Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

A question on Nicolae Ceausescu

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 562
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Jul 2004, 16:52
Komsomol
Post 22 Aug 2004, 09:19
I posted an article on another forum on Nicolae, and I was met with this:

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/leaders/villians.htm
Top Ten Most Notorious Despots...
Running a neo-Stalinist police state from 1967-89, Nicolae Ceausescu wound the iron curtain tightly around Romania, turning a moderately prosperous country into one at the brink of starvation. To repay his $10 billion foreign debt in 1982, he ransacked the Romanian economy of everything that could be exported, leaving the country with desperate shortages of food, fuel, and other essentials. Yet no costs were spared for his own self glorification the self-proclaimed "Genius of the Carpathians" spent lavishly on party office buildings and personal residences. Ceausescu also razed thousands of villages and forced citizens into concrete high-rises, a misguided socialist idea of modernity as well as a way of wiping out Romanian culture and history. His corruption and nepotism were legion, and former Secretary of State George Shultz claimed that during Ceausescu's reign, Romania had "possibly the worst" human rights record in the East bloc.


----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

I was just wondering how he lived. Did he live simple like Stalin or Ernesto Guevara, or did he live in luxury?
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 22 Aug 2004, 09:34
I agree Chaushesku wasn't the best commuunist leader,but this information is in propaganda style.Look:

Quote:
Ceausescu also razed thousands of villages and forced citizens into concrete high-rises,


He never razed THOUSANDS of villages /I suppose he didn't raze a single village/.Concrete building was priority for all communist states - it's cheaper,easy and fast to build,helps the growth of cities,easier to make mass electrification,sanitation,gasification.He didn't raze villages - he just razed houses there and constructed concrete blocks for the inhabitants.Maybe if here is someone from Romania he could tell us what was the real siituation.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 22 Aug 2004, 10:51
All despots bring Dallas to the people.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
Soviet cogitations: 123
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Mar 2004, 15:53
Pioneer
Post 22 Aug 2004, 18:35
There is a lot of revisionist history going on here. Back in the 70s I remember a completely different Ceausescu. He was described as maverick politician, a third pather like Yugoslavia which was neutral in the cold war. He never gave the Sovie Union any support, he opposed the Afghanistan War. After his death there were reports that he was a CIA agent, that he was paid millions of dollars for Soviet military secrets. He was such a good allyn of the West that he got his nuclear reactors from Canada with taxpayer subsidies.
What I find now is that the Ceausescu myth has become reality and now the discussion is about the Stalinist. He was never a Stalinist, in fact to me he was just the opposite, a third pather like Yugoslavia and Iraq which tried to play both sides from the middle during the Cold war and then discovered that once the cold war was over they were the first to be sacrificed. After the coup I heard reports that there were lots of foriegn agents in Bucharest at the time . So now I find people on the left criticizing Ceausescu as a hardline Stalinist when he was never that. The reason he owed so much money to the west was because he was their ally, Russia never borrowed a cent from the west. The problem is now people conclude that he failed because he was a hardliner when in fact he failed because he was a disloyal ally of the Soviet Union who sold out his principals to the West, eventually when they no longer needed him, they came to collect. Sop the lesson is that there is no third path, stay loyal to the Soviet cause or perish. Socialism or death!
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 22 Aug 2004, 19:26
Very good post,comrade.
BRAVO
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1598
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Feb 2004, 22:46
Party Member
Post 04 Nov 2004, 21:21
I wrote an essay once to refute a pro-Ceausescu guy on Another World Is Possible message boards. I'm gonna cross-post it here:

"The Crimes of Nicolae Ceausescu"

I have been reading up on Ceausescu lately like MaoRedStar recommended me too... partly because I read his essay and was intrigued by Ceausescu's works in foreign policy. I thought that, despite what I had heard all my life about the man, that he might possibly be progressive: he did leave the Warsaw Pact, denounced the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, visited China and claimed to uphold the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

However, upon researching deeper into both sides, both pro-Ceausescu and anti-Ceausescu, I found my old beliefs reaffirmed, and found myself in utter disgust due to the things I read about Ceausescu from anti-revisionist Communist sources...

According to the things I read in these sources, the Romanian Revolution of 1989 was not simply a coup d'etat, but a multifaceted struggle in which the Romanian Communist Party/Ceausecu ruling clique, the pro-west National Salvation Front, and the Romanian masses faced off in a three-way battle that was an extremely liberating experience (if only shortly) for the Socialist Republic of Romania. Sadly, much like the great Iranian Revolution of 1979 (which was also a great massive upheaval with enormous potential) that was usurped by Islamic fundamentalist mullahs, the Romanian Revolution was usurped by the National Salvation Front and its gang of pro-Western thugs. Nevertheless, during the few months of that massive upheaval, class struggle and mass action were everywhere, and heated debate filled every corner of Romania as people discussed which future their nation must have... and the Romanian Revolution affirmed Mao Tse-Tung's immortal words: It's Right to Rebel Against Reactionaries!

During that time of mass insurrection and workers revolts, many people spoke out about their experiences to comrades of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement, who were reporting and investigating the fall of "communism" in Eastern Europe. Two soldiers who had defected from the Romanian Army to fight on the side of the masses spoke very bitterly about both the Ceausescu regime and the new regime that was being created by the NSF and the military coup. On speaking of their service, they said, "A Romanian soldier has no rights, not even the right to speak- the only rights we have are to be beaten and mistreated."

When asked what they thought of the new regime, they exposed them plainly: "...it was they who benefitted from the Ceausescu regime, they had big salaries, privileges, advantages; the Romanian workers never had any of this. The officers and the old bosses have kept their old positions and have simply burrowed into the new government..." The two soldiers recognized that this was simply the throwing off of the mask of "socialism" to reveal the true nature of the Romanian state. They recalled how when the workers in the mines of Petrosani denounced their managers as capitalists and demanded an end to exploitative wages and oppressive working conditions that the Romanian Army was sent in to kill them in 1977, and how they did in the same to the factory workers in Brasov in 1987, and how they would never forgive the old army and party officers for allowing this to happen. Finally, they said they hoped that their fellow soldiers would also take their place amongst the masses so that they can help to forge a new world full of peace, friendship, and liberation. When asked how many soldiers thought like this, one of them replied, "all of us".

It is no wonder that the workers rose up in such a way. Romania had been a revisionist country for decades; one that had never gone forward in socialist reconstruction after World War II. Instead, it worked to accumulate surplus in the most profitable sectors of the economy rather than in an all-around way, basing its goals on human needs and on balanced, simultaneous development of agriculture, light industry, and heavy industry. Beginning a steady import/export trade relationship with the West, and exporting of most of its industrial and agricultural produce (things that could have been used to develop the nation into a self-sufficient one!) to the Soviet Union, West Germany, East Germany and the other Eastern European nations, France, Italy, and the U.S.A., Romania trapped itself in a vicious cycle of debt and created an unevenly-developed economy. The Socialist Republic of Romania never built socialism, the great economic system based on social needs rather than profit- it instead created a system was based on accumulating capital and profit, applying capitalist criteria to every level, while maintaining state ownership of most of the means of production. Its managers and economic bureaucrats became a new bourgeoisie under "one-man management" while the workers councils became moribund and powerless- something that Engels warned would inevitably lead to private ownership.

Meanwhile, while the Romanian proletariat became exploited by oppressive management and poor pay, Ceausescu covered the actual economic relations and conditions under a blanket of ultra-nationalist demagogy. Marina, a Romanian worker and Communist activist from Transylvania, recalled how "The Ceausescu regime tried to pit us all against each other, Romanians, Hungarians, Germans, all of us." Valentin, an ethnic Hungarian assembly plant worker in Brasov, Transylvania, points out that despite the fact that his people make up 2 million out of the 23 million people in Romania, Ceausescu was extremely hostile to them. He declared that Hungarians were attempting to invade and destroy Romania with their culture, and accused them of all being foreign agents. Under Ceausescu, the only Hungarian university was shut down along with many Hungarian-language schools, and Hungarians were not allowed to speak their own language. The Roma (Gypsy) people were constantly harassed and subjected to terrible discrimination alongside their Hungarian, Slovak, German, and Croatian comrades. Despite his talk of egalitarianism and Communist brotherhood, whenever I look at Nicolae Ceausescu I can only find myself looking at a man who was a complete national chauvanist not unlike Khrushchev or Brezhnev.

Most of all, however, are the towering crimes of Elena Ceausescu and her crimes against her fellow women with her law against abortion and contraception. Meant to supposedly "strengthen" the nation, it violated the basic rights of all Romanian women (something far more important than a "strong" nation), turned them into simple incubators for new soldiers and exploited workers, and in the end caused untold misery upon the people of Romania. Nicolae and Elena had every factory and institute equipped with Securitate gynecological police: women were subjected to monthly monthly vaginal exams to check for birth control or signs of abortion. Countless women died of illegal abortions and many more suffered imprisonment for possessing birth control.

In Pitesti, a male nurse recalled: "I had been working in the emergency ward of my clinic when a young woman came in bleeding badly. It became obvious that she had tried to give herself an abortion and had complications. Unfortunately for her, a Securitate agent happened to see her and questioned the doctor. The doctor was afraid and so admitted that the woman probably had an abortion. So the Securitate began to interrogate the woman, demanding all the names of all who helped her. The woman denied everything; but the Securitate had to have it their way- they said she had to understand that she would get medical treatment only after she cooperated. They held her in another room so the other patients couldn't he her moan. After some time they finally let us intervene, but it was too late. She died. I couldn't get her out of my mind, she was young, healthy. I asked for a transfer from the emergency ward. I couldn't stand it anymore. Now that doesn't happen. Those monsters are gone." When asked about the new regime, he looked even more sad, and said, "Unfortunately, the wolf has only changed his coat."

The same regime that created state-capitalism and put enormous oppression upon the women and national minorities of Romania still exists today. Other than the dissolution of the old PCR, the death of the Ceausescus, and the opening of private Western companies in Romania, the basic state, its class relations, and individual government/army officials remained untouched. All of the Presidents, various heads of ministries, and Romanian Army officers are old PCR oligarchs. It was the 1991 Soviet Coup in reverse: with the pro-laissez faire forces attempting to overthrow the old social-imperialists instead of vice-versa. It was not the overthrow of a genuine socialist state, but a conflict within the Romanian bourgeoisie that led to the socialist mask to be dropped and Romania's capitalist system to be exposed for all to see.

While the new Republic of Romania is most definitely a disgusting oppressive capitalist state, the people of Romania cannot seek true liberation by upholding the revisionism of Ceausescu and his deplorable crimes. They must learn to denounce both the new order and the old order, and seek to build a new Communist Party guided by Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, one that will guide them to true revolution and real socialism instead of the phony communism of Ceausescu.

Sources:
"Cast Away Illusions, Revolution All The Way!" A World To Win magazine #15, 1990.
"Unheard Voices from Romania" A World To Win magazine #15, 1990.
"The Final Demise of Ceaucescu" by the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist, A World To Win magazine #15, 1990.
"Ceausescu's War on Women", Revolutionary Worker newspaper #546, March 5, 1990.
"Bush and Ceausescu: Enemies of Women", Revolutionary Worker newspaper #546, March 5, 1990.
"Romania: Rage Takes Out a Revisionist Dog", Revolutionary Worker newspaper #546, January 1, 1990.
Comrade Andrei Mazenov
2007 Winner of Soviet-Empire's A View to Kilt Award

Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 30 Dec 2004, 16:43
Looting wrote:
Russia never borrowed a cent from the west.

Not true. Russia pays still Finland debts that were made by USSR.

Ok, you can argue that Finland was not either west nor east.
Soviet cogitations: 278
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2004, 00:31
Komsomol
Post 30 Dec 2004, 19:03
As far as I can tell, the allegedly Socialist Republic of Romania was merely the plaything of a two-headed monster.

However, I do not understand why there was this policy of forcing people to have children only to herd them into enormous orphanages devoid of health or education. Is this because of Elena Ceausescu's idea of the immorality of birth control?
Ce n'est pas en oubliant que nous avons forgé notre survivance.
Soviet cogitations: 700
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Jan 2005, 16:45
Komsomol
Post 02 Jan 2005, 15:37
I think he made alot of bad choices but the good ones he did make failed somehow lol.To me he really was't that bad.I bet he was a nice guy you could have tea with on a sunday evening lol.I just finished reading a long autobiography on him.Its interesting and it has alot of details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceausescu
Image

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle
Oh it was beautiful
magical.
All the birds in the trees
They could sing so happily
So joyfully
Oh playfully watching me
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2005, 15:32
Pioneer
Post 03 Jan 2005, 04:41
Fantastic post Andrei Mazenov! Having lived in and experienced Romania for 9 months over the last two years and finding out the truth as far as one can about Ceaucescu I was ready to post what I knew but I see you not only have the same ideas but have a lot more detail to offer that even I didn't have!:) Thanks!


Frank pivo 4, Many Romanians I spoke to do indeed think that Ceaucescu himself wasn't that bad a guy,and liked him but they absolutely loathed the people around him, namely his wife Elena who they see as the true evil force. And she was a real evil bitch, a 'doctor' of chemistry and god knows what else with less knowledge than the most ignorant peasant. She was ruthless and brutal and had such an inferiority complex that she needed to appear the 'intellectual' despite never learning anything.
Soviet cogitations: 700
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Jan 2005, 16:45
Komsomol
Post 03 Jan 2005, 16:47
Ya i have heard that about her.Did't his general's plan the revolt?That's what i read in an article, that his general's were planning the overturn since 1980.
Image

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle
Oh it was beautiful
magical.
All the birds in the trees
They could sing so happily
So joyfully
Oh playfully watching me
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2005, 15:32
Pioneer
Post 04 Jan 2005, 00:07
I heard and read that it was people like that Illiescu who were party leaders under Ceaucescu did plan a revolt long before and Gorbachev helped with the coup as Ceaucescu was the only so-called communist leader that was speaking out against Gorbachev's ideas for communist 'reform'. Frankly I think that Ceaucescu was right on this but it was hypocritical for him to accuse Gorbachev of betraying communism when he did the same!
Soviet cogitations: 700
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Jan 2005, 16:45
Komsomol
Post 04 Jan 2005, 06:03
Do you think gorbachev betrayed communism?In my eyes he did but i accuse alot of people of being traidors lol.
Image

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle
Oh it was beautiful
magical.
All the birds in the trees
They could sing so happily
So joyfully
Oh playfully watching me
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2005, 15:32
Pioneer
Post 04 Jan 2005, 09:07
Yes Gorbachev did destroy any hope for communism in Soviet Union. It had been turnig away from communist ideals for many years before Gorbachev came to power, but instead of re-aligning it on the right path he accelerated the embracing of capitalism in Soviet Union and sold out what few ideals of the Revolution there were left just so he could be friends with the west and go shopping in New York. It's instructive that his best friends were Reagan, Bush Sr., and Thatcher...the worst bunch of neo-conservative fascist killers of their time. They loved him too cause they all got what they really wanted: the end of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev sold out everything...he was worse than Yeltsin in my view cause Soviet Union was still saveable in 1985 but Yeltsin was just a western puppet that allowed his oligarch masters to plunder what was left of Russia's resources.
Soviet cogitations: 700
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Jan 2005, 16:45
Komsomol
Post 04 Jan 2005, 10:22
It's sad, soviet union should still be alive
.
Image

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle
Oh it was beautiful
magical.
All the birds in the trees
They could sing so happily
So joyfully
Oh playfully watching me
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2005, 15:32
Pioneer
Post 04 Jan 2005, 15:16
Well hopefully it's death will not be in vein and a new 'Soviet Union' of all people's rises up in it's place, learning from it's mistakes and tearing down the nation state as it exists today to form one global 'Soviet Union' where all people have the same rights and opportunities to achieve all they can as human beings. Sigh...still a long way off:(
Soviet cogitations: 700
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Jan 2005, 16:45
Komsomol
Post 04 Jan 2005, 20:02
Quote:
form one global 'Soviet Union' where all people have the same rights and opportunities to achieve all they can as


I doubt we will see that in our life time
.


to capitalism.
Image

When I was young
It seemed that life was so wonderful
A miracle
Oh it was beautiful
magical.
All the birds in the trees
They could sing so happily
So joyfully
Oh playfully watching me
Soviet cogitations: 226
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Aug 2004, 14:50
Pioneer
Post 04 Jan 2005, 20:56
HERE is a very interesting poll about Chaushesku, I've put my thoughts in there. Chaushesku might have been a bad leader, but he surely didn't deserve what he got.

Quote:
turning a moderately prosperous country into one at the brink of starvation

That's a very common argument in anti-socialist propaganda. You can oftelly hear "The commuinists ruined |insert-here-a-name-of-a-country|, it was a prosperous mining/agricultural/whatever country before they came, stole everything and what they didn't steal, they gave to the Soviets!". I advise you not to listen to that kind of bullshit.
Soviet cogitations: 31
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2005, 15:32
Pioneer
Post 05 Jan 2005, 02:14
you're right there Stealth....Even Noam Chomsky said that to accurately compare what capitalism and communism did for a country you need to take into account all the social development before hand. It's unfair to compare capitalist britain for example,with 500 years of proto-capitalist development to say romania, which was the most backward agrarian backwater of the ottoman empire during this period. He offered that to see what both capitalism and communism offered to similar countries, better to compare Bulgaria of 1945 with Ecuador of 1945, as they were about the same population and development back then and compare them to now. Even then he says it's unfair as Ecuador got much more assistance from the US over the years and trade benefits than Bulgaria ever got from Soviets. And yet which country developed more? Of course Bulgaria! No contest when people in Ecuador under glorious capitalism and support from US, live in shanty towns, in a country with no industry, and shit in the streets from lack of sanitation facilities!
Soviet cogitations: 700
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Jan 2005, 16:45
Komsomol
Post 05 Jan 2005, 12:47
Good point comrade.It's a shame that bulgarias economy is weak these days.You know back in 96 atlest in my view things were looking up...
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron