Home

49 de ani de la moartea lui Ion Mihalache, fondator al Partidului National Taranesc, martir al inchisorilor comuniste

3 Comments

49 de ani de la moartea lui Ion Mihalache, fondator al Partidului National Taranesc, martir al inchisorilor comuniste. A inaugurat la noi modelul celei de-a treia cai, intre capitalism si comunism. Sa ne amintim de miscarea cooperatista pe care a condus-o si care a reprezentat o victorie reala a taranilor de la noi impotriva bolsevismului, dar si a “marii corporatii”, victorie despre care au vorbit cu admiratie si multi ganditori si istorici straini din acea vreme.
Dumnezeu sa-l odihneasca in pace pe acest mare roman!

“Traim in noi durerea Natiei, asa cum traim durerea propriei noastre fiinte si propriei noastre familii. Cine nu simte aceasta durere, nu poate nici sa se bucure de bucuriile Natiunei sale.”

“România va fi un stat creştin, ca expresie a imensei sale majorităţi din populaţia ţării şi ca o continuare a tradiţiei în care viaţa bisericii române a fost integrată în viaţa naţională şi publică”.

“Pamantul trebuie sa fie al acelor care il muncesc. Mica proprietate trebuie sa fie bine organizata, eficienta, sa acopere nevoile familiei si sa desfaca propriile produse in libertate. Legile juridice trebuie sa asigure consolidarea juridica a micii proprietati, cadastre si carti funciare”
“România trebuie să fie, înainte de toate, România dreptăţii. Aceasta înseamnă a face cu putinţă fiecăruia locul ce se cuvine capacităţii sale de muncă, de inteligenţă, de talent, de cinste – în ordinea socială, în ordinea de stat”.
“Un partid politic este expresia organica a Natiei cu nevoile si aspiratiile ei, isi are linia de orientare – drum de viata – luminata si determinata de doua puncte. Punctul de plecare – obarsia lui, in echilibrul de forte sociale. Punctul de ajungere – destinul neamului, in echilibrul de forte internationale.”

Să altoim împroprietărirea pe principiul cooperaţiei; obştiile cu agronomi dau rezultate superioare”. „Să dai putinţa complectă omului destoinic de a prospera în agricultură”

“Cine pune urechea la Pamantul tarii… Il aude. In lumina veacurilor istoriei, taranul ne-a pastrat sangele, limba, credinta, spiritul, hotarele, tara … Ţăranul român vrea să muncească, dar să fie el stăpân pe rodul muncii şi să fie şi el părtaş în stăpânirea ţării, potrivit muncii şi jertfei ce i se cere”.
“In decursul istoriei, taranimea a fost izolata cu desavarsire de viata politica, lipsita de puterea de a-si trimite oamenii in Parlamentul tarii si de a lua parte la elaborarea legilor si a altor acte politice in stat”

M-a întrebat prinţul ce cred despre marea proprietate. Am răspuns: „Trebuie desfiinţată. Dacă am ajuns aici pricina e că ne-a guvernat marea proprietate, care nu poate trăi, sub forma extensivă, decât robind braţe şi lăsând satele în ignoranţă”. “Cred că e necesară o proprietate mijlocie care va veni prin evoluţie din proprietatea mică. …mai degrabă cred că marii proprietari văd interesele lor, nu ale Ţării, în susţinerea marii proprietăţi”.”
„Nu toţi care au guvernat sunt mari proprietari”. Am răspuns: „Dar niciunul din ei nu a putut legifera contra marii proprietăţi. Ea n-are destule elemente capabile să conducă ţara numai, dar şi-a alipit intelectuali printr-un sistem politic potrivit intereselor ei, şi-i ţine bine bugetul sinecurist ca susţinători ai ei”. (Ion Mihalache (3 martie 1882, Topoloveni — 6 martie 1963, inchisoarea Râmnicu Sărat)

Linkuri similare:

Ovidiu Hurduzeu – Distributismul romanesc, intre Ion Mihalache si societatea de maine

 

Advertisements

Distributism in Eastern Europe

Leave a comment

de Ovidiu Hurduzeu

The newly-formed Romanian Distributist League “Ion Mihalache” marks a first victory for Distributism in Romania. It should come as no surprise that Distributism is being touted as the best vehicle for radical change in this post-communist country.

In the post-World I period, Distributism found concrete success in Central and Eastern Europe. When the peasant parties came to power, they embarked on the implementation of a radical, distributist-oriented program which drew high praise from G.K. Chesterton. In his “Introduction” to Helen Douglas-Irvine’s book, The Making of Rural Europe (1923), G.K. Chesterton writes:

“[Throughout Eastern Europe and the Balkans] in a sort of awful silence the peasantries have fought one vast and voiceless pitched battle with Bolshevism and its twin brother, which is Big Business, and the peasantries have won… It is a huge historical hinge and turning point, like the conversion of Constantine or the French Revolution… What has happened in Europe since the war was a vast victory for the peasant, and therefore a vast defeat for the communists and the capitalists.”

After the World War, Eastern European countries, except Hungary, adopted democratic institutions and enfranchised the peasant both politically (by the universal vote) and economically (by the land reform). “Peasant parties,” writes George D. Jackson, Jr., “having been suddenly thrust to the pinnacle of power by the new electoral laws professed their devotion to democracy, anti-Bolshevism, and significant social and economic reforms.” It was a period of hope and enthusiasm. The “vast victory for the peasant” came at a time when new national states in Eastern Europe were created. After 1918, Romania also rejoiced national statehood as she came to include all provinces with an ethnic Romanian majority. Peasants had no accumulated grievances against their governments and stayed immune to the Bolshevik internationalist propaganda (In Romania, for instance, the National Peasant Party vehemently rejected a Comintern-inspired “single great union of workers’ and peasants’ republic in the Balkans”).

“The vast victory for the peasant” was short-lived; by the end of the thirties, the agrarian regimes were ended by dictatorship. “The hue and cry was ever against the Bolshevik wolves,” writes David Mitrany, ”but it was the peasant shepherds who got murdered, like Stamboliski and Radic, or imprisoned and ostracized, like Witos and Maniu and a host of their followers. In one country after another, the peasant groups were in this way cheated out of their legitimate claim to power.” Alone, the Czechoslovak Agrarian Party stayed in power, in coalition with others, until 1938. And yet “the peasantist movements remained the highest and most authentic expression of both popular and intelligentsia aspirations in the interwar period.”

In the United States, most analyses of Eastern European agrarianism were made during the Cold War era within East European or Soviet studies. They tend to regard it as a reactionary ideology based on a peasant mystique, anti-industrialism and anti-modernity and placed it in a secondary position to the rise and development of communism in Eastern Europe. Only lately, a connection has been made between Distributism and the Eastern Europe’s agrarianism. Credit must be given to social historian Allan C. Carlson and the Distributist economist John Médaille for challenging the old views and firmly connecting the agrarian project in Eastern Europe to the aims and principles of Distributism.

The central agrarian concept, directly related to Distributism, refers to the family as the most basic unit of production and consumption in society. The agrarian economists and ideologues drew heavily on Alexander Vasilevich Chayanov’s theory of natural family economy. A victim of Stalin’s goulag, the Soviet economist exposed how both neoclassical and Marxist theory largely ignored the non-wage “family labor farm” and the peasant mode of production. In the peasant “natural economy”, argues Chayanov, the unit of production is also the unit of consumption; wages play no role, profits are not maximized, nor is “marginal utility” recognized. The peasant is interested in the use-value of a product (fulfillment of the family consumption needs) which takes over profit and market value. It is the size of its capital base and of its land area that dictates the economic development of the capitalist farm; it is the age and numbers of family members, the drudgery of labor (the degree of self-exploitation ), the tools, the weather and market conditions that are the main limiting conditions of the economic activity  on a peasant farm.

Like the distributists, the Eastern European agrarians viewed their doctrine and practice as aThird Way, neither capitalist nor socialist. They shared the Distributist antagonism to Big Business, Big Finance, trusts, cartels and the unlimited accumulation of wealth. They were ahead of their time when they  advocated sustainable industrialization–industries to be scattered widely in smaller units across the land—and rejected large-scale heavy industries, depending on the interests of foreign investors and the mercantilist national state. Virgil Madgearu, a Romanian economist and the main theorist of  the Peasant Party, explained that the peasant parties in Eastern Europe were not opposed to industrial development as such: “If there is not in peasantism an inherent tendency against industrial development, it is on the other hand against protectionism, the breeder of hothouses industries, of trusts and cartels.”

In line with the Distributist view, the agrarians in Eastern Europe believed that humans became free and independent through well-distributed productive property, that is, through ownership and work. Concentration of property and power in the hands of a few was considered degrading to human dignity and disruptive to the social order; it ran against the peasant’s democratic nature–agrarians considered the peasant a “democrat by nature”–and against the peasants’ compelling desire for a sane and stable social order. The keen desire for social stability made the agrarians resist violent changes and revolutionary trends and turned them, in most cases, into pacifists.

Eastern European agrarians were not much less anti-statist than the distributists. They placed emphasis on decentralization, local-self government and the idea of building a state from the bottom up. The agrarians viewed occupational organizations and cooperatives as ideal vehicles, both in securing social stability and organizing the economy of peasant farming. They believed cooperative principles, private property, responsibility towards the community and cooperation in voluntary associations, were valid for all of society. Most  programs of the peasant parties demanded that workers should share in the ownership of factories and own their homes.

The prospects of a Distributist order in Central and Eastern Europe were brutally destroyed by communism. Communist rule embodied what the agrarians hated most: giantism, dictatorship, slavery, violence, no God. In Romania, the members of the National Peasant Party were persecuted, murdered or condemned to many years in prison. In 1990, after the fall of communism, The National Peasant Party rose from the ashes and, under the name of Christian-Democratic National Peasant’s Party, it was again in power between 1996-2000. Unfortunately, the new Party was a shadow of its former self. Infiltrated by opportunists and agents of a revamped “Securitate” (the Communist secret police), poorly run by unworthy leaders, the CDNP embarked on a  self-destructive path. Today it is a minor party, split in several quarreling factions; it has no future whatsoever in Romanian politics.

And yet, the longing for the Distributist order envisaged by the agrarians in the inter-war period is more alive than ever among the Romanians. John Médaille’s visit to Romania and the publication, in that country, of an anthology of Distributist texts, edited by John Médaille and myself, made a breach in the wall of false beliefs and justifications. Many Romanians now realize there is life beyond neo-liberalism, globalism, consumerism, and other delusional “isms” recklessly imported to their country after 1990. Distributism opened their eyes to alternatives they did not even dare to imagine.

Today, if Distributism is to be successful in Romania, and hopefully in other Eastern Orthodox countries, it has to take a somewhat different path from both today’s neo-distributism in the West and the agrarianism of the past. First of all, it has to be rooted in the Orthodox tradition and envisage the world, neither in individualistic nor collectivistic, but personalist terms. Only grounded in the anthropological model of a dialogical personalism can Distributism become an active force in reforming Eastern European societies.

In Eastern Christianity, the unity of Christ with Church follows the model of personal unity of the Holy Trinity. Dumitru Stăniloae, a most distinguished Orthodox theologian, calls the Church a ‘pluripersonal symphony’: a multitude of instruments with particular patterns of notes combined to create a unity which is ever so much richer for its multiplicity. Each person plays his notes, but all is conducted, coordinated, unified under the direction of Christ. Being made in the image of God, the Trinity, each person realizes his true nature through mutual life; each person is autonomous and unique and yet he is not able to have life except in community with others.

“The community of persons” is spelt out in terms of “sobornicity”: Sobornicity  (from the Slavic sobornaya, which means both “universal” and “conciliar”), writes Dumitru Stăniloae, “is not unity pure and simple: it is a certain kind of unity. There is the unity of a whole in which the constitutive parts are not distinct, or the unity of a group which is kept together by an exterior command, or formed into a union of uniform entities existing side by side. Sobornicity is none of these. It is distinguished from an undifferentiated unity by being of a special kind, the unity of communion. The unity of communion is the sole unity which does not subordinate one person to another, or in which the institution is not conceived as something external to or superior to or repressive of the persons involved.”

Cititi articolul integral pe The Distributist Review.

%d bloggers like this: