Post-Crisis Belarus: Marxism and the Lender of Last Resort

Existing literature has examined the predictions and proscriptions of Karl Marx in response to the 2008 global financial crisis. However, the suggestions put forth by the Marxist-leaning literature never took hold and state-level banking and finance policies have remained largely unchanged. While many criticisms of Marxism exist, this paper examines Belarus, a ‘neo-communist’ or ‘market-socialist’ state, to provide a new perspective on the continuation of capitalism in the United States and Europe. In the case of Belarus, the International Monetary Fund and the Eurasian Economic Community's Anti-Crisis Fund provided both the critical liquidity needed to temporarily quell the effects of the financial crisis. Their demands meant that Belarus agreed to speed its move away from the Soviet-era finance and banking policies and more towards its western capitalist neighbors. Its failure to implement these policies further hurt its recovery. Examining Belarus' path to and out of its financial crisis makes apparent that the role of the international lender of last resort (LOLR). The LOLR acts as a key element in protecting states embroiled in the financial crisis from facing the possibility of making the difficult policy changes put forth by the Marxist literature. By ignoring its promises under the loan conditions from its LOLRs, Belarus moved further from the recovery promised by the Marxist suggestions.

Pyramus and Thisbe 4 You or a "Wondrous Strange" Tale of Contemporary Romanian Theatre

Like its title, Pyramus and Thisbe 4 You, Alexandru Dabija’s production at the Odeon Theatre, Bucharest, was a tongue-in-cheek invitation to the audience that at once aimed to tease past and recent Romanian endeavours and to tease out the stage potential a Shakespeare play holds today. My examination of the production re-constructs the local cultural contexts the production plays with and against, referring to the Romanian ways of making Shakespeare this production enters into dialogue with. Take 1, an all-female version casting the mature stars of the Odeon, I read against both Elizabethan all-male stage practice and Andrei Serban’s all-female Lear at the Bulandra (2008). Take 2, “an old device” (V.1.50): a teacher-student “devising” session at the Academy of Theatre and Cinema, I read against critics’ “more strange than true” (V.1.2) parlance on “theories of perception and reception” and against hi-tech Shakespeare dominating the Romanian stages in the first decade of the third millennium. Take 3, local political banter on ethnic discrimination, I read as “satire keen and critical” (V.1.54) on both communist censorship and the recent rise of nationalism in Romania. Take 4, a “cold” reading-cum-improvisation performed by the technical crew – this production’s mechanicals – I read as “palpable-gross play” (V.1.376) on both acting and spectating practices. What I argue in this article is that Dabija’s production goes beyond its local context and mores, and proposes a re-assessment of Shakespeare’s cultural currency in (European) Romania and Europe at large by exposing current tyrannies in Shakespeare studies: from translation and adaptation, through directing and acting, to viewing and reviewing.