The Romanian Right: Between Neoliberalism and Neofascism (2005)
Joanne Richardson

(The point of departure for this essay is 2 texts written in 2004/2005 by the Indymedia Romania collective and the polemical exchanges that followed on the Indymedia site. The topic of the texts were (1) the censorship of Michael Moore’s film Farenheit 9/11 by a neoliberal cultural critic (http://romania.indymedia.org/ro/2004/11/510.shtml and http://romania.indymedia.org/ro/2005/01/607.shtml), and (2) the hijacking of the indymedia.ro domain and the creation of a fake Indymedia Romania website by a neofascist group (http://romania.indymedia.org/ro/2004/07/281.shtml). This essay is a reworking of these older, collectively-written texts.)

As the dominant ideology of the global corporations that rule the world, neoliberalism portrays the market as the ultimate goal of life and as the universal rule that has replaced all ethical principles. The neoliberal universe is a world in which every action is a market transaction and everything exists only to serve the market. Nations are markets for investment, cultures are commodities to be traded, and market persons with market values live in order to market themselves to each other. Seen in its historical context, neoliberalism is an extension of the anticommunist propaganda of the cold war, reinterpreted after 1989 as having learned the hard lesson that all forms of state regulation are totalitarian. The “lesson” of 1989 has played an important role in reinforcing political theories about the separation of state and market and corresponding economic policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization. In order to survive as a global strategy, neoliberalism needs not only new territories where it can find cheap labor and new markets where it can sell its products, but also an intelligentsia to propagate its ideas and values. In Eastern Europe neoliberalism has produced a new species of complacent, depoliticized intellectuals who unconsciously reproduce its worst slogans. Lacking any concept of social solidarity, blind to the struggle for survival of most of their neighbors, and deaf to the political scandals that shape their immediate surroundings, these new intellectual elites have become the subservient champions of the new power.

A recent example of this phenomenon in Romania was the 2005 controversy over the censorship surrounding Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11. Alex Leo Serban, an eminent film critic and an employee of the leading cultural magazine, Dilema, defended the magazine’s decision to reject an advertisement of Moore’s film (by a company that the magazine had a contract with) and tried to suppress all public discussion about the film. This happened after the film was actually suppressed from cinemas in Bucharest by the Romanian Union of Filmmakers. Serban invoked the aesthetic defects of Moore’s film as the motives for its suppression. During his polemic with members of the Indymedia Romania collective (http://romania.indymedia.org/ro/2004/11/510.shtml), Serban initially denied that he and the magazine he works for had practiced any form of censorship. In the end, he admitted that the magazine is imposing a kind of censorship – not a political form of censorship but an aesthetic censorship of taste because, after all, “taste IS a form of censorship and one that should be applied more often.”  What is interesting about this case, viewed not as the idiosyncrasies of a particular author but as a symptom of the worldview prevalent among East European intellectuals, is the attempt to depoliticize an obvious political decision. Serban categorically denies that he is ideologically on the “right,” even though it appears that he’s paying lip service to the dominant wind blowing from Washington. Instead, he repeatedly proclaims his neutrality in the face of any ideology: “this has got absolutely nothing to do with being ‘right’ or ‘left’ - it’s just non-ideological stuff, or rather: FREED from passe ideologies!”

His attempt to legitimize the censorship of Moore’s film - as the natural censorship of good taste - invokes old ideas about art as an autonomous sphere and attempts to reduce all political judgments to “AESTHETICS” and “the adventure of FORMS.” When several members of Indymedia Romania draw attention to the social implications of his aesthetic judgments, Serban replies that “as far as the ‘social function’ of art is concerned, I affirm as trenchantly as possible that this is something that does not interest me. It is a ‘commodity’ that I don’t want to buy.” He makes the same depoliticized claims about his individual life, and reduces everything to his “right” to affirm his “artistic idiosyncrasies.” He defines himself as a “postmodern dandy” opting for an “alternative lifestyle.” In the end, all his obsessive affirmations about himself, his personality, and his tastes boil down to the familiar cliché: “i claim & proclaim my right to be DIFFERENT.”  While insisting on his ideological neutrality, this postmodern dandy succeeds in reproducing the worst clichés of consumerism. This is obvious even on the level of language – everything is reduced to metaphors of buying and selling. The social function of art is a commodity that Serban does not want to buy. Against monolithic ideologies, he advocates a “fusion” cuisine of different tidbits of culture, portraying the formation of an intellectual as going to an all you can eat buffet and combining many different foods on the same plate. He chooses to define himself through slogans that have all the sublimity of advertising billboards – “anti-religious, anti-red, anti-anti-globalism, pro-capitalist, pro-consumism, pro-choice, pro-stem-cells-research, hedonistic, sinful, cynical.” His affirmation of difference pretends to be subversive because it is against old totalitarian empires of sameness, but it’s perfectly in tune with neoliberalism as the dominant ideology. Market society is all about the play of differences and the multiplicity of lifestyle choices. And the right of the individual to be “different” is its perfect marketing strategy. 

In this theater of ideological neutrality it is not the ideology that’s missing, but the critical discernment. In repeated replies to his critics Serban is incapable of producing any rational argument, always reacting on a visceral level. In a discussion about ideology, his position boils down to “idealism sucks” or “the philosophy of the 'left' … makes me puke.” His language becomes increasingly puerile and inarticulate: “yes, i AM egotistic, individualistic & whatever you want to call me & proud of it! i’ve always criticized the poor rather than the rich; why? because i like to be more anarchic than the ‘red-uniformed anarchists’ - i choose MY OWN anarchy, not the consensual, predictable one!” This may look silly or frivolous, but it’s not. Despite initial appearances, Serban is one of the most prominent Romania intellectuals, writing for the leading cultural magazine, and serving on many juries and boards of foundations that give grants to artists and NGOs and shape cultural policy. The “personal tastes” of Alex Leo Serban set a certain tone among the cultural elite. And his texts set a standard of moral hygiene and violent exclusion that’s disguised as a “neutral” aesthetic judgment. In Dilema, Serban replies to Bogdan Ghiu, a media theorist who criticized the censorship of Moore’s film, that “it is unbearable, unacceptable and inconceivable that a man with your intelligence and taste would fall into this trap.” Serban’s hygienist vocabulary mimics the language of a new colonialism, assuming the noble task of “normalizing” the savages, of bringing about health and general well being for all, which inevitably entails the expulsion of a few defective products and ideas. And for all his so-called ideological neutrality, what Serban singles out as the most defective ideas are any alternatives to the rule of the market, which he immediately dismisses as “communist nostalgia.” 

On the surface of things, this neoliberal, postmodern “right” - which opposes all forms of state authority and champions consumerism, individualism, and difference as the ultimate telos of market society - seems to have nothing in common with the authoritarian, nationalist “right” - which opposes consumerism and globalization and affirms the necessity of a strong, disciplined state that can bring back the former glory of the Romanian nation. But beyond the obvious divergence, there is a secret collusion between the two. This similarity has been highlighted by  G.M. Tamas in his seminal texts on post-fascism (http://bostonreview.net/BR25.3/tamas.html and http://www.opendemocracy.net/people-newright/article_306.jsp). Tamas distinguishes corporate globalization from older forms of imperialism in the sense that governments, and their duties to citizens, now seem to be entirely absent from the picture. However nasty and racist older imperialisms were, they were government driven, and because governments are elected as the representatives of citizens, they had a minimal sense of duty. By contrast, the corporations driving the new process of globalization, which are not elected by anyone, have no sense of obligation. Tamas calls this new extremism of the center “post-fascism” to emphasize that it represents a regression to a worldview prior to the Enlightenment notion of citizenship as a universal right. And like older fascisms, it divides the world into those who have the privilege of rights and others who lack them - although those others are no longer deported to concentration camps but kept out by gated neighborhoods and the padlocks of the visa regime.

In analyzing this similarity more closely, it is interesting to look not at the political party of the extreme right, but at “Noua Dreapta” – translated as the new right (http://www.nouadreapta.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noua_Dreapta), which is registered as an NGO. Noua Dreapta is a militant neo-fascist group. It uses the symbol of the white celtic cross on black background, a replica of the celtic cross used by the German SS, and now the most widespread symbol among neoNazi groups after the swastika was banned. Noua Dreapta’s program is in tune with fascist ideology, which divides the population into two camps: those who receive recognition and rights as full citizens and others who are deprived of rights and reduced to bare life because they are considered the source of evil corrupting the unity of the nation. The first 3 objectives of Noua Dreapta’s platform are a final solution to the gypsy problem, the recriminalization of homosexuality, and an open war against all religious sects that are undermining the authority of the Christian Orthodox Church. Noua Dreapta are followers of the Legionnaire movement of the 1930-1940s, which was allied to Nazi Germany. The Legionnaire doctrine called for “a Christian new man who could fully realize all the potentials placed by God in the blood of our people.” It also called for the formation of a new national elite, a ruling class that would assume power not through elections but through a process of natural social selection. The national elite in turn would have its chief, “un-elected” but “felt” by everyone in their hearts to be their leader.

If we recall that the “right,” when it was first born as a political category at the onset of the French revolution, referred to those who supported the un-elected power of aristocratic elites and the divine mission of the church, there is an obvious connection to the ideas of nationalists. But the economic and political situation has radically changed since the times when the crown and church ruled nations. Neoliberals are on the “right” because they champion the un-elected power of today’s new elites – the owners of transnational corporations, and the media and politicians that serve their interests. The authoritarian nationalists are on the “right” side of the political spectrum in the sense that they favor political rule and control of culture and of morality by an unelected power, but the spiritual and religious elites they support are a disappearing minority with little economic or political influence (though they remain ideologically influential in a devout orthodox country like Romania). Neoliberalism is a conservative ideology because it seeks to maintain the privilege of those who are currently in power. By contrast, the neo-fascist right is regressive, it seeks to turn back the wheel of time, which is why their ideology is haunted by stories of past glories, invocations of spiritual chiefs, and a longing for a golden age before the degenerate culture of globalization, when God was in everyone’s hearts and the Romanian soul still possessed a sense of nobility.

Since the core ideas of Noua Dreapta, as emanations of a pre-modern Legionare doctrine, sound more than a little rusty today, they have been dressed up in some fashionable garments that try to make them appear more in tune with contemporary reality. Besides the final solution to the gypsy problem, the recriminalization of homosexuals, and the war against religious sects, the other objectives of Noua Dreapta include: economic alternatives to globalization, participative democracy, environmental sustainability and media freedom – ideas that are traditionally associated with the progressive left, but which they spin in a different direction. Noua Dreapta criticizes globalization, but because it is a foreign culture of kitsch and immorality that is perverting authentic Romanian values and leveling all religious traditions. They invoke participative democracy against the fraud of representational politics, which they claim has brought about calamities that are in fact unwanted by the majority of Romanians, calamities like the legalization of homosexuality and minority rights for ethnic Hungarians and Roma. And they favor environmental protections, but casts them in a religious-nationalist framework as the sacred duty to “safeguard the beautiful and rich country which God has given to us, Romanians, for our future generations.” Bogdan Stanciu, who is the press secretary of Noua Dreapta and the editor of the Altermedia news website has been the loudest proponent of free speech on different mailing lists, including the mailing list for independent journalists. He tries dismiss any criticism of their worldview by claiming that the critiques are evidence that their freedom of speech is being suppressed – when in actuality Noua Dreapta has no interest in the universal application of free speech and have tried to suppress the right of homosexuals and the Roma to “manifest themselves in public.”  On the surface of things, it appears that the extreme right and radical left have something in common because they are against the same things – corporate globalization, environmental exploitation, media manipulation - but the opposition is based on different principles and proposes different solutions. Noua Dreapta has deliberately tried to exploit this surface similarity by infiltrating leftist forums and invoking concepts that are usually associated with a leftist oriented media activism – like tactical media, free software, and copyleft.

Noua Dreapta and Altermedia have a long history of provocations on mailinglists. Using pseudo names like “anti-war” or “civil society,” they have been incredibly skillful at infiltrating numerous mailing lists (the free-expression list for independent journalists, an anti-war list, nettime Romania, the Romanian Social Forum list and even the Indymedia Romania list). By detourning all discussions to themselves, they managed to periodically cripple the free-expression list, when there was mass protest after the admin unsubscribed them, and have succeeded in destroying the anti-war list, which was closed down three years ago. One of their most clever tricks was hijacking the indymedia.ro domain. When we were preparing to launch Indymedia Romania, and we had received the Romania.indymedia.org domain from the network, we discussed on our public mailinglist that we should also buy the indymedia.ro domain and redirect it to the network domain. The next day the president of Noua Dreapta bought the indymedia.ro domain and made a “mock” indymedia site, redirecting visitors to altermedia.ro (with the slogan, if you want the real indymedia, go here). The latest provocation by Noua Dreapta was copying articles from the Indymedia Romania wiki space, where we propose texts, vote on them, and prepare them for publication (http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcRomania), and to reproduce these texts on the Altermedia site, sometimes claiming that it is their own work. One of these texts was an article on free software by Armin Medosch, translated by Indymedia Romania, which appeared on ro.altermedia.info with the label “translated by Altermedia.” When we criticized them publicly for hijacking the domain and for stealing texts and reproducing them in a misleading context, they replied that Indymedia Romania has praised the use of tactical media and copyleft, and that we can’t complain when someone else uses them, just because we don’t like their ideology.

Although many of these actions were instances of provocations or baiting, there is something revealing about the tactics. By attempting to align themselves with issues associated with the radical left’s quest for democratization, Noua Dreapta betray a kind of crass opportunism – they prey upon the dissatisfaction of a large number of people (especially young people) over their present economic misery and on their resentment of the colonization of Romania by Western corporations, and then try to divert it this resentment to a nationalist agenda. This is how fascism has always functioned, by hijacking the misery of people and their dissatisfaction with the constraints pressing upon them, and re-directing people’s desire for freedom to another form of subordination.