-The Lower Danube and the Rio de la Plata Region in the Modern Age: Contrasted Perspectives on their Economic and Political Evolution, în “Transylvanian Review”, Vol. XXII, supplement

1

Lower Danube and Rio de la Plata Region in the Modern Age Contrasted Perspectives concerning the Economic and Political Evolution

George Enache

Rezumat

Studiile lui Ştefan Zeletin referitoare la începuturile capitalismului în spaţiul românesc şi la

apariţia burgheziei au generat ample controverse în momentul apariţiei lor iar în perioada comunistă ele au fost ignorate, puţini istorici având curajul să valorifice nişte idei care nu se potriveau cu paradigma naţional-comunistă referitoare la dezvoltarea României în epoca modernă.

Una din mizele lui Zeletin a fost să arate că evoluţia economică şi politică în sens modern a spaţiului românesc s-a datorat antrenării acestuia, la începutul secolului al XIX-lea, în marele comerţ mondial, a cărui simbol şi motor era Imperiul Britanic. Din acest punct de vedere, Ştefan Zeletin a manifestat o atitudine aparte în raport cu alţi istorici, sociologi sau economişti români, prin sublinierea rolului istoric major al Marii Britanii pentru istoria românească în prima jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea şi prin evaluarea pozitivă, dintr-o perspectivă istorică mai amplă, a proceselor socio-economice complexe din cadrul societăţii româneşti a vremii, procese care, în majoritatea cazurilor, sunt evaluate negativ.

Opiniile lui Zeletin pot fi mai uşor înţelese dacă comparăm realităţile româneşti cu cele din America de Sud, din regiunea fluviului La Plata (Argentina, Uruguay). Ambele regiuni au avut un statut asemănător în cadrul economiei mondiale la începutul şi jumătatea secolului al XIX-lea, fiind zone economice neutre, furnizoare de produse agricole pentru marile puteri, care s-au afirmat pe plan internaţional profitând de rivalităţile dintre marile puteri.

Dacă la începuturile lor, legarea prin comerţ a acestor regiuni mai înapoiate de o putere capitalistă precum Marea Britanie a fost un fapt benefic, din a doza jumătate a secolului al XIX-lea acest lucru va însemna o povară, de care se va încerca să se scape prin protecţionism şi crearea unei industrii naţionale. Nu întâmplător, opera lui Mihail Manoilescu va avea un mare succes în America latină.

De asemenea, una din mizele studiului de faţă este evidenţierea importanţei porturilor Galaţi şi Brăila pentru istoria românească în secolul al XIX-lea, având în vedere exemplul a două porturi celebre: Buenos Aires şi Montevideo.

Cuvinte cheie: Dunărea de Jos, regiunea La Plata, Marea Britanie, epoca modernă, economie,

comerţ, regiune economică neutră, Ştefan Zeletin

“In the birth process of modern Romania, two great trends are to be distinguished: one

that is noisy, but superficial, that of the liberal ideas, going from Paris to Bucharest and Iaşi; and another one that is silent, but profound, which goes from London to Constanţa, Galaţi, Brăila; it is the trend of the English capitalist economy. The Romanian historiography hazarded to explain the birth of the Romanian bourgeois society through the first trend only, entirely ignoring the existence of the second one or failing to appreciate it at its just value. This unhappy method led to the well-known sociological nonsense that our bourgeois edifice would be reduced to rootless shapes”1.

The excerpt above is taken from Ştefan Zeletin’s fundamental work, Burghezia română. Originea şi rolul ei istoric (The Romanian Bourgeoisie. Its Origin and Historical Role), printed for the first time in 1925, in a review of the Romanian modernity up to World War I

1 Ştefan Zeletin, Burghezia română. Originea şi rolul ei istoric, Editura Humanitas, Bucureşti, 2006, p. 96.

2

and, at the same time, a new start, in the circumstances in which Great Romania was offering the background for applying new paradigms for economic and social development. Man of deep liberal convictions and proponent of Vintilă Brătianu’s ideas, Ştefan Zeletin was convinced that the new Romania had all the conditions for the so long desired economic revolution, turning our country from an agrarian state into an industry-dominated state. The way of development was summed up by the old liberal slogan: “Through ourselves!” promoting the autochthonous capital and protectionist measures for stimulating the industrial revolution. However, unlike before 1914, Great Romania had the necessary resources and an extended enough internal market for putting into practice the autarchic dream of Vintilă Brătianu2.

Zeletin’s book was a plea for the liberal development of Romania, bringing for the first time, in a systematic and coherent manner, historical proofs regarding the role and importance of capitalism and bourgeoisie in our modern history, trying to show, that the bourgeoisie and the capital have a historical, natural development, representing the most dynamic elements which led to the forging of modern Romania.

Even from the foreword we find out that Zeletin wanted to answer to the wave of “criticism” directed at the idea of bourgeoisie by an important segment of the Romanian elite3. Starting from the proponents of Junimea and from their theory on “forms without matter”, passing on to the inter-war doctrinarians of traditionalism, there was an entire trend in the Romanian culture which saw the modern development of the Romanian society as a process mostly due to the arbitrary will of individuals and national institutions, in which the external influence was minimized or, at most, it was manifested as a form of superstructure which could not affect the profound realities of the Romanian world.

For the proponents of this trend, the Romanian world is the rural world and the modernity, characterized by the development of trade, of industrial activities, aspects which involve the development of towns and of the commercial, industrial and banking bourgeoisie, represents no more than a pseudomorphosis phenomenon, result of the vain ambitions of some ideologists who do not understand the meaning of the evolution of the Romanian society. An eloquent example is given by Mircea Vulcănescu’s opinions: “Both from the objective-rational and lyrical-sentimental perspective, I will support the same thesis that you know, closer to Stahl’s, namely that the Romanian nation is, in its essence, a nation of peasants, that is culture, originality, historical and metaphysical vocation is in the villages, that for over a hundred years a cohort of alien and alienated individuals have been fighting a life and deaf battle against the village and, laying hands on the Romanian state at some point, they created, against the village and its civilization, a new Romania, culturally hybrid and economically parasitic: the Romania of towns, and that the Romanian youth, before knowing whether it is going towards democracy or dictatorship, towards individualism or collective life forms, must, under the sanction of its historical nullity, take a stand between the two Romanias”4.

The rejection of the idea of a “natural” development in the Romanian space of the capitalist phenomenon, of the bourgeoisie and of towns was not new. Proponent of Junimea, 2 Ibidem, p. 152. 3 Ibidem, p. 5-7. 4 Mircea Vulcănescu, De la Nae Ionescu la „Criterion”, Editura Humanitas, Bucureşti, 2003, p. 113.

3

I.L. Caragiale satirizes in his well known play “A Lost Letter”, through the character Nae Caţavencu, the idea of progress and industrial development by all means, fact which, as Caragiale’s hero was claiming, had to happen even against the will of Europe, should it be the case. Through several memorable lines, Caragiale sapped two of the fundamental arguments of the need to apply the liberal ideology, that is, the permanent comparison with the civilized world of the West, there being an interconditioning between the economic-social status and the political force of the nation, as well as the historical argument of the positive effects of the liberal reforms, in spite of the apparent lack of foundation in the Romanian society: “How long will it be till we have our bankrupts? England has its bankrupts. France has its bankrupts, even Austria has its bankrupts, at last, every nation, every people has its bankrupts… but us… What were we before Crimea? ... We fought and we advanced; yesterday it was obscurity, today it is light! Yesterday it was bigotry, today it is freethinking! Yesterday it was sadness, today it is joy! These are the advantages of progress”5.

The critics remarked in the case of Caragiale that his ironies are mostly directed at the small merchants, owners and craftsmen who gather in the boroughs turned into towns, adopting ideas, attitudes, conducts which are not “natural”, but represent an unhappy importation of foreign ideas. If the world of urban slums is treated in a humoristic manner, the rural world of Caragiale is dominated by tragedy; it is a seriously battered, but authentic world, which deserves the author’s respect6. From this perspective, Caragiale comes close to Mircea Vulcănescu’s conceptions, who finds inspiration in the great playwright, whom he uses as one of the most authorized sources in deconstructing the liberal “myth” when he insists on the distance which exists between the rural, authentic Romanian world, and the alienated horizon of the town, importation phenomenon, dominated by foreigners: “It is the distance which separated the countryside equilibrium from the town rampancy. The happiness of some from the unhappiness of others…

Is it that peasants are lured by the town? Any vice exerts a certain attraction. The vice is the unconscious Prometheanism. Self discontent. Those who have seen themselves the fruits of mass enlightenment know well that it is only a relief. For there are two migrations towards the town. One of those who have grown poor or are in difficulty. They go as far as America and come back. I know one who loved America and came back when his father died. There was no one to farm his land. Some remained there. Lost for the Romanian people. In Pittsburgh, Ohio, as in Brăila, Ploieşti or Galaţi”7.

As we can see, for Vulcănescu, the town, no matter which, is a place of alienation for the Romanian spirit, with a mostly negative dimension, in clear contrast with Zeletin’s statements. The two series of town names invoked by the said authors differ to the extent in which reference is made to different historical periods. Thus, Vulcănescu refers to historical realities from the 30s in the past century, while Zeletin focuses on the Romanian realities from the middle of the 19th century. However, both series have something in common: the direct participation of these towns in the “great game” of production and international trade, one of global significance. Vulcănescu, otherwise a distinguished economist, will try to diminish the importance of this phenomenon for the Romanian history, by means of economic 5 I. L. Caragiale, Teatru, Editura Ion Creangă, Bucureşti, 1983, p. 144-146, 171-172. 6 Ibidem, p. 284-285. 7 Mircea Vulcănescu, op.cit., p. 119.

4

arguments, but in the name of a traditionalistic cultural ideal. Unlike his younger colleague, Ştefan Zeletin tried to use the ideas of an expanding science, sociology, and the “objective” tendency promoted by Karl Marx especially, tendency brilliantly exploited by W. Sombart in his research concerning the birth of capitalism, in order to prove that the “integration of Romania” in the global rhythm did not represent, in the 19th century, a simple act of will of a group, but an objective phenomenon, through which the Romanian space was connected to the great game of global economy.

For Ştefan Zeletin, the decisive moment of entraining the Danube Principalities in the global economy is that of the involvement of England in the trade at the mouth of Danube, this having, eventually, major political consequences8. Some authors will criticize Zeletin’s statements, considering that he exaggerates in underlining the major role played by Great Britain in the Romanian modernity, without having significant figures regarding trade at the mouth of Danube9.

Undoubtedly, one can see in Zeletin’s text a particular stress on the “English” factor, but this comes from the wish to emphasize a generally overlooked phenomenon in the Romanian historiography. The lack of nuances on Ştefan Zeletin’s discourse from this point of view is due to the fact that this idea does not represent the central stake of his book, but only one of the arguments of an ample demonstration regarding the development of capitalism and bourgeoisie in the Romanian space. In spite of these, at a closer look, the author’s statements are very carefully measured and, if analyzed in a wider context, they correctly configure the lines of the historical phenomenon.

The involvement of Great Britain at the mouth of Danube represented a continuation of the efforts made by the world’s first maritime power to find new territories for its trade activities, in the circumstances in which Napoleon had declared the continental blockade. In the Mediterranean, one of the targets of the trading development was the Ottoman Empire whose existence was guaranteed by the British many years afterwards. Then, after the Russian Empire gave up enforcing the blockade, the commercial relations of England and Russia were resumed, including through the Black Sea, Odessa Port, still at the beginning of its existence. It was only one step from here to the exploration of the possibilities offered by Lower Danube for the English traders10.

History books justly grant a great importance to the Treaty of Adrianople (1829) for the economic and political history of the Danube Principalities due to the abolishment of the ottoman commercial monopoly. The eminent role in signing the treaty was played by Russia; however, this was not a gratuitous act of friendship towards the Romanian Principalities, especially since Russia regarded with disfavor the development of the Romanian trade at the mouth of Danube due to the similarity of the exported goods and to the competition brought to Odessa by Galaţi and Brăila11. The difference between 1812 and 1829 is given by the attitude of England who, remaining faithful to the principle of equilibrium and to opening new markets, designed, after Napoleon’s fall and the beginning of the Greeks’ rebellion, another 8 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 50. 9 Constantin Buşe, Comerţul exterior prin Galaţi sub regimul de port franc, 1837-1883, Editura TipoMoldova, Iaşi, 2010, p. 12-13. 10 Constantin Ardeleanu, Evoluţia intereselor economice şi politice britanice la gurile Dunării (1829-1914), Editura Istros, Brăila, 2008, p. 53-64. 11 Constantin Buşe, op.cit., p. 29.

5

strategy for the Balkans, through which Russia was hindered to annex new territories which were under Ottoman suzerainty, trying to minimize the losses suffered by the “ill man” of Europe. On the other hand, precisely in order to strike the Ottoman Empire, Russia will intensify its message of freedom for the subdued peoples of the Balkans, but this time it will be forced to observe the existence of the new realities, in the hope that the game of equilibrium forces shall tip the balance in its favor and England shall recognize the new political realities, to the extent in which they served its political and commercial purposes.

Therefore, although England made no special favor to the peoples at the Lower Danube, its incontestable merit was that it created in this region, in the words of Victor Bulmer-Thomas, a neutral economical area, in which there was no dominant political power and where a trade zone could be created, based solely on the market rules12. Lower Danube was open to international trade with all the countries of the world, however, the ones who will profit more will be, obviously, the English, who at least until 1875, dominate maritime trade in the area, due to the complementary character of the British economy and of the Lower Danube economy, of the economic force of Great Britain and of the capacity of its market to absorb cereals and animal products from the Danube Principalities13.

Victor Bulmer-Thomas is a specialist in the history of economic connections between Great Britain and the countries of South America14. Romanians do not like to be compared with Latin America which seems to diminish the dignity of pertaining to civilized Europe. However, if we read Bulmer-Thomas’ analyses in parallel with the writings of Ştefan Zeletin, we notice that between these so different areas there are, in terms of the economic and social development, some significant historical similarities.

In a short but dense article, Bulmer-Thomas traces the stages of the economic relations between Latin America and Great Britain, from the Napoleonic Wars to the 90s in the past century15. For the English, trade with the Spanish and Portuguese colonies from Latin America represented a permanent temptation, blocked however by the monopoly imposed by metropolises over trade. The epoch of the Napoleonic Wars represented for Great Britain an opportunity for trying to enter these markets. Especially Rio de la Plata represented, due to its agricultural resources and to the possibilities for maritime trade, an object of desire of the various English enterprisers who were speaking enthusiastically, in the 18th century, about the possibilities of development in the area16. Between 1806 and 1807, the British tried to occupy

12 Virgil N. Madgearu, Agrarianism, capitalism, imperialism, Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 1999, p. 20. 13 Constantin Ardeleanu, op.cit., p. 114-133. 14 Victor Bulmer Thomas, The Economic History of Latin America since Independence, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 2003. 15 Victor Bulmer Thomas, British Trade with Latin America in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, Occasional Papers, New Series, No. 19, University of London, Institute of Latin America Studies, 1998 (http://www.peruembassy-uk.com/peru_uk_relations/bulmerthomas.pdf, Internet, accessed September 2012). 16 În 1711, John Pullen, governor of Bermuda Islands, was stating that Rio de la Plata was the best place for establishing a British colony. A huge agricultural area was to be created along Parana and its affluent, Paraguay, these making up an easy way for collecting the grains from Buenos Aires, where they would be exported from.Ocuparea zonei La Plata era parte a unui plan mai amplu de cucerire a coloniilor spaniole din America de Sud (Marcello Gullo, Argentina, Brasil: la gran oportunidad, Buenos Aires: Biblos, 2005: 63; Andrew Graham Yool, Imperial Skirmishes. War and Gunboat diplomacy in Latina America, Signal Books Limited, Oxford, 2002, p. 3-4.). Also, in 1741, admiral Vernon considered that turning La Plata in an open market was extremely important for England (Félix Luna, Breve historia de los Argentinos, Buenos Aires, Planeta / Espejo de la Argentina, 1994, p. 12-13).

6

Montevideo and Buenos Aires, with the intention of turning La Plata into colony. The failure of these actions determined the British, eventually, to recognize the independence of these former Portuguese and Spanish colonies, transforming South America in a “neutral market”, open to international trade, which would have been the most beneficial to Great Britain, due the economic and financial superiority.

Obviously, when the economic mechanisms were not sufficient, Great Britain did not hesitate to intervene in the region by diplomatic and military means, but everything was subsumed to the commercial interest, with not sentimentalisms and dreams of glory, as it was the case of France. Uruguay owes its existence as independent state to the British diplomacy which mediates between Brazil and Rio de la Plata United Provinces, in conflict for dominance over the “Oriental Strip” (the region east of Uruguay), with a remarkable economic and strategic importance.

The conflict between the two great power of Latin America was detrimental to the trade of Great Britain, and the solution of an independent Uruguay was seen was as way of putting a buffer-state between the two great states of La Plata region, bringing peace in the area and, implicitly, stimulating trade to the benefit of England. The fact was well emphasized by the British negotiator, Lord John Ponsbony: “The interests and the security of the British trade will be better promoted in a state in which the authorities cultivate friendship with England. The Oriental strip is the key to La Plata and to South America; we must perpetuate a geographical division beneficial to England. For a long time, those from the Oriental Strip will have no harbor and will not be able to hinder English trade”17.

One of the important points of the treaty was referring to ensuring navigation freedom in Rio de la Plata for Argentina and Brazil and for all the concerned countries for a period of 15 years.

If Brazil undergoes political stability in the coming years and it opens to English trade and investments, Rio de la Plata United Provinces (the future Argentina) pass through political convulsions that will last for decades. Apart several territorial disputes with the neighbors, Argentina is mined by the internal conflict between “federalists” and “centralists”, at the middle of which lies the Port of Buenos Aires, which the centralists see as a proper place for gathering all the riches of the country and for coordinating the income generated by external trade and for creating new harbors. From 1829 to 1852 the Argentinean political stage is dominated by Juan Manuel de Rosas, declared federalist, who will keep the incomes of the Port of Buenos Aires under the exclusive control of the town, with the reason that Buenos Aires has been the one to bear the expenses related to the independence war, the war against Brazil and the external debts incurred by the new state. On the other hand, Rosas shall impose high custom duties for imports in order to protect domestic production which was the base for the inhabitants of the provinces from the interior of the continent18.

This will give rise to the discontent of the great powers which will support the various enemies of Rosas, militarily (France), diplomatically (Great Britain), going as far as direct intervention. After a first failed blockade over La Plata estuary of the French marine and after the occupation of Montevideo by the Argentinean armies, England decides upon a common 17 On Ponsonby’s mission see William W. Kauffman, British Policy and the Independence of Latin America, 1804-1828, Yale University Press, 1951, p. 196-200. 18 John Lynch, Argentine caudillo: Juan Manuel de Rosas, SR Books, Lanham, 2006, p. 59-74.

7

intervention with France in 1845, its secret purpose being the following: turning Montevideo in a commercial and industrial centre, maintaining free navigation on Uruguay and Parana, turning the region between the two rivers (Argentinean Mesopotamia) in a new country, reconfiguring the frontiers of Uruguay and Paraguay, discarding Rosas and installing new governments, friends of the great powers19.

The Anglo-French blockade over the Port of Buenos Aires and the mouths of Parana and Uruguay lasted five years, which seriously affected the economic life of Argentina. At last, the Anglo-French fleet had to withdraw, the two great powers recognizing the sovereignty of Argentina over Parana and Uruguay20.

In spite of these, after Rosas’ fall, the new governors of Argentina will be more tolerant towards the trade with European countries, giving up the protection measures, fact which led to the fall of the domestic industries21. The needs of industrial goods are satisfied by the great European producers (England especially), while the economy of Argentina and Uruguay alike change for answering to the need of agro-alimentary products of the industrialized countries22.

As shown by Bulmer-Thomas, in the second half of the 19th century, the United States start to enter decisively in Mexico and Central America, competing with England which will focus its interest on Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile. This was favored by the complementary character of the external trade of the United States and Argentina or Uruguay, all of them resting on the export of agro-alimentary products. Therefore, the two Latin-American countries will considerably restrain the economic relations with Great Britain, which becomes the main exporter and the most important client of the products from the region. One of the consequences of this state of facts was the decrease of the interest of Great Britain in the agricultural products from Lower Danube and the decrease of the price of wheat on European stocks, with serious consequences on the economic future of Romania23.

This connection between Great Britain and the countries from La Plata estuary lasted until the 30s in the 20th century, when the two countries (Argentina especially) take measures for building their own industries (in the words of Bulmer-Thomas import-substituting industrialization). Until then, and a long time afterwards, Uruguay and Argentina appear as two immense agricultural regions, which supply with goods for export two ports, Buenos Aires and Montevideo, which represent the economic lungs of these countries and, at the same time, strike a different note with the rest of the country, reminding of the famous ancient phrase Alexandria ad Aegyptum (Alexandria near Egypt), suggesting that the town established

19 On the Anglo-French interventions in Argentina see Andrew Graham Yool, op.cit., p. 64-89. 20 Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship.—Signed at Buenos Ayres, November 24, 1849 (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement, Internet). 21 After Rosas was overthrown by Justo José de Urquiza, the new caudillo of Argentina agreed to sign agreements with Great Britain, France and the United States securing free trade (Federico de la Barra, La vida de un traidor: el general Justo José de Urquiza, Empresa Reimpresora y Administradora de Obras Americanas, 1915, p. 152). The principle of free navigation was included in the Argentinean constitution of 1853 (article 26) (http://pdba.georgetown.edu/ Constitutions/Argentina/arg1853.html, Internet, accessed September 2012). 22 Victor Bulmer Thomas, op.cit., 1998. In the case of England, trade with these “neutral territories” was favored by the Corn Law of 1846, concerning the freedom of cereal trading, then by equating the trade with the British colonies in relation to the rest of the world. 23 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 129.

8

by Alexander the Great, through the structure of the economy, through population and mentality, seems different from Egypt itself24.

From the second half of the 19th century, the countries from La Plata estuary benefitted from massive capital investments from England and other European countries. These investments were meant to valorize the agricultural potential of these regions and to ensure better transport conditions for optimizing import-export activities. The interior of the countries benefitted especially from the railway, meant to gather more efficiently agricultural products and cattle, including from areas further away from the interior rivers, while Montevideo and Buenos Aires benefitted from the development of the port infrastructure and from the creation of industrial branches meant to valorize certain agro-alimentary products destined for export or for local needs, plus the development of the banking system25.

The two Latin-American countries, capital cities at the same time, were, from all points of view, fully integrated in the international economic circuit, with inhabitants of a fully shaped entrepreneurial culture, however, they were on the brink of an agricultural world which, although entrained in the trade process, does not witness prosperity, the solution being to rethink the national economy from the perspective of national interest which, in certain cases, must oppose to the “natural” trends of international economy.

Coming back to the Romanian space, if we look on a map, we notice the similarities between Lower Danube region and La Plata estuary, meaning that there is a wide agricultural area crossed by an important river which can facilitate collecting goods, as well the presence of certain ports which can play the part of a warehouse. Not without a reason, the enthusiasm of business people, English or of other nationalities, concerning the region from the mouth of Danube, was similar to the one characteristic of Rio de la Plata26. Once the potential of the region had been discovered, the economic interest of the great industrial powers had significant consequences, politically speaking. Discussing the case of England, insistently pointed at by Ştefan Zeletin, it was less interested in the political status of the Danube mouth, while trade freedom was not affected. As an area dominated by Russia, Austria and the Ottoman Empire, it will not display the aggressiveness characteristic to Latin America, but will act when its economic interests will demand it, for changing, if applicable, the political map of the region, the Romanians being the main beneficiaries.

For the British it was essential that the Danube be a free river, opposing to the idea of sovereignty of the riverside countries over the river, having in this case a greater success than in Argentina. The second problem, connected to the first, was ensuring a secure way of entry-exit of vessels on the segment Galaţi – Black Sea, the English being the ones to involve most in tracing Sulina branch27. Later, the British will be also the first to think seriously about building a railway system meant to ensure Danube trade28.

From the British perspective, the Crimean War, the banishment of Russia from the Danube mouth and the acceptance of the union between Moldova and Wallachia were no 24 See http://proteus.brown.edu/afterpharaohs2010/13171, Internet, accessed September 2012. 25 See Jeremy Adelman, Republic of Capital: Buenos Aires and the Legal Transformation of the Atlantic World, Stanford University press, 1999, p. 224-278; Will Kauffman, Heidi Stettedahl MacPherson (ed.), Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics and History, volume I, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, 2004, p. 100-103, 1015-1018. 26 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 110. Constantin Buşe, op.cit., p. 40. 27 Constantin Ardeleanu, op.cit., p. 74-109. 28 1865-1869, Bucureşti-Giurgiu line, built by John Trevor-Barkely Company.

9

more than another Uruguay experiment for creating a buffer area, meant to ensure the freedom of trade in an area where two hegemonic states were clashing. It is well known that the inhabitants of the “Oriental Strip” were manifesting, like the Romanians, self-determination tendencies, however, this mattered little in the eyes of the British29. In spite of these, their involvement was decisive for the fate of both peoples.

Analyzing the facts, Ştefan Zeletin is, undoubtedly, right when he links the political destiny of small Romania to entraining this region in the great global trade. However, he is not original, for most of the contemporaries felt that the political changes undergone by the Danube Principalities were due to the economic interest of the great western powers which controlled the expansionist desires of the powerful neighbors, Russia and Austria. Even Eminescu in 1878, in the conditions of the Russian claim on the south of Bessarabia, was showing the tight connection between the modern development of Romania and the Danube issue, the availability of England to answer favorably to the Russian requests being considered a sign of the loss of the British interest in this region, fact likely to represent a threat for the national future30.

Obviously, the transformations of the political – legal status of the Romanian territories went hand in hand with deep changes at the economic level, in the conditions in which a predominantly agricultural, relatively closed, economy comes in direct contract with an industrial power, which seeks to open new commodity markets: “When a developed capitalist country enters into a primitive agricultural country, says Zeletin, it is faced with the following problem: should it determine to work intensively, for trade purposes, some peasants who, so far, had been used to produce solely for their own needs and, possibly, of the landlords. This is the way in which capitalism ruins the old economy of our country – natural economy – and revolutionizes it in its sense: it changes it into monetary economy, in production for trade”31.

According to the Romanian author, the stimulation of this process was based on a very simple element: the natural drive towards gain, the proponents of capitalism offering unexpectedly high prices for products which, so far, had a fairly small market and coming with cheap industrial products. Trade, which all the statistics present as being in continual growth, cause the economic revolution in the Danube Principalities even before 1848, through the integration of the Romanian economy within international trade and market production.

The negative consequences of this phenomenon were represented, as already known, by the reduction of the areas given to peasants by landlords and by the increase in the number of working days, in order to increase the cereal production for the market. Also, the invasion of cheap industrial products from abroad ruined the domestic industry and the need for more and more money in the circumstance of a monetary economy financially ruined most of the peasants, who were heavily indebted to money lenders32.

Gheorghe Platon tried, after the Second World War, to justify the existence of a somewhat capitalist development in Moldova even before 1848, fact which seemed to motivate the existence of an autochthonous bourgeoisie which manifests as such through

29 Leslie Jermyn, Winnie Wong, Uruguay, Times Publishing Limited, 2010, p. 20-21. in the volume edited by Kauffman and Stettedahl, Uruguay is described “as part of Britain’s informal empire”. 30 Mihai Eminescu, Opere politice, vol. I, Editura Timpul, Iaşi, 1997, p. 128-130. 31 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 53. 32 Ibidem, p. 78-79.

10

revolution. Many of the observations of this historian from Iaşi remain true; however, his demarche of justifying a “synchronous and symphonious” development of the Romanian space, in relation to the Occident, lays the stress on the internal factor, accrediting the existence of a “healthy” economy, parallel with the “unhealthy” economy from the agricultural field. Writing during the Communist period, Gheorghe Platon was trying, on the one hand, to give significance to the bourgeoisie, so stricken by the Communist historiography and, on the other hand, to respect the “internal character” of the evolution of the Romanian society, idea so popular with the Communists who adopted in a strange way Vintilă Brătianu’s concept of “autarchy”33.

Unlike Gheorghe Platon, Ştefan Zeletin was tougher, more categorical: if there was any trace of industrial activity in the Danube Principalities before 1829, it was annihilated by the involvement in the global trade and the economy and the society underwent dramatic reconfigurations, qualified by some as deeply negative. For Zeletin, they are simply “natural”, in the way of things, a painful, but inevitable step in the process of development of capitalism in the Romanian space34. In order to prove this position, he invites to the correct reading of Sombart’s works and to applying them, not mechanically, but to the concrete realities of history.

In line with other theoreticians of the economic phenomenon in the Romanian space, Zeletin regrets that the first wave of integration of this region in the great trade, in the 13th -15th centuries, ended upon the establishment of the Ottoman blockade. This caused a historical delay of several centuries and, moreover, hindered the natural development of towns35. Had it happened then, maybe the town would not have been seen as a phenomenon foreign to the Romanian soul.

Therefore, the Romanian capitalism is several centuries delayed in relation with the West and the classical series, commercial capitalism, industrial capitalism and bank capitalism must be read differently from the West because, when some countries were already passing on to bank capitalism, the Romanian space was barely experiencing commercial capitalism. This was a gap that had to be taken into account, due to the historical conditions, and the Romanians’ entry into this global, wealth-generating economy had to be positively appreciated. From this perspective, the economic phase comprised between 1829 and the conclusion of the customs agreement with Austro-Hungary, which marks the beginning of a protectionist policy, must be considered at its true value.

Undoubtedly, the symbol of the development of the Romanian economy between 1829 and 1883 is represented by Galaţi which, along with Brăila, plays a historical role comparable to that of Montevideo or Buenos Aires, being for almost 50 years, perhaps the most important and real town (capitalistically speaking) from the entire Romanian space. This fact is often ignored in the public Romanian environment, due to several reasons.

One of these reasons is represented by the cultural prejudices which disregard the life of towns “alien” to the Romanian soul and entrepreneurial culture. For many, Galaţi was only a “town of terrible merchants”, unable to understand the real value of what was going on in a

33 Gh. Platon, Geneza revoluţiei române de la 1848, Editura Junimea, Iaşi, 1980. 34 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 53-54, 83-84, 119-124. 35 Ibidem, p. 45-46.

11

town fully connected to the rhythms of international trade36. In fact, the misunderstanding of Galaţi represents the misunderstanding of the Anglo-Saxon entrepreneurial culture, which was, unfortunately, badly received in the Romanian environment. Far from being a town populated by the pleasant, yet ridiculous characters of Caragiale, Galaţi witnessed a true entrepreneurial culture and a truly bourgeois mentality, which produces money, invested afterwards to bring more money. For the first time in Galaţi, new conducts and attitudes are experimented, specific to the urban environment, completely different from those of villages or old boroughs37.

Another reason for putting Galaţi into the shadow was due to the economic policy after 1883. The end of the free port regime and the reconsideration of the idea of free trade, in the name of another economic policy, shed a negative light on the past. Precisely because he cherishes this past, Zeletin cherishes Galaţi as well.

If we understand the historical importance of the “neutral economic area” of Lower Danube and of the role played by Galaţi within the international trade from the beginning and first half of the 19th century, then qualifications such as “America of the Orient” or the presence of Galaţi on the list of the most important ports in the world no longer seem exaggerated, and explain the large number of consulates opened in town and the large number of people of different nationalities who settle down here, at some point it was even suggested to establish here the capital city of the united Romania38.

As part of Moldova Principality, Galaţi effectively played the part of Buenos Aires and Montevideo, being the only harbor of this country. The entire economic infrastructure of the Principality was designed so that the cereal production of Moldova be efficiently oriented towards Galaţi which, additionally, gathered, as warehouse, goods from along the Danube, it was the main way for imports and developed industries meant to ensure the current needs of the town and harbor, as it was the case of Goldner meat canning factory39. After 1859, Galaţi will share its responsibilities with Brăila, in an economic model similar to the one adopted by Argentina several years afterwards.

Galaţi and Brăila were successful economic stories and their end was brought about by a series of causes. We do not speak of the quantities of goods in absolute figures, because these would be large at the end of the 19th century, but in percentages and of the economic, social and political importance of these two towns within the Romanian society40. Among these causes, we mention the loss of the Anglo-French interest in this region and the increase of the Austrian, then German economic influence, the changes which occurred in the global economy and on the cereal international market, as well as the entry of Romania in a new phase of economic development which replaced the idea of free port with the idea of national market and unitary development of the Romanian state. The “decadence” of Galaţi and Brăila

36 See Violeta Ionescu, „Cum să scapi de o pecete”, in „Ecoul”, year VI, no. 9/2011 (http://revista-ecoul.com/eseuri/violeta-ionescu-%E2%80%9Ecum-sa-scapi-de-o-pecete%E2%80%9C/, Internet, accessed September 2012). 37 See Paul Păltănea, Istoria oraşului Galaţi. De la origini până la 1918, Second Edition, Editura Partener, Galaţi, 2008, First Part, p. 269-450; Second Part, passim. 38 Constantin Buşe, op.cit., p. 28-29, 40-42, 71-75, 84-86. Gabriel Ioan Pelin, Galaţiul – un reper biografic în biografia lui Cuza, in „Lumina de Duminică”, January, 24, 2009. 39 Constantin Buşe, op.cit., p. 39, 83. 40 Ibidem, p. 190.

12

means in fact losing this exceptional role and joining the ranks of towns with industrial and commercial roles which gradually develop in modern Romania.

Granting a positive historical significance to the Romanian economic evolution up to 1875 as one of the fundamental stakes of proving the objective character of developing capitalism and of the bourgeois society, Ştefan Zeletin will have to prove that the liberal doctrine systematically developed after 1875, centered on the idea of industrialization “through ourselves”, represented a necessity and not barely a form without matter.

Again, Zeletin was introducing a theme dear to the Romanian liberals, that of “skipping steps”, stating that Romania must shorten the time of historical evolution in order to synchronize with the Occident. Therefore, the Romanian society must jump from mercantile capitalism directly to bank capitalism. Consequently, Romania was to be industrialized by means of autochthonous capital investments, using the State as instrument41.

Industrialization, apart from the idea of increasing the power of the State, also appeared as a solution to settle the economic and social crisis in which Romania had entered from the second half of the 19th century. Again, a comparison with the situation in Argentina helps in clearing certain aspects. The second half of the 19th century is dominated in the Latin American country by the “80s generation” which lay the stress on the development of an economy meant to stimulate the agro-alimentary production of the country which would compensate the need for industrial products, starting from the complementary character of international economies42. This resembles the ideas of Romanian conservationists who insist on the continuation of the agrarian specificity of Romania, the agreement of 1875 with Austria representing, apart from the political implication, a certain manner of regarding the economic evolution of the Danube State43. The fundamental distinction between the two countries was that Argentina had at that moment a deficit of population which it compensated through emigration, and an immense surface of agricultural land in need of labor force. Or, the Argentinean economic philosophy was founded precisely on the development possibilities of the system which would block at the beginning of the inter-war period.

In 1875 already, Romania was on the brink of implosion due to the limits of the tillable areas and of the considerable growth of rural population who had no other option but to stay and work the land. The peasants’ riots and the exceptional law in the case of agricultural agreements are the signs of this crisis which the liberals believed to be solved solely through industrialization. Going along the Marx-Sombart line, Zeletin was considering that, in 1875, Romania had already undergone the gradual transformation of the society on capitalist bases, through the appearance of the bourgeoisie and the proletarization of peasants, conditions necessary for the development of industrial capitalism. From this perspective, Zeletin did not agree with the term of “neo-serfdom”, accredited by Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, as defining the relations in the Romanian agriculture, but here his pro-liberal demonstration becomes more and more contestable44.

41 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 135, 150-151. Gh. Platon, V. Russu, Gh. Iacob, V. Cristian, I. Agrigoroaiei, Cum s-a înfăptuit România modernă, Editura Universităţii „Al. I Cuza”, Iaşi1993, p. 176-184. 42 See Germain Adriaan (ed.), Generation of ’80, Brev Publishing, 2011. 43 Gh. Platon, V. Russu, Gh. Iacob, V. Cristian, I. Agrigoroaiei, op.cit., p.153-157, 185-187. 44 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 32-36, 225.

13

It is known that the Liberal Party practically maintained the same agricultural regime up to World War I. Zeletin tries to account for this aspect by resorting to “mercantile capitalism”, that is, through the need of the State to accumulate financial resources for development which could only come from two sources: external loans and income obtained from the export of agricultural products. It was about a temporary sacrifice, extremely painful, but which had to be done, in the name of the idea “through ourselves”, and this mercantile-like accumulation of capital was to be converted, by “skipping steps” into an autochthonous “bank capitalism” which would generate the ample industrialization of Romania. Moreover, this “burning steps” process could not be done without the presence of a liberal oligarchy which would hold the power until this process came to an end45.

For the Romanian liberals, the reference model is represented by Japan, the country which had become since the Middle Ages one of the developed capitalist countries, the Romanians noting the remarks of some foreign authors who compare the rhythm of industrial development of Romania with that of this Asian country46. In this project, Galaţi was to be turned from a commercial harbor-town into a veritable industrial centre and this can be seen in the way in which Galaţi industry develops at the beginning of the 20th century47.

In spite of these, the similarity between Romania and Japan was far from being credible. Romania continues to remain a complementary economy and, at the beginning of the 20th century, dependant on Germany which sees in the mouth of Danube those “Indies” it could not have overseas48. Agriculture is joined by the exploitation of oil, fact which explains the presence of Ploieşti, next to Galaţi and Brăila, on Mircea Vulcănescu’s list. The foreign capital keeps on being invested in those economic branches which bring profit and generate products and are in demand on the international market, as before49. Moreover, even Zeletin recognizes the partial failure of the “through ourselves” policy, finding explanations in the weakness of the autochthonous capital, in the absence of mineral resources in the Old Kingdom and in the smallness of the internal market. For him, as for Vintilă Brătianu also, the creation of Great Romania was removing the barriers in fulfilling the liberal project50.

The optimist vision of Zeletin has been criticized from many perspectives. It is interesting that, in this case, the opinions of the far right and of the far left were similar, meaning that, both considered that Romania did not undergo a true bourgeois revolution, the “neo-serfdom” regime meant something totally different than a proletarization of the peasantry and the agrarian reform after World War I gave birth to the category of peasant proprietors, but who are not capable of producing for the market. Therefore, for traditionalists like Vulcănescu, there was no proletariat and bourgeoisie, but, as we have seen before, “alien” towns and real villages, the option being the return to the rural world51. On the other hand, a leftist such as Petre Pandrea will speak of the need to accelerate the process of creation of the

45 Ibidem, p.187. 46 Gh. Platon, V. Russu, Gh. Iacob, V. Cristian, I. Agrigoroaiei, op.cit., p. 145. 47 George Codrescu, Monografia fabricelor din Galaţi, Galați, 1908; Gh. Nicolae Munteanu Bârlad, Galaţii, Galaţi, 1927; Tudose Tatu, Istoria trudită a fabricilor uitate, Galaţi, 2008. 48 Constantin Buşe, op.cit., p. 162. 49 Daniela Buşă, Investments of Foreign Capital in the Romanian Economy at the Beginning of the XXth Century, in „Danubius”, no. 29, 2011, p. 205-218. 50 Ştefan Zeletin, op.cit., p. 152. 51 Mircea Vulcănescu, op.cit., p. 113.

14

Romanian bourgeoisie and proletariat, as a prerequisite for Romania’s passing into a new phase of history, the Communist ideal obviously52.

The one who criticized most validly liberal opinions was Virgil Madgearu53. The great economist enterprises a critical reading of Zeletin’s demarche, however, unlike others, he does not deny Romania’s implication in the international economy and the perspective in which capitalist relations entered the Romanian space54. He criticizes the idea of industrialization for the sake of industrialization, without looking at consequences and costs.

Madgearu brings into discussion another economic model, that of Denmark, a poor country at the beginning of the 19th century, with a predominantly agrarian economy but which, through clearly coordinated policies, knew how to grow rich from agriculture55. Therefore, industrialization must not be seen as the best solution in everything, especially if it generates an inefficient industry and consumes the resources produced by agriculture. Moreover, Madgearu shows that the need for an, even temporary, liberal oligarchy at the head of the country, cannot be justified, especially since it did not generate wealth, but allowed certain people to grow rich beyond measure, using the income and institutions of the state56.

In one of his articles, Mircea Vulcănescu was insisting on the fact that absolutely everything can be proved by means of statistics because figures can be displayed in many ways57. This is why we avoided providing too many data in this study, preferring to discuss along certain historical perspectives and explanatory models, trying to emphasize better the reason why there is such a strong connection between Galaţi and the beginnings of Romanian capitalism, starting from the interpretations of Ştefan Zeletin, which we completely agree with in this respect.

The “neutral economic area” created at the Lower Danube at the beginning of the 19th century, supplier of agricultural products and importer of industrial goods, served by harbors opened to the international trade, played indeed the historical role traced by Ştefan Zeletin. The problem of Romania, as of other similar regions (South America, United States, Japan) is of passing from the status of neutral economic area (regarded as a sort of Indies) to a self-contained centre. The explanation why this was achieved in some areas, but not in other cannot be the supreme challenge for the historians of economy.

We can only find that, by and large, Romania presented similarities with other countries from La Plata estuary, rather than with Japan or the United Sates, including in the presence of certain oligarchic or authoritarian political systems, justified as a need in the development of the country. Maybe the most significant symbol of this connection is represented by Mihai Manolescu, the theoretician of customs protectionism and of corporatist development of developing countries, whose ideas were put into practice, incidentally or not, in Latin America, after World War II58. It represents a moment of balance of the Romanian inter-war epoch regarding the reflection on the ways of economic development and, although it will

52 Ibidem, p.119. 53 Virgil N. Madgearu, op.cit., p. V-VIII, XIII-XIV. 54 Ibidem, p. 7-70. 55 Ibidem, p.14. 56 Ibidem, p. 114-122. 57 Mircea Vulcănescu, op.cit., p. 116. 58 Joseph L. Love, Crafting the Third World. Theoretizing Underdevelopment in Rumania and Brazil, Stanford University Press, 1996, p. 71-100.

15

manifest fascist sympathies, from a certain point of view, it is categorically opposed to the traditionalist sympathizers of the far right: the town had to become a part of the Romanian modernity. There was no other way.

Source: http://geomap.3x.ro/poze/bazinul%20dunarii.jpg

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Riodelaplatabasinmap.png