments of great traumas and tremendous failures, and stop groping for perpetual conspiracies and the reasons of failures outside – in the setup, in the plot of foreign countries, in the operations of an enemy group – but never in themselves. And that translates into the everyday mentality of our society. How rarely do we wander what should be changed in our proceedings to succeed and how often do we muse what the others did to make us fail. That is the disastrous legacy of nocuous misunderstood patriotism.

Also, the change of approach towards the state seems to be extremely important. Professor Jerzy Szacki wrote about it in his article On the Need of Patriotism: “The trouble with Polish patriotism is above all about the fact that it had formed beyond the state and somewhat against it, which – with the exception of the First Republic of Poland, whose nation was purely aristocratic and not very pro-state, and of the interwar period  – was already an acquisitive authority, coming not from the nation’s will, so listened to only because of coercion instead of genuine necessity and conviction”.  We need to overcome this characteristic Polish approach to the state, which on the one side is extremely demanding, full of expectations that the state ‘must’ do something for me, and on the other it can be characterised by a complete lack of responsibility for the state, permanent slyness and the lack of respect for law. The phenomenon on some other grounds, however, has been observed by Bernard Lewis (cited by Racjonalista), who pointing out to the reasons of Islamic countries’ failures, depicted the example of Turkey. He stated that the Turkish elites, when encroaching on the path of modernisation, had the choice between the notion of western European patriotism, based on the communities unified by common law and the authority of the legal power, and eastern and middle European nationalism, which referred to blood ties, religion and language. Ankara had chosen the eastern standards, which were closer to Turkey, and thus largely lost its reforms. That is why new Polish patriotism should teach to be responsible for the country, which would be efficient but limited in its capacity. It should teach the respect for law, which would leave much room for freedom and when it was present , it would be ‘sacredness’ for every citizen.

Professor Szacki in already mentioned article recalls the words of Herling-Grudziński: “He wrote about «the change of quality of Polish patriotism» and about the birth of the love to the motherland, which «appeared in the place of past dead patriotism, full of exaltation, often auto-ruddy madness, unsympathetic to any earthy calculation»”. According to him, this “already acquired by Poles quiet virtue of patriotism is a positive phenomenon”. I am not convinced that the virtue is already acquired, but with all certainty there are milieus which understand it and try to cultivate it. And that is why we should not forget about this often disdained dimension of patriotism which means paying taxes, working for one’s city and contributing to the construction of the civil society. That is not the only, but essential requisite for the open patriotism attitude!

Professor Wojciech Sadurski during Congress of Liberty said that patriotism is above all love, the love to the motherland. But we have to remember that pathological love based on wrong relations and regulations can lead to a tragedy, to wrong attitudes. There are those who resign from the pathological love and look for some other. But it is not the right solution for Poland. I would like Polish patriotism to cease to be far-right, cheap and closed value system, which is not appealing to most of young people. I do not want to preach pathological love of my country, I want to profess healthy love, which will serve the progress of our country. Let us discuss modern patriotism, open patriotism, which is much needed today.

Translated by A. Kumycz

First of all, it has to be said what  Sex Pistols created ? They constructed, gave foundations, for a new subculture called punk or punk rock. A subculture is a set of people with distinct behavior and beliefs within a larger culture. In direct meaning, punk means rotten, worthless. In a prison slang, it is a term for a person who is sexually submissive. Punk rock initially used to be described as the primitive, guitar music, based on rock and roll of 1960s bands such as : The Seeds and Detroit bands : The Stooges and MC5. Nowadays punk rock  tends to mean the anti-establishment musical movement of the period of 1976-80, exemplified by the Sex Pistols, The Damned, The Clash, The Ramones and their descendants. Firstly the new trend in music was perceived by the mass media in the summer of 1977 by the “Times” and “Newsweek”. It has led to the creation of some punk rock clubs in the USA and Great Britain. People who started to find common identity with this stream of new subculture, formed their own style. It was a style of exuberant ugliness. Men and women alike wore short hair, that had been cut seemingly and dyed in unnatural colors. Flesh was pierced in sundry locations, at times with safety pins.

However many people claimed that the pure punk was created by Sex Pistols and they are the only  representative of this genre. According to the claims of this people, other bands were part of the phenomenon of the punk rock music but it is not the same as punk. The Sex Pistols were the only  band, that was able to make a real, nature revolt. Their rebellion seems to have no signs of fake and in this thesis  the phenomenon of theirs popularity is included.

The band was initially created in 1972 by Steve Jones and Paul Cook and was called The Strand. The excellent view on who this boys were is the fact that  Jones has stolen the first guitar for the band. At this point we can find the roots of their legend. They came from nowhere, they were nobodies and they managed to conquer the world. They were breaking all rules, it was easy, they did not have a guitar so they stole one. At this time Steve Jones regularly spent his weekends at the “Let It Rock” shop in the Kings Road, which was run by Malcom McLaren and Vivienne Westwood. Jones tried to influenced  MacLaren to become the manager of the band. Finally he organized them a rehearsal in Covet Garden Community Center. At first Jones and Cook played there with Glen Matlock as bass player. MacLaren found that the main need for the band was to find an original singer . McLaren became acquainted with a regular visitor to his shop, which was now known as “Sex”, the green-haired teenager, a lost soul, John Lydon. Lydon auditioned for the band by accompanying Alice Cooper on the shop’s jukebox. As a result of Jones’ continual comments about the state of Lydon’s teeth he became Johnny Rotten. McLaren borrowed a slogan off one of his T-shirts and dubbed the band “Sex Pistols”. Initially they worked mostly on 60’s covers with the likes of the Small Faces. They also started writing their own material. It is extremely important that all members of the band came from the very low social background. When they formed the band none of them had a good job or acquired good education. Steve Jones and John Lyndon did not work at all, Glen Matlock worked in MacLaren’s shop and Paul Cook had his job in the brewery. When Jones was asked about the reasons for creating the band he just said extremely straight “It was something to do(…) I think it was the New York Dolls who turned me on the idea. I saw them at a Faces concert and I had never seen anything like that. They where musically lousy, but very interesting, extremely crazy”. He said that he previously worked as a windowcleaner but it was a completely worthless engagement. Their career started in November 1975 when they played their first big concert as support to Bazooka Joe. Then they were invited to many punk rock festivals or rock concerts. On October 8th Sex Pistols signed to EMI, recording their debut single “Anarchy In The UK” shortly afterwards. If there had been not the one, scandalous interview in the TV, they would just stayed one of hundreds of rock bands in UK. On the of 1st December the band appeared on Thames TV’s “Today” program, as late replacements for another band, only arriving around five minutes before going on air. They were interviewed live by Bill Grundy, who proceeded to provoke the band and encourage them to “say something outrageous”. For Steve Jones in particular, this was an open invitation and he happily obliged with a number of vulgar worlds (to put it mildly) the early evening audience. The next day the front pages of the daily newspaper were covered with pictures of the band, prompting EMI to drop them. Anxious promoters cancelled all but three of the shows booked for December’s “Anarchy” national tour in February 1977. Sex Pistols became well known, not for their music or special philosophy, but just thanks to the scandal, primitive behavior in front of the cameras. They just showed that they did not care about any rules of good behavior and about the establishment. It was the first time in the television in England that somebody let himself to behave in such a manner. It was a shock. On one side English conservative society was not prepared for such words, but on the other many people, tired of being constrained by conservatives, believed that Sex Pistols can make something to crush those rules.

In February 1977 Glen Matlock left the group. In one of the interviews Steve Jones explained the reasons for Matlock’s departure : “Glen liked Beatles.(…) all the rest of us hate Beatles. And it showed that Glen loved them. He came with a lot of Beatles influed accords and tunes that I couldn´t play. Besides we didn´t get along with his that good either.” It was completely stupid justification. Jones just showed that he did not care what other people thought. Sex Pistols replaced Matlock’s vacancy by the persona of Sid Vicious. The funniest thing in this situation was, that Vicious had never played the bass before. Although for Jones it was not a trouble, for the question : “But he coudn´t play” he gave such an answer “No, but he´s learning”. It was he, allegedly, who threw a glass during the Damned’s set at the punk all-dayer at the 100 club, blinding a girl in one eye, he played in one of the proto-punk bands, Flowers Of Romance, as a drummer, he could not play bass but he had the image. Soon they managed to sign a new deal with A&M company. It lasted about a week, before the group’s behaviour, at the company HQ, after the signing ceremony, lost them another contract. Although they kept the advance cash (£75,000). This time, however, the single that was lost by A&M company, was their magnificent “God Save The Queen”. It was a track that guaranteed to cause outrage in a country being wound up into a jingoistic fervour for the Queen’s silver jubilee year. Virgin Records noticed it happily and took Sex Pistols when almost no other company was prepared to (signing them for a miserly £15,000 cash advance), and released “God Save The Queen” in time for ‘Stuff the Jubilee’ celebrations. The single, that hit in the most holy symbol of England, was something so controversial that almost anyone couldn’t pass it by steadily. For conservatives it was almost a crime. But for many people, Sex Pistols gave a signal that, the monarchy in the United Kingdom was something archaic. The very important aspect of this situation were the social roots of Sex Pistols. They criticized the monarchy, so they also attacked the system, where the poor people have no chance for development and money went for maintaining the royal family. Many people understood the Sex Pistols’ single in such way, but it is more possible that the band just wanted to express a hatred for a sophisticated, pompous way of Queen’s living and of course just made money on the scandal. To promote the record, Virgin and McLaren, dragged the reluctant Sex Pistols on to a river boat, the well-named Queen Elizabeth. The boat sailed up and down the Thames, past the Houses of Parliament, blaring out “Anarchy”, “God Save The Queen” and the rest of the Pistols’ limited set. Things on board got a little bit lively when the booze and the speed kicked in and the captain radioed for assistance. A police boat escorted them to the shore. A lot of fans and the Pistols management team were arrested and given a good kicking in the back of the van, on the way to the police station. Such events created their image and legend. This incident caused a wide objection against Sex Pistols, they were even brutally attacked. John Lyndon was hurt by knife in his leg and Paul Cook was beaten by teddy boys. It showed people that members of the band paid a huge price for their nonconformity and fighting with conservatism (no matter if it was the truth). In November 1977 Sex Pistols released their the best album : “Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex Pistols”. The offensive word “bollocks” in the title of the album caused a moral thunderstorm again. The authorities banned advertising it in the TV, markets chains refused to sell it. But few weeks later band’s lawyer won the case in the court and the title was opened to the public eye. It was a great album, and each of the tracks became instant hits at the punk clubs. Sex Pistols were on the very top of their career. They gained mass of fans, became famous and created a kind of new lifestyle. This lifestyle depended on the total rejection of all rules, that the society believed in and destroying all authorities. Unfortunately, from the other side, Sex Pistols turned up on the verge of catastrophe. Sid Vicious, in the meantime, was fast becoming a junkie. John Lyndon, who was taking more speed, than was probably good for him, started to distance himself from the rest of the group. Soon their USA company, Warner prepared them a tour in America, putting up $1,000,000 as a guarantee of their good behaviour on the USA soil. The tour started in Atlanta and ended in disaster. Sid, who was in a bad way with heroin, was beaten up by the Warner people hired to ensure the million dollars came back to the company at the end of the tour. San Antonio, Texas, was the venue for the next gig and the trouble started as soon as the boys came on stage. The audience pelted the Pistols with beer cans and food. Sid reacted by suggesting that : “You cowboys are all a bunch of fucking faggots” and felt obliged to defend his point of view by administering a tap on the head with his bass guitar to a member of the audience. What is more members of the team did not resist the tension between each other. Steve Jones had a huge argument with Paul Cook and refused to continue the common tour. John Lyndon had enough cooperation with everybody, especially with the manager Malcolm MacLaren. Soon after Sid Vicious went back to New York, got even more messed up on heroin, became involved in the death of his girlfriend Nancy and killed himself on 2nd February 1979. He was 21 when he died. That was the end of the short story of Sex Pistols.

Sex Pistols constructed something really extraordinary, they created almost ideal filthy, teenage rebellion. They were loud and noisy and they didn’t care what you thought. They came from nowhere to generate a legend and soon disappeared. Sex Pistols completely change the monolithic music industry and generate, the simple, but different from all that had been before, kind of music. There was no ‘do-it-yourself’ scene before the Sex Pistols and no destroying it after they gone. Sex Pistols were the mouthpiece of the simple philosophy that is included in three words : repulsion, despair and rebellion. They did not believe in any positive values like friendship, love or truth everything was just a cheat. They felt a total emptiness in the reality. It is greatly reflected in the text of their song “No feelings” :

“ I only ever leave you when you’ve got no money

I got no emotions for anybody else

You better understand I’m in love with myself

Myself, my beautiful self

(…)

I kick you in the head you’ve got nothing to say

Get outta the way ’cause I gotta get away

You never realize I take the piss out of you

You come out to see me and I beat you black and blue

Okay I send you away.”

To understand their phenomenon it have to be said, that their world, was the world of huge cities, slums, anonymous blocks of flats, something called “ASPHALT JUNGLE”. That was the place where the human being can not find its place to live. The society, for Sex Pistols and the whole punk subculture, with its institutions and values was just a prison, a web without escape. The only one constructive value in the whole punk philosophy was to be free in the simplest meaning of it, just like in the Sex Pistols’ song “I want to be me”. The very characteristic feature of the Sex Pistols ideas was that they did not have any illusions about themselves. They knew that they had been bad and ugly, but they are the only one who were not hypocritical and showed it. Sex Pistols did not believe in any changes that can improve the situation., so there was a statement : “no future”. Therefore they thought that they did not ought to engage in any political issues. Their vision of the world and the society caused a great fury and the eagerness to destroy. What is more, talking about Sex Pistols, it can not be omitted that they just loved to provoke. It can be said that they had the ability to shock in theirs blood. It is also very characteristic that the rebellion of punks, of Sex Pistols was directed also against the previous rebellion of the hippies. The hippies had their own ideology and some authorities, punks rejected everything. Sex Pistols and their descendants were not humanistic, they changed the statement “Love and Peace” on “War and Hate”. It is also very important that the panel of ideas created by Sex Pistols, were extraordinary, because they were built by people without education, who comes from very low background of society. Many people that dealt with John Lyndon or Sid Vicious the same identity, found in his activity a kind of inspiration. They understood them and just wanted to make a rebellion and became nonconformists like they were.

In the summary it should be said that the story of Sex Pistols proved that people to create something original, to provoke, to make a cultural mess, do not have to be prodigies. The members of Sex Pistols were ordinary but insolent boys, who made a legend and disappeared (I do not want to mention their come back in the 90s, because it was a total misunderstanding). They were almost the most rebellious band in the history, so that the history has to remember about them.

Bibliography :
1. http://www.thefilthandthefury.co.uk/home.html

2. http://www.punk.px.pl/Filozofia77.html