CEU eTD Collection In partial fulfillment ofthe requirements forthe degree of Social-Democrat andCommunist The Perspectives onDevelopment in Second Reader: Professor Balazs Trencsenyi Supervisor: Professor Constantin Iordachi Pre-communist Romania ù erban Voinea and Lucre 3ă CentralEuropean University Cornel-Adrian Spirchez Cornel-Adrian tr History Department Budapest, Hungary Master ofArts ăú Submitted to canu Case 2008 By Ġ iu CEU eTD Collection madewithout thewritten permission ofthe Author. made. Furthercopiesmade accordance in with suchinstructions may notbe obtained from the librarian. This pagemust form a partofanysuch copies by theAuthorand lodged the Centralin European Library. may Details be either in full orpart, may bemade in accordance only withthe instructions given Copyright inthetext thesis ofthis restswith the Author.Copiesbyanyprocess, i CEU eTD Collection of of politicalthe action they had concomitantly envisioned. scope related to the if not areunintelligible paradigms In sum, theoretical writings. their their of standpoint theoretical the from strictly authors these reads if one be grasped to not in are paper this presented perspectives two the between differences The framework. interpretative their of force driving the was materialism Historical revolutionary. legitimized as they were both ardent followers of Karl Marx, a thinker and a socialist was expected to justify was expected thepartiesto they of political the programme represented. interpretation certain This realities. andcultural political social, economic, Romanian the of interpretation certain a provide to keen were they writings, their In Romania. modern histories but within a certain key. Both Voinea P Both and key.within acertain strategy, to the collaboration with the bourgeoisie. in of political leads, is formulated itterms way because, the one the socialist rejects perspective The communist rhetorical. rather visions are two the between differences theorethical the Thus, identical. almost become a pointwhen they upto comparable perspectives as itis asserted, two the usually and on development social-change are being thatfarfrom writings Iargue divergent, of andLucretiu Patrascanu. Serban Voinea andin development pre-communist focusing Romania, specifically on theorethical the This strict correlation between strict correlation This The theorethical writings of the twoMarxist historians are analyzed and evaluated social-change on perspectives and communist socialist the evaluates thesis This ideological histories regarding the social-change the of anddevelopment regarding ă ABSTRACT theory tr ăú ii canu were producing or advocating not only not advocating producing or canu were and practice is somehow justified and justified somehow is CEU eTD Collection ILORPY...... 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY CONCLUSION...... 80 GHEREA’S THEORIES AND THEORIES GHEREA’S CHAPTER 3:LUCRE GHEREA...... 45 CHAPTER 2: DISCIPLES ...... 24 IN INTERWAR ROMANIA CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 1 4. 3. 2. R 1. 3. WORLD 2. 1. 6. YEARS THE INTERWAR 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. DEBATES 2. 1...... 41 OMANIAN L L P L L D ù T T L ù S G T P Ă ERBAN ERBAN OCIALISM IN ERSPECTIVES ONDEVELOPMENT IN PRE UCRE UCRE UCRE UCRE UCRE HE PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPMENT PROMOTED BY HE HE POSTWAR DEVELOPMENTAL SCHOOLS ANDTHE RECOVERY OF THE LOCAL ANIEL REATER TR S - Ăù SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE OCIAL ğ ğ ğ ğ ğ ...... 14 CANU IU IU IU IU IU C V V P HIROT AND THE RECOVERY OFTHE R OINEA OINEA AND THE ATTRACTION OFSOCIALISM P P P P P ù ù RINCIPALITIES OMANIA AND THE ADVENT OF INTEGRAL NATIONALISM Ă Ă Ă Ă Ă ERBAN VOINEA AND THE HERITAGE OFC.DOBROGEANU- ERBAN VOINEAANDTHEHERITAGE -D ERBAN VOINEAANDLUCRE TR TR TR TR TR ’ M S ANALYSIS OFTHE AGRARIAN SECTOR EMOCRATIC Ăù Ăù Ăù Ăù Ăù ODERN , G CANU AS THE DISCIPLE OF CANU AND THE BOURGEOIS CANU AND THE ADVENT OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT THEIN CANU AGAINST THE DISCIPLE OF CANU ANDTHE ğ ...... 35 . HEREA IU P R TABLE OFCONTENTS ...... 64 . OMANIA Ă ’ ...... 50 P S ADVOCATE AGAINST TR ARTY AND THE ù RA ONASPLTCLSRTG..63 POLITICALSTRATEGY. VOINEA’S ERBAN Ăù ...... 25 R CANU AGAINSTC.DOBROGEANU- USSIAN iii - COMMUNIST R C Z L EVOLUTION OMMUNIST - ELETIN ENIN DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION ğ IU P ù C...... 72 TEFAN ...... 67 . ù -V R D ...... 28 Ă . OMANIA V OBROGEANU OINEA DEBATE FROMTHE TR P ...... 31 OINEA AND Z ARTY OF Ăù ELETIN CANU –MARX’S ...... 8 ...... 24 ...... 46 R -G L. OMANIA DURING HEREA P Ă ...... 69 . TR Ăù ...... 57 CANU . CEU eTD Collection 2006), 12-13. different. altogether is not Romania in capitalism of dawn the of version own his criticism, theoretical writings and political programme of the social-democrats. Despite his harsh 2 Simulated Change 1 communist leader Lucre communist theoretician socialist the by years interwar the during defended social-change andin development nineteenth-century andRomania areadvocated come. concerning theories His to many fordecades social-democracy Romanian the theoretician of moderntheoretician Romania. of importantRomania his Marxist first would arrival,the upon become most Gherea and letter to Kautsky from dates Although 1894. word the socialism in wasnotunknown due hispart to in long-term involvement activitiesthe of the time. had on the alreadyus much abouttheimpact writings the and the political activity of ‘Russian this refugee’ existingtells also It Romania. pre-communist in socialism of advent the about socialistsomething us tells nucleuses and working class associations of that word bluntly, that at the time of his arrivalIntroduction in Romania “as a Russian refugee, not even the Z. Ornea, Dobrogeanu-Gherea quoted Michaelin Shafir, All translations from socialism In 1875 Gherea was forced to leave tsarist Russia and settle in Romania, in large leave Russiaandin Romania, forced to settle tsarist In 1875 Ghereawas In a letter to Karl Kautsky, Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea claimed, rather claimed, Dobrogeanu-Gherea Constantin Karl Kautsky, to letter In a Via Ġ a lui C. Dobrogeanu-Gherea (The life of C. Dobrogeanu-Gherea) (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne RiennerPublishers, INC., 1985), 12. was known” there. was known” Romanian

Ġ iu P to English ă tr ăú 2 In fact his writings were to shape the Programme of 1 canu voices the most virulent criticism againstthe mostcriticism virulent canu the voices Though an exaggeration this statement nevertheless statement this exaggeration an Though in this thesis will be provided by the author. Politics, Economics and Society. Political Stagnation and 1 narodnik , (Bucharest: Compania ù erban Voinea. The Voinea. erban movement. His movement. CEU eTD Collection to be grasped if one reads these authors strictly from the theoretical standpoint of their of standpoint theoretical the from strictly authors these reads if one be grasped to not in are paper this presented perspectives two the between differences The framework. interpretative their of force driving the was materialism Historical revolutionary. legitimized as they were both ardent followers of Karl Marx, a thinker and a socialist they were, as we shall see during the thesis, very explicit. implications writings of their immediate and practical the to With regards represented. they theparties justify of programme thepolitical expectedto was interpretation certain interpretationprovide acertain to they were keen Intheir modern writings, Romania. of development of the Romanian economic, social, political and cultural realities. This advocating notonly histories but evaluated within a certain key. Both Voinea andP Both key. a certain within evaluated argument more clear afew things need to be settled from the onset. this make To frameworks? theoretical common almost from drawn strategies different Are these bourgeoisie. the with socialists the of collaboration the to strategy, political of in terms leads, itis formulated way the because, one thesocialist rejects perspective communist rhetorical.visions The are rather two the between differences theorethical the Thus, identical. almost become they when point a to up comparable are social-change from being asitis divergent, usually perspectives twothe asserted, ondevelopmentand theorethical writings of changein and developmentfocusing Romania, pre-communist specifically on the This strict correlation between strict correlation This The theorethical writings of the two Marxist historians are to be analyzed and analyzed be to are historians Marxist two the of writings theorethical The This thesis will evaluate the socialist and communist perspectives on social- on perspectives communist and socialist the evaluate will thesis This ù erban Voinea and Lucre ideological histories theory 2 and Ġ iu P practice ă tr regarding the social-change and social-change the regarding ăú ă canu. It will be shown that far tr ăú is somehow justified and justified somehow is canu were producing or canuwere producing CEU eTD Collection himself during the interwar decades due to objective reasons (Dobrogeanu-Gherea died at died (Dobrogeanu-Gherea objective reasons dueto interwar decades himself during the defend to Unable theories. Gherea’s of reiteration limited tothe is rather sociologist would have been substantiated by the fact that that fact the by substantiated been have would limited myself at opposing3ă the writings of P reality. historical by an ever-changing uncovered Requiredby conditions new‘objective’ the moment. the of strategy required the justify to in order be changed valid,can how matter no interpretation, theorethical the if needed, that implies This theory. scientific asthe important isas just be to adopted communiststrategy political the perspective, political strategyaspects or to ofcondemn common theunequally samehighlighting or emphasis the shifting problem.slightly the differently, it (re)frame hitherto The reason available is comprisedcommunist one.in the needThis to tellsjustify perspective usalreadya differentthat from thementioned, rejects thesubstantial theory. gist of the onessocialist the itcomplements as make oftheir disputes, is sense to is called This when practice or ones other. each at thrown fervently so have they allegations the theorethicalthatjustify might that differences should be substantial see the notdoes but two the between divergences theoretical seesthe one apparatustaken at face only of political the action they Whyishad important? envisioned. concomitantly Becausethis value. to The scope related to the if not areunintelligible paradigms In sum, theoretical writings. their tr ăú canu has further justifications. In order to state my case I could have just as well have just Icould my case state to order In justifications. further canu has This paper’s special focus on the writings of ontheThis paper’sspecialfocus writings of have I as not, were they opinion my in but exist did differences Theorethical 3 ă tr ù ăú erban Voinea’s contribution as a Marxist as contribution Voinea’s erban canu to those of Gherea. This attitude ù erban andLucre Voinea Ġ iu CEU eTD Collection writings, so I findwritings, soI necessary it pay in to thesis this theirin close biographiesattention to withwork a double-edged theory/practicein instrument tomake order sense of their revealing tothe study of pre-communist JustasI considered Romania. itnecessary to yearare adopt they around Marxisttheoretical the practical stances were to 1900the and emerged which generation of same the Representatives faceoflikecircumstances. the similar in their backgrounds as they were different in the positions they were to adopt in the present thesis. present the interpretation of the Russian case. Voinea was right in his criticism, asit will be shown in 3ă thatLucre state literally will Voinea his death, before yearsfew a Just Lenin.of shown in this paper, Voinea was an advocate of Gherea just as P a Gherea-P andnot material that I have gathered which convinced me Ihave that convinced I have aVoinea-P which material gathered that research itwasthe words, by other them. In advocated perspectives Marxist the measure me inspired to of that two the trajectories biographical interesting the uncovering material idea of opposing Patrascanu to Voinea rather than to Gherea is not groundless. It wasthe socialists, interwar of the themain doctrinaire the as and Dobrogeanu-Gherea” disciple of Gherea’s heritage to the Romanian social-democracy years. interwar of the social-democracy Romanian tothe heritage Gherea’s as advocacy rather the beunderstood should can be asVoinea’scontribution of regarded mentioning,itislife. hisfor supporter, therest what of Gherea’s worth theories Thus of beginningthe is of 1920s)the the task assumedby tr ăú canu’s theoretical analysis suffers as itis mechanically Lenin’sreproducing I chose to study their case once I realized that Voinea and P Although in his ideological history inideologicalAlthough history his P ă tr ăú canu one. What makes things even tougher is that, as it will be asitwill is that, even tougher makes things What one. canu 4 ă tr ăú canu argued against Voinea seen against“a seen canu argued Voinea as ù erban Voinea.bea Hewill staunch ă tr ăú canu was afollower ă tr ăú ă canu were as tr ăú canu case Ġ iu CEU eTD Collection Romania ofhis and theorethical contribution as aMarxist radioduring two broadcasts. destalinization. Voinea will speak about P speakabout will Voinea destalinization. Voinea was the first and likely the sole advocate of P of advocate thesole likely and first the was Voinea memberswas beginning purgedbythehis of eventually at the 1950s. own party of the communist theoretician, having after faithfully served thecommunist causein Romania, the microphone of Radio Free Europe, he will try to rehabilitate P he will to rehabilitate Free Europe, try Radio of microphone the way interpretingof them by of“opportunism”accusing socialists and the “treason”. the on focuses history that Inhisideological SecondWorld the War. after andonly recognition inmodern analysisand consistency evolution Romaniacapitalism of gains advent the California: University of California Press, 1978), 31-52. ChangeSocial inRomania,1860-1940, Adebate onDevelopmentin aEuropeanNation Concerning Romania’s prospects Contemporarythe 1920s and its in Debate KennethImportance” Jowitt, in Editor, Zeletin-Voinea The Development: of Theories Democratic Social and “Neoliberal Chirot, Daniel of Greater Romania’s new political and socio-economical circumstances. P circumstances. socio-economical and newpolitical Romania’s of Greater face in the social-democrats the of programme future draw the to andaccordingly right, from interpretationthe criticism defendagainst strong the himself obligedto Gherea’s theorethical in work 1920s.Asthe a hesocial-democrat issummoned, rather or feels asadebate. might beregarded unanimously what realm of debate(s) about talk to chose I why reason the is This epoch. the in 3 circumstances. in face likemake adopted the attitudes those order to of sense of divergentthe To be more explicit a debate Voinea-P debate a explicit more be To Romanianphenomenon, Voinea will indirectly allude to these accusations two decades later when, from when, later decades two accusations these to allude indirectly Voinea will A debate although the conflict between the two Marxists can also be analyzed within the within be analyzed also can Marxists two the between conflict the although per se between them, ithas to be mentioned from the onset, did not exist P ă tr ă ăú tr ăú canu argues against Gherea’s andVoinea’s theories against canu argues canu as the 1920s debate Voinea-Zeletin did not exist. See exist. did not Voinea-Zeletin debate 1920s the as canu 5 ă tr ăú canu’s role in the Communist Party of Party in Communist canu’s the role ă tr ăú canu’s case in the context of in thecontext case canu’s perspectives 3 Voinea his delivers ă tr ăú rather than rather ă canu. The canu. tr , (Berkley, , ăú canu’s CEU eTD Collection term on social-changein anddevelopment interwarmobilize Romania,Ihave decided to the broadcasts at by several radiobeginningof duringthe ‘rehabilitated’ 1960s. the Voinea term for the need advocated strategy.thus They political acertain would legitimize history providing ideological that an with wereconcerned study Russian case, the of Both Gherea’sVoinea,lens, through influenced and as Patrascanu, he by was Lenin’s makesspeakonly of ‘pre-communist senseto not of ‘interwar Romania’ and Romania’. more than a century. Since the emphasis of this thesis is on the theorethical perspective, it by society suffered within deal of Romanian span the atime transformations the with intellectuals Marxist by two represented the histories ideological under The discussion. perspectives is two the years. of by justifiedapproach My densetheorethical decision the during thewar.Finally, in arrested death1948 andsentenced in to 1954, P 1940s mainly he conceivedwhen during thebooks published thebut written 1930s P Then, national-liberals. considered the still valid In the half second 1920s,Voineathe of publishedhis advocatinghe major work what interpretations of Gherea in a debate with an apologist needVoinea’s directly his to answer to allegations. of the thesis suffers of from reproduction theoretical obviated Lenin’s work mechanical the He will not make any reference to Patrascanu’s accusations. Saying that P that Saying accusations. Patrascanu’s to reference make any not He will analysis of the social transformations suffered by the Romanian society in its road to pre-communist While the historical context has been addressed, in looking has atthese While been addressed, perspectives context historical the In sum a simple chronology underlies the organization of this project’s narrative. project’s this of organization the underlies chronology simple a sum In because its meanings are not precisely the interwar becauseits arenot meanings to confined ă tr ăú canu criticized Voinea’s standpoint in the first half of the of half first in the standpoint Voinea’s criticized canu 6 ă tr ăú ă tr canu was ăú a long canu’s CEU eTD Collection political strategy formulated by Voinea had on the Social-Democratic Party the Party during hadonthe by Social-Democratic formulated Voinea political strategy impact the it the is evaluating worth theories, Gherea’s hemostly Although reiterates example, of, for instead same section I will of the In thesis. the framework in theoretical the willbeaddressed Romania interwar also explain why I use the terms histories. ideological on years,their drawing in legitimize, interwar the aretryingthey to strategy is political This modernity. the the national-liberals, were defended and presented as still being valid by asstill being and presented weredefended national-liberals, the historian. Gherea’s theories, under the harsh Marx. of criticismdoctrine internationalist the not and scene the monopolized of that essence’ Romania. During interwar of landscape the cultural and political inthe warintegrate not did ideas ittheir and was the integralintellectuals Marxist two the that feeling is a nationalismThere decisions. early this of outcome the and the idiom of and International, Communist the theof formation ways the after parted they why activities, ‘nationalsocialist to them drew what thought, Marxist with familiar became they how at look thus Iwill Romania. interwar sceneof in political the fitted parties these how and represented they formations political the to paid attention special with intellectuals Marxist two the of by represented two thinkers.the emphasis will personal biographies The beplacedon the perspectives theoretical investigation the of for thorough will chapter way the clear perspectives twothe in onsocial-change anddevelopment question. Thus theopening Further justifications myof usage of the term The second chapter will analyze Voinea’s theoretical contribution asaMarxist contribution theoretical Voinea’s analyze will chapter The second which shaped context historical readerwith the the chapterwill The first provide modernization . 7 pre-communist social-change anddevelopment social-change ù tefan Zeletin, an apologist of instead of instead of modern or ù erban Voinea. , CEU eTD Collection Principalities, Walachia and Moldavia. Identified as the generation of WalachiaPrincipalities,1848 they asthegeneration of Identified Moldavia. and thesis. the of onset from the present it itis necessary to Voinea will operate, and both Patrascanu Gherea’s paradigm Sincewithin this point. at necessary is more bythan Gherea, socialist represented camp, inmodernization modern Romania. absurd. the absence of a real capitalist development they believed that any socialist activity was disowned their socialistbeliefs butjoined the reactionary party of thenational-liberals. In letter Kautsky,to most of his and comrades friends hadleft party.the Theynot only through his writings theorethical activity,his Ghereaand failed.Fiveyearsafter political Romania byhimenvisioned is very tothesocialistone. close perspective communist the that shown be will It case. Romania the of interpretation way he regarded Voinea’s perspective, I will now look at the differences in differences P atthe look now will I perspective, Voinea’s heway regarded comprised in writings ofLucrethe by presented Voinea. development on perspective socialist the criticism of 4 P upon alsotouch I shall section of this boundaries Within years.the interwar Shafir, 12. Shafir, 4 The liberals artisans werethe 1848Revolutionthe of in the Romanian A look at the liberal project and the criticism it raised, especially fromIn spite of his efforts to foster the emergence of thea committed socialistmovement inpre-communist ondevelopment 1. Perspectives The third chapter of the thesis will scrutinize the communist perspective as perspective communist the scrutinize will thesis the of chapter third The They thus joined the National-Liberal Party, the principal agent of Ġ iu P ă tr ăú canu. After previous the section examined the 8 ă tr ă ăú tr ăú canu’s canu CEU eTD Collection 30-1. (The New-Serfdom. Economic and sociological studyof our agrarian problem) 9 8 7 6 realities, lacks any sort of substance. ‘Forms without substance’ without ‘Forms of substance. sort lacks any realities, the local West,when appliedbackward to framework of the advanced institutional the by fit liberals words, not with Romanianrealities. In hastily adopted other the does belated advent of the capitalist era in the Romanian Principalities led to the need for a need ledtothe Principalities Romanian inthe era of capitalist the advent belated on the Romanian backward society had modes of production western capitalist impact of expression the forcessocial arethe of the nineteenth century. According“deep socialto Gherea, theforcesright that in imposedtheir criticism, the from circle, Inhis Junimea members of although the the a Marxistperspective. opinion transformation” did not realize thatof the the Romanian 1848 revolutionaries society. ofwouldbeformulated instrains criticism uptothe that communist take-over 1948. only expressed becauseliberals. Their isimportant for theplatform it criticism represented subsequent the fromimported by used when the western-like west institutionsthe the referring to offeredby models.” western the traditionalism but gradual,to the Romanian organic evolution of society along the lines notinclined to ofmodern-style doctrine, conservative members were“exponents 5 response, a Principalities. strong the of independence the later and criticism autonomy the advocate to policy, foreign was articulated an sceneand,through monopolize political local the managed to gradually formulated by a cultural society – Junimea Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Titu Maiorescu, Titu Lucian Boia, Lucian Keith Hitchins, junimea – junimea Dobrogeanu-Gherea would (re)consider the concept of ‘forms without essence’ ‘forms without of concept the (re)consider would Dobrogeanu-Gherea youth. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness 5 The Romanians 1774-1866 Concomitantly they triggered an accelerated modernization process. Asa process. modernization anaccelerated triggered they Concomitantly Critice (Critiques) Neoiob , (Bucharest: Albatros, 1998), 111. 7 They argued that the Western model mechanically and mechanically model Western the that argued They ă gia. Studiu economico-sociologic al problemei noastre agrare , (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2004), 285. 9 , (Budapest: CEU Press, 2001), 54. 8 was the expression they expression the was , (Bucharest: Socec, 1910), 6 9 who’s These CEU eTD Collection 12 11 10 institutional in an intelligible be first “must Principalities the that understood liberals andindependence it national preserved the identity of Romanians. the states,” it western model political helped of the great because necessary achievement was identity national of “surrounded Romanian the by three Beinggeographically people. the preserve to urgency the by asserts, Gherea as justified, isalso model institutional local the realities. capital had on western the impact that Ghereaargues,of the result, this represents of independence and Principalities the the autonomy regarding the scores the settle officially need to Their west. the exchange with revolutionaries of 1848 wereindirectly seeking rationalize away to thiscommercial In exchange theywouldmanufactured products. As offer Ghereabelieved, the of raw materials. resources in Principalities’ capitalists the western the of by theinterest influence exercised of the result the place were took that transformations and economic social the on, moment that From Principalities. inthe era capitalist the of beginning the ideological history. historical lived.the in they epoch which fellows,” as presented by the Junimea, but also arevolutionary class with agreat sense of young “enthusiastic of only a couple not were class. They that represented liberals pragmatic policy formulated by a revolutionary class. Albeit their unawareness, the Ibid., 39-40. Ibid., 32-3. 30. Gherea, Adopting the western framework proved, as K. Jowitt showed, that the national- The 1848 generation’s more preciselyattitude, theimport of western the The treaty Adrianopole, signedof with OttomanEmpirethe in 1829,represents 10 10 Let us pay closer attention to Gherea’s to attention closer pay Letus 11 12 CEU eTD Collection 15 14 Change in Romania1860-1940 13 question. agrarian the on exclusively study agrarian aspect of the “the vast issue social country,” of focushisour was to time had only he allegedly Since work. Gherea’s of point central is the This peasantry. their agrarian reforms they legalized anewserfdom of burden already the Romanian these reminiscences of hampering past, the thereal thus capitalist Through development. eliminating anomaly, this national-liberals, revolutionary elite of1848,the the preserved ones. features andfeudal capitalist acombination new, of and of old constitute inwill economy inskipped tocatch order up with more the developed West. Therelations of productions or burned are development capitalist of phases the of some from and above directed Romanianthe modernizedPrincipalities differently. of process The is social-change modes theirof capitalist establishmentthe way of argues, to the AsGherea productions. follow on any would latecomer that road special the determines that ones backward the futurethe ofbackward states. countries only represent advanced the that affirmation his nowclassical and Marx on Ghereawasdrawing West. capitalist andthe Principalities between the established contacts duetothe introduced capitalism” of construction social and political the for subjectivethe although existed nor time conditions the objective that “neitherthe at ignore them.” recognize or to inaposition powerful countries sense to Gherea, 8. Gherea, Gherea, 28-9. in Countries” Peasant in Dependency National of Bases Sociocultural “The Jowitt, Kenneth This hybridis more obvious intheagrarian sector of of economy.the Instead and societies advanced more the between relation uneven this is precisely it But , 21. 15 11 14 , the institutional frameworkwas , theinstitutional 13 Gherea argues Social CEU eTD Collection criticized for its logical criticized for – of outcome concept the rules of politicalthe game by shaped 148revolutionariesthe and theirheirs. anyclassbut social representativethe landlords,tothe wouldthe of of class that accept the limited to wasnot process The admission norm. the contradict local realities But the interests. their represented have should less entity, “more aclosed” or oligarchy, political the political haverealm. should majority, The dominated the landlords they represented itsmirror should and social economic Romanian configuration. Inthe the case since from the need to prove the inexistence of such an oligarchy. starting their theories construct to tried Gherea criticized who those since attention our bourgeois State, endowed with great resources and important economical economical attributions.” important and resources great endowedwith bourgeois State, who, because they are indispensable, envision themselves as being the absolute rulers in a of oligarchy the befurtherwould developedRadaceanu byLotar in 1920s. the Oligarchic Marxism) the regarding Gherea theory the of that communist perspective represented byLucre represented perspective communist by be will reiterated These theories activities genuinethe of bourgeoisie and thus theprogress of capitalism in Romania. andeconomic sphere behaved as scene political the hinderingan they oligarchy the 17 V (Complete Works, Vol. V) 16 the laws andlegislation through force bycreating, Lotar R Lotar in Oligarchy”), Romanian ofthe Genesis (“The române” oligarhiei “Geneza Ibid., Gherea believed that the political structure of any society mirrors or atleast or mirrors society of structure any political the that Ghereabelieved 5ăGă The exponents of the 1848 Generation and their disciples became a reactionary a became disciples their and Generation 1848 the of exponents The ăGă ceanu, ceanu, ceanu would portray the oligarchy as a “group of professional professional politicians of “group asa oligarchy the portray would ceanu ù , (Bucharest: Domino), 62. erban Voinea, erban , (Bucharest:, Ed. Politica, 1978), 177-79. Oligarhia român ù erban Voinea and rhetorically contested later bythe contested andrhetorically Voinea erban newserfdom 12 ă Ġ . Marxism oligarhic. (The Romanian Oligarchy. iu P ă newserfdom tr oligarchy ăú was not criticized for itself as it was it as itself for criticized not was canu. There are reasons to believe canu. to arereasons There . This concept also deserve . Moreover, controlling the Opere complete, Vol. complete, Opere 16 Thetheory 17 CEU eTD Collection 21 20 and Historical Role) 19 (Oligarchic Marxism.Contribution to the capitalist development ofRomania clearing them from from clearing them blame.any oligarchic rule of liberals,the them by presenting as a historical necessity and thus the justify to called is history ideological Zeletin’s asserted, rightly As Voinea writings. lamentablydevelopment fails, in asIwill show dedicated chapter the toVoinea’s His attempt to prove that arguments. someGherea’s of reiterates in fact and contradictions of lot a contains out, Romania goes through identical phases of Westernstill has to accomplishcapitalist its mission, any socialist activity was considered reactionary. bourgeoisie Romanian were the In acountry stances. socialist upant andgive Generous, reactionary. for theRomanian andthus bourgeoisie represents blamed being social-democrats the His adviceliberal the argued that oligarchy Zeletin social-democrats. the heritage to defend Gherea’s to the social-democrats was to learn from the lesson of the 18 was Zeletin middle of writings the against of 1920s.It the oligarchy. liberal the against bourgeoisie with democratic the proletariat of the in collaboration the seen, asweshallsee, and as they worked for the maintenance of the developmentfor Romanian capitalist the belated responsible areequally conservatives, the bourgeoisie or its interests. On the contrary the liberals, and to some extent the not represent does Party Liberal National the both Radaceanu andVoinea, According to Voinea, 330. Voinea, ù ù ù tefan Zeletin, tefan tefan Zeletin, tefan erban Voinea, erban Despite this harsh criticism, Zeletin’s ideological history, as Voinea would point would Voinea as history, ideological Zeletin’s criticism, harsh this Despite The harshest criticism of Gherea’s law was formulated by formulated lawwas ofGherea’s criticism harshest The Neoliberalismul Burghezia Româna. Originea Marxism oligarchic. Contribu , (Bucharest: Humanitas, 2006). ( The 21 Neoliberalism In this respect, Zeletin’s history be Inhistory Zeletin’s can this regardedasan respect, ú Ġ i rolul eiistoric. (The Romanian Bourgeoisie. ItsOrigin ie laproblema dezvolt 13 ), (Bucharest: Ziua, 2005), 238-42. newserfdom ă 19 rii capitalistea României. system. that Voinea felt obliged to ), in Ibid. ù 18 tefan Zeletin in the Zeletin tefan The solution was , 346-47. 20 CEU eTD Collection with the alleged genuine bourgeoisie against the alleged oligarchy. alleged with bourgeoisie against genuine the alleged the theories, this is a construct of the social-democrats in order to justify the collaboration 24 Rusa, 1945), 8-10. governments Western the status, dependency their overcome to wereeager that system theworld- of periphery atthe situated countries for the suitable paradigm, modernization War. Sincethe various thedevelopmental communist schools in the debates the local west within the historicalmodel context of wasthe Cold alsosame key as Gherea and his disciple, Serban Voinea. promoted him from interpreting the social-change and developmentmodern of Romania in the by the Soviet Unionbourgeoisie. the genuine class obstructs an aseparate that as oligarchy of asexistence the in believe not did hand, other the on a Patrascanu, bourgeoisie. Romanian intolerablejustify, as trying they to Marx’s abusesthe were using method, the of more the all were inquiries theoretical Zeletin’s argued, also Voinea as opinion, his In condescendence. similar a somewhat with Gherea lawof special the and rejected schematic outrageously interpretation mentioned. Zeletin’s Heconsidered histories above an analytical tool anymore, but also afighting weapon.” represent not does evolution, social of understanding the ease to tries that phenomenon, 23 22 the conclusion that the it: “…I to havereached referred ishowVoinea by This history ideological excellence. Ibid., Lucretiu Patrascanu, Lucretiu Ibid., 335. Probleme de Bazaale Romaniei These local perspectives on development were recovered with emergenceof the with recovered were on development perspectives These local of therecovery and schools developmental postwar 2. The ideological both by opposes Patrascanu represented perspective The communist Un veac de framantari sociale (A century ofSocial Unrest) science that tries to discover the necessary links between distinct between links necessary the discover to tries that (Basic problems of Romania) 14 22 , (Bucharest: Socec, 1945), 267. , (Bucharest: Cartea (Bucharest: , 24 23 This did not stop According his to CEU eTD Collection (Sage Library of Social Research, vol.178, Sage Publications, 1990), 12. 26 92-3. 25 modern assert of that paradigm to specificities the interpretative he world-system usedthe Dobrogeanu-Gherea, of theories the on also Drawing Wallerstein. Immanuel of ‘student’ Zeletin. and Voinea debatebetween andthe particular, in of Gherea concepts and theories the recovered among others, Chirot, that schools by the were dominated the was school developmental dominant the written, Asperceived: rightly scholar one Europe. in era Eastern communist context Marx’s feared spreadof the ideology in communism and practice InthisThird World countries. work was rediscovered, and with it the Marxist debates of the pre- world decade another school 1970sandduring –the emerged next Beginning the late the with Alvin Y. So, RobertC. Tucker, - system Daniel Chirot even traveled to Romania at the beginning of a Romania beginningeventhe 1970s,as the of traveled at Daniel to Chirot lineslateDuring have 1960s, the 1950sand upto when abovequoted the been more. or century by a them preceded had embarkedscientist upon questthis in the mid-twentiethcentury, they foundthat Marx and Engels modernization has contributed to the revival of interest in Marxism iseasily stated. When of social theory a for quest the why reason The Marxism(…) in interest of renaissance recent central structuresthe of one as of modernization of ourtheory a thinking upon beconverging aboutto appear man andpsychology and society. sociology, Here lies one of the explanationsscience political economics, History, forscience. the social of contemporary concern dominant a attempt to conceptualize history of society,Western has tended togive way to ‘traditional-transitional-modern’ – an developmental… the archetypal triad ‘ancient-medieval-modern’, away of thinking about the become to tendency pronounced a shown have sciences social the War, World Second the Since Social Change and Development. Modernization, Dependency andWorld-System Theories school. The Marxian RevolutionaryIdea 26 It is from he positions of the dependency and world-system and dependency the of hepositions from is It dependency all societies indevelopmental terms. Inshort, modernization has become school, aresponse to the modernization paradigm. 25 15 , (New, York: W.W. Norton& Company INC, 1969), modernization school. The 1970s school. The , CEU eTD Collection 28 change inaperipheral society.The creation of a Balkan colony) as thecenter’sininterested not are needelites but periphery’s toachievethe modernity, more powerful inthe center. of colonies societies economic a political gradually lead transformation andtothe peripheral to dependency the of itcreates argue, scholars modernization than rather sorts different of development and social-change is feudal generates economies backward, of the productions modes of bycapitalist Whatpenetration of West. the societies backward more the on capital Western of impact the under process generated an automatically is not that 27 for exampleperspectives ‘social-changeandnot development,’ and on is contested. theories, classical economic drawson the which school, modernization is This wherethe place. indeed taking are processes development and social-change that fact the despite stagnation, and dependency generate simply may it contrary, the On welfare. social and progress economic believed, liberalism and Marxism of classical adepts asthe generate, also operates, is that perspective. the influence system. capitalist western of capitalism,within the Ottoman system and, the Treaty beginning with Adrianopole withinof the does status dependency byits constant were generated development Romania’s capitalist not automatically produce or So, “The Dependency Perspective” in Perspective” Dependency “The So, Daniel Chirot, The result is thus not necessarily welfare or an articulated modernization process modernization an articulated welfareor necessarily not is thus The result As I mentioned in the first part of the introduction, the need to discuss to need the introduction, the of part first in the mentioned I As The main assumption dependency the of and world-system schools, with Chirot 28 Schimbarea social dependency 27 He later analyzed the Zeletin-Voinea debate from from this debate Zeletin-Voinea analyzedthe Helater ă într-o societate periferic Ibid. , 91-109. , a center-periphery economic relation which may which relation economic , acenter-periphery 16 ă . Formarea unei colonii balcanice (Social , (Bucharest:, Corint, 2002). per se . In most cases, as modernization, is CEU eTD Collection 14. 31 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995), 166. 30 European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century 29 an strategy. economic propose open than to need the more acute was oligarchic the rule economic strategy. open believeelites, in he validity an to came of by the fostered communist the system autarchic of the shortcomings the he hadseen Because Europe. in Eastern communism fall the of his views would reconsider Without later explanations after offeringregime.Chirot much - political strategy economic correlation self evident beyond the aspects other emphasize not thoroughly does approach This unilateral rather historical broader misses picture. the and economic on the focusesbecausemisleading itaspect thereby argue, exclusively Ishalllater was, developmental schools as by recovered members of the postwar the is way The debate this be adopted. to beststrategy economic the for concern the in of world-economy.” thisthe role region economic model taken up by“atrying become weakstate state, astrong to thereby changing the logicallyis asit a nor surprise” merely adistortion Union,case of“isneither a Soviet the andpromote organize such AsWallersteina strategy. totalitarian argues, politics in as the can regime political An autarchic strategy. economic –aclosed Romania in thecaseof Therefore, the solution to trigger a genuine modernization process is advocated by Chirot goods. andfrom a low cost in periphery the manufactured at offers exchange expensive raw materials extracts center – the dependency of economic state a of in perpetuation the See Chirot’s Immanuel Wallerstein, Immanuel Immanuel Wallerstein, Immanuel As it will be shown in this thesis, the socialists’ desire to rid the political scene of scene political the rid to desire socialists’ the thesis, this in be shown will it As of The stake isthus as revolving debate Zeletin-Voinea the seen byChirot around Preface to the Romanian edition of his book of his edition Romanian the to Unthinking Social Science. The Limits of Nineteenth-Century Paradigms The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the 31 , (New York, Academic Press, 1974), 67-68. 17 Social Change ina Peripheral Society 30 , , Ibid. , 5- 29 CEU eTD Collection 35 20. Voinea, sociological trend in spite of his criticism and diatribes towards his rivals. The similarities and oligarchy, or the sociology of backwardness before communism”), before backwardness of sociology the or oligarchy, and revolutionary tactics” revolutionary the socialist theory of the oligarchy, “sacrifices the sociological acumen in favor of the 34 Gherea. Moreover he argues that P he argues Moreover Gherea. expertise” sound sociological entire the ways with parts phase deliberately pre-communist interwar of the theoretician communist between P ‘dispute’ similarities of the socialist and communist perspective. 33 Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1996), 51-8. although rather descriptive, of of P descriptive, although rather of development.” Rumanian features peculiar explainwhich be had Ghereato adapted degreeto to the the Marxism on Zeletin and Joseph Love argues that “P that Loveargues Joseph historian is provided byJoseph L. Love comparative study of underdevelopment. 32 A thorough examination of P benefited the liberal oligarchy. itonly because rather itwas strategy economic closed the rejected If Voinea strategies. regime ofThis wouldKing be best illustrated Carol in the collaboration of theII socialists and with the authoritariantheir acceptance of the King’s corporatist economic See VictorRizescu, “Marxism Joseph L. Love, L. Joseph Ibid Ibid ., 19. ., 54. Victor RizescuVictor is one fewwhodidthe of not analyze,although thoroughly, the The communist perspective did not receive as much attention as the socialist one. socialist the as attention much as receive not did perspective communist The Crafting theThird World ă tr 35 ăú . In my opinion, P canu and the disciples of Gherea. He concluded that “the only that concluded He Gherea. of disciples the canu and ú ă i oligarhie, sau sociologia înapoierii înainte de comunism” (“Marxism tr ă ăú tr ă ăú canu struck an intermediate position between those of between those position anintermediate struck canu tr ăú canu’s contribution as a Marxist economist and social ă . tr the upon study nottouch Love’s canudoes writings. Theorizing Underdevelopment in Romania and Brazil ăú 34 canu, by “simply rejecting as a Marxist heresy” asaMarxist by “simply canu,rejecting initiated by Junimea and further elaborated by by initiated elaborated Junimea andfurther 18 ă tr 33 ăú Love provides an insightful analysis insightful an provides Love canu did not part ways with this Preface in Lotar R inLotar ăGă ceanu, ceanu, , ù erban 32 CEU eTD Collection and Rosa Luxemburg, Engels or even Marx, in his later years later his in Marx, even or Engels Luxemburg, Rosa and differentthe in ofdevelopmentpatterns available the case backward countries. of Lenin possible? this was How theories. similar advocate easily time same the at and socialists Romanian Development ofCapitalisminRussia andstates advancedsocieties capitalist Leninof the West. in publishes 1899 morein caught of the orbit the are that backward countries of features distinctive Now, it suffice to say Lenin’swritings it P by drawing on sufficeNow, that to Gherea’s. I shall dwell on this point in the chapter dedicated to P without alluding though to the similarities between the P as it was Lenin’s writings that P that writings Lenin’s as itwas (London: Routledge Keganand Paul, 1984). Generation. This is not to say though that P that though say to not is This Generation. soon betrayed, initiated, although revolution bourgeois-democratic bythe1848 progressive parts social groups, of bourgeoisiethe in included, toend order the the theRomanian proletariat, organize, the need around he to talk about would socialist the as just Finally Romania. in capitalism of development organic the obstructs liberals by the of deliberately preserved affairs this state arguethat heVoinea, would of the capitalist features with the remains of the feudal past. Just as Gherea and later 36 P Just asthe socialists, in presented paper arestriking. this perspectives socialistbetween the and communist See TeodorShanin (Editor), Gherea was not the only member of the Second International who argued about argued who International Second the of member only the not was Gherea He did not feel threaten by the possibility of being labeled as a socialist. More so ă tr ăú Late Marxand the Russian Road.Marx and ‘theperipheries ofcapitalism’ canu would identify the coexistence in the agricultural sector intheagricultural thecoexistence canuidentify would ă tr ăú canu was emulating, as Voinea would declare later declare would asVoinea was emulating, canu while Rosa Luxembourgwhile in1913her publishes Rosa ă 19 tr ăú canu adopted the socialist point of view. of point socialist the adopted canu ă tr ă ăú tr canucould the criticize ăú canu’s writings and 36 ă tr , talked about the ăú canu’s writings. , CEU eTD Collection Press, 1986), 48-80. Europe” in 39 forma form’ (“defrom the to ‘the substance of be developmentRomania can tracked Patrascanu is the only sociologist of the modernization process who believes that the inillustrated interpretation the provided byRizescu “Alongside whowrote that: Zeletin, is best attitude This paradigm? interpretative exactopposite the necessarily adopt theoretician communist the must social-democrats, Romanian the blames he because and book, notthus readingin key Patrascanu be proper the can misleading. Simply case was very similar. movements in backward societies. Aswe see, Lenin’sshall interpretation ofthe Russian adapt orconstruct aMarxist theory that wouldjustify the political programme of socialist Kautsky’sGherea oneof to and attempted was very fewintellectuals thattook the advice working class, the local socialists looked to the successful German inexistent socialists arather for advice. address would that strategy political socialist a formulate implicitly urgency to by Troubled the adapt social-democracy. by German the dominated International Second Marxism to the agrarianmuch on their writings as evident in the case of Immanuel Wallerstein. societies value.” surplus of realization the of for world of the parts lessSouth-Eastern onthe developed states capitalist advanced the of dependence Europe and to 38 37 the on work See Georges Haupt, “Model party: the role and influence of German social democracy in South-East in democracy social ofGerman influence and role the party: “Model Haupt, SeeGeorges Ibid Marxism Volume I ., xviii. ”), on the basis of an authentic capitalism…”, moreover, the same scholar believes scholar same the moreover, capitalism…”, authentic an of basis the on ”), Ignoring these aspects of international socialism, to use the title of G. Haupt’s the of context historical the within theories their developed Gherea and Lenin Aspects of international socialism,1871-1914: essays Accumulation ofCapital , Edited by Margaret Levi, An Elgar Reference Collection, 1991, xv. 1991, Collection, Reference AnElgar Levi, by Margaret , Edited 37 The contemporary contribution to the field draws very draws field the to contribution contemporary The . Both works represent an “analysis of the increasing 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University 38 la fond la fond 39 CEU eTD Collection corporatism ideological historyin Romania.pre-communist Hewas not only the one though. legitimacy of inprove construct anartificial he framework order to the to better preferred thetheorethical statuswork might strategy economic a closed case quo.Romanian in the that asserting and paradigm Zeletin’s history processhighlightingthe the most desirable mélange.Insteadjust of adopting the socialist isin practice, and probablytheory combine to attempted who author another was Zeletin seen, have the best illustration of an Voinea and P constructed or melted into a certain politicalpolitical strategy. strategy than acertain formulate to elaboratedtried they tools, theoretical these with accordance In school. forworld-system and dependency the of itspatrimony the as regard now ownwe that tools the with sake. three schools. Sharing the optimism of the modernization school, they nevertheless work 40 West”. the of those and Romania to specific development of phases the between identity the to regards “with that by rejecting the theory of the oligarchy Patrascanu subscribes tothe theory of Zeletin developmental schools, the writings of Voinea and P of and writings Voinea the schools, developmental lightof literature. In postwar the academic novel within comparison certainly a and contrast, interesting an are hereafter analyzed perspectives two The promoted. they developmental the the prehistory of theories change couldbe as reframed and recovered Rizescu, 19. DuringMihail Manoilescu, anadvocate and the 1930’s, of theoretician Their historiesTheir must be regarded asideological histories. Theory is rather Western Marxists realized that the local debates on development and social- ă produced hisproduced owninterpretation social-changeof and of development tr ăú canu were not the only ones in that epoch to follow this pattern. As we 40 This paper will prove the contrary. the will prove This paper 21 ă tr ăú canu represent a mélange of mélangeall of a canu represent CEU eTD Collection Domino, 2005), 9. (TheXIX-lea influenceof theLiberal Economic School inRomania in 19ththe Century) Both Voinea and P questions in followingthe sections. A answer canneverthelessshort useful now. prove stake? Whatwas at heretics’? ‘Marxist being accuse one another to soready them Whywereall of facts? historical the manipulating they were aware that of being ‘reactionary’the present. or, in the caselike science, does notneed todistortof the pastin order tocome up with an explanationthe for Marxistmuch Economics, words? use Chirot’s to facts,” historical historians,the “twisting without strategy of Romaniaand in not particular”. thinking andoversimplified rhetoric stemming of Thirties’ as the from a wholeEurope of I have much bias,wishful was very called elsewhere what product ideological the ‘the than with the realistic analysis of how and why they actually were… In short Manoilescu historian of the epoch: Eugen Demetrescu, Eugen epoch: of the historian 42 peripherythe of Western Europe”K. inJowitt (Editor), 118-119. 41 and political relationship as they economic social, with deal ‘projectively’ to he tended that in sense simple the theorist than ideologue a more an clearly was “…Manoilescu historian: social and economist the epoch. This is whatunderstandin need of regardingManoilescu our to thistrend the of arerevealing writings he had to say with regardsRomania,his ownideological history, during the 1930s. Philippe C. Schmitter’s remarks to Manoilescu’s contribution as an This assertion is best illustrated, as Victor Rizescu also remarked, by another economist and social and economist by another remarked, also Rizescu Victor as illustrated, best is assertion This on development delayed-dependent of consequences political the and Manoilescu onMihail “Reflections With regards to the two perspectives that I am interested in, answerthese will I interested I am perspectives that two the With to regards inWhy was argue itnot enough certain favor of to a economic political and 42 Why are there so many victims of this historical genre? Were they not they Were genre? historical this of victims many so there are Why ă tr ăú canu were promoters of ideological histories butit has to be 41 should be Influen Ġ a – orbetter put, as they 22 ù coalei Economice Liberale în Romania în Veacul al should become , (Bucharest: , – rather CEU eTD Collection Romanian society. Romanian the of transformation revolutionary the fostered have could that means any justify to called as was inquiries theory precedence scientific over usually took Practical concerns solutions. immediate demanding uncertainty political and instability, economic unrest, nationalism. integral ofRomania’s during years the proletariat the organization of proper and P Voinea World WarII. after Marxists byWestern ‘recovered’ consciously Marxists and preceded byimportant wasboth As paradigm. seen,Gherea wehave consecrated be asa can considered within what unlike Zeletin,operated they that acknowledged ă tr The socialist and communist perspectives were both articulated in times of social ăú canu both worked withincanu both worked the same At interpretativesteakwas framework. the 23 CEU eTD Collection Marxist discourse after the formation of Greater Romania. formation afterof Greater the discourse Marxist a idea certain nation. of the construct essence’ idiom manipulated by was official andthe figurespolitical to cultural in order large” for politics framework at ideological “asits nationalism” and “integral the acceptance Romania ininterwarcontended particular nation, but not yetin fact state…” nation, anation butnot particular for a and of state the nation-state, bea to “destined Romania was Interwar nation-state”. were advocating. of the RomanianMarxists two political the strategies understanding our facilitate shapedwill they trends political the of implicitly epoch and Patrascanu’s writings within framework. The reviewing that of mainthe debateof the understandingof interwar by of easeour place Romania occupiedthe Voinea’s and will politicalMarxist parties intellectuals. two the of at look Ashort themain cultural debate nationalism ofintegral advent the and Romania 1. Greater Marx’s disciples in interwar Romania Haven: Yale Center forInternational and Area Studies, 1995), 102. Characterand Ideology inInterwar Europe Eastern 45 1918-1930 44 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996), 63. 43 Chapter 1: Katherine Verdery, “National Ideology and National Character in Interwar Romania” in Romania” Interwar in Character National and Ideology “National Verdery, Katherine Irina Livezeanu, Irina RogerBrubaker, This is the historical context that influenced and to a certain extent shaped the shaped a certain influenced andtoextent that is context historical This the Greater Romania was, to use Roger Brubaker’s analytical tools, an “unrealized an tools, analytical use Roger Brubaker’s Romania was,to Greater The highly polarized political scene of interwar Romania left little room for the , (Cornell University Press, 1995), 14. Nationalism reframed. Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe Cultural Politics inGreater Romania. Regionalism,Nation Building, & Ethnic Struggle, ù erban Voinea and Lucre 45 edited by Ivo Banac and Katherine Verdery, (New Verdery, Katherine and Banac by Ivo edited 24 44 would become reality. The ‘national The reality. become would Ġ iu P 43 Thus as Irina Livezeanu Thusas Irina ă tr ăú canu – National , CEU eTD Collection (Stalinism (Stalinism for all seasons. A political history of Romanian Communism) 50 49 Democracy and Trade-Unionism) 48 47 Characterand Ideology inInterwar Europe, Eastern preeminence mostly due to the agrarian character of country. the character agrarian the mostly due to preeminence Romania in Modern 2. Socialism 46 periods in periods evolutionthe of socialism in priorRomania tothecommunist in take-over in modern in modern Romania. be recognized. to not was with Romania was which its union Moscow’s to policy according Bessarabia asked toadvocate regarding International Third the of section Romanian The state. ‘imperialist’ an as Romania be Greater Komintern regarded dismantled. The to wasdestined whole establishment socialists in order to overthrow the powerful party of the liberals. by the For the sought communistswere alliances the Political oligarchy. liberal the was enemy the socialists past”. development ifas Western it or Europe” “sought guidanceshould in autochthonous the revolvedimplications around for thewhether social and politicalRomania development “was destinedof Greater Romania, to follow as they the same path of communists were regarded as equally dangerous by the state’s secret police. secret by state’s the asequally dangerous wereregarded communists borders. Romania’s across bolshevism by raised claims and threats the by represented was ideology a national Vladimir Tism Vladimir Hitchins, Sorin Radu, Sorin in Romania” Interwar in Character National and Ideology “National Verdery, Katherine Keith Hitchins, “Orthodoxism: Polemics overEthnicity and Religion inInterwar Romania”, in 46 Socialism ideology ideology Socialismin manage didnot gain precommunist Romania to Interestingly enough these rather academic or intellectual haddirect debates intellectual or academic these rather enough Interestingly Another aspect that forged the need to strengthen the newly created state through state newlycreated the strengthen need to forged the that aspect Another At stake was the consolidation of the newly created state. Rumania 1866-1947 Ion Fluera ă neanu, Stalinism pentru eternitate.O istorie politic ú (1882-1953).Social-Democra , (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1994), 400. 47 , (Bucharest:, Nemira, 2007),224. Because of the threat of bolshevism, the socialists and the and socialists bolshevism, the of thethreat Becauseof 49 Butfirst let us look at the advent of socialism 25 135. Ġ ie ú i Sindicalism. (Ion Flueras 1882-1953. Social- ă a comunismului românesc , (Iasi: Polirom, 2005), 61. 50 One can identify three identify can One Ibid. , 104-105. 48 National For the For CEU eTD Collection settling theoretical disputes even decades after 1948. after evendecades settling theoretical disputes strategy of the social-democrats. social-democrats. the of strategy shapedbook thefirst political published. “The This was when Gherea’s Newserfdom” year the is also Party, Social-Democratic Romanian the of (re)formation political the of of members and intellectuals of consisted mainly had provide a proletarian base differentfrom that of the dissolved Romanian SD Party, which ‘treason’, directed the activities of the socialists “to the formation of trade unions, so as to to the resurrection of the Romanian social-democracy. Rakovsky, toavoid a new act of contributed whosignificantly Rakovsky Christian of leadership and under influence the marked end the of period. this Generous’ of the ‘treason The century. nineteenth decades of the last two the during Party Workers’ Romanian Social-Democrat organize managed the to who Dobrogeanu-Gherea Romania. in Greater nationalism’ years of ‘integral as interwar emergence so sawthe the ‘rootlessness’ which undermined socialist the first party turnthe of at century.the More registered by the capitalist development in Romania, could escape the stigma of 53 the Generous’.”, Shafir, 12. many of the intellectuals(…) joined the Liberal Party in 1899, in an act later to to beindicate known theas theabdication ‘treason of ofrelatively privileged social positions to building a more egalitariansociety(…) 52 51 Marxists interwar even the not this In respect ratherredundant. presence renderedtheir reasons, becauseobjective of Romanianthe Marxists whohad formulate to their demands in an environment that, 1948. Rakovsky quoted inShafir, 15. ‘Generous’, the as known were 1880’s inthe ideas socialist to adhered who of intellectuals handful “The See “Marxism in Romania: the early stages” in Shafir, 9-20. 51 It is It important to work with a chronology in order to understand the dilemmas of First weshould into account take periodthe epitomized by figurethe of ù erban Voinea and Lucre and erban Voinea 52 A second age of Romanian socialism was crystallized ù erban Voinea would invoke the authority in of Gherea authority invoke the erban would Voinea 26 Ġ petit iu P ă bourgeoisie tr ăú canu, despite the progress the canu,despite ”. 53 1910, the year 1910,the CEU eTD Collection 56 55 2005), 11. the conflicts that split the Romanian socialist movement for the second time in its short its in time second the for movement socialist Romanian the split that conflicts the 54 of Rumania. Parties of Socialist Federation of banner the under the gathered socialists the Party, form newSocial-Democratic the 1927 whenfusionincorporated provinces, to factions Bessarabia. to Thusup these except newly the all of social-democrats the with alliance in an activate would communists, the International. Communist the of Section Rumania, in Ploie A held congress control and publications. party’s take the organization managedover to eventually Thirdto the International affiliation immediate whodemanded Those International. Second the of ideals the to faithful remained still who those and Komintern the adhere to wanted to who those between struggle factionalist violent by a apart Communist International (Komintern) the social butdemocracy. Romanian affect the not could the trenches Romanian Social-DemocraticInternational, Party itsInternational. shamefulwasSocialist the of tornfigures demisemajor in the advent of the Greatparties, War and the experienceto adapt ofMarxism socialist leaders other ashe the just encouraged him, south-eastern encouraged the of to the local conditions. Kautsky who with corresponded seen, as wehave leaders. Gherea Marxist international As for Rakovsky, he was one of the Ibid., 401. Keith Hitchins, Stelian T Stelian During theseperiods socialists in with Romanian the were close contacts the ù Soon after the success of the Russian Revolution and the formation of the ú erban andLucreVoinea ti duringti October 1922cemented the foundations of Communistthe Party of ă nase, Rumania Clien Ġ ii lu’ TantiVarvaraii , 398-99. Ġ iu P ă tr (The Clients of Madame Varvara) ăú canu innotalsobut only participated witnessed 56 27 54 Due to this close ties with the Socialist the with ties close this to Due 55 The socialists who refused to join , (Bucharest: Humanitas, CEU eTD Collection Voinea gives a more detailed and suggestive account of how he became a socialist in his became he asocialist how of account more suggestive and detailed Voinea a gives occupation.” the contribute resistance against clandestine tothe to inin order 1917 party the joined I circles. of in socialist activities the part and subjects taking theoretical on several conferences holding party, the “From 1914 Iapproached autobiography. 3. beginnings of socialism in Romania and moreover to see who were its main agents. the trace is to questions answer these To stances? ’generous’ andadopt families wealthy their of comfort the up give them made What place? first the in socialism themto Whatdrew inMarch 1919? followed Komintern the of the formation that dispute communism”. primitive towards society, medieval towards regressively, “develop might conditions” lacks the“objective in that fostered a society if revolution, socialist the that death his before just argued who opinion, Gherea’s He shared it. the sabotaged that theradicals represented Revolution, Russian triumphant International. Third to the SDParty of Romanian the affiliation the against of resistance the spokesman sided with the communists. 59 58 57 while social-democrats P remainedthe Voinea their break with definitive up. socialism, at the school of the Second International, the split of the party also marked history.the Although they were both educated in the spirit of the second age of Romanian CC Archive of RCP, 296. Gherea quoted Shafir,in 10. Arhiva CC al PCR (Romanian Communist Party’s Central Committee’s Archive),D6/ 1973,296. ù erban Voinea and the attraction of socialism the attraction and Voinea erban “I socialism cameto Voinea wouldthrough Marxism”, laterdeclare inhisshort But what determined Voinea and Patrascanu to choose different factions in the In fact, ashe in later was In fact, Voinea his autobiography, would declare theoretical the 57 For Voinea, the Bolsheviks, far from being the messengers of the 28 58 ă tr ăú canu 59 CEU eTD Collection 62 61 60 Rakovsky,isVoinea impressed byAtanasof,“this wellbuild muscledman, his with black “sparkling” eyed the “tall sailors” or of As in Russian the the case patronage. howwith to deal the on union the of representative demandsworkers’ byadvisingthe movement. This time heworking would play a more back important Voinea was factory at the astrike Union during “comrade” the representing Atanasof, a then role. He assecretly a clerk. sides with theThis place that took inBucharest.” was, as demonstrationhe of street violent byplacinghimselfinthevanguard establishedany order states, “neither him nor ideas the man, elegant wealthy of this and confronted who the his second recalls him”Voinea notlove father did awe.“My with he gazed atwhom eyes…” contact withhim Rakovski, “a beautiful man” as he recalls “wearing a neat beard, with sparkling blackthe Constan and of frighteneddefied tsar the population killed the beards andwho their officers who contact with his“first as episode” “Potemkin the he evokes when pages of acouple after comes socialism… It‘activate’ clandestinely?” to and German occupation appearedthe under war, of midst in the movement the join me to undermotivated what then movement… the socialist the join to formintellectuals the determines in general that commitment ofideological some tall sailorsjoin “the movement” was “neither the class interest, which mobilizes the workers, nor the with blondmemoirs, written in a rather romantic tone. Thus wefind out that what determined him to Ibid., 306. Ibid., 305. Ibid., 301. The next socialist figure he meets is a close collaborator of Rakovski, Entchiu Rakovski, of collaborator isa close meets he figure socialist next The In the same epoch, while in a famous restaurant in Bucharest, his showed in father Bucharest, inrestaurant a famous In thesameepoch, while Ġ a and the Romaniana andgovernment”. the 62 61 29 60 Voinea asks himself? The answer The himself? asks Voinea CEU eTD Collection fascinated himbeyond and words the life itsof representativeshe that would try to world in orderinhis interest socialism is of that a ‘generous’. He gives up the comfort ofhis father’s to enter world which histhefather “did notlove”. His underground activity during the Great War and perilous dangerous the to his glimpses earlier any of seen wehave idealizesas retrospectively socialist one. It is is there. (1926) elaborated the world ofdelegate. socialism asanassigned social-democrats homologuesFrench working Romanian the of with the that Marseille, Bruxelles,he Hamburgetc.During 1923andin would 1929 France be representingwas abroad Romanian the socialists to differentcongresses in Vienna, Marxist social-democrat.” Marxist up tothe resolutionsbetween issued Ididspeak write1944 and1947, not or but as a As he would state later, “Since the 1919 programme of the party, which I myself wrote… conception”. him political basisa “coherent of provide Thesewould the Programme. Erfurth the about comments Kautsky’s and brochure Engels’ oneof reads Voinea after complete is conversion The shaken. be soon would values of system whole His liberals. “the about 1907peasant the truth uprising”it and the way suppressedby wasbrutally the 66 65 64 63 chest…” hairy revealedhis shirtthat collarless unbuttoned Ibid. Ibid., 296. Ibid., 310. Ibid., 307. Fascinated as Fascinated a young manby of foundingthe he fathers Romanian socialism, ù erban Voinea would remain during the interwar years true to his socialist beliefs. his socialist to true years interwar the during remain would Voinea erban 66 His major theoretical contribution to Romanian Marxism, Romanian to contribution theoretical major His 65 During the interwar years, when he was not in the country he country in the not was he when years, interwar the During 30 63 Atanasof would tell Voinea tell would Atanasof Oligarchic Marxism 64 CEU eTD Collection Russian Revolution. These stances would cause his one year expulsion from all the all from expulsion year one his cause would stances These Revolution. Russian wereviolently that by during firstworkers the major inspired repressed strikes the denounced the abuses witnessed in his school and laterin sided period that with the He board. bytheadministrative if not sometimes even moreover tolerated encouraged were that manifestations anti-Semitic school; in hisand class occurred that manifestations would interview,he was bytheanti-Semitic during laterremember troubled an augments the already erratic high school student, Lucre student, high school erratic already the augments author of school manuals. Ibr of Garabet A collaborator close intellectual. family, anappreciated raised inaboyar was communist leader) to well.to P in knew make they already worldanamefathers’ foran atmosphere themselves and their among remained as well just have could They family. a wealthy of representative is the of having collaborated to the German financed newspapers. financed German tothe having collaborated of the society at the end of The Great War. D.D. P War.D.D. Great end of the The at society the socialism was more abrupt. His father was ostracized by the Romanian officials and by 68 67 4. Lucre different. altogether caseis not Patrascanu’s world. parents’ his about find‘truth’ him 1907’persuaded ‘true the the emulate. Theaccountabout to Lavinia Betea, Lavinia 397. Tanase, ă ileanu and Constantin Stere, P Banned from the public life of the postwar epoch, D.D. P epoch, life D.D. of postwar the Banned from public the For the futureleader world communist For the submission the dangerous the to of ă tr Ġ iu P iu ăú canu’s mother was the descendant of a noble family while his father, also father, his while family noble of a descendant wasthe mother canu’s Lucretiu P , (Bucharest:, Curtea Veche, 2006), 14. ă tr ăú ă canu and the Russian Revolution Russian the and canu tr 68 ăú canu. Moartea unui lider comunist (Lucretiu P ă tr ăú canu’s father, D.D. P 31 ă tr ăú canu was accused by the authorities by the accused was canu Ġ iu P ă ă 67 tr tr Just as Voinea, P as Voinea, Just ăú ăú canu was a writer and an canu. At that time, as he At as time, that canu. ă tr ăú ă canu.The death of a tr ăú canu’s tragedy ă tr ăú canu CEU eTD Collection 72 71 70 whole passage deserves our attention: our deserves whole passage The socialism. how heembraced of version his translate to in order reiterate to moment Revolution he was most fascinated by it. Just as Voinea, P as Voinea, byit. Just fascinated he most was Revolution Patrascanu” in Patrascanu” took took place within the movementin 1921. 3ă in held PeaceConference Paris, 1946 of the recollection during another Voinea, Bolshevik. Andhe did become one.” that he told to anyone who wanted to listen to him: if that is the case, I shall become a Voinea recalls: „Lucre Voinea recalls: 69 my decision to join the movement.” to contributed this incident “Ibelieve that declare: later Hewould epoch. schools of that Ion Ibid., 326. Voinea, CCArchive of RCP, 324. Ion Biberi, “De vorb tr ăú Biberi, 73. Biberi, canu said that he envies him for remaining a social-democrat after the splitthat after the asocial-democrat him for remaining he envies canu that said regret.” struggle for justice and truth, for the fate of the many, reached an end. This was the essence of my that all of humanity’s social, political and moral problems are overand that the times of heroic movement to expand its radiation into the world: the regret that Iwas too young. Iwas convinced revolutionary the for waiting experienced, I that feeling intimate the was this Indeed, eyes. active part, to play importantan role in that epopee which started to reveal itself in front of my an take to enough old I amnot that angst of also but of effervescence, sentiments: intense very of emerging. Istarted tomonitor eventsthe withunbridgeable passion… experiencedI then anarray “I was sixteen. The dawns of a new world appeared and I understood that a new historical era is If retrospectively P retrospectively If With regards to the public opprobrium directed toward P directedtoward publicopprobrium the to With regards Tomorrow’s world 72 ă cu L. P Ġ iu could not take hisfatheriu injusticebecause of the take not doneto could and ă tr ă ( ăú tr interviews ăú canu”, în vol. canu disavows his choice, at the time of the Russian the of time the at choice, his disavows canu 69 70 )], (Bucharest,)], Forum, 1945), 77. Hewould regret hislater decision. According to 71 Lumea demâine 32 ( interviuri ă tr ăú ) [“Talking with L. canu has his own magic hisown canu has ă tr ăú canu’s father, CEU eTD Collection 1943)] ú However due to his as hisHowever dueto and familybackground an intellectual, status to refined he was war he was placed by the rightist military regime of Ion Antonescu in domicile arrest. Christian included.Rakovsky P Between old1936-1938 the guardof Romaniansection bethe will famous purged,the just leftescape TheGreatTerror. in to whichhe in time refuge eventually Moscow few of his many pseudonims. See Marin C.St Grivi violent of the was organizers the one of as his mostimportantleaders. status consecrate of one In1933he local the communist indoctorate economics,in philosophy and statistics Leipzig, The 1930s Germany.would with his many assumedidentities as a Bolshevikrevolutionary one of of founders the Romanianthe section Komintern.of the During the 1920s, along Ion, N. Lescenco, V. M V. Lescenco, N. Ion, the head of the Tsar’s secret police. secret headthe Tsar’s of the time that was at who Mezentsov General moredeath precisely, to stabbed assassinated, pseudonymthe by used Serghei Kravchinski, aRussian In Augustanarchist. 1878he 75 Verso, 2007), 71. 74 fulllifestyle... abook genuineof heroism and truth.” was Stepniak’s 73 P novels, from Dostoevsky’s Apart revolutionaries. Russian of the P excuse. couldjust asan have familyserved also episode behind hisfather’s This leaveworld. i România (1919-1943) ‘Andrei Moldovan, Andrei Bercu, Radu Boldur, Coca, V. Dragomir, Fisher, N. Grigorescu, Ghi Benedict Anderson, Ibid . , (Bucharest : Silex, 1994), 155. , 72. Captivated by the underground world described by Stepniak, P world described bytheunderground Captivated As in neededurge case, Voinea’s his own spiritual moment Patrascanu him to to ă tr ăú canu was already, prior to that affair fascinated by the underground world affair bytheunderground fascinated that to already,canu prior was La Russiesouterraine Under Three Flags. Anarchism and Anti-Colonial Imagination ă , lin, Mihalcea, Miron, Mironov, M. Andreescu, Titu, I. Vrabie, M Vrabie, I. Titu, M. Andreescu, Mironov, Miron, Mihalcea, lin, [Moscow,The Komintern, The BalkanCommunist Network andRomania(1919- ă tr ăú 74 canu wasone of fewthe whosurvived. During the ă nescu, : “the book which would later shape my entire shape later would which book “the : 33 Moscova, Cominternul,Moscova, Filiera Comunist Ġ a strike. This affair forced him to take him forced to Thisaffair a strike. 73 Stepniak,asP 75 hewould pursuehis ă ă ă tr tr , (New York, London: York, (New , tr ăú ăú ăú canu knew was canu knew canu’s favorite canu’s canu would becanu would ă cin’ - are only a only - are cin’ ă Balcanic Ġă , Ion C. ă CEU eTD Collection Voinea and Patrascanu’s cases this attraction would prove challenging as they Voinea thisattraction would challenging prove as they were Patrascanu’s and cases political strategy, but it equally represents a faith, a religion. Its force rests here.” rests force Its a religion. afaith, itequally represents but strategy, political Communism) main thing that attracted P attracted main that thing the was Revolution, bytheRussian world, world-wide disseminated a better prophecy of socialism. The drawthem to wereentrusted, movement’ the idea, the like ‘thecause, 77 “Conspiratorul” (The andVoinea P both fascinated that figuresandthe messagetheyadvocated ofotherwise figures human mythical those the himwasrather showed It way. that the commitment” the“ideological not itwas world. infactdeclared AsVoinea a better ratherof by spiritually possibility the attracted 76 Voinea P and Both few can a material conclusions. draw we role in the Act of the 23 a key warended,to thestudy When playing phenomenon’. ‘Romanian the after of the he hisin While dedicated arresttime inoffensive. by as authorities considered rather the of Voinea and P and Voinea of enables us, at this point, only to speculate on the real motives that triggered the interests ideasin emergence tothe contributed that those of precommunist Romania, Marxist would upon alsohard morethe quantify, sensitive, touch justifications to personal of in He was executed 1954. of Justice. he Minister wasthe etc, reformism arrest in false 1948, under accusationsof nationalism,Titoism, anti-soviet attitudes, N.Berdiaev, Forshort a and insightful analysis of P For many, like Voinea and P and Voinea like many, For The absence of any solid study on the beginnings of socialism in Romania that Romania in socialism of beginnings the on study solid any of absence The , (Cluj-Napoca:Dacia, 1999), 108. Originile ă tr Conspirator ăú canu in socialist Marxism. Nevertheless, in the light of the available the of light in the Nevertheless, Marxism. socialist in canu ú i sensul comunismului rus rd of heAugust, his ideological delivered of own his history. Until ă tr ) in T ăú ă tr canu. ăú ă nase, 393-433.nase, ă canu. The somehow religious fervor with with which words fervor religious somehow The canu. tr ăú canu’s case Romanianin Communism see the chapter ă tr ăú canu, Marxism is not “only a science and a and ascience “only not is Marxism canu, 34 (The Origins and The Significance of Russian ă tr ăú canu atfirst were 76 77 In CEU eTD Collection Romania during the interwar years. interwar the during Romania of Party theCommunist and Party Social-Democratic 5. The failwouldconvince to masses the theysought to organize. 78 improve, andP they Voinea to strived a double edgedfrom exclusion, father’s their and,world aswe shall fromsee, society the with epoch. of Confronted debates the cultural and themainstream political penetrate not to the local conditions is obvious, their ideological internationalism and universalism did this atmosphere, despite their ideological histories, in which their effort toadapt Marxism In nationalism. integral it of saw state emergence the newly created butasa proletariat Not most the historical didcontext. incompatible only Romanialack aconscious Greater doomed beginnings from very tothoroughly the both dimensions of embrace in Marxism “forced Rumanian Communists to take “forced Communistspositions critical issues Rumanian take on national to ran that directives. underground. This made situation themexcessively on Kominternthe dependent breath subversivethe airhave to the would War, of communists Worldthe Second the Romanian government banned the Communist Party of Romania. Until the end of the in in Komintern the 1924,after Bunar,supported uprisingthe southernTatar Bessarabia, Thus state. integrity Romanian the of territorial the on athreat communism represented The Moscow instrumented uprisings inBessarabia convincedBucharest that Romanian in government resulted ofall banning the in communist activities Romania. T ă nase, p. 79. During the 1920s, the tense diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the 78 During the interwar decades, the tight subordination to the Soviet directives Soviet the to subordination tight the interwar decades, During the ă tr ăú 35 canu, along with parties they they represented, parties canu, along with CEU eTD Collection 81 80 79 working class.” majorityincluding the the population, of of overwhelming sentiments the counter to the a setting engulfed in cultural the and political manifestations of integral nationalism? was (SDP) during the wars “at pains to differentiate itself from Communists…”the Party because Social-democratic the also win masses probably the to over opportunities right the missed nevertheless they in Parliament, demands their voicing and class’ rights. Although they managed togain preeminence,some organizing the unions puzzling as socialismRomanian already had ahistory of fighting for localthe working the Komintern the situation was understandable, for the social-democrats it was the more peasantry. the of contribution the essential rendered eradicate the feudal needthe sector to intheeconomic agricultural remains was still an almostinsignificant social force. Moreover, as P alliance with the peasantry in An headquarters old the liberal hadits kingdom. the overthrow which oligarchy was also consideredlook for political provinces’allies among thenewly incorporated bourgeoisie in to order necessary as would Party Socialist-Democratic The Romanian the etc). newprovinces of incorporation Romanian proletariat of 1918momentum the universal vote,theagrarian (the reforms of 1921-22,the the after structural the valid, argued, changes asVoinea still theories, Dobrogeanu-Gherea’s by on shaped draw strategy the to they continued Second International, extinct the Hitchins, Voinea, Hitchins, Was it the internationalist dimension of their doctrine which could not resonate in Both parties though marginal.remained in If the caseof Romanian the section of The Romanian social-democrats developed a different tactic. True to the ideals of tothe tactic. True adifferent developed social-democrats The Romanian Oligarchic Marxism Rumania Rumania 79 , 401. , 400. , 371-75. 80 36 ă tr ăú canu would also argue, 81 CEU eTD Collection 82 siding theBourgeoisie. Nevertheless,years with runningalone in the elections during in beleaders more circumspect to socialist determined the Party that National-Peasant other democratic and bourgeois parties. It was the deceptive collaboration with the is excluded from party.the with Bolsheviks.histhe Given the vis-à-vis radicalism 1928 electoral alliance hisfaction sympathizedpart of wasin so group that the past called the oligarchy.Ghelerter centrist the against fight in the effective how matter no bourgeoisie, the with collaboration time any of kind atthat refused Litman Ghelerter of leadership the party, under faction Party. of the An important 1928 electoral Peasant National the alliance with advocated. look for need was the bourgeois parties allies among and to democratic genuine the inherentfactionalist the by SDP wasshaken whenever of underground, the the struggle party. Just as the Communist Party was constantlyled an to unyielding would policy that eventually damage theinternal of cohesion the under the threat of being thorn getcalled ridso oligarchy the to of need advocated the thesocial-democrats with which apart obstinacy the section, next the during in detail beshown will it As bourgeoisie. the with tactics later denouncedbyP later tactics play? years a“historical to role” interwar had Romanian which still the bourgeoisie towards socialist duringactivity the directed of nature any thereactionary about say would talking asZeletin a badWas it time, Radu, 200. During the 1930’s no major betweenDuring and 1930’sno the the socialists occurred alliances the The first alliance with the bourgeois instrumented by the socialist leaders was the was leaders socialist by the instrumented bourgeois the with alliance first The It was all this and more. It was also the tactics adopted by the socialists. The 82 ă tr ăú canu as “reformist, opportunist” due to the collaboration duetothe opportunist” canu “reformist, as 37 CEU eTD Collection 86 California: University of California Press,1998), 300. 85 84 83 communists were erased and both partisan groups were accused of acting not out of out not acting of wereaccused groups partisan both and erased were communists andthe thesocialists between The differences press. rightist the of campaigns of II. Carol the‘royal dictatorship’ would experience Romania Greater asadversaries.” neighboring treat countries minorities andto national exclude ethnic- to tended modernization that programs state-run with economic policies, nationalist “extreme following became all rule” regimes the the “dictatorship countries European Thus inmost of East the fascism. quoting caseof Italian asserts the author same asthe threat, communist the to right from the counterrevolutionary” “preventive a 1917 “revolutionary hopes”. post- Depressionthe “thehopelessness” 1930sresurrected the of Great andmisery the As remarked ascholar movements. wings emergenceof right the fostered which context political international tensioned the and crisis of economic the effects the 1930’s, improvement in the conditions of the working class.” working the of conditions in the improvement mainly by over discouragement failurethe party of bringthe to aboutany significant political in fortunes,which marked was byadrop alsomembership, party wascaused Guard. Iron the movement, rightist the and bourgeoisie the of face in the grounds lost gradually Theparty disastrous. alsoproved Party Socialist-Democratic the war before the Ibid., 301-2. Ivan Berend, T. Hitchins, Ibid., 232. The socialists and the communists became in this context the target of heavy of target the context this in became communists the and socialists The as wereregarded 1930’s the during movements right-wing of the The emergence In sum, as Hitchins duringobserved theinterwaryears “the decline in socialist 83 Rumania Decades ofCrisis. Centraland Eastern Europe before World War II , 402. 85 38 86 84 Tothis itwas added, during the , (Berkley, CEU eTD Collection 89 88 state both in territorialforgovernments, the Soviet local the would communists represent Union the‘homeland’ terms as in ideologicalunhappy with ‘imperialistic’the nationalisticand of policies Romania’s Greater ones. Patrascanu,masses. Comprised mostly of ethnic minoritiesnewly from incorporated provinces, the as many others institutionsits andthis would incapacityalso togain addedto popularity broader among the raisedthat the number of party the members toaround 5,000in period. that Front and campaigns of elaborated the Popular the It wasrather threat fascist the 1936. in its peak reach would party the of membership the by Komintern, directed actions the faith. character underground of surroundedits Duetothe party the and secrecy the that 87 will ask for their collaboration. communists the until 1946, when in Parliament the be would represented not democrats social- the part of 1930s, the mot the for slates onseparate Romania. Running Greater Romanian extreme right movement, the SDP would lose the last democratic elections of with the Party, between the National Peasant in ally, signed 1937 a former pact’ “sellwould to ustomorrow Russians.”the who Jews the of a creation but inRomania practice political doctrine and articulated an wasnot Communism in pamphlets. the present werealso accents Anti-Semitic Romanians. the integrity of territorial and national the which threatened plant’ ‘exotic “profound convictions” butout of “snobbism”. Socialism wasagain regardedasan Ibid., 400. Hitchins, T ă nase, 251. nase, The Communist Party The Communist Party moreRomaniaof would shareasimilar, though tragic The communists radically opposed the nationalist policies of the official the of policies nationalist the opposed radically communists The Rumania , 402. 88 87 39 Further disillusioned bythe ‘non aggression 89 CEU eTD Collection revolutionaries’, theRomanianbanned itsgovernment activity. yearin by ‘professional infiltrated of 1933,the greatly communists Grivitathe strike Thus Komintern. the with implicitly and communists local the with ties its of aware was police as state’s secret the shortlivedthough frontwas The existence of organization this Russian model, the alliance followingfront organization advocated, the the This of party. andsubversive dimension of the proletariat with the underground viewasit incomplemented Marxist-Leninist the necessary organization the workers against the Bloc, amasslegal their influence Worker-Peasant – the political through organization bourgeoisie. interests of the Soviet Union ahead of those of Romania.” Hitchins rightlypromoting, strong the advocacy of sovietthe radical policies “heldview in Romania” as observed,minority that secession of from Romania.andBukovina Dobrudja of Greater figures predominance The ethnic “the the party endorse and Romania of minorities national the for self-determination at of principle the was the a foreigntop of1924 and 1928the local by communists wereinstructed Kominternthe vote officials to theorganization party Bessarabianthe question. Bessarabian the Besides party question, atthe congresses of and whichthe anti-nationalist tensethe diplomatic between governmentand relations Romania’s Union Soviet the over put the policies they were 91 90 Grivithe refugetake in Sovietthe Union hisafter involvementin majorthe strike of 1930’s the at Ibid Ibid. . , 401. The 1920’s the complete isolationregistered Romanianof the communists dueto Towards the end of the 1920’s though the communists managed to exercise Ġ a Railways Workshops. 40 90 91 CEU eTD Collection Great War. As in the Polish case “culture was to be the medium of awakening, in all awakening, of medium be the to was “culture case Polish in the As War. Great of the peacesettlements followed that the process unification political of the prospects atmosphere. The Romanian intellectuals of Greater Romania were tormented by the Gheorghe Gheprghiu-Dej Government 1948-1965) L. P by promoted development on perspectives 6. The masses. support the of the would havefound it hard, very ifnot impossible to (re)organize themselves and togain local communists lessthan thousand one the war, endthe the of after RedArmy the for Ifitwas not lost proletariat. the Romanian with touch The soon andparty activists. leaders local of furtherthe alienation tothe all contributed these local the communists, of all theincarceration War, World which prompted of Second the regimes authoritarian survived. 93 92 purged,Lucre of epoch was Rakovski the became known as the Great Terror greatly affected the Romanian section. The old Guard, what trials or Moscow The did rest. the officials Soviet the masses, the of acceptance the cultural the nationalismintegral politics the of communist discourse surpassed bygaining and right counterrevolutionary’ ‘preventive the If marginalized. were further peace, world and disarmament for advocacy their of in spite communists, the fascism, of emergence tremendous sums ofmoney spentduringwere Popular the campaigns Front against the Stelian T Stelian T ă nase, 408. nase, ă tr Voinea and P The Hitler-Stalin pact and the dismantling of the Komintern, the local the Komintern, the of dismantling the and pact Hitler-Stalin The The 1930’s affected the communists just as it affected the socialists. Although thesocialists. as itaffected just thecommunists affected The 1930’s ăú 92 ă nase, canu. Elite ú i societate. Guvernarea Gheorghiu-Dej 1948-1965 (Elites and Society. The ă tr ăú 93 canu foundhard it topromote their ideas in this tense , (Bucharest: Humaniatas, 2006), 56. Ġ iu P 41 ă tr ăú canu being one of fewbeing who very canu of the one ù . Voinea and . Voinea CEU eTD Collection would talk about the “true 1848” and consequently would try to deliver a ‘true’ study deliver ‘true’ “truethe study 1848”andconsequently wouldof to a aboutwould try talk integral nationalism. He Romania’s theideological basisof Greater deconstruct order to production. centralizationInstitutional development. capitalist local the of result the as Romania modern was depicted theyadvocated The perspectives national theidiom essence. neededdeconstruct of in orderswimming, it toseems, assure against the current. the Their efficiency histories, as we shall see wereof tryingthe to new relations of 97 European Monographs, 1999), 75. 96 homeless”. left were left, on the intellectuals poetry… for than in analysis precision for more “cared who those And fascism”. very little social science”. Moreover “the logical conclusion of this kind of thinking was andliterature some and powerful politicalrightist it nationalist but movements, produced nostalgic deal anti-modern of “agreat created stances rightist cultural these continent, questioned. dimension spirit ofthe Romanian is organic European of existence civilization the an considerable ground, especially during 1930’s.Inemphasizing the theunique andspecial as Romanian gaining soul K.etc, Romanian specificity,argued were the Verdery now counterbalanced bythemanifestations authochtonists. of aboutthe Discourses the 95 94 homeland.” classes and regions, of national and civic consciousness, of attachment to a common Chirot, Ornea, in Z. quoted Ionescu Nae Henry L. Roberts, Jerzy Jedlicki, “Polish Concepts of Native Culture” in Ivo Banac and Katherine Verdery, eds., 1. P As Chirot rightly observed, in Romania as every where in the region and on the on and region the in where every as Romania in observed, rightly Chirot As Neoliberal and Social Democratic Theories of Development ă tr 96 94 ăú The Romanian elite’s obsession with its place in the European culture canu would even manipulate the idiom the Romaniancanu manipulate in phenomenon the even would of Rumania.Political Problems of an Agrarian State The Romanian extreme right: the1930s 42 97 Both Voinea and P and Voinea Both , 36. , (Archon Books, 1969), 339. , (Boulder, Colorado: East ă tr ăú canu were canu 95 was CEU eTD Collection cultural and political elite. political and cultural in views an combined agrarian integral country the with nationalism mainstream the of socialist promoting of difficulty the Romania, interwar during that difference with the of that is‘rootlessness’.same stigmasituation Theirtheir predecessors to comparable of the Romanian phenomenon. He and Voinea would equally fail as they would bare the 43 CEU eTD Collection 44 CEU eTD Collection a new historical context, that of Greater Romania. Patrascanu would formulate an formulate would Patrascanu Romania. of Greater that context, historical a new Voinea formulated the political strategy as of innovative the Romaniannevertheless was Social-Democraticdefense The Zeletin. with dispute in a Party theories withinGherea’s Romania’s Voinea his capitalist limited development, if words deliveredworks regarding acouple of Patrascanu independent modern theories.” his asserted, perspective. socialisthis tothe alternative to specifically and more writings Patrascanu’s focuses on that for next chapter field the the will prepare counter-theory as reject Zeletin’s arguments Zeletin’s arguments byone”using Gherea’stools.one counter-theory as reject L. P me to better depict the nature of Voinea’s of depict nature the better me to help will debate, Zeletin-Voinea the of recovering Chirot’s and criticism Zeletin through Chirot. I will prove that Chirotfailed see to the gist of Voinea’s argument. This approach, waslater recoveredby Zeletin debate Daniel heritage against waythis and the theoretical Gherea’s defended Voinea way the at look shall I chapter this In essential. were 99 Dobrogeanu-Gherea’s theories regarding the regarding theories Dobrogeanu-Gherea’s Dobrogeanu-Gherea 98 Chapter 2: Chirot, Voinea, ă tr ăú This organization of the present chapter has further justifications. AsVoineaalso justifications. haschapter of further This organization present the For the Romanian social democrats andfor democrats social Romanian For the Neoliberal and Social-Democratic Theories canu would be summoned measureto the significance of Voinea’s writings. This Oligarchic Marxism 98 In contendedChirot respectthis so “Voineamuchthat did a not propose Contribution ù erban Voinea and theheritage of C. , 132. , “has only the purpose of proving the inaccuracy of Zeletin’s of inaccuracyof “has proving the purpose only the Contribution 45 , 32. newserfdom Contribution . Towards the end of theendof chapter this . Towards ù and the Romanian erban Voinea in erban Voinea particular to the reiteration of 99 oligarchy In other In CEU eTD Collection Zeletin’s ideological history notis convincing. it Voinea wouldis arguethat with pilled Oligarchy.” andthe fire:Marxism and like water other each eliminate that entities constantly contradicthimself,comprisehe becausein tried to a synthesis daring two writings and of their impact on the political strategy of the Romanian social democrats of years interwarthe soharshly by democrats Lucre criticized social Romanian the of strategy political the on impact their of and writings closer look at Chirot’s expose will implicitly lead of Voinea’s main arguments to the recover to a nevertheless failed proper understanding of Voinea’s against the strong criticismagainst strong the of Development inRomania Parties he Parties writes of his importanttheories. advocate most the he became would beginning 1920’s the of the Gherea death at the of after but chapter seen intheprevious 100 1. response to it. second halfwould analyze byVoinea political strategy the andPatrascanu’s drawn of 1920’swhile thisthe debate recovered andthe way theoriesChirot the againstZeletin, as aMarxistthinker. scarcecontribution Voinea’s identical strategy. In sum structure of the presentthe chaptered is mainly justified by Voinea, ù erban Voinea, Gherea’s advocate against against advocate Gherea’s Voinea, erban ù While in Paris as a delegate of the Romanian Federation of theSocial-Democratic of Federation of Romanian the a delegate as While inParis Voinea was not attracted by the theoretical dimension of Marxism as we have The first part of the chapter will focus on Voinea’s reiteration of Gherea’s of reiteration focusVoinea’s will on part of chapter firstthe The erban Voinea asserted that Zeletin “was doomed from the very from “wasbeginning that doomed Zeletin to very erban the asserted Voinea Oligarchic Marxism Oligarchic Marxism , in which he defenses the heritage of in of he heritage the Dobrogeanu-Gherea , defenses which , 331. ù tefan tefan this Zeletin.Chirot In section I shall argue that – Contribution totheProblem– Contribution ofCapitalist 46 Ġ iuP ă tr ăú canu. ù tefan Zeletin. tefan Contribution . Thus, a 100 CEU eTD Collection ‘formssubstance”. Thisiswithout why Gherea failedin providing ascientific of account account of the debate, as we shall see, seemed to have ignored as well. changes after occurred 1918while Zeletin ignored them. Thisisin what Chirot his liberal Voineaoligarchy bourgeoisie. and the thusidentified provincial the structural interests betweenold kingdom’s of wasaconflict there he that AgainstZeletin contended master. hissocialist of theories the continued Voinea is where This old kingdom. the bourgeois from provinces newlythe incorporated joined the institutional configuration of and the liberal became moreoligarchy evident after 1918momentum the when the bourgeoisie between genuine the AsVoineaconflict arguedthe Romanian bourgeoisie. liberals and to deny the conflictlogically demonstrated the ominous role of ofthe liberal oligarchy.interestswhich Gherea’sentire argument deconstruct he had that to claim,understood Zeletin between theRomanian bourgeoisie, whichformed itself inmeantime. the Inorder to dismiss a such oligarchy and hinder beinggenuine the andbeganto activity of the itplateau stopped progressive the ‘genuine’ acertain itreached after that oligarchy an of in creation the time generated capitalism, seen, Romania’s Asitfor Zeletin did. wehave as already bourgeoisie genuine the Romanian represent not did oligarchy Voinea the later Ghereaand For Party. theNational-Liberal around specific path of capitalist development, in the orbit of western Gherea. by contradictions and anachronisms supported a misreading butnot only Marx of also Zeletin accused Gherea of getting his cues from the reactionary Junimist formula Junimist the from his reactionary cues getting of Gherea accused Zeletin the of rule’ ‘oligarchic the justify to opinion in my nevertheless, failed Zeletin The object of contention between Zeletin and Gherea wasthe Gherea and Zeletin between contention of The object 47 oligarchy grouped CEU eTD Collection 102 103 us.”, ourbourgeoisie means to follow the origin and development of Romanian capitalism.”, of our country by the foreignbourgeoisie’… in reality it is study the 101 1921 treaty Adrianopole.of by the earlier initiated asthis was process modernization the of initiation the represent economic market. He also claimed tobe the first toassert that the 1848 revolution did not developmentwas triggered by integrationthe of Principalitiesthe in world’sthe liberal oligarchy. of presence the the necessary uneven relationthe Romanian liberal oligarchy. It was the belated local capitalist development and its with of presence legitimize the in to order it heembraced Gherea’s analysis reject to claimed the west, triggered by influenceof the Aswestern capitalism. argued,Zeletin, Voinea although Zeletin seemed Romania, of development capitalist belated becauseof the in particular role’ ‘historical to haveargument at middle.Foris somewhere him oligarchy has the abourgeoisie a the and it contended,differences. that rendereddifferent Zeletin aswill start from from theories. Gherea’s in deconstructing thethe other western developmentend analysisthe through of local the bourgeoisie. Following thislogic hefailed of the ropenorm.not to onjoin the The Gherea’sanalysisoligarchy, his Zeletin would study concentrate the analysison of bourgeoisiethe oligarchy main of ourour capitalist capitalist development. is theAs an developmentalternative, product to justify the ‘historicper ofse. role’ thisHeof our analyzedliberal structural the capitalist Zeletin, Zeletin, In this sense Voinea asserted that “In the first place we should observe that Zeletin confounds inhis confounds Zeletin that observe weshould place first the “In that asserted Voinea sense this In Oligarchic Zeletin claimed to be the first historian to assume that the local capitalist local the that assume to historian first be the to claimed Zeletin In itsum, Gherea ourcapitalist examines andisconcludes development that bourgeoisie Neoliberalism The Romanian Bourgeoisie Marxism , which is one thing, and , 339.Zeletin replied by asserting that “to follow origin the and development of , 11-16. 103 Gherea, as Voinea observed, already proved that in his , 39-40. capitalism 48 102 , which is another… he talks about ‘the invasion capitalism and not the bourgeoisie Neoliberalism that invades that 101 , 7. and CEU eTD Collection 106 the tolerating bynot stances, reactionary andassumes corrupted somehow elite becomes due to this development, objective reasons, belated capitalist dueto it madeclear that our of liberalthe elite, he the proved progressive even role of 1848revolutionariesthe he but bourgeoisie Romanian by the excellence. even or local asthesocialbourgeoisie base the of is presented theoligarchy times other bourgeoisie” while of Romanian the tutor “the as the only liberal oligarchy the presents sometimes he as clear not was Zeletin point particular this On class. ruling national ultimate role – the creation of a bourgeoisie class that would represent the Romanian 105 104 west. more capitalist developed the with political relations and economic rationalize the needfor the to asanecessary prerogative instrumented was elite a military of and bureaucracy of astate The emergence local specificity. the this role and transformedthus itself inamodernizing due elite, oligarchic inoutlook to assumed they authority central a of absence the capital. In western expansive the against up afierce put resistance hadto they economically sametime, the role. In historical their of unaware classes, social unarticulated other the and thepeasantry of apathy social the against fight hadto revolutionaries the internally, Moreover, class”. bourgeoisie circumstances to assume the central role ofJunimist perspectives. ruling the state and and socialist between the differences nomake to Zeletin This allowed matter. the on that of the “tutor of a Newserfdom. Ibid., 165. Zeletin, Voinea, in comer” “A new I SeeChapter It is within this context that the liberal oligarchy would work to achieve its In Zeletin’s opinion the 1848 revolutionaries wereforced by objective In Zeletin’s 1848revolutionaries the opinion The Romanian Bourgeoisie Zeletin completely ignored in Zeletin research ignored Gherea’sprevious Voinea’s completely opinion 104 , 164-71. Oligarchic Marxism 106 49 Gherea deny necessity did not historical the , 135-42. 105 CEU eTD Collection 109 108 107 Voinea’s of stake the understand to failed or ignored Asmuch he theories concepts. properly as he Zeletin’s Voinea’s recovered praised will help us understand the real stake of Voinea’s writings. Inmy didopinion Chirot not Looking how debate Voinea-Zeletinby the understood. at was recovered Daniel Chirot perspective. world-system the from debate Zeletin-Voinea of the therecovery and Chirot 2. Daniel is all the more obvious after the formation of Greater Romania. emergence of other bourgeois-liberal centers of power. The presence of this other centers evidence” realistic.” not was least Butit more sociologist. than toa – at Zeletin’s certainly Western typical appealing Romanian Voinea history better Zeletin.than ideology understood is political His whole, the “on that he concluded end the In issues. crucial mentioned above the of each societies?” in andwork developing government “candemocratic developingcountries?(...)” more for suitable Areopenorclosed strategies of economies(…)? development economic based industrially to agrarian from change they as pass societies all which through of development stages similar there “Are attention: deserve that issues three are there in societies. development peripheral pastthe dilemmas the hisand apprehensionsown of time regardingsocial-change and Ibid., 43. Ibid., 52. Chirot, It isIt within thisnewVoinea’shistorical that context From the position of the world-system developmental school Chirot asserts that Neoliberal and Social Democratic theories of Development 109 107 , “correctly captured the political thrust of Neoliberalism, understood , “correctly political the thrust of the captured Neoliberalism, understood In pages wouldChirot next the Zeletin analyze positions on and Voinea’s 108 Zeletin hand althoughon “twisted other the historical the 50 Contribution. , 31. Contribution Chirot projectedinto Chirot should be CEU eTD Collection did exist but its actions were hindered by the liberal oligarchy. This is the main difference main is the This oligarchy. liberal the by hindered were actions its but exist did entitiesbeoligarchy,not to two A confused. which were bourgeoisie genuine Romanian saw theliberal Where bourgeoisie Voinea Zeletin saw agenuine Romanian operated. Voinea which with ismajor difference This the capitalists”. “dynamic the compared with didnot refer the Romanian to bourgeoisie buttotheliberal beshouldoligarchy not that 111 110 improvingwithout theirmethods, butcontinuealso to payinglow wages…” survive Romanianinefficient,not only and capitalists corrupt permitclosure wouldto the bebourgeoisie,not saidconfused should Voinea, with dynamic capitalists. Rathertariffs a program The of bourgeois oligarchy effectively. closure Romanian carry could out liberal oligarchy in its own benefit. not oppose a closed does Voinea sum, Serban In authorities. bythecentral berepresented properly to need economictheir and provinces strategy integrated newly the of bourgeoisies the and minorities national the but the mercantilistdifferent realities. policies He talks about the rightscarried of the this radically of a fairneed representation offer to bythe justified peasantry is democratic rule andout of the urbanby workers, the of differentexercised by liberal the inoligarchy the economicspherein radically a historical context frommonopole the of enemy is the but strategy economic open an of favor in advocate not the realities Romania’s literaryof culture, and presented a Marxist view of history.” the old of nature reactionary predominantly the analyzed brilliantly closure, forneed economic kingdom. Moreover Voinea’s emphasis on Ibid., 45. Ibid., 50-51. Chirot also asserts that “Voinea could only mock the possibility… that a that possibility… the mock “Voinea only that could alsoasserts Chirot Chirot’s conclusions are based on wrong premises. As we shall see Voinea does 51 110 111 Voinea CEU eTD Collection that instead of making the financial capital available to industrialists, the Romanian the industrialists, to available capital financial the making of instead that noted “Serban Voinea also observed, As K. Jowitt liberal oligarchy. the with opposition in nevertheless thatexisted A class. of bourgeoisie genuinecapitalist the liberal likeinoligarchy which acted hindered but acapitalist class effect the development say that Voinea was to Needless strategy. economic open for need an the advocated andthus class capitalist “frightened”, if alocal,peripheral of “softness” by the Voinea “frightened” was that toargue error at all, not by the localconsidering domestic capitalists acorrupt, artificial,worthless class.” capitalist in reactionaries romantic with “joined Voinea class that appreciate can easily oligarchy, Chirot but by the Bratianu” and his National Liberal Party. trying proveits existence to is it because theagreement “finds this of perspective Vintila in nature.” mercantilist is not mercantilism’, of ‘the phase as presented 115 114 113 mercantilism. of phase the regarding assumptions he is against when Zeletin’s open argues and a strategy economic closed 112 arguments. Voinea’s at look acloser us take rule. Let democratic atrue for asks ThisiswhyVoinea bourgeoisie. not of Romanian the would perpetuate policies economic “tariffs feared the and closure” that Chirot seems to ignore. It is the positions of the liberal oligarchy that the socialists Chirot, Ibid., 242. Ibid., 230. Voinea, andtheliberal bourgeoisie ‘genuine’ local between Ignoring distinction this the The only section of The his only section of Neoliberal and Social Democratic Theories Oligarchic Marxism , 214-230. Contribution 112 According to Voinea “Nothing from what Zeletin what from “Nothing Voinea to According 114 52 , 45. that deals with the difference between an between deals with difference the that 115 He lingers in Helingers this 113 If Zeletin is Zeletin If CEU eTD Collection 118 and bourgeois the with collaboration the for also but peasantry the with workers the of would clearthe wayfor the ‘genuine’ bourgeoisie. Hethus called notonly for alliance the democracy Onlyareal importance. paramount a of ‘democracy’ was of concept the bourgeoisie, Romanian genuine emergent the and liberal oligarchy between the conflict the analyzed who and ‘law’ Gherea’s advocated who for Voinea, But earlier. listed issue” attention as it will help us analyze one of the central points in Voinea’s writings: system developmental school, Chirot believed otherwise. The whole passage deserves our world- the of Asarepresentative idea of democracy. of Voinea’s real stake the measure economic andpolitical of again positions bourgeoisie. ‘genuine’ the ButChirot fails to law”. A legal state of affairs would eliminate the liberal oligarchy and thus strengthen the 117 116 andas itsbudget state holding’”. liberal ‘political introduced oligarchy in despotism economicthe domain’by thetreating Ibid., 31. Chirot, Jowitt, 16. 118 The concept of ‘democracy’ is relegated by Chirot to the status of a “ a of status the to by Chirot relegated is ‘democracy’ of concept The industrialization. forced and closure economic was magic one solution - and a comfortableinto the nature of peripheral societies farenough. Waiting for socialist revolutions in the West was one at from Westernthat Europe(…) Like Gherea, Voinea simply failed– tofollowbut the logic of his insights fantastic.stable coalition that would keep theperipheralA statussolution tolerable while Romania waited forsocialism that Romania’sdid problems.not dependIf solve they help could were state, democratic joined a into organized onby properly if the peasants, enfranchised the and workers ethnic minorities, they could build a Voinea’s approach to the issue of democracy was both morally decent and wrong. Voinea felt the The solution was seen by (that troubles contemporary sociologists) two, troubles (that other the contemporary incomparison with Neoliberal and Social Democratic Theories 116 ù erban Voinea in the implementation of “the rule of 53 , 50. 117 minor CEU eTD Collection 120 119 precisely onitis system’ by described Because Gherea. given ‘monstrous the solution different this point Gherea’sthat paradigm altogether it would have been wiserGherea for him to just formulate a of rejecting such a policy. Instead tojustify facts” in “twist the order need to Zeletin’s fails to riseand in developmentprocess a peripheral although itsociety,is make hard to sense of himself to the heights decentof and wrong” approach to the “issue of democracy”,his to use Chirot’s words. sound It is exactly within this new historic context that Voinea would formulate his “morally understandprovinces and thus failedto the contribution socialof activethe classes there. of Zeletin ignored economic newly the the incorporated configurations financial sector. andelections control astrict exercise by industrial the over production managing the Old Regatwith otherthe historical provinces. modern configurationUnion of by Romania, of significantly altered the 1918Great the political strategy entailed by this theory let us pay closer attention to Voinea’s writings. critiquethe of looking atPatrascanu’s Before all liberaloligarchy. the against powerful Bolshevism. of spread feared the it because only reforms electoral and agrarian the implemented liberalZeletin’s old the kingdom beliefthe Voineaoligarchy of contrary to arguedthat reach oligarchy not an radical Moreover this did end evenafter past. the breakwith framework for the Romanian capitalist development. But the abuses of the liberal legal after warfor allmalecreated the the citizens guaranteed universal suffrage Ibid., 369. Voinea, Zeletin was right in Zeletin only was right social-changethe that arguing an oligarchy can conduct political and social the ignored study Zeletin’s that observed rightly Voinea Oligarchic Marxism 120 Theliberal inoligarchy, Voinea’s opinion, falsify continued to the , 373. 54 119 The radical agrarian reforms and the CEU eTD Collection 123 122 121 country”. the of the“democratization lead to center. the from emanated manifestations nationalist the tolerate to areunwilling which minorities national the of situation the regarded they would be the subjects of the old kingdom’s oligarchic rule. In a like manner could be in which of affairs astate determined totolerate not were argued, Voinea new provinces, by activity the Austrian-Hungarian the of socialists. Atapolitical level of parties the the about the working classand the bourgeoisie influenced new the of provinces asthey were kingdom, wereeconomically and politically insituation. The same abetter couldbe said social level. The peasantry of incorporated the territories, unlike itsin counterpart old the liberal oligarchy. the of role reactionary the about talk thus and provinces new the of contribution the contextisthe changed after 1918momentthe and Voinea is inright intoaccounttaking Romania was an accidental feature on the body politic, to be removed like a wart.” dominated which capitalism bureaucratic form oligarchic, of peculiar the that assumption unrealistic for theSocial Democrats’ is “Gherearesponsible opinion In Roberts solution. like a western come from nevertheless remedy the can that in time argue same the capitalist development tobe a ‘specific’ one, that is different from the western model, and Romanian the of think to illogic somehow is it implied Roberts L. As Henry analysis. development in Romania since the thoroughly development of incapitalismdevelopmentof development can thethoroughly only Romaniatake since Ibid., 374. Voinea, Roberts, 280-81. The solution proposed by Voinea was seen in a “constitutional regime” that would atthe contribution new the asignificant bring that provinces Voinea believed Oligarchic Marxism , 373-74. 55 123 122 At stake was also the capitalist wasalsothe Atstake 121 But CEU eTD Collection liberal oligarchy and the mercantilist policies that could have only benefited its clients. its benefited only have could that policies mercantilist the and oligarchy liberal formation. in as“bourgeois-democratic” be not regarded andcouldreactionary” least the arguments regarding the liberal foroligarchy him as liberal the “truly oligarchy was Zeletin’s rejects just He strategy. ofan argue in favor economic notas he open did economic justthe industrialization didNowhere closure and argueagainst Voinea rapid strategy. anopen economic rather or closed a follow should whether Romania to regressively, towards medieval society, towards primitive communism.” “develop might it otherwise socialist revolution, undergoinga before stages necessary go afew needs through to –asociety Marxism of tothe thesis classical remained true Gherea development, capitalist the Romanian understand need deployed inthe to socialist revolution a for Gherea, in Voineaas For in West. the revolution socialist the about theory Voinea’s a backward country was suicidal. Despite the revisionistarguments that labeled the peasantry and any socialist activity as reactionary. theories 125 124 byLucre be advocated would later strategy This anecessary prerequisite. represented bourgeoisie andthe minorities national the with peasantry, the proletariat Romanian of the collaboration the Voinea emphasized, then, Until society. socialist of the future advent the for class prepare working the to democrats was thus to ease the way for the complete development of local capitalism and of affairs. state democratic and place inaliberal Voinea, Ibid., 349. In the socialist perspective promoted by Voinea little attention, if at all, was paid if atall, was little attention, by Voinea promoted perspective In thesocialist regarding misleading also is debate Zeletin-Voinea the of account Chirot’s Oligarchic Marxism 125 Voinea rejected, as already mentioned, the overall control exercised by the , 346. Ġ iu P 56 ă tr ăú canu who would also rejectalso Zeletin’s wouldcanu who 124 The role of the Romanian social- CEU eTD Collection just a construct that was calledjust justify that aconstruct to opportunistan already envisioned tactic. necessity given their interpretation of the local capitalist development if or the theory was was not sure if the political Patrascanu works. toZeletin’s regards with strategy did asVoinea practice and theory socialist of the socialists imposed itself naturally and out by andSerban Voinea. development on promoted socialistperspective social-change of towards the end of the 1920s. Lucretiu Patrascanuis now called helpto us fully grasp the formulated strategy that of was theoutcome see what to interesting beit would Zeletin Gherea 127 126 the great majority constituted classwhich asocial peasantry, the inthehands of weapon asignificant now of the country. the bourgeoisie was the political strategy at hand. More so as the right tovote represented oligarchy atleastor tocounterbalance its influence. Alarge union with peasantry the and liberal the eliminate to wasthe need them preoccupied What were secondary. strategy 3. Lucre with regime. the closely party collaborated the also of leaders Important II. Carol of regime authoritarian the to consented tacitly even and Party National-Peasant the with specifically bourgeoisie, with the collaborated randomly of capitalist By Romania. development World of beginning Warthe Second the SDP the guarantee proper the to in order regime a democratic of organization socialists wasthe P Ibid., 369. ă tr ăú The communist leader formulated the same questions when confronted with with the confronted formulated when questions leader thesame The communist with inhisdispute byVoinea formulated strategy political After wesawthe In sum, for Voinea and the socialists the issues regarding the best economic canu, Ġ iu P iu Basic Problems ă tr ăú canu against the disciple of C.Dobrogeanu- of disciple the against canu , 267. 126 Within this new historical context the task of the 57 127 CEU eTD Collection the great finance, which it possesses. The national-peasant bourgeoisie who controls who bourgeoisie national-peasant The possesses. it which finance, great the of and capital monopolist powerful all in the interested is bourgeoisie liberal “The ally. main socialists’ Party, the Peasant bytheNational represented one the and bourgeoisie of apparatus” Romanian bourgeoisie. the “political leaderthe but Forthecommunist isnothing oligarchy the apparatus.” oligarchy basedis ona confusion: aconfusion between rulingthe class and its political fact” P formed butthisis not tosay an that oligarchy,special a class, wasformedinstead. “In development its wasstill through going first phases.A bourgeoisiereal not yetwas capitalist our model institutional western the of adoption the time of at because for Patrascanu forms the had from substance very the beginning. institutionalwhen by model the western 1848 adopted revolutionaries. was the modes timea reality werealready at the of capitalistand trade production believed that he because formula substance’ without embrace not ‘forms the did Patrascanu section, 131 130 129 128 society.” Romanian of the andthesuperstructure trade, of and relations of production the nature fond –the economic the between relation the strategy by envisioned Voinea. Either way Dobrogeanu-Gherea is to blame for the shameful outcome of the political Ibid. Ibid., 265. Ibid., 264. Ibid., 268. ă He nevertheless stated that a distinction has to be made between the liberal the between made be to has a distinction that stated nevertheless He If we are totalk in terms of ‘forms without substance’, Patrascanu contended, itis In Patrascanu’s opinion Gherea’s research was not correct as “itmisinterpreted not correct was research Gherea’s opinion In Patrascanu’s tr ăú canu asserted, “the whole discussion that revolves around the concept of concept the revolves around that discussion “thewhole canuasserted, 128 131 58 129 As we shall also see in the next 130 Thus CEU eTD Collection socialists to for the impossible it made which Party Communist of the character work subversive due tothe with, an alliance and theparty, base of weak proletarian the of Because liberal rule the oligarchy. to out could onlyhe deemed itnecessary collaborateto with the other “faction of bourgeoisie”,the be in order imagined with the strongin his writings. samethe tactic advocate National temporary collaboration with the bourgeoisie against the oligarchy. P whatsense hehad but reformist be could hisparty inmindwas a considered only in this and parliamentary the game, andaccepted Bolshevik tactics heritage, despised Voinea, that Gherea’s was true on drawing It inperspective. socialist the wrong revising bourgeoisie alone can notpromote(…) democratic life forms…” country was not the work of this faction of the bourgeoisie, for the simple fact that the the of “the democratization but peasantry, the and of proletariat of urban the support the gain to in stances order democratic progressive and adopted faction deceivingly peasant national- The oligarchy. a liberal to bourgeoisie’ a ‘genuine opposed that one not and against it: “in the capitalist arena and within the capitalist system”. deliberately stresses naturethe of fightthe waged by national-peasantthe bourgeoisie he but centers main decision the controls liberal oligarchy the that Voinea’s argument 133 132 capital.” monopolist by positions the against occupiedthe arena andwithin capitalist capitalism the on fights economy, national the of centers commanding the nor banks, great the neither Ibid., 270. Ibid., 269. Voinea did not believeVoineain bourgeoisie not did canbedemocratic the that its essence. But For P For ă tr ăú canu that was just a fight between two factions of the local local bourgeoisie, of factions was justthe canubetween a fight two that 132 Patrascanu’s arguments are rather confusing. He seems to accept to seems He confusing. arerather arguments Patrascanu’s 59 133 But P ă tr ăú ă tr canu would ăú canu was CEU eTD Collection their theoretical precepts based on “wrong premises” (by collaborating with with the based premises” (bycollaborating on “wrong theirprecepts theoretical failed in organizing the two socialformulate athey and although social-democrats, the peasantry. managed to the But they classes. If the socialists,class working the between alliance necessary the regarding byVoinea advocated truth” in practice closely followed believed byinthe“indisputable Patrascanu formulated political strategy Voinea. Serban formulation, but without practical consequences” P practical consequences” without formulation, but theoretical just one “Only years. interwar the throughout strategy that implementing in determined not were socialists the that fact the but by Voinea drawn strategy political through its press, the regime of Carol II. itselfsupported, party the believe that to reasons were there from party the expelled SDP did collaborate with the royal dictatorship of Carol II. And although they were despot”. “enlighten the II, Carol of regime the with leaders socialist some of collaboration the 135 134 seems to have determined P democratic, are all the results of the artificialNational-Peasant construct of an oligarchy. Party, Moreover, whatthe belief that thethe socialists sign an electoral agreementbourgeoisie, with the National Peasant Party. as a degreesocial of theclass, collaboration could the exaggerates between Patrascanu context, in this Even province –Transylvania. important be truly the two parties. Only most of the forces social new those representing duringwas as party this so More Party. Peasant the 1928 elections did Radu, 259. Ibid., 267. 3ă The confidence placed by the social-democrats in the democratic stances of the of stances democratic in the social-democrats by the placed The confidence 134 tr At this point P Atthis point ăú canu’s arguments are not convincing. He does not seem to criticize notseem the Hedoes convincing. to canu’s arenot arguments ă tr ăú ă tr canu touched on a sensitive issue. Important leaders of leadersthe of issue.Important on canua sensitive touched ăú canu tocondemn the Romanian social-democracy was 135 60 ă tr ăú canu wrote with regards to the with to regards canu wrote CEU eTD Collection recovering this interwar local debate represents nevertheless the proof a better that proof the nevertheless represents local debate interwar this recovering issuesinidentify Voinea’s important analysis the to development. Moreover it would havemade itmuch more easier for Chirot’s postwar hindered the local capitalist anentity that have appeared as oligarchy more clearly would old hisargumentliberal strengthen againstcriticism. kingdom, have would Zeletin’s The of the social and economic impact of the new acquired regions on the configuration of the analysis depth Anin book. is of chapter last inthe only touches he significantly provinces incorporated newly the of contribution the On issue. mentioned above this on build structural inchanges occurred that Romanian the society 1918episode. the after in “prospects use Chirot’s 1920s”,the havebe to words, consideredin to the lightof the Romania’s that in arguing case stronger even an made Voinea case. western the with identity state perfect the helpedZeletin to words, in other class a social bourgeoisie, of local a of evolution and emergence the of but Romania modern of development notThe study of construct. capitalist the ideological of nature fragilethe Zeletin’s is in Romania. He right of observing Greater context newhistorical within the theories reframe Gherea’s managed to character its polemic despite Romania, pre-communist 136 theoretical truth...” –“theironically force diminished social-democratasserted party(…) ofits unique the Patrascanu follow theory, the failed to practice the point, theoretical correct in the single liberal torulethe oligarchy), away inorder evenwith all dictatorship bourgeoisie, or the P ă tr ăú Voinea would have scored even higher probably had he managed to thoroughly hadVoinea even scored higher would hemanagedto have probably In sum, Voinea’s sum, In canu, Basic Problems 136 Contribution , 270. to the study of social-change and development in development and social-change of study the to 61 Contribution . Chirot’s way of CEU eTD Collection social history) social paradigm as the one employed by the socialists. 3ă drawn by it, from Voinea arenotconvincing. Aswe shall in see nextsection the ‘law’and strategy againstpolitical the Dobrogeanu-Gherea’s his Nevertheless, arguments beinnot existence the of that liberal stating proved. oligarchy could a so-called The later sociological considerations regarding the regarding considerations sociological The later of oligarchy.the concept the around revolved that perspective socialist weakness of the by Voinea, they failindo not beingaltogether convincing.Heis in correct identifying the 137 is necessary. and development social-change of Romania’s processes forgotten over disputes this of conceptualization Henri H. Stahl, tr ăú canu,inhis constructinghistory, ideological would workwithinown same the As for P As for , (Bucharest: University of Bucharest Press, 2001), 232-34. Gânditori ă tr ăú canu’s considerations regarding the socialist perspective advocated socialist perspective the regarding considerations canu’s ú i curente de istorie social 62 ă româneasc oligarchy ă (Thinkers and Trends of Romanian would side with wouldP sidewith ă tr ăú canu 137 CEU eTD Collection comes close to Voinea’s to close comes levelhe practical the at assumptions Gherea’s embraces levelPatrascanu a theoretical similar the political strategy asserted from the theory was also similar. In other words if at was paradigm interpretative the Since Romania. precommunist of agrarian relations interpretative paradigm. The most obvious proof was the almost identical analysis of the ideas of Lenin 1900” informulatingof his program. perspectives. As concludedRoberts in his insightful analysis “P communist and socialist the between similarities, numerous the despite existed, help us understandRoberts analysis the L. Henry case. Russian the of study Lenin’s emulating was Patrascanu Voinea declared natureof Lenin andof Gherea’sthewith the strategy promoted by Voineadifferences, is striking. It willviews be shown nevertheless that as on resemblance the which point at strategy, political belatedof Patrascanu’s analysis the move to capitalistboth also touching agrarianthe sector upon of Romania.precommunist This willallow usto theoretical development, modern history perspective, resemblance with of Romania socialist the and emphasize will and practical, that by Patrascanu. where Voinea will be called to help us understand the origins of the perspective promoted Gherea, advocated by Voinea. It will be shown that P will by beshown that It Voinea. Gherea,advocated Gherea’s theories and 138 Chapter 3:Lucre Roberts, 292. Thus, in the first part of this chapter I will focus on Patrascanu’s ideological onPatrascanu’s focus Iwill firstpart of chapter this Thus, inthe In this chapter I shall confront P Ishall confront chapter In this Ġ Contribution iu P ă tr ù ăú erban Voinea’s politicalstrategy. . Differences did exist nevertheless and this is this and nevertheless exist did Differences . ă canu againstC.Dobrogeanu- tr 63 ăú canu interpretative framework with that of with that framework interpretative canu 138 ă tr ăú canu operated within thesame canu operated ă tr ăú canu relied upon the CEU eTD Collection when the capitalist development was initiated in the Principalities, “only continued, “only Principalities, in the initiated was development capitalist the when look to P look to us pay although dismantled serfdom. the Let reactionary,acloser 1848,gradually after liberals bythe initiated reforms the context, this Within one. feudal the replaced regime serfdom The one. agrarian wasthe time atthat sector affected most The expansion. economic Powers’ Great the of asaconsequence precisely more century eighteenth the of decades two last in the date; an earlier at occurred Principalities in the capitalism newserfdom a by institutionalizing development the local halted capitalist as believed, Gherea capitalist development despite their reactionary traits. In other words the reforms did not, local the whichfostered reforms were radical 1864and 1921 of agrarian the reforms The imagined bythesocialists. liberals in sense reactionary not the were revolutionary Voinea during 1920’s. the substance”. the and “forms the between relation the on base, local the on had model western the that impact the on mainly focusing by development capitalist our “underestimated” or “ignored” because it itwas “insufficient” Moreover realities”. and economic local model the social had on western the influence that the of analysis was a“simplistic Principalities. Romanian in the 139 1. Lucre P ă tr ăú The treaty of Adrianopole signed in 1829, so unanimously regarded asthe date in regarded Adrianopole 1829,so unanimously The signed treaty of In thecommunist by reformsperspective the structural instrumented the Gherea’s ‘law’ leaderas previously mentioned, that The communist considered, canu, ă tr Ġ 139 ăú regime. did provedthis? By How adventof the that arguing Patrascanu iu P iu Basic Problems canu’s theoretical construct. theoretical canu’s Moreover he blamed Gherea for the political strategy formulatedblamedfor he Moreover by the Gherea strategy political ă tr ăú canu and the advent of capitalist development capitalist of advent the and canu , 264-65. 64 CEU eTD Collection “objective conditions”: ”in a backward society, in which the production forces arestillat forces in backward whichtheproduction society, “objective a ”in conditions”: initiate a bourgeois-democratic revolution. P revolution. bourgeois-democratic a initiate transformations. of these result became reality. became in capital commercial by thehistorical atsame period newand usury era that arguing a prove theinitiation of him,to before he tries asZeletin Moreover, nineteenth century. though, P in Principalities. Danube the transformation capitalist the triggered that materials raw in search of Powers, theGreat of expansion it commercial was the that explains he as himself contradicts he soon but conditions necessary ofthe existence atthe alludes were neither objective nor subjective reasons to adopt the western model. P western the adopt to reasons subjective nor objective were neither there circle that Junimea the contendedwith which perspective confusingsocialist rather the last one hundred years. hundred last one the social before everything,– that, determinedtaken the course by Romanianpeoplein the and – forces economics “internal were capital, there by foreign the local on realities the himit.beyond impact episode Forproves played the that this byinfluence exercised the mentions followed Vladimirescu the1921revolution andthat of unrest social Tudor the 143 142 141 140 and which already structural significantdetermined changes.” longbefore started that transformation andsocial economic the andextended accelerated Ibid.,43-9. Ibid., 26. Ibid., 20. P ă tr ăú The structure of the Romanian society at that time was unable nevertheless to nevertheless unable time was that at society Romanian the of structure The To strengthen his arguments of strengthen capitalistTo hisargumentsof autonomous development a genuine, canu, ă tr ăú A century canuidentifies also thebeginnings local industry,of atthe beginning of the 143 The1821revolution represents inP , 19. 141 With this argument P 65 ă tr ăú canu talks about the absence of the of absence the about talks canu ă tr ăú ă canu tries to shed light on the tr ăú canu’s natural the opinion 140 As a proof P ă ă 142 tr tr ăú ăú canu canu CEU eTD Collection absence of between –inthe bourgeoisie absence of Romanian the a fundamental conflict economic 1848 represents nothing else buttheamplified continuation of 1821.” the quarter of a century as theforces wilingeliminate to them alsoincreased. Thisis why the by a revolution after grewstronger signaled revolution: 1821 the „the contradictions truth the 1848 about only itselfreveals ifanalyzedin a close relation with 1821 the argues.” asLovinescu substrate’ an economic without ideologies expression of a social conflictGherea and not at all‚ only the echo of some humanitarian 148 arguing against Lovinescu, P Lovinescu, arguing against revolutionaries were Frenchthe only of emulating the ideals Also1848 revolutionaries. proletariat and its allies.” movementsprogressive nowadays and inscribed partially revolutionary the on flag of the by advocated local afterwards every nevertheless fighting purposes, the symbolized revolutionary idealsdoubt and –without principles a bourgeois but which revolution – “destroy especially to holdingthe officialhistoriography tried “The that the True1848” 1848revolution.the P 147 146 145 144 and consistency.” force lacknecessary the will revolution, of a bourgeois objectives the formulate… would that elements social the still dominate… elements pre-capitalist where the beginning, the Ibid. P Gherea, Ibid.,112. Ibid., 56. ă tr ăú 146 As in the case of the 1821 revolution As inthecaseof 1821revolution P the In his account of 1848revolution In hisaccountof P the canu, Newserfdom to the argument promoted by Junimea according to which 1848 the by to Junimea according argumentpromoted the to A century 144 , 30-1. But the prerogatives of 1821 were reiterated P reiterated 1821 were prerogatives of Butthe , 163. ă tr 145 ăú canu entitles his section his momentum canu entitlesdealing with section 1848 the ă tr ăú canu asserted that the „1848 revolution the was „1848revolution the that asserted canu 66 ă ă tr tr ăú ăú canu’ is forced to admit “the isforced that to canu’ canu raisedthe critiqueas same 147 Hence, in his opinion ă tr ăú canu believes, by canu believes, 148 CEU eTD Collection the capitalist modes of production with the relations of productions of pre-capitalist of the of productions relations the with modes of production capitalistthe of coexistence “the was system of agrarian the main feature the opinion In Patrascanu’s sector. limited in agrarian the reforms inpromoting interested weredirectly compromise 2. P 1848compromise.the by one of economy as themostthe affected sector, agrarian on the theories byfocusing newthe regime.” men place of the old took the that between of andthose of compromise, atmosphere the imposed to bottom from inwere gentle reformation the top way thelukewarm through radical, means, especially adequate through top, to the bottom the impose from to failed forces revolutionary the that “the transformations that heasserts ‘law’ when Gherea’s and bourgeois-capitalist institutions.” of “baresfeudal stamp believed, of mixing War, the ahybrid remains asGherea also and uptothebeginning between regime Great This survive the framework of 1848-1866. will reformation in landlordslimited thatresulted a the and revolutionaries the between compromise of the 151 150 149 sense.” in real the revolutionary not but character 1848revolutionaries’the bourgeoisie “the 1848 was at Romanian in progressive project: of the failure generates ideologies conflicting two the between differences of significant andformstructure possessed timelandlords”, atthat –and in wordsthe absence the other Ibid., 174. Ibid., 175. Ibid., 162. ă tr The communist leader contended that the ideological camps that led to the led to that camps ideological the that leader contended The communist ăú canu’s analysis of the agrarian sector. theagrarian of analysis canu’s 151 ancien regime The communist leader then comes even closer to the socialist the to closer even comes leader then communist The that led that totheformation a hybridof institutional 150 P 67 ă tr ăú canu also reiterates another feature of feature another reiterates also canu 149 Thus what followed was a CEU eTD Collection 156 155 154 153 152 class.” dominating economically existedfor half ita century,is because only it extraordinary presents foradvantages our in wordsa other ridiculous regime, regime… unbearable… absurd, if amonstrous it that regime, an unusual regime: on the one hand capitalist, on the other similar to aserfdom… misery. aregime of acute to its entirety in peasantry the forces, andsocial subjecting economic backward keeping alive progress, a latentstate whichhampering of conflict, crises, technical permanent the renders contradictions,adeep arestrong there production, of relations the agriculture and in forces active Romanian activethe the production “between theoretician: communist significant remains of the past continue to subsist.” as was not eradicated… the“past reforms those of bourgeoisie.after Even the 1920-1922 past.” interpretation of the capitalist developmentrelation to the economy of the western capitalist countries.” and social-change in economy Romanian the of specificity to the contributes is what this epochs, historical of modern Romania agricultural of sector kinds modestwo of of different belongingproduction, was totwo inthe coexistence the past… pre-capitalist the of and modesproduction of capitalist between consist“Itthe of combination the askshisreader: rhetorically Patrascanu P Gherea, Ibid. Ibid., 73. Idem, ă tr 152 ăú In his monumental leader thesocialistIn hismonumental adouble agrarian wrote:“Wehave work bythe formulated problem agrarian was thus of actual The mainthe cause What were the solutions proposed by Patrascanu? We have seen so far that his canu, Basic Problems The radical reforms of the postwar years reflected the specific “opportunism” of “opportunism” specific the years reflected of postwar the reforms Theradical Newserfdom Basic Problems , 96-7. , 97. , 97. 155 “The main feature of of “Themainfeature Romanian the agriculture?”, 154 Gherea’s interpretation was almost identical. was almost interpretation Gherea’s 68 153 156 CEU eTD Collection changes are not socialist in character, as Patrascanu immediately –“they contended immediately as Patrascanu in character, socialist not are changes the national minorities… a close friendship with the Soviet Union...” Soviet the with friendship close a minorities… national the of abolishment all the towards ademocratic directed measures feature… government… serfdom a bare still which relations working the all of abolishment radical the property… largelanded expropriation the of complete amnesty, military the political,and agrarian following:“the abolishment… of reactionary the institutions and legislation… the “historical realities” and the “existing conditions”. P “existing conditions”. the and realities” “historical one. a bourgeois-democratic but social and political regime.” political and social as the main social force able to set off a fundamental change of the actual economic, proletariat the promoting are class, capitalist the to class working the in Romania oppose that conditions existing because main “the the of change agent represented proletariat the bourgeois-democratic initiated by revolution 1921andthe 1848 social upheavals. Thus complete the to iscalled bourgeoisie anddemocratic progressive the peasantry with the socialist perspective P perspective socialistthe strategy formulated by strategy 158 157 3. Lucre similar? arealso solutions see ifhis to bewould interesting It perspective. in socialist contained the that similar to Ibid., 280-82. Ibid., 275. The structural The consideredstructural changes socialistclass bytheworking not are duetothe In the previous chapter we touched upon the fact that the socialistpolitical the factthat the upon wetouched chapter In the previous Ġ iu P iu ă tr ăú ù canu and the bourgeois-democratic revolution. bourgeois-democratic the and canu erban was Voinea asvaluableerban by considered P ă tr 157 ăú canu argued that under the leadership of the leadership of proletariat the under the canu arguedthat ButP ă tr ăú canu did nothave a insocialistmind revolution 69 ă tr ăú canu’s political strategy is the strategy canu’s political 158 ă tr Thestructural ăú canu. Asin CEU eTD Collection strategy is obvious. However, as we have already P seen, as wehave is already However, strategy obvious. resemblance between Voinea and P and between Voinea resemblance transformation.” for a socialist necessary conditions, “objective lack of the inhistorical process abandoned 1848.” the complete hasten to and perform, to to its hegemony to and process, historical resumeis the to constrained proletariat its the ownrevolution, bourgeoisie abandoned responsibilitiescharacteristic shared with of nature modernis‘specific’ “it Romania: ofourcountry acharacteristic –a allof the backwarda social countriescollaboration of bourgeoisiethe and thusjustifiesis strategy political by the underlying – whereclass the duties andinnevertheless may misunderstandingprompt recognizing the from that arise the must historical be carried out by another class. Where the perspective, P perspective, 162 161 160 159 urban bourgeoisie and the social categories to it.”closest structural democratizationbourgeoisiejustified: is also willcertainly “theproletariat… find alliesinfightfor the the of remainsthe inagriculture, alliance the with certain includingurban social of groups, parts the Romanian societyfeudal eliminate the is necessary to peasantry the alliance with the If leading role. also among the lines of the smalllargelyrevolution, abandoned democratic, by bourgeoisie.” Romanian the represent nothing claims elsethan realization the the of theslogans 1848 of the and Ibid. Ibid., 285. Ibid., 295. Ibid., 284. The alliance with the peasantry and with parts of the bourgeoisie is justified by For the implementation of these solutions the proletariatis called to assume the ă tr ăú canu does not exclude not canu Heis does bourgeoisie. alliance the the with 161 ă tr ăú 70 canu’s perspectives regarding the political the regarding perspectives canu’s 160 ă tr As in the socialist the Asin ăú canu rejected the canu rejected 159 162 The CEU eTD Collection understand P us helping in useful are remarks Voinea’s of some However lapidary. rather dismissed the real stake of Voinea’s interpretation the theoretical writings of of P writings theoretical the interpretation real of stake Voinea’s the 3ă As depicted false in1954. aproof under Voinea andexecuted convicted accusations context of P Voinea his intervention arguedthat of context destalinization. In by the Romanian communists, ledby communists, against P Romanian the byGheorghiu-Dej, timethat accusationthe at argue against raised be to Voinea wastrying underlinedto that touched upon rolethe played byP the 23 the importantupon things:two leader the ex-communist playedby role during the Actof the 3ă embraced by today,paradoxical thisattitude, for us theunderstandingof to offera key perspective intelligible everythingrendered law’.Voinea would – Gherea’s‘specific socialist in the that, explanation main the refuses but strategy, political similar an almost identical interpretation of the local capitalist development and formulates a socialist revolution), P revolution), socialist the about bring to not (and revolution bourgeois-democratic the complete to order in proletariat rule the of underbourgeoisie the of the organizeand peasantry sections the and heirs of the reactionary nature the needagrarian sector the to of 1848revolution, the least in contradictions” he“strong at illogical. theexistence admits Although the of is obstinacy His law’. ‘specific a of formulation in the Gherea by contended explanation tr tr ăú ăú canu as a true Leninist both at a theorethical and at a practical level. Since this level.was this a andatapractical Since at theorethical canu Leninistboth asatrue canu. rd In his radio intervention in favor of P of favor in intervention radio his In of August and the theoretical writings of L. P L. of writings theoretical the and August of ă tr ăú canu’s theoretical canu’s and strategic attitudes. theoretical ă tr ăú canu does not embrace the ‘specific law’ of He offers law’ Gherea. ‘specific embraceof the not canu does ă tr ăú canu in the Communist Party canu needsCommunistRomania. It intheParty of 71 ă tr ăú canu rehabilitation, Voinea touched Voinea rehabilitation, canu ă tr ăú canu. Adjacently Voinea also Voinea Adjacently canu. ă tr ăú canu, the within ă ă tr tr ăú ăú canu was canu are CEU eTD Collection development were augmented inP were augmented development capitalist triggered the byGherea, that advocated forces” “internal century. The in nineteenth thatoccurred the processes interpretation structural the of slightly different provide a him to This allowed by thesocialists. mentioned date the than even earlier 3ă the Principalities were caught in the orbit of the more developed western states. Therefore 3ă influenced by that of the industrial West.” was Romanian the that evolution local sociologists, acceptedbythe unanimously development.” By using the Leninist frameworkcommunist P P Leninist thesis”. phenomenon in Romania, as a normal result of the our country’s ù 4. Lucre acommunist. remained nevertheless understand the paradoxical attitude of of P attitude understand paradoxical the Gherea andLenin’s expertise developmenton belated was similarit will help us will see that P that see will works by turning to Roberts comparative analysis of Gherea and Lenin’s writings. We 163 erban Voinea contended that P that contended erban Voinea CC of RCP Archive, 331-32. tr tr ăú ăú canu argued that the capitalist development in the Romanian Principalities started in Principalities development Romanian the capitalist canu the arguedthat because only not model was necessary western the that demonstrate canuneededto Voinea was right in his criticism. In order to deconstruct Gherea’s logic, In his intervention at Radio Free Europe in favor of Lucre In the following section we will verify Voinea’s assertions regarding P regarding assertions Voinea’s verify will we section In thefollowing Ġ iu P iu ă tr ă ăú tr ă canu was drawing on Lenin in formulating his perspective. Since perspective. his in formulating Lenin on drawing was canu tr ăú ăú canu as the disciple of Lenin. of disciple the as canu canu’s “main works are translating his need to present the present his needto aretranslating“main canu’s works ă ă tr tr ăú ăú canu’s theories represent “an alignment to the “an alignment represent theories canu’s canu’s history to prove that the local ‘substance’ local the prove that to history canu’s 163 ă 72 tr ăú canu who adopted socialist butadopted theories canu who ă tr ăú canu tried to “reverse the theory, Ġ iu P ă tr ăú canu’s case, ă tr ăú canu’s CEU eTD Collection manner like analyzed inamirror L. Roberts from Henry theirof Gherea’s. differentthat altogether not cases interpretation case was Russian the of Lenin’s Europe. of agrarian societies south-eastern and social-changeasserted and developmental processes of non-western countries, specifically of Second Internationalthat to revise the thesis“it of classical Marxismis in orderin to understand the the light of the uncertainties and 3ă understanding in helpful prove will analysis Roberts’ L. Henry emulate. to trying was indeed Lenin’s theories and especially his political attitude that P hispolitical attitude was indeedtheories Lenin’s and especially wrong but for failing to implement fornot being by who hecondemned as theoneVoinea, advocated political strategy it. However, althoughto explain social-democrat the contradictions in his the need he from paradigm cues 1848 epoch Gherea’s took description post the of inof ouroutlook capitalist it development. He then embraced the same structural structural Butchanges. P Romanian society was prepared at a grass of Adrianopole. Bythe of time liberalreformsthe initiated by 1848 the generation the root level to ask for and later to welcome treaty than the in time back further in Romania development of capitalist the advent the the with opportunisticthe of outlook bourgeoisie.the in contrast the proletariat of role progressive the picture would theoretician communist the assumptions these On wasunnecessary. framework institutional western the adoption of the degree,that acertain to by Ghereaup shared also assumption, junimist was somehowacutely the demanding Thushecould‘forms’. the refute western also tr ăú canu’s case. We have seen in the introduction that Gherea was not the only member of the of member only the not was Gherea that introduction the in seen have We The Junimist idiom was one thing he had to radically condemn. He thus pushed thus He condemn. radically to had he thing one was idiom Junimist The ă tr ăú canu failed insustaining In hismainargument. the 73 ă tr ăú canu was CEU eTD Collection poorest peasants, with the semi-proletarians, with all the exploited against capitalism, against exploited the all with semi-proletarians, the with peasants, poorest the with Then bourgeois-democratic). bourgeois, remains revolution the extent that whole its feudalfight against undertaking a before „first remains with socialist revolution: the feudalagainst relationship.” fight in the but relationships... bourgeoisie the aganst fight in the lie not does It for. significance nationalization of not by meansdoes any lie it iswhere very sought often economic the socialism... with in common something has land of nationalization the is that the than morehe erroneous nothing followedopinion „There when that contends feudalism.” But in support small casewe this want to againstproperty not capitalism butagainst small farming or property... small-scale less multiply fortify, still develop, encourage, to feudalism...butagainst it is Speaking business generally, notthe of Social-Democrats the “supportagainstnot small necessity the capitalism Thus Leninarguedabout to property spread of capitalism in the village precisely because it would intensify the class struggle”. praxis. political and theories interpretation” of the agrarian problem will ease our understanding of understanding of easeour P agrarian the problem interpretation”will of 166 165 164 of Marxism is seenin all originality and paradoxicality.” interpretation Lenin’s policy that dynamic agrarian of Social-Democratic contradictions Ibid., 284. Lenin quoted in Ibid.,282-83. Roberts, p. 281. of the peasantry against the monarchy, the landlords, the medieval regime (and to Lenin believed, as Gherea also did, that Russia is a bacward country that has to country isabacwardthat Russia did, Ghereaalso that Lenin believed, as the “urge to need his in clear very was Lenin that observed rightly Roberts 165 Lenin is even clearer about his intentions and the steps that musthis be intentions Lenin steps that about and the clearer iseven 166 74 164 A look atLenin’s “dynamic ă tr ăú canu’s CEU eTD Collection the large property and implicitly to the eradication of the feudal remains. Moreover the Moreover remains. feudal the of eradication tothe implicitly and large the property between poor,middle andrich peasants as would leadthis eventually tothe abolition of havetactics tobe followed. reach accomplishments the Butto of socialism Union…” soviet stage in this Leninist the the itseyes own with measure “can peasantry sincethe is affirmative His answer hisreader. asks Patrascanu socialism?” of benefits the of the peasantry convince able to be proletariat “willtheRomanian support of collectivization. process the to peasantry revolution,in preparing the socialist revolution proletariatthe convincehave would to the the elimination of the great property and the remains of the serfdom.” represents… past This become reality. development future of can the premises the past this eliminating “by only as recommendable highly is regime, old the of dismantlement complete the organize to forces social able of those by proletariat the organization 3ă life.” social of our democratization the only accelerate land to the peasantry… theNeither achievements can it be socialist of all thisthesolution. a socialist issues represent „noneprogrammatic this of that earlier, discussed expropriationpoints from ofour the programme great property would nor the distribution of 169 168 167 one.” asocialist becomes including the rural rich, the kulaks, the profiteers, and to that extent the revolution Ibid., 285-6. Ibid., 284. Patrascanu, tr ăú canu operated with the same Leninist accuracy. During the first stage the stage first the During accuracy. sameLeninist with the canu operated 3ă After achievement the of this objective –the endof bourgeois-democraticthe Lucre tr ăú Basic Ġ canu was willing just as Lenin was to foster andfoster division encourage the asLeninwasto canu just waswilling iu P Problems, 286. Problems, ă tr ăú canu madeit very whenclear shapinghis strategy,political 167 Let us now return to P 75 ă tr ăú canu’s arguments. 168 Regarding nextsteps the 169 CEU eTD Collection intellectuals raised at the school and in school the heropportunistic SecondInternational, the of at raised intellectuals landlords. peasantry the and the between emerged struggle” that class advantage of conflicting take “highly the opportunity to did not instrument the union of the proletariat with the peasantry and thus missed a good society.” Romanian entire the of future transformations the anticipate andthus character a progressive contain agrarian upheavals “our Russian incase As the model. western the not Russian caseand 3ă inoccurred oldthe kingdom. thepeasantin uprisings towards that of evidentwas thus opportunism theirtheir attitude that in the past the social democrats have failed toformulate such a policy.Another proof supported by supported Romanianthe Instead, social P democrats. P bourgeoisie. the against class theworking of leadership need supportthepeasantthe landlordsagainstuprisings first the to and underthe then, the agrarian sector of the Romanian economy.” Romanian of the sector agrarian the remains in village,capitalism Romanian the of modes production –deepdid“infiltrate in “thedespite land limited of reforms” last the decadesand of still thus feudalthe evident 170 in village. the classin struggleintensify thevillage would gradually with penetration the of capitalism 171 Basic Problems 172 Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., 248. tr ăú canubelieved thatthey shouldbe in be compared, with understood, to order the 3ă In analyzing Romanian the uprisingsof peasant 1880-1907interval,the A A century century,244-45. Also see ChapterII, “Old and aspectsnew of the agrarian problem” inIbid., tr ăú , 62-116. canumovements wholed blamed thesocialist were by “a couple of 170 , 243. P ă tr 172 ăú And this is why they should have been encouraged and further and encouraged been have should they why is this And canu argued against the socialist perspective and emphasized thatperspective and emphasized socialistcanu the against argued 76 171 In this regards P Inthis regards ă tr ă ăú tr canu argued,the socialists ăú canu was eager to show to eager canu was ă tr ăú canu advocated canu CEU eTD Collection him” the pre-capitalist modes of production with the capitalist ones. The capital raised predates 1829momentum.the predates Inhis P opinion, Principalities in the capitalism of advent the that in considering wrong was Patrascanu 175 174 173 epoch.” decadent processes were justified in by aswehavealready justified seen. theory were Patrascanu processes prescribed. These Lenin as revolution, socialist the of emergence the foster to profiteers” with capitalism, kulaks,including rural the all against the the exploited the rich, semi-proletarians, the with peasants, poorest “the with then and revolution democratic against the monarchy, the landlords, the medieval regime” to end the bourgeois- “with peasantry of the go whole the would to first have times:in theproletariat two provision of a social aid.” thethat landed peasantry be must butby notbyforce convinced example under the and up the land he hilandlord. fightinggained asserts Drawingon against Engels, Patrascanu democraticit is convince the revolution, duty proletariatto the of give hisformer ally to recognized itas a forpowerful advancing tool cause the of revolution.” the Lenin, on the other hoped byhis rid and negativeRumania of to policy essentially such dreadful hand, while aware layin of uprising as he whose roots a tragedy, Rumanian society; conflicts deep the of the retrograde is social towards these “Ghereasawthe1907peasant attitudes revealing: conflicts elements 3ă in a peasant revolt, P Roberts, pp. 282-83. Ibid., 264. tr ă ăú tr ăú canu in the case of the 1907 episode. Roberts comparison of Lenin comparison of Gherea’s and Lenin Roberts in canu 1907episode. the caseof the Voinea dismissed P Voinea dismissed After the success of such conflicts which will alsofoster the end of the bourgeois- canu, Basic Problems 173 Justas Lenin have 1905revolutionarythe supported upheavals sodid , 285. 175 Withbe strategy, undertaken revolutionary this to prescribed ă tr ăú canu interpretation. The socialist leader argued that leader socialist The canu interpretation. 77 ă tr ăú canu “asmanybefore confounded, 174 jacqueries . CEU eTD Collection illuminating.” look… Much his analysis of Rumanian the of agrarian problem is sound and Western certain a have they Lenin, upon based were writings his while and trained, acumen’ of the Romanian left. As Roberts contended P Romania, and the solutions drawn from them, were not different. so. As we have in doing failed He seenGherea’s theories. deconstruct had to he that he knew this For Party. in this thesisRomanian the twoproletariat perspectivesmore and thanthus implicitlyon anycapitalist his writings hetriedMoreover through believer. as Leninist a faithful wrote Patrascanu of tohis legitimize developmentcomrades party. body”foreign in the the existence into theoretically of intellectual and apopularfigure he wasunanimously regarded byhis comrades “asa the Communist histhrough theoretical writings. On contrarythe because ofhis apublished status, justify the revolutionaryLenin”. role of the 178 177 176 3ă by described insufficiently is “capitalism that concluded Voinea Hence momentum. unknown new inthe and becomes past”) the factor, a this long 1821 the reality after only represents era (“that the capitalist of features real the gives that argued, capital, Voinea isindustrial the era. It capitalist tothe specific only not are usury, and from commerce Roberts, 290. Ana Pauker quoted in Tanase, CC of RCP Archive, 332-33. tr ăú canu, and in this respect alsoP in this canu,respect and It would be an exaggeration to argue that P argue that would beto It exaggeration an 3ă 176 tr ăú canu did not manage to gain preeminence within the realm of his gain within of realm manage the party canu to preeminence not did 178 As we have seen in the first chapter of this thesis we also have reasons have also we thesis this of chapter first in the seen have Aswe The Clients 177 But as Voinea asserted and as we have seen so far, so have seen and we as asserted Voinea Butas , 393. ă tr 78 ăú canu proves to be a faithful disciple of be afaithful to disciple proves canu ă tr ăú canu sacrifice ‘the sociological ‘the canusacrifice ă tr ăú canu “was not Moscow- CEU eTD Collection it would probably be safer to assign this analysis to another project. matter on this speculate wecan only since believes. However question his communist to 79 CEU eTD Collection Feminism. 180 179 of concepts the sense.In indiscussing was very this clear Marx Haupt man intellect and the G. passion. of the between man of Marx distinction inherited.” they theory the totransform Western Marxists haveled governments and parties in capitalist society, of the and actions purportedly andcommunistsocialist political problems.” Moreover “Its own inherent weaknesses, subsequent historical developments to assert that “despite prone are still wereand Marxists Western Marxism’. ‘Western as known tradition of the its brilliance and thevery point Marxstarting vision represents of his personality. feature other This the influence, Marx’s a considerable actionextent theory and to is disregard totake called revolutionary passion”, the is plagued by serious emergence Marx’s‘dogma’ iscapitalist asthe development, of “man revised, whenever traditional Marxism - Marx the “man ofintellect”, fails toclear the way for the followers.” todoctrine preferred revolutionaries revolutionary who Marxism, the theory and the practice, that I am referring to. of dimensions two the between tension is the It them. of two the between collaboration society. However the inherent tension contained within Marxism rendered impossible any they advocated similar political strategies in order to foster the emergence of the socialistinterpretative paradigm to render intelligible the local capitalist development. Moreover Conclusion Roger S.Gottlieb (ed.), TeodorShanin, 33. It would not be an exaggeration to regard Lenin as operating with the same a justice, social for of passion as“aman by scholars is portrayed himself Marx within inthis MarxistThe thinkers the same thesis presented operated two , (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1989), 4. 180 An Anthology of Western Marxism. From Lukacs And Gramsci ToSocialist- 80 war and revolution 179 It seems It that and their CEU eTD Collection this by presenting the advent of local capitalist development in the Romanian in the development capitalist local of advent the by presenting this the communist phenomenon was the result of a normal social development. He tried to do transpire a certain political strategy. As Voinea argued P As Voinea argued strategy. political certain transpire a in favor ofthe theone other. renounce to they were willing which to degree the of in terms differed they parties, their of thesuccess foster to order Romanianthe Although social-democrats. both thinkers combined theory and practice in 182 181 by P addressed render intelligible accusations Ihavetriedperspective the to and From this betweentheory tension practice. inherent this opinion they epitomize as possible in the political and social actualities of the current moment.” have asfirm “to a footing necessary italways considers as strategy” practical program of only a particular wayof viewing reality andin trends inherent it world,the is also a not “is Marxism emphasized, scholar another as sum, In perspective. historical changing personality, act or arerevolutionary, dimensions andconsequently two the Marxism of from steamed splitthis expected to act as two interchangeable attitudespolicy by demanded action,the which determined hisposition and his assessment…” giving the arealistic realism, but considerations, ideological of theorthodoxy was not ever “It practice, and theory between tensions the on dwelling Moreover, situations.” historical precise in action, it postulated nor theorethical neitherorganized thataction thinking preceded but relation with argued Leninism, that Haupt Lenin’s “approach his was concrete, Alfred G. Meyer, Haupt, 134. 3ă What does all this have to do with the two Romanian Marxist thinkers? In my The two dimensions of Marx’s personality – the intellectual and the passionate tr ăú canu conceived his ideological history keeping in mind that through itcanu his ideological inmust history conceived mindthatthrough keeping Leninism , (New York: PraegerPublishers, 1971), 146. 81 ă tr ăú canu wanted to prove that to canu wanted 182 ă tr ăú canu to 181 CEU eTD Collection programme 3ă developmentdiscussed here raised samethe crucial for both problem Voinea and changed over time depending on the historical context. the two perspectives on 183 one of his books - cite of title the –to between relations changing of the was problem crucial the for Haupt “Socialism wasthe aspiration change to the world theory.through And this raised what masses. the of support the to succeedinattracting help hisparty also will structural transformations the that believing Romania Greater of realities social new the to theories Gherea’s adapt to tried Hethus path. a sinuous undergo to destined start from the already was ideology by dominated atmosphere manifestations nationalism,the integral of internationalist an to say that he was a dogmatic. parliamentary game andcondemning the subversive characterof Bolshevism. This isnot He acknowledged that in an agrarian past. breakwith the hasten radical adventof the the inorder to facts society and in an convincingbuthis tough approachstands his asaproof of willingtotwist historical the Principalities as emerging from the essence to the form. His arguments were not Eric Hobsbawm, tr ăú canu. The conflict between the two Marxist thinkers represents the conflict between conflict the represents Marxist thinkers thetwo between The conflict canu. As Eric Hobsbawm stressed in the preface of As study: prefaceof Haupt’s stressedEric in Hobsbawm the a Georges the accepting socialist like areformist handacted other Voineathe on and reality Preface Programmeand Reality . inGeorges Haupt, p. x. 82 .” 183 This relation between the two variables two the between relation This CEU eTD Collection Demetrescu, Eugen. Demetrescu, Chirot, Daniel.Chirot, Brubaker, Roger. Boia, Lucian. Boia, Biberi, Ion. Biberi, Betea, Lavinia. Betea, Berend, Ivan T. Berdiaev, Nikolai, Berdiaev, (eds.), Verdery and Katherine Banac, Ivo Benedict. Anderson, D6/ 1973. Bibliography Secondary Sources Archive), Committee’s Central Party’s Communist (Romanian PCR al CC Arhiva Primary sources Lumea demâine 2001. History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness and Mythin History Lucretiu P Schimbarea social balcanice Veche, 2006. Decades Crisis. CentralandEasternEurope II of World War before Originile lea New Europe Berkley, California: University Californiaof Press,1998. Nationalism reframed. Nationhood andthenationalquestion inthe York, London:York, Verso,2007. Influen Under Three Flags. andAnti-Colonial Anarchism Imagination , Bucharest: Domino, 2005. , Bucharest: Corint, 2002. ă Ġ tr , Bucharest,Forum, 1945. a ú i sensul comunismuluirus ăú ù , Cambridge: Cambridge University 1996. Press, coalei EconomiceLiberale înRomaniaVeaculalXIX- canu. Moartea unui lidercommunist canu. Moarteaunui ă într-o societate periferic într-osocietate International International Areaand Studies, 1995. Eastern Europe National Character and IdeologyinInterwar 83 , Cluj-Napoca: Dacia, 1999. , New Haven, Yale Center for ă . Formareauneicolonii , Budapest: CEUPress,Budapest: , , Bucharest: Curtea , Bucharest: , New , CEU eTD Collection Shafir, Michael, Nemira, 2007. Radu, Sorin. Ion FlueraRadu, Sorin. Ion 1969. ArchonAgrarian Henryof State, Books, Roberts, an L. Rumania.Problems Political ______3ă ______Meyer, Alfred G. Meyer, Ornea, Z. Maiorescu, Titu. Love, Joseph L. Joseph Love, Irina. Livezeanu, (ed.). Levi, Margaret Jowitt, Kenneth, (ed.). Jowitt, Haupt, Georges. Haupt, ______Hitchins, Keith. Hitchins, Gottlieb, Roger S. (ed.). Constantin. Dobrogeanu-Gherea, tr ăú canu, Lucretiu. The Romanian extremeright:the The Romanian 1930s Via Monographs, 1999. Ġ a luiC.Dobrogeanu-Gherea Rumania1866-1947 Simulated Change Ethnic Struggle,1918-1930 Critice The Romanians1774-1866 Cultural Politics in Greater Romania.Regionalism, & Nation Building, Crafting theThirdWorldCrafting Leninism Romania. Politics, Economics and Society. PolitcalStagnationand Romania. Politics,Economics Aspects ofinternational socialism, essays 1871-1914: and Brazil Cambridge University 1986. Press, Marxism Volume I Un veacdeframantarisociale Probleme debazaaleRomaniei 1978. in aEuropeanNation Social Change in Romania 1860-1940.A Debate onDevelopment , Bucharest: 1998. Albatros, To Socialist-Feminism. An Anthology of Western of LukacsAndGramsci An Anthology Marxism. From ú (1882-1953). Social-Democra (1882-1953). , NewYork: PraegerPublishers, 1971. , Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1996. noastre agrare Neoiob , Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1985. Boulder, Colorado, Opere complete, Vol. V , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. , An Elgar Reference Collection, 1991. ă gia. Studiueconomico-sociologic al problemei , Bucharest: Compania, Bucharest: 2006. 84 . , Bucharest: Humanitas, 2004. , Cornell University Press, 1995. , Berkley, University of California Press, Theorizing Underdevelopment inRomania , Oxford: Oxford University 1989. Press, , Bucharest: Socec,1910. Bucharest: , , Boulder, Colorado: EastColorado: Boulder, European , Bucharest: Cartea Bucharest:Rusa, 1945. Cartea , Bucharest: 1945. Socec, Ġ ie , Bucharest: Politica, 1978. ú i Bucharest: Sindicalism, , Cambridge: CEU eTD Collection ______Zeletin, Wallerstein, Immanuel. Voinea, Tucker, Robert C. Robert Tucker, Tism ______7ă Stahl, Henri H. St So, AlvinSo, Y. Shanin, Teodor (ed.). ă nase, Stelian. nescu, C. Marin ă neanu, Vladimir. neanu, ù ù erban and Lotar R Lotar and erban tefan. Social Change and Development. Modernization,Dependency World-and Humanitas, 1998. of of BucharestPress, 2001. Publications, 1990. System Theories Gânditori Neoliberalismul Elite Elite Clien Burghezia Româna.Originea 2006. Company INC, 1969. capitalism’ The Marxian Revolutionary Idea The MarxianRevolutionary Moscova, Cominternul, Filiera Moscova, Cominternul,Comunist Filiera Ġ ú ii lu’TantiVarvara Late MarxandtheRussianRoad.‘theperipheries of i societate. Guvernarea Gheorghiu-Dej 1948-1965 Guvernarea i societate. românesc, Iasi: Polirom, 2005. Stalinism pentru eternitate.Oistorie politic The ModernWorld-System: CapitalistAgriculture andthe Paradigms Nineteenth-Century Limitsof Science.The Unthinking Social Century Origins the of European World-Economy inthe Sixteenth ú i curente deistorie social ăGă (1919-1943) , LondonRoutledge andKegan Paul, 1984. ceanu. , Bucharest: Ziua, 2005. , Sage Library of Sage Social Library vol. 178, of Research, , Sage , New York, Academic Press, 1974. , Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995. Oligarhia român Oligarhia Domino, 2006. , Bucharest: Humanitas,, Bucharest: 2005. 85 , Bucharest, : Silex, 1994. ú i rolul eiistorici ă româneasc ă , New York: W.W. Norton & . Marxism oligarhic ă , Bucharest: Humanitas, Bucharest: , ă Balcanic , Bucharest: University , Bucharest: ă acomunismului ú ă , Bucharest: , Bucharest: i România