Lucian Ivanov-SURVEILLANCE ESSAY

Concordia

University

Essay #

Prepared by Name Surname,

course

Std

ID:

Presented to

Professor ...

Surveillance in the

Balkans

The Case of

Romania

“Before 1989, Communism was the prevalent ideology on three out of five continents

of the globe. In Russia and Eastern Europe, nearly three hundred million people

suffered the consequences of the Cold War, not daring even to begin to dream about

the blessings of liberty: the freedom of speech, the freedom of consciousness, freedom

of movement, free trade, and so on.

Despite its beauty in land and its richness in soil, despite its great pool of talent,

Romania has remained one of those countries where the fall of Communism did not

immediately result into human flourishing and economic prosperity. Post-communist

Romania may be counted together with the Republic of Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine,

given its ambiguous, twofold geopolitical orientation.”

( Mioc, George, 2014)

Research

questions

This research paper was written with several objectives in mind. First, to provide

understanding of what surveillance techniques were used during the communist period

in Romanian history, and their impact on the immediate participants and the

collective

Romanian consciousness. Second, how were they employed, by whom and at what

levels, to what point they were succesfully implemented or not, all in an attempt to find

answers that would bring some closure not only to the immediate victims of Romanian

communism but maybe to an entire nation.

Working

thesis

Based on a Foucaultian approach (1977) I will argue in this paper that in an attempt

create the “new man“ under the Romanian communist regime, the

surveillance

practices used within institutional settings extended to an abusive usage outside

those settings, creating in Romanian society a mutated Marxist alienation (1844) far

deeper than the one caused by labour exploitation, where forced labour became just a

mere appendice serving the larger scope, the “re-education“ of a nation and the

extermination of the Romanian elites non-partisan with the communist cause.

Methodology

I will construct this paper based on a socio-historical approach by employing a

combination of study cases, such as the one of the Periprava labour camp, mixed with

a review of the pertinent literature focusing on papers that include research within the

Romanian Secret Service “Securitate”

archives.

This project will not pretend to cover all the facets and implications of surveillance in

communist Romania but will focus on several aspects such as surveillance in the

collectivisation process,prisons/forced-labour camps, and surveillance of cultural

expression ( literature, libraries, television). This paper will contribute to the literature

written on the Eastern European countries by gathering and synthesising data under

the

umbrella of the term surveillance , data that otherwise is organised and thought of in

other different terms, thus providing a heuristc support when thinking and discussing

surveillance in the Balkans.

Historical context

The term surveillance comes from the French word surveillance which means “watch

from above” and I chose J. Gilliom’s and T. Monahan’s (2013) simplistic but

encompassing definition of surveillance as being the “monitoring of people in order

regulate or govern their behavior” (p.2-18).

Both definitions imply a “power relationship” as the authors well noticed, an aspect

that

will be discussed more in detail through the research.

In order to better understand the effects of surveillance in communist Romania we

need

to first understand the historical context in which it took place and explore briefly

some

biographical details of the two Romanian heads of state during the communist

period:

Gheoghe Gheorghiu-Dej and Nicolae Ceausescu.

Even though the “coup” of 1945 orchestrated by King Mihai I of Romania,

allowed

Romania to “save face” and some territories, and played an important role in turning the

odds to the advantage of the Allies, Romania, along with the rest of the Eastern bloc,

was up for grabs in the Russian quest for war compensations. ( Stanciu, Cezar, 2013,

p.445)

In 1945, USSR has incorporated by force five million Romanians from Bessarabia and

Northern Bucovina into the Red Empire, while the “ allied Russian army” was retreating

to their home land (G. Mioc, 2014).

During 1948-65 the leadership of the Romanian Communist Party (PCR) belonged to

Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej . He was born in Birlad, Moldavia, to poor peasant

parents

and went to work as a porter in Galati, a city by the Danube river, at the age of 11

(Stanciu, p.446).

Nicolae Ceausescu ruled the country from 1965-89. Him too was of provincial descend,

being born in Scornicesti, a village in Oltenia County. He, as well left home to find work

in Bucharest, the capital of Romania, when aged 11. (R.J. Crampton, 2004, p.214).

Being of humble origins, both leaders had little experience of life outside their

own

society and never been outside Romania prior to their coming to power, thus lacking in

diplomatic skills. Nevertheless they were intelligent and cunning, traits that helped them

rise and remain in power; G.G.Dej was able to speak Yiddish and Russian while

Ceausescu had a phenomenal memory.( Crampton, p.216-217).

Surveillance and collectivization

It is almost common knowledge that Communism as a doctrine, spawned from K.

Marx’s critique of capitalism and Marx’s and F. Engels’s seminal creation of “ The

Communist Manifesto”(1848). Although Marx proposed also a non-violent version of

Communism, seeing it as a “completed naturalism equal to humanism, and as an

answer to the historical struggle between man and nature, existence and essence”( The

Early Writings 1837-1844 p. 89), it is the revolutionary Communist Manifesto and its

final injunction “Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

that appealed to the proletarian masses and their leaders (1978,

p.89).

In each communist country, communism as an ideology was used and altered, to suit

the countries’ political agenda, taking different forms in different countries. We’ll

explore

here the case of Romania where the ideology was so strong that even if proven

non utilitarian in many cases, it was still followed. A good example of it can be found in

the conversations of G.G. Dej and the Russian leader Khruschev, in 1961, about the

agricultural collectivization issue. Khruschev warned Dej that it failed in the Soviet

Union

and other states and there’s no point in Dej enforcing it on its own people but Dej did it

anyway, reproaching Khruschev that he’s became estranged from the Marxist-Leninist

doctrine ( Crampton , p.218). I used this example to underline the

multifarious transformation of communism in Romania, as if abiding to a sort of

“orthodox communist” ideology that allowed for incommensurate acts of abuse,

thus

creating a base for the understanding of the draconian surveillance measures employed

in Romania at that time.

The process of collectivisation changed rural communities in that it had a

decisive

impact on agrarian production, population flow and social relations. Looking at a

comparison of the collectivisation process in villages on both sides of the

Romanian

Hungarian border will help us better understand the links between

surveillance,

collectivisation and labor camps creation as an result/necessity of the

forced

collectivisation

process.

Tatjana Thelen (2005) compares the collectivisation process in the Romanian village

Dorobanti (Kisiratos) and the Hungarian village of Mesterszallas. According to Thelen,

the implementation policy of land dispossession had three phases: an initial phase of

enforced collectivisation (1948-1953), a second phase of relaxation, after Stalin’s

death

(1953-1955) and a third phase of continued collectivisation targeting the whole

countries

lasting from 1956-1961 (Hungary) and 1956-1962 (Romania) (p.33).

“In the first phase both countries laid the foundation for the development of

collectives

and exerted considerable pressure on the rich peasants (kulaks, owing more than 5

of land) to give up their land. Among the measures [...] were progressive compulsory

delivery, appropriation of grain surpluses and direct coercion”( p.33). All of

these

elements occurs in both villages, however it was done under more

violent

circumstances in the Romanian case.

In the village of Dorobanti the collectivisation process began with the expropriation and

deportation lo compulsory labour camps of five peasants. Shortly after their return to

the

village, three of them committed suicide ( p.36). Sometimes peasants in an attempt

delay the process, were sending their wives to talk to the state authorities and it worked

in the Hungarian case more often than in the Romanian case. In the Hungarian case

the

women were coming home after being severely interviewed and

psychologically

humiliated while in the Romanian case they were beaten and/or raped on top of that.

The Hungarian men suffered humiliation and beatings while the Romanian men were

tortured on top of that: “... one of his fingernails was pulled out, because he ‘did not

want to sign a paper containing lies’ .Afterwards, he was in prison for three years.”

(p.39).

Thelen’s study shows that compared to the Hungarian case, in Romania, in the last

phases of forced collectivisation, the process was done in more arbitrary and

violent

ways: “ The last remaining private peasants were beaten up at the local office,

kidnapped at night and taken away in cars blindfolded, beaten up and then again

driven

around until they signed the entry declaration. Open violence only stopped after the

village was declared to be fully collectivized and, in contrast to the situation in

Mesterzallas, no private farm remained”

(p.42).

The surveillance aspect in the collectivisation process, as we can deduce,

was

performed in two ways: first, the local police had information from the land registry

office

about who owned what, where and how much, and second, following the practical

use

of that information, the police was aiming to enforce the new law of collectivisation upon

the population, as presented in Thelen’s

study.

We’ve seen through the collectivisation comparison in this two villages, Romanian and

Hungarian, that the intrusion into private lives and coercion by the security police

was

starting to become integral parts of quotidian experience, in Romania. Informing

was

declared a cardinal virtue, resulting in the dissolution of all traditional bonds of

loyalty

and attachment between individuals, and succeeding in creating a total captivity of

the

mind.( Marculescu Corina, 2008,p.387). All social and family ties were destroyed, as :

...purges are conducted in such a way to threaten with the same fate the defendant

and...all his connections [...]. The spouse who overhears one’s sleeping murmurs will

feel compelled to inform in order to ensure personal safety (Arendt in Marculescu, p.

387).

This represents the essence of Michel Foucault’s (1977) concepts of surveillance and

“panopticism” extended into civilian life in Communist Romania : not knowing if they

were being watched, the subjects of control assumed they were and thus the effects of

power were carried right to them, control becomes internalized (Campbell in

Marculescu, p.397).

Labour Camps and Surveillance

Romanian communists mirrored the values and strategies of their Soviet mentors

their pursuit of creating the Romanian version of the New Man. The vision was that

this

New Man would be mentally and physically superior, “a man of action...a hard-working,

yet altruistic figure, indefinitely dedicated to the struggle for word revolution and the

Party” ( Petrescu, Corina, 2011, p.1). Once the ideal was presented, the people had to

work towards embodying it, and anyone who failed to do so was educated by the Party

through exposure to propaganda, promise for rewards and ,ultimately, through

coercion.

The Party was helped in carrying out this task by the Security Police, Siguranta (

Securitate, from 1948) placed under the direction of the Russian NKVD and

NKGB

following the coup d’etat of 23 August 1944. (Deletant in Petrescu,Corina, p.459). Its

stated mission was “to defend the democratic conquest of the People’s Republic

Romania and to protect it against all internal and external enemies” (p.460). No means

were unjustified, extortion, coercion and torture, surveillance of those loyal and non-

loyal to the regime and , of course, severe prison (Sighet, Jilava, Gherla, Aiud, Poarta-

Alba, Pitesti) and labor camp sentences for real or imagined opponents were carried out

in the “Romanian gulag” of the Danube-Black Sea Canal and others , such as the

Periprava labor camp (p.460). The permanent population of such camps combined

(aprox.230) was around 80.000 individuals,(elements, in the Securitate jargon) more

than the national total number of Romanian inmates in 1948, comprised of 74 prisons

with 15,000 places (Ifrim, Anca Alexandra, 2011, p.392).

Analysing the Periprava labor camp study (Ifrim, 2011) , we’ll see how the system

wanted to re-educate individuals into becoming New Men thorough forced labor first

and then through torture. Of course, the New Man ideology was just a façade

serving

the higher purpose of eliminating any kind of resistance against the communist regime,

wiping out the ancient political class and the most prominent Romanian intellectuals,

with the purpose of creating a docile society, easier to extort and rule.

The Formatiunea 0830 Periprava labour camp (1957-1964) was situated in the

Danube

Delta, near the village with the same name (320 inhabitants) and is the last

settlement

on the Chilia branch of the Danube Delta, in Eastern Romania. The only way of

access

to the village is by water. The capacity of the camp was of 3255 people (excluding

employees). This case study was conducted over two years, involving field research

and examination of historical sources including files from the archives of the

National Council for the Study of Security

Archives:

Periprava is a village of fishermen lost in forest of reed whose name-if ever mentioned

in history-will only be remembered due to the bitter pains suffered here and the

thousands of graves where the Romanian elite was lost (p.387).

The main objective of the Securitate was the fight conducted against the class

enemy

and it was given its legal consent through the Order no.100 of the Deputy Minister of

the

Ministry of Home Affairs, Pintilie Gheorghe, on 3 April 1950 (p.390). In order to mask

its

re-educational brutal procedures form the Romanian society and the international public

opinion, the legislation and official communications were presented as being

conformity with international human rights

(p.390).

Regular accusations for imprisonment in such camps were accusations of sabotage

failure to fulfil production quotas and party duties (p.391). The re-education process

included non-criminal methods (at that time) such as : physical labour until

exhaustion

(digging daily for 18 hours) , starvation, physical violence. The Securitate physician from

the Danube-Black Sea Channel camp was certifying around 80-90 deaths per day

(p.392).

In the Periprava camp, a day’s work was different than in other camps:

...reed harvesting, in wintertime, in chest-high water, full of snakes. Weak and starved,

the convicts had to transport sheaves of reed twice as large as the diameters of their

arms, and 80 kg in weight. Trained dogs jumped over those who fell down with

exhaustion, to tear them to pieces (p.395).

The internees were formed from different social strata such as intellectuals (engineers,

doctors, priests, teachers, various functionaries), legionaries (the Romanian resistance)

some students, and peasants that were opposing the collectivisation process

(p.406).

The Periprava camp was the centre of the Danube Delta labour camps and

was

involved also into turning convicts into informers and releasing them after, into society in

order to fulfill their “duty” to the Party . Different tactics were used such as

denunciations

of intellectuals and the bourgeois by common right prisoners in exchange for extra

food

or better treatment, to the common threats to their families or physical torture (p.402,

p.417).

Cultural Surveillance

Through the firm maintenance of control of the media and freedom of speech coupled

with the fear that anyone could be an informer, the secret police led the Romanian

population into a mass psychosis, where they were convinced that the Securitate

agents were everywhere. We can see how the Foucaultian panoptical theory of inner-

coercion applies once more as “ Romanians were imprisoned-in their bodies, in their

homes, in every institution” (Marculescu, p.402). To revolt against censorship

Romanians developed a culture of double-speak, where a sort of complicity between

the reader and the author was needed in order to decode the message, a model of

communication that also functioned in daily life (p.393). Due to this fact, some

novelists

and poets managed to have work published, that passed the “untrained eye” of the

censorship, among them, being Nobel Prize nominee Marin Sorescu, Nichita Stanescu,

Marin Preda, Adrian Marino and many others (p.392).

Between roughly 1945 and 1948 a sizable number of Romanian intellectuals took the

decision to leave the country, or not to return if they happened to be in the West at the

time. Among the latter the best-known are Eugen Ionescu (the future great French

playwright Eugene Ionesco), the historian of religions Mircea Eliade, and the

philosopher E. M. Cioran.( Calinescu,Matei, 1991,p.244)

The case of literary critic and expert of intellectual history, Adrian Marino, clearly

illustrates how censorship functioned in Communist Romania. Imprisoned and

under

house arrest (in the 50’s) Marino worked under a pseudonym, wrote chapters

annulled books, had entire passages excluded from articles and books, his books

publishing were endlessly postponed by regime.( Costea, Ionut, 2012, p.499).

Novelist Marin Sorescu was sentenced to three months of house arrest in the

1980’s

and had a hard time publishing his works. His novel Trei dinti din fata (Three Front

Teeth) published in 1977, had 150 pages removed from it (Marculescu, p.393).

Anti-intellectual campaigns and witch hunts were conducted, some ending in court

trials,

for accusations of secret bourgeois learnings or aesthetic tastes such as that

philosopher Constantin Noica, or of the critic Ion Negoitescu, on the absurd

charges

that he read certain ideologically illicit books ( Calinescu, p. 247).

Library

Purging

The process of the librarie’s purging in Communist Romania was based on the Russian

model and carried out by the nascence of the General Directorate for Press and Prints

(GDPP). The institution functioned effectively for 28 years, until 1977, when it

became

the Committee for Press and Prints. Its purpose was to control the access to and

the

dissemination of information (Balauca, Roxana, year, p.

24).

The censorship implemented by this institution was both preventive and punitive.

The

punitive aspect was applied through the removal from circulation of those publications

which could have affected “Romania’s good relations with the United Nations”

(p.29).

Preventive censorship, as we saw in the cases of the writers presented in this

paper,

was exercised through the verification of content before publication by the team

censors, which, in the case of an official approval, were modifying texts with or

without

the author’s approval.

In practice, the censor’s work was oriented in three directions. Firstly, they were tasked

with supervising the entire editorial production by having the freedom to grant or

withhold the authorization to print and by supervising publishing houses. Secondly,

they were charged with verifying the publications which had already been introduced

into public circulation [...] control of libraries, book stores, antiquarian stores, and the

subsequent confiscation of prohibited works [...]. The third direction concerned the

import of foreign books, which was strictly regulated and supervised [...]. The censors

had an exact record of press subscriptions (p.29).

This research on libraries purging shows the depth of the state’s surveillance involved in

the maintenance of their ideological state apparatus (Althusser, Louis, 2001), necessary

to indoctrinate its people in the communist spirit and remove any ideas opposing

the

regime. One can only imagine the magnitude of the “army” of people necessary to carry

out and maintain this tasks:

In communism, the press was not the fourth power in the state but the expression of

the

state’s power (Ungureanu, L. and Eremia, R. 2015, Adevarul.ro).

Discussion

We’ve seen from the case studies presented in this research that, in the case

Romanian Communism, the Repressive State Apparatus (secret police, the

government, legal system) and some important parts of the Ideological State Apparatus

(press, literature, libraries) presented, worked very close together towards their

common goal, the creation of the “new Communist man” (Althusser, 2001). As we have

seen this was just a façade in order to reinforce a political agenda and to create a docile

population easier to manage.

Foucault’s panopticism (regulation of populations in space) involves this exact practiced

surveillance, record keeping and population control through bureaucratic registration

population, except that in Romania’s case it was performed not by the ancient existing

elite (from Monarchy times) but by the new Proletarians becoming an Elite overnight,

with the agenda of instating universal conformism in Romanian society (Foucault in

Schilling, Chris ,2003, p.91).

What makes 20-st Century Communism in Europe an “authentic tragedy, the greatest

ethical catastrophe in the history of humanity, more even than fascism” (Zizek,

Slavoj,

2011) is that it believed that it could achieve its mission, “it started with great hopes

and

ended up in misery” as opposed to fascism, where he says, the bad guys were

identified from the beginning, while in communism’s powerful but hidden double

agenda, we had countless dissidents and inner-struggles that lasted for tens of years.

An extreme case of re-education through brainwashing, happened in Romania, maybe

the most terrifying experiment from the entire Romanian history, called the Pitesti

Experiment (1949-’52) taking place at the gulag with the same name. “Graduation”

from

the experiment meant either death or the tortured became the torturer after

being

psychologically broken and re-educated. It was called the “genocide of souls” and it was

declared “the most intensive program of brainwashing to take place behind the Iron

Curtain” (Mathewes-Green, Frederica, 2007, p.9). It was not included in this paper not

because of its insignificance but because it deserves a space and discussion of

its

uniqueness in a larger context. Also, being a singular event, we could not make

generalisations based solely on it, when drawing some preliminary conclusions about

Romanian Communism.

I will argue that what happened in Romania under Communism could be qualified also

as a “genocide of free thought and knowledge”, it was an attempt to un-link two

generations, the young one and the old one, through exterminating the “carriers

knowledge” of a nation, its intellectuals. Luckily, through the creation of the culture of

double-speak and the physical fight of the Romanian resistance over decades, among

other factors, Romania survived Communism. Also, Dej and Ceausescu, consciously or

not, while developing their megalomaniac cult of personality appealed to Romanian

history and traditions in order to make Communism acceptable to Romanians, thus

preserving as well important national traits that contributed to Romania’s survival as a

nation

Using Marxian (1978) terms, Communism (au lieu of Capitalism) contained as well

within it, the seeds of its own destruction, and some of those seeds were discussed in

this paper (collectivisation, labor-camps, media censorship, nationalistic propaganda).

Conclusion

As argued in the beginning of this essay, through an analysis of only a small

but

important part of the dimensions of Communism in Romanian society (the

collectivisation process, labour camps, cultural expression) I have showed that, the

surveillance practices used within Romanian institutional settings extended to an

abusive usage outside and inside those settings, creating in Romanian society

mutated Marxist alienation (1844) far deeper than the one caused only by labour

exploitation. Forced labour coupled with extensive surveillance and torture, served the

larger scope, the “re-education“ of a nation and the extermination of the

Romanian

elites or anyone non-partisan with the communist cause.

Other areas need to be investigated in order to clearly understand the

Marxist

ideological mutation that happened in Romania. Such areas would be: the role of

the

Church, of television, of national history used in propaganda, the creation of a detailed

biography of all major human actors in power during the Communist era, and why not,

of their descendants, and what is their role in the contemporary Romanian society.

Also,

this development of the culture of double-speak in order to cope with self-regulating,

how people were recognising each other and who was safe to talk to, in a society

abundant with informants, creating thus the illusion of a normality, is worth

future

investigation.

Bibliography

Althusser, Louis (2001) ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus (Notes Towards

Investigation, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. ’ p.85-126 . Translated by

Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly Review Press. Accessed on April 5, 2015.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm

Bălăuca, Roxana (2014) The General Directorate for Press and Prints and its Role

in the Process of Library Purging. In Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Mar 01,

2014; Vol. 6, No. 10, p. 24-29.

Calinescu, Matei (1991) Romanian literature: Dealing with the totalitarian legacy. In

World Literature Today. Vol. 65 Issue 2, p.244-249.

Cormoş, Gratian (2012) Means of Dehumanizing in Romanian Communist Prisons. In

Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Vol. 4, No. 6, p. 94-100

Costea, Ionuț (2012) Adrian Marino -- Contributions to the Research on Censorship in

Romania. In Transylvanian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities, Vol. 17,

No. 2, p. 499-541

Crampton, R. J. (2004) Balkan communist leaders. In Journal of Southern Europe & the

Balkans, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 211-225

Deletant, Dennis (1995) The Securitate legacy in Romania: Who is in control?

in Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 42, No. 6, p. 23-28

Foucault, Michel (1979) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books,

New York, Trans A. Sheridan

Gilliom, John; Monahan, Torin (2013) Supervision An Introduction to the

Surveillance Society. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Ifrim, Anca Alexandra (2011) The Radiography of a Historical Anomie Periprava -- the

Narrative Memory of a Communist Labour Camp. In Transylvanian Journal of

Multidisciplinary Research in Humanities, Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 386-421

Mathewes-Green, Frederica (2007) The Wounded Torturer, in Review of Faith &

International Affairs, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 9-12

Marx, Karl (1844) Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts in Karl Marx, Early

Writings (New York: Vintage Books, 1975), p.

327.

Marx, Karl (1978) The Manifesto of the Communist Party , Robert C. Tucker

(ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader, 2

edition. New York, (NY: W.W. Norton and

Company, 1978) p.473-483.

Marculescu, Corina (2007) Captive Romania: Police Terror and Ideological

Masquerade under Communist Rule. In East European Quarterly, Dec 01, 2007; Vol.

41, No. 4, p. 383-406.

Mioc, George (2014), Romania : the legacy of Communism, www.nouarepublica.ro

http://www.nouarepublica.ro/ro//the-new-republic-party-fresh-political-project-

romania.html, accessed February 11, 2015.

Petrescu, Corina L. (2014) Creating the New Man: Coercion and Torture in Eginald

Schlattner's Novel, Rote Handschuhe (2001).In German Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 4, p.

459-479 .

Schilling, Chris (2003) The Body and Social Theory, Sage, p.91.

Stanciu, Cezar (2013) Communist Regimes and Historical Legitimacy: polemics

regarding the role of the Red Army in Romania at the end of the Second World War.

InEuropean Review of History, Vol. 20, No. 3, p. 445-462.

Thelen, Tatjana (2005) Violence and Social Discontinuity: comparing collectivization

in two East European villages in Social History, Vol.30, No. 1.

Ungureanu, Liviu and Eremia, Radu, 2015,www.Adevarul.ro , Stalin’s Apostles

http://m.adevarul.ro/cultura/istorie/apostolii-stalin-profetii-despre-trecutul-silviu-brucan-

asa-s-a-faurit-mod-sistematic-societatea-docila-conformista-erei-comuniste-

1_551ed5a8448e03c0fd306f3c/index.html, accessed on April 5, 2015.

Zizek, Slavoj, (2011), Talk to Al Jazeera- Slavoj Zizek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhk8az8K-Y, accessed on April 5, 2015.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."