Agrarianism and Intellectual Debates in Interwar Romania
CEU eTD Collection Second reader: Professor Balasz Professor Trencsenyi reader: Second Supervisor: Professor Constantin Iordachi The andWay”: Agrarianism “Third Intellectual Debatesin In partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree of Master of Artist Central European University Department ofHistory Interwar Romania Budapest, Hungary Liviu Neagoe Submitted to Submitted 2008 By CEU eTD Collection ...to Professor Balazs Trencsenyi, as my second reader, for his trust in my abilities a true free spirit whomade that what seemed so compplicated to be so simple...... to Professor Serban Papacostea, from the institut of history „Nicolae Iorga”, of institut from history the Serban ProfessorPapacostea, ...to ...to Professor Constantin Iordachi, my supervisor, for his generosity ...and to all with whom I shared ideas, satisfactions, states of mind. and his enormous talent to mastering ideas... To muse Clio and to her followers... and his intellectual suplesse... intellectual his and Aknowledgements i CEU eTD Collection Bibliography...... 60 Conclusions...... 58 The Third Way...... 51 Romanian Agrarianism: short overview...... 44 The Core of Agrarianism: the Debate of Ideas Around the Agrarian Issue...... 44 III: Chapter Romanian Agrarianism as political movement: rise and fall...... 35 Romanian Agrarianism as political movememnt: the road to power...... 27 Interwar Period ...... 27 From NationalMovement Peasant toPoliticalAction:the Cultural Party inthe II: Chapter The debate between Populism and Socialism...... 21 Romanian Populism in East Central European context...... 17 the Twentieth Century ...... 17 The Intellectual Origins of Romanian Agrarianism: The Chapter DebateI: of Ideas at the Turn of The Agrarian Issue...... 12 Argument...... 7 Historical context...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Table of contents ii CEU eTD Collection specific conditions of cultures. of these conditions specific the to politics and economy society, in education, achievements Western of adaptation iii) cultures; the of Central specificity European andEast national the character traditional in of ii)the nameof West the the preserving total Western rejection of culture; the patterns ambivalence of three the modernization the appropriated process terminological Beyond these predications, major orientations breakdownthe attributed to is order the of which world the synonymouswith laicization. in culture: ii) an i) operational rationality; to rationality from by:a significant given i) thepassage attitude the imitation withoutmean an also I secularization, By secularization. economy and capitalist state, neutral spirit, reserves scientific mean I context in this modernization, By countries. own their of of conditions specific the the issuewas foughtnational around revival aswell modernity of the adapting around to battle canonic foremost the century, Twentieth of the decades first the and century Nineteenth The historicalcontext For the East Central European political and intellectual elites of the second half of half of the second of the elites intellectual and political Central European East For the Introduction 1 CEU eTD Collection the economy was done very slowly until the beginning of the Twentieth century. status of the peasantry was thein the andSerbia, Bulgaria aristocracy, influencea local thelackof and powerful the Turkish most difficult in the whole region,a of level.traditional at remained was slower Because andstill of agriculture, especially that and the modernizationand economy, the of modernization the nobility, of class large a with but of class social developmentthe of agricultural In production. Hungary and Poland, with a less urbanized urbanization in Bohemiamanagedcreate an to internal marketand in contribute way this to internal market; iii) relationshipthe between landowners. andpeasants great Thelevel high of developmentof middlethe class; ii) agricultural the productivity and the potentials of the country, country i) factors: andthatof level to depending the on the certain urbanization of from particularities issue hadspecific agrarian the circumstances, Underthese development. capitalist relationships economiesupon into still amedieval and very rudimental stage of the has asaspecific reaction to path emerged Agrarianism for development. findinga proper in amajor issue question was theagrarian population, whole percentage of significantthe which I would call the “ Revolution and German Romanticism – avery particular and historical complex process French the theideasof Enlightenment, the of heritage intellectual the modernity: of patterns analyze their to tried elites these Western universities, in the educated Most of them elites. intellectual own local realities, and political European East-Central the of marginality the emphasized Habsburg, which which oftenmodernization, proved as wellto asbe absencethe of a middle classwhich have supportedand could promoted in processthe of thefar historical less modern,pressure hadin backgrounds in faceEurope expansion. competition a WestTheirrelative the lay to of of great by empires,using Ottoman,the Russian and In all countries of the East Central European area, in which the peasantry in madeCentral area, thepeasantry upa East In all of the which European countries The predominantly traditional and overwhelmingly rural societies of East Central re-inventing of modernity”. re-inventing of 2 CEU eTD Collection Bloomington: Indiana University (1982). Press, Jackson, Marvin Balkan Economic History,1550-1950: Lampe, From Imperial Borderlands John to Developing Nations, also see countries, European Central East of the development economic century, backwardness inEasternEurope: economics and politicsfromMiddle Ages untiltheearly Twentieth 1 interesting how “certain social structures and institutions – the bureaucratized state and the and state bureaucratized the – institutions and structures social “certain how interesting status of and endemicbureaucracy peasantry,the is the spread the wide of politicianism. It depreciation the of by Romania,were accompanied continuous the butthey of development the to contributed achievements All these region. Central European East in the timethat foundation of in universities Iasi modernand in Bucharest, were andprinciple advancedfor the system, parliamentary the and Constitution the Cuza, Ioan Alexandru Prince of reform land the Organic Statutes, the of reforms modernized The elites. modern Romanian for the strongseductive and simply too was allRomanians of unity the regarding pressure historical economic reforms and this issue has shaped the whole Romanian modern history. The Nineteenth forbe the more realizable and desirable independence to of wereconsidered achievement century Romanianof economy. political industrialization and urbanizationBut they or couldmaintain preponderantthe agrarian character the elites. unificationin apath of direction the for of development andsearched anation-building project promoted These goalsof allpolitical elites had some choices achieveto andinternalize modernity: they could have hadRomanian a priority provinces over social into a andmodern state and the Peter Gunst, In this context, the Romanian case bears some peculiar characteristics. The Romanian The characteristics. peculiar some bears case Romanian the context, In this Europe. of majorEastern regions two the between differences the perfectly reflects justisitisThe regard not in and itdifference quantitative, this qualitative, ineconomy (…) proportions. comparable evenEurope greatlandowningthe was no aristocracy develop able its to Eastern in continental while started, also had landowners rich less the among farmsmodern among the richest feudal andsuch proprietors, slow modernization found be to were there lands Baltic the and Poland in Hungary, that was Europe Central East Europeand Eastern continental between The difference Berkeley: University of California Press, (1991),p.74-75.For the particularitiesin and social Agrarian Systems ofCentralandEastern Europe 1 3 in Daniel Chirot, The originsof CEU eTD Collection Bucharest: Socec, (1907). the peasant rebellion from 1907: 4 (1969), p. 18. 3 Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, (1978),p.114. Jowitt, edit. 2 industrialization ( state of protective liberals, adepts by dominated was context ideological the century, Twentieth the of turn the At history. issue and the low status of the peasantry intellectual elites had to deal with it. But their own land, the agrarian issue was the main problem the Romanian political and astrong middlecentury. Without avery lack classand with the peasantry, of rudimentary have been sustained only by a local bourgeoisie, underdeveloped during the Nineteenth made but modernization bureaucracy an political could possible modernization economic one: a political first was process this Romania, in thecaseof ofmodernization: process aconsequence of bureaucracy of the was a national growing development economy. The primary andan education active publicopinion,butalso an administration effective and a free to required access lawsandinstitutions, not only state Amodern nation-building project. intriguing. maindirection in The Romanianhavewhich modern elites the excelled was the can rather seem modern state constructing a defining andto tothemselves energy dedicated in anticipation of them of anticipation in system of not education public – arose in response of social differentiation and complexity but Well-illustrated by the statesman and historianRosetti Radu (1853– 926)inavaluable about study Henry Roberts, Henry Andrew Janos, This huge contradiction between between This huge urgency the for contradiction agrarian asolution the providing of peasant’s status Rumanian history from nationalthe point often view of marked a indecline the materialThe national correspondof progress Romania didnot with social the or progress of the peasantry. On the contrary, the high points in in intellectual this a scholar history, modern For interested study of the Romanian Social Change in Romania, 1860-1940: a debate ondevelopment in a European Nation, Modernization andDecay in Historical Perspective: the Case of Romania Rumania: Political Problems of an Agrarian State, 2 3 . . Pentru ce s-au rasculat 4 has strongly influenced the evolution of Romanian 4 Ġ aranii through ourselves alone through ourselves (For what the peasants revolted) peasants the what (For New York: Archon Books, in Kenneth ) and ) , CEU eTD Collection industry. He also described the particular situation of institutionalization industry. institutionalization Healsoof feudal described particularof the the situation followof issue native agriculture the should agrarian thedevelopment the sustaining that of importance idea aboutthe continued in the inevitable He capitalism this evolution. was that gradual and economical similarlya thought Katz, of change, his Solomon realname on (1855-1920), Dobrogeanu-Gherea which was different by peasantry avoiding thesocialist devastatingcapitalism. consequences of The Constantin from the capitalist way, by supported “rural a of democracy”, aprocess a gradual transformation of status the of the yet he argued emancipation it. Thefoundationof of emancipationthis beshould the property small peasant be preserved,not in the direction of the idealization of the peasantry butin the direction of the should ofRomanian society character predominant the that has theconviction Romania. He adapt triedboth to Western capitalism and Russian populism specific the conditionsto of Romaneasca editorialist Constantin Stere (1865–1936) and the cultural moment and (1865–1936) editorialist cultural aroundtheConstantin the magazineStere life from comes patriachality populist to thisthe idealization the rural of the tendency of of remain by agrarian, traditional and unaffected foreign influences. Avery response particular Romanian history has been perceived in terms of “vitality”. In short, Romanian society should during resistance whose communities, rural of traditions the basedon character its agrarian magazine cultural the around movement and literary modernization. (1871-1940) thehistorian Nicolaethe processof For to the Iorga In contoured reactions of some specific products. decline conditions the the conservatism, of demanded state support for country the of the industrialization The nationalism. and protectionism ofstate elements certain exports in the to absenceitself adjusted liberalism Romanian of country, modernized a late a market of conditions specific the to balance the change of of affect social notcountry.the the a slowstructure which evolution Under does and organic situation the peasantry shouldbethe agreed that butthrough whoof conservatives, improved, (Romanian Life). With the prestige of his revolutionary past from from Stere pastRussia, of his revolutionary the With Life).prestige (Romanian 6ăPăQă 5 torul, (The Sower) Romania(The Sower) should preserve Via Ġ a CEU eTD Collection through a large cooperative system and credits sustained by the state, itwas obviousby that state, the sustained a large system and credits through cooperative agriculture rudimental and very traditional a with capitalism conciliate to Madgearu tried solutionsVirgilin Madgearu infora political depicting speech 1927 issue the agrarian and the proposed by term The priests. the and teachers elite: the andrural traditional the the new-foundedMihalache in (1882-1963), which wasputon emphasis alliancethe between peasantry the World First the Ion teacher rural played role bythe movement a predominantwas of this War. arising the In before just national National become to hoped which accents, radical with agrarianism, Peasant movement, new of social trend a the for basis asocial already was There peasantry. Party.peasants, Despite hand,other Balcanic duringthe wars(1912-1913), many Romanian soldiers,were mostly who saw the On to socialists. or nationalists thepopulists, liberals, by proposed solutions technical the with the fact south that and with politicians of promises the the obviously contrasted and of peasantry education the of the Danubebut also aprofound transformation of the structure of Romanian society. The lack of resources a different,were tobe foundin rural the inand not urbanthe milieu. more society emancipated Romanian from the contradictions acutely the factthat the indicated rebellions peasant many ifthe even revolution socialist the of goals the accomplish not could which class and wealthysocial potential lack of and revolutionary a reactionary was just all peasantry For the these, issue. agrarian to the notand theproletariat of conditions movement specific and the workers Racovski, leaders: Christian socialist other the issue, in Stefan agrarian was interested the thinker who Gheorghiu(neoserfdom). or I. relationships between landowners andwith the peasants inspiredthe expressionC. Frimu been preoccupied to the organization of the the political expression will be The violent peasant rebellion from The violentpeasantrebellion from only 1907 demandednot landreform an extended It is significant to mention that Dobrogeanu-Gherea was the only socialist peasantrism, was used for the first time by the economist the by time first the for used was 6 agrarianism , for which neoiobagie CEU eTD Collection New York: St.Martin’s Press, (1997), p. 137. 5 Argument hadparty. asagovernment morefrom politicalhad it interwar success environment asanopposition than Romania, party can besaid that It advocate. protectionist state a as position ‘liberal’ more a to agrarianism radical from doctrine its of modulation the iv) King the extremist towards iii)Carol towards Madgearu; politicalthe attitude parties; II and Virgil to Stere Constantin populist former the from leadership: of transfer symbolic ii) Party; the Peasant and the Party Romanian parties: theNational distinct ideologically double origin alsocollateral tothepolitical factors contributed i) evolution agrarianism:Romanian of the of all ofKingattitude Carol itsII towards parties decline. accelerated political other Some the National Depression theGreatWhenpolitical power, the apeasantparty andactually the struggle.won a consequencePeasant of the promises made during the First World War, and not as a result of its own Romanian agrarianism was that itParty, emerged in a period when the land reform was imminent, as system of constituted core the cooperatives, of Romanian agrarianism. of Thedrama formed socialist, nor basedon small neitherthe landtenuredevelopment, andthelarge capitalist, through the coagulation of two movement, of a theoretical clarification related to the resolving of the agrarian issue. But, as a political less no acute” it though was question, national the from divorced was problem peasant “the that a coincidence is not it However, development. economic and social long-term a sustain not could itself in agriculture Philip Longworth, the peasantrism The Making ofEasternEurope: from Prehistory to Postcommunism, , trying to respect the rules of the democratic games in a fluctuant ina games democratic ofthe rules respect the to , trying 5 . This intellectual obsession of a proper, specific way of 7 the agrarianism was constituted from the need the from constituted was 2 nd edition, CEU eTD Collection Napoca: Dacia,(1999). 8 (1991). Romanian Bourgeoisie, ItsOriginand Historical Role) 7 peasantrist Virgil Madgearu Virgil peasantrist the circuit. Second, trade inthe world freely participate thatcould bourgeoisie national Zeletin interwar Romania. Two names, in core of debates the developmental constituted they important: few isvery only decades particularly, can be revolutionary interlude of 1848. Thesignificanceplace of these moments thattook two within quoted here. First, the (1831-1832), the Statutes abortion slavery and of with the (in the landreform 1864), neoliberal Stefan modernization is aprocess firstwhich Romaniancontains the constitution: the Organic Mircea Eliade, Emil prominent most the of ones the than more relevant are Cioran Madgearu Virgil and Zeletin Stefan and Constantin Noica. Eliade, Cioran or small peasantry. the bourgeoisie local roleof positive the account the into and Noica were brilliantrural world. Both of them proposed potential solutions to the developmental problem taking of interferences capitalism peasantry from the andwith 1864 regardingthe status the of the Romanian Culture) formula “ 6 1917), co-founder influentialhighly of cultural the association the last part of the Nineteenth century by the conservative leader Titu Maiorescu Titu leader by conservative the century lastof Nineteenth the part the in was synthesized West. It with the as symbolic rapport the to is herereferred modernization a double-tracking cultural-ideological process: andsocial-economical.As intellectual history, issue. agrarian tothe related debates intellectual of the and movementfrom history intellectual period of interwar as the agrarian history the a social Virgil Madgearu, By his real name Stefan Motas; see his volume Titu Maiorescu, Titu 7 For anadequateFor understanding of evolution the of Romanian society, works the of For a proper reading of my thesis I propose two matrixes of interpretation: as an (1882-1934),whoreconsidered in the of Organic therole Statutes developingthe a of forms withoutforms content In contra directiei de astazi inculturaromana in Agrarianism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Critics, vol. I,Bucharest: (1984). Minerva, 8 (1887-1940), who analyzed (1887-1940),who theconsequences of landthe reform ”: the uncritical import of Western models. As social history, social As models. Western of import uncritical the ”: 8 Burghezia romana originea si rolul ei istoric , Bucharest,(1925), 2 I consider Romania’s modernization as modernization Romania’s consider I Bucharest,(1936), 2 (Against the Current Direction in Direction Current the (Against Junimea nd edition, Humanitas, (Youth), nd edition, Cluj- edition, 6 (1840– in the in (The CEU eTD Collection perspectives of Zeletin and Madgearu on the development of Romanian society. Iwill also try agrarianism Romanian of specificity the at mostly thesis, this of limits in the refer, will I agrarianism. asbetween social and intellectual historymirrored in interwar Romania by analyzing the specificity of go beyond thein dogmatism theto I will try thought. European of tendencies the with accordance infull tradition intellectual of a certainworks historicaldissertation ofmethod andthe hasto interrogate thebe, placed in an East Central peasant European frame,aim a very good topic for adissertation. Theof present a thesymbolic connectionsbetween Zeletinrehabilitation. and Madgearu, and their role in leaders,the development of Romanian society could thinking in Zeletinaccordance with the intellectual tendencies of their time. A comparative case study and tryingMadgearuprove, are part oftowhen an which livedcomparethey in.Myhypothesis is like authors that Zeletin Stefan and Virgil Madgearu they analyzeunderstand society the managed from to Madgearu, both of with Germany, them doctorates the the social history Atlantic.sideson both of the career international of modern by outside is philosophyFrench and culture;Eliadehadan Cioran Romanian adopted Romania,considered famous only in a Romaniana context. sophisticatedNoica, for example, is almost unknown Romania. social figures of Zeletin, Madgearuandtheir theoretical modernizationcontribution the to of It has to of interwarthe generationfamous be triad Cioran,– the ignored Eliade, Noica –butalmost the said thatquestioning how the intellectual history of the latest years reactivated the myth of thethe splendor mentionedme, it influential For inis very interwar period. was activity the Theirintellectual perspective. triad: whichmanifestoput the specificity famousRomanian ina universal culture of to tried Eliade,leaders of a generation, the so-called ‘generation ‘27’, the year in which Eliade has written his Cioran, Noica should be Even without a traditional education in social sciences, professors like Zeletin and 9 CEU eTD Collection of the populist (Constantin Stere), socialist (Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea) orliberal (Stefan issue examined theagrarian andMihalache alsothose (Ion Madgearu) who leaders andVirgil peasant main the of speeches political and platforms political articles, books, the sources, internal as I used, purpose, this For peasantry. the category: social largest the represent to proposed it which movement apolitical of framework intellectual the and history social on interwarthe Iwould period, describe history its not economical the of but period, that mainly Focusing dominated movements. byarecrudescenceoftheagrarian European context researchers. its waits still that matter subject a neglected is almost this also, And Romania. interwar in for starting understandingis ofthesophistication levelof intellectual pointdebates agood the neoliberalism, Zeletin of promoter Stefan andthe of Madgearu, promoter Virgil agrarianism, ideas of the main the between case study A comparative Liberals. the of domination political the for challenger main the was time, a short for which, movement a political for support offeratheoretical to tried has agrarianism is view that proposed My Twentieth century. some ideas whichinfluenced evolution the of Romanian agrarianism in first the half of the the bottom of society, from which starting social reforms bemadethrough canonly change the for agrarians, commune; is the peasantry. My property:approach will for be themore socialists,of andform nature of lies inthe socialism and agrarianism between a maindifference the biography theof change canbased on exploitation, unlike landgreatbe tenure and the engine economy.of only On the other hand, revolutionaryandnot land asmore small tenure efficient considered economy,agrarians uncompetitive and the form of property andsocialism. liberalism between as a“third way” modernization of pattern adifferent stress to an attempt was agrarianism how manner explore the to The analysis of Romanian agrarianism should be understood in the East Central East in the be understood should agrarianism Romanian of analysis The protectionismmarket, freesustain yetwiththe Since promoted liberals to state an 10 CEU eTD Collection Serban Voinea, or corporatists like Mihail Manoilescu, intellectuals who embraced different embraced who intellectuals Manoilescu, Mihail like corporatists or Voinea, Serban like bysocial-democrats, andcriticized they in Romania: were discussed echo interwar the ideas had Their amajor of Zeletin. Stefan ideas neoliberal to the perspective comparative in of be presented The ideas mainagrarianism, will Madgearu,the a promoter Virgil of open to foreignorientation investments. capital a more political “liberal” Depression, andadopt Great the of consequences to the response in its changehad doctrine, Party to National Peasant the mainly peasantry, the represent to Dedicated Party. Peasant National the organization: political stronger but new form a and Peasant Party. Together, they will try to oppose the leaderof the the dominationMihalache, andIon Party, National Romanian leaderthe the of Maniu, Iuliu of the National Liberal Party here: personalities will be Party. National Two political the highlighted Peasant organization: issue to related from debates agrarian of the beginning the Twentieth century. the befoundin theoretical the are to Romanian agrarianism of the one. The roots imperative issue wasan proves thatthe agrarian between two these intellectual anddebate the argued, is besttheoretically byfarthe of from Dobrogeanu-Gherea Constantin a Marxistperspective, andhis toshow opponents the intellectual frame of movement. populistthe Thereaction, agrarianism: from populism to peasantrism. I will discuss mainly the ideas of Constantin Stere origins, the political evolution and the theoretical corpus. intellectual the following the agrarianism about Romanian structure: approach will pursue and Henry Roberts, who had the privilegeZeletin) to authors.be witnesses As ofexternal the period sources,they examined. I have My read the books of two experts, David Mitrany Finally, the third chapter will try to discuss the specificity of Romanian agrarianism. Romanian of specificity the discuss to try will chapter third the Finally, main agrarian formation of a evolution and to the willbe dedicated The secondchapter In the first chapter of my thesis I will investigate the intellectual origins of Romanian 11 CEU eTD Collection (1968), p. 33. 10 (1991),Press, pp. 105-106. 9 The increasingneed grains for caused tobe developexported agriculture extensively, to by way. extensive more a in exploitation agricultural the of reorientation a only but agriculture, can be the considered after numerous adopted were Statutes Organic The protectorate. debates aRussian of change in the rulers Phanariot in the of Romanian century one than more after Principalities Romanian the in trade from Principalities restrictions Turkish of Moldavia and Wallachia but they The AgrarianIssue the main ideas of each chapter. For this, a short historical outline is useful. reload will conclusion The perspectives. theoretical different emphasized and views political For a full picture about the Organic Statutes, I will quote another Iwilla full opinion: aboutquote For OrganicStatutes, picture the Vlad Georgescu, David Mitrany, David Yet, it has to be said that they meant by no means a profound modernization of favor was in peasant’s the relations agrarian the of restructuring from andthe taxes exempted were still halfway. advancemeasures intended to stopped boyars modernization The provisions were certainlynew andmodernizing in (…)Buteffect. many institutional The details. organizational and administrative of kinds all articles of societal structure, and form government of organization, for societal First Romanian including,Constitution besidea of statementgeneral principles Between 1829 and 1831, a series of laws, known as The Organic Statutes, lifted asTheBetween 1829 and1831,aseriesoflaws, the OrganicStatutes, known Romanian agrarian law for the first lawfor time the agrarian Romanian not qualifiedRomanianmodern provinces. The in conception property, itself,of a right as system two of the agrarian whole the radically changed Statutes The Organic as before by the professional use of the object, shaped the The RomaniansAHistory, The Landandthepeasant inRumania, 9 . edit. Matei Calinescu, Columbus: Ohio UniversityState 12 10 . New York: Greenwood Press Publishers, CEU eTD Collection communism, 11 feudal relationships working on their own land ormoney to invest in acquisition of technology, and some forms of of the small land owners’ middle class. But practically, the peasants did not have thebasis create could they land and, theoretically, received the Manypeasants rights. of property tools for official abolition of serfdom and the regulation of agrarian relationships based on the principle and only with partial results. The mostimportant accomplishment of this land reform was the under the Principality of necessary in1864, andvery landAn important was peasantry’s reform the situation. realized Alexadru Ioan Cuza, but only notimprovingexpansion aslimstratum and whileproduced merchants of entrepreneurs more for political than forcultivating social reasons the soil. extension by intensively, andnot surfaces, of methods of using new,modernarable The technology used in agriculture was rudimentary and the economic called violence1945, would destroy, anddeportation middle using terror, rural this class so- (the instabilities,accomplished just generation,in one with 1921.In economic difficulties all and political a stratum of small moral most troops, the of of them being during peasants World the First War, and was landowners toraiseinradical the was promisedThis reform became anemergency. order landreform was created.authorities But the werecommunist verypeasantrebellions in 1888 and1907.The latterwas especially violentand the repressions of tough. regime,Thousands of afterbutpay to for their The food. daily effectunarmed in wasdevastatingtime in andmanifested violent peasantsbenefit own their for not and advance in yearly days of a number work to were had Peasants more. shot while even them exploited who a proxies new, tenant through job this managing more advocated they and land Called “neofeudalism” by Robin Okey; see the volume the see Okey; Robin by “neofeudalism” Called chiaburi statute economicthe imposed land by social rapports and ofof the reform 1864. The peasants,The essential mutation of the post forty-eight the Romania is the transformation organization of of work, and the repartition of rich are Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, (1982). ). 11 were still practiced. The landowners did not themselves work on the 13 Eastern Europe, 1740-1980: feudalism to CEU eTD Collection 13 12 Then a second opinion of an expert about the consequences of the land reform: force comparable to that of the Liberals, their opponents. They also tried to delimit to tried also They opponents. their Liberals, the of that to comparable force apolitical generate to failed Depression. They Great the of challenges the administrate to Party founded by Peasant Ion Mihalache. village-teacher the Transylvania, ledby respectedthe politician Maniu, Iuliu with local of the interests the from Party of National the interests regional the aggregate hadParty to Peasant National new the and landowners, collapsed of interests great the the Party, representing Conservative land in 1921. The was made setup,anewwas reform more radical old and actually by of hope the a new landreform foundation madeof the party.When it possible a peasant hadmystique” War,his a “peasant life.Onlyafter1890’s, but created the avery effort short in Dobrescu-Arges the by institutor the wasrealized of peasants the interests the represent to buildparty to apolitical attempt only The of peasantry. interests the represent the aimed to countries, nopolitical inorganization existed Romania before the First World War which model Western the after only evolution,produced Romanian institutionssociety a partialmodernity. new created The economicpolitical andwithout rights peasants the and autonomy awarded to agradual Without unsatisfactory. werecertainly results the but elites Romanian by the necessity David Mitrany, David Catherine Durandine, give them sufficient political power to withstand economic oppression economic withstand to power political sufficient them give itnor did politicalsufficient tostand upagainst economic inequality, strength politically Theindependent. reform of 1864 did either.didgive It not them and economically both peasants the made have would reform ideal An Principalities of the history acomponent of social became modified: onland rapport the is defined The (…) byproperty. hunger land of When they came to power in 1928, the leaders of the National Peasant Party managed Party Peasant National the of leaders the in 1928, power to came they When Summarizing thefacts, landthe reform perceivedof 1864 was as a political andsocial The Land and thepeasant in Rumania, Histoire des Roumanians had decisive influence on the social actors. Unlikehad decisive influenceneighboring on actors. the social the , Paris: (1995), Fayard,pp. 163-164. 14 New York: Greenwood Press Greenwood York: New 12 . 13 . , p. 62. CEU eTD Collection University of Washington Press, (1974), p. 322. 14 capitalism was an inevitable step in the economical and social development of each country. each of development social and economical in the step inevitable an was capitalism its historical perspective,to According quite different. quo. The socialist was answer answer was for the rejection of any foreign influences and the maintaining of the socialnative middlestatus class could be developed only with the support from the state. The conservative answers. providedpositions, different political own their defending and activities political intense with them of most intellectuals, many of Romania, in context specific the causesof backwardness the the analyze lattercontributions of evolution willinfluence the Romanian the Tryingagrarianism. to theoretical andthese given answers were way,different issuein a several proper peasant the be situation Foragriculture anditsresolving more rural to the tended overpopulation, acute. which is waytodevelopbackward proper Romania, the country? a withits rudimental In national demands inall Central East countries,European awide-ranging question remained: fromendeavors which couldno-one benefit. developmentof Romania. This may be the of drama Romania’s modern history: togenerate for apotential the small generate could middle of a rural owners class that conviction rooted in reallegacythe social agrarianism: of andRomanian economicof thought apath the from course of development is Western Buttheysomething differentandone. the this created a different of conception same shared the they whom with socialists from the themselves Joseph Rothschild, Joseph The liberal answer was in the direction of industrialization and state protectionism. A protectionism. state and industrialization of direction in the was answer liberal The In the intellectual revolution. ambiancepolitico-social a permitting without and fromhaste the turn achieve Romanian seekingthe now millennium in to in was West the elite of the Twentiethseeking century,was it time, same Atthe relations. by neoservile characterized still was society to of uprisingendowproducing grain forexports acapitalistic, world wide market, butits own the Romaniaitself a hadmodern in less industry. than a century A transition passed from what a pastoral had taken society a to one East CentralEuropebetweenthe Two Wars, World 15 14 Seattle and London: CEU eTD Collection major challenges to whichmajor challengesto shouldtheiragrarianism answers. provide own two the are –there other the on political actors in active tax-payers from simply peasants hand, transformation the on of onethe the productivity agricultural problem and property of in anddevelopingdirection. The agrarian the character “pre-eminently agrarian” preserve its largenecessities of Acountry with sucha agriculture. Romania rural population as should the to collateral be only should industry that considered they and capitalism rejected populists other the and Stere Constantin property. peasant small virtues of the economic the socialist peacefully whowill proletariat realize a strong way,be create will industry. Inthis by assured revolution.could small for rural surviveonly the andbeon couldplots adebouche overpopulation Finally, land of greattenures same.Agriculture the the but increased remained constantly, population the populistleda crisislow extended and productive agriculture land. rural to the In of addition, answer wasrelationships in feudal an agrarian a framework: hybrid whichhe called also capitalist focused implementing of situation particular this examined Dobrogeanu-Gherea Constantin on the social and 16 neoserfdom. The CEU eTD Collection Russian Thought, 16 large large discussion one consultcan Margaret Canovan, (1981), concept of “people” can refer to the peasants, urban masses or to the entire body of a nation. For a 15 organizations that would group themajororganizations would formations that occupational functional group insystem of a “the conditions lifeof modern the demanded supplanting of partiespolitical bycooperative claimed He Stambolinski. Alexander was leader whose century, Twentieth the of turn the in movement agrarian the inspired peasantry of emancipation the and Darwinism social of goals and Westernizers on the one hand and the Populists on the other. In Bulgaria also, the populist natural small of economy producers” apre-capitalist, of “idealization his with Herzen Alexander Slavophilism. and Romanticism late by dominated atmosphere intellectual in the in Russia, found be isto populism of origin Butthereal in Europe. movements of agrarians’East-Central the intellectual on the precursor is populism It delimitation. a terminological with start should Romanian Populism inthe East-Central European context Andzej Walicki, Andzej The concept of populism has a has of populism concept The The Clash of Ideas at the Turn of the Twentieth Century An analytical discussion of the formation and evolution of Romanian agrarianism Romanian of evolution and formation the of discussion analytical An The Intellectual Origins Oxford: Claredon (1975), Press, p. 595. A Slavophile controversy. HistoryofaConservative Utopia inNineteen-Century genus proxim 16 Chapter I: prepared “the natural prepared“the link” natural between Slavophiles the which entails a large number of meanings because the of Romanian Agrarianism: 17 Populism, 15 with its New York: Junction Books. Junction York: New fin-de-siècle emphasis CEU eTD Collection Russian Thought 22 (1961), p. 63. 21 New York: Columbia University Press, (1996). edit. Held, Joseph in Europe Eastern Utopia in Nineteen-Century Russian Thought, 20 Weidenfeld and Nicolson, (1969),p.99. 19 Europe: Racism, Nationalism and Society, intellectual intellectual influence” they however, wereSlavstoo, and sincenational their revival had been greatly under Russian was a national characteristic of the Russian people” Russian the of characteristic national was a collectivism that conviction society the and form of of stage a newhigher embryonic and the as commune village the of view “the thought, Herzen Alexander as in which, ways distinctive were –butboth traditions Russian from cultural the of Western criticism utopia conservative 18 Union: 1899-1923, was the was Slavs did not know the advancedmodels, socialist aimed toavoid the historical of stage capitalism. The southern representation” reaction to Western socialism through the transformation of archaic collectivities ( collectivities archaic of transformation the through Western socialism to reaction so-called century (the mid-Nineteenth the with starting in Russia originated populism”, “pure The evolution. in its stages few a differentiates ties no had ideology industrialwere consideredwith who the nationalistworkers, tobe“notenough”. anti-capitalist their But ideals. socialist advert to tried and capitalism, 17 Andzej Walicki, Andzej David Mitrany, David About Russian populism in Andzej Walicki, Ghita Ionescu, Ernest Gellner, Peter Hanak, Peter John D.Bell, In a revealing study dedicated to Eastern European Ionescupopulism,Eastern European Ghita dedicated to study In arevealing populists in the entire region of East Central Europe was a ‘ Thus, when neither capitalism, nor socialism was acceptable what remained zadruga. The Anti-Capitalist Ideology of the Populists third road 17 pp.586-587. Peasants inPower AlexanderStambolinski and the Bulgarian AgrarianNational Marx againstthe Peasant AStudy Social Dogmatismin . No farther both . Noin than rejected populists feudalpastand the Hungary, Unlike Serbians Unlike “the Russians, Bulgarians or had neither New Jersey: Princeton University Press, (1977), p. 60. A Slavophile ControversyA History of aConservative Utopia inNineteen-Century 21 mir, ’, - and we could asset that this concept was embraced by the was embraced this concept that asset and wecould ’, - . In Russia, Populism wasinfluenced by Slavophilism – a their traditional community, an association of several families, several of association an community, traditional their Populism. Its meanings and national characteristics, Populism inEastern Europe Racism, Nationalism andSociety, New York: Columbia University Press, (1996) Oxford: Claredon Press, (1975).About populism in A SlavophileControversy Historyofa Conservative 18 22 could be met. In Bulgaria, the leaderof the In Bulgaria, met. be could in Held, Joseph, in Held, narodnichestvo 18 . , New York: Collier Books, ), as an intellectual Populism inEastern mir, nor , p. 159. mir zadruga London: ) into 20 19 ; , CEU eTD Collection (1972), or Dumitru Micu, 25 24 Columbia University (1966),Press, p.122. 23 Russian populism and Western socialism. industry” town and agriculturewith against against the village the with itself identifies “loudly Stamboliski, Alexander movement, agrarian the Eastern followed by“purepeasantrism”: Europe Eastern people. of character traditional inappropriatethe with imports be western “unhealthy”, to considered promoted an intense cultural activity but without a political tenure. In a series of of a a series In articles tenure. political without but activity anintense cultural promoted education, social reforms, andkeptdistance from the revolutionarism ideals.socialistof They Romanian Life Ibraileanu. literary and Garabet critic the Stere Constantin writers Bessarabian-born the were emphasis, political without movement, cultural this of exponents Themain public life. democratization of based peasantry onarealand the the of depiction land nationaleconomic culture andaccomplishinga profound reform through atrue condition improving for peasantry, their the and compassion devotion was preoccupiedwith advocating It fate. peasantry’s the sympathy of with movement it acultural was more Russianone; to the create a strong political movementlike the Bulgarian one or a conservative philosophy similar About the Romanian populism and itsevolution in Zigu Ornea, GhitaIonescu, Ernest Gellner, George, D. Jr.Jackson, which made them directly which madethem relevant directly problem agricultural overwhelming the societieson of impact various the solutions intellectual tofind of efforts intelligentsias of the national respective the to the werein ideologies Europe in and The populistpart the resultEastern peasantist problems of the evolution of their societies; it was the real stage wasthe“transitionThe next between populismin whichwas andpeasantrism” The variantRomanian of populism In 1906, Constantin Stere andIn 1906,Constantin GarabetIbraileanufounded Stere magazine cultural the . They believed inthe of necessity peasantry’sthe emancipation through Cominternandpeasantin EastEurope: 1919-1930, Poporanism and “Romanian Life”, Populism. Itsmeanings and national characteristics, 24 25 . (or 19 poporanism, the third way,the third Bucharest: EPL, (1961). 23 . Even the political parties were parties political the . Even from Poporanism, popor, a reaction against both New York andLondon: the people) did not Bucharest: Minerva, Bucharest: p.100. CEU eTD Collection (Romanian Life) nr.1, XIV, 1925. 28 27 Porto-Franco, (1996), p. 188. appeared in appeared themoral foundationsof ‘alien’ the Romanian city undermined traditional the that relations capitalistic course, And,of society. of Romanian character agrarian essential Iorga also industrialization policy because, the ignoredhe this the rejected thought,policy of imperative its organic nation spiritual andgradual evolution of andof the the regeneration. glorifies a feudal past. Their true animator was the historian Nicolae Iorga, who believed in an peasantry promoted by promoted peasantry poporanism had its lost existing rationale because theemancipation peasantshadthe of been andrealized the landreform achieved, that, the intellectuals ofsympathy Healso admitted peasantry. butas of attitude towards an as an ideology not aliterary in poporanism paradigm,or written redefined 1925, Ibraileanu 26 inspiration of asasource folklore they used because century, mid-Nineteenth and andin Alecu of from Romanian Russo the Ioan Slavici, writers works Ganeand Nicu the Ibraileanu, poporanist the movement hadits inorigins writingsthe Mihail Kogalniceanu of conditions socio-historical tothe and adapted one larger socialist the than This perspective, state. the of Romania which could beimplemented throughland reform and industrial sustainedprotectionism by was called leaderwas developed laterbythepeasantbased Ion Mihalache – on peasantsmallholding,the by Stere “poporanist”. For the literary critic Garabet development. Out of this, he foresaw the necessity “ of necessity a heforesaw the Outof this, development. and a proletariathave industry not an Romania does that issue.Heagreed agrarian the of a new perspective impose onthepublic succeededin discourse to his Stere grounded exile experience, Siberian powerfulPoporanism, enough and April 1908 between Augustentitled published 1907and to sustain the exports and, implicit, the economic Garabet Ibraileanu, “Ce este poporanismul?” (What is Poporanism?) Garabet, Ibraileanu, Constantin Stere, Constantin Stere Stere exposed hisideas. Withinfluences from Russiannarodnicism and Social democratie sau poporanism Poporanism, Samanatorists in Curentul nou 28 which totally opposes Western pragmatism totally which and opposes . Ibraileanu opposed . Ibraileanu idealisticto the opposed vision the of 20 (New Current)5, 1906. nr. (Social Democracy or Poporanism) or Democracy (Social rural democracy , in Viata Romaneasca Social Democratismor Social ” 26 27 – the concept . In an article , Galati: CEU eTD Collection universal suffrage and land reform. However, he does not reject industry industry buthe rejectnot hedoes However, considered land reform. universal suffrage and norproletarian bourgeois, could and its progress berealized through rural democracy: social neither was adistinct peasantry category, the He sustained that established enough. not was class working the because development of apath in advocating ideas Marxist a doctrinaire of the first program of the Peasant Party. As a theoretician, he denied the role Peasantthe Bessarabia Romania historicalParty allits provinces,when unified hewasalso of of Iasi from LiberalPartyduring national the therebellion 1907, and theof deputy peasants’ of thinkers. Sterewas hisopponent Like ideas, Iorga, of involved inpolitics. A deeply of prefect his ideas; withhe on supports contrary,the arguments authority scholarly the Marxist of doctrine. Nevertheless, Stere never mentions inhis articles the populist Russian sources of his importedbut back Romania, histo ideas were less revolutionary and against Marxist the with revolutionary in experience Russia, deported toSiberia“revolutionary for instigation”, The debatebetween Populism and Socialism world. background,in itsthis rural the intellectual between relationship with and roots the social the in issue. befoundroots of peasantry can and the Theintellectual agrarian here: agrarianism the situation of the to relating framework intellectual the and social between the connection intimate wasan there that movementproved literary agrarian an andcritics, literary poets bywriters, was dominated in intellectual environment the significance: when aperiod without is butmovementactivity not andnothing wasjustaliterary more.fact Albeit, the his one political prolific of a person was Iorga time, his of intellectuals other many Like society. In the intellectual debate between populists and socialists Stere’s is a fascinating case: fascinating isa Stere’s andsocialists between populists debate intellectual In the 21 CEU eTD Collection (1910), pp. 369–370. agrare 30 29 century.his study influential In of 1910, called of Twentieth the turn atthe theory Marxist the of adaptation made best the Gherea, who peasant” improvingadequate solution problem the to the level status of of the or agriculture the of no provides really theory “Stere’s sum, In production. a better for technologies supply letalone from for force thelabor agriculture not adebouche offer could season, productive focusedAn industry mainly household on activities, followwhich inwould agriculture non- bejust couldsimply not of agriculture. anaccessory industry an economic development and provide not could peasantry the of Theundifferentiating in practice. difficulties some presents could small emergeonlyonthebasis property.of Hispeasant thesis, though well argued, autonomous and aproper Therefore, way anticapitalist of way production. developmentof upsettingthe capitalism. consequences of Implicitly,he consideredagriculture an as society from protect his concern was to and country” Romania as agrarian a “pre-eminently expansion of capitalism were referred to as to referred ofcapitalism were expansion social and economic precapitalist relationships from the village and the global and national capitalism onabackward andagrarian like country predominantly TheRomania. fusion of Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Constantin Henry Roberts, Henry (Neoserfdom: An economic-sociological study of our agrarian problems) Stere’s ideas were criticized by the socialist theoretician Constantin Dobrogeanu- Constantin theoretician bythesocialist ideas werecriticized Stere’s problem specific toourcountry problem specific constitutestheagrarian neoserfdom, absurd structure,this This hybrid and his and family,work whohis force for him becometo owner land obedient little to the great property. so-called of (…) land of insufficiency the Finally, and masters workers; between A legislation which decrees theinalienability land the andregulates of rapports hismaster; of the whichdiscretion to lay of peasant right state the A liberal Rapports of mainlyproduction feudal; in four terms: consisting country which our to specific tothe particularities agrarian social-politic We know now what neoserfdom is: is an establishment of the economic and 29 . Rumania: Political Problems of an Agrarian State, Neoiobagia Studiu economico-social asupra problemei noastre 30 . neoserfdom. 22 Neoserfdom, Gherea analyzed the impact of impact the Gherea analyzed Archon Books, (1969),p.147. , Bucharest: Socec, Bucharest: CEU eTD Collection 33 32 73.p. See also Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Third World:theorizing underdevelopment inRumaniaand Brazil, 31 peasants would inpeasants participation lead active automatically almost national to peasant the among land the of distribution “the that presupposition the from starting living, their improve to in order reforms political and social economic, achieve to latter the help could formers the a ideal democracy: rural of poporanist the peasants, and the intelligentsia the was number Another insignificant. industrial argument of workers used was thelinkbetween of in morepattern industrializedthe apre-eminently the countries country, where agrarian reproduced “the between confrontation the Russian socialists and the Russian populists” with a large stratum of peasantry and without a proletariat or a middle class. Romania of conditions the for reasonable more be to seemed which way, capitalist the from different evolution, economical and agradual of thought Gherea Stere, opponent poporanist his Like capitalism. without socialism of favor in was solution his and Romania, of peasantry the to specific situation, wasavery particular neoserfdom For Gherea, culture. to adapted – content” without “forms – Maiorescu Titu of theory the economy, of to adapted terms, peasantry of the andbased landlords onserfdom with alegal bourgeois madesystem which developmentthe depends on the slow and uncertain growth depends onindustry”of uncertain and slow the growth evolution national “the that socialists the reproached they argument: national the invoked the small rural property. based on development of possibility admitted the only socialism and Stere leadto necessarily To better sustain their would which idea industrialization of an the advocated Gherea was pro-capitalist; of them position, None theconservatives. and populistsliberals between was dispute political main the which in framework – and mainly Stere – GhitaIonescu, GhitaIonescu, Adetailed analysis onGherea’s theory inJoseph Love, Both andeach Both Stere ideas their Gherea andto inopposition other expressed they This hybrid form of production combined economic relationships between peasants relationships economic combined This hybrid form production of Populism. Its meanings and national characteristics, Populism. Its meanings and national characteristics, 31 practically impossible. Gherea offered in this inMarxist in offeredway this a variant Gherea impossible. practically Neoserfdom, 23 Marxism andbackground Bucharest,1910. 33 and that was not to follow the Stanford University Press, (1996), p. 103. London, (1969), p. 101. in Craftingthe 32 in a CEU eTD Collection (1909). 36 reactionar 35 “our only isreality with Romanian the hispeasant, problems life”and his but this be can not that in his writings Maiorescu. Hedeclared Titu himself an academician, leader, conservative the them, among immediately, reacted personalities Many impression. enormous an made poporanism depicted (from Junimists of orientation aesthetical an unreal and artificial Speech was the Academic life of the peasantry. At that relations ofneoserfdom already in existing rural the environment. time, his speech it wouldthe haveproposed perpetuated the land reform “reactionary because tendency” Current, periodical in and inthe published 1920 written Inhisarticles debates. of time’s the middle in the was poporanism that proves polemic this but time that of intellectual influential 34 1899, andfinally, collaborationism of during the First WorldWar ina prefect 1907, of corruption and betrayal ideals,his own of he since joined theliberalsin as peasants the of him of repression the accused who critique(1875–1951), Sanielevici Henri not enough, a majorland reform had to be accomplished. peasants’ gradually.emancipation should beproduced for this Butgoal a cultural solution was a revolutionary bemoderate andwas notthepeasantry ought to social reforms the class, proletariat or evolution the of Because capitalism. issue,not problem the agrarian was andsocial themaineconomic and of majority population, the the overwhelming represented peasantry fact that the itemphasized because century of turn the Twentieth at Romania production and to the expansion of the domestic market” the domestic expansionof the production to and Duiliu Zamfirescu, Duiliu Henri Sanielevici, “Falimentul poporanismului” (The Bankruptcy of Poporanism) in ofPoporanism) Bankruptcy (The poporanismului” “Falimentul Sanielevici, Henri GhitaIonescu, A outstandingdifferent stageof intellectual the relatingdebate Romanian to populism Another critique of Stere’s ideas comes from an ex-socialist sociologist and literary Sanielevici did not hesitate to labelnothesitate movement Sanielevici to new-founded did the peasantrist as a (Reactionary Poporanism) (Reactionary Populism. Its meanings and national characteristics, Poporanismul in literatura 36 delivered in writer Duiliu1909 bythe With Zamfirescu. the , Bucharest: (1921). Socec, Junimea, 24 (Poporanism in literature) Youth), Zamfirescu considered that Zamfirescu considered Youth), 34 . Populism was so influential in influential so was . Populism p. 105 35 . Sanielevici was not an . , Bucharest: Carol Gobl, Carol Bucharest: Poporanism The New CEU eTD Collection Foundations, (1937). 38 the Development ofNational Identity, literature and society in Alex Drace-Francis, 37 A necessity.historical issue Aviablewasa peasant solution forthe integrity state. of the fear the of reflected authorities Romanian by a taken measures the possible but revolution a social not revolt, influencepeasantinfluence of rebellion in great the The moment1907. of 1907 wasonly a spontaneous the under written Stere, Constantin of ofarticles in the presented were the achievements theoretical Russian The like Socialism. direction revolution asanideological nor like Samanatorism, tendency as aliterary movementof agrarianism. Poporanism and defined itself mainly as a cultural movement, neither the necessity War; political the FirstWorld the around generated birth of the peasantrism bespark that the to would preserve Dobrescu-Arges” “moment The parties. traditional the of domination the to alternative the asan teacherDobrescu-Arges, Constantin rural made 1880,by around the peasantry was Romania before the First World War. The only attemptpreoccupied with the economic reformsto with no distinctprovide class orientation. a politicalmore was a political moment but of peasantry, the asthe emancipation suffrage universal action for the history whole A agrarianism.of Romanian focusedmoment landcultural on reform and between progress and tradition and the atemporal village, there is to be found almost the borderline the avillageat moments, symbolic two these Between idea endlessness. with the of by village “uncorrupted” Blaga,history. For durability the village in of was time synonymous his speech Lucian own Blaga delivered in philosopher of 1936,the a century, After aquarter from materialism. Western is different which peasantrism, Romanian of character the emphasize to try would theory agrarian further Romania’s development within thelimits of a patronizing theory of peasant specificity”. Each known literatureonly through Lucian Blaga, Titu Maiorescu, Titu No political party dedicated to represent the interests of the peasantry in of interests existed peasantry the torepresent the political No party dedicated Elogiu satului romanesc Against thetoday direction in Romanian culture 37 . Maiorescu developed “an ideology shaped which effectively New York: AcademicTauris Studies, (2006). (In Praise of the Romanian Village) 38 The making of Modern LiteracyThe makingofRomanian Culture. and , in which he strongly emphasized the atemporal the emphasized strongly he in which , 25 (1868). On the relation between , Bucharest: The Royal CEU eTD Collection the peasants. the Romania: of class social ‘real’ the represent to aimed which organization an of decay and rise The evolution of Romanian agrarianism: from radical populism ‘liberal’to economics was the managechangehavingin whichforces be them asituation entire policy. powerand to their to to Party: of the real the drama This was in Romania. democracy interwar failure of the to the issimilar Peasants theNational failure of This of period governance. short very a after Party Carol II whodesired only for himself, power determined the failure National the of Peasant withleaders political corroborated ofKing peasantthe inability attitude themselves, of the Depression inthe theGreat‘liberal’ economic Butthe time. consequences and of the program support to andlooking freethe very alimited trade similar toagenuine industrialization, conducted was Madgearu, Virgil by driven policy, economic The orientation. agrarian radical its program.political the theNational mandate, During Party Peasant abandoned its initial accomplish to tried and majority alarge with elected was Party Peasant National the period, interwar in the been the havefreest to wereconsidered in 1927,which After elections the by leaderBratianu. domination balance the of dominated National Ion the the Party, Liberal forceandcounter- become Party, areal to hope Peasant National the political organization, ledNational Party by politicianof Transylvania, respected Iuliuthe Maniu,could new the of the interest regional the and Party of Peasantrist the interest local the between coagulation “The inonly by Doctrines Parties”, 1923, the after Madgearu. But Political of Virgil volume collective in the exposed and Romania” in Party Peasantrist the of Program of Project themselves. peasants the official doctrine The in1921under wasestablished name“The the belonged to mainrole joined inwhichthe its doctrine the Party and prepared Constantin Stere Ion Mihalache. led bytherural-teacher 1918 and was founded inDecember Party was The Peasantrist War.World the First after only emerge could political organization peasant 26 CEU eTD Collection politica sa facem 39 conservatives. city the middle class,both unsatisfied by liberal the oligarchy and the excesses of presupposed the enrollment of the rural intellectuals,school teachers and priests, and apart of moral.league and withtask:political be adouble peasant It would areformist organization This peasantry. the category: social largest ofthe represent interests the to dedicated league Mihalache,from coming County the Arges, notof idea proposed the of aparty, butthat of a The roadto power agrarianism asapoliticalmovement: Romanian Ion Mihalache, “O Liga corollary: popular school and school corollary: army popular for all incomeuniversal progressive vote taxation and,Romanians, a as The peasantleague matter from whichmatter from theywill parties come; for peasants, reforms great the of adepts the all are whose to addresses The peasant leaguewill notbeapoliticalparty Not muchNot before Romania entered the First WorldWar, the rural teacher Ion The National Peasant Party Period Party the Interwar The NationalPeasant in From Cultural Movement to Political Action: (What Politics To Do) To Politics (What ğ araneasca” (A Peasant League) would have this program of would have this of program reforms: expropriation, , Bucharest: Romanian Printhouse, (1914),p.93. Chapter II: 39 . 27 and expressly to (unedited article) in the volume , but a “league”, which it which , buta“league”, intellectuals. (…) Ce no CEU eTD Collection Mihalache: The destiny of a life) ofa destiny The Mihalache: 42 1925. a reaction from a Marxist position to the book by Stefan Zeletin, Development of Romania) dezvoltarii capitaliste inRomania 41 Speeches) the volume Virgil ( Madgearu, 40 county from his original costume in traditional the wearied person, a very charismatic peasants and with the rural middle class “corrupted” by capitalism turn off capitalism belongs role to historical the byliberals. But system promoted oligarchic of the diverting their goal the to the proletariat and the alliance is possible only with the poor themselves: by peasantrist confessed of social-democrats, views political to the similitude had acertain direction Their political peasantry. the of emancipation economic social and idea the of to the devoted itwas villages, and cities of leaders class middle and intellectuals small from also but themselves, peasants classes. A in trans-social class should party, the core formedwhich from be notonly the promoting struggle the likesocialists class butharmonizing thesocial interests of different at the time but without a clear doctrine, like the People Party of the war hero General hero thewar of Party People like the a clear doctrine, without but time at the to clarify the peasantrist doctrine and keep to a distance from other political parties influential homogenous Partysocial will class, Conservative (the Liberal Party was the National main political opponent the action. Because cease the topeasant exist aftermovement the definedwar) and itselfbecause as a peasantry was considered to be a See the monograph dedicated to him by Apostol Stan, Apostol by him to dedicated monograph the See This point of view was formulated by Serban Voinea, Serban by formulated was view of point This Inedited text, written probably in 1922 during debatesthe fornew a Constitution and published in In the enthusiastic atmosphere immediately after the First World War, Ion Mihalache, WorldWar,Ion theFirst immediately after atmosphere In the enthusiastic have as political organizations both fact that with the agree also The social-democrats means of defeating the financial oligarchy and is peasants not only forparties both useful butalsoseems be to only the which isbased individual property,on between social-democrats collaboration Even if theoretically the socialist doctrine is in opposition to peasantrism, This is thefirstdocumentwhich appropriation attested the political of peasantry the to , Bucharest: State Imprimeries, (1927), p.48. , Bucharest, I. Branisteanu Printing, (1926). The volume,written in Paris, is Agrarianism –Discursuri Parlamentare , Bucharest: Saeculum,(1999). (Marxism Oligarchic Contribution to ofthe Problem Capitalist 28 40 . Marxism Oligarhic Contributie lastudiul Ion Mihalache – destinulunei vieti Romanian Bourgeoisie (Agrarianism – Parliamentary – (Agrarianism 41 . class party published in , yet not yet , 42 , tried (Ion CEU eTD Collection facilitated the institution monarchy, the which the traditional leaders of of obedient to attitude political the road of Prince more was the ideology.Andmaybecounted acoherentwhat Iron Guard could produce Carol the of mystique nationalistic the IInor organizations from national-Christian the nor Iorga, Nicolae a dandy royalty of Party Democratic Nationalist the nor Averescu General of Party People the where neither to an authoritarian right the moved to life of political center liberals, the to a realleftalternative Without War. king and, theSecondWorld after power to they when came bythecommunists wouldbeIt absorbed Parliament. andreaching theelections in winning never succeeded Titel-Petrescu Constantin itwas rejected as become an autonomous, Party Social in1924.The ledby outlaw Democrat joined thatthe Party in butbecause itnew the Comintern 1921 should proposed provinces producedsolidlyliberals ideologies. national-peasants and Communist Totheleft, the argued only of variety the parties, Despite Romania. in life was Greater shaped when political parties lackedperiod significance. in interwar whole the andimportance their andmaintain attract electorate afaithful succeed to Party not did Democrat Nationalist Like Party, People the the Iorga. Nicolae prestige of scholarly strong lineage the and by nationalist the attracted intellectuals small of assemblage morean of was Party Democrat Nationalist The Bloc. Democratic so-called the from to power, but only for a verydedicated by people to the figureshort of General Alexandru Averescu. The People Party periodwill come of time, the devotion followedto success wasproportional its political land But moderate and reform. a by an alliance of topreserve its the social order bepolitical leadershipwanted future; to destined agreat for small parties The NicolaeledPeople Iorga. Party,by Averescu,seemed influential Alexandru the General historian distinguished the of Party Nationalist the Democratic or Averescu Alexandru In the firstyears after the war, there was a period of ideological clarification for all the 29 CEU eTD Collection based on a new concept of a based on of a newproperty as considered concept and non-capitalist be would they but Switzerland), and Belgium Denmark, been have given emphasized the ideal andprosperous of independent peasantclass principal(the examples by in Virgil economist the Madgearu his and economic works political wherehe speeches, differentfrom those of oldthe Kingdom. very provinces hadspecific agricultural andTransylvania Bucovina situations, Bessarabia, of new becausethe appeared that difficulties numerous the administrate to was prepared nobody at time.that However, in Europe advanced most the of 1921wasone of land reform of agricultural thisthe the was notaccepted, Even proposal though legislative production. help increase and specialization basedonmutual productivity their to cooperatist associations family to prevent the fragmentation transmittingexpropriations, theonly within thelimitation and the property of rentthe of of extended foresaw the Mihalache by proposed land, reform land the of project The pass. not theMihalache organization of the peasant by and bill very Ion short proposed Bloc governance agrarian the Democratic the of property in ofKingmade support the Ferdinand, powerful the indirect of with the opposition liberals, the But landpeasantry”. majority “in population: the of great of nameof the the project reform avery radical proposed IonMihalache Bloc, Democratic of the from part the Agriculture, of As Minister system. sanitary the and education of improvement the and church the demanded anewConstitution, suffrageand universal land an extensive for reform, autonomy the peasantry, with new principles of political action and a new program of moral reform. He dictatorship. a personal to democracy a parliamentary from Romania interwar of road the implicitly, The new peasant program dedicated especially to agriculture will be largely expressed be agriculture will to dedicatedespecially The newprogram peasant anewelectorate, represent to wanted Mihalache Ion Party, Peasant leader of the As 30 social function, “which confers notonly CEU eTD Collection 45 44 National Culture,(1923), p. 7. partidelor politice 43 methods and exclusively in a democratic way. win only by legal power wantto they arenon-revolutionary: itsaction direction political of asocialpopulists, movement,social therefore, notaparty.and cultural Its and the conception who only wanted to preserve a social order favorable to them, but of the intellectual legacy of individual butalsorights social duties” political organization in forWallachia political the “Kingdom”maindenomination – organization and Moldavia the Transylvania. With his powerful instinct,political Maniu realized thepotentials of newthe in class middle Romanian of the interests the represent to dedicated one, a regional at habitsManiu looked withfear.His increasing Balcanic party inBucharest the was political the after magyarization of policy the against militancy political intense an With Party. National Romanian economy. world and regional of complexity in the economy peasant customary involve the to desired and by moreforeignpromoted to and Mihalache, open was reception the the Madgearu of capital 20’s, of beginning the from agrarianism radical the policy, isolationist its and West the Virgil Madgearu, Virgil Madgearu, Virgil Madgearu, election peasantry which forms the overwhelming majority of populationthe and of socialistgovern succeed party will to political the only with supportof the asimilar anda (or one) party aliberal suffrage of regime universal In the the landowners conservatives, of legacy political the of a continuation not is Peasantrism because it based on the small property because itbased onthe small as social understood function property be socialist not finally,can aredivergent; andpeasants idealsconservators of the because be conservator not can iscooperatist; since peasantrism tendencies, monopolistic has liberalism new the because be liberal not can Peasantrism On the other part of On partof ledin Iuliu other the Carpathians,Maniu (1873–1953) Transylvania, the 45 (The Doctrinesof Political Parties) . Taranismul The Peasantrist Doctrine, Doctrina Taranista Ausgleich (Peasantrism) (1867), respected both respectedboth as apolitician (1867), and asaperson, (The Peasantrist Doctrine) 43 . Despite the conventional populist mistrust towards , p. 17. Bucharest: Social Reform (1924), p.12. 31 , edited by Romanian Social Institute, Bucharest: Institute, Social Romanian by edited , in the in collected the volume 44 . Doctrinele CEU eTD Collection (Forewords: National Peasant party and “The Stere Case”), Bucharest: Adevarul Printhouse, (1930). Printhouse, Adevarul Bucharest: Case”), Stere “The and party Peasant National (Forewords: For Stere’s answers to all accusations see this case in Pamfil Seicaru, of National, Peasantrist and National-Peasantrist Party) National-Peasantrist and Peasantrist of National, 46 fusion was the “Stere case” the “Stere fusion was possible the most the impeded what But this. of realization the to contributed also Mihalache, of of personalities leaders between the the twoparties,compatibility these Maniu and The fusion. of favor the in reason objective one was Party Liberal National the of dominance formed mainlymiddle class. from of autonomy, andthedevelopmentdemocracy,the social a realparliamentary protection The peasants.Peasantristregional extended for an called Party National parties. TheRomanian two between these Party The ideological wereimportant justified. There differences RomanianParty National appeared also necessity promoted fears ofthe huge of this members the leaders challenge.From perspective,this the to democracy to findminorities, created many difficulties and a centralizingbut policy was the response of the political itsa counterbalanceelectoral of segment large a with Romania, Greater of newterritory the of The administration basisin Bucharest. by authorities the policy promoted limit tocentralist the wanted National Party was to powerful negotiations Butthe party. long were anddifficult. The members of Romanian the the political used in Party.form Peasantrist HedecidedTransylvania – the an to anda morealliance new, the major causes of the problems. The mainbe strongto andinit succeeded many attracting double butits people be origin would oneof winner of the fusion was Virgil Madgearu, seemed newparty Thethe unity of negotiated. were promptly beinga class-party of principle who unification of Maniu and the doublevice-presidency assuredby Ion Mihalache and Madgearu,Virgil the the territorial leadership other arethefollowing: technical presidency new the under details the Iuliu of organizations All fusion. accomplished for the by peasants paid Party the price as apolitical Peasant the and the eliminationfrom World War. FirstHe wasdismissed the of during collaborationism Party accused Stere from the party program the Ion Scurtu, Iuliu Maniu, Istoria Partidului National, Taranesc si National –Taranesc Bucharest, Encyclopedic Printing, (1995),A p.38. detailed version about 46 . The influential conservative group from. Theinfluential Romanianthe group National conservative Preludii: Partidul National Taranesc si <