Does anyone here support Ceausescu??

[Red Future]

I hope not anyway.

[Nolan]

He was a massive dick.

[RedSunRising]

He was a massive dick.

We have people who support "Comrade's Deng"'s coup against the Gang of Four! I mean support as opposed to having a curse on both your houses attitude....So maybe!

[Rakhmetov]

Dracula built himself and his countess a palace while the people were in deep misery.

[Tommy4ever]

I can never be suprised by revleft. I saw someone call use the words ''Comrade Mugabe'' here the other day so I imagine there must be some of his fanboys about. :(

Its shit like this that makes me hate revleft sometimes though. I mean, I can take the Stalin lovers because they have some logic behind their arguments - they just tend to discount the human cost. But I just can't take people who support dictators who have all the oppression but are also blatantly reactionary as well. :crying:

[Wanted Man]

What does it mean to "support Ceausescu" anyway?

[Nolan]

"Ceausescu was awesome," "he was a good Marxist-Leninist," etc.

[Dire Helix]

Ceausescu was awesome, he was a good Marxist-Leninist, and the model of socialism that existed in Romania under his rule should be replicated all over the world.

[L.A.P.]

Ummm, I do. Although he made some mistakes I consider him an overall genuine revolutionary. If you just apply a class analysis of the material condition then you can recognize the social programs he achieved while facing the certain circumstances he faced against Soviet imperialism. He's up there with the greats like Deng Xiaoping, Kim Jong-il, Pol Pot, Mikhail Gobechav, Tony Blair, and Barack Obama.








http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtjX987DjnKX7D-hTUE58ec_1PduQ9aU7D-MkcGlVQs9y6H7kxMA&t=1

[Red Future]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolae_Ceausescu.jpgLook at this creep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolae_Ceausescu.jpg

[Wanted Man]

"Ceausescu was awesome," "he was a good Marxist-Leninist," etc.

What do either of those phrases mean, specifically? And more importantly, who cares? It's an incredibly academic discussion about whether you think a dead man was "awesome" or a "good" adherent to an ideology that he had very weak associations with anyway. Who the hell thinks any of the above anyway?

It's a kind of obsession limited only to the Hoxhaist users here, the kind of people who butt into every thread about the Cold War era with Hoxha quotes to show that Hoxha thought some other leader was "awesome" or not. What is the actual political use of it?

The only thing that could be somewhat interesting is how to evaluate what happened in Romania at the end, namely that the man was killed off by his own military. Do we accept the narrative that it this was somehow "progressive" or even a "revolution", or not? Also, how can Romanian communists deal with this history? Is there a kind of nostalgia these days, and what to do with it? That's slightly more relevant than very vague discussions over whether "was guy X a good guy or not?"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://img.romerican.com/post070309_ceausescu_ill_be_back_stencil_graffiti_ in_romania.jpg

[Red Future]

http://img.romerican.com/post070309_ceausescu_ill_be_back_stencil_graffiti_ in_romania.jpg

I feel scared now.

[Nolan]

What do either of those phrases mean, specifically?

I thought it was pretty self-evident. Supporting him means roughly seeing him as a positive figure in Romanian history. I don't think that's true. That doesn't mean what came after was better, just Ceausescu was reactionary to the core.


Who the hell thinks any of the above anyway?

I suspect very few. Like Juche or Polpotism, you'd probably have to go to the country itself to find any in significant numbers.


It's a kind of obsession limited only to the Hoxhaist users here, the kind of people who butt into every thread about the Cold War era with Hoxha quotes to show that Hoxha thought some other leader was "awesome" or not. What is the actual political use of it?

Name someone other than Ismail who does anything remotely like that. And Hoxha was a very good contemporary political observer. Is it bad that he made an excellent ML analysis of many, many things?


The only thing that could be somewhat interesting is how to evaluate what happened in Romania at the end, namely that the man was killed off by his own military. Do we accept the narrative that it this was somehow "progressive" or even a "revolution", or not? Also, how can Romanian communists deal with this history? Is there a kind of nostalgia these days, and what to do with it? That's slightly more relevant than very vague discussions over whether "was guy X a good guy or not?"

No, the coup was reactionary. He was replaced by a liberal crony state that's leaving people increasingly unsatisfied. That's all that needs to be said, really.

And the nostalgia is more for the social benefits Romanians enjoyed at the time, not necessarily Ceausescu himself. Romanian communists need to put themselves out there, counter the rampant nationalist movements, and show that the Romanian working class can take the good of Ceausescu's Romania back and also build a better world through a genuine, healthy proletarian democracy. This really applies to all of the former USSR, Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia, and Albania.

Ultimately the nostalgia is something to encourage, but with the extra understanding I just described.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

healthy proletarian democracy

You mean like this?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Books/Pix/pictures/2009/9/3/1251968913420/Golden-memories-...-Statu-001.jpg

[Nolan]

I'm just going to negrep you for a worthless jab (read: troll spam), but worker's control of the means of production was generally lacking in Albania during Hoxha, as it was during Stalin and during Lenin. Marxist-Leninists of the future need to make this priority #1.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm just going to negrep you for a worthless jab (read: troll spam), but worker's control of the means of production was generally lacking in Albania during Hoxha, as it was during Stalin and during Lenin. Marxist-Leninists of the future need to make this priority #1.

If worker's control of the means of production was lacking, how were these societies socialist? I'm not saying these states were without benefit but WCOMP is a keystone of socialism. If one says that MLism has to make this priority no. 1, why wasn't it before? If WCOMP as lacking, who then controlled the MOP? and for what purpose? Wouldn't the question of who controls the MOP open a whole can of worms?It seems like there would be deeper material causes as to who controls the MOP.

[Roach]

Why do you, Nolan, bother to aswer this ridiculous troll post when you have already aswered it.




Romanian communists need to put themselves out there, counter the rampant nationalist movements, and show that the Romanian working class can take the good of Ceausescu's Romania back and also build a better world through a genuine, healthy proletarian democracy. This really applies to all of the former USSR, Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia, and Albania.

As for Ceaucesco, the only reason Brezhnevites don't praise him is actually his only remotely progressive act, that is his attempt to pursue an ''antonomous socialist country'' with no subservience to soviet revisionism, but even that was an opportunist attempt to improve Romania's relation with the west.

[RedSunRising]

I'm just going to negrep you for a worthless jab (read: troll spam), but worker's control of the means of production was generally lacking in Albania during Hoxha, as it was during Stalin and during Lenin. Marxist-Leninists of the future need to make this priority #1.

Im not sure that if fair at all, not from what I have studied from the documentation about socialist Albania from the pro-Albanian party that existed in my country. There were problems with Albania in my view and they deepened considerably after China passed into the control of capitalist roaders, and deepened even further after the death of Hoxha when the problems began to rapidly shift from the idealogical to the political level.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As long as I live, Romania will never be the gas station of COMECON.

Nicolai Ceaucesco

[Nolan]

If worker's control of the means of production was lacking, how were these societies socialist? I'm not saying these states were without benefit but WCOMP is a keystone of socialism. If one says that MLism has to make this priority no. 1, why wasn't it before? If WCOMP as lacking, who then controlled the MOP? and for what purpose? Wouldn't the question of who controls the MOP open a whole can of worms?It seems like there would be deeper material causes as to who controls the MOP.

They were dictatorships of the proletariat, trying to build socialism in an uphill battle. So they were products of their material circumstances, but they also made errors.

It was insufficient, not altogether nonexistent. What I'm saying is that we need to put more effort than ever in avoiding top heavy bureaucracy from the beginning since prevention is better than a cure.

[RedSunRising]

If worker's control of the means of production was lacking, how were these societies socialist?

You belong to the CWI an organization labeled social-fascist by the CPI-Maoist and the IRSN, an organization that believes that believes Deng's China and Brezhenev's USSR were somehow Socialist, not to mention Tito's Yugoslavia. That supports the British claim to the Malvinas islands and offered to rat up people who defended themselves from the cops during the Poll Tax riots. Glass houses and stones. Glass houses and stones.

Socialist Albania was a lot less "authoritarian" than any state would be with the CWI in charge. Given Trotsky's actual attitude to Workers' Control.....

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They were dictatorships of the proletariat
worker's control of the means of production was generally lackingSo the working class ruled ... but didn't control the means of production?

[Prairie Fire]

Certainly this question is posed in a manner that is a bit out-dated, corresponding more to the period of 1960-1989, than the 21st century.

We definitely can't discuss Ceausescu in the present tense. The man is dead, has been over twenty years. So, the question of whether or not one "upholds" Ceausescu is a historical one.

As far as historical musings are concerned, someone could analyze the class nature of the Ceausescu regime all day. The conclusions that you would come to is that with out question it fell short of socialism, and definitely there were considerations made for the benefit of the domestic exploiting classes (who were not completely phased out).

In their defense, one could argue that Romania suffered several hardships that they had to overcome. Chiefly, Romania came out of the Second World war as a defeated fascist power, with battles fought on its own soil. No doubt Romania was faced with lack of vital infrastructure in most of the country, and the task of rebuilding what little there was, which was devastated by conflict.

Romania was also likely the victim of the same problem as all of the other people' democracies of Eastern Europe in that their "communist" party was a hastily assembled big-tent party of any forces that could be assembled together in the wake of over a decade of fascist rule, and the murder of many prominent socialists.

While every communist party has the problem of struggling out politics, and fighting any resurgence of bourgeois tendencies, the countries of Europe had it the worst of all, as they formed from the beginning as an unlikely alliance of a broad range of eclectic forces. Romania was no different.

Also Romania was on the receiving end of Cold War politics, including the Sino-Soviet split. As a Warsaw pact member (albeit, one that frequently opposed to the Soviet course of action,),they were subject to many of the tremors that emanated from Moscow; at the same time, the Romanians were sympathetic to China, therefore they were also the victims of the more erroneous policies that they imitated from Peking (i.e. a period of "Ten thousand flowers" style liberalism, etc).

As far as their relations with NATO go, the Romanians aren't innocent (i.e. joining the IMF, etc), and in this sense you could say that they reaped what the sowed, and you would be correct. Their actions in that respect become a cautionary tale for the rest of us.

Beginning from the stand-point of the 21st century, the two relevant points to draw conclusion from are these:

* The way in which Ceausescu was deposed (i.e. Execution). Before you immediately jump to the knee-jerk "got what he deserved" conclusion, remember that it was not a peoples tribunal that enacted any sort of justice on him. It was a clique of the same people that went on to rule Romania, and reduce it to it's present state. Perhaps more so than any of the other nominally "socialist" states of Europe, the return to full-blown capitalism in Romania is perhaps the most blatant.
Where in the other Warsaw pact countries, privatization and the re-instatement of naked bourgeois rule occurred through the official channels, and long-time members of the "communist" party promptly defected to become the vocal champions of capital, in Romania (for one reason or another,), Ceausescu made himself an obstacle to Perestroika and Glasnost. Even heads of state like Jaruzelski in Poland, who declared martial law, were not put up against the firing wall so un-ceremonially.
In this sense, the execution of Ceausescu really dramatically illustrates the nature of what occurred in Eastern Europe, regardless of what relations may have prevailed prior to the coups.

* The polls today, re: socialism.
http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2010/D40190.htm#3 (http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2010/D40190.htm%20/%203)
Whatever relations prevailed during the Ceausescu era, while not socialist, it is without question that progressive gains were made for working people, and this is the point that should be taken in regards to the contemporary situation, if you must have a perspective on Romania.

Criticisms of the Ceausescu era, while usually valid, are unproductive in 2011. What is important now is looking to that base, looking to that swell of popular dissatisfaction that came when promises never blossomed into anything real for the majority of working people. True, their aspirations are very small in their scale (i.e. Employment, housing, etc), and this is why a modern organization of the Romanian working class is needed. In the country that in recent years served as the location of the “Borat” movie, there are sentiments for change, and as contemporary Socialists, we must take note of their struggles and extend our hands where we can in solidarity

Rakhmetov


Dracula built himself and his countess a palace while the people were in deep misery.

Yes, that is fitting. :rolleyes:

Far be it from me to answer for every policy taken by the Romanian regime, and it's not to say that the Ceausescu’s did not enjoy excess relative to the population, but your analysis (if you want to call it that) is simplistic and dismissive.

If you aspire to anything revolutionary, or even political, ditch the snide, avant-garde, knee-jerk condemnations.

Red Future


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolae_Ceausescu.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolae_Ceausescu.jpg) Look at this creep.


Erm, yes... It is a picture of Ceausescu.

Was there a point to this?

It is obvious to all that you are hostile towards Ceausescu, I just haven't seen a coherent political argument from you yet. Please, feel free.

Nolan

He was a massive dick.

This is not the level of discourse I would expect from a self-proclaimed "sympathizer of the APL".


And the nostalgia is more for the social benefits Romanians enjoyed at the time, not necessarily Ceausescu himself. Romanian communists need to put themselves out there, counter the rampant nationalist movements, and show that the Romanian working class can take the good of Ceausescu's Romania back and also build a better world through a genuine, healthy proletarian democracy. This really applies to all of the former USSR, Warsaw Pact, Yugoslavia, and Albania.


Agreed.

Wanted Man


What do either of those phrases mean, specifically? And more importantly, who cares? It's an incredibly academic discussion about whether you think a dead man was "awesome" or a "good" adherent to an ideology that he had very weak associations with anyway. Who the hell thinks any of the above anyway?


Large parts of this are correct. Others seem like you are tossing the baby out with the bath water.

You are correct that the politics of the 60's-70's, of being "for" or "against" phenomenon (whether or not this is objectively the case in your political outlook,) were inadequate then, and they are inadequate now as well.

Simultaneously, in your zeal to shake off what you must perceive as dogmatic, the baggage of the international socialist movement, you are quick to cast Marxism-Leninism itself as irrelevant, and specifically Romania's tactical concurrence with it.

Scientifically, you must acknowledge that there are objective rules to development of humyn society, that there is a cause for every effect, and that generally these developments are just this side of universal (national exceptionalism is very limited, usually relegated to specifics more than the over-all workings and motive forces of society).

It was Karl Marx and Friederich Engels who first made these observations and did the work of articulating and arguing them. Vladimir Ilych Lenin continued this work, expanding it into new developments of capital (i.e. imperialism).

For this reason, if you concur with this analysis, you are objectively a Marxist-Leninist, in the same sense that objectively you are a Darwinist if you recognize evolution. Call it whatever you wish, but as they say, "A rose by any other name..."



It's a kind of obsession limited only to the Hoxhaist users here, the kind of people who butt into every thread about the Cold War era with Hoxha quotes to show that Hoxha thought some other leader was "awesome" or not. What is the actual political use of it?


(Don't be so quick to make lazy characterizations of us ;).)

You are correct that to rely on quotations from Enver Hoxha (and others,) is inadequate, especially if they are no-longer current.

Still, unfortunately the basic forces of capitalism remain unchanged since the time of Marx, hence the analysis of various previous socialist theoreticians usually remains relevant.

Objective laws of social development don't change dramatically within a span of less than half a millennia (even if the specific tactics vary), so it would be unproductive to discard the collective experience, analysis and wisdom of the international communist movement.

Also, sometimes people who devoted their days to analyzing certain phenomenon are better at articulating it than others, hence the reasons for quoting them rather than paraphrasing.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

It would be more supportable than Juche. :lol: (Somewhat more sane as well)

[Return to the Source]

haha I've been referenced twice in this thread: once as the user who called Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe "comrade," and second as the user who supports Deng Xiaoping as an important Marxist-Leninist. Whatever. Most of the people on here backed the racist, imperialist Libyan rebels so I take it as exorbitant praise that these "leftists" condemn me.

The fact that Romanians, especially working class Romanians, wish they could go back to the pre-1989 era with Ceausescu at the helm speaks for itself. There's never been a society where communists have lost power and the people have seen a raise in their living conditions. It's a testament to how divorced groups like the ISO and left-communists--both of whom cheerled the fall of the Soviet Union--are from the masses.

[Philosopher Jay]

Ceausescu made abortion illegal in Rumania. This is a fundamental and basic right for women. It makes me skeptical that he was ever a communist.

[KC]

haha I've been referenced twice in this thread: once as the user who called Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe "comrade," and second as the user who supports Deng Xiaoping as an important Marxist-Leninist. Whatever. Most of the people on here backed the racist, imperialist Libyan rebels so I take it as exorbitant praise that these "leftists" condemn me.The latter doesn't justify the former.



The fact that Romanians, especially working class Romanians, wish they could go back to the pre-1989 era with Ceausescu at the helm speaks for itself.Appealing to popularity only "speaks for itself" in that it shows your inability to defend your assertion.

[black magick hustla]

he is dead

[Return to the Source]

I just don't take most of the people on this forum seriously enough to really care what they think about revolutionaries who've done more for the international proletariat movement by taking a shit once a day than they will in the course of their entire lives.

[KC]

Okay so in other words you just want to whine. Got it.


I just don't take most of the people on this forum seriously enough to really care what they think about revolutionaries who've done more for the international proletariat movement by taking a shit once a day than they will in the course of their entire lives.

BTW this applies to you as well so I don't really see how this gets you any points.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

What to people think of his "July Theses" thing?

Ceaușescu visited the People's Republic of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China), North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea), and North Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Vietnam) in 1971 and was inspired by the hardline model he found there. He took great interest in the idea of total national transformation as embodied in the programs of the Korean Workers' Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Workers%27_Party) and China's Cultural Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution). Shortly after returning home, he began to emulate North Korea's system, influenced by the Juche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche) philosophy of North Korean President Kim Il Sung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung). North Korean books on Juche were translated into Romanian and widely distributed in the country. On 6 July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_July) 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971), he delivered a speech before the Executive Committee of the PCR.
This quasi-Maoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) speech, which came to be known as the July Theses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Theses), contained seventeen proposals. Among these were: continuous growth in the "leading role" of the Party; improvement of Party education and of mass political action; youth participation on large construction projects as part of their "patriotic work"; an intensification of political-ideological education in schools and universities, as well as in children's, youth and student organizations; and an expansion of political propaganda, orienting radio and television shows to this end, as well as publishing houses, theatres and cinemas, opera, ballet, artists' unions, promoting a "militant, revolutionary" character in artistic productions. The liberalisation of 1965 was condemned and an index of banned books and authors was re-established.
The Theses heralded the beginning of a "mini cultural revolution" in Romania, launching a Neo-Stalinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Stalinism) offensive against cultural autonomy, reaffirming an ideological basis for literature that, in theory, the Party had hardly abandoned. Although presented in terms of "Socialist Humanism", the Theses in fact marked a return to the strict guidelines of Socialist Realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Realism), and attacks on non-compliant intellectuals. Strict ideological conformity in the humanities and social sciences was demanded. Competence and aesthetics were to be replaced by ideology; professionals were to be replaced by agitators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitprop); and culture was once again to become an instrument for political-ideological propaganda.

[SacRedMan]

Bah, another slimy dictator that grabbed all the power for himself and raped the communist ideoligy

[ZeroNowhere]

I just don't take most of the people on this forum seriously enough to really care what they think about revolutionaries who've done more for the international proletariat movement by taking a shit once a day than they will in the course of their entire lives.
It is wholly unsurprising that you hold producing regular shit to be integral to the proletarian movement.


he is deadI concur.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

It is wholly unsurprising that you hold producing regular shit to be integral to the proletarian movement.


I think it's called "Revolutionary Defecationism".

[Red Future]

Certainly this question is posed in a manner that is a bit out-dated, corresponding more to the period of 1960-1989, than the 21st century.

We definitely can't discuss Ceausescu in the present tense. The man is dead, has been over twenty years. So, the question of whether or not one "upholds" Ceausescu is a historical one.

As far as historical musings are concerned, someone could analyze the class nature of the Ceausescu regime all day. The conclusions that you would come to is that with out question it fell short of socialism, and definitely there were considerations made for the benefit of the domestic exploiting classes (who were not completely phased out).

In their defense, one could argue that Romania suffered several hardships
that they had to overcome. Chiefly, Romania came out of the Second World war as a defeated fascist power, with battles fought on its own soil. No doubt Romania was faced with lack of vital infrastructure in most of the country, and the task of rebuilding what little there was, which was devastated by conflict.

Romania was also likely the victim of the same problem as all of the other people' democracies of Eastern Europe in that their "communist" party was a hastily assembled big-tent party of any forces that could be assembled together in the wake of over a decade of fascist rule, and the murder of many prominent socialists.

While every communist party has the problem of struggling out politics, and fighting any resurgence of bourgeois tendencies, the countries of Europe had it the worst of all, as they formed from the beginning as an unlikely alliance of a broad range of eclectic forces. Romania was no different.

Also Romania was on the receiving end of Cold War politics, including the Sino-Soviet split. As a Warsaw pact member (albeit, one that frequently opposed to the Soviet course of action,),they were subject to many of the tremors that emanated from Moscow; at the same time, the Romanians were sympathetic to China, therefore they were also the victims of the more erroneous policies that they imitated from Peking (i.e. a period of "Ten thousand flowers" style liberalism, etc).

As far as their relations with NATO go, the Romanians aren't innocent (i.e. joining the IMF, etc), and in this sense you could say that they reaped what the sowed, and you would be correct. Their actions in that respect become a cautionary tale for the rest of us.

Beginning from the stand-point of the 21st century, the two relevant points to draw conclusion from are these:

* The way in which Ceausescu was deposed (i.e. Execution). Before you immediately jump to the knee-jerk "got what he deserved" conclusion, remember that it was not a peoples tribunal that enacted any sort of justice on him. It was a clique of the same people that went on to rule Romania, and reduce it to it's present state. Perhaps more so than any of the other nominally "socialist" states of Europe, the return to full-blown capitalism in Romania is perhaps the most blatant.
Where in the other Warsaw pact countries, privatization and the re-instatement of naked bourgeois rule occurred through the official channels, and long-time members of the "communist" party promptly defected to become the vocal champions of capital, in Romania (for one reason or another,), Ceausescu made himself an obstacle to Perestroika and Glasnost. Even heads of state like Jaruzelski in Poland, who declared martial law, were not put up against the firing wall so un-ceremonially.
In this sense, the execution of Ceausescu really dramatically illustrates the nature of what occurred in Eastern Europe, regardless of what relations may have prevailed prior to the coups.

* The polls today, re: socialism.
http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2010/D40190.htm#3 (http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2010/D40190.htm%20/%203)
Whatever relations prevailed during the Ceausescu era, while not socialist, it is without question that progressive gains were made for working people, and this is the point that should be taken in regards to the contemporary situation, if you must have a perspective on Romania.

Criticisms of the Ceausescu era, while usually valid, are unproductive in 2011. What is important now is looking to that base, looking to that swell of popular dissatisfaction that came when promises never blossomed into anything real for the majority of working people. True, their aspirations are very small in their scale (i.e. Employment, housing, etc), and this is why a modern organization of the Romanian working class is needed. In the country that in recent years served as the location of the “Borat” movie, there are sentiments for change, and as contemporary Socialists, we must take note of their struggles and extend our hands where we can in solidarity

Rakhmetov


Yes, that is fitting. :rolleyes:

Far be it from me to answer for every policy taken by the Romanian regime, and it's not to say that the Ceausescu’s did not enjoy excess relative to the population, but your analysis (if you want to call it that) is simplistic and dismissive.

If you aspire to anything revolutionary, or even political, ditch the snide, avant-garde, knee-jerk condemnations.

Red Future


Erm, yes... It is a picture of Ceausescu.

Was there a point to this?

It is obvious to all that you are hostile towards Ceausescu, I just haven't seen a coherent political argument from you yet. Please, feel free.

Nolan


This is not the level of discourse I would expect from a self-proclaimed "sympathizer of the APL".



Agreed.

Wanted Man


Large parts of this are correct. Others seem like you are tossing the baby out with the bath water.

You are correct that the politics of the 60's-70's, of being "for" or "against" phenomenon (whether or not this is objectively the case in your political outlook,) were inadequate then, and they are inadequate now as well.

Simultaneously, in your zeal to shake off what you must perceive as dogmatic, the baggage of the international socialist movement, you are quick to cast Marxism-Leninism itself as irrelevant, and specifically Romania's tactical concurrence with it.

Scientifically, you must acknowledge that there are objective rules to development of humyn society, that there is a cause for every effect, and that generally these developments are just this side of universal (national exceptionalism is very limited, usually relegated to specifics more than the over-all workings and motive forces of society).

It was Karl Marx and Friederich Engels who first made these observations and did the work of articulating and arguing them. Vladimir Ilych Lenin continued this work, expanding it into new developments of capital (i.e. imperialism).

For this reason, if you concur with this analysis, you are objectively a Marxist-Leninist, in the same sense that objectively you are a Darwinist if you recognize evolution. Call it whatever you wish, but as they say, "A rose by any other name..."



(Don't be so quick to make lazy characterizations of us ;).)

You are correct that to rely on quotations from Enver Hoxha (and others,) is inadequate, especially if they are no-longer current.

Still, unfortunately the basic forces of capitalism remain unchanged since the time of Marx, hence the analysis of various previous socialist theoreticians usually remains relevant.

Objective laws of social development don't change dramatically within a span of less than half a millennia (even if the specific tactics vary), so it would be unproductive to discard the collective experience, analysis and wisdom of the international communist movement.

Also, sometimes people who devoted their days to analyzing certain phenomenon are better at articulating it than others, hence the reasons for quoting them rather than paraphrasing.

Quite right you should have a coherent reply..my oppostion to him is in reference to his promotion of a "National Communism" and support for reactionary scum like Mobutu.

[Crux]

You belong to the CWI an organization labeled social-fascist by the CPI-Maoist and the IRSN, an organization that believes that believes Deng's China and Brezhenev's USSR were somehow Socialist, not to mention Tito's Yugoslavia. That supports the British claim to the Malvinas islands and offered to rat up people who defended themselves from the cops during the Poll Tax riots. Glass houses and stones. Glass houses and stones.

Socialist Albania was a lot less "authoritarian" than any state would be with the CWI in charge. Given Trotsky's actual attitude to Workers' Control.....
Who are the IRSN? Or are you inferring that this would be the position of the CWI, then you are sorely mistaken.

[redhotpoker]

He was a great anti-imperialist!
pVuL3cJe_m0

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I just don't take most of the people on this forum seriously enough to really care what they think about revolutionaries who've done more for the international proletariat movement by taking a shit once a day than they will in the course of their entire lives.

Just a question, what have you done to further the international working class struggle more than anyone else here, other than posting praise on an internet forum for a homophobic tyrant from Zimbabwe? I'm curious.


As for the original topic:

Like most Eastern Block countries, the most interesting factor is that the nations failed to raise the level of consciousness enough of the workers during their 40-80 years in power to ensure that the workers themselves would prevent or reverse a Capitalist counterrevolution (whereas it seems that the workers themselves were a major factor in said counterrevolution).

Also, the corruption of the Romanian govt speaks for itself. The "Communist" government built large palaces for its "people" (ie leaders) while driving the country in debt to the US and the "West". What's Communist about that?


That supports the British claim to the Malvinas islandsI dont know about the CWI, but aren't the claims of local Anglo sheep herders on the Falklands, who have lived there for generations, more important than the Argentine nationalist desire to expand their borders? The Argentine claim over the Falklands seems no more tenuous than the Zionist claim over the West Bank, considering no Argentinians are residents of the islands. If the Falklanders want to live in Argentina, more power to them, but I've seen no indication whatsoever that they would support such a move.


Could you clarify your position?

[Return to the Source]

No one answers my arguments on Zimbabwe. I shouldn't have to respond to non-existent arguments.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No one answers my arguments on Zimbabwe. I shouldn't have to respond to non-existent arguments.

Ah, you don't have to respond to the FACT that Mugabe is vehemently homophobic and demolishes the houses of urban workers because it's a "non-existent" argument? Tell that to gays in Zimbabwe, or the ISO activists arrested for watching a video about Egypt, or the slum-dwellers who lost their homes that their issues are "non-existent".

[Ermo Kruus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Ceausescu_receiving_the_presidential_sceptre_1974. jpg/300px-Ceausescu_receiving_the_presidential_sceptre_1974. jpg

He really was one of the biggest assholes of the Eastern Bloc.

[Red Future]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Ceausescu_receiving_the_presidential_sceptre_1974. jpg/300px-Ceausescu_receiving_the_presidential_sceptre_1974. jpg

He really was one of the biggest assholes of the Eastern Bloc.

Do you have the context for this picture??:confused:

[Ermo Kruus]

Do you have the context for this picture??:confused:
He was given that sceptre by the party, following his "election" as president of Romania in 1974. As you can see, the personality cult around him was pretty extreme by then.