Can we have a thread on the genius of the Carpathian?
What does Zig Forums think of Nicolae Ceaușescu?
Unironic NazBol. Remove.
Deviated from Marxism by embracing "National-Communism"
Enforced literal NeoLiberal Austerity in the 70s-80s and decimated Romanias standard of living comparative to the rest of the world and all of the Soviet bloc
Cucked out to the IMF even worse than the Yugoslavians did, causing massive poverty and misery among the Romanian people.
Fun fact: Him and his wife were killed by a firing squad of three guys, but only one shot them because he was the only one to have his gun loaded and on automatic.
Is it me or a lot of people miss this guy? Why is that? I was under the impression he was one of the most incompetent leaders in the Eastern bloc
Hungayran here. This fag did everything to forcefully assimilate the minorities under his rule. Fuck him. A communist should be internationalist, not a nationalist.
He was incompetent, but the current rulers of Romania are even worse.
I don’t know a massive amount about him. Whenever I read anything about him it just seems like the worst possible form of government with no redeeming qualities. He’s like Pol Pot for me.
He’s like Pol Pot
he got blown the fuck out
Easily one of the worst communist leaders and STILL capitalist restoration was so bad it makes him look good in comparison.
It's amusing because Romanians will shid and fard about communism but insist Cuckescu was the best communist leader.
A Romanian guy, older, educated in political science, told me that Ceausescu instituted the austerity to pay back the IMF debt. That the people were actually kind of on board cause he promised them that things will improve once the debt was paid. They managed to pay the debt but he went back on his promise and continued the same measures. So they killed him.
Is this a fair description?
Tbf he paid-back the loans in early 1989 so he could have eased off massively. Whether he would have been overthrown later that year is debatable, but I don't think he was shot because he didn't repay the loans: he was shot because when the protests started he send the police guns-blazing into the protesters.
Nicolae is a great example of why the Velvet revolutions (contrary to what liberals say) were as violent as any others if pushed: the crowds were a threat of violence almost all of the eastern bloc leaders gave-in to. Romania is the one country they didn't give into them and that saw its leader shot and thrown in a ditch.
You guys seen this? It's pretty stunning, people showed up there with portraits and signs praising Ceausescu but then started booing as they realised is just another event of useless sloganeering. Also, he tells his delusional wife to shut up as she thinks she is some Marie Antionette or something, telling the protestors to shut up. Looks to me Ceausescu was until the end very aware he was leader on a peoples's mandate, something the Securitate and his wife didn't understand.
Nevertheless, according to opinion polls held in 2010, 41% of Romanians would vote for Ceaușescu and 63% think that their lives were better before 1989. In 2014, the percentage of those who would vote for Ceaușescu reached 46%.
Despite the harsh austerity measures of the 1980s in Romania being still in living memory, many Romanians respond in polls that they'd prefer a restoration of the Communist regime (as much as 53% in a 2012 poll), looking back nostalgically at an era of perceived stability and safety as opposed to the recent economic and political instability
If that is the case. Why is not a strong Communist party there?
This is one of questions that I want to ask Ismail one day, as well as other leftists. My opinion is that A) Communist party is banet B)people vote for Social Democratic Party which is continuation of previous communist party.
C)Politicians promise goodies and people vote for those liars
D)Brain drain duo to easy emigration laws.
Most former eastern bloc states do have relatively strong leftist parties, usually either actual communists or socdem/demsoc successor parties like Die Linke. The Communist Party of Bohemia is fairly strong, as is the CPRF. The ones that don’t are usually either exceptions, or ban them.
Yeah and the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) is usually the second or third on every election and have the power to flip any side into majority.
Yet everyone knows they are a fucking joke and just disgusting opportunists.
My man was so bad at population management he created a generation of children who were sodomized and trafficked all around the world
Why is it that literally every single Commie cucked out to the IMF.
He was rightfully shot, who would be so delusional towards what the people are actually experiencing?
I do not think you can imagine what a socially-conservative term “communist” even is here, all thanks to this reactionary guy. Banning abortions, starving the population, building palaces for himself, not even to mention the revival of nationalism and the “dacian” origin of Romania. It’s funny, because a lot of those Ceausescu-supporting people would equally support someone like Antonescu or the National Guard, so why the fuck would you use those statistics as an argument for Communism?
Communism certainly looks nothing like what he’s done here.
People miss the social housing and the job security offered by the pre-80’s period (which were even offered by western countries even better) so praising Ceausescu as a Communist is as useful as praising Kenya or Somalia as some oasis of capitalism, fuck him.
I think it shows how what happened in the Eastern Bloc in 1989 could have only happened in a Marxist-Leninist regime: all the events were predicated on mass action that ML regimes loved to foster, but control. Massive rallies waving flags and singing songs in central squares, but the difference was that they were aimed against the government heads, not in their favour.
Because the Warsaw pact was set-up so you were either cucked to the Soviets or you had to turn to the institutions of the day: the IMF and WB.
As to the “Social Democratic” party which is now governing Romania, they actually are the same ex-communist bureaucracy which deposed Ceausescu, so locals here are somehow justified in equating them with what communism meant for the bulk of them (post 80 that is).
Romania was never actually “progressive” as a country, PCR falsified most of the elections anyway, how is this representative of a system where the working class aquires self-conciousness?
Throughout all their reign, they did nothing that fascists would not have done in their place:
• collaborate with capitalists in the west
• collaborate with the church
• instill traditional values such as the nuclear family
• kill indirectly thousands of women who actually considered their bodies as being theirs and attempt abortions
• if the kids were born though and they did not die because of the lack of electricity or food, just place them in orphelinates where they saw no sunlight and were stranded to baby beds up until they were over 8 years old
• revive the traditions of “ancient romania” as Dacia, with all which is entailed by that
• be so invested in your cult of personality that you raze half a burrough down just to build the second largest building in the world at the same time when the shops were empty and the people were reverting back to buthane containers to heat their food because central heating wqs simply lacking (hot water as well)
Now, do not even attempt to twist my words into saying that I somehow support the neoliberal system which is currently dominating the country in which I reside. It’s not “worse”, it’s just more of the same, which is capitalism, only less authoritarian I guess, since we’ve established that ceausescu was in no way a communist.
What now remains of them is the mass social housing they built from the 60’s onwards, mostly plattenbau tower blocks made out of shitty building materials, badly isolated, cramped and leaking. Now, to take a leap into their actual building context, most of the burroughs in the cities have seen more than three periods of massive housing being built inside them: one in the 50/60’s, one in the 80’s and an ongoing one since the early 2000’s. So, just walking around between our blocks, they are depressing, because most of the space dedicated to schools and parks has been used up by the densification in the 80’s while the rest of it was anarchically used up to the last square metre by the new private building schemes. It’s a total chaos, no place to walk, no place to park, the air is suffocating and the traffic is unending.
The most common argument I hear in favour of his reign is the industrialization of the country which, not only was extremely badly done (we have a huge surplus of oil refineries just rusting now because they estimated that we could produce much more oil than we had the capacity), but is not even communist in itself, fucking england, france or germany have industrialized pretty much the same under capitalism or even fascism, it’s really indifferent to what ideology the ruling was brandishing.
Ceausescu (and it’s obvious that I speak for the whole movement which he represented, hand no real commitment to changing the ongoing mode of production in Romania unless it was in ways that suited his clique directly. The proletariat overcoming themselves as a class wasn’t ever put on the table in our country.
Could not agree more comrade
Apostol is better.