Virgil Madgearu

Inspired by Constantin Stere and Poporanism,[1] Madgearu developed a theory arguing for the preservation of a "peasant economy" and the creation of a "peasant state", prioritizing the preservation of specificity and small rural holdings over large-scale industrialization (the ideal was partly mirrored by the cultural models of Constantin Rădulescu-Motru).[10] Borrowing from the traditional criticism of modernization policies as applied in Romania (Junimea's early rejection of "forms without substance" — as skepticism toward direct borrowings of Western cultural, political, and economic models — as well as Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea's socialist perspective on the consequences the process had in the rural sphere — a capitalist "neo-serfdom").[11] Building on the ideas of Alexander Chayanov, he argued that Eastern Europe in its entirety had evaded Western developments, and was home to distinct economic and social patterns.[1]

In 1919, upon the creation of the Peasants' Party, Madgearu wrote:

"If the methods of various socialist parties differ, if the majority of the socialist world does not believe in the means of Russian Marxism, their common goal is the very same.

If, in a state where the majority of the population is comprised of industrial proletarians, the tendency of socialism to conquer political power may be viewed as a natural and justified development, in a state where the proletariat is a minority such efforts cannot ever correspond with the natural evolution of things.

Nevertheless, the Russian example shows that the possibility for a dictatorship of the proletariat, even in a country where [the proletariat] is manifestly numerically inferior, is not excluded if the largest segment of the population is amorphous and politically inert as was the case of the peasantry in the Muscovite Empire [sic].

Within its new borders [that is, those of Greater Romania], Romania endures as an agrarian-industrial state, in which the rural inhabitants shall form more than three quarters of the population. Thus, what then ought to be more natural and necessary today, after the Russian lesson, than the political rallying of the peasantry, [than] its transformation from an amorphous and politically inert mass into a self-aware organism that is to demand its share of stately power in proportion to its numbers and significance?"[12]

He believed that the development of the country was not to follow strict capitalist guidelines, and foreign capital was needed without neglecting the domestic one. Given that the export capacity of the country was very limited, he insisted on developing the domestic market. As the a labor force with medium qualification was missing in Romania, Madgearu called for the development of a proper training system which was to provide skilled professionals for the industry.[13]

In this context, he, as much as the Peasants' Party leader Ion Mihalache, supported cooperative farming (with it, he primordially aimed to preserve the small-scale rural holding, which he saw as a viable economic cell for a relative future).[14] Nevertheless, during the Great Depression, he revised some of his principles, and, like much of his party, advocated a focus on accelerated industrialization — as a means to preserve Romania's independence.[15]

Madgearu defined his views on the industrial-agricultural relation in 1922, responding to mounting suspicions that his political faction was social class-based (and thus potentially revolutionary):

"If the peasant doctrine admits that the basis of its policies is class-focused, its concept of human society is not class-based and its ideas are less class-based than those of any other party. The other parties label themselves "socially harmonious", taking pride in themselves as national, fusing in their concerns the interests of all citizens. The peasant doctrine knows that they are, in reality, class-based parties, and, if it opposes them, it is precisely because of a national necessity, in order to ensure the normal social development of the people.

[...] The future society can only be a community of producers of manual and intellectual services, in which the labour of the one satisfying a human need, from bread production to poetry, shall be the only warrant for existence.

The economic and political doctrine of "socially harmonious" parties is domination of capital over labour. On the contrary, the peasant doctrine sees labour as dominating capital. The peasant should achieve a self-sufficient economic existence, and the industrial labourer should become an active collaborator in production, in cooperation with the intellectual labourer and the representatives of organized consumers."[16]

His view on the role of peasant doctrine remained present in the National Peasants' Party program, as illustrated in Iuliu Maniu's 1926 speech on the group's ideology:

"If the National Peasants' Party on one hand relies on all the working and producing classes and aims to justly defend all these classes' economic and social interests, then, on the other, it cannot fail to note that the immense majority of the nation is formed by the peasant category."[17]

Madgearu further contrasted his party's views with established politics, criticizing the policies of the National Liberals, who had ruled over Romania in previous decades:

"[...] in political rallying, peasant doctrine does not approve of the financial oligarchy's political domination, and strives to promote a truly democratic government, based on the freely-expressed will of popular masses, whose political awareness it seeks to awaken."[16]

He expanded on this particular ideal in a 1924 article for Aurora:

"[If the Peasants' Party is to be victorious in elections] the shape of things would be changed. The National Bank would no longer be the economic fortress of the Liberal oligarchy. Trusts would no longer enslave and exploit the state. Their selfish and venal leaders would no longer be enthroned in overseeing positions over the country's destinies. Civil liberties nowadays suffocated and stolen civil rights would be fully restored, and the constitutional-parliamentary regime would become a reality, benefiting the development of popular masses as well as civilization."[18]

Madgearu notably defended the vision of Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea in front of criticism from the maverick Liberal Ştefan Zeletin, who had written a comprehensive study of the Romanian bourgeoisie, overtly sympathetic towards economic liberalism.[1]

Carrying out a polemic with Marxism (while drawing inspiration from Rudolf Hilferding's Austromarxist views on economic history),[19] Madgearu expanded on his belief that the new doctrine was universally acceptable and organic in the development of countries such as Romania:

"It could be objected, however, that peasant doctrine is hostile toward industry. It has been indicated that there is no disagreement between the development of an autonomous class of peasants and major industries, and that, quite the contrary, a mutual fulfillment was discovered between the development of peasant agriculture and major industrial enterprises...

In this sense, there is no question of agricultural policies versus industrial policies, of permanent and determined disagreement. Not even the doctrine of Poporanism denied the necessity of industrialization, but rather only the possibility of establishing a capitalist industry in underdeveloped agrarian environments. It is probable that the process of transformation of past agrarian states into industrial ones, on the basis of private property and free competition, will not be identically reproduced in present-day agrarian states. Even the social-democrat Kautsky stated that, in social transformation, there is no way of conceiving that an agricultural country should cover the same length and direction of the path taken by present-day industrial states."[20]

In order to advance his proposed economic goals, Madgearu did however support a degree of state planning over the mixture of interventionism and laissez-faire advocated by the National Liberals:

"Without treasuring beyond measure the absolute value of planning in organizing the national economy, experience has shown the superiority of plan-based state intervention over that left to chance [...].

The multiple and varied interventions of the state in agriculture and industry, lacking any directive and continuity, are responsible for [the weakening of national economy].

[...] An economic plan does not at all imply the suppression or even a narrowing of private initiative in the economic life. An economic plan means containing and applying discipline to individual economic forces while maintaining the role of private initiative. An economic plan means coordinating the efforts of individual economic organizations and empowering them, through association and the systematic contribution of the state as the true representative of the national community."[21]