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

Nicolae Ceauşescu

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 223
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Oct 2006, 14:20
Pioneer
Post 19 Dec 2010, 14:38
You say that like those are bad things to suffer from, Loz.


Anyway, Harry.. Ceausescus regime was, interesting. To say the least, if you want to discuss it properly shoot me a private message or something. Ceausescu era Romania and Bulgaria during the cold war are the two WP states I find the most interesting.
Sure old people have died in their droves from the bitter cold of the warmest january on record, and they practically rot in their hospital beds and our prime minister is incapacitated in office..

But God damn it Britain is getting the job DONE.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 14 Jan 2011, 16:53
When looking at Ceausescu's nationalist policies, his praise for the attemted counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia in 1968, his cooperation with the West and his popularity in the Cold War-era Western world, I tend to see him as a degenerate and a counterrevolutionary.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 21 Mar 2011, 17:28
Hello everyone. I am very interested in this figure of Nicolai Ceausescu. The man seemed nothing short of completely mad. If any of you could explain to me the economic reasons for why Romanian living standards were so low in the 1980s, that would be very good, thank you. Is it true that in the 1970s things were reasonable, however he soon started exporting everything abroad, leaving nothing for the domestic populace and this resulted in food shortages?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 21 Mar 2011, 19:12
Romania's pro-natalist policies were insane. Ceausescu was not popular, and generally I feel like he was one of the worst socialist leaders in history.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4405
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 21 Mar 2011, 19:34
Political Interest:

Ceausescu sought regional independence from the Soviet Union. In the 1970s, he borrowed a lot of money from Western banks in an attempt to build up and modernize his country's economic base. This money was borrowed at floating interest rates. Many countries in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa also borrowed heavily, and in the 1980s, when its liquidity dried up and interest rates went up tremendously, all these countries were suddenly forced to find ways to pay off their debt, which began eating up huge proportions of budgets, and multiplying over time to represent far more than the originally borrowed amount. Romania, then the only member of the IMF and World Bank in the Socialist Bloc (to be joined in the 1980s by Hungary and Poland), decided that it would do all in its power to pay off its debts as quickly as possible. This resulted in severe austerity for the Romanian people, though by 1989, just as the regime was being set to topple, it was actually close to having fully paid off the debt. That explains why in the 1970s, as investments and loans were coming in, living standards were improving, whereas in the 1980s, with Ceausescu's plan to pay off the debt rapidly, they deteriorated severely.

Understanding the impact of the international debt crisis will help you understand not just Romania's predicament, but also that of Yugoslavia, Hungary, and especially Poland, where similar patterns of development occurred (though in no other country was the deliberately caused deterioration of living standards so severe as in Romania).
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 22 Mar 2011, 00:02
Ah I see, thank you for your answers. I also read that his industrialisation policies also had something to do with this. Apparently the GDP increases were only due to structural changes in the economy. The article later said these devastated the Romanian economy. Does this mean growth only occurred because they were building new factories and this naturally meant more GDP, but once they were in place they could not develop them further?
Soviet cogitations: 88
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2011, 21:42
Ideology: Maoist
Pioneer
Post 13 Jul 2011, 19:44
Idk Ive been talking to a guy who suposedy lived in Causescues Romania and said the so called horrors of Romanian communism are grossly exaggerated or fullout western propaganda I also read a survey by The institute of investagating communist crime that says 49 % of Romanians want communism back while an addiitional 5% are rather nuetral on the matter the source also leads me to belive the statistic could be higher because I have also hear 61%
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 12 Aug 2011, 22:00
At my former place of employment I had a Romanian customer come in all the time. I'd get into conversations with him all the time about politics and then where he grew up, Socialist Republic of Romania. He definitely told me that it was widely exaggerated, the "bad times" that is. He said he's all too familiar with the West showing black and white clips of old people walking around "looking miserable" in order to give the country a bad name.

He told me people valued what they had IMMENSELY. If you got a new jacket, or a nice new pair of pants, it meant something. Now a days, people just take whatever they want for granted, they don't ever learn a sense of value anymore. He told me how the schools were very orderly, and disciplined. You wore uniforms, suits, and ties, and when the teacher glared at you, you KNEW you were in deep shit. Nowadays, he told me, the students are wearing oversized shirts and beating up the teachers.

He said Ceausescu became the figure head of the Romanian Party, and was looked at to just be a puppet, and just an icon, but in fact he outsmarted the other party big wigs and took full control of the country. He said the first 5 or 6 years was wonderful under Ceausescu, everyone had work, things were progressing, but then he said things started to go bad when Ceausescu was influenced by North Korea's personality cult and also Maoist ideas.

He told me about how some people who owned thriving restaurants before the war, were allowed to keep them, but then 50% had to go to the state while the people kept their earnings. However, after the rapid change in policies, the govt. decided it would take everything.

So Ceausescu definitely wasn't perfect to this particular customer, but he was definitely quick to defend him against western cold war propaganda. A lot of what he said was generalizations such as "Oh kids now do this, not that, now people are all uneducated" but still, talking to him you get the sense of change that did occur. And judging from Ceausescu's time, it probably changed for the WORSE, rather than the better. Twenty or so years after Ceausescu's death, no national debt, now Romania is in even worse debt than before.

Ceausescu, he says, stood up to the world bank, and the country was free of it's national debt by the end of the 80's. Also, there was no "Romanian Revolution" he said, it was a Coup, nothing more.

That's really I can remember from our conversations. Bascially I'd ask one question, and he'd give back to me LOADS of information and sometimes was very passionate in his opinions.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Sep 2011, 11:23
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 14 Sep 2011, 12:05
Well, I have a friend from a romania (she's a psychiatrist, and generally an educated person). She told me that she has never read marx-lenin-stalin, and the reason for that is that those books weren't available at the bookstores.. Bookstores had only causesku's books (she doubted that he had write them all himself), and national writers and poets (only those approved nby the party, ofcourse).
Stalker (tarkovsky's movie) was banned from the theatre's (as a "rebellious" movie) and she managed to watch it secretely in the cinema club with 3-4 friends, in a copy a friend sent her from czechoslovakia. The same person that used to sent her records of western rock, given that the only records that was on the market those times was symphonic or classical, or national folk music.
Each person had a securitate (a cop) assigned to them, and they had to step into the cop station every week and being interogated and give report on what they did that week (a cop and a shrink lol ). Many of those securitate were corrupted ofcourse and asked for favours (in money or whatever) in order to write a good report on them.
Causesku had turned the "parliament" (or whatever they called it) building into his own luxurious home, and built in the main street that was leading to it, rich and fine housing for securitate personel only (something like the nobility of the regime).

I've heard a lot more stories but I think you get the picture about mr. Causecku..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 224
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Sep 2011, 11:23
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 14 Sep 2011, 12:13
Man In Grey wrote:


Ceausescu, he says, stood up to the world bank, and the country was free of it's national debt by the end of the 80's. Also, there was no "Romanian Revolution" he said, it was a Coup, nothing more.

Yeah, based on export policy that demanded sun-to-sun (dawn till dusk) work, for nothing. I think in the youtube there is a clip from the speech causecu gave when the country had payed back all there debt, something that was supposed to let them enter in a new era of prosperity. Instead he declared that now "it was time to help our black brothers" as he put it, meaning the african countries. Is the speech during which the timisoara revolt began, leading to his execution.

Interesting is that despite these facts, 54% of the people in 2009 polls would vote for him for president and 75% stated that he shouldn't had been executed. (check the romanian times)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhQKmixO8MA
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 08 Oct 2011, 22:13
Wow I had no idea that's what he was saying. Was that really what was supposed to have "set the people off"?

I've read descriptions of his "last speech" and it said initially people were cheering him, and then all of a sudden started hissing and booing him.Is it because he said "now its time to help our black brothers" after the people endured all that suffering to pay off the debt they must now help African countries?

I find this official story hard to believe and I think there is a lot more to the story of the so called Romanian "Revolution"

The official story is that people were in support of him during the last speech, and then started hissing him as he continued on with his speech, thus sparking a Revolution! That's really hard to believe. Elaborate situations like that don't just happen at the flip of a switch, and the way the "official history" plays it out is in such a way, a flip of a switch. It's unbelievable.
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
Soviet cogitations: 2407
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Nov 2003, 13:17
Ideology: Other
Forum Commissar
Post 18 Oct 2011, 13:30
Quote:
The official story is that people were in support of him during the last speech, and then started hissing him as he continued on with his speech, thus sparking a Revolution! That's really hard to believe. Elaborate situations like that don't just happen at the flip of a switch, and the way the "official history" plays it out is in such a way, a flip of a switch. It's unbelievable.


Were those people really behind him? We have to ask this question. From what I have heard of Romania in 1989 the situation was absolutely abominable. Black outs, nothing to eat, dreadful health service, in general nothing for the people to consume and shortages of even the most basic goods such as soap, running water etc. Under these conditions I do not think it would be surprising if people who were becoming increasingly disaffected with their leader would be pushed over the edge by a statement like this. I have heard that by the end of the 1980s the shows and mass displays which they performed lacked luster because people were so unenthusiastic and cynical. I find it hard to believe there are people nostalgic for this man but there are also people who remember Stalin fondly.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4405
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 18 Oct 2011, 15:17
Quote:
I find it hard to believe there are people nostalgic for this man but there are also people who remember Stalin fondly.


The cause for both is pretty similar -contemporary Romanian and Russian realities have failed to live up to their populations' expectations. In Russia Stalin is remembered fondly because in 20 years he industrialized the country, oversaw the defeat of the Nazis, and created the basis for the USSR's superpower status. In 20 years of post-communism, the country's economy has been dismantled, millions have literally died due to neoliberal reforms, and the country's rulers are unashamed thieves. I'm not sure what's happened in Romania that's worse than Russia, but for people to look back nostalgically at Ceausescu, its post-communist leadership must have screwed things up pretty badly.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 18 Oct 2011, 17:18
soviet78 wrote:

The cause for both is pretty similar -contemporary Romanian and Russian realities have failed to live up to their populations' expectations. In Russia Stalin is remembered fondly because in 20 years he industrialized the country, oversaw the defeat of the Nazis, and created the basis for the USSR's superpower status. In 20 years of post-communism, the country's economy has been dismantled, millions have literally died due to neoliberal reforms, and the country's rulers are unashamed thieves. I'm not sure what's happened in Romania that's worse than Russia, but for people to look back nostalgically at Ceausescu, its post-communist leadership must have screwed things up pretty badly.


At least in Russia, when you go from 1% living in poverty to 40%, it's a bit of a no-brainer.

I unfortunately don't know anyone from Romania, but I'd be interested in looking at living conditions today.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 564
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Jun 2010, 16:09
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 18 Oct 2011, 18:22
At my new place of work I conversed with this older Romanian woman and she told me Romania now is MUCH worse than ever before. She described Ceausescu's regime as "crazy" because of his pictures everywhere, and then the black outs, and said the Securitate were "bad men" but then she had much worse things to say about Romania now. She said now there is a huge separation of class, the super rich, and then the super poor that really can't afford much. So now there are more material items on the shelves, and consumer products, and food, yes, but you can't really buy any. She said back then people "always got food, sometimes it may not have been much, but now some people can't get any at all" And I believe that's entirely true.

She the told me she was a pioneer at school, and said she has the best memories from those days in school, as a pioneer. She said despite everything else, they had a good education system there, and taught kids integrity, and about hard work, and their duties, and then said "The education system now is just terrible"

It goes back to the customer I use to have at my old job, who said "Back in those days, you wore a school uniform, usually the guys wore a coat and tie, the girls wore dresses, and if you got introuble and the teacher stared at you, you knew you were in deep shit. You respected the teacher, now a days these kids are wearing baggy jeans, and over-sized shirts and they're beating up the teachers and failing school"

I would most certainly not compare The USSR with the Socialist Republic of Romania, however. Or Ceausescu with Stalin...
Партия всегда права.
Die Partei hat immer recht.
The Party is always right.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.