PRINT Vlad Brä…
1 n 1923, during a series of lectures on political parties and doctrines organised by the Romanian Social Institute, INicolae Petrescu – who took the fl oor on the matter of anarchism –, concluded: “we do not have a proper militant or theoretical anarchist movement.”1 His claim had a categorical tone, leaving no room for doubt. The subject seemed therefore closed, despite the fact that during another set of conferences about the new Romanian Constitution, anarchism was at one point brought into discussion as a threat to democracy. Perhaps Petrescu was convincing enough and it is clear that his opinion was also shared by the academic community: to date, next to nothing has been written in Romania about anarchism on Romanian soil, or about anarchist ideas in a Romanian context. Indeed, today no anarchist movement is known to a wider audience. While these things are clear, one may wonder how the following statement should be judged: Radovici had his Socialist library quite well supplied, and he made it available to all of us [...] By chance or due to Radovici’s preferences, most of the works were anarchist publications. For every Paul Lafargue or Benoît Malon, you would fi nd a Jean le Vagre (Jean Grave), a Kropotkin, an Élisée Reclus (the great geographer), a Bakunin, or a Domella Nieuwenhuis – the Dutchman …2 1. Nicolae Petrescu, “Anarchism”, in Political Parties and their Doctrines. Nineteen Public Lectures organised by the ISR, Tiparul Cultura Națională, Bucharest, 1923, p. 198. 2. I.C. Atanasiu, The Socialist Movement, Ed. Adeverul, Bucharest, 1932, p. 12. These lines are taken from the memoirs of I.C.
[Show full text]