Valruzia

[Aethan]

INTERVIEW | Marcin Borkowski: "We are not "dangerous extremists", we represent the real workers" 

The Workers' Vanguard leader defends his party's hardline socialist stance, accuses the government of "selling illusions" and insists that "moral decay is as dangerous as wild capitalism itself"

August 5682

---

It has been five years since Workers’ Vanguard (Robotnicza Awangarda, RA) broke away from the Communist Party of Valruzia, accusing it of betraying its revolutionary roots. Many dismissed the splinter group as a mere political curiosity but following the 5680 elections, the party entered the Sejm with 37 deputies, forcing analysts to take a second look.

Its leader, Marcin Borkowski, is as polarizing as he is disciplined: a former KPW Chynbergian Committee member, once considered one of the sharpest theoreticians of Metzism in the KPW and Valruzia and now turned into a self-styled defender of "orthodox socialism with Valruzian characteristics". His party’s mix of hard-left economics and traditionalist social views has earned him both fervent supporters and harsh critics within Valruzian society.

In this interview with the Valruzian Observer conducted in Nowogard, Borkowski explains why he believes Valruzia’s left has "lost its moral compass", why he rejects both capitalism and "progressive liberalism", and how he envisions the future of the working class.

Q: Thank you for inviting us for this interview. Let's start. Mr. Borkowski, your party has often been described as an extremist faction, a mix of old-fashioned socialism and cultural conservatism and prejudices. How do you respond to that?

A: That label says more about today’s political climate than about us. The party in government has indeed improved the conditions of the working class with shorter working hours, free education, longer retirements, better housing conditions, social support, etc and we recognize that because we were part of the party at the time and voted in favor of many of this proposals. But it has lost the spirit behind those measures – that, as a matter of fact, I was behind the writing of many of them, just so the people know. But socialism is not about handing out benefits, it is about building a society based on duty, solidarity, and purpose.

What we see today is a comfortable, complacent socialism. People have more, but are less. We are producing a generation that believes justice means entitlement, but reject to do their own part of contribution. Our mission is to remind Valruzians that material equality without moral strength leads to our society's decay. We are not "Communists" in the old, dogmatic sense. We prefer to call ourselves socialist patriots. Our socialism is rooted in the real people, not in abstract theories or imported slogans. To defend the worker is to defend the homeland, because one cannot exist without the other, both concepts are inseparable.

Q: You’ve accused the Communist Party of "wokification" and "ideological decay". What does that mean in practice?

A: It means replacing the collective struggle of the people with the endless struggle of small identities. It means talking more about the most recent trend in social media than about factories. The left has traded discipline for chaos and replaced social duty with endless self-expressions.

We do not hate anyone, we reject the ideology that tries to fragment society into competing groups. When we say we defend traditional values, it is not about discrimination; it’s about social cohesion. A country without shared moral foundations cannot build socialism or anything else. We do not want a society built on religion either; we want a society built in common and shared homogeneous values. We respect every individual, and yes, including those who identify as LGBT. But we refuse to redefine every institution, such as marriage or education, to fit ideological fashions. Our view is simple: equal dignity, yes; cultural relativism, no.

Q: So your party’s moral platform – opposing same-sex marriage, restricting abortion, tightening migration – has drawn criticism even from some on the left. Aren't these positions contradictory with socialist principles?

A: Well, not at all. Socialism without any kind of moral compass is simply chaos. A society simply cannot survive if it destroys its own values. We believe in collective strength, and that includes the strength of the family, the stability of communities, and the moral education of youth. But let me be clear again on this: we do not reject LGBT people nor approve of discrimination against them, and I will repeat this as many times as it is necessary. We reject the ideology that tries to politicize identity and divide society into endless minorities.  And the same applies to "same-sex" marriage: we do not oppose, and indeed we do support, legal protection of same-sex couples, but we defend the traditional definition of marriage as something distinct, rooted in cultural and historical continuity. We believe that words matter, that institutions matter. You cannot rebuild society if you constantly deconstruct it. We support same-sex relationships, same-sex unions, but we do not support this label, for example. 

Regarding abortion, our view is simple: it should be rare, responsible, and never treated as a social convenience. We defend the right to life while also defending the right of the mother to dignity and support. That means prevention, education, solidarity... but never turning a tragedy into a celebration

And on migration, our position is not hatred; it is called simply order. We welcome those who respect Valruzian laws, culture, and language. But we cannot have socialism in one street and chaos in the next. Every country has the right, and I'd say, the duty, to protect its social fabric. Solidarity begins at home, with those who share your burden and your destiny. When a society becomes extremely heterogeneous, it stops having an identity and becomes something that is simply unidentifiable and therefore, unmanageable.

So no, these are not contradictions. They are the moral backbone that keeps socialism human.

Q: Let's talk about one ardent issue. One of your first deputies, Piotr Janiszewski, was permanently banned from public office after his remarks about the Yeudi community. Do you still stand by him and his words?

A: I stand by the principle that no citizen should be silenced for speaking uncomfortable truths. His words were harsh, and even I would have chosen them differently... but his punishment was political. The government used the judiciary as a weapon to send a message to others around: if you challenge the orthodoxy, they will attempt to destroy you

We reject hate, but we also reject the idea that criticism of religion or ideology is the same as bigotry. Freedom of conscience means freedom to speak honestly. And if we start criminalizing speech, we end up with hypocrisy instead of justice. Valruzia is a nation proudly identified as non-religious. The vast majority of our nation identify themselves as non-religious. Why do we keep having this high protections for any religious group? It is simply nonsense

Q: Workers' Vanguard often talks about "moral decay" and the need for discipline. Isn’t that language closer to the right than to the left?

A: The real left was never about moral anarchy. We reject, despise anarchism or these people that identify themselves as "communists" and only use the label to wreak havoc. It was about community, sacrifice and national dignity. Our principles speak of a disciplined working class, not of endless rebellion without any identifiable order.

We believe the working class must be not only economically empowered but also morally strong. A people, a nation, that loses its sense of duty and honor becomes easy prey for both oligarchs and demagogues. We would not say that our vision is "left" or "right". It is purely Valruzian. We take what is noble from our tradition and combine it with what is just from socialism. That is our synthesis.

Q: But if the KPW has implemented so many good social reforms – free education, reduced retirement age, income caps, price controls – what exactly would Workers' Vanguard do differently?

A: First, let me emphasize this again: many of those reforms were written or inspired by people like me when we were still within the KPW. I helped draft parts of the retirement age law and the income cap proposal. So, of course, we support them. But what we see today is that these policies have become empty structures. The government treats them as ends in themselves, not as part of a broader moral and national project. For sure, they have given people comfort, but not a final purpose. Let's talk about the free university law, for example: it is a great step, of course and without doubt – but what use is free education if it produces graduates with no attachment to their community, no sense of duty? Or if we talk about the shorter work week: Of course it was a victory of the working class, undoubtedly – but if free time only leads to apathy, consumerism, or escapism, then what has been truly achieved? What prevents this law from being removed if the society as a whole does not see its purposes, its true benefits?

Workers’ Vanguard would revive the original spirit behind these measures: that social reform must serve collective dignity, not just serve for a short temporal, material satisfaction. We would refocus the entire social system around the idea that every Valruzian has something to give back, be it through work, through knowledge, through solidarity... Our goal is not to dismantle what exists, but to give it meaning again, to strengthen it to its most. A welfare system without a moral direction is like a house without a foundation: it is comfortable for a while, sure, until one day, the walls begin to crack.

Q: What do you say to critics who claim Workers' Vanguard is authoritarian, that your rhetoric about duty and obedience sounds closer to nationalism than socialism?

A: Then they haven’t read about history. Every successful socialist movement has been disciplined and patriotic. You cannot build collective prosperity on individual egoism. National pride does not contradict socialism. Are we nationalists? Of course we are, because we are proud of Valruzia, we are proud of the Valruzian people. We want Valruzia to be united, strong, and self-sufficient. To love your country for what it gives to you is gratitude. And gratitude is the foundation of solidarity.

Q: Finally, how do you see your role in Valruzian politics going forward?

A: We are not here to imitate anyone. We are here because we want to build a Valruzia that remembers who she is. Industrial, cultured, self-confident. We truly believe we are one of the great nations of Terra. We should act like it. Our movement does not seek to go backwards, to go to the dark moments of our history, but we do want to rebuild a nation where workers are proud, where our youth is disciplined, and were the simple mention of our name abroad commands respect.

If the KPW governs wisely, we will support what is right. But we will never stop exposing hypocrisy, corruption, or decadence.