ceausescu?

[DoCt SPARTAN]

DO any leftists support the "dictator" Ceausescu.

I know of him with his execution and Romania....

I hear words to describe like totalitarian, dictator, embarrassment to communists.
But Some stalinists defend stailin and his accused catastrophes.. SO is that the same with him. Did he also commit inhumane acts?

[Captain Ahab]

There was exactly one single supporter of the Count here and his name was Comrade Ceausescu. He posted in 03-04, got restricted and I haven't heard from him since.
As for Ceausescu himself, he's a person who built himself a giant fucking palace so huge that it isn't even finished while at the same time imposing severe austerity on his subjects. He also was the one guy who went to the DPRK and thought copying the personality cult was a good idea. Naturally, he was adored by the West.

[Goblin]

Not even the most dedicated stalinists support him. Ceausescu was actually much more ruthless than Stalin. Romania under Ceausescu was quite reminiscent of modern day DPRK.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Not even the most dedicated Stalinist support him. Ceausescu was actually much more ruthless than Stalin. Romania under Ceausescu was quite reminiscent of modern day DPRK.

Wow Stalinist's don't even respect him, Thats a crazy thing to think about I'll have to do more studies on him. thanks

[Ismail]

"Stalinists" don't support him, not because OH GOD HE'S EVEN MORE EVIL AND TOTALITARIAN THAN STALIN (he was, in fact, a liberal in the late 60's), but because he was an opportunist just like his good friends Tito and Kim Il Sung. Under him the Romanian Communist party established "fraternal relations" with the Popular Movement of the Revolution, also known as Mobutu's party in Zaire. Under him Romania refused to break off diplomatic relations with Israel in response to the Six-Day War (unlike the rest of Eastern Europe), this being part of his "maverick" foreign policy. Under him the USA established most-favored trade status with Romania and saw Ceaușescu as a "good communist" à la Tito.

He also attacked the Soviet reclamation of Bessarabia under Stalin (and was a ridiculous nationalist in general), imposed austerity measures on Romania in the 80's to pay back IMF loans, etc.

"The [Romanian Communist Party] has redefined and extrapolated the Leninist definition of conflicts as being 'antagonistic' or 'nonantagonistic' to the sphere of international relations in general and to the South in particular... Thus, conflicts between Communist states (China and the Soviet Union, Kampuchea and Vietnam) or between various developing countries are defined as basically 'nonantagonistic,' to be solved through negotiations and compromise only. While the Soviets admit no compromise (and neither do the Chinese) between 'revisionism' and Marxism-Leninism, or between 'reactionary' and 'progressive' developing countries, the RCP has not used the word 'revisionism' since the 1950s, when it applied it [at the time] to Tito, and rejects the very distinction between 'progressive' and 'reactionary' regimes in the South, a distinction which provides the basis for Soviet involvement in support of various radical regimes and groups there. In the words of a Romanian commentator:

'The emphasis placed on dividing the developing countries into 'progressive' and 'moderate' ones and opposing them to each other in international relations runs counter to the unanimously recognized principle of peaceful coexistence of countries with different social and political systems, feeding instead the theory of the spheres of influence, which is used to weaken the unity of the developing countries in the international arena.'

This position is very similar to that of the Yugoslavs, reflecting once again the similarity of viewpoint between Belgrade and Bucharest concerning the role and character of the Nonaligned Movement...

The very foundation of the RCP ideology, its demand that every Communist party be free to choose its own way of applying Marxism-Leninism, is linked to a rather particular assessment of the international situation as a whole. Although Bucharest does occasionally admit the existence of international conflicts, as Ceausescu puts it, 'Imperialism is much weaker than most people would say, and to overestimate its strength would lead to panic.'"
(Radu, Michael (ed). [I]Eastern Europe and the Third World: East vs. South. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1981. pp. 239-240.)

To quote Hoxha, "Mao received Ceausescu. Hsinhua reported only that he said to him: 'Rumanian comrades, we should unite to bring down imperialism'. As if Ceausescu and company are to bring down imperialism!! If the world waits for the Ceausescus to do such a thing, imperialism will live for tens of thousands of years. It is the proletariat and the peoples that fight imperialism." (Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 536.)

[Art Vandelay]

You know what, I really was just thinking to myself: 'I wonder what Hoxha has to say on the subject.'

[Ismail]

You know what, I really was just thinking to myself: 'I wonder what Hoxha has to say on the subject.'You should, since he's a nice barometer for what qualifies as "Stalinist" or not, while the Chinese tried to force Albania to enter into a military alliance with Yugoslavia and Romania.

Of course, like Tito and Kim Il Sung, Ceaușescu strongly denounced "dogmatism" and stressed the "creative application of Marxism-Leninism" as interpreted by revisionists such as himself. He, too, based his work on the "new roads" opened up by the 20th Party Congress.