Half of Romanians 'Yearn for Communism'

[Pavlov's House Party]

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/news/30738/

24 September 2010

Nearly half of Romanians believe their life was better during the communist era, a new poll indicates.


Forty-nine per cent said their life was better before December 1989, with a higher standard of living and job security being given as the main arguments, according to the poll carried out by the Institute Investigating the Crimes of Communism and the Memory of the Romanian Exile.

Less than a quarter of Romanians believe their life has improved in the two decades since the overthrow of communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu,
A further 14 per cent said things had stayed the same, while the remainder offered no opinion.

Among the negative aspects of the communist era cited in the survey was the lack of freedom (69 per cent) and food (11 per cent).

But analysts said the results were not simply a sign of nostalgia, but mainly a consequence of the current economic crisis.

Historian Adrian Cioroianu said: “Most people still have ambivalent feelings about the legacy of Communism.

"Those nostalgic for the old times say the shift to market capitalism and EU membership has deprived the country of social stability and created huge inequalities.

“Furthermore, current economic crisis leads people to form a false image about the recent past.”

Ceausescu and his wife fled their palace in downtown Bucharest in a helicopter on December 22, 1989, in an attempt to escape large crowds of angry demonstrators.

Three days later they were executed after being sentenced to death by a military trial.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

This is a pretty similar trend throughout much of the old "Communist Bloc," especially illustrated in Hungary:

"72% said most people in Hungary are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism, while only 8% said most people are better off and 16% said things are about the same. Again, Hungary stands apart from the other post-communist societies surveyed -- in no other country did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era." - http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1554/hungary-economic-discontent-democracy-communism

[Vampire Lobster]

I'm hating to rain over the parade here, but this is commonplace all over the former eastern bloc. And it doesn't have much to do with actual class consciousness, really; it's mostly about nostalgia and yearning for the good old days when everything was - supposedly - simple and well. Pretty much the same as the 1950's nostalgia shit you see in the States, just in a tad different form.

[Tzadikim]

I'm hating to rain over the parade here, but this is commonplace all over the former eastern bloc. And it doesn't have much to do with actual class consciousness, really; it's mostly about nostalgia and yearning for the good old days when everything was - supposedly - simple and well. Pretty much the same as the 1950's nostalgia shit you see in the States, just in a tad different form.

This. In a way, I'd argue that this nostalgia is almost reactionary, and, if it were followed up on in any meaningful way (it won't), would actually harm the cause of the world revolution.

[hatzel]

I'd agree. The Romanians at the moment have a lovely obsession with the last few years of Communism, that's for sure. Do a quick search for the latest high-profile Romanian films, and see how many are set in the mid- to late-80's. In fact, the 80's nostalgia even applies in western Europe. I've heard that every community always seems to long for...ah...what was it? 20-30 years beforehand? So in the 2030's, everybody will think that now is the best time. The best music, the best films, the best social situation and everything like that. Or maybe it's two generations, so 30-40 years, does anybody know the actual statement? Really, I think that if present day Romania was like Britain or France, well developed economically and so on, they wouldn't be so keen on the olden days. Take their jobs away and they'll long for the time they had jobs, so to speak...

[Tzadikim]

I'd agree. The Romanians at the moment have a lovely obsession with the last few years of Communism, that's for sure. Do a quick search for the latest high-profile Romanian films, and see how many are set in the mid- to late-80's. In fact, the 80's nostalgia even applies in western Europe. I've heard that every community always seems to long for...ah...what was it? 20-30 years beforehand? So in the 2030's, everybody will think that now is the best time. The best music, the best films, the best social situation and everything like that. Or maybe it's two generations, so 30-40 years, does anybody know the actual statement? Really, I think that if present day Romania was like Britain or France, well developed economically and so on, they wouldn't be so keen on the olden days. Take their jobs away and they'll long for the time they had jobs, so to speak...

It's the same situation in the States, although, of course, simply under a different ideological rubric: the 1950s and 1980s are exalted, the other decades neglected in the popular selective memory.

[hatzel]

Top Gun was the greatest film ever made, the music died when Buffalo Springfield broke up et cetera et cetera :thumbup1:

Actually the Breakfast Club's better than Top Gun, but you know what I mean...

[dearest chuck]

do you ever yearn?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Romania was one of less sucessful countrys in the east bloc, the livivng standard would never be as high like in Hungary. The Causcescu-regime was a really totalitarian one with very much personal cult that might even beat Stalins, the secret police (securitate) did search very hard for "the enemies of the state", basicly Romania was very much of the stereotype of a east bloc country.

But i understand that people think it was better then, todays Romania is poor as hell!
the streets of Bukarest is full of homeless people, many children who oppenly are sniffing glue to reduce the cold and hunger, there are a lot of prostitutes (once again many kids) human trafficking and trafficking with human organs has almoust becomed normal in todays Romania. Unemployment is high, many are starving, there is less education and medical care, expectating living age is lower, criminality has growed well so i understand that many wants back the old system, even if it sucked and to say that this is just "nostalgia" is ignorant and un materialistic, look at the facts.

[hatzel]

Really, I think that if present day Romania was like Britain or France, well developed economically and so on, they wouldn't be so keen on the olden days. Take their jobs away and they'll long for the time they had jobs, so to speak...

:thumbup1:

[Obs]

I'm hating to rain over the parade here, but this is commonplace all over the former eastern bloc. And it doesn't have much to do with actual class consciousness, really; it's mostly about nostalgia and yearning for the good old days when everything was - supposedly - simple and well. Pretty much the same as the 1950's nostalgia shit you see in the States, just in a tad different form.
What if things were actually better back when it was the eastern bloc?

[Tzadikim]

What if things were actually better back when it was the eastern bloc?

Things certainly were. That doesn't mean a reformation of the Soviet Union is either in the cards or desirable from a revolutionary vantage point.

[bie]

What if things were actually better back when it was the eastern bloc?
No, it is impossible - ultra-leftist youth know better what was good than people who actually lived through both systems. It couldn't be good to anybody because it would contradict the ultra-left doctrine :lol:

But - seriously - I was born in a socialist state and I can say that it is nothing to do with sentiment or "nostalgia" for the past. It is rational analysis made by the people. It is incredible, when people who claim to be leftist express such disbelief in the way of thinking of popular strata. Workers and peasants are not more stupid that anyone else. They can make proper and rational analysis - and not only be guided (like animals), by emotions of "sentiment" or "nostalgia".

[Os Cangaceiros]

The grass is always greener...

[Tzadikim]

No, it is impossible - ultra-leftist youth know better what was good than people who actually lived through both systems. It couldn't be good to anybody because it would contradict the ultra-left doctrine :lol:

But - seriously - I was born in a socialist state and I can say that it is nothing to do with sentiment or "nostalgia" for the past. It is rational analysis made by the people. It is incredible, when people who claim to be leftist express such disbelief in the way of thinking of popular strata. Workers and peasants are not more stupid that anyone else. They can make proper and rational analysis - and not only be guided (like animals), by emotions of "sentiment" or "nostalgia".

I don't deny that things were better under the Soviet Union. They certainly were. What I do deny is that (a) the current sentiment is based entirely on rational thought (as opposed to nostalgia, whimsy, romance, etc.), and (b) that the identical re-establishment of the Soviet Union would do anything to contribute to furthering the revolution. In the case of (a) the marginally superior conditions of forty years ago are magnified and beautified in the popular psyche; (b) will never occur, and, if it were to occur, would have roughly the same conclusion.

What needs to be done, then? To use that popular nostalgia to advance a programme quite a bit more radical than the essentially conservative presentiments it's based upon.

[hatzel]

I think the idea is that shit tastes bad, and piss tastes bad. Or, I assume so. Just because shit tastes better than piss, doesn't mean we should all eat shit. So to speak. Everything's relative, and we shouldn't read too much into it.

As has been mentioned, Romania's pretty poor. Poorer than it was. That isn't necessarily glowing praise for the previous system.

[bie]

I am sure that it is impossible to rebuilt the identical model of socialism as it was before, but lets have a look how many people would rally around the banner of fighting for the new People's Republic! :)

btw - I consider XX century socialism in its essential framework as the good model for the future socialist societies.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

What if things were actually better back when it was the eastern bloc?

How dare you!? just because all objective statistics shows this and all people who lived there during that era says so, that doesnt prove annything!

[Tzadikim]

I am sure that it is impossible to rebuilt the identical model of socialism as it was before, but lets have a look how many people would rally around the banner of fighting for the new People's Republic! :)

btw - I consider XX century socialism in its essential framework as the good model for the future socialist societies.

Whatever comes next will be almost the opposite of 20th century socialism. The natural inclination is to see that what happened before didn't work, and, rather than trying to sort the wheat from the chafe and preserve those elements that did, run to the opposite end of the spectrum.

This is fairly off-subject, but my vague and nebulous prediction is that this century will see a spurt of decentralized co-ops, small-scale communes, and so forth, as the burden of high debt and austerity measures reverse the centralizing tendency of the last century. This, too, will inevitably fail, but they'll have played their role in the further development of theory.

The 20th century can be defined by a few key words: centralization, authority, stability. The 21st will almost surely be different.

[bie]

Whatever comes next will be almost the opposite of 20th century socialism. The natural inclination is to see that what happened before didn't work, and, rather than trying to sort the wheat from the chafe and preserve those elements that did, run to the opposite end of the spectrum.

This is fairly off-subject, but my vague and nebulous prediction is that this century will see a spurt of decentralized co-ops, small-scale communes, and so forth, as the burden of high debt and austerity measures reverse the centralizing tendency of the last century. This, too, will inevitably fail, but they'll have played their role in the further development of theory.

The 20th century can be defined by a few key words: centralization, authority, stability. The 21st will almost surely be different.
I disagree. First, it is not true that XX century socialism did not work. Yes, it was defeated by the counterrevolution (internal and external), but so was Paris Commune, Bavarian Soviet Republics etc. Imperialism triumphed for now, but how do we know that it would triumph in the future? Maybe future socialist societies would be more successful, more powerful, better managed and will eventually win the class war?

The victory of the counterrevolution require detailed analysis of its causes. The most important point is that the model of XX socialism did actually work. It brought the biggest economic, social, cultural and scientific progress to those countries ever. The internal counterrevolution started to gain upper hand not due to the excessive centralization etc. - but - as the result of leaving the principles of dictatorship of proletariat.

That's why my point is, that the current victory of the counterrevolution shouldn't mean that the principles of scientific communism are replaced back by principles of utopian communism, that means communism without centralization, authority and stability. It is all necessary to carry on the class war against imperialism. The war cannot be won without discipline and good organization.

[Tzadikim]

I have no argument with you on those bases. I would consider socialism as practiced by the USSR and (to a far lesser extent) Maoist China as being limitedly successful; they accomplished in a brief period of time what would have taken significantly longer for a bourgeois revolution to do.

Rather, I am taking into consideration my attempt to forecast the material conditions of this century: I don't see any State on the horizon that will be strong enough to duplicate the attempt towards state-socialism that Lenin embarked on. It's fine and good to capture a bourgeois State and attempt to bend it to your will; but if that State has been crushed to smithereens under liberal reforms and debt-induced austerity measures, you will still find yourself without a position to act from. The Russian model required a State that was already highly centralized, and centralized enough that effective power could pass from the hands of the aristocracy into those of the Party. We should not rely on any State being so centralized by the time this century gets well and truly under swing.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I don't deny that things were better under the Soviet Union. They certainly were. What I do deny is that (a) the current sentiment is based entirely on rational thought (as opposed to nostalgia, whimsy, romance, etc.)

But it's a curious thing: half the people polled in Romania and far more in Hungary, East Germany, and Russia say that things were more-or-less better for them during the Soviet era.

You agree that they were, but say that this is also based on nostalgia, whimsy, romance, or whatever. Isn't it natural that people would be nostalgic for a past that was, on the whole, better than their situation now?

After all, not many Holocaust survivors express nostalgia for the days of Auschwitz. Is that too dramatic? Well, I have never heard of someone express nostalgia for the unemployment lines of the Great Depression.

And if, as some have pointed out, many Americans are nostalgic for the 1950s or 1960s, perhaps that shows that it was a better period for them, and that American capitalism has failed their expectations, or at least has not progressed much relative to those "good times." (What I specifically mean by this is that the 1950s and 1960s were a time of relative prosperity for most white Americans; few Southern blacks, I would imagine, are nostalgic about that time.) That is a sentiment confirming what we already know.


...and (b) that the identical re-establishment of the Soviet Union would do anything to contribute to furthering the revolution. In the case of (a) the marginally superior conditions of forty years ago are magnified and beautified in the popular psyche; (b) will never occur, and, if it were to occur, would have roughly the same conclusion.

What needs to be done, then? To use that popular nostalgia to advance a programme quite a bit more radical than the essentially conservative presentiments it's based upon.

I mostly agree -- though it's not as though anyone wants to just reestablish the old Soviet bloc anyway. The future will be better than the past, and you don't twice step into the same river anyway.

I will confess, though that I actually find it pretty strange that so many people are nostalgic for the Ceausescu era, since he was overthrown by a revolutionary popular wave in a way that no other Eastern Bloc leader was. I recently chanced to come across a college newspaper op-ed by a professor who grew up in the Socialist Republic of Romania (http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2010/09/24/EdOp/My.Experience.Growing.Up.In.A.Country.With.Sociali sm-3936267.shtml), and it's a decent read.

[RedScare]

I can understand nostalgia for the economic conditions, but nostalgia for Ceausescu?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I can understand nostalgia for the economic conditions, but nostalgia for Ceausescu?

It's really one and the same. People aren't nostalgic for Ceausescu because they had great personal freedoms or because he was a nice guy; they're nostalgic for that period because they had things like job security and free education, which is what his era is associated with.

That linked op-ed I posted in my previous reply pretty basically states all of that from a first-person point of view.

[Obs]

I can understand nostalgia for the economic conditions, but nostalgia for Ceausescu?
The fact that they miss Nicolae of all people just seems to emphasise how much Romania sucks now.

[Sir Comradical]

I'm hating to rain over the parade here, but this is commonplace all over the former eastern bloc. And it doesn't have much to do with actual class consciousness, really; it's mostly about nostalgia and yearning for the good old days when everything was - supposedly - simple and well. Pretty much the same as the 1950's nostalgia shit you see in the States, just in a tad different form.

I think this poll-data speaks volumes more about capitalism than it does about the supposedly misguided masses, especially when people are yearning for the good old days of Ceausescu (sarcasm). Instead of dismissing the poll data as mere nostalgia for the past, maybe we should accept that life was actually better back then?

[Tzadikim]

I think this poll-data speaks volumes more about capitalism than it does about the supposedly misguided masses, especially when people are yearning for the good old days of Ceausescu (sarcasm). Instead of dismissing the poll data as mere nostalgia for the past, maybe we should accept that life was actually better back then?

Our argument is both: the masses have concrete reasons for feeling this way, but the feeling itself is reactionary, insofar as it hearkens back to failed revolutionary forms that, if re-applied to modern situations, would just as likely fail again. It's important to divorce feeling from form in this case.

[Nolan]

I would call it misinformed rather than inherently reactionary. It's that they don't understand the nature of the previous system or why it fell. This is certainly a good time for leftists to raise class consciousness in Eastern Europe, but they so far have failed to take advantage of that to my knowledge.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Our argument is both: the masses have concrete reasons for feeling this way, but the feeling itself is reactionary, insofar as it hearkens back to failed revolutionary forms that, if re-applied to modern situations, would just as likely fail again. It's important to divorce feeling from form in this case.

The feeling itself is reactionary? Why?

The massses aren't asking for Ceausescu back: they're merely pointing out that they had things better than they are now. (Isn't that what the poll is asking them?)

That isn't different from a jobless person pointing out that he was better off when he actually had a job. Half of Romanians may say that they did have it better in the Ceausescu era, but that's merely saying that they want a system with the benefits of the Ceausescu regime, rather than saying that they want another round of it now. That's why that 49% isn't actually clamoring for one.

[Tzadikim]

The feeling itself is reactionary? Why?

The massses aren't asking for Ceausescu back; they're pointing out that they had things better than they are now. (Isn't that what the poll is asking them?)

That isn't different from a jobless person pointing out that he was better off when he actually had a job. Half of Romanians may say that they did have it better in the Ceausescu era, but that's merely saying that they want a system with the benefits of the Ceausescu regime, rather than saying that they want another round of it now. That's why that 49% isn't actually clamoring for one.

Therein lies the danger, to my mind: if they acted out on these feelings, they could very well end up replicating a system quite similar to that under Ceausescu. Don't get me wrong, I think the fact that they can see through the bullshit liberal propaganda is great. But I do think that, insofar as Ceausescu is their only frame of reference, any incarnation of socialism in the region in the near future may incorporate its failings as well as its successful functions.

I could be, and probably am, wrong about it. But I can't lie and say it isn't a concern of mine.

[RadioRaheem84]

what is with some of the comrades on here dismissing the nostalgic feelings of people in the old communist bloc?

They WERE BETTER off back in the day. Things were better off for a huge portion of the world population before the world skidded off into neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism has brought the world back to the early part of the twentieth century in terms of wealth disparity.

People are longing for that type of security again and there is nothing wrong with that. I highly doubt they're thinking about a return to repression, just that the population had at least a modicum of decent living standard.

[dearest chuck]

the collapse of stalinist regimes means that perhaps people there will be more charitable to trotskyism... maybe!!!

[RadioRaheem84]

I do see the trend moving toward anti-Stalinist, state capitalism, etc. More direct control of production, auto-gestion, etc.

I like it but I really cannot see the situation lasting too long without a strong anti-imperial defense.

[Zanthorus]

It is incredible, when people who claim to be leftist express such disbelief in the way of thinking of popular strata.

Well to begin with, I do not claim to be any kind of 'leftist'. I am a Marxist and a Leninist, and as such I don't have any kind of fetish for the momentary opinions of the working-class, much less the 'popular strata'. This kind of economism and democratism is alien to revolutionary Marxism.

[AK]

It's not surprising. In all the Eastern Bloc countries, you generally had a high chance of employment and many basic services and utilities were provided for you by the state - as opposed to the capitalist system we see now, where people are getting laid off all the time and are struggling to pay for things like power, gas and water. What we need to do, is not settle for second-best and instead try to raise class-consciousness so that we can have genuine socialism.

[RebelDog]

If your in the second world there is nothing like capitalism for a quick transition to the third.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Romanian's don't yearn for communism; they simply yearn for better times, and are nostalgic of it, and would be, even if it was a capitalist past.
I've heard from reliable sources from Eastern Europe and Russia say Romania is by far (currently) the most reactionary country from the former eastern bloc/USSR, so I highly doubt the Romanians are craving genuine communism.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Was Ceausescu ever really a Dictator? I mean it's a given he made several detrimental mistakes as leader, but can we honestly call him a "Dictator" given the fact of what all he had given to his people during Romania's ruling by the Communist Party?

[Sir Comradical]

Was Ceausescu ever really a Dictator? I mean it's a given he made several detrimental mistakes as leader, but can we honestly call him a "Dictator" given the fact of what all he had given to his people during Romania's ruling by the Communist Party?

Whether the nature of a regime is benevolent or cruel is irrelevant to the definition of a dictatorship.

[Sir Comradical]

Our argument is both: the masses have concrete reasons for feeling this way, but the feeling itself is reactionary, insofar as it hearkens back to failed revolutionary forms that, if re-applied to modern situations, would just as likely fail again. It's important to divorce feeling from form in this case.

Making an objective analysis of one's own living conditions is not reactionary.

[Delenda Carthago]

oh Securitad,where art thou?

[el_chavista]

Those are the contradictions arising from trying to create socialism in a low developed economy. There is not enough richness to be shared by people.
Yesterday freedom was but a little stability in food and jobs for all. Now the freedom is the ability to admire a privilege elite's high standards of living.

[Devrim]

I'm hating to rain over the parade here, but this is commonplace all over the former eastern bloc. And it doesn't have much to do with actual class consciousness, really; it's mostly about nostalgia and yearning for the good old days when everything was - supposedly - simple and well. Pretty much the same as the 1950's nostalgia shit you see in the States, just in a tad different form.

I don't think that it is the same as 50s nostalgia in the US at all. Romania during the Ceaucescu period was a very poor country with very low living conditions for the working class.

Romania today is still a very poor country, where although a small proportion of the working class are obviously in a better position this certainly doesn't apply to the unemployed who make up 7.8% of the workforce*, and pensioners, who are undoubtedly much worse off.

Romania's negative growth has obviously swelled the ranks of the unemployed, and resulted in falling living conditions for all workers.

I don't find poll results like this at all surprising.

Devrim

*According to last years official statistics. Romanians that I have spoken to here in Turkey have put it at more like 20%.

[maskerade]

This whole nostaliga nonsense is nothing but bullshit. I hear the same thing in my political science lectures, about how the people in Russia only vote for the Communist Party because they miss the past etc. It's nonsense, and right-wing propaganda. Objectively, standards of living have become worse. In many of the former Eastern bloc countries.

People do not feel nostalgic for the reign of Pinochet, nor do Africans happily reminisce about the good ol' colonial days.

They yearn for the days of communism because they were better off.

[pranabjyoti]

I'm hating to rain over the parade here, but this is commonplace all over the former eastern bloc. And it doesn't have much to do with actual class consciousness, really; it's mostly about nostalgia and yearning for the good old days when everything was - supposedly - simple and well. Pretty much the same as the 1950's nostalgia shit you see in the States, just in a tad different form.
You are right in one sense. During the 50's. in the time of Roosevelt, there wasn't much difference between USA and USSR. So, if in the USA, people are nostalgic about 50's, then certainly that's in line.

[Delenda Carthago]

how the people in Russia only vote for the Communist Party because they miss the past etc.
you are right.they only vote for it because of its positions on class war...

[maskerade]

you are right.they only vote for it because of its positions on class war...

Right.

I believe the political situation in Russia is a little bit more complicated than that...

[scarletghoul]

Wow, this is very illuminating, considering this is the country of Ceausescu and was not exactly the best communist state afaik.

Someone should compile a list of all these polls from ex-socialist countries, as well as figures showing the popularity of socialist groups there.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Romanian's don't yearn for communism; they simply yearn for better times, and are nostalgic of it, and would be, even if it was a capitalist past.
I've heard from reliable sources from Eastern Europe and Russia say Romania is by far (currently) the most reactionary country from the former eastern bloc/USSR, so I highly doubt the Romanians are craving genuine communism.

Whats your point? Ofcourse they will yearn for a better life, nothing strange with that, you know how weird that statement sounds right?
Condemning people for wanting a better life and if you have the choice of living in a capitalist society with terrible livingstandard, ore you could live in a capitalist society with good livingstandard, isnt the choice obvious?

Yes in hard times the reaction gains support, like in good times (economical boom) the left gains support, anti-gipsy gangs who attack innocent people is, unfortunatley, common and some football firms have big pictures of Hitler in theire tifo.

[Obs]

Was Ceausescu ever really a Dictator? I mean it's a given he made several detrimental mistakes as leader, but can we honestly call him a "Dictator" given the fact of what all he had given to his people during Romania's ruling by the Communist Party?
TVM, I respect you, I really do, but... sometimes your defense of revisionists is so darn cute. :blushing:

[Hiero]

People do not feel nostalgic for the reign of Pinochet, nor do Africans happily reminisce about the good ol' colonial days.



Well some actually do. The people who are and feel (they imagine they are) priveleged or in control under a certian regime will want that regime back or a form of that regime.

[Dimentio]

Wow, the current system must really suck

The socialist government of Romania was probably one of the more unsane governments in the entire post-war world. If they prefer Ceaucescu before the current crowd, then its bad...

[maskerade]

Well some actually do. The people who are and feel (they imagine they are) priveleged or in control under a certian regime will want that regime back or a form of that regime.

Granted. Should've clarified and said everyone but the smallest, and richest stratum of society.

[anticap]

Ceausescu was more concerned with hunting fatted brown bear (they were fed a special 'bear chow' to provide him with trophy specimens) than anything else. He was a clown, but the 49% are not yearning for him, so that's a moot point. They're yearning for the "higher standard of living and job security" that they had back then.

[hatzel]

Perhaps, then, the problem comes from the title of the thread. Romanians aren't yearning for communism as a concept, I'd suggest. And they may not even be yearning for the Communist era, they just consider it better than now. If we really asked them what they'd prefer from all options, they might say they want Romania to be like Spain or Italy, and something tells me half of Romanians wouldn't choose to live in a state resembling Ceauşescu-era Romania over living in a state resembling present-day Germany (but Romanian-speaking, just to keep it fair)

I'd say that these comparison exercises, in any Eastern Bloc country, are pretty flawed, because it makes us think that the old system was good, rather than that the new system is bad. And this isn't really anything to do communism vs. capitalism, per se, just the realisation of the two systems in Romania at different times. Shit capitalism is worse than many forms of communism, as shit communism is worse than many forms of capitalism. If it's not too controversial to claim so.

[maskerade]

Perhaps, then, the problem comes from the title of the thread. Romanians aren't yearning for communism as a concept, I'd suggest. And they may not even be yearning for the Communist era, they just consider it better than now. If we really asked them what they'd prefer from all options, they might say they want Romania to be like Spain or Italy, and something tells me half of Romanians wouldn't choose to live in a state resembling Ceauşescu-era Romania over living in a state resembling present-day Germany (but Romanian-speaking, just to keep it fair)

I'd say that these comparison exercises, in any Eastern Bloc country, are pretty flawed, because it makes us think that the old system was good, rather than that the new system is bad. And this isn't really anything to do communism vs. capitalism, per se, just the realisation of the two systems in Romania at different times. Shit capitalism is worse than many forms of communism, as shit communism is worse than many forms of capitalism. If it's not too controversial to claim so.

there is still employment insecurity in spain and in germany. also, there is liberation from material conditions, but there is also abstract liberation. Yea, communist Romania was a pretty bad attempt, and yes, spain and germany are richer societies.

But there is still exploitation, alienation etc. But I agree with you, we should not use this information to glorify the past, but use it as a stepping stone to a better, socialistic future.

[The Vegan Marxist]

TVM, I respect you, I really do, but... sometimes your defense of revisionists is so darn cute. :blushing:

I'm actually trying to not show any support or opposition until I get the facts about the Communist Romanian leader. Which is why I'm asking questions here. I don't need comments like that, I'm asking for information, which presumably I would've thought I could get such here on this forum.

On a side note, of course I'm going to show some kind of support, whether it outweighs what I'm against or not is another question, due to what all he brought to his people. Other than that, I clearly oppose all the bad shit he did while leader.

[Red Commissar]

To be honest when things like this are voiced, we should take it more as a condemnation of capitalism and "democracy" impact on their nations. Many of them yearn for social stability and order that they associated with the Communist rule that they lost when capitalism was restored.

[Sam_b]

Why are some of us homogenising the 'communist bloc' and Central and Eastern European countries here? Historically and politically these things cannot be explained by simply lumping "a lot of East European countries are like this" or "nostalgia for the Eastern bloc". It's not right at all. Historically and linguistically Romania had a vastly differing experience to that of, say, Russia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Not many of us on here consider Albania or Yugoslavia as epitomising the Eastern bloc so why do we do it to Romania here?

Indeed, sentiments of nostalgia for former 'communist' countries has been on the rise. This is evidenced in Russia, Hungary a few years back before emergences of Fidesz and Czech Republic with the constant of the KSCM. What is puzzling though is appearances of it in Romania which traditionally did not share so deep sentiments and has been experiencing rising growth patterns economically after a near collapse. Wheras romanticisation of Janos Kadar and so-called 'goulash communism' can be fairly understandable due to stability, everyone getting fed etc it is at odds with the late 1970s/80s under Ceucescu; whose days at this time were epitomised by rolling blackouts and exporting food supplies to pay off the national debt: this resulted in often severe food shortages. [as an aside, I find this interesting in the Czech context: http://www.czechfocus.cz/2010/9/22/art53591.html]

If I was to make a generalisation, perhaps this 'support' is a way of venting frustration at the 'austerity' measures that are sweeping Europe, or perhaps there isn't a viable leftist alternative currently operating in Romania. I look forward with interest to further articles coming out of this discussion.

[pranabjyoti]

Well some actually do. The people who are and feel (they imagine they are) priveleged or in control under a certian regime will want that regime back or a form of that regime.
Then the question is WHAT IS THE %? CERTAINLY NOT AS HIGH AS REFLECTED IN THE FIGURES. I guess, they are less 2-3% of the whole population. Certainly not the majority of the people or a very high share.

[Devrim]

Not many of us on here consider Albania or Yugoslavia as epitomising the Eastern bloc so why do we do it to Romania here?

Probably due to historical alignments. Romania was a member of the Warsaw pact, and part of the Soviet bloc, whereas Yugoslavia was never a Warsaw pact member, and Albania left in 1968.

Romania is very different from the central European countries, but it is probably considered in the same group for the reasons above.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

Absolutely, but even within this framework Romania was an outsider. If I remember correctly Romania opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia and even threatened to withdraw.

[pranabjyoti]

Absolutely, but even within this framework Romania was an outsider. If I remember correctly Romania opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia and even threatened to withdraw.
If so, then certainly Checesku was not that "bad" Dictator.

[Devrim]

Absolutely, but even within this framework Romania was an outsider. If I remember correctly Romania opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia and even threatened to withdraw.

Romania didn't send troops, but it never seemed as if it would withdraw.

Of course there are other differences. For example, on a historical level, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary (for a much shorter period) were the only Warsaw Pact countries that were part of the Ottoman Empire, and linguistically, Romania was the only non-Slavic country in the Warsaw Pact.

Devrim

[The Red Next Door]

Romania didn't send troops, but it never seemed as if it would withdraw.

Of course there are other differences. For example, on a historical level, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary (for a much shorter period) were the only Warsaw Pact countries that were part of the Ottoman Empire, and linguistically, Romania was the only non-Slavic country in the Warsaw Pact.

Devrim


Aren't you forgetting East Germany?

[Orange Juche]

Half of them yearn for communism? Does that mean they have to build a really big-as-fuck all-powerful bureaucracy, and then they can have a system antithetical to the big ass state they just built? Sounds entirely logical to me.

[Devrim]

Aren't you forgetting East Germany?

Yes, I was, sorry.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

Romania was the only non-Slavic country in the Warsaw Pact.

Hungary is not a Slavic country either.

[Sam_b]

If so, then certainly Checesku was not that "bad" Dictator.

Why are you basing your entire analysis on a few months in the late 1960s?

[Aesop]

Half of them yearn for communism? Does that mean they have to build a really big-as-fuck all-powerful bureaucracy, and then they can have a system antithetical to the big ass state they just built? Sounds entirely logical to me.

No, it just means that they miss the provisions(although not perfect) provided by the state in comparison to the neo-liberal government that they have at the moment.

[Devrim]

Hungary is not a Slavic country either.

Yes, you are right too. The worst thing about this mistake is that I actually knew this, but obviously wasn't thinking. I can speak (very very) basic Czech* as I used to work at Skoda in MB. I have also been to Hungary.

I was right on the Ottoman Empire though.:blushing:

Devrim

* order a meal in a restaurant, do the shopping etc.

[Adi Shankara]

If anyone reads the article, they'd realize it's not nostalgia for simpler times, but "but mainly a consequence of the current economic crisis.".

The worst of communism is still better than the best of capitalism.

[Adi Shankara]

Ceausescu was more concerned with hunting fatted brown bear (they were fed a special 'bear chow' to provide him with trophy specimens) than anything else. He was a clown, but the 49% are not yearning for him, so that's a moot point. They're yearning for the "higher standard of living and job security" that they had back then.

Actually, they're yearning for Communism.

Ceausescu =/= Communism.

[anticap]

The worst of communism is still better than the best of capitalism.

There is no "worst of communism"; communism is good by definition. There's the worst of the stuff done in the name of communism, but that's not communism, and it's not necessarily true that it's going to be "better than the best of capitalism."

Anything can be done in the name of communism. Use your imagination and realize that your statement is false. For example, if you were skinned alive and rolled in salt in the name of communism then I'm guessing that you would wish that you were a proletarian in, say, Sweden.

[Aesop]

Actually, they're yearning for Communism.

Ceausescu =/= Communism.

To be fair, yearning for communism does not equal to yearning for ceausescu considering that he was only head of state of Communist Romania between the years 1967-89.
It is perfectly reasonable to suspect they miss the management of the country under Communism rather than that individual.

[Adi Shankara]

To be fair, yearning for communism does not equal to yearning for ceausescu considering that he was only head of state of Communist Romania between the years 1967-89.
It is perfectly reasonable to suspect they miss the management of the country under Communism rather than that individual.

That's what I said.

[Aesop]

The worst of communism is still better than the best of capitalism.

Would you rather live in wonsan than where you are at this moment*?

*(this is not even saying where you reside is the best of capitalism)

[Aesop]

That's what I said.

My mistake

[Adi Shankara]

Would you rather live in wonsan than where you are at this moment*?

*(this is not even saying where you reside is the best of capitalism)

I'd rather live in a place where everyone has a constitutional right to a job, housing, and food, rather than a place where everyone is sort've supposed to fend for themselves.

[ZeroNowhere]

The worst of communism is still better than the best of capitalism.From what I recall, in most threads asking about whether the Soviet Union was communist, most Marxist-Leninists claim that it was not 'communist', but 'socialist'. You should probably take that up with them.


No, it just means that they miss the provisions(although not perfect) provided by the state in comparison to the neo-liberal government that they have at the moment.The US and British working classes may have similar complaints.

[The Vegan Marxist]

From what I recall, in most threads asking about whether the Soviet Union was communist, most Marxist-Leninists claim that it was not 'communist', but 'socialist'. You should probably take that up with them.


I believe that's what he meant, actually.

[Aesop]

I'd rather live in a place where everyone has a constitutional right to a job, housing, and food, rather than a place where everyone is sort've supposed to fend for themselves.

Is that a yes or a no?

I agree with the above, however i believe that life is more than above. How about personal development and expression?
Don't mean to be a cynical but i doubt north wonson would be much more a healthier enviroment than where i am at.
In addition i am sure LGBT rights have advanced more in sweden than north korea.

On a wider note we all know that constitutional rights doesn't have to translate practice. There is a difference between written and practice. We could even take a look at the american constitution for example, at the right to bear arms, freedom of religious expression is wrriten in the constiution, however in practice it is a different story in regards to the treatment of muslims and the historically gun ownership of african-americans.

[Devrim]

The US and British working classes may have similar complaints.

Oh God yes. Although if you listen to the bourgeois press, the seventies was a terrible time, when 'red workers' were destroying the economy. I lived in the UK at the time, and my impression is of a time when you could still raise a family on one workers' wage and the NHS still worked.

When I talk to people my age in the UK today, the impression I get is very different.

Devrim

[Ovi]

First of all, I think we can all (most?) agree that the pre '90 period in Romania didn't have much to do with socialism. It's funny how when confronted with the bad parts of that time, many just say (rightly so) it wasn't socialism , while when talking about the good parts, it just shows that socialism is better. Nostalgia is (mostly) the right wing propaganda of saying: it's better now, you just don't know it. It's not better. There are good things and there are bad things. None it's better. They both suck. As others already stated, capitalism around here must suck really bad if so many people say it was better before.

[Devrim]

First of all, I think we can all (most?) agree that the pre '90 period in Romania didn't have much to do with socialism.

Unfortunately, the correct word is probably 'some', not 'all' or 'most'.

Devrim