romania revealed

A few pieces of Romanian history from books around my house.

From the inside cover of an abecedar.

From the inside of a story book- it looks awfully competitive for "communism".

An ode to "The Party" and its metaphysical gifts.

Words scattered like bread-crumbs.

"Noi".

Controversele with rub.

Vive la revolution.

Misconceptions dispelled.

Doublespeak. Again.

Returning stolen children.

Kirk Cameron critique.

Firme veche gets attention.

1944, Bucharest is bombarded. (See photo.)

Plesita leaves us in peace.

Blasphemy remains illegal.

The modern villa.

In the hands of a Spanish princess.

Orphans.

Ghita Ionescu's legacy to Romanian history.

One of Ghita Ionescu's most critical contributions to Romanian and post-communist studies  was his emphasis on the academic study of "opposition" to political regimes. He founded a journal at LSE, Government and Opposition, which explored this topic in many countries which were communist-led at the time. He also wrote a book, Opposition: Past and Present of a Political Institution, with Isabel de Madariaga, emphasizing his view of opposition as a civil institution. 

At the time, the field of "Soviet Studies" still focused on analysis of formal government institutions under communist regimes, including the COMECON. Content analysis of party documents was all the rage. Professor Ghita ameliorated the study of communist regimes by introducing the test posed by opposition and its role in the evaluation and popular legitimacy of a political regime.

Certainly his association with Radio Free Europe played a role in his interest in the social phenomenon of political dissidence. In fact, Radio Free Europe would have been a pointless endeavor without the assumption that popular legitimacy remained critical to a communist regime's long-term hold on political power.

In fact, Ionescu believed that popular movements, as opposed to internal government reform, would eventually bring an end to the communist regimes in Eastern Europe. 

More links, information, and works influenced by Professor Ghita Ionescu:

• His obituary by John C. Campbell in The Independent
• Ionescu's books are available in Romanian from Humanitas
• Hlavacek, Petr and Holzer, Jan (2009) "Opposition in Non-Democratic Regimes: Notes on Possibilities and Limits of Current Theory," World Political Science Review: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1, Article 5.
• Cas Mudde, "Populism in Eastern Europe", Radio Free Europe, 8 March 2000.
• Robert Cutler, "Soviet Dissent Under Khruschev: An Analytical Study", utilizes Ionescu's opposition paradigm.
• Laura Radulescu, "An Intellectual Cleansing Which Never Took Place, Or How We Became What We Are"

The strange attractions of socialism: A roundtable worth re-visiting.

In October 2006, Horia Roman Patapievici moderated a roundtable on "Intellectuals and Socialism", which explored the attraction posed by socialist ideology to Western intellectuals and academics in the 20th century. Over one hundred invitees attended this event at the Institute for Romanian Culture, and the vitality of the discussion can be appreciated in the video below.  

Why did the traditionally skeptical intellectual class find itself seduced by promises of government's power to work for that lovely abstraction otherwise known as the Common Good? Why do we assume that the state can provide better solutions to human problems than the marketplace of goods and ideas? What did the experience of communism teach us about the effectiveness of the state in working for the Common Good? Among other interesting explorations at this event: the relationship between culture and the state, the meaningfulness of left-right distinctions, the possibility of libertarianism as a credible alternative, the unspoken etatism of the EU, and more.... Don't take my word for it. See for yourself. 

A word of thanks to my comrades at Liberalism.ro for keeping the fires burning.

The half-hearted study of communist archives in Romania.

The National Council for the Study of the Archives of the Securitate was founded by a law passed in the Romanian parliament in 1999. It has nine members, who are proposed by the political parties, and a few researchers who deal with the archives. When it began, one could find among the nine councillors former dissidents and important intellectuals, including the poet Mircea Dinescu (who had been placed under house arrest in 1988 after he gave an interview to Libération, in which he protested against Ceausescu's policies); the philosopher Andrei Plesu (who during the Ceausescu regime had been removed from the Institute of Art History in Bucharest and exiled to rural Romania to work as an administrator of a regional museum after signing a letter criticizing Ceausescu); and the essayist Horia-Roman Patapievici (who became a public figure after 1990 and is currently the president of the Romanian Cultural Institute in Bucharest). 

From the start, the functioning of the Council encountered a major obstacle: a clause in its constitution (inserted by a senator later unmasked as having collaborated with the Securitate) mentioned the "political police". Accordingly, the Council could reveal only the cases of collaboration with the communist secret services with a "political police" connection, as opposed to cases that were about "defending the national interest". We are in a land of metaphors: in practice, it was very difficult to distinguish "political" from other forms of collaboration with the Securitate.

Mircea Vasilescu has more on the "fairy tale" aspects of Romania's self-reckoning with its communist past in this excellent essay. 

Romanian intellectuals flirtations with fascism. PART I: THE GENERATION OF 1927.

Martin Schwarz - Comrade Cioran was a revolutionary of the Iron Guard. He followed the Capitan on the march through the Romanian wasteland of the modern age. The Iron Guard’s revolt against the modern world was the only authentic traditional revolution in Europe. The legionaries were not fascists, National Socialists, conservative revolutionaries nor even-contrary to their own misinterpretation-nationalists: they were mystics of the apocalypse, eschatological forerunners. The revolution of the new man found its fulfillment in martyrdom.... Following the day of the martyrs-November 30th, 1938 - Cioran was a reactionary. He betrayed the legionaries in that he distanced himself from them, in that he gave up the Romanian tongue and became a Parisian. From vengeance, from having survived, he became a solitary reactionary in Paris whom visitors the world over came to observe as a sort of curiosity amid the Babel of the metropolis, a foundling fallen out of time.

The "1927 generation", much like the American disciples of Leo Strauss' school, bloomed and flourished in the soil of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters at Bucharest University under the tutelage of a certain teacher-- Professor Nae Ionescu. Inspired by Mircea Eliade's experiences in India, the 1927 generation sought new "experiences." They challenged the conventional orthodoxy by explaining the world as reflected by their own experiences and sentiments. Their vehicle was the Criterion journal.

Those 1927ers who stumbled into fame included Mircea Eliade, Mircea Vulcanescu, Petru Comarnescu, Constantin Noica, Mihai Sebastian, Eugen Ionesco, Emil Cioran, Octav Sulutiu, Petre Tutea, Petre Pandrea, Anton Golopentia, Dan Botta, Henri H. Stahl, Mihai Polihroniade, Arsavir Acterian, Haig Acterian, Belu Zilber, Marcel Iancu, Marietta Sadova, Floria Capsali, and Sorana Topa.

In May 1932, a group of young Bucharest intellectuals establishes the Criterion cultural association. Cioran graduates in philosophy with a thesis on Henri Bergson. Petru Comanescu organizes the first Criterion conferences later that year, which turn out to be a tremendous success.

As a member of the "1927 generation", Emil Cioran embraced the apolitical stance unveiled by Mircea Eliade in his "Spiritual Itinerary". The preference for the "purely spiritual" in the world of ideas reinforced Cioran's view that culture and politics were radically opposed. Cioran believed that "the political frenzy" experienced by Romanians only indicated their lack of spiritual concern, their lack of "soul". In The Myth of the Useful, philosopher DD Rosca condemned popular adulation for the politician, the "man of action", at the expense of the pure intellectual.

Yet the year 1933 would leave many of the apolitical 1927 generation under the spell of politics. At the time, Cioran was studying in Berlin as a Humboldt Grant recipient. In December, Cioran sent a letter to Nicloae Tatu revealing his favorable impressions of Hitler's dictatorship:

"As far as I am concerned, only a dictatorial regime is still worthy of attention. People do not deserve to be free. And I am somewhat saddened by the fact that you and others like you pointlessly praise a democracy which really can't do anything good for Romania."

In the same month, Cioran wrote to Petru Comarescu:

"Some of our friends will believe that I have turned Hitlerist out of sheer opportunism. The truth is that I agree with many of the things I've seen here, and I firmly believe that a dictatorship could stifle or even eliminate for good the imposture plaguing our society. Only terror, brutality, and endless anxiety are likely to bring about a change in Romania. All Romanians should be arrested and beaten to a pulp; this is the only way a shallow nation can make a name for itself."

As the political realm began making calls upon the spiritual realm, offering political solutions to spiritual problems of identity and meaning, the 1927 generation reneged on its previous separation of the spiritual and the political. The times called for novel combination; the European and Soviet political experiments made democracy seem too conservative, and behind the spirit of the times. By 1934, the focus on "experience" had been replaced by the new enchantment with politics as the realm of the new.

In a paper cited below, Ioan Scurtu emphasizes the generational struggles in the Romanian interwar period. The young, including the generation of 1927, blamed the older generation for their political failings and inability to envision the future. Scurtu notes that a "real campaign was carried by the young against the old". Already in 1927, Professor Nae Ionescu insisted that the "old were unable to adapt themselves to the new conditions of life" so they had to be replaced by the young:

The old people’s incapacity to adapt themselves to the new conditions of life, their creative incapacity choke our political life and limit the energies of the nation. Today in Romania one can find no person older than 50 who would not stay in the chair of a younger and more capable young man.

The time was ripe for revelation-- for men of prophetic bent and ideological calling. Corneliu Zelea Codreanu stepped into the aura and designated himself leader of the nationalistic youth. Scurtu asserts a distinction between the anti-Seminitism of Cuza's nationalism and the Christian messianism of Codreanu's nationalism.

While A.C. Cuza maintained himself on the line of loyalty and of a more theoretic anti-Semitism, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu was for a more energetic behavior in organizing the youth. On Friday, June 24, 1927, Corneliu Zelea Codreanu decided to make‑up the League of Archangel Michael whose leader he nominated himself. From then on the right‑wing totalitarianism achieved the form of a distinct organization decided to liquidate the democratic regime and to inaugurate a totalitarian form of leadership in the Romanian state.

SOURCES & RESOURCES:

1. Nae Ionescu and Emil Cioran 
2. A Generation "Without Beliefs" and the Idea of Experience in Romania, 1927-1934 by Phillip Vanhaelemeersch 
3. "The Right-Wing Totalitarianism in Romania, 1917-1927" by Ioan Scurtu
4. East European PHD reading list for IU Bloomington

Reading history in the stars: The charm of horoscopes in the post-communist literary landscape.

When I visited Romania at the beginning of 1990, I scoured the newsstands for any and every shard of information about Romanian culture, the revolution, recipes, history, commi-nostalgia, concerts, life as lived and dreamed in the immediate post-1989 period. Imagine my surprise to discover that almost every newspaper or magazine boasted of its horoscope section. There was a horoscope available for every month, day, decade, and period. Horoscopes littered the dusty sidewalks of Bucharest, promising answers and explanations. My university-educated Romanian relatives would ask me quite seriously if I had consulted my horoscope before x and y.

In the post-communist period, the horoscope had become a reference guide in an unsure world and a source of revisionist history. Before the Romanian intellectuals settled into their desks to revisit the history of Romanian communism, the horoscopes had already published definitive guides to the truth about each and every important Romanian. The horoscopes were not burdened by Securitate files or ties to former leaders-- their information was pure as the night sky and powerful as the sun. Before Romanians could read revisionist history in the libraries, they could read it in the stars.

Does Romania's notorious and legendary fatalism explain why horoscopes gained such a following in the immediate post-communist period? Only for those who prefer the cosmos of cultural stereotypes to the cosmos of stars. In fact, Romanian fatalism is a facet of literary culture more than a facet of general culture (though one might argue that Romanians tend to be more Stoic, a philosophy which has its roots in fatalism). Romanian horoscopes, like Romanian legends, have the texture of a rich tapestry in which disparate colors and elements bind together as revelation.

Rather than the pithy American-style two-liner, Ceausescu's horoscope reads like an intimate portrait, a legend harvested from the stars. Among other salient details, the horoscope asserts that Ceausescu was supported by the US. I've heard this position expressed by a number of Romanians in hushed tones, but the horoscope sets it above rumor by relegating it to the realm of the stars.

It is alleged that Ceauşescu was supported overtly and covertly by the United States throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Romania gained "most favored nation" trading status in 1975, six years after a favourable visit by President Nixon. According to Noam Chomsky, it was partially due to Ceauşescu's divergent views on policy (such as the invasion of Afghanistan, opposition to Molotov-Ribbentrop, etc.), Ceauşescu garnered support from the Bush Administration, particularly George Herbert Walker Bush himself and then-Secretary of State George P. Schultz . There were negative comments regarding Romania during this time by both Schultz and Bush, but the former also called Ceauşescu a "good Communist" and the latter praised Ceauşescu's "respect for human rights" . This support, it is argued, was a major obstacle to the overthrow of Ceauşescu.

The horoscope is a superb historical vehicle in the dusk of the absurd. When unemployed dissidents would find work writing horoscopes for various journals, they were engaging in another form of dissent. Astrology, like religion, was not acceptable to the communist regimes grounded upon the predictive value of historical materialism and scientific socialism. In this environment, authoring a horoscope offered a subtle way in which to criticize communist leaders (for example, by predicting negative events in their future due to character traits like 'egoism'). When Czech writer Milan Kundera's work was banned in 1969, Kundera made a living by writing an astrology column under a fictitious name, which eventually got him and his friends in even more trouble.

It is no secret that Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, and Adolf Hitler relied on astrology in making political decisions. The Kremlin seems to have star-gazed quite frequently. The stars, like palms, books, and coffee grounds, must be read as life is lived, with a smile to illuminate the darkness. To explore Poland's national horoscope, venture here. For more on the absurdist humour of communism.

What is going on in Moldova?

Moldovan "democratic-communist" President Voronin has called the protests in Moldova a "fascist coup d'etat", and he insists that the Moldovan government will defend the "integrity of the state" against this fascist ploy. To cease the moral highground, Voronin keeps barking that the protestors are not true "patriots". His statements remind me of President Iliescu and the National Salvation Front's statements before the miners were brought to town (not to mention the blather of President Bush after September 11th).

So far, there has been one death and at least 200 injuries as a result of the protests. Grenades, stones, tear gas, and storming of public buildings makes it clear that this revolution is the real deal. All websites in Moldova are currently inaccessible, and the television programs alternate between jazz and culture rather than providing any coverage on the protests. The Romanian Foreign Ministry has backed the EU's call for an end to violent in Moldova. The UN has also expressed concern. The Council of Europe is irked.

Reconstructing the course of events is complicated by the Moldovan government's shut-down of communications and broadcasting. Here is what has emerged so far (subject to future revisions, for sure):

The leaders of the Opposition in Chisinau negotiated on Tuesday afternoon with the head of Government, Zenaida Greciani, and with the president of the Communist Party, said the Unimedia.md executive manager, Dumitru Ciorici, for HotNews.ro. The Opposition is represented by Serafim Urecheanu, Vlad Filat and Mihai Ghimpu, leaders of the main parties - Liberals, Democrat Liberals and the "Our Moldova Alliance. The Opposition leaders repeatedly called for a new scrutiny. The Government also hosts several members of the foreign diplomacy in Moldova, the officials of foreign states expecting to discuss with the Opposition leaders as well.

The first round of negotiations between the Opposition and Vladimir Voronin ended in failure, without any clear understanding. The speaker of the Parliament, Marian Lupu, insisted that the protests are an attempted coup d’état, and he suggested that it may be inspired fueled by Romania. As a prove, he referred to the Romanian and the EU flags raised above the Parliament’s building earlier today.

AFP and Reuters reported that negotiations led to a decision to recount the votes, but Parliament speaker Marian Lupu says that the recount is a competence of the Electoral Commission, not of political parties. Vlad Filat, one of the leaders of the opposition in the Republic of Moldova, denied on Tuesday that a deal has been reached with the communist authorities regarding a recount of the votes in the Sunday general elections, according to AFP. He said authorities had yet to respond to opposition demands. Previously, an official of the Electoral Commission quoted by AFP said the Government and the Opposition reached a deal on Tuesday evening on a recount of the vote, but that it all depended on technical means.

Conspiracy theories abound, and true facts are in short supply. Valeriu Vulcan's report from the scene offers a play-by-play of what is happening outside the Parliament. A better play-by-play can be found in Romanian here. Also try Scraps of Moscow's post. If you didn't love Twitter before, you will heart it now.

Among the interesting, provocative, and disturbing things / theories being reported:

#1    The head of the CSI Relation commission in the Russian Duma, Aleksey Ostrovsky, believes that Moldovan authorities must end the protests in Chisinau, while still respecting the legal means, Interfax informs. The official claimed that the events in Chisinau are directly connected to the influence of foreign forces, including American ones, but mostly of Western specialized intelligence services. On his opinion, the Western states are unhappy with the neutrality status adopted by president Vladimir Voronin and intend to "cause changes, so that Moldova joins the Euro-Atlantic alliance". "An important aid comes from Romania, which intends to swallow Moldova and create a new state in the region", said Ostrovsky.

#2    Sociologist Dan Dugaciu lists the elements required for a succesful revolution in Moldova. He notes that the population is divided between the young, Western-minded thinkers and the older, Russo-leaning folks.

#3    Official Moldovan radio and TV stations have condemned the "hooligans". Boy, did they read straight from Iliescu's script or what?!

#4    The Romanian government, while supporting the EU position, added a few comments about the recent visa problems for Romanians trying to enter Moldova. The heat is on.

#5    Rumors abound that the Moldovan army is preparing to enter the fray. Seems like Romanians and Moldovans are brothers after all-- even their revolutions share the same script.

#6     On hand to observe and certify the elections, the OSCE has urged restraint and an end to the violence. The OSCE's preliminary findings on the process and legality of the Moldovan election are available here.

#7    Voronin has called on the West to restore order in Moldova. Always better to have the global democrats on your side.

#8    Russia congratulated Voronin on his election win. In a clear message of support, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev urged the country to stick to election law and to its constitution to solve the latest crisis. Yes, Moscow is still the master.

#9    The opposition was expected to win the Moldovan elections by many Moldovans.

#10   The Moldovan government has been guarding its borders in what almost seemed to be anticipation of such protests. Voronin suspects that the hand of the Romanian government is involved in this "fascist coup".

Mircea Cartarescu's magical wand.

Mircea Cartarescu is a Romanian writer, essayist, literary critic, poet, and university lecturer. His style struts the line between the magical realism, New Wave, and reverie of the obscure. In a wonderful feature for Sign and Sight,  Jorg Plath calls him "the man who has made Bucharest mystical", turning the dismal greys of communism to a "metaphysical superstructure". Plath walks us through Cartarescu's past:

In 1980 Cartarescu's writing focused on the everyday. At the age of 24 he joined the legendary university "Monday circle" led by literary critic Nicolae Manolescu. "Faruri, vitrine, fotografii" (headlights, window displays, photographs) is the title of his debut work published that same year. "We moved from the European poetry tradition to the American, we wanted to be faster, harder, more powerful." Allen Ginsberg, John Ashbery and Frank O'Hara were the models for the "Eighties Generation", who dedicated themselves to the reality of here and now and survived unscathed at the university despite their dissident views. After producing three volumes of poetry as a student and while working as a primary school teacher on the outskirts of Bucharest, Cartarescu began writing prose. The narrative round dance entitled "Visul" (the dream) appeared in 1989, two months before the revolution. The original title, "Nostalgia" was ruled out because of the Tarkovsky film of the same name, the first story cut out by censors who judged it to be too violent, and Elena had to be renamed Maria to avoid any possible association with Elena Ceausescu.

After the revolution "Nostalgia" could appear uncensored and Cartarescu could finally become a university lecturer and travel. As we leave the roof, passing some scrawny plants, he tells of the initial shock felt by Romanians, who were used to shortages of everything, on first entering the West. In the meantime Cartarescu has got used to the West: "Since 1990 I've spent half my life abroad."

Here is an excerpt from "Nabokov in Brasov", translated by Julian Similian, which can be read in full online, courtesy of Words Without Borders:

I wasn't listening anymore. I was slowly waking up. Oddly, thinking of Securitate, the most unlikely and stupid things were coming to mind: a long line to get beer at Bucur Obor, hundreds of people and a very nervous individual shouting when a few gypsies tried to cut in. "He's from Securitate, I know him," an old man told me with a kind of respect. "He's got power to put things in order." In my apartment building there were many people from Securitate, I played with their children. I recalled the jokes about them, Mother's warnings to be careful what I said, because Securitate was everywhere. Who were the people who worked for Securitate? What was Securitate? And why was it my fate, like a bad joke, to become a man with someone who worked for Securitate, even though she was only about to become one of them? I let her speak, I let her try her best to convince me (herself, really) that she was doing the right thing, and so she went on and on with her plea to the void, long after she realized I wasn't listening to her anymore. I could barely see her face. Through the paper-thin walls of the building you could hear everything: someone flushing the toilet, voices on the TV, music . . . After she finished she lit another cigarette and silently smoked it to the end. Then she stretched "voluptuously" next to me, kissed me "sweetly," caressed me obscenely-no quotation marks this time-and wanted to start from the top. I pushed her hand away and told her, like an automaton, without feeling the "drama" of that moment, that she was an idiot, that she would ruin not only her own life but the life of many others as well, that I didn't want to have anything to do with her if she took that step. And in fact, if she'd already accepted, what did she want from me?

As usual, the burden of other people's desires disturb the landscapes of everyday life. For more written by or about Cartarescu, explore the following:

• "The Gypsies: A Romanian Problem"
• "Eastern European Prejudices Regarding Homosexuals"
• "Two Romanias"
• Two poems: "I'm Smiling" and "The Blonde Beast"
• A selection of Cartarescu's poems in Romanian 
• "Mircea Cartarescu on men who have something feminine about them"
• On expectations of Barack Obama
• On culture and money
• On the history of the Roma in Romania
• Nostalgia
• Excerpt from The Roulette Player
• Blog entries about Cartarescu include ABC of Reading, Errata 1, Masters of Drama, Blog About EU & Romania and Elly

A photo of the Securitate in Timisoara circa December 1989.

From Asociatia Memorialul Revolutiei, "F11," Making the History of 1989, Item #572.

Life in Romania circa 1986 according to Pavel Campeanu.

In1986, Pavel Câmpeanu, a Romanian sociologist who had built his career on support for socialism and who had shared a prison cell with Nicoale Ceauşescu during World War II, smuggled out an article which was subsequently published anonymously by a purported "visitor to Romania" in the New York Review of Books. At the time, it was assumed that the Securitate punished and assasinated dissidents even after they left the country.

The article is significant for its detailed description of the painfully bleak quality of life for Romanians living through the final years of Ceausescu's national socialism. I've excerpted a bit, but the article is well-written and worth reading in full:

One of my friends said that to understand the recent developments I must first consult a decree by the Council of State of the Romanian Socialist Republic issued on October 10, 1981. The exact text ran as follows:

It shall constitute illegal trading activities and, in accordance with the terms set down in the Penal Code, shall be punishable by six months to five years in prison, to purchase from any state commercial center or cooperative store, either with a view to hoarding or in any quantity that exceeds the requirements of a family for a period of a month, oil, sugar, wheat or corn flour, rice, coffee and all other foodstuffs the hoarding of which might affect the interests of other consumers and proper provisioning of the population.

Since then, he said, the situation has changed drastically. Coffee can no longer be bought by private citizens and has been replaced by an ersatz substance disapproved of by physicians, which the public, guessing at the ingredients, has nicknamed "henna." Meat, buttermilk, and bread are rationed in most districts, sugar and cooking oil throughout the country—and the ration is much more generous than the shops charged with distributing them can supply.

Since 1968, it should be explained, Romania has been divided into more than forty districts, each with a Party secretary, who is its supreme head. He is responsible for delivering a quota of food from his district to the central government—a task that must give him bad dreams. For it poses an insoluble problem: if he distributes locally less food than is called for by the plan—as he is virtually obliged to do—he will be popular with the authorities but held in contempt by the people of the district; and if he tries to help the population get more food, he will be unpopular with the authorities. Everyone has a different approach to the same dilemma—for even in the CP no district secretary is quite like another—and this psychological diversity makes for diversity in the distribution of food shortages throughout the country. In Cluj or Pitesti the situation, I was told, is frankly horrible; in Sibiu or Vilcea it is merely wretched. Thousands go from district to district on shopping excursions from which they often return empty-handed.

Romania seems unique in many ways. It is the only European country in which one can be sentenced to five years in prison for buying excessive quantities of food that is generally unavailable to the public. It is also, in my experience, the only such country in which the legal work week is forty-six hours and the urban population often spends three to four hours a day shopping for groceries. In Romania President Ceausescu takes upon himself to compose lyrics for a new national anthem, rather than entrusting the task to a poet. And in spite of a republican form of government of which he is the constitutional head, the president carries a scepter and is grooming his son as his successor.

Workers often spend entire days waiting for raw materials that their factory cannot obtain. If they leave the premises without permission or bring alcoholic beverages, or cigarettes, or lighters, or matches onto the shop floor, they are regarded as having broken the law and can receive prison sentences from three months up to two years (Decree 400 of December 29, 1981, Article 18).

The Letter of the Six from 1989.

In March of 1989, six big wigs in the Romanian Communist Party sent Nicolae Ceauşescu an open letter that was also strategically leaked to the international press. In this letter, the six openly disagreed with Ceausescu's policies and suggested reform measures. Scholars differ over the extent to which the writing of this letter was truly risky or bold, since their privileged status as old-school members of the communist coterie provided them with protection.

On Silviu Bruncan's view, "the six signatories of the letter did suffer some reprisals, such as house arrest, but they were treated relatively gently, since they were widely respected in the Romanian Communist Party and had important international connections". As a signatory to the letter, Bruncan's opinion is not a statement of fact but rather a historical account of how the six signatories wanted to be perceived by international public opinion. Personally, I am skeptical about the extent to which this letter reflects anything except the power-hunger of its signers, but educated gentlemen like Immanuel Wallerstein have a less cynical perspective.

Among the six signatories to the letter:

• Gheorghe Apostol, former member of the Politburo and chairman of trade
 unions
• Alexandru Birladeanu, former member of the Politburo and chairman of the planning committee
• Corneliu Manescu, former minister of foreign affairs and president of the UN General Assembly
• Constantin Pirvulescu, founding member of the Communist party
• Grigore Raceanu, veteran of the Communist party
• Silviu Brucan, former acting editor of Scinteia

 Without further ado, here is an excerpt from this letter:

To President Ceausescu:
At a time when the very idea of socialism, for which we have fought, is discredited by your policy, and when our country is being isolated in Europe, we have decided to speak up. We are perfectly aware that by doing so we are risking our liberty and even our lives; but we feel duty-bound to appeal to you to reverse the present course before it is too late.

The international community is reproaching you for nonobservance of the Helsinki final act, which you have signed yourself. Romanian citizens are reproaching you for nonobservance of the constitution, which you have sworn to observe. Here are the facts:

• The whole plan for systematization of villages [i.e., their "modernization" by destroying             existing buildings] and the forced removal of peasants to three-story apartment blocks runs             against Article 36 of the constitution, which protects the right to personal property of a household, with its annexes and the land on which it is situated.
• The decree forbidding Romanian citizens to have contact with foreigners has never been voted on by the legislative body and never been published; thus it lacks legal power. And yet our citizens are threatened with being fired, harassed, arrested, and sentenced for doing so.
• The Civic Center [in Bucharest], the biggest multibillion lei investment made in Romania, has no public budget and is being built in violation of all existing laws regulating constructions and their financing. The cost of the immense building has tripled because of changes you order every month in the interior and exterior of the building.
• Securitatea [i.e., the State Security Service], which we created to defend the socialist order against the exploiting classes, is now directed against workers demanding their rights, against old members of the Party, and against honest intellectuals exercising their rights to petition (Article 34) and freedom of speech (Article 28) guaranteed by the constitution.
• Factories and institutions have been ordered to force their employees to work on Sunday against Article 19 of the constitution and the labor code.
• Mail is systematically violated and our telephone conversations are cut off in violation of Article 34, guaranteeing their privacy. To sum up, the constitution has been virtually suspended and there is no legal system in force. You must admit, Mr. President, that a society cannot function if the authorities, starting from the top, show disrespect for the law.

Planning no longer works in the Romanian economy. The meetings of the Executive Political Committee are all oriented toward the past, [and taken up with] exhorting the workers to make up for the unfulfilled plan of the previous year, previous semester, or previous month. An increasing number of factories lack raw materials, energy, or markets. 

Agricultural policy is also in disarray. Harsh administrative measures are directed against the peasants, who, according to your own data, provide 40 percent of the country's vegetables, 56 percent of the fruit, 60 percent of the milk, and 44 percent of the meat, though they have only 12 percent of the arable land. But, of course, what is now predominant in the villages is the fear of being "systematized," with seven or eight thousand villages threatened with being razed. Above all the economic, cultural, and humanitarian objections of the civilized world to that program, a legitimate question arises: Why urbanize villages when you cannot ensure decent conditions of urban life in the cities, namely adequate heating, lighting, transportation, not to mention food? A government that for five winters in a row has been unable to solve such vital problems for its population proves itself incompetent and incapable of governing. Therefore, we are not pressing on you any demand in this respect.

The very fact that Germans, Hungarians, and Jews are emigrating en masse shows that the policy of forced assimilation should be renounced.

Finally, we are deeply worried that Romania's international position and prestige are rapidly deteriorating. As you know, this is concretely shown by the decision of quite a few countries to close their embassies in Bucharest. Most alarming, embassies of such European nations as Denmark and Portugal have already been closed and others may follow. Our growing isolation affects not only diplomatic relations. We have lost the most-favored-nation status for trade with the United States and as a result some of our textile factories have no orders. The EEC is unwilling to extend its trade agreement with Romania, which will negatively affect other sectors of our economy. You have always maintained that summit meetings are decisive in improving relations between states. But how are you going to improve Romania's external relations when all the leaders of the non-Communist nations of Europe refuse to meet with you? Romania is and remains a European country and as such must advance along with the Helsinki process and not turn against it. You started changing the geography of the countryside, but you cannot remove Romania to Africa. To stop the negative processes, both domestic and international, besetting our nation we appeal to you, as a first step, to take the following measures:

1. To state categorically in unequivocal terms that you have renounced the plan of systematization of villages.

2. To restore the constitutional guarantees regarding the rights of citizens. This will enable you to observe the decisions of the Vienna Conference on Human Rights.

3. To put an end to the food exports that are threatening the biological existence of our nation.

Once such measures are taken, we are prepared to participate in a constructive spirit in a dialogue with the government on the ways and means of overcoming the present impasse.

The last days of Ceausescu's dicatorship.

Mircea Munteanu revisits the last days of Ceausescu's dictatorship with a few new documents from the archives. One of these documents contains the Romanian minutes of the conversation between Nicolae Ceausescu and Mikhail Gorbachev on 4 December 1989,  twelve days before the start of the Romanian Revolution and 20 days before the Romanian dictator’s execution. It reveals the extent to which Ceausescu's chosen detachment from the Soviet efforts at reform communism also detached him from reality in a more general sense.

In this conversation with Gorbachev, Ceausescu urges him to take military action against the "velvet revolutions" occurring in Eastern Europe. Ceasescu never asks for Soviet assistance to Romania-- he does not indicate any concerns about potential uprisings on his own turf. He also does not seem concerned about spillover effects. Though Munteanu does not mention this, I suspect Ceausescu worried about the effect of these uncontested velvet revolutions on his foreign policy position of Romanian exceptionalism. The leverage that Ceausescu had in his dealings with non-communist governments depended on maintaining the perception that Ceausescu was an honest broker in a sea of Soviet-satellite chaos. If other satellite states adopted democratic or market-based reforms with no protest from Moscow, Ceausescu would lose his bargaining position.

What kept Gorbachev from considering military intervention (which he later pursued in the Soviet republics)?  Mircea Muteanu sums the changing policy environment as follows:

Fortified in his confidence in US President George Bush following the 2-3 December 1989 Malta summit, Gorbachev rejected the idea of military intervention. Later, the Soviet government would outright reject the possibility that Soviet troops be used on the behalf of the Romanian dictator, or the revolutionary forces.3 Following the Romanian coup d’etat, Washington made clear that it no longer viewed Soviet actions in Eastern Europe as necessarily a cause of instability. The US–Soviet talks, along with Gorbachev’s unwillingness to use force to maintain communist regimes, proved that the Brezhnev Doctrine was dead.

The publication of these documents is all the more significant for the glaring lack of primary documents on what happened in the last few days of Ceausescu's regime. As Munteanu observes, no one really knows what happened between December 22nd and December 25th. Unlike the Securitate files, the majority of Romanian Communist Party files remain classified.

The conversation minutes leave the reader with a gothic aftertaste-- Ceausescu's insulated existence emerges in his responses and statements to Gorbachev. There are several instances in which Ceausescu seems to be reading from a dated script of Communist orthodoxy, and other instances in which Ceausescu's dreamworld rears its beehived head. First, Ceausescu makes it clear to Gorbachev that communism cannot admit mistakes or attempt to reform since its very nature as the culmination of historical materialism precludes error. History cannot be wrong. When Gorbachev discusses perestroika and the new course of socialism, Ceausescu insists that a change in tactics or policy is not deserving of mention in the history books, where communism's perfect, infallible march must continue in spite of missteps in its implementation. The Revolution demands a perfect record:

"Of course, in such a grandiose activity there have also been mistakes and abuses, but history only records that which assures advance. "

Ceausescu seems determined to set up an exploratory committee for the possibility of coordinating a conference for the socialist countries, but Gorbachev explains that the interest in an international conference does not exist, since most socialist states are struggling with domestic pressures to reform. Ceausescu declares his opposition to these reformist movements. Then he tries again to get Gorbachev's agreement on a future conference. Here is the conversation record:

Ceausescu:  But we have received requests from many parties and, since this is such a dire time for the communist movement, we have a responsibility to do something even if a small number of parties might show up. Do you know what Lenin said in 1903?

Gorbachev: No, I do not.

Ceausescu:  No matter how few we are, we must raise the flag. The people need to see that we  are taking action to extend the influence of socialism and the revolutionary movement.

Gorbachev:   I was under the impression that what we do regarding the renewal of socialism does raise the interest of others in the development of socialism.

Ceausescu: We do not have the time to discuss this. There are some good things, there are a few things  that are not as good, and if we are to discuss this right now we would need a great deal of  time. There are some good things.

Gorbachev remains unswayed by Ceausescu's pleas for the conference; instead, he urges Ceausescu to set up an exploratory committee on his own and not to worry about trying to involve the Soviet Union. But Ceausescu insists, citing the fact that other political parties have international conferences to solidify the bases and discover potentials for cooperation.

Ceausescu:  ...Then why can not thecommunist parties meet as well?

Gorbachev:  Because, some time ago, Cdes. Ceausescu and [Italian Communist leader Enrico] Berlinguer9 were against that.

Surely Ceausescu's cheeks were feeling a little warm at this point in the conversation. But he plows forward and begins to express his concerns about his communist neighbors:

Ceausescu: We are very preoccupied about what is going on with a few European socialist countries. We understand the drive to perfect, to renew, but I do not want to discuss this right now. The format of this renewal places in grave danger not just socialism in the respective countries but also the very existence of the communist parties there. If we allow this flow of events, a dire situation will develop. In any case, one can not say that socialism did not accomplish anything in those countries. I believe that the Soviet Union, and I am referring primarily to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, could have a certain role—not by the force of the military—to help produce a better orientation. You were speaking today about a better orientation for those parties and countries. Of course, a meeting between the socialist countries and our parties could help, but we have to think hard about the actions taking place in some countries.

Gorbachev: Here we need to ask how we all could act and more importantly how they should act. Who prevented Czechoslovakia and the East Germany—countries that had a high level of economic development and high living standards—from beginning in time the process of modernization and [from] taking into account the changes that began to take shape in the development of society? If they would have done this at the right time, today’s events would be different. We too, in the Soviet Union. If we would have taken care of the modernization of the technology and of economic development at the right time, there would be a different approach today. There was a lot of talk at the time, in meetings and during congresses, about the technological and scientific revolutions, about the development of our country. Yet in the end, all was set aside. Right now we have a report in the Central Committee about the technological and scientific revolution from 1973, and, look, 15 years later, we are just beginning to do what needed to be done then. I believe that we have lost a lot of our prestige because we have not taken direct action regarding those problems at the right time.

Now Gorbachev assumes the role of father to Ceausescu's naive child. Ceausescu gets defensive, insisting that Romania has experimented with a few reforms and the results were not stellar. Gorbachev uses this point to begin articulating his policy of differentiation-- each country will have different ways and reforms on the path to communism. The Soviet Union will not attempt to force its views on other socialist states any longer.

Ceausescu: We have worked on and succeeded in bringing about the development of society and the economy. What you are doing now we have tried in the past. We created then the so-called private-holders and after a year we saw they are getting rich and we put a stop to the entire
situation.

Gorbachev: Is this the future you see for us?

Ceausescu: If some get rich by playing the market, that is not a future, you know that I’m sure. We have introduced the idea of economic self-rule, the new economic mechanism, and the leadership councils.

Gorbachev: As I listen to you I cannot help but think that in a year you have time to visit every administrative region in your country.

Ceausescu: Maybe not quite all the regions.

Gorbachev: Tell me, though, in a country as big as ours, how could we rule in the same manner as you? We need to think of different methods.

Ceausescu: We, too, have autonomy, but there is a difference between the autonomy of republics or even regions and the autonomy of factories. In any case, general direction and control from the center are necessary, even for the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev: Comrade Ceausescu, we too desire a powerful center, but we think of it in a somewhat different manner.

As Gorbachev intimates a policy of decentralization, Ceausescu gets panicky and begins to defend the virtues of central command.

Ceausescu: In any case, it is mistaken to allow the factories, even at the national level, to be outside central control. A lot of autonomy, a lot of rights, of course, but under a central guidance. About 20 years back, we gave them a lot of rights and, the first thing they did was to take loans
and make all kinds of poor economic investments. Then we realized that we needed to control certain things so we took some of their liberties away. For Romania, $11 billion debt in 1980 was a grave problem. As a matter of fact, I can tell you that in my discussions with Brezhev at the time, he told me: don’t go and get yourself in debt. He told me that a number of times, but my mistake was that I gave too much discretion to the factories and all of them decided that if they have discretion then they can take credits from outside.

Gorbachev is unconvinced. He urges Ceausescu to move on to bilateral matters. Ceausescu wants to discuss economic relations but he notes that the prime ministers have not had the chance to meet. The prime ministers then agree to meet on January 9th, 1990 around the COMECON meeting. Then Gorbachev makes an odd statement to Ceausescu, who must have given an impression of concern about this date for the meeting:

Gorbachev: You shall be alive on the 9 January. In any case, what are the problems that preoccupy you?

As we know, Ceausescu did not live to see January 9th of 1990. The discussion moves to oil, and Ceausescu notes that Romania has depleted its oil reserves. The procurement of petroleum has become a critical economic issue. Ceausescu would like to make arrangements in which Romania provides iron ore to the Soviet Union in exchange for petrol or other critical resources. This was a customary bilateral arrangement between the Soviet Union and its satellite states. However, the prime minister speaks up to explain why this is no longer possible.

Ryzhkov: ... I am not against [this] and I assume we will talk about specialization and cooperation, in production and every other aspect, but I want to mention that, and this is not targeted at Romania, we will present a report on 15 December regarding our plans for the development of the economy. We have prepared the necessary documents and have distributed them to the deputies for debate. When we prepared those documents, we began with the idea that we need to move from the exchange of goods, the barter system, towards regular commerce. This is why, on 9 January, when the meeting between the chiefs of governments will take place, we will bring this problem up. We know that many countries agree with us, many have suggested that we move from the barter system to world prices and payments in hard currency. We understand that this can not be done over night. Maybe we will need to wait 1-2 years until we can switch over to this system. This does not mean however that we can not or will not negotiate long term deals, even in
regard to bartering for goods, but we have no other solution in the long term. Neither for us, nor for the other countries, can [we] continue in this [old] system. This is why you should think about this yourself.

Clearly uncomfortable with the ramifications of this statement, Ceausescu tries to play along. However, Gorbachev insists on being explicit.

Gorbachev: We desire that, in this whole process we also incorporate the redesign of our financial system and the system of prices, to try to quickly reach the convertibility of the ruble. The most important thing is to integrate ourselves in the world market, otherwise we have no basis
of comparison.

Ceausescu: This problem will need to be discussed, discussed for a long time.

Rather than draw broader conclusions from Gorbachev's dismissal of conventional bilateral ties, Ceausescu presses on, trying again to secure a visit from the Soviet prime minister to Romania. Clearly he wants to mount a propaganda campaign about Romania's strong position in the international community, and a visit from the prime minister provides the press shots. They agree to find a date in February for this visit.

The conversation ends; little has been accomplished. Ceausescu probably congratulated himself on his diplomatic prowess. The last days of Ceausescu's dreamworld were barely weeks away.

Also of possible interest:

• "Gorbachev's Brest-Litovsk: The Kremlin's Grand Compromise in Eastern Europe", Leon Aron, Heritage Foundation Policy Backgrounder #724, 15 April 1989. Written prior to the big events of December 1989, this backgrounder encourages American policy officials to court Gorbachev and assist him in disengaging from the Eastern European satellite states.

Ceausescu's communist monarchy and the role of jokes in postcommunist history.

Ben Lewis directed a documentary film in 2002, When Propaganda Ruled: Nicolae Ceausescu, King of Communism, intended to put Ceausescu's theatrical propaganda skills center-stage. For those interested in the personality cult developed by Ceausescu in the 1970's and 1980's, this film is a gold mine. It documents the absurdity of life under the Ceausescu personality cult, including grimy and humiliating details of daily rituals and symbolic rites. According to this film, newspapers were required "to mention his name 40 times on every page" and "factory workers spent months rehearsing dance routines for huge shows at which thousands of citizens were lined up to form the words Nicolae Ceausescu with their bodies".

Lewis used Ceausescu's own archive of propaganda films to make this documentary, and the truth therein is stranger than fiction and more mind-numbing than the cliche-infested chatter of cocktail parties. In an interview with the BBC, Lewis discusses how he got the idea for his more recent film, Hammer and Tickle: The History of the Communist Joke, while hanging out in Romania with his friends listening to the many jokes they told to pass the time. He notes that the atrocity of communism is best understood through the humorous ways in which people dealt with it:

"First I observed that there was this anonymous body of literature in communist countries, namely the jokes. Then I asked former citizens of communist states if they remembered the jokes. They all replied with a tangible passion and enthusiasm, that these jokes were important to them. They told me ones I hadn't yet heard spontaneously, and told me how they used to spend evenings round the kitchen table telling each other political jokes. That convinced me that the jokes were important - they not only had a significance as historical documents, they had an emotional significance to the people who told them. I don't know if communism 'depends' on humour but it is, as Deleuze and Guattari would say, a humour-producing machine. The absurdities of communist economic theory, and the obvious gap between what the state said was happening and what people were experiencing in their daily lives, was in itself absurd and ridiculous and therefore humorous. As one interviewee told me "Reality contained jokes, and the jokes contained reality."

Lewis fascination with the communist joke led him to write an essay, "Hammer and Tickle" (pdf version), for The Prospect, in which he reveals some fascinating history:

In 1950-51, a group of Harvard anthropologists undertook one of the most influential research projects of the postwar era. The US government wanted to find out how Soviet citizens might react if the US invaded Russia. So the academics interviewed thousands of displaced Russian citizens living in camps in Germany. When asked to describe what Soviet society was like, the refugees told jokes: "Did you hear the one about the sheep who tried to leave the USSR? They were stopped at the border by a guard…." "Why do you wish to leave Russia?" the guard asked. "It's the secret police," replied the sheep. "Stalin has ordered them to arrest all the elephants." "But you aren't elephants." "Try telling that to the secret police."

In the 1950s, the New York Times Magazine would devote the odd page to jokes from the Harvard project. From the 1960s onwards, volumes of communist jokes were published in paperback form in Europe and North America. Willy Brandt was a renowned communist joke-teller, but there was one western politician who took the jokes more seriously than anyone else: Ronald Reagan. He ordered the state department to collect the jokes and send them to him in weekly memos. As a result, Paul Goble, head of the Balkan desk in the 1980s, assembled a collection of 15,000 communist jokes. Reagan often used Goble's gags in his speeches and negotiations. When Gorbachev came to Washington, Reagan told him a communist joke, later boasting at a press conference that he had laughed. The joke, which made fun of the communist theory that a transitional era of socialism was preceding the communist utopia, went like this: Two men are walking down a street in Moscow. One asks the other, "Is this full communism? Have we really passed through socialism and reached full communism?" The other answers "Hell, no. It's gonna get a lot worse first."

Here is a YouTube bit on the communist queen Elena from Lewis' movie. And here is Ben Lewis on the Internet Movie Database.

Doina Cornea's Securitate file.

The Securitate files remain a complicated and dark part of recent Romanian history. In 2002, Le Monde published an article about the selective opening of the files. In this article, they profiled Doina Cornea's experience with her own files:

"I’ve always liked a cigarette with my coffee,” Doina Cornea continues. “At one point, I was contacted by a young African who was studying in Romania. He told me how much he admired me, and offered to carry my protest letters to the West. Each time he came to visit me, he would bring a packet of coffee, something you didn’t often see at that time. I suspected this young man was up to something, and my husband told me to stop accepting his gifts. But I always took his coffee. For a year, I drank coffee which I imagined was paid for by the Securitate, and had a lot of fun sending their informer off on wild goose chases. It turns out I was right. When I was able to read my file, I found reports the student had written about me. Sometimes he would exaggerate so as to look good. This is typical of informers. They make certain things out to be bigger than they are, so as to seem invaluable to their bosses.”

It was in April 2001 that Doina Cornea made her first request to see her secret police file. She had to jump a series of bureaucratic hurdles, but eventually, 28 voluminous files were opened to her on condition she go consult them in Bucharest, more than 400 kilometers (250 miles) from where she lives. “It’s been tough,” she admits. “My pension isn’t big enough to pay for frequent trips to Bucharest, or to pay for all the photocopying I’d have to do. I don’t think I’ll live long enough to read all they wrote about me.”

In spite of the revelations of human deception occasioned by her files, Cornea is glad she made the decision to see them.

“I’m happy and at peace. The past hasn’t spoiled my friendships. I still see friends who know that I know. We don’t ever speak of this, but I think all Romanians should go see their own file and get to know themselves better, because we can’t move forward by hiding behind lies.” The truth hurts, though. The truth is that the Securitate would not have succeeded in its totalitarian enterprise without the help of many ordinary Romanians. The secret police with its 20,000 or so officers could never have kept watch on several million people. The Securitate’s secret, so to speak, was its ability to recruit some 600,000 informers from among the men and women in the street. According to a study done by the Romanian Political Prisoners Association, 39 percent of the informers were university-educated, while 37 percent had finished high school. An even more troubling statistic: Just 1.5 percent of the collaborators were paid and 1.5 percent were blackmailed, while fully 97 percent were motivated purely by “political and patriotic feeling.”

In an interview with Ziua last year, Cornea noted that Romanians have gotten used to being ordered around. The post-communist period has been more difficult because everyone is a little "lost" or disoriented, searching for a leader or a scapegoat. Cornea also shares her perspectives on Romanian politicians, monarchy, and civil society in this interview. She does not appear to have suffered for seeing her Securitate file.

Perhaps the emigre situation is different. Every year, as we purchase our tickets to visit Romania, my mother struggles with the decision of whether to request her files. She is sure that the files will be damning, for a defector in 1979 was nothing if not an enemy of the communist state. Selfishly, I hope that this year, she will make the appeal. My interests are impure-- I am fascinated by history, seduced by the prospect of first-hand accounts of the communist bureaucracy, haunted by dreams of bygone totalitarianisms.

The purpose of history as understood by Ceausescu.

Thanks to book stands of Bucharest which lined the streets in the early 1990's, I was able to purchase a number of Romanian history books and textbooks issued under the Ceausescu period. At first glance,the texts are remarkable only for their dramatic, airbrushed pictures of the Great Leader, Ceausescu, posted immediately inside the cover.

I thought I would share a little excerpt from an "official" history published by the Romanian News Agency Publishing House in 1980 entitled, Romania: Pages of History. This book was produced to serve as international propaganda supporting the aims of Romanian national socialism. My copy is printed in English on the flimsy, toilet-paper-like pages so popular in communist countries. However, the book indicates that the book is also available in French, German, Russian, and Spanish.

At that time, Ceausescu's concern about Russian intervention (best execmplified in the sending of troops to Poland and Czechoslovakia to punish unfriendly local leaders) led him to become the mouthpiece for rights of national self-determination. The tension between his assertion of these rights to national self-determination and the presence of large minorities of Germans and Hungarians in Transylvania forced Ceausescu to dance a rhetorical jig. Ultimately, his commitment to national socialism made little sense in light of his purported commitment to international communism. He provides his own convoluted version of this view in the introduction to this book:

In our epoch, when the nations have strongly asserted themselves, it is in this sense that one should understand the question of the nationalities which live on the territory of one state or another as an outcome of a long, historical coexistence. They should enjoy all the gains of the socialist society in our countries, all the freedoms, use the language they choose, as it is guaranteed in Romania. At the same time, we should understand that we have the common duty to make socialism triumph through the joint work of all citizens, regardless of nationality, in each of our countries, to ensure, by close cooperation, their fast and multilateral progress, observing the principles which underlie the ideals of the socialist society.

We must firmly be against the imperialist policy of strength and dictate, for a broad economic, cultural-scientific policy of equality and respect among all peoples. This is the only way in which history can serve the real purposes of science and, at the same time, our socialist aspirations, the policy of developing Romania, our people, securing it a dignified and equal place among the socialist nations, among all world nations.

Ceausescu's verbal ju-jitsu does not shy away from revealing the true purpose of history as understood by the Romanian communists, namely, "to serve the real purposes of science and.. socialist aspirations". As Ceausescu makes clear, history exists to serve the needs of the state. If the state needs to provide a scientific basis for historical materialism, history must assume its proper position as story-teller for this campaign. If the state needs a justification for political repression, history must reveal the true enemies which lie within. History is government's hostage.

According to Romania: Pages of History, Bucharest is the "capital of world historiography". In an essay by Ion Popescu-Puturi, Ceausescu himself is revealed as the father of history, second only to the invisible Hegelian dialectic which compels Marx's march towards communism. Popescu-Puturi writes:

Romania's capital city is the venue of the 15th International Congress on Historical Sciences held over August 10-17 under the high patronage of President Nicolae Ceausescu. The choice of Romania as the place for a scientific event of such scope is a recognition of her prestige enjoyed in the world, of her contribution to the defence of peace, development of broad relations among peoples, among scientists all over the world. The holding of the world congress of history in Bucharest comes also as a recognition of Romania's long traditions and reputed school of historical research which enjoys the president of the country's direct support and guidance. President Ceausescu's profound concept of the origins and historical fate of the Romanian people laid down in true essay form in his speeches has given broad propsects to the Romanian historiography to elucidate the major moments in Romanian history, to approach and solve essential problems of world history.

The writings in this book provide an triumphalist, Romano-centric, and often anti-Slav interpretation of historical events in the founding of the Romanian state. The fact that this history was taught to millions of young students in Ceausescu's Romania certainly accounts for the political power of Romanian nationalism in the current postcommunist environment.

For more information on Ceausescu's historiography, the 15th International Congress, and related threads:

• An article from History Today on the 15th International Congress for which this book was produced.
• An excellent article by Razvan Paraianu titled "The History Textbooks Controversy in Romania".
  
• The report from the 19th International Congress of Historical Sciences) on the theme, "The Uses and Misuses of History and the Responsibilities of Historians, Past and Present".
• Dr. Lajos Kazar takes issue with a few assertions made at the Bucharest Congress about the dates of Romanian statehood. His concerns are duly noted.
• Other activities in which Ion Popescu-Pututi gained fame and reknown, apart from writing historical propaganda, of course.
  

Andrei Serban's production of Hamlet.

Reading the May 2000 issue of Parabola in bed last night, I was surprised to find an interview with Romanian theatre director Andrei Serban on his production of Hamlet in New York City starring Liev Schreiber. In this production, Hamlet is not constantly on the verge of a nervous breakdown, but rather, is understood as a man on a mission. The play itself is interpreted as a mythic tale about the redemption of humanity through right action. Serban emphasizes the conflict as a discovery process of the right action:

"So Hamlet is stuck in the not knowing, in the dilemma of how to be. He feels lost. There is no sense, no direction to his life. Then he meets the Ghost. He didn't know about the crime. The Ghost tells him the truth, gives him the task of revenge, and leaves. From then on, Hamlet has to find his own way. He has to become a seeker of the truth. Unless he verifies the facts for himself, he cannot do the act."

On Serban's view, this discovery of the truth, like a visit from a ghost, is meant to haunt us, since we should grapple with how to act based on this discovery. He believes Shakespeare used theater "in order to awaken conscience", loosely defined as this deep knowledge of truth. For Serban, Shakespeare's plays offer "theater as the mirror of life", not reality, but "the reflection of reality", which, in turn, provides a "possibility of seeing in a way that one can learn".

As to what one should learn from Hamlet, Serban seems to suggest that Hamlet teaches us the what I would call the responsibility of the radical-- the requirement of action in accordance with the truth. Hamlet is not free-- he is unrealized and unsure of his role in the world-- until he acts on what he knows.

In the same vein, the Queen's suicide is not a tragic action but a noble and sensible one, given her knowledge. Serban describes the Queen's situation:

"At the beginning of the play, we start with a very satirical court scene, to make the audience feel that the whole court, including the Queen, is in a hypnotic trance, hypnotized by Claudius. This is what Communism and Fascism did in our century. When one watches Hitler today on television, he looks almost like a caricature, a parody of himself, and one wonders: how can this one man have hypnotized millions and millions of people? But is happened. Claudius is a reminder of this kind of dictator, so that his seduction of the court is almost comedie grotesque. He's a seducer. The Queen is part of the trance until the scene with Hamlet. Then she slowly escapes her hypnotism. She awakens from her hypnotic sleep."

Like many living under totalitarian dictatorships, the Queen's conscience is paralyzed by a deep sleep. A somnambulist for whom trance offers safety of sorts, the Queen resembles those of us who prefer the soft sleep of middle grounds and compromise to the rude awakening of reality. For acting in accordance with truth and reality creates its own imperative-- why should we open our eyes to see that the emporer has no clothes when this means we will have to expose him? And then, should we expose him, the costs to our families and loved ones will be great. When the Queen meets Hamlet, a man openly seeking truth and its active correlate, she cannot avoid the mirror. Her somnambulism is shattered.

Serban's Hamlet is a powerful character-- a force for change. On this view:

"....what they are all mainly afraid of, what's most dangerous about Hamlet, is the fact that Hamlet thinks-- and thought is dangerous, because nobody thinks in Denmark. Nobody thinks in a totalitarian system. They're all obeying what Claudius, the great hypnotist, tells them to do. But Hamlet thinks, so he is dangerous. That's his weapon, his thinking."

But thought alone would not pose a threat to Claudius or life under the trance if it did not lead to radical action. Ultimately, this is the true problem with thinking persons in a totalitarian system-- eventually, the ghosts will not leave them alone. Eventually, they must act. The trance is broken, and the thinker cannot return to a life lived by the hum of the trance so long as the weapon-- the thinking mind-- continues to throb. (Hence the reeducation via psychiatric hospital for the intellectual dissidents of communism.)

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Romanians did not protest communism. Does this mean that everyone was sleepwalking? Did they all suffer from the Queen's trance? I would argue that the trance is all the more insidious because it is accepted on the basis of utility. Let's assume the rationality of most individuals living under Ceausescu. Let's assume that almost everyone knows, by this point, that communism has increased human suffering and made a casualty of truth and meaning. Acting on the basis of this knowledge would be very common in a democratic system, where incentives for action include social change, the placement of new candidates, legislative action, etc. Under Ceausescu's system, however, the incentives for action are nonexistent. A man who stood for truth and dissented would not even reap the satisfaction of "heroic action", as he would quickly be dismissed as a crank, removed from his position, and placed in an environment (prison, house arrest, hospital) where he could exercise zero influence. The costs for truth-driven action proved extremely high, and the incentives were non-existent.

On the other hand, the incentives for playing the game, for maintaining the illusion of the trance, were very powerful-- career promotions, food, bread, vacations in the West, publication (if you were an intellectual), an extra room in the apartment, etc. Under such conditions, most pleasure-maximizing or profit-maximizing individuals select to maintain the illusion of the trance. Perhaps only the haunted man, the man confronted with the ghosts of Hamlet, finds commitment to truth and action worthwhile. If so, then we are still left slightly perplexed by the supposed potency of what he stands to gain.

• An interview with Andrei Serban on his production of The Taming of the Shrew.
• Ulrika Brand's review of Serban's Hamlet.
• John Simon's ugly and un-inventive review of Serban's Hamlet.

"Anti-nostalgia links".

"On the level of historical insight and political thought there prevails an ill-defined, general agreement that the essential structure of all civilizations is at a breaking point. Although it may seem better preserved in some parts of the world than in others, it can nowhere provide the guidance to the possibilities of the century, or an adequate response to its horrors…

The conviction that everything that happens of earth must be comprehensible to man can lead to interpreting history by commonplaces. Comprehension does not mean denying the outrageous, deducing the unprecedented from precedents, or explaining phenomena by such analogies and generalities that the impact of reality and the shock of experience are no longer felt. It means, rather, examining and bearing consciously the burden that our century has placed on us — neither denying its existence nor submitting meekly to its weight. Comprehension, in short, means the unpremeditated, attentive facing up to, and resisting of, reality — whatever it may be…

We can no longer afford to take that which was good in the past and simply call it our heritage, to discard the bad the bad and simply think of it as a dead load which by itself time will bury in oblivion. The subterranean stream of Western history has finally come to the surface and usurped the dignity of our tradition. This is the reality in which we live. And this is why all efforts to escape from the grimness of the present into nostalgia for a still intact past, or into the anticipated oblivion of a better future, are vain."

I thoroughly enjoyed chasing the "anti-nostalgia links" posted at O'Connor's Opinions-- enough, in fact, to start working on an anti-nostalgia links list of my own. Hat tip to the O'Connors for the inspiration. And due respect to Hannah Arendt for the above-listed quote from the preface to The Origins of Totalitarianism (a.k.a. my guidebook).                                      

• "The Gulag Archipelago in Romania: The Story No One Has Told Before" by Sandro Magister. This includes information garnered from the Vatican.
• Memo from Henry Kissinger to President Nixon on May 15, 1973 urging "high priority" relationship between US and Romania.
• "Behind the Facade of the Ceausescu Regime" by Vladimir Tismaneanu for RFE/RL
• The names, the short sentences describing their fate, the condemnations, the many who simply disappeared.
• The archives of Romanian state television in the 1970's.
• The Museum of Communism, created by one of my favorite people in Arlington, Virginia.
• Cum era? Cam asa: Memories of Romania's Communist Years edited by Calin-Andrei Mihailescu with excerpt at link.
• Bless This Prison video from Fundation ICAR.
• "Pioneers Forever" by Vasile Ernu.
• "The Legacy of Elena Ceausescu" by Catherine Lovatt for Central European Review