Nikolai Ceausescu

[Cheung Mo]

1. Is it accurate to argue that Ceausescu was a misogynit and nationalistic tyrant who took loans from the U.S. (or more vulgarly, sucked Nixon and Kissinger off for money), used them to fatten his own pockets and those of his cronies, and then starved his own people to death and deprived them of other basic necessities in order to pay off the debts and continue living large?

2. If so, would the fact that Romania's Socialist International affiliate contains a number of the NC's old cronies represent a valid argument when attacking the organisation? (not that we need any more excuses to)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Being Romanian myself, I would say yes to both questions (though with reservations in the second case - I've always been uncomfortable with criticizing people for their past, especially when they're doing plenty of shit in the present).

[Workers Patrols]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 02, 2007 07:05 pm
1. Is it accurate to argue that Ceausescu was a misogynit and nationalistic tyrant who took loans from the U.S. (or more vulgarly, sucked Nixon and Kissinger off for money), used them to fatten his own pockets and those of his cronies, and then starved his own people to death and deprived them of other basic necessities in order to pay off the debts and continue living large?

2. If so, would the fact that Romania's Socialist International affiliate contains a number of the NC's old cronies represent a valid argument when attacking the organisation? (not that we need any more excuses to)
He was a bum who built himself a humongous palace and then made people pay for his and his wife's luxurious lifestyle. No wonder U.S. leaders supported this "good communist."

[Demogorgon]

The fact America backed him tells you all you need to know

[Intelligitimate]

Ceausescu is an interesting case study. He was widely regarded as the poster boy of party corruption and Nomenklatura excess. Yet his entire estate was worth less than half a million dollars. That's with items like the car Ronald Reagan gave him being auctioned off to the rich and famous from around the world. Less than half a million.

When the poster boy of party corruption is worth only a tiny fraction of your typical capitalist, it kinda puts into perspective just how progressive the USSR was. It also shows just what a bunch of bullshit the various 'New Class' theories are.

[TC]

Yes, Nikolai Ceausescu actually did all of the things that the imperialists lied about the Soviets and the other Warsaw Pact nations doing. He was a corrupt anti-Soviet pro-Israeli despotic loony so he had that in common with the imperialists.

Romania during Ceausescu was totally incomparable to the other legitimate socialist states so imperialists use it as a poster-child for what was wrong with socialism when in fact it was a unique case completely isolated from the socialist bloc.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I would not call the other Warsaw Pact countries "legitimate socialist states", but yes, you are correct.

One other point worth remembering is that Ceausescu's regime was the only one in Eastern Europe brought down by a popular revolution.

Oh, and his name is spelled Nicolaie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Just a question out of curiosity: why did the post-Stalin Soviets continue to tolerate that SOB of yours?

Might I add to this thread US support of the tyrannical Saddam over Soviet support of pre-Baathist figures, of the tyrannical Amin over Soviet support of revolutionary Afghan figures?

[IMO, ironically both Saddam and Amin were die-hard Stalinists without the Big-C Communist ideology to keep them in check.]

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 08:05 am
^^^ Just a question out of curiosity: why did the post-Stalin Soviets continue to tolerate that SOB of yours?
Because he was, after all, quite harmless to the foreign policy of the USSR, and still a dependable ally. Romania was to the Soviet Union what France was to the USA - a rather annoying puppet with delusions of grandeur, but still fundamentally a puppet.

Besides, Ceausescu was remarkably stupid. A great quality to have in a national leader within your sphere of influence.

[Intelligitimate]

One other point worth remembering is that Ceausescu's regime was the only one in Eastern Europe brought down by a popular revolution.

I don't see anything 'popular' about what happaned to Ceausescu. In fact, it looks to have been brought on by Gorbachev, for criticizing the direction Gorbachev was taking Russia. Here is an article that discusses it without endorising it:

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/r...volt_moscow.htm (http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/revolution/december_revolt_moscow.htm)

[TC]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 11:07 am

Because he was, after all, quite harmless to the foreign policy of the USSR, and still a dependable ally.
Are you kidding me? Ceausescu consistently opposed Soviet foreign policy. He established diplomatic relations with imperialist West Germany, sided with the Israelis against the Communist bloc's position during the 1967 war, opposed the Warsaw Pact in Czechoslovakia, refused to integrate economically into the socialist economic bloc, invited Nixon and de Gualle to Romania, opposed the Soviet defense of Afghani social democracy. He opposed and attempted to disrupt every single major Soviet foreign policy initiative while in office.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:17 am
Ceausescu is an interesting case study. He was widely regarded as the poster boy of party corruption and Nomenklatura excess. Yet his entire estate was worth less than half a million dollars. That's with items like the car Ronald Reagan gave him being auctioned off to the rich and famous from around the world. Less than half a million.

When the poster boy of party corruption is worth only a tiny fraction of your typical capitalist, it kinda puts into perspective just how progressive the USSR was. It also shows just what a bunch of bullshit the various 'New Class' theories are.
I think his children stole quite a lot more from the state though.

At any rate, he seems to have been a quite incompetent leader as well. He barely had control over his own Government half the time, and seemed to work with western leaders simply to make himself seem more important.

[Demogorgon]

It is interesting incidentally to hear some testimonies of people who travelled between Romania and other Warsaw Pact countries. The other countries had serious problems of course, but they were still leagues ahead of Romania. It is incredible how backwards Romania was compared to neighbouring states like Bulgaria

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by TragicClown+June 03, 2007 08:16 pm--> (TragicClown @ June 03, 2007 08:16 pm)
Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 11:07 am

Because he was, after all, quite harmless to the foreign policy of the USSR, and still a dependable ally.
Are you kidding me? Ceausescu consistently opposed Soviet foreign policy. He established diplomatic relations with imperialist West Germany, sided with the Israelis against the Communist bloc's position during the 1967 war, opposed the Warsaw Pact in Czechoslovakia, refused to integrate economically into the socialist economic bloc, invited Nixon and de Gualle to Romania, opposed the Soviet defense of Afghani social democracy. He opposed and attempted to disrupt every single major Soviet foreign policy initiative while in office. [/b]
Yes, but he had very little success in doing so. He was fairly harmless to Soviet foreign policy and continued to trade with them, which meant he at least wasn't harming their economic interests.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:52 pm
I don't see anything 'popular' about what happaned to Ceausescu. In fact, it looks to have been brought on by Gorbachev, for criticizing the direction Gorbachev was taking Russia. Here is an article that discusses it without endorising it:

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/r...volt_moscow.htm (http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/revolution/december_revolt_moscow.htm)
It is important to draw a distinction between the popular uprising against Ceausescu and the group of bureaucrats who took advantage of that uprising to overthrow him and place themselves in power.

The people took to the streets in December 1989 to protest against Ceausescu's absurd policy of starving the Romanian economy and people in order to pay off foreign debts to imperialist powers. It was an anti-Ceausescu uprising, but certainly not an anti-communist one (like the media always portrays it). Furthermore, the uprising had no leaders. It was a spontaneous popular action, unplanned and unforseen.

Now, it is very likely that, at the same time, other interest groups were planning a coup. The popular uprising made things easier for them. A number of bureaucrats took advantage of the chaos to form the National Salvation Front and declare themselves the new government of Romania. They were able to do this unopposed because the people had had no time to set up their own councils or other mass organizations. The NSF may have been supported by Moscow, or Washington, or whoever; but the NSF and the popular uprising were unrelated.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 10:37 pm
Now, it is very likely that, at the same time, other interest groups were planning a coup. The popular uprising made things easier for them. A number of bureaucrats took advantage of the chaos to form the National Salvation Front and declare themselves the new government of Romania. They were able to do this unopposed because the people had had no time to set up their own councils or other mass organizations. The NSF may have been supported by Moscow, or Washington, or whoever; but the NSF and the popular uprising were unrelated.
Yeah as I understand it, the coup leaders decided the uprising gave them the opportunity to act. It would have been interesting to see how they would have tried to take power, had there not been an uprising at that time.

BTW, out of interest, do you still live in Romania?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:53 am
BTW, out of interest, do you still live in Romania?
Four months out of the year, yes.

[Intelligitimate]

Again, I still fail to see anything 'popular' about the uprising.

[Hiero]

Why was he a misogynist?

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:54 am
Why was he a misogynist?
I assume the answer will involve a long rant about womens rights and abortion laws, although in his defence the birth rate was dangerously low.

[A.J.]

Originally posted by Whitten+June 04, 2007 03:04 pm--> (Whitten @ June 04, 2007 03:04 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 11:54 am
Why was he a misogynist?
I assume the answer will involve a long rant about womens rights and abortion laws, although in his defence the birth rate was dangerously low. [/b]
I read abortion was illegal during the epoch of Ceausescu, hence why there was a large of amount of orphans in Romania in the 1990s.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7ToAbgG4Dg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWvA5EkvoNM...related&search= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWvA5EkvoNM&mode=related&search=)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sXsNf463HM&NR=1

http://www.vivid.ro/vivid67/pictures67/ceausescu.gif

:lol:

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:05 am
^^^ Just a question out of curiosity: why did the post-Stalin Soviets continue to tolerate that SOB of yours?

So you would have proposed a soviet-invasion of Romania did ya? :rolleyes: