Four basic questions

The glorious weather of the last few weeks here in the mountains seems at last to be changing. And I shall be heading down to the plains tomorrow – slightly ashamed at not having the fortitude to share the rigours of winter with my old neighbours. But my better half calls – and, now that the car is equipped for the winter (I spent most of yesterday at the garage as they rectified a few faults the car had developed as a result of the 10,000 kilometre battering I gave it in the early summer) we may well head to Sofia soon. The paintings and friends beckon.
In my recent (and rather long) lament about political impotence, I mentioned Will Hutton (and his latest book Them and Us – Changing Britain – why we need a fair society) as one of the people who has the wide inter-disciplinary reading necessary for anyone to have anything useful to say to us about how we might edge societies away from the abyss we all seem to be heading toward. I’ve used the verb „edge” because the calls for revolution which come from the old leftists are unrealistic (if not self-indulgent) but mainly because, historically, significant change has rarely come from deliberate social interventions. It has come from a more chaotic process. More and more disciplines are applying chaos theory in recognition of this – even management which is less a discipline than a parasite! So the call these days is for paradigm shift to help us in the direction of the systemic change the world needs to make in its move away from neo-liberalism. And close readers of the blog may recollect that I suggested that any convincing argument for systemic reform need to tackle four questions -
• Why do we need major change in our systems?
• Who or what is the culprit?
• What programme might start a significant change process?
• What mechanisms (process or institutions) do we need to implement such programmes?

Most books in this field focus more on the first two questions – and are much lighter on the last two questions. The first two questions require pretty demanding analytical skills – of an interdisciplinary sort which, as I’ve argued, the very structure of universities actively discourages. Hence the limited choice of authors – perhaps the two best known being Immanual Wallerstein and Manuel Castells. Both offer complex systemic views and, given the nature of their study, the writing style is not very accessible. Susan Strange made a great contribution to our practical understanding of Casino Capitalism as she called it - until her very sad death a decade ago.
Sadly, two other well-known names with a much more accessible writing style – Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein – tend to focus a lot of their energy on rogue states such as the USA.
William Hutton’s The World We’re In (2002) was as powerful and accessible of the limitations of the anglo-saxon model as you will ever read – and, with his stakeholder concept, carried with it a more optimistic view of the possibilities of reform. David Korten’s various books also offer good analysis – although his focus on the American corporation does not easily carry to Europe (See William Davies' recent Reinventing the Firm for a recent attempt). You can read Korten’s review of a Soros book here. Archdruid offers a contrary view here - although I’m not quite sure what to make of this particular blog – archdruid indeed!!
Most commentary on the recent global financial crisis has identified banks as the culprit – and those governments who made the move in recent decades to free banks from the regulation to which they have been subject. Marxists such as David Harvey have reminded us that government and banking behaviour is simply a reflection of a deeper issue – of surplus capital.
Hutton’s latest book (which I had abandoned a few weeks ago for its rather abstract opening treatment of fairness but dragged from the bookshelf at 04.30 this morning) does gives fairly good treatment to the first 3 questions but does not really even begin to answer the final question. And this is particularly pertinent for Hutton since the stakeholder analysis he brought with his 1995 book The State we’re In chimed with the times; did persuade a lot of people; and seemed at one stage to have got the Prime Minister's ear and commitment. It did not happen, however, and Hutton surely owes us an explanation of why it did not happen. The Management of Change has developed in the past 2 decades into an intellectual discipline of its own - and Hutton might perhaps use some it in a future edition of the book to explore this question. He might find Change the World: How Ordinary People Can Achieve Extraordinary Results particularly stimulating (I certainly did)
I would also have wished him to give us some comment on other takes" on our global problems eg the work of David Korten (above); Bill McKibben's Deep Economy: Economics as if the World Mattered; Olin Wright's Envisioning Real Utopias (which instances the amazing Mondragon cooperatives); and David Harvey's The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism. Although he is very generous in his attributions of research work, Hutton is perhaps less so in his recognition of the work of others who are trying to answer what I’ve suggested are the four big questions. There are more and more people trying to understand the mess we are in - and how do get out of it - and more and more books each with its own underlying set of ideological assumption. Will Hutton is one of the few people able to help us make sense of it all.
Finally a site with superb photographs which capture many aspects of Bucharest and Romania.

Heritage again

It was the Paul Kingsnorth book which gave me the Keynes quotation which now stands this week in the Quotes which head the various links on the right-hand side of this site. And lo, a discussion thread a few days later gave me a link to a book most of which is being serialised online which echoes these principles in setting out a possible approach for the USA – see here. Please note that I originally put the wronk link - and this is now the correct link.
And, another heritage example from Srah in Romania.

How sad (and frustrating) to read HERE that Romanian Rail (CFR) has decided to close the railway stretch between Oravita and Anina (Banat) because it is 'unprofitable'... Not only is it one of the most spectacular mountain railroads in Europe and thus would be a great national loss, but there are villages which would be cut off without it, and increased unemployment would be added to these areas in the event of such a tragic, erroneous decision. The Oravita-Anina line is a national treasure with a proud place on the National List of Monuments - and yet even that doesn't seem to bear any weight when it comes to making money, as we have seen time and time again in Bucharest with the very frequent mutilation of patrimony and heritage.
Built in 1847-1863, it is the oldest railway on Roumanian territory and runs 33.4 km in 2 hours.... An exceptional technical achievement, it is one of the very steepest lines in all of Europe and with such stunning landscape that it is often compared to the Austrian line Semmering, on UNESCO's list of world heritage sites.
The Association for Roumanian Industrial Archeology / has appealed to CFR and other deciding foruns for the continual use of the Oravita-Anina railway... let's hope they are successful.
'Unprofitable'??? Doesn't the government realise the gold-mine this railway could be? Why, in a country of such natural beauty and tradition, is it so impossible to see the marketing possibilities?! It never ceases to amaze me how tourism is so very badly managed and commercialised. Here we have a railway line that provides transportation and trade to remote towns, offers jobs to those living in the villages envelopped in the most beautiful, awe-inspiring backdrops of stunning scenery. Not only the oldest railway in Roumania but also one of the steepest, it should be as much visited and admired at least as the Trans-Fagarasan in Transylvania. It provides jobs and symbolises a life-line to many Roumanians of this region in the Banat.
The ministries of Commerce, Tourism, Transport and Employment would be far better advised to work together and turn this superb line into a real honey-pot. If it is unprofitable then it is entirely the fault of these ministries who clearly lack vision, imagination and creativity (look no further that the plagerised logo for Roumania to advertise the absurd Carpathian Garden). Railways are fabulous tourist attractions, particularly if they are steam, slow, historical and running through marvellous landscapes such as the Oravita-Anina. Everyone loves them from children who adore watching the steam spiralling backwards and up, up and away, to train enthusiasts, trekkers who can't walk anymore and those who fancy a day out without having to drive, with history and awe-inspiring views thrown in. Hellooooooo?!!!! To close it would be a grave mistake, not only for patrimony, respect and heritage but also for what COULD be made of it. Elena Udrea has such a marvellous job. I would love to be the Roumanian minister of tourism! There is so much to optimise, so much to boast about and so very much to cherish. This stretch of railway line is just one of many...

Heritage and change - destroyers and builders

Yesterday I had my first set of winter tyres fitted on a car – not just because of my experience a few weeks back but because a law could be passed very shortly making it compulsory to have them at this time of year. And I didn’t want to be caught out with a mad scramble – and rising prices. Although I’ve had the car for 14 years, it;’s done only 120,000 kilometres since, for long periods (and particularly winters), I’ve been elsewhere on assignment and the car has just languished in the street (on one famous occasion for 2 years on a Brussels suburb street). This will be the first winter spent in Romania – which puts more pressure on to find a properly sized urban flat. But prices are still coming down. House prices on the outskirts of the capital have apparently halved – and flats in the city are forecast to drop another 20% over the winter. But I would still prefer Sofia – or Brasov – to Bucharest.
I’m glad to report that Maritsa has now returned home safely from hospital – no rest for her – I bumped into her in the farmyard in the light rain and got some cream from her for my experimental mushroom soup.

I haven’t had an opportunity to refer to another great post which Sarah in Romania made a few weeks back. She shares our concern about the utter disregard the Bucharest city authorities (and most citizens) show for their architectural heritage which has so many gem; and this post danced on the grave of someone who was apparently one of the worst offenders – Stefan Damian. Thank goodness we still have people prepared to call a spade a spade! One of the main purposes of my blog is to reflect on the experience of trying to improve government – whether from an administrative or political aspect. The first twenty years of my life, I focussed on the political – the „what”. The last 20 years the focus has been on the „how”- on reforming the machinery of government. I’m still interested in the latter but, as the masthead quotation from JR Saul indicates, I think the value of technocrats is overrated and the role of citizens and the maligned politicians has to be asserted. And one of the things wrong with a lot of the reform writing is that it is too abstract. Change is a question of individuals – and we need more of the naming and shaming approach such as this Sarah in Romania post. I used it myself for the first time a few weeks back when I picked out a State Secretary and analysed his (outdated) declaration of interest form which appeared on the Ministry website.
We also need to celebrate more those who are trying to make a positive mark on life – and, as I noted on my friend Ion’s obituary, while they are still alive. One of the reasons I enjoyed Paul Kingsnorth’s book on the protests against the iniquities inflicted on the world by multi-national corporations is that it focussed on the individuals in different parts of the world who are risking their lives and livelihoods to protest against the destruction being wrought by people running these organisations. Business has been using the journal „portrait” for a long time to glorify their class – and most management books are little else than hero creation and worship. Only women like Rosabeth Kantor (with her marvellously mocking ten-rules-for-stifling-innovation and Shoshana Zuboff, it seems, are capable of resisting this inclination of business writers! But you don’t find such positive write-up of reformers – presumably because media ownership is so neo-liberal. And the publications of the reform movement tend to concentrate on ideas.
For example, I’ve wanted for some time to say something about one of the people I admire most – a Slovak friend of mine who, as Director of a training centre run on cooperative lines in a village, has utterly transformed an old palace, building up not only the facilities it offers (and the labour force) but commissioning local artists to create glorious murals to remind us of the place’s historical heritage and holding vernissages with painters from central europe, the Balkans, Central Asia etc. Walk into his huge office and he is almost lost amongst the books and paintings which are piled up around his desk. And his house is like a (living) museum – from all the artefacts he has brought back from his vacations throughout the world. He is such a lovely, modest man and I always feel a taste of heaven when I visit him at the Mojmirovce Kastiel.
And, while we’re on the subject of heritage, you must view this video - Prince Charles promoting his Transylvanian Trust – if you can stomach the posh accent which I fiind so difficult to take as a Scot. I’ve always felt sorry for this guy – a bit of a mummy's boy inevitably but his heart in the right place.

Stefan Damian has suddenly kicked the galeata. Bucharest is a safer place, structurally speaking... I would like to say I'm sorry and offer my sympathies to his family as one should do after the death of anyone, but since I am grieving for the assassination of beautiful houses and the slowly dying history and heritage in both bricks and mortar (and also because I may be many things but a hypocrite isn't one of them), I shall elegantly refrain, if you will excuse me. The article below from Vreau Dreptate reports on the mafia-controlled mass destruction of Bucharest bursting with patrimony and memories, history and stunning beauty - for money speaks louder than respect, homage or tears. Stefan Damian – who died recently – was one of guys who destroyed a great deal of what Ceausescu didn't manage himself and with just as much energy and absence of regret. See HERE in an extract from Romania Te Iubesc, Bucuresti Orasul Fara Istorie on Pro TV. The pix above is of the beautiful villa destroyed on str. Visarion. May its soul and the laughter that once resounded within its walls rest in peace. May those that demolished it be haunted all their days...
And HERE is one more article for you - a list of victims one by one, houses, villas, bijoux of architecture and bygone years - a city mutiliated by the very institution which is supposed to protect it.
Stefan Damian will be missed, but not by any lover of beauty nor national pride. HERE is an article from last February on the heritage Roumania's answer to the Demolition Man has left behind him...

A Lament on the impotence of democratic politics

Craig Murray’s latest post looks at the latest 2 examples of the collusion between government and commercial interests (Vodaphone and BAE systems (the giant aerospace company); notes the lack of public interest; and draws the pessimistic conclusion that "Conventional politics appears to have become irretrievably part of the malaise rather than offering any hope for a cure. But political activity outwith the mainstream is stifled by a bought media”. It’s worth giving the larger quote -
Sadly the comments on Craig’s posting (219 comments at the last count!) failed spectacularly to address the issue – descending to the religious ravings which are becoming an all too familar part of such threads. My own contribution (at the tail-end) was a rather pathetic appeal for a bit more humility in such discussions.

Instead of asserting opinions, can people not perhaps in these discussions share more quietly and analytically some of the perspectives which are out there on the possibilities of political and social action? For example, I've just finished reading the inspiring 2003 book "One No and Many Yeses" by Paul Kingsnorth. At other levels there are the writings of David Korten and Olin Wright's recent "Envisioning Realistic Utopias". Political parties and corporations remain the last protected species - and we should focus our energies on exploring why this is so; why it is so rarely investigated - and how we change it

All this gets us into the same territory I was trying to map out recently when I posed the question about

what programme elements might actually help release and sustain people power in a way which will force the corruption of modern elites to make significant and lasting concessions?

But, coincidentally, one of my other favourite blogs has produced a review of David Harvey’s The Enigma of Capital which I recently referred to as possibly offering a more solid analysis of the problems we face. Harvey’s book is not an easy read - and this review sets the book’s main arguments in the wider conext of other leftist writers who have faced the fact that there is something systemic in the latest global crisis. At this point, be warned, the langauge gets a bit heavy! All this reminds me of Ralph Miliband (father of Ed) ’s Parliamentary Socialism ((1962)which argued the basic pointlessness of the social democratic approach (The other 1,000 page book which arrived recently is in fact Donald Sassoon’s One Hundred Years of Socialism!).

Strange how few books come from political or economic academics offering broad, critical analyis of current political and economic life. David Harvey is a geographer! And the best stuff on the role of pension funds (and how they might be changed) is by a Marxist intellectual not associated with academia – Robin Blackburn. Both Paul Kingsnorth and Bill McKibben – who write on alternative systems - are campaigning journalists. Will Hutton who casts a periodic eye over the philosophical infrastructure which underpins the Anglo-saxon economic system (Them and Us is his latest 400 page blockbuster) is also a journalist.

The only UK academic I know who has written blunt analyses about the nature of our political system is the political development scientist – Colin Leys – whose time in Africa has clearly given him an important perspective his British academic colleagues lack. Sociologists are the masturbators par excellence - altough Olin Wright is an honourable exception with his recent Envisioning Realistic Utopias from the USA. In America the only challenging stuff comes form speculators like Nassim Taleb and George Soros – although Nobel-winning Joseph Stiglitz is an enfant terrible of the Economics profession and of World Bank and IMF policies there; and Paul Hawkin made us all think a decade or so ago with his Natural Capitalism.

Of course all this reflects the economic structure of the knowledge industry – with rewards going to ever-increasing specialisation (and mystification) – and, more recently, the binding of university funding to industrial needs. When I was in academia in the 1970s, I was shocked at how actively hostile academics were to inter-disciplinary activity. And the only Marxists who have managed to make a career in acadamia have generally been historians – who posed no threat since they offered only analysis or, like Edward Thompson, action against nuclear weapons. I have a feeling that the first step in bringing any sense to our political systems is a powerful attack on how social sciences are structured in the modern university – using Stanislaw's Social Sciences as Sorcery (very sadly long out of print)as the starting point. Instead of ridiculing Macburger Degrees, we should be honouring them as the logical extension of the contemporary university system.
I wonder if French and German social scientists are any different. Jacques Attali (ex-Head of the EBRD) is a prolific writer – although his latest book Sept lecons de Vie – survivre aux crises has abolutely no bibliographical refereces so it is difficult to know his reading. And has anyone really bettered the dual analysis offered in Robert Michel’s 1911 Political Parties which gave us his Iron Law of Oligarchy and Schumpeter’s (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy – and its minimalist concept of democracy as competition between the elites? And does that differ significantly from the emergent Confucian Chinese model set out in Daniel Bells’s latest book??? I realise that these last few references are a bit cryptic and will return to the theme shortly.

What I suppose I am trying to say is that change requires (a) description of what's wrong (making the case for change); (b) explaining how we got to this point (an analytical model); (c) a programme which offers a relevant and acceptable way of dealing with the problems; and (d) mechanisms for implementing these programmes in a coherent way. We have a lot of writing in the first three categories - but I find that most authors think the task is finished when they produce at page 300 the outline of their programme. Craig's started his blog with a strong assertion -

British democracy has lost its meaning. The political and economic system has come to serve the interests of a tiny elite, vastly wealthier than the run of the population, operating through corporate control. The state itself exists to serve the interests of these corporations, guided by a political class largely devoid of ideological belief and preoccupied with building their own careers and securing their own finances.
A bloated state sector is abused and mikled by a new class of massively overpaid public sector managers in every area of public provision - university, school and hospital administration, all executive branches of local government, housing associations and other arms length bodies. All provide high six figure salaries to those at the top of a bloated bureaucratic establishment. The "left", insofar as it exists, represents only these state sector vested interests. These people decide where the cuts fall, and they will not fall where they should - on them. They will fall largely on the services ordinary people need.

The 2 sentences of his with which I began this long piece strike to the heart of the issue which must be addressed -

Conventional politics appears to have become irretrievably part of the malaise rather than offering any hope for a cure. But political activity outwith the mainstream is stifled by a bought media.

The question is how (if at all) do we break out of this impasse? Or do we rather build an explicitly imperfect world on the Michels and Schumpeterian insight?
So thank you, Craig Murray, for sparking off this rant - which I have dignified in the title with a more musical Celtic word - lament!

The need for heroes?

Sarah in Romania has another great blog today on the Paunescu obsequies phenomenon which is well worth reading for its analysis of the possible social meaning of the outpourings of emotion and rhetoric which greeted this Poet and Senator’s death on Friday. First there is the issue of his status as a poet on which I’ve already made a comment. Strictly, of course, I’m not qualified to comment since I’m not able to read his poems in Romanian. But the mere fact that his poetry has not been translated into English seemed to me a fairly powerful signal that he was not regarded internationally – although Daniela tells me that his style would make him very difficult to translate. The Romanian Voice website offers 60 of his poems (in Romanian) – as against 28 of Sorescu’s. Perhaps he can be regared like Britain’s Roger McGough – one of the Liverpool poets of my generation whom I throughly enjoyed but was not considered then quite fit to join the poetic canon. Although Daniela also tells me that his poetry was so powerful that he was the subject of study even when still at University. He certainly was a larger than life figure as you can see on his blog which – given the life he led – was an intermittent one. We normally associate poetry with a quiet, reclusive life!
Then there is the issue of the overblown nature of the response to his death. Sarah is pretty outspoken on this -

I have come to see what a well known journalist meant when he said that Roumanians cannot discuss in a civil way, allowing themselves to respectfully disagree with other points of view. They do not debate, they only rebuke and call names. A very good example is here on this blog following a posting yesterday of a superb article in Vox Publica. I didnt remove the comment of invectives since everyone is entitled to express an opinion. But it seems that everyone who believes Adrian Paunescu was a paragon of virtue refuses to listen to the other side of the story. There is mass impertinence, rudeness, a refusal to take on board those who lived this time, knew him, were part of his circle and thus know very well what they are talking about. Several of these people are excellent journalists and also friends of mine who are always careful of what they say and how they express themselves for they have emerged from the times when they had to be very careful indeed. I have been profoundly disappointed by people on the 'he was an angel and so what if he adored Ceausescu' fence because I considered them better armed with reason, were far more capable of listening and were better educated than to be as vitriolic as some have been. This has been a very sad result for me of Paunescu's death - without it, I would not have witnessed this seemingly national feature and I still cannot bear to believe it is true.
And finally, it has very much brought home the point to me that Roumania is in dire need of someone or something to be proud of. The country is full of corrupt mafioso types on the wealthy list and there seems little chance of them ever vanishing - Vintu, Patriciu, Voicu, Gheara etc... and lets not even get started on the government. Of course there is need for a hero. Of course there is need for some kind of outburst of grief, of pride... even if it's not for the right person. It doesnt matter really. As the justice system proves itself time and time again to be one of injustice, the education system goes from bad to worse, the health system - well that you know as it's one of my repetitive lamentations, the capital mutilated of any beauty Ceausescu left behind...the list of disasters go on and on and Roumanians have to live with it every day to the extent that many friends of mine dont even bother with the newspapers anymore for they are totally saturated by bad news. There is such desire for a glint, a spark, a ray of hope, something to grab on to, someone to be proud of, to show to the world...and the death of Adrian Paunescu is the one. The country of my heart is in moral crisis...
The more disappointing the present is, the more one yearns for the past and Roumania seems to be suffering from a very dangerous form of amnaesia. They urgently need some kind of injection of clearer judgement for they are blinded by nationalist talk and mystical rhetoric.

It’s good she brings in the concept of „civility” – as a Brit I have always been struck with the adversarial nature of discussion here – at least amongst its (highly) educated people. Intellectualism is alive and well here – and is perhaps one of the reasons to explain why elite people are so distanced from one another in a constant struggle for position. The last 2 decades has also brought the empty loneliness of conspicious consumption which is not so obvious in some neighbouring countries which also went through the communist experience such as Bulgaria and Slovakia. Hardly surprising that there seems to be a search for something to be proud of. People are alienated from one another. There is no vision or force capable of binding people together.

Identity

I’ve always had great difficulty answering the simple question “What do you do?” “Student” was easy but, after graduation, I had a quick succession of jobs in what could be called generally the “planning” field - and “planner” is as vague a term as “manager” and enjoyed a rather limited vogue.
In 1968 I joined a polytechnic and was also elected to a town council – so “lecturer” was as good a description as what I did as any.

Using my voice was what I was paid for – whether to transmit information or opinions. I read widely – so “reader” was also a pertinent word. I became heavily involved in community development – managing to straddle the worlds of community action and political bureaucracy (for 20 years I was the Secretary of ruling Labour groups in municipal and regional Councils and also a sponsor of community action) and figured in a book about “reticulists” (networkers) – but imagine putting that word in a passport application!

For a few years I was Director of a so-called “Research Unit” which was more like a Think Tank in its proselytising workshops and publications celebrating the new rationalism of corporate management and community development. At age 43 my default activity became full-time (regional) politics – with a leader role but of a rather maverick nature who never aspired to the top job but was content to be at the interstices of bureaucracy, politics and academia. I remember my reception at an OECD function in central Sweden as someone with a proclivity to challenge.

All this paved the way for the “consultancy” which I have apparently practised for the past 20 years in Central Europe and Central Asia. But “consultant” is not only a vague but a (rightly) increasingly insulting term – so I was tempted for a period to enter the word “writer” on my Visa application forms since this was as good a description of what I actually did as any.

At one stage indeed, my despairing secretary in the Region had actually given me the nickname “Paperback writer”. Except that this was seen by many border guards in central Asia as a threatening activity! Robert Reich’s “symbolic analyst” briefly tempted – but was perhaps too close to the term “spy”!
When I did the Belbin test on team roles to which I was subjecting my teams, I had expected to come out as a leader – but was not altogether surprised to discover that my stronger role was a “resource person” – someone who surfed information and knowledge widely and shared it. What some people saw as the utopian streak in my writing gave me the idea of using the term “poet” at the airport guiches – but I have a poor memory for verse.

This morning, as I looked around at the various artefacts in the house, a new label came to me – “collector”! I collect beautiful objects – not only books and paintings but pottery, pens, pencils, laquered cases, miniatures, carpets, Uzbek wall-hangings, Kyrgyz and Iranian table coverings, glassware, terrace cotta figurines, plates, Chinese screens, wooden carvings et al. Of very little - except sentimental - value I hasten to add!

But, of course, I have these things simply because I have been an “explorer” – first of ideas (desperately searching for the holy grail) and then of countries – in the 1980s Western Europe, the 1990s central Europe – finally central Asia and beyond.

Some 25 years ago, when I was going through some difficult times, my sister-in-law tried to help me by encouraging me to explore the various roles I had – father,son, husband, politician, writer, activist etc. I didn’t understand what she was driving at. Now I do! Lecturer, reticulist, politician, maverick, leader, writer, explorer, consultant, resource person, collector – I have indeed played all these roles (and more too intimate for this blog!).

Makes me wonder what tombstone I should have carved for myself in the marvellous Sapanta cemetery in Maramures where people are remembered humourously in verse and pictures for their work or way they died!!

And it was TS Eliot who wrote that

old men ought to be explorers

Daniela tells me that TV is full today of the funeral obsequies of Adrian Panescu (see yesterday's blog). Particularly sickening in the light of the recent loss of Ion Olteanu.
As I've been blogging here for more than a year, I thought it would be useful to start looking at what I was chuntering on about a year ago.

Death of Ceaucescu's court poet and senator; alternatives

Dawn brings another superb, blue cloudless sky. The next section is from Sara in Romania's blog
Romanian poet Adrian Paunescu died this morning (5th Nov)from a heart attack (the third) at Floreasca Hospital in Bucharest aged sixty-seven. Reading FaceBook, I see friends posting his poems and plentiful comments of "Odihneasca-se in pace". Sorin Oprescu (the Bucharest mayor) has declared that Adrian Paunescu shall be laid to rest in the Aleea Scriitorilor of Bellu Cemetery on Sunday with all the honours befitting a poet of his calibre.
Considered one of the greatest poets of the post-war generation, he had political controversy attached to his name from the communist era, however, and is said to have been Ceausescu's 'court poet'... He did mea culpa, admitted fault in the early 90's and said he had behaved miserably and at some point justified his actions by needing better lodgings. By those who cannot forgive him, he has been labelled an 'opportunist', a boot licker', a man who 'tried to be a politician post-89'praised the deeds of Ceausescu' and 'organised gatherings at the stadium to chant odes to the joys of communism.' There are lots of other comments, too, that would not be fitting to add here today of all days. What to make of all that? It's as if we are discussing two different people - the talented poet who wrote verses such as the tender 'Ruga Pentru Parinti' , so moving it gives you goosebumps or 'Dumnezeul Salvarii', lovely too. This man was a magnificent writer, poet and painter of words. Perhaps then, we should make abstraction of his murky and controversial political past? Many say we should not. Does a man with such literary talent deserve to be forgiven for his wrongs? He has admitted shame at his actions and called himself some pretty offensive names publically.
It is, frankly, impossible to read his poetry and not be moved. Do we put him in the same class as other writers such as Kundera, Sadoveanu, Banus and Gunter Grass who fell along the wayside at some point or another to collaborate, coitoi and generally the lick boots of party leaders to live a little better? They did what so many others did 'to survive' but also for perks - for passports, for houses, the right to shop in the closed-circuit places where the average man could not have access... should we see them as different from the average Joe Bloggs in the street? Are they more difficult to forgive? Literature educates. Words empower and teach. They form and mould moral, social and spiritual thinking. This is a time long before I stepped foot in Roumania and thus my experience is only as witness to stories and the day to day life of others dear to me. I know they cannot and will not forgive. And so, what about the younger generation? Mine, I mean. The generation who is today between 30-40 years old. They are the friends of mine posting the beautiful verses of Adrian Paunescu on Facebook. They are the ones who drew my attention to the great outpouring of grief for this loss to Roumanian literature. My older Romanian friends stay quiet. Perhaps they comment on articles in the papers or simply sit still and remember. Perhaps there is nothing left to say.
Whatever we feel for Adrian Paunescu, one thing cannot be denied: the country has indeed lost another talented poet and shall be missed in the world of prose, verse, rhyme and word for generations to come. He has left an indelibly moving, poetic mark on the bookshelves of libraries, bookshops and sitting-rooms throughout Roumania and beyond with his 50 volumes. Between 1973-1985 when the last 'gathering' (cenaclul Flacara) took place, there were 1,615 shows with an estimated 6 million participants (voluntary or not - most of them were not. Some were caught on the street and dragged there to have a full house).
Here's 'In Love with Bucharest'...

This is a great post - but I would not agree that he was considered one of the greatest post-war Romanian poets. I'm sure, for example, he doesn't figure in the various English-language collections of post-war Romanian poetry - which certainly include Marin Sorescu's poems one of which I reproduced last weekend. Romania's "best-known" poet might be a better way of describing (best known by the Romanian population at large that is). I notice, for example, that Romanian Voice gives him 60 poems as against 28 of Sorescu's- and all in Romanian.

It must look a trifle odd for me to sit in Translyvania and read about China! In fact a large part of yesterday was spent in the pages of one of two 1,000 page books which have just arrived – German Genius, a well-produced book by Peter Watson which attempts to rectify what he (rightly) considers to be a serious ignorance by the English-speaking world of what Germany has contributed to the world in the past 200 years. I’ve previously confessed my Germanophilia – which I owe to my father. I read and speak the language, respect their professionalism and political life and admire the society they have built in the past 60 years. The long introduction of German Genius summarises various recent debates about the distinctiveness of german development (eg the “Historikerstreit” of the 1980s and the later “Sonderweg” thesis) is intellectual history at its best and demonstrate the depth of Watson’s reading and understanding. I found it difficult to get through an earlier book of his – A Terrible Beauty – the people and ideas that shaped the modern mind but find myself turing the pages of this massive book very eagerly. It helps that the chapters are short!
The little lane at the bootom of the garden was very busy yesterday – first a van which turned out to be from the electricity company with a maintenance team who lopped branches from trees which were in danger of fouling the line. This left a few trunks which will be a useful addition to my stock – and I duly trimmed and carried them up to the house. Very useful exercise! And today I will saw them into suitable sizes. Then a tractor towing a trailer full of cut logs for someone’s fire came by. Normally only the cows wander down this track.

In the evening I resumed my reading of the very useful One No, Many yeses by Paul Kingsnorth which contains great descriptions of and conversations with people who are standing up for their rights in places such as Papua New Guinea, Brazil or Boulder, Colorado. Now I’m into the section on the alternatives to the large corporations who poison our bodies and mind and destroy so much of our civilisation. He listens to David Korten at the 2002 Porto Alegre Social Forum and makes me feel guilty about sitting here and doing so little in this struggle. Instead of thinking about a paper for the next NISPAcee Conference (in May just down the road from here at Varna on the Black Sea), I should be attending conferences like the Social Fora!! But first, I have to sort out my mind - and read Olin Wright's Envisioning Real Utopias which I mentioned recently. Or at least, I should be linking up more actively with other sustainable livers in Romania and Bulgaria??

Universities are under the microscope at the moment – both in the UK and in Bulgaria