Anti Individualist Chords in the Romanian Marxist Rhapsody

7/28/2019 Anti Individualist Chords in the Romanian Marxist Rhapsody

1/7

Anti-Individualist Chords in the Romanian-Marxist RhapsodyAuthor(s): Juliana Geran PilonReviewed work(s):Source: Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1979), pp. 233-238Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20098836 .

Accessed: 11/03/2013 11:38

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in Soviet Thought.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:38:23 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20098836?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20098836?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/7

DISCUSSION

ANTI-INDIVIDUALIST CHORDS IN THEROMANIAN-MARXIST RHAPSODY

Observers of attempts at some semblance of pluralism within the SovietCommunist sphere may well take heart from Romania's recent recalcitrance.To cite a well-known student of Romanian affairs, Stephen Fischer-Galati:Certainly until the sixties the principles and practices of Romanian communism wererooted in those of Soviet Marxism-Leninism. [Since Nicolae Ceausescu's coming to powerin 1965, however,] through repudiation of Stalinism in all forms . .. and the party'scontribution thereto, Ceausescu has evolved the doctrine of fusion of party, state, andnation as the total synthesis of the historic aspiration of all inhabitants of Romania.1

While this new development indicates that Romanian socialism is becomingmore nationalistic and implicitly less Russian, there is still a question as towhat brand of socialism we have here. Is this new philosophy more compatible with our own, more sympathetic to the Western ideal of individual freedom than is its Soviet counterpart? A question for a philosopher, yet of nosmall interest to the general public.

By way of preliminary search for an answer, Ihave chosen to examine oneof the few books of Romanian philosophy published after 1944 that areavailable in the United States: Istoria Filozofiei Rom?nesti {The History ofRomanian Philosophy) which appeared in 1972. The text consists of a collection of essays written by contemporary Romanian philosophers; the authorof each chapter is clearly identified.2 In order to locate some of the philoso

phical underpinnings of Romanian socialism, Ihave embarked upon amodestyet possibly quite fruitful task: to take a look at some anti-anarchist arguments found in the Romanian Marxist tradition before 1944 as put forth inthis text by the contemporary heirs of that tradition. The pre-1944 thinkersthat I intend to discuss here are: Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, RaicuIonescu-Rion, Stefan St?nca, and Panait Musoiu. The essay on Gherea was

written by Radu Pantazi, the ones on Rion and St?nca by Florica Neagoe, andthe essay on Musoiu is by Nicolae Gogoneaf?. Whether or not the essaysreflect adequately the views of the philosophers discussed is a question thatcannot be answered without a detailed analysis of the primary sources, but itshould not affect the significance of the present study. For what I intend toStudies inSoviet Thought 19 (1979) 233-238. 0039-3797/79/0193-0233 $00.60Copyright ? 1979 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

234 DISCUSSIONhighlight is precisely the way modern Romanian philosophers understandtheir own background, how they present the ideas under consideration. Whatemerges from my reading is a repudiation of various arguments put forth byanarchist thinkers by presenting a defense of 'scientific socialism' as manifested in statism and economic control as against 'idealistic' individualism.Contrary to V. I. Lenin's own opposition to anarchism in The State and Revolution (Chapter IV, section 2) which involved repudiating only a premature

withering of the state, there is no mention of any such 'withering' in the pre1944 Romanian Marxist tradition as put forth in Istoria Filozofiei Rom?nesti.

The need for centralized, state economic control, and a distrust of a harmonious state of nature ? la Rousseau - in the absence of collectivist planning ?emerge as a result.

The most significant Romanian Marxist thinker of the nineteenth centurywas Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea (1855?1920), who was born in Russiabut settled in Romania after 1875. His main works specifically directed atanarchism are Anarhia cuget?rii {The Anarchy of Thought) of 1891 and

Deosebirea dintre socialism si anarhism {The Distinction between Socialismand Anarchism) of 1901. Characterizing the common elements of anarchistthought as 'metaphysical simplisticism' (common to such diverse figures asMax Stirner, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Mikhail A. Bakunin) and likeningit to Utopian socialism as opposed to his own scientific socialism (as did

George V. Plekhanov in his Anarchism and Socialism2), Gherea writes in TheAnarchy of Thought as follows:The anarchists divide social life into categories that are independent of each other andreason by means of these independent categories, without keeping in mind the closerelation that exists among the social categories; therefore, social life is not seen in allits reciprocal complexities, the dependence and interrelation of all social factors disappears.4

Gherea then proceeds to attack specifically the ideas of Max Stirner and hismetaphysical reduction to the T. Stirner is criticized for having "sought totransform an illusion, a metaphysical entity, into a reality ? indeed into areality of realities - which served as his point of departure in the constructionof a new society".5 This 'idealistic' conception is then contrasted with trueMarxist philosophy which is said to emphasize the dependence of the T uponsocial factors. Gherea attacks the philosophical basis of anarchism which is"subjective idealism, the metaphysical mode of thought and of research intothe phenomena of nature and society".6



4/7

DISCUSSION 235In his other pamphlet against anarchism, The Distinction between Social

ism and Anarchism, Gherea again criticizes the anarchist emphasis on theindividual. Anarchists are said to admit biological, physiological, and psychological laws, but not social laws ? which, according to Gherea, is tantamountto idealism. Radu Pantazi paraphrases Gherea's argument:From this idealistic and metaphysical position which contrasts the individual to society,absolutizing the former, there follows the theory that personalities have a decisive role inhistory, and there also follow the tactics of individual terrorism, etc. Gherea analyzesstep by step the theoretical and practical anarchist theories, unveiling their unscientific,idealist character. His critique is of particular importance because it points out thetheoretical inconsistencies of anarchism which is opposed to Marxist philosophy.7Further insight into Gherea's antipathy to the philosophical emphasis on theindividual as opposed to the group may be obtained from his arguments in

Robia ?i socialismul {Slavery and Socialism) of 1884-1886, against HerbertSpencer (whom Plekhanov had called a 'conservative anarchist'8). P?ntaziwrites:Gherea rises against Spencer who, affirming the liberty of the individual, asserts thatsocialism means a future form of slavery, the enslavement of the individual against thecollective. Dobrogeanu-Gherea shows that liberty must be understood in a concretehistorical character, not abstractly. Man depends not only on the natural environmentbut on the economic-social environment and he will be free only when he will be able tobe the master of his own work, which can only be accomplished in socialism, whenproduction will no longer be left to blind forces (emphasis added).9

It is difficult to resist the inference that Gherea believed in scientific controlof the economy, that he unequivocally repudiated the laissez-faire dynamicsthat results from autonomous choices made by sovereign individuals (who

may elect to cooperate, of course, but do so freely) as advocated by Spencer.As Gherea dismisses the theoretical concept of the sovereign individual forbeing abstract and idealistic, he implicitly tilts the argument toward anotherfundamental conception, that of the collective. Gherea is evidently not prepared to allow for 'blind forces' as the result of uncontrolled individual choice,at least not in the socio-economic sphere. In the same vein, in 1883 Ghereahad attacked Romanian Prime-minister I. C. Br?tianu's defense of the theoryof private property and his belief that only people who have adopted such atheory ? "based on the individualist principle"10 ? have prospered. It isabsurd to claim, says Gherea, that two isolated factors (the individualistictheory of private property, on the one hand, and economic prosperity, on



5/7

236 DISCUSSIONthe other) are causally related; Br?tianu's argument is thus irrelevant, and hisindividualistic theory of private property is by no means demonstrated.11 Itcan be concluded only that Gherea saw the concept of scientific socialism asimplicitly rejecting the theory of private property and economic dynamicsleft to 'blind forces' and, more importantly, the individualism that such atheory presupposes. Radu Pantazi, having put forth Gherea's arguments,then goes on to commend Gherea on these matters and supports him on allof his conclusions against the 'retrograde anarchist ideology' and its metaphysical basis.12Another Romanian Marxist philosopher, Raicu Ionescu-Rion (1872?1895), also argues against anarchism. According to Florica Neagoe, Rionwrites that Hegel's philosophy contained not only the seeds of scientificsocialism but also, in her words,the possibilities of subjectivism, developed by some young Hegelians, which producedanarchism. The young Hegelians and anarchists depart from the Hegelian principle of historical necessity in the direction of an exaggeration of the role of individual conscience.

To cite Rion himself: "From the great, all-encompassing role of the individualin social evolution anarchism had to emerge by logical necessity". (The passage is from Sociolog?a burgheza fata cu teor?a luptei de clasa {Bourgeois

Sociology vs. the Theory of Class Action), published in the period 1891?1893.)14 Neagoe concludes her discussion by congratulating Rion for "having

played a major role as one of the first Romanian Marxists who, by popularizing Marxist political economy and historical materialism, has vigorously attacked sociological idealisms".15

The other pre-'liberation' Marxists are mentioned briefly in Istoria Filozofiei Rom?nesti: Stefan St?nca (1865-1897) and Panait Musoiu (1864-1944).The editorial remarks regarding these two thinkers are interesting indeed,providing another glimpse of the contemporary Romanian attitude againstindividualism. Regarding Mu?oiu's position on anarchism, we have apparentlyonly his response of 1929 to a journalist: "I have not disregarded workslabeled as 'anarchistic'. ... I have studied anarchism in detail, but it did notat the time shake my previous beliefs, any more than it does so today".16Even though such a statement ishardly a concession to anarchism, the philosopher Nicolae Gogoneat? feels compelled to add: "Musoiu could be reproached for the fact that, having translated and edited the works of anarchisttheoreticians, he did not criticize anarchist conceptions but considered them



6/7

DISCUSSION 237'nuances' of 'integral socialism' as he conceived of it".17 In a similar vein,

Stefan St?nca is criticized by Neagoe on the grounds that he 'oversimplifies'.St?nca, according to her, "in criticizing capitalism, idealizes the primitivecommune and maintains that insofar as there was no hostile social environ

ment, primitive man was happier than civilized man".18 Thus anarchismcould be seen to favor a social arrangement such as a commune whose decisions are based on the consensus of the individual members; Stinc?'s idealcould be understood as favoring such an arrangement. Yet this form of anarchist ideal appears to be incompatible with a socialist ideal where nothing isleft to blind (read: uncontrolled) economic forces - a commune ? laRousseau

will not do.What emerges, then, from this necessarily brief analysis of some precursors

of contemporary Romanian Marxism is a repudiation of anarchism on thegrounds, specifically, that it rests upon ametaphysical, idealistic emphasis onthe sanctity of individual choice. When such repudiation is not explicit, as inthe case of Mu?oiu, or when implicitly there is no such repudiation, as in thecase of St?nca, there is immediate editorial reprimand. Both Rion and Gherea,on the other hand, are commended for correctly opposing anarchism, that is,for correctly rejecting its basic concept of the primacy of the self and theautonomy of personal choice while embracing, instead, the ideals of controlledscientific socialism. A deeper analysis of this issue would have to involve acloser look at these various thinkers, most of whose original works do notseem to be available in the United States at the present time. An importantsequel to such a study, moreover, would deal with contemporary anti-anarchist Romanian Marxist thought and its anti-individualist underpinnings asadumbrated in the editorial comments cited in connection with pre-1944Marxism. Whether either of these studies will be undertaken depends in largepart on the willingness of Romanian authorities to allow it.

Emory University JULIANA GERAN PILON

NOTES1 Stephen Fischer-Galati, Twentieth Century Rumania, Columbia University Press, New

York and London, 1970, pp. 220-221.2 Istoria Filozofiei Rom?ne?ti, ed. by Nicolae Gogoneat? (ed. in chief), Radu Pantazi,Simion Ghita, Petru Vaida, Radu Tomoiag?, Gh. Epure, Vasile Vetisanu, Elena GheranMewes, I. S. Firu, AI. Dutu, Ion Lungu, Florica Neagoe, Carol G?llner, Editura Academiei



7/7

238 DISCUSSION

Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucuresti, 1972, Vol. I.3 George Plechanoff, Anarchism and Socialism, Charles H. Kerr and Company, Chicago,1908. In the text I use standard spelling of his name.4 Istoria, p. 595.5 Loc. cit.6 Istoria, p. 596.7 Istoria, pp. 596-7.8 Plechanoff, p. 143.9 Istoria, p. 593.10 Loc. cit.11 Istoria, p. 594.12 Loc. cit.13 Istoria, p. 615.14 Loc. cit.15 Istoria, p. 616.16Mono, p. 630.17 Loc. cit.18 Istoria, p. 623.

This content downloaded on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:38:23 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Anti Individualist Chords in the Romanian Marxist Rhapsody

Documents

Transcript of Anti Individualist Chords in the Romanian Marxist Rhapsody