4. MARKET GAME AND PEOPLE EXPETATION
George Soros called such behaviour as a contr-act, that is: thinking through the commercial rules and aspects between two persons as market actors. Nowadays, a lot of free-market values are transferred into a private and family life. That caused a clash to a traditional type of family, which was before 1989. People noticed that open society is sometimes contrary to their habits. Transactional market is not about community but individual players and their own interests.  Such trends existed at that time in Western Europe, so many people begun to act in the same way in Poland. Expectations and high hopes appeared but disappeared shortly after. No one really told the public, that the country was bankrupt. The elections in June 1989 were primarily to say no to communists, to say we want change. But most people believed that the ideas (…) would now be implemented. People hoped for such progress but they didn’t get it, because there was no money in the states’ coffers. Communists said there was no money, but people trusted Solidarity, which was attacking communists for not providing money. 
As a participant of a market game we serve our own purpose. However this purpose is useless, if we are not interested in the market game. We have to be interested in the society we live in. We should be guided by the interests of the society as a whole not by our own benefit.  If people do not believe in open society and they are not ready to limit their egoistic needs open society will not prevail.
As I have argued it was not easy to change the form of organizing social’s life. When the communistic system collapsed, a main problem for majority was to survey in the new life. It is risky and not very safe. Not only totalitarian regime was about to destroy the idea of open society but there is also a risk from the other side - especially today. Highly developed capitalism, many world wide corporations are also a problem. Excessive individualism caused a rivalry. The employers in corporation are overworking to be more efficient.  A lack of cooperation on a social level may cause inequality and instability. There should be organization, similar to trade unions helping people and make them aware of the rights they have.

In Poland very important role is played also by so called intelligentsia, aristocratic nobility. Its values were clearly against capitalism and materialism, and in favor of morality and religion. All these antimaterialistic characteristics of Polish culture just fell apart overnight. It was very negative occurrence. These elites of the society were kind of a “moral conscious”, pointing the way of right behaviour to the masses. Today we can also hear a criticism by intelligentsia of the today’s market, politics toward to a regular citizen  and vice versa.

Moreover, the public trust was very low. It generated many different problems, like corruption. Many people generalized it. They were excused themselves thinking “if everyone does it, so why should not I?” This problem was made by the incorrect approach towards individualism and particular benefits. By such behaviour they tried to privatize a public sector.

There is no open society in Poland, I would say that we are creating  now “half-opened” society. Many life’s aspects made by the communism affected the life after 1989. People have not changed their mentality and they really do not want to change it. According to the open society’s features we could have theoretically been such kind of society. Watching the other countries in Western Europe, but not copying the models of institutions they have, we can avoid similar mistakes that they have made. Building open society in Poland would be easier if there were be more decentralized form of governing. It would cause better civic attitude to the government.

back