Was he /ourguy/?
Can he really be blamed from implementing neoliberal policies in Romania? It seems to me that the repressions were the result of unfavorable historical circumstances.
My only knowledge about him is that he used a lot of money to build extravagant houses for himself and that he had a cult of personality around him.
Other urls found in this thread:
He was the Pol Pot of Europe.
Forcing women to have kids they couldn't afford because he hadn't eliminated wage labor was pretty dumb. Most of those kids ended up getting raped in the orphanages. Pro life policies aren't good for anyone involved.
no
yes
Ceaușescu was almost as big of a revisonist as Deng. He had absolutely disastorous policies like said. He was also very fond of ethnic cleansing by flooding villages and forcefully relocating ethnic minorities to urban areas. He wasn't even a communist, not even with 1960's-1970's standarts. He was just another authotarial leader.
no
At least paying off the foreign debt meant that the west couldn't get much leverage on the country to do "shock therapy," so most of the welfare stayed in place even as industry was gradually privatized. Apostol should have succeeded Dej instead of this fascist rehabilitating egotist.
no
THIS. APOSTOL WAS SYNDICALIST GANG
yea honestly if he din't meddle so much with the west maybe we would've had a better Romania .Modern Romania is like the old one but its 10x worse with people begin so bluepilled and beyond broke a lot of people believe that the PSD the succdem party is socialist even tho they are similar to a conservative party ,we have no socialist movements we are beyond classcucked also if someone with a brain doesn't become president in the next 10 years the fucking bozgorz will get transilvania and Romania as a country will be again divided into 3 separate nations which will put like every Romanian patriot on suicide watch
My grandmother's sisters live up a mountain with their goats, and they maintain that things were better before 1989, if only because the little shops at the bottom of the mountain were more willing to hold things for you. Now they'll gladly sell everything in stock without regard to whether you've picked up your tea or writing paper this month.
Wtf I love Couscous now
I've always been interested in his abortion decree tbh. ( en.wikipedia.org
Seems like an interesting area where national interest and individual interest clash. The Romanian economy demanded children, the Romanian women didn't want to have them. I'm not saying I think he did the right thing - but it's a much more interesting area for debate around the morality of abortion than the morality of the act itself.
It's also interesting to wonder if a modern state could engage in more effective surveillance, or less explicit means of restricting abortion, to achieve the same end should a government desire it. I have a hunch that if you explicitly deny abortions, people go back-alley, but if you make abortions available, but too expensive or too far away, the back alley option is less popular because technically a safe option exists, and this market-technicality induces a sense of helplessness and resignation far more cruel and manipulative than anything the secret police could deal out. Which is fascinating until you consider it's basically already how we handle vast swathes of societal organisation.
Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want in the name of demographic growth is even worse than the usual American pro-life position. It amounts to seeing women as nothing but walking wombs and as policy relies effectively on hoping for as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.
That's what anti-abortion policymakers in America tend to do. They know they can't have abortion outlawed so they engage in all sort of petty hairsplitting to ensure it remains as inaccessible as possible without technically being illegal.
Ebin
I mean, being considered a walking womb could charitably be seen as more humanising than being considered a rational economic actor in a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with rigidly defined microfoundations capable of responding to endogenous supply shocks and generating exogenous business cycles, which is how we already do things.
True. Comparing the rates of unsafe or unapproved abortions between the US states with such policies and Romania would be interesting (and ghoulish) if you could control for all the other factors. Since they've done less on the other side of the equation other than giving pro-abstinence sex education (rather than banning condoms, and providing economic incentives to push up pregnancies to the maximum level.) it's probably impossible though.
I mean, if you absolutely have to for the country to survive against outside capitalist powers, sometimes its necessary. I'm more for the Soviet approach which was legalize contraception and abortion initially to control it and prevent unsafe abortions while also making sure to increase living standards so people don't get them in the first place and explicitly discouraging abortion if it can be helped, while only implementing illegalization in cases of mass population loss or if there is a necessary need for a population increase
Also if there really isn't a point at all, like in actual communism
why am i not surprised
Excuse me, I went to at least 2 seconds effort adding in those additional words following "actor" and preceding my reply to the other poster and I would be much obliged if you would quote them in full.
No. If a regime has to force women to have children they don't want to be politically viable, then it's a failed regime. Using your logic, anything could be justified in the name of "surviving outside capitalist powers".
This will be somewhat unrelated to Ceaușescu since his problem was enacting pro-natal policies with no supports attached at all, but does this mean in your view the USSR losing about 25 million in WW2 and having to limit abortion and contraception as a consequence to replace means its a failed regime?
Not anything, but many things do end up being necessary if the alternative is capitulation to imperialism and abandonment of socialism. Conflict, war, and revolution aren't always nice or comfortable. They are must always be built on necessity to succeed. Ceaușescu's problem was that he took too many unnecessary actions and created more problems then he fixed.