Talk:Labor Party (Romania)

"Socialist" group
Could we have a list of sources calling the Labor Party socialist? The programme was indeed pretty much a copy of the pre-WWI reformist electoral programme of the PSDR; however, in that period, under the impression of the Russian Revolution, the SD minimal programme served as inspiration across the spectrum (even Marghiloman's "Progressive Conservatives" tried to capitalize on some of its points). It's a very slippery slope and I wouldn't be surprised if we'll end by calling socialists Argetoianu's "Constitutionals" (he did try to forge an alliance with the revolutionary SDAC in Odessa, didn't he?). Did the Labor Party support social ownership of the means of production, the defining characteristic of any socialist party (at least until Blair decided you can still call yourself socialist even if you don't)? Anonimu (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi and yes, as you can see, it did support communal ownership, and yes, at the very least members of the party did call themselves socialist (Lupu did, famously so). But let me just note that the rest of your argument about the slippery slope is not technically valid: for one, it is a fallacy ("if others who were presumably not socialists also had said points as their ideology, or allied themselves with socialists, then the Labor Party was not socialist"); secondly, it slides in a bias about who has a right to call themselves socialist: yes, even Blair is a socialist in an extended definition, but, more importantly, the Eser reformists, who were in power in Russia and inspired Partidul Muncei to some degree, were also socialists. Dahn (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, one can note a paradox: in Romania, various groups that were not, and did not call themselves, socialist, also advocated communal ownership. The Iron Guard did for instance, and so did the National Liberal Party-Tătărescu (apparently more than the old PSD did and the current PSD does). Dahn (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've changed the intro to open with "left-wing group", which I hope can settle it, preempting, hopefully, another stream of objections. I suggest we keep it in the socialist parties categories though, because it was evidently perceived as a socialist party, had many prominent members calling themselves socialist, and at least one faction of it was socialist under any definition. Dahn (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not clear to me from the article that they did (the nationalization of BNR was a staple of anti-PNL Romanian parties, while agricultural cooperatives were far from being the preferred solution to the agrarian problem among socialist circles), while Lupu was a particular case among interwar non-Marxist politicos (and the article states Macavei was the only one to join the socialists). Furthermore, it's not apparent that the party ever called itself socialist, and their inspiration from the SRs doesn't seem to have been officially acknowledged. I'm not aware of any non-Marxist party in interwar Romania supporting social ownership; at best, they supported corporatist ideas regarding some participation of the workers in the administration of factories (reformists, old PSD included, also supported such ideas as a temporary solution, but the final objective was always complete socialization). I'm not aware of any notable member of the current PSD (with Iliescu et al.) claiming to be socialist, much less the party itself (which is basically CD anyway).
 * I'm OK with "left-wing", however I don't understand why the infobox calls it "center-left to far-left"... what exactly was far left about it? Regarding the cats, whatever.Anonimu (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But what was the preferred solution for agrarian problems in the socialist circles -- collectivization? And how bout rent control, nationalization of other means of productions etc. As for Lupu: yes, he was a "special case", and he was also president of the party. As for them not joining the Socialist Party: I cannot see how that disqualifies them from being socialist, other than in the trumped-up assumption that nothing outside of that party was socialist; what the article also says is that most of them were brought up under socialism, and we can surely see that least some of them still were (a conservative estimate). This makes for a nice chat and loads of guesswork, but it isn't substantial as an objection, and I'm afraid only imposes a narrow definition of socialism that you are fine with for some reason.
 * What did the party call itself? All we have so far is what it was called by a communist source and a post-communist source. I added the "bourgeois democratic" thing in as a benchmark, but, really, Agrigoroaiei is more of a benchmark for the communist bias.
 * It was evidently far-left in contextual terms, as there really was nothing on its left. And it did include the likes of Macavei and Cătărău, if Lupu's stated socialism is not enough of a far-left thing. Please, let's not drag this on for ever and ever. Dahn (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Land nationalisation, of course. Providing peasants with land titles, followed by collectivisation, was just the tactic used by the Bolshevik to win the "backward" peasants for the workers' dictatorship. I fail to see where this article speaks about nationalising other means of production.
 * Actually, yes, at the time, there was no socialist politician in Old Romania outside the PS. By his own admission, the only reason Lupu didn't join the PS was that it didn't allow him to run for Parliament immediately. There are innumerable examples of one-time socialists turning to right and even far-right, so the fact that some of the party's members had seen themselves as socialists 20 years before didn't make the party socialist.
 * My sources only provide excerpts from the party's programme, so I'm not able to ascertain. However, by the way the same sources treat the right-wing of the PSD, who did call themselves socialists, I'm safe to assume PM did not. I don't think referencing Agrigoroaiei brought anything new to the table. While "bourgeois democratic" is an accurate descriptor, it may not be entirely clear for current audiences due to semantic drift, so left-wing was enough.
 * If PM was far-left, what were the Bucharest's PS, not to speak of Odessa's SDAC, "in contextual terms"? And if you judge the party by Cătărău, you could add the full political spectrum in that infobox.
 * To summarize, I object to the party being labelled as far left, the party's programme being just slightly to the left compared to other programmes of the era (PNL and PC remnants included).Anonimu (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Objection registered; if you feel that strongly about it, feel free to change the infobox as you wish. But can we have a source saying that the PSD, for instance, supported collectivization?
 * Now, I am sure the communists, the far-left PS sections etc. supported collectivization (as in: actual nationalization of land), to various degree, and in the more distant future. But I am yet to see a source saying, for instance, that Șerban Voinea or Titel Petrescu did. And browsing through Petrescu, we note that the first ever socialist program only so much as called for the collectivization of great capital instruments (p. 64: a quite coporatist program right there), and that Petrescu himself supported not the full nationalization of land, but expropriation then cooperativization through the redistribution of land titles to cooperatives (p. 371−372). This is the Narodnik and Poporanist program, and you'll find the same laments about the fragmentation of land in Madgearu. Dahn (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Actually, yes, at the time, there was no socialist politician in Old Romania outside the PS. By his own admission, the only reason Lupu didn't join the PS was that it didn't allow him to run for Parliament immediately. There are innumerable examples of one-time socialists turning to right and even far-right, so the fact that some of the party's members had seen themselves as socialists 20 years before didn't make the party socialist." -- now I find this amazing, because what it says is that there was no socialist outside the socialist party but for the ones that were. But either way: the designation of the party as socialist did not project into the past, as long as the party, it seems, actually ended in 1921, under Lupu's leadership. That Lupu who said he was a socialist. Dahn (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What Petrescu supported was collectivization, as the individual peasants would not have had title on the land they worked (they wouldn't have been able to sell it or divide it among descendants). This was the general trend in the party. For example, the Transylvanian PS programme of 1919 supported complete nationalisation of land, with land awarded to peasants based on long-term tenancy agreements, while the common PS electoral programmes of 1919 and mid-1920 spoke about expropriation of all land (existing estates were to be limited to such size that could have been worked by a single family without external help), with the resulting land being made available for collectives comprising peasants having less than 2 ha; the families having more than that could also join the collectives on a voluntary basis. Keep in mind this was the PS led by Moscovici, Flueras & Co, and the programmes were criticized by the communist historiography for being reformist and a step back from the programme published in December 1918 by the Bucharest PS. The Federation didn't have a single programme, and apparently not even the reunited PSD had an official programme (at least until the mid 30s). The info I have about their electoral programmes is pretty scarce: they wanted a revision of the land reform and further expropriations without compensation, but I don't have access to the specifics on how they wanted the land to be used afterwards. As a side-note, in the 1920s the communists weren't decided either on the collectivisation: in 1922 the Stefanov's resolution on land nationalisation was defeated by Rozvan's resolution in support of the 1921 land reform (even the question of cooperativisation was to be left to the peasants themselves, on the recommendation of the Balkan Federation!).
 * BTW, Petrescu definition of (non-communist) "socialists" in 1926: "the common belief that the current regime [...] is set to disappear and be replaced by a new order [...] in which socialised property will replace the capitalist propriety of today". Definitely PM didn't fit his definition of socialist either.Anonimu (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that Lupu wasn't actually outside the PS, at least in 1919/1920, he just wasn't a card-carrying member. Anonimu (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's be transparent here: the emphasis is on the fact that neither you and I know two things: what the ultimate goal of the PM was regarding land ownership; what the ultimate goal of the PSD was regarding land ownership (your guess, based on FPS precedents, is not necessarily inaccurate, but you know that someone using the exact same data would draw the opposite conclusion). What we also know is that this isn't actually the benchmark for calling a party socialist: plenty of moderate socialist parties have nothing resembling land nationalizations; and my point is that the PSD was one of them -- you even substantiate that by citing the PCR exception, much more to the left of the PSD. Whether the PM was more on that side, or on this side, is as impossible to discern as it is irrelevant. The whole point of me keeping this chapter open was to hopefully get us to where we both see the same picture: where you mentioned the slippery slope above, I could also note your own slippery slope, and I hope we can both stop each other from sliding by finding a middle ground.
 * As for the Lupu detail: that is not what Petrescu says. He claims that Lupu was ready to sign up (and presumably sign his party as well, since it was mostly a one-man show), but that they could not agree on the minute of electoral policy. Now granted, this may signify that he was an independent politician, and would depart from his ghostly party if only the PS had made him a leader. But it may just as well mean that the PM was utterly compatible with the PS. Beyond that, we have references to the party as "socialist", and Lupu's own admission that he was a socialist (well, a complicated one, but still...). So your "not socialist" becomes a respectable, but quite irrelevant, "not a specific kind of socialist". See my point? Dahn (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

rv
left brain reverts right brain. cute. --Cei Trei (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labor Party (Romania). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131009200046/http://www.contrafort.md/numere/enigma-ilie-c-t-r-u-ii to http://www.contrafort.md/numere/enigma-ilie-c-t-r-u-ii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)