I Inter-Railed there in 1990 following my team, Glentoran play Steaua in the Cup Winners Cup. I spent 4 days in the city with absolutely nothing to do except wander the streets. There was literally nothing in the city except for grey walls. There were bread queues in the mornings but strangely there always seemed to be plenty of bread. I guess I must have missed those times when there was none. I had a £10 a day budget and lived like a king. The only people who could speak English were the money touts.
I have pictures somewhere from the game (I'm not sure if there's any of the city). I'll have to scan them and post them up.
In 1986 there were queues for everything, but nothing on the shelfs were enough for the population.
It was mandatory to stay as early as possible at a queue for milk, but it was common to not get some milk because they were out of it just in front of you.
So in 1990, when you were visiting, a lot of common things were missing. And the inflation those days was Sky rocketing by each day passing, especially for the next 6-7 years.
I travelled up through Yugoslavia just before the war and there were heated debates on the train of which I couldn't understand a word. Bucharest was grim, I ate at a modest restaurant and lived like a king. I was the only visitor for the "local tourist" board and I got roomed in a large apartment.
The rest of our fans (around 200) stayed well away from Bucharest in a holiday resort and got bussed in for the match so I literally had no-one to talk to.
It's one of the best things I've done in life. I don't regret a single minute of it. I've so many stories about the trip of which Bucharest is just one.
Yeah, I remember Bucharest in 1998 still looking the same only there were a few shops like Adidas and Nike downtown, I remember the Adidas Tricolore in the shop was about as much as a medium-high salary. There were already two or three McDonald's, never went to the first because it was a place full of junkies and pickpockets (Unirii) while Romana Square had just beggars and scammers so for a 9 year old living nearby it was OK. Buses were always guarded by 2 or 3 pickpockets working together to pass the loot in case someone would catch the one who stole, wasn't as fun to go out after dusk but you could get robbed in broad daylight too while crossing the street in the center and police was worthless. Oh and by late 90s- 2000 it was FUCKING FULL OF STRAY DOGS. I had many friends who were bitten and their parents too. I dodged this bullet but I remember getting chased by 10 aggressive mutts returning from school cause I still had my sandwich in my backpack.
But I have to mention pre-1989 it wasn't any better, my parents had pepper sprays bought from Serbs coming over on Sundays to sell jeans, alcohol and cassettes. It was just very silent. Also Ceausescu signed many mass pardons, many of those were rapists, pedos and other criminals, the reason is many were in jail for stuff like stealing a bag of wheat or corn to feed themselves. After 89 these informations, even though not right away, were starting to become available to the public.
For example, the aggressive strays were an effect of Ceausescu demolishing many houses with yards to build flats, those people had to move in a 2 room small flat with their parents, in-laws and children so the dogs were abandoned or kept just in front of the building where they feralized. As in 1989 there were many flats still unfinished, many people were basically living in temporary dorms or with other relatives, cause their houses were gone and their new flat was unfinished usually you would receive a 6-12 hour notice that your old place would be demolished.
As a counter to that, I ripped my coat in London but it was a great place to hide some money as there was a gap in the coat where pickpockets wouldn't find.
When in Bucharest, I walked by a tailors and decided to use up my Lei's (you were not allowed to bring them out of the country) on my final day. So I approached the tailors, they found the money then joked with me that they thought I was fighting with the Steaua fans. Really a special moment. They could have robbed me but they didn't charge me for the coat repair. I gave 90% of my remaining Lei's to them as a tip and they were so grateful.
I'm glad I missed all that future shit you described but I found genuine people everywhere I went. People who were prepared to help and not scam you.
This thread is bringing up wonderful memories from my trip.
BTW, I took my wife to Paris last year and found nothing but genuine people. Yes, be wary of pickpockets but there are good people everywhere. I found that first on my Inter-Rail trip.
As a joke to queues, a guy wanted to smoke a cigarette, he leand against the wall with his shoulder, when hi finished his cigarette he turned and saw a queue behind him, everybody thounght that he was the first for waiting to buy something so people gathered.
>I guess I must have missed those times when there was none.
By literally a few months. A few days after we shot the president, stores began selling food again.
1986 is actually the "peak" year for Ceausescu's Romania, but real GDP per capita was still about 4x lower than in the country today. The regime was busy aggressively paying off debt to the IMF instead, so it could call itself "independent". Together with Communism itself, it's why everything looks so poor.
What's funny is that this fiscal thriftiness continues today, with Romania having the lowest total debt-to-GDP ratio out of all EU countries according to CEIC Data, and continues to not budge upwards. Many Romanians say essentially the same people run the country as back then.
Could be good or bad, depending on how it's handled. I did mention the *total* debt-to-GDP ratio, which includes the private sector. The latter's performance has been offsetting the increase in the government sector.
Romanian here,
It all has to so with home ownership. We have probably the highest in the world, around 90%, which means that people don’t have as many mortgages
Credit card culture is non existent
The goverment is effectively taxing 55% of our income, so I honestly don’t know how we managed to pull this off.
And it’s going to last, because even tho the goverment is taking more debt now as the guy above said, it’s because it’s election’s year.
They’re gonna go all in on taxation again next year.
Edit: Apparently it’s not 70% , it’s 55 but there’s other taxes aswell if you own a car, extra tax on fuel, public transport is not free etc
I'm curious how you reached the 70%+ number. Is there something I'm missing? Usually income tax and state insurance add up to around 45% (under current economic policy, subject to change).
If you really wanna be that guy and add the TVA of stuff you buy with that 55%, the highest tax is 19%, with some stuff having 9% and 5%. So that would mean out of that 55%, 19% is TVA in the worst case, so you're left with 44,5%.
What am I missing?
What you’re “missing” is that he added the percentages instead of applying them (TVA ) to the taxed income. If you wanna be that guy and use proper math, then yes, I suppose you are right :))
25% Social Security
10% Health Insurance
Then 10% income flat tax but only after the first two are calculated so it's actually 6.5% no matter what you make, 500$ or 15.000$.
So if you make 10.000 lei a month, you pay 2.500 for pensions, 1.000 for health and 650 for the tax meaning you earn 5850 but those are ALL the taxes, there aren't hidden ones that the companys pay for every employee, before 2018 these were split between the employee and the employer and since then they unified.
Then the VAT is 19% but food, hotels are at 9%.
"The government is effectively taxing 70%+ of our income" we live in a time where people can look things up in a few seconds. Are you SURE you want to stick with that number? Are you REALLY sure? Do you also have a hard time with critical thought? Did you maybe imagine that the reason home ownership is so high in Romania is because of government intervention and investment?????
Is total debt-to-gdp a useful metric? It seems to combine very different things, like government debt and private debt. I'd be a little worried about the government debt, with the crazy deficits lately.
Well, yeah, while the government sets overall policy in the country, it's the private sector that has tended to drive innovation and economic growth over time. The increase in the government debt-to-GDP ratio can indeed be worrying, but if Romania's good economic performance continues, it could be worth it, as long as it doesn't go too high.
Grey was a real thing in a lot of European cities. Heating with wood, coal and oil produced a lot of soot. Internal condition engines didn’t help. That all collects on the facades and they were rarely renovated.
Vienna was grey as fuck in the nineties but after people had switched to gas and started investing in renovations it got much better. My first apartment here in 1990 was heated with an oil stove and there was always a grey tint to anything white left out in the rooms. It’s like the yellow tinge that a smokers room can get, just spread out across the entire city.
Even in my smaller town there was a decent amount of gray during and following the Winter. Good bit of it due to older cars and gravel put on the roads during winter.
Most of it went away once a street sweeper was purchased and could regularily clean the grime away.
Tbf, I have never been to a place that looks colorful in the middle of a wet and cold winter or late autumn when there are no more leaves on the trees.
Well, now they wash the streets. Of course that isn't colorful in the middle of winter or autumn or rany days, but i don't think now is same amount of dirt on the streets.
They were washed before, too. There were street sweepers carrying large wheeled trash bins (edit: actually shown in one of the photos) and there were also vehicles. It was also easier because there were a lot fewer cars. It's a risky bet whether it's cleaner now than back then, I certainly wouldn't put my money on it :)
The difference is buildings were cleaned/renovated... never. Add industrial and car pollution and you get the RAL color "communist grey".
Its also winter, most places look terrible during winter when there is no snow. I wonder what spring photos would look like. Likely still poverty, but at least poverty with a bit of colour.
Yes I also noticed how absolutely depressing everything looks,from an brutalist type of architecture
The reason in question is mostly because the buildings were mass-produced with an utilitarian perspective.Why add color,ornaments or facades that will need to be repaired in time and cost important resources?
One thing communism never understood was that people need little things in life to help with their mental health,not everything needs to have an purpose,utility or be efficient.
I've been to Bucharest last summer and obviously you still have a lot of "soviet housing" but my oh my did Bucharest had a glow up. In the center it can easily challenge any other European City, including Vienna.
fun fact, our city's planning, placement and overview, Vienna is closest to Bucharest. We're like that poor countryside relative that wants to be like you. Our current mayor's vision is to take a page out of Vienna's planning to use in our capital.
Before the socialists, Bucharest was much more beautiful. They destroyed a lot of historic buildings to build the soviet style buildings. The city is still remembered as "little Paris," but it's not what it used to be
Yeah speaking as a German. Not even Nazis and Allied Bombing destroyed as much historical buildings in my city than Soviets over the course of 40 years. I am still crying when I see pictures of my city 100 years ago.
And these days it's the "modern" housing without a soul which is not that far away from the grey house bunkers, except now everything is glass. It's just disappointing
The houses in Romania were indeed beautiful but they were only a show of wealth from the bourgeoisie and the jewish community.
Shame they got destroyed, but I respect the communist regime for actually building a ton of shit. They were good at building a lot.
We should do that too, forget the past, move into the future. But not with glass souless
Yeah a lot of people today are living in communist buildings built by Ceausescu, new builds today are out of the price range of many people still left living in Romania.
Mostly the same in many parts of Europe, concrete blocks from the 60's and 70's tend to be the most affordable. They exist everywhere from Sweden to Germany (including the West) to France, Spain and Italy.
Tbf, the bragging about Bucharest being the "little Paris" sounds like our older people praising communism. Bucharest was a city that looked good in the center where all the wealth was accumulated but the rest, the "mahalale", were just like a village in the countryside.
I don't think Bucharest was the only city in Europe with that problem. I don't say it was better before compared to now, but I don't think it was needed to demolish existing buildings with historical importance to improve the city.
Dude, are you under the impression that the rest of Europe had clerks living in mansions back in the 30s?
For crying out loud, we are the only people making this insane point, and by the way, it's a communist point, I remember it from school because I'm pretty old.
Every city in the world was like this: the educated middle class had a nice house, without it being lavish, the middle upper class had larger villas and the upper class had palaces.
The lower class lived in small homes in neighborhoods usually situated at the edge of town.
There's a saying in our country about dogs in foreign lands walking around with pretzels dangling from their tails. It teaches us that the grass isn't generally greener on the other side outside of extreme circumstances like dictatorships which serve to isolate the country from the rest of the world.
I've read that entire neighbourhoods were bulldozed to make way for stupidly grandiose power buildings and also that many buildings were unnecessarily demolished after the 1977 earthquake.
As someone from Romania and Bucharest specifically, and whose job brings him into a lot of houses and buildings no it cannot. There are some nice places but a lot of them are old and need to be renovated.
I mean i dont get what youre trying to say about the Soviet housing. Are you implying we should have got rid of them? Destroying them is straight up dumb and unnecessary. Not even Germany or Austria got rid of Soviet housing because its unnecessary and wasteful. We just sadly have to deal with them.
It's not that hard to get and no need to put words in my mouth. I think we can both agree that these houses are just ugly as hell but obviously necessary in both Germany and Romania.
Very difficult to accept for balkan people that went abroad and came back for a holiday, they see a new bench, some new white lines on the ground and are extremely happy.
Meanwhile the pensioners that still live there, especially in the countrysides, have seen always increasing prices while being on a 90s pension
Having lived both in Romania, Netherlands, Germany and Italy,
And having half of my family in Italy for 12 years,
Bucharest is superior to any city in Italy. My personal opinion.
You have a shit ton of more important issues that you don’t realize because you’re native. For example, finding a place to live in any big city in the west is very difficult, and very expensive.
You’re not building shit. We’re still building a lot. Tons of high density residential units.
You guys in the west still live in houses built 3 fucking decades ago.
I have a very hard time seeing the issue of living in a 300 year old building. Those buildings are renovated as fuck and look magnificent. Also most western cities are building a lot near the cities but not in the city centres. Kinda weird to make it sound like western cities are 300 year old dumps with no development. Okay, you like Bucharest. Congratulations.
The problem is that the west is having a housing crisis, and they need more people to sustain their economies.
The 300 year old houses are bad because one apartment block in Bucharest usually has 4-10 floors so it can house so many on less sqm
Like I said , you may not realize it because you lived your whole life in the west but it’s a massive issue. It’s the same as the suburbia sprawl in the US.
The high density needs to be built in the center not outside, because trafic
I'm having a bit of a hard time believing they are objectively worse off now, it's just that "back then everyone was equally poor" and now they lost that "comfort" because they see others doing better.
The market is so minimalistic. You've got apples, apples, nothing, more apples, more nothing, nothing and apples. And please, stand in queue for apples.
Why? Russia is an imperialist, conquering markets for its large capital. Several other imperialist countries are allied with it, trying to capture new markets. This alliance is opposed by an alliance of old big imperialists protecting their investments. The situation is like before the First World War, which was capitalist in essence.
Don't forget to mention the same people who were running USSR in 1980 are still rulling today (or their children). In 1980 they preached progressivism, marxism-leninism, today they preach ''christian values'' and strong nuclear family. But the people remained the same.
In the eighties, the USSR had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. It was the restoration of capitalism. These people can say any populist things, but you always need to look for a material basis - the struggle for profit.
They were self described socialist states, not communist. Calling Eastern Bloc countries “communist states” was mostly a derogatory classification by the West. The ruling parties were communist, and according to Marxism-Leminism, communism was the very long term end goal of the government, to be achieved far into the future. But they had to build what they considered to be a socialist state first.
That's why China adopting capitalist policies doesn't break Marxist theory. The policies adopted during the "developmental stage" are all just a means of achieving eventual communism.
That's the theory at least. Reality was far less kind to the people living under oppressive authoritarian regimes who used political theory as a tool to hold onto power and little more.
>They were self described socialist states, not communist.
Officially, yes. Unofficially, people here use communism and socialism interchangeably when referring to the regime era.
The country was Socialist, i.e. all means of production were owned by the government, and there was no private share in the economy.
Communism, on the other hand, is about abolishing property as a whole, and establishing it was declared to be a goal of the government - although it is, as we now might see, an unachievable utopia. In fact, there was never a Communist state in history, and it is impossible to achieve it. That's why Eastern European dictatorships were officially called 'Socialist' and not 'Communist'.
Communist regime? Learn the definitions before commenting. Communism is the end goal of socialism, it is stateless, classless and currency free. Socialism is the path to it, it can be either democratic or revolutionary.
Marx stated this in the ”Critique of the gotha program” found in the communist manifesto
I'm of the opinion that people are utterly stupid with very few twisted enough to be evil. Most, just can't see the connection between their actions and the unavoidable consequences.
We had an amazing time in Naples, but I was so shocked at how rundown and poor the city looks. Balconies falling off buildings, garbage and clutter everywhere. We‘d been in Bulgaria the month before and the streets and buildings there were in better shape. Thanks Berlusconi for saving money from infrastructure.
Socialist regime?
Just call it by its name, COMMUNISM
Stop romanticizing a period when people couldn’t even drink actual coffee and had to stay in long lines hoping they could purchase some chicken meat
I was born there, so tell me more about my privileged woke western world view.
How about you tell me about the homeless people in america overdosing on fentanyl, while billionaires like Donald Trump try to become dictators, could we start on that?
Also, keep in mind that the west, specifically the US, has tried to undermine, overthrow or coup or put an embargo on basically every socialist/communist country that has existed.
Just look at bolivia and what the USA/CIA did in 1971, they overthrew the democratically elected socialist government and placed a dictator in control.
Or Vietnam, Cuba, Iran etc.
https://harpers.org/2010/06/a-trip-down-memory-lane-us-financed-1971-bolivian-coup/
Edit: Downvoting me? Why?
This is such a weird and ignorant comment. Socialism has always been a workers movement. I suggest you start reading about economy in general, capitalism, socialism, free market and planned market, history, etc.
Socialism has never been and never will be about government handouts or taxing the rich, but about building a more equal society.
Also, you basically ignored my comment/points and just wrote some uninformed BS. You have not commented anything of value.
Nope, it's just a scam to take the power and benefits to yourself while imprisoning, torturing and killing anything that could be a danger to your position of power.
Nobody gave a fuck about these details by 1950 they were all living in luxury villas and shutting on everybody else and by 1989 they were seeing the whole population all as 'worms' that should be happy to eat 3 slices of salami a month.
So yeah, fuck them and fuck whoever wants that.
This was like 3 years before the collapse, before that they had a very good growing economy. After socialism was abolished and a free market system was introduced, their economy actually went down by a lot.
Edit: More context
Edit 2: Why downvote me? I am only giving context about the history and economy of Romania.
Hitler was quite clearly not a socialist in any real sense despite co-opting the name. The others that I know anything about probably do fit that bill though ideologically, even if they quickly veered into authoritarinism.
The Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka NSDAP
I haven't said anything controversial. Obviously socialists don't like to be told that their ideology causes misery wherever it goes.
Nothing wrong with looking after your fellow citizens, making sure they have access to healthcare, education, minimum wages, universal rights, fair treatment under the law, decent accommodation etc... that is not socialism.
That is common sense and decency. That is 19th century European classical liberalism.
I'm from Eastern Europe and old enough to remember the times before the fall of the Berlin wall. Nazism and Eastern Europe socialism aren't that different. We had all - labor camps, and even "bad" ethnic groups.
Socialism = all production means are belonging to the state. No private enterprise. It’s an economic model, a bad one as there’s no incentive to get better, no competition. In reality, the state is ruled by someone and if you give someone all this power he is likely to become a dictator (see all of history). While both regimes were brutal, from an economic pow, they were not the same.
They are highly related. But my bad, apparently in socialism there can still be some private enterprises although the main ones are state owned. Another difference seems to be the way you get them - communism advocates for a revolution of the workers while socialism advocates for gradual democratic process. The end results are similar though. That’s just what I got from a quick search. Cheers!
While Marx idea was about gradual process with the advancement of the society and technology lenin decided that it could be done by force and he can disprove Marx about that. We all know what happened. We had to learn those bullshits in school. Lucky you.
Socialist regimes in former eastern bloc were not that different than nazi regime. And also pretty nationalistic and that was the reason for Yugoslav wars! I had to agree though that western European social democrats have nothing in common with "socialists" or "communists" in former eastern block.
Also in my country which was Nazi ally in WWII some economic policies were similar to those from later on when we became part of the eastern block. But even before that we had laws that were absolutely incompatible with free market economy. I don't think that it was very different in prewar Germany.
They called it that because socialism was cool back in the 1920s when the party was founded (and there used to be a more left wing segment of the NSDAP too), but Hitler, Göring, Goebbels etc were definitely not socialists, especially not after the night of the long knives.
I'm from Eastern Europe and old enough to remember the times before the fall of the Berlin Wall. And I can tell you that eastern European "socialism" wasn't that different than Nazism.
Both Hitler and eastern European regimes exploited the socialist ideas. Regimes in Eastern Europe also were pretty nationalistic.
East Germany? Yugoslavia? Cuba?
Non-authoritarian countries I’d probably say Sweden in the late 70s/early 80s got closest.
Whats so socialist about the nazis? Private companies like Siemens and IG Farben had massive power, the government kept doing tenders to private companies until the very end. All free unions were banned, workers were promised cars and what not and they were never delivered. The nazis never banned private enterprise.
The workers never controlled the means of production, the power was more or less held by a single person (Führerprinzip).
I don't know much about economy in Nazi Germany but I don't think that Hitler was very keen on economic freedom and didn't have control over private enterprises and means of production. But yes, nationalisation of the means of production was a big difference. In my country that was Nazi ally at that time a lot of measures were completely incompatible with free market. Even before the war and communists after that.
Bro Hitler was not a fucking socialist none of these fellas are they are all communists or fascists (which both suck)like what's seriously. The reason the national socialist party was called that was too attract the workers to his party there was zero genuine socialism with Hitler.
We were ruled by the Communist Party of Romania, the only party. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a necessary intermission, which funny enough never stopped. ACtually communism is just the ideology used by Russia in its attempt to conquer the whole world and impose its KGB rulers over the whole planet. We were just a part of this plan.
Smooth brain dictator + big project = dumb shit
I read marx and I feel like he'd kill himself seeing whatever the fuck happend in eastern europe, I think workers having democratic control over economy is a good thing, but like romania? they just had this one guy determining everything, like the commies could have saved communism, if they actually bothred doing socialsim, and like not be weird stalin like dictators, which we know never works out.
I first visited Italy in the early eighties. I didn't feel that Italy economy was that good even though I'm from Eastern Europe. I had a chance to travel a lot at that time and the only place where I saw disabled people begging was Rome and Africa. People back then had different priorities. Maybe if you live like them it would be easier to buy a house. Consumerism wasn't like it is now, and that's also a thing that affects the climate. People these days can afford more, there are a lot more possibilities. But it's much harder to prioritize.
Well, Italy's GDP per capita back then (despite recent stagnation) was only a little over half that of today. When people talk about the "great economy of Italy in the late 20th century", they actually mean more its growth rates, and the incredible progress it had achieved compared to the 1930s and 1940s. It's also likely that inequality was (as it is today) high in the early 1980s.
I don't know if GDP per capita is that relevant at such time difference. But car ownership is more than doubled for example. Flying to exotic destinations is more than doubled.
Oh.. I get it. I thought you prefer 1986 Romania to 2024 Italy but you meant 1986 Italy vs 2004 Italy.
Then I agree.. in 1984 Italy was in a better place. For Romania, our quality of life now is in another stratosphere compared to back then.
I have looked at Romanian political history and see that a socialist party was voted into power in the 90's. But can only find Communist rule before this. Can you maybe enlighten me as to when in 1986 the socialist were in control?
My understanding was the first democratically elected party for President (I think that is the translation, although it is described more like a Prime Minister role in other democracies) also identified as Socialist Democrates. But I assume they were good for the country despite calling themselves members of the same ideology.
So, could it be argued that socialism hurt Romania but also was used to help build the strong nation it is today?
Honestly, looking at Romania's history, I would say we were a strong nation before the comunism. Yes, they built a lot. People had jobs, but they were poor. They had money but not food.
I'm coming from a place of ignorance about Romania. And with the translations into English, I'm confident, hindering my understanding. I hoped to get the finer points to my understanding.
Thanks for your candid responses
Hope you have a fruitful week ✌️
They were not.
This is the who-what of political parties that ruled and a short history of them.
1870-1923:
Two main political parties:
PNL (Partidul Național Liberal/The National Liberal Party)- A 'classic' formula of a liberal party in the 1800's. Mostly bourgeois people. Up until 1923, there was no universal vote, only people with a certain amount of wealth.
PC (Partidul Conservator/Conservative Party)- Party made of Nobles and Landowners, instantly dissappears when universal voting for men is introduced at the start of the 1920's.
Up until the new constitution of 1923, these two parties would change under the order of the government. It's a system that I don't exactly know how to explain
1923-1944:
PNL- as above.
PNȚ (Partidul Național Țărănist/The National Peasant Party)- New party formed shortly after Romania unites with Transylvania. Forms as a union of two smaller parties. Mainly an Agrarian party due to the fact that Romania before communism was even more focused on agriculture, mostly being a rural country. Had a different idea to run the economy than PNL.
FRN (Frontul Renașterii Naționale/ The National Renaissance Front)- Party formed by the corrupt and with autocratic tendencies king. Introduces a new constitution which makes gives him total authority over the state. Bans all parties except FRN, names his own loyal prime-minister, rules with his Royal Camarilla. Essentially establishes a Royal Dictatorship. It only lasts for a year as he is couped by General Ion Antonescu
Legiunea Arhanghelului Mihail/Garda de Fier (The Legion of Archangel Michael/The Iron Guard)- Fascist party on the level of craziness of the Nazis. The SS liked these guys while the Wehrmacht liked Ion Antonescu (the actual leader of the state). They join Antonescu's government in the 1940-1941. They also committed various assasinations and killings, including killing a few Prime-Ministers before coming to power in 1940. Antonescu purges them. They take refuge in Germany, become mostly irrelevant after this.
Pro-Axis Military Dictatorship- Romania sides with Nazi Germany.
1944-1948
King Michael's Coup-
King Michael, son of Carol II, the corrupt king mentioned earlier, coups Antonescu, Romania surrenders and then joins the Allies and fights the Nazis. After the end of the war elections are planned. Important thing to say, King Michael was someone who valued democracy unlike his predecessor.
Soviet meddling in politics. Petru Groza (Communist), becomes Prime-Minister in 1945, until elections are to be held. The Election of 1947 is an absolute farce. The pro-soviet government opposes the King. Fakes various events to call PNL and PNȚ traitors, essentially kicking them out of the electoral race. PNL and PNȚ leadership either end up in jail or flee the country.
PCR->PMR
1947, PCR (Partidul Comunist Român/Romanian Communist Party), wins the elections of 1947, forces the king to abdicate, abolishes the Monarchy. Introduces new constitution and declares the Romanian People's Republic. PSD (Social Democratic Party) fuses with PCR creating PMR (Partidul Muncitoresc Român/Romanian Worker's Party)
1948-1965
Communist Dictatorship is in full-effect. Democratic, Fascist and rival communists are eliminated. Leader of this new communist state is Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej. This period of history under PMR is called the Stalinist Era, due to the country pretty much following the Soviet style of communism and everything that the Soviet Union 'asked' of them.
1965-1989
Dej dies, in power comes Nicolae Ceaușescu. He renames PMR back to PCR (Romanian Communist Party) and the name of the country becomes The Socialist Republic of Romania.
In his first years of governance, Ceaușescu is seen as a reformer, even refusing to invade Czechoslovakia with the Warsaw Pact. Ceaușescu steers the country into the direction of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. Distancing himself from Moscow and trying to push Romania as a mediator between the East and the West.
In the '70's Ceaușescu visits China and North Korea, becomes obsessed with Juche and the grand spectacle that was made for Glorious Leader Kim Il-Sung. He becomes obsessed with the self-sufficiency principle of Juche. This is when everything goes downhill, the beginning of the end as Romania slowly becomes North Korea 2.0., food runs out, 1989 Revolution happens, Democracy is restored.
1989-2000
Yeah, the revolution is messy. Most of the Communist Elite and members of the secret police escape judgement, even holding government positions. Here appears
FSN (Frontul Salvării Naționale/National Salvation Front)- led by Ion Iliescu, our first president after democracy came back, it was the party that took power until Democracy was fully restored in 1991. It was (and still is) made of high-ranking members of the Communist Party and of the Secret Police and their relatives. Iliescu was even considered as a future successor of Ceaușescu during communist times. FSN eventually evolves into PSD, the current ruling party, corrupt as fuck.
PNL and PNȚ return. They lose the first elections against FSN and Iliescu. PNL would eventually form into the same corrupt bullshit that PSD is today.
PNȚ only manages to have one of their own become President, Emil Constantinescu in 2000. After that they disappear from the political scene becoming irrelevant.
The 1989-2000 transition was absolutely fucking horrible. Corruption, violent reprisals against protests, economic instability, more corruption etc.
This post is already long enough and I don't plan on explaining 2000-2024 politics, so here is your history lesson.
Thank you.
I am less ignorant than when I posted the the comment you replied to.
I knew I was missing things with the poor translations I was reading. Glad I got better information.
I Inter-Railed there in 1990 following my team, Glentoran play Steaua in the Cup Winners Cup. I spent 4 days in the city with absolutely nothing to do except wander the streets. There was literally nothing in the city except for grey walls. There were bread queues in the mornings but strangely there always seemed to be plenty of bread. I guess I must have missed those times when there was none. I had a £10 a day budget and lived like a king. The only people who could speak English were the money touts. I have pictures somewhere from the game (I'm not sure if there's any of the city). I'll have to scan them and post them up.
In 1986 there were queues for everything, but nothing on the shelfs were enough for the population. It was mandatory to stay as early as possible at a queue for milk, but it was common to not get some milk because they were out of it just in front of you. So in 1990, when you were visiting, a lot of common things were missing. And the inflation those days was Sky rocketing by each day passing, especially for the next 6-7 years.
I travelled up through Yugoslavia just before the war and there were heated debates on the train of which I couldn't understand a word. Bucharest was grim, I ate at a modest restaurant and lived like a king. I was the only visitor for the "local tourist" board and I got roomed in a large apartment. The rest of our fans (around 200) stayed well away from Bucharest in a holiday resort and got bussed in for the match so I literally had no-one to talk to. It's one of the best things I've done in life. I don't regret a single minute of it. I've so many stories about the trip of which Bucharest is just one.
Yeah, I remember Bucharest in 1998 still looking the same only there were a few shops like Adidas and Nike downtown, I remember the Adidas Tricolore in the shop was about as much as a medium-high salary. There were already two or three McDonald's, never went to the first because it was a place full of junkies and pickpockets (Unirii) while Romana Square had just beggars and scammers so for a 9 year old living nearby it was OK. Buses were always guarded by 2 or 3 pickpockets working together to pass the loot in case someone would catch the one who stole, wasn't as fun to go out after dusk but you could get robbed in broad daylight too while crossing the street in the center and police was worthless. Oh and by late 90s- 2000 it was FUCKING FULL OF STRAY DOGS. I had many friends who were bitten and their parents too. I dodged this bullet but I remember getting chased by 10 aggressive mutts returning from school cause I still had my sandwich in my backpack. But I have to mention pre-1989 it wasn't any better, my parents had pepper sprays bought from Serbs coming over on Sundays to sell jeans, alcohol and cassettes. It was just very silent. Also Ceausescu signed many mass pardons, many of those were rapists, pedos and other criminals, the reason is many were in jail for stuff like stealing a bag of wheat or corn to feed themselves. After 89 these informations, even though not right away, were starting to become available to the public. For example, the aggressive strays were an effect of Ceausescu demolishing many houses with yards to build flats, those people had to move in a 2 room small flat with their parents, in-laws and children so the dogs were abandoned or kept just in front of the building where they feralized. As in 1989 there were many flats still unfinished, many people were basically living in temporary dorms or with other relatives, cause their houses were gone and their new flat was unfinished usually you would receive a 6-12 hour notice that your old place would be demolished.
As a counter to that, I ripped my coat in London but it was a great place to hide some money as there was a gap in the coat where pickpockets wouldn't find. When in Bucharest, I walked by a tailors and decided to use up my Lei's (you were not allowed to bring them out of the country) on my final day. So I approached the tailors, they found the money then joked with me that they thought I was fighting with the Steaua fans. Really a special moment. They could have robbed me but they didn't charge me for the coat repair. I gave 90% of my remaining Lei's to them as a tip and they were so grateful. I'm glad I missed all that future shit you described but I found genuine people everywhere I went. People who were prepared to help and not scam you. This thread is bringing up wonderful memories from my trip. BTW, I took my wife to Paris last year and found nothing but genuine people. Yes, be wary of pickpockets but there are good people everywhere. I found that first on my Inter-Rail trip.
As a joke to queues, a guy wanted to smoke a cigarette, he leand against the wall with his shoulder, when hi finished his cigarette he turned and saw a queue behind him, everybody thounght that he was the first for waiting to buy something so people gathered.
>I guess I must have missed those times when there was none. By literally a few months. A few days after we shot the president, stores began selling food again.
This looks like from 1910s, but the cars, and the poverty is obvious.
1986 is actually the "peak" year for Ceausescu's Romania, but real GDP per capita was still about 4x lower than in the country today. The regime was busy aggressively paying off debt to the IMF instead, so it could call itself "independent". Together with Communism itself, it's why everything looks so poor. What's funny is that this fiscal thriftiness continues today, with Romania having the lowest total debt-to-GDP ratio out of all EU countries according to CEIC Data, and continues to not budge upwards. Many Romanians say essentially the same people run the country as back then.
Except the current government is taking a lot of debt lately.
Could be good or bad, depending on how it's handled. I did mention the *total* debt-to-GDP ratio, which includes the private sector. The latter's performance has been offsetting the increase in the government sector.
Romanian here, It all has to so with home ownership. We have probably the highest in the world, around 90%, which means that people don’t have as many mortgages Credit card culture is non existent The goverment is effectively taxing 55% of our income, so I honestly don’t know how we managed to pull this off. And it’s going to last, because even tho the goverment is taking more debt now as the guy above said, it’s because it’s election’s year. They’re gonna go all in on taxation again next year. Edit: Apparently it’s not 70% , it’s 55 but there’s other taxes aswell if you own a car, extra tax on fuel, public transport is not free etc
I'm curious how you reached the 70%+ number. Is there something I'm missing? Usually income tax and state insurance add up to around 45% (under current economic policy, subject to change). If you really wanna be that guy and add the TVA of stuff you buy with that 55%, the highest tax is 19%, with some stuff having 9% and 5%. So that would mean out of that 55%, 19% is TVA in the worst case, so you're left with 44,5%. What am I missing?
What you’re “missing” is that he added the percentages instead of applying them (TVA ) to the taxed income. If you wanna be that guy and use proper math, then yes, I suppose you are right :))
25% Social Security 10% Health Insurance Then 10% income flat tax but only after the first two are calculated so it's actually 6.5% no matter what you make, 500$ or 15.000$. So if you make 10.000 lei a month, you pay 2.500 for pensions, 1.000 for health and 650 for the tax meaning you earn 5850 but those are ALL the taxes, there aren't hidden ones that the companys pay for every employee, before 2018 these were split between the employee and the employer and since then they unified. Then the VAT is 19% but food, hotels are at 9%.
"The government is effectively taxing 70%+ of our income" we live in a time where people can look things up in a few seconds. Are you SURE you want to stick with that number? Are you REALLY sure? Do you also have a hard time with critical thought? Did you maybe imagine that the reason home ownership is so high in Romania is because of government intervention and investment?????
Is total debt-to-gdp a useful metric? It seems to combine very different things, like government debt and private debt. I'd be a little worried about the government debt, with the crazy deficits lately.
Well, yeah, while the government sets overall policy in the country, it's the private sector that has tended to drive innovation and economic growth over time. The increase in the government debt-to-GDP ratio can indeed be worrying, but if Romania's good economic performance continues, it could be worth it, as long as it doesn't go too high.
Tbf parts of southern Italy looked like this less than 20 years ago, without the trams tho.
This is what poverty looks like? I don’t think it does imo.
Seems like the "gray" was a real thing... a lot of dirt ಠ\_ಠ
Grey was a real thing in a lot of European cities. Heating with wood, coal and oil produced a lot of soot. Internal condition engines didn’t help. That all collects on the facades and they were rarely renovated. Vienna was grey as fuck in the nineties but after people had switched to gas and started investing in renovations it got much better. My first apartment here in 1990 was heated with an oil stove and there was always a grey tint to anything white left out in the rooms. It’s like the yellow tinge that a smokers room can get, just spread out across the entire city.
Touché. Nice explanation.
Even in my smaller town there was a decent amount of gray during and following the Winter. Good bit of it due to older cars and gravel put on the roads during winter. Most of it went away once a street sweeper was purchased and could regularily clean the grime away.
Tbf, I have never been to a place that looks colorful in the middle of a wet and cold winter or late autumn when there are no more leaves on the trees.
Well, now they wash the streets. Of course that isn't colorful in the middle of winter or autumn or rany days, but i don't think now is same amount of dirt on the streets.
I'm definitely not saying Romania today looks like Romania in 1986. That would be stupid and totally untrue. I was just talking about the gray-ness.
They were washed before, too. There were street sweepers carrying large wheeled trash bins (edit: actually shown in one of the photos) and there were also vehicles. It was also easier because there were a lot fewer cars. It's a risky bet whether it's cleaner now than back then, I certainly wouldn't put my money on it :) The difference is buildings were cleaned/renovated... never. Add industrial and car pollution and you get the RAL color "communist grey".
Its also winter, most places look terrible during winter when there is no snow. I wonder what spring photos would look like. Likely still poverty, but at least poverty with a bit of colour.
Agree, but the gray from the buildings?
Its the color gradient from the camera.
Agree, it could be from that too.
Yes I also noticed how absolutely depressing everything looks,from an brutalist type of architecture The reason in question is mostly because the buildings were mass-produced with an utilitarian perspective.Why add color,ornaments or facades that will need to be repaired in time and cost important resources? One thing communism never understood was that people need little things in life to help with their mental health,not everything needs to have an purpose,utility or be efficient.
> not everything needs to have an purpose,utility or be efficient Ironically, if these little things help with people's life, they do have a purpose.
In communist terms,it would rapidly turned into some propaganda of some sorts
I've been to Bucharest last summer and obviously you still have a lot of "soviet housing" but my oh my did Bucharest had a glow up. In the center it can easily challenge any other European City, including Vienna.
fun fact, our city's planning, placement and overview, Vienna is closest to Bucharest. We're like that poor countryside relative that wants to be like you. Our current mayor's vision is to take a page out of Vienna's planning to use in our capital.
Before the socialists, Bucharest was much more beautiful. They destroyed a lot of historic buildings to build the soviet style buildings. The city is still remembered as "little Paris," but it's not what it used to be
Yeah speaking as a German. Not even Nazis and Allied Bombing destroyed as much historical buildings in my city than Soviets over the course of 40 years. I am still crying when I see pictures of my city 100 years ago. And these days it's the "modern" housing without a soul which is not that far away from the grey house bunkers, except now everything is glass. It's just disappointing
The houses in Romania were indeed beautiful but they were only a show of wealth from the bourgeoisie and the jewish community. Shame they got destroyed, but I respect the communist regime for actually building a ton of shit. They were good at building a lot. We should do that too, forget the past, move into the future. But not with glass souless
Yeah a lot of people today are living in communist buildings built by Ceausescu, new builds today are out of the price range of many people still left living in Romania.
Mostly the same in many parts of Europe, concrete blocks from the 60's and 70's tend to be the most affordable. They exist everywhere from Sweden to Germany (including the West) to France, Spain and Italy.
Tbf, the bragging about Bucharest being the "little Paris" sounds like our older people praising communism. Bucharest was a city that looked good in the center where all the wealth was accumulated but the rest, the "mahalale", were just like a village in the countryside.
I don't think Bucharest was the only city in Europe with that problem. I don't say it was better before compared to now, but I don't think it was needed to demolish existing buildings with historical importance to improve the city.
Dude, are you under the impression that the rest of Europe had clerks living in mansions back in the 30s? For crying out loud, we are the only people making this insane point, and by the way, it's a communist point, I remember it from school because I'm pretty old. Every city in the world was like this: the educated middle class had a nice house, without it being lavish, the middle upper class had larger villas and the upper class had palaces. The lower class lived in small homes in neighborhoods usually situated at the edge of town. There's a saying in our country about dogs in foreign lands walking around with pretzels dangling from their tails. It teaches us that the grass isn't generally greener on the other side outside of extreme circumstances like dictatorships which serve to isolate the country from the rest of the world.
[удалено]
I know, right?
The nickname of Little Paris predates the communist era buildings.
I've read that entire neighbourhoods were bulldozed to make way for stupidly grandiose power buildings and also that many buildings were unnecessarily demolished after the 1977 earthquake.
As someone from Romania and Bucharest specifically, and whose job brings him into a lot of houses and buildings no it cannot. There are some nice places but a lot of them are old and need to be renovated.
Not gonna lie, you had us in the first part.
I mean i dont get what youre trying to say about the Soviet housing. Are you implying we should have got rid of them? Destroying them is straight up dumb and unnecessary. Not even Germany or Austria got rid of Soviet housing because its unnecessary and wasteful. We just sadly have to deal with them.
It's not that hard to get and no need to put words in my mouth. I think we can both agree that these houses are just ugly as hell but obviously necessary in both Germany and Romania.
50 shades of grey
At least you chose photos from summer, it winter it can look very depressing…
[Source ](https://historia.ro/sectiune/general/foto-un-bucuresti-gri-in-anul-1986-575842.html)
for me it is unbelievable that some fellow citizens miss those times
They miss being young and healthy. Not the same thing.
The greatest time in history is always the period when you were in your 20s
Also related to life perspective. At 20 y.o. you got it all in front of you, all possibilities open for the first time.
Because a lot of individuals, especially elderly, are worse off now than they were then.
Very difficult to accept for balkan people that went abroad and came back for a holiday, they see a new bench, some new white lines on the ground and are extremely happy. Meanwhile the pensioners that still live there, especially in the countrysides, have seen always increasing prices while being on a 90s pension
Having lived both in Romania, Netherlands, Germany and Italy, And having half of my family in Italy for 12 years, Bucharest is superior to any city in Italy. My personal opinion. You have a shit ton of more important issues that you don’t realize because you’re native. For example, finding a place to live in any big city in the west is very difficult, and very expensive. You’re not building shit. We’re still building a lot. Tons of high density residential units. You guys in the west still live in houses built 3 fucking decades ago.
3 centuries ago
Yes thank you
I have a very hard time seeing the issue of living in a 300 year old building. Those buildings are renovated as fuck and look magnificent. Also most western cities are building a lot near the cities but not in the city centres. Kinda weird to make it sound like western cities are 300 year old dumps with no development. Okay, you like Bucharest. Congratulations.
The problem is that the west is having a housing crisis, and they need more people to sustain their economies. The 300 year old houses are bad because one apartment block in Bucharest usually has 4-10 floors so it can house so many on less sqm Like I said , you may not realize it because you lived your whole life in the west but it’s a massive issue. It’s the same as the suburbia sprawl in the US. The high density needs to be built in the center not outside, because trafic
Noo... Their perception of the living conditions are worse, undeniably the social conditions are far better.
I'm having a bit of a hard time believing they are objectively worse off now, it's just that "back then everyone was equally poor" and now they lost that "comfort" because they see others doing better.
“Here’s my keys , just move my Renault 12 for me “ ………2 days later .
The market is so minimalistic. You've got apples, apples, nothing, more apples, more nothing, nothing and apples. And please, stand in queue for apples.
No sane person, who had opportunity to live under soviet (or pseudo-socialist) regime, would want to repeat it.
We will soon find ourselves in the trenches of a new world capitalist war. It's good that we got rid of socialism!
Only if russia will attack another country. I would not call it a capitalist war.
Why? Russia is an imperialist, conquering markets for its large capital. Several other imperialist countries are allied with it, trying to capture new markets. This alliance is opposed by an alliance of old big imperialists protecting their investments. The situation is like before the First World War, which was capitalist in essence.
Don't forget to mention the same people who were running USSR in 1980 are still rulling today (or their children). In 1980 they preached progressivism, marxism-leninism, today they preach ''christian values'' and strong nuclear family. But the people remained the same.
In the eighties, the USSR had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism. It was the restoration of capitalism. These people can say any populist things, but you always need to look for a material basis - the struggle for profit.
Its war has nothing to do with conquering markets. The main goal of its war is to kill and rape.
Socialist Regime? You mean Communist Regime! Jesus don’t give Americans more reasons to mix up the two!
They were self described socialist states, not communist. Calling Eastern Bloc countries “communist states” was mostly a derogatory classification by the West. The ruling parties were communist, and according to Marxism-Leminism, communism was the very long term end goal of the government, to be achieved far into the future. But they had to build what they considered to be a socialist state first. That's why China adopting capitalist policies doesn't break Marxist theory. The policies adopted during the "developmental stage" are all just a means of achieving eventual communism. That's the theory at least. Reality was far less kind to the people living under oppressive authoritarian regimes who used political theory as a tool to hold onto power and little more.
>They were self described socialist states, not communist. Officially, yes. Unofficially, people here use communism and socialism interchangeably when referring to the regime era.
And they use them interchangeably in the US, so for example Floridians still think voting Dems will bring in totalitarian communism like in Cuba.
Sigh, it's so not the same. Like, what right-wing Americans love to call "caaahmunezum" is what people from actual communist countries fled *to*.
The country was Socialist, i.e. all means of production were owned by the government, and there was no private share in the economy. Communism, on the other hand, is about abolishing property as a whole, and establishing it was declared to be a goal of the government - although it is, as we now might see, an unachievable utopia. In fact, there was never a Communist state in history, and it is impossible to achieve it. That's why Eastern European dictatorships were officially called 'Socialist' and not 'Communist'.
Trust me, you had no fucking property in Romania before 89
Communist regime? Learn the definitions before commenting. Communism is the end goal of socialism, it is stateless, classless and currency free. Socialism is the path to it, it can be either democratic or revolutionary. Marx stated this in the ”Critique of the gotha program” found in the communist manifesto
Yeah and I state that he was a fool for his faith in mankind. Schopenhauer was right, humans are utterly evil with **some** noble examples.
I'm of the opinion that people are utterly stupid with very few twisted enough to be evil. Most, just can't see the connection between their actions and the unavoidable consequences.
Fuck that hell!
Respect your roots parvenitule
sa mi respecti mie țambricu cu gura
Reminds me of Naples, Italy
We had an amazing time in Naples, but I was so shocked at how rundown and poor the city looks. Balconies falling off buildings, garbage and clutter everywhere. We‘d been in Bulgaria the month before and the streets and buildings there were in better shape. Thanks Berlusconi for saving money from infrastructure.
Who’s that traitor driving a Lada instead of the Dacias?
All these different, colorful brands, and yet they're all owned by the state.
Incredible transformation and Romania today is a different country which is progressing very rapidly.
Communism is like the reverse Midas, everything it touches turns to shit.
True, but just wait until you learn about the touch of CIA.
dictatorships suck
You can say that again
No traffic 🙂
Socialist regime? Just call it by its name, COMMUNISM Stop romanticizing a period when people couldn’t even drink actual coffee and had to stay in long lines hoping they could purchase some chicken meat
The socialist paradise.
Is roughly the equivalent of calling Central America a capitalist paradise. But anti-socialists would cry at that description.
I mean you can compare Venezuela to surrounding countries after it got infected with Socialism.
Thank god for the capitalist utopia we have now, am I right???
You have no clue what you are talking due to your privileged woke western world view.
I was born there, so tell me more about my privileged woke western world view. How about you tell me about the homeless people in america overdosing on fentanyl, while billionaires like Donald Trump try to become dictators, could we start on that?
you can compare the lowest caste to the highest in any country at any time in history and will have a similar dynamic. So whats the point.
Yeah, just because we have a shitty system now, that doesn't negate that other shitty systems have existed. Many roads lead to Rome.
Also, keep in mind that the west, specifically the US, has tried to undermine, overthrow or coup or put an embargo on basically every socialist/communist country that has existed. Just look at bolivia and what the USA/CIA did in 1971, they overthrew the democratically elected socialist government and placed a dictator in control. Or Vietnam, Cuba, Iran etc. https://harpers.org/2010/06/a-trip-down-memory-lane-us-financed-1971-bolivian-coup/ Edit: Downvoting me? Why?
I would suggest you socialists start working more instead of waiting for handouts from the state and taxing successful people.
This is such a weird and ignorant comment. Socialism has always been a workers movement. I suggest you start reading about economy in general, capitalism, socialism, free market and planned market, history, etc. Socialism has never been and never will be about government handouts or taxing the rich, but about building a more equal society. Also, you basically ignored my comment/points and just wrote some uninformed BS. You have not commented anything of value.
Nope, it's just a scam to take the power and benefits to yourself while imprisoning, torturing and killing anything that could be a danger to your position of power. Nobody gave a fuck about these details by 1950 they were all living in luxury villas and shutting on everybody else and by 1989 they were seeing the whole population all as 'worms' that should be happy to eat 3 slices of salami a month. So yeah, fuck them and fuck whoever wants that.
This was like 3 years before the collapse, before that they had a very good growing economy. After socialism was abolished and a free market system was introduced, their economy actually went down by a lot. Edit: More context Edit 2: Why downvote me? I am only giving context about the history and economy of Romania.
Communism is a cancer that needs to be eradicated at all costs.
At first glance I thought that was Korean writing on second picture.
The Soviet filter, everything looks so depressing and everyone seem to be smoking
Wow, the weather sucked during the communist times.
Why so many signs?
oh my god i hate this so much fuck russia, fuck authoritarianism, fuck poverty, fuck communism, fuck socialism thank god we do capitalism nowadays jfc
The city has improved almost unbelievably since then. Now the main problem is too many cars.
classic socialism
You misspelt communism. This wasn’t socialism
It’s baffling how these commies try to sugarcoat this shit
My man Don Vito got shot here
Mn-XL
Why is the sky always grey when we see pictures of communist Romania?
The fifty shades of grey.
City looks like a such a clusterf\*ck as if these pictures are AI produced.
Ceaușescu was an absolute gem of a leader; this place looks blessed.
Beautiful!
Socialist? Dont you mean communist?
Nationalistic-Communism is the proper word to describe whatever happened in Romania during ceaușescu.
Why western media always take photo on spring or winter time. If you see on summer will be completely different
the people were very poor! they couldn't stand it anymore! they went the boss to execute! i think that move was pretty cute!
Oh yeah, that looks like a good alternative to a capitalist democracy...
I would call it a dictatorship, not socialism.
A Socialist dictatorship
Pseudo-socialism.
An oxymoron, then
Soviet socialist world nothing more evil on this world.
If you haven't noticed. That is socialism. Adolf Hitler, Mao Zehdong, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Brezhnev, Hoxha etc etc... all socialists....
Hitler was quite clearly not a socialist in any real sense despite co-opting the name. The others that I know anything about probably do fit that bill though ideologically, even if they quickly veered into authoritarinism.
Hitler a socialist? Ffs get an education.
The Nazi party's official name was the National Socialist German Workers Party. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka NSDAP I haven't said anything controversial. Obviously socialists don't like to be told that their ideology causes misery wherever it goes. Nothing wrong with looking after your fellow citizens, making sure they have access to healthcare, education, minimum wages, universal rights, fair treatment under the law, decent accommodation etc... that is not socialism. That is common sense and decency. That is 19th century European classical liberalism.
[National Socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism_(disambiguation))
Have you actually read the article on Nazism? The Nazi program is decidedly not the same program as the others calling themselves socialist.
I'm from Eastern Europe and old enough to remember the times before the fall of the Berlin wall. Nazism and Eastern Europe socialism aren't that different. We had all - labor camps, and even "bad" ethnic groups.
Socialism = all production means are belonging to the state. No private enterprise. It’s an economic model, a bad one as there’s no incentive to get better, no competition. In reality, the state is ruled by someone and if you give someone all this power he is likely to become a dictator (see all of history). While both regimes were brutal, from an economic pow, they were not the same.
Wasn't that communism?
They are highly related. But my bad, apparently in socialism there can still be some private enterprises although the main ones are state owned. Another difference seems to be the way you get them - communism advocates for a revolution of the workers while socialism advocates for gradual democratic process. The end results are similar though. That’s just what I got from a quick search. Cheers!
While Marx idea was about gradual process with the advancement of the society and technology lenin decided that it could be done by force and he can disprove Marx about that. We all know what happened. We had to learn those bullshits in school. Lucky you. Socialist regimes in former eastern bloc were not that different than nazi regime. And also pretty nationalistic and that was the reason for Yugoslav wars! I had to agree though that western European social democrats have nothing in common with "socialists" or "communists" in former eastern block. Also in my country which was Nazi ally in WWII some economic policies were similar to those from later on when we became part of the eastern block. But even before that we had laws that were absolutely incompatible with free market economy. I don't think that it was very different in prewar Germany.
They called it that because socialism was cool back in the 1920s when the party was founded (and there used to be a more left wing segment of the NSDAP too), but Hitler, Göring, Goebbels etc were definitely not socialists, especially not after the night of the long knives.
I'm from Eastern Europe and old enough to remember the times before the fall of the Berlin Wall. And I can tell you that eastern European "socialism" wasn't that different than Nazism. Both Hitler and eastern European regimes exploited the socialist ideas. Regimes in Eastern Europe also were pretty nationalistic.
Doesn’t really matter. We are talking about whether the nazis in Germany in the 1920s-40s were socialist, not about Eastern Europe postwar.
Which ones are socialists, then?
East Germany? Yugoslavia? Cuba? Non-authoritarian countries I’d probably say Sweden in the late 70s/early 80s got closest. Whats so socialist about the nazis? Private companies like Siemens and IG Farben had massive power, the government kept doing tenders to private companies until the very end. All free unions were banned, workers were promised cars and what not and they were never delivered. The nazis never banned private enterprise. The workers never controlled the means of production, the power was more or less held by a single person (Führerprinzip).
I don't know much about economy in Nazi Germany but I don't think that Hitler was very keen on economic freedom and didn't have control over private enterprises and means of production. But yes, nationalisation of the means of production was a big difference. In my country that was Nazi ally at that time a lot of measures were completely incompatible with free market. Even before the war and communists after that.
Bro Hitler was not a fucking socialist none of these fellas are they are all communists or fascists (which both suck)like what's seriously. The reason the national socialist party was called that was too attract the workers to his party there was zero genuine socialism with Hitler.
Socialism is so bad
It is 1986, it looks to me like scenes from "Only fools and horses" from London UK.
I’m just sad our parents were forced to live through this.
Authoritarian regime is more accurate.
Good to see that even Romanians lived better in 1986 than my countrymen do today
Trams haven't changed 🤣
That's a first gen V3A-71, built in 1976, they're no longer in service. Its successors (V3A-93 and later variants) still are.
I am going there for a holiday this week and this is what I hope to see, but I am ready to be disappointed.
Keep us updated; that is, if you survive it :)
Can you crosspost on r/AsaCumEramOdata ?
And Putin still believes that people want communism back.
[Nicolae Ceaușescu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu) wasnt a socialist... he was a bloody dictotator!
Ogreland, just like today.
We were ruled by the Communist Party of Romania, the only party. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a necessary intermission, which funny enough never stopped. ACtually communism is just the ideology used by Russia in its attempt to conquer the whole world and impose its KGB rulers over the whole planet. We were just a part of this plan.
[удалено]
>gypsymanians This is unacceptable.
Looks like Belgium in the '80s tbh. Or Belgium in 2024 if you go to the right places.
Did you starve like an abandoned dog on a field i the 80s in Belgium?
Smooth brain dictator + big project = dumb shit I read marx and I feel like he'd kill himself seeing whatever the fuck happend in eastern europe, I think workers having democratic control over economy is a good thing, but like romania? they just had this one guy determining everything, like the commies could have saved communism, if they actually bothred doing socialsim, and like not be weird stalin like dictators, which we know never works out.
It looks better than the 90s Bucharest
I actually prefer 1986 to 2024, maybe because I'm Italian.
Because you didn't live here. It was a hellhole.
There is climate crisis and back then young people could buy a house, so I don't give a shit.
[удалено]
I first visited Italy in the early eighties. I didn't feel that Italy economy was that good even though I'm from Eastern Europe. I had a chance to travel a lot at that time and the only place where I saw disabled people begging was Rome and Africa. People back then had different priorities. Maybe if you live like them it would be easier to buy a house. Consumerism wasn't like it is now, and that's also a thing that affects the climate. People these days can afford more, there are a lot more possibilities. But it's much harder to prioritize.
Well, Italy's GDP per capita back then (despite recent stagnation) was only a little over half that of today. When people talk about the "great economy of Italy in the late 20th century", they actually mean more its growth rates, and the incredible progress it had achieved compared to the 1930s and 1940s. It's also likely that inequality was (as it is today) high in the early 1980s.
I don't know if GDP per capita is that relevant at such time difference. But car ownership is more than doubled for example. Flying to exotic destinations is more than doubled.
Oh.. I get it. I thought you prefer 1986 Romania to 2024 Italy but you meant 1986 Italy vs 2004 Italy. Then I agree.. in 1984 Italy was in a better place. For Romania, our quality of life now is in another stratosphere compared to back then.
> Bucharest, capital of Romania [...] > [...] maybe because I'm Italian.
I have looked at Romanian political history and see that a socialist party was voted into power in the 90's. But can only find Communist rule before this. Can you maybe enlighten me as to when in 1986 the socialist were in control?
The comunists called themselves socialists. They still call themselves that, but now they kinda follow a democracy.
My understanding was the first democratically elected party for President (I think that is the translation, although it is described more like a Prime Minister role in other democracies) also identified as Socialist Democrates. But I assume they were good for the country despite calling themselves members of the same ideology. So, could it be argued that socialism hurt Romania but also was used to help build the strong nation it is today?
Honestly, looking at Romania's history, I would say we were a strong nation before the comunism. Yes, they built a lot. People had jobs, but they were poor. They had money but not food.
I'm coming from a place of ignorance about Romania. And with the translations into English, I'm confident, hindering my understanding. I hoped to get the finer points to my understanding. Thanks for your candid responses Hope you have a fruitful week ✌️
They were not. This is the who-what of political parties that ruled and a short history of them. 1870-1923: Two main political parties: PNL (Partidul Național Liberal/The National Liberal Party)- A 'classic' formula of a liberal party in the 1800's. Mostly bourgeois people. Up until 1923, there was no universal vote, only people with a certain amount of wealth. PC (Partidul Conservator/Conservative Party)- Party made of Nobles and Landowners, instantly dissappears when universal voting for men is introduced at the start of the 1920's. Up until the new constitution of 1923, these two parties would change under the order of the government. It's a system that I don't exactly know how to explain 1923-1944: PNL- as above. PNȚ (Partidul Național Țărănist/The National Peasant Party)- New party formed shortly after Romania unites with Transylvania. Forms as a union of two smaller parties. Mainly an Agrarian party due to the fact that Romania before communism was even more focused on agriculture, mostly being a rural country. Had a different idea to run the economy than PNL. FRN (Frontul Renașterii Naționale/ The National Renaissance Front)- Party formed by the corrupt and with autocratic tendencies king. Introduces a new constitution which makes gives him total authority over the state. Bans all parties except FRN, names his own loyal prime-minister, rules with his Royal Camarilla. Essentially establishes a Royal Dictatorship. It only lasts for a year as he is couped by General Ion Antonescu Legiunea Arhanghelului Mihail/Garda de Fier (The Legion of Archangel Michael/The Iron Guard)- Fascist party on the level of craziness of the Nazis. The SS liked these guys while the Wehrmacht liked Ion Antonescu (the actual leader of the state). They join Antonescu's government in the 1940-1941. They also committed various assasinations and killings, including killing a few Prime-Ministers before coming to power in 1940. Antonescu purges them. They take refuge in Germany, become mostly irrelevant after this. Pro-Axis Military Dictatorship- Romania sides with Nazi Germany. 1944-1948 King Michael's Coup- King Michael, son of Carol II, the corrupt king mentioned earlier, coups Antonescu, Romania surrenders and then joins the Allies and fights the Nazis. After the end of the war elections are planned. Important thing to say, King Michael was someone who valued democracy unlike his predecessor. Soviet meddling in politics. Petru Groza (Communist), becomes Prime-Minister in 1945, until elections are to be held. The Election of 1947 is an absolute farce. The pro-soviet government opposes the King. Fakes various events to call PNL and PNȚ traitors, essentially kicking them out of the electoral race. PNL and PNȚ leadership either end up in jail or flee the country. PCR->PMR 1947, PCR (Partidul Comunist Român/Romanian Communist Party), wins the elections of 1947, forces the king to abdicate, abolishes the Monarchy. Introduces new constitution and declares the Romanian People's Republic. PSD (Social Democratic Party) fuses with PCR creating PMR (Partidul Muncitoresc Român/Romanian Worker's Party) 1948-1965 Communist Dictatorship is in full-effect. Democratic, Fascist and rival communists are eliminated. Leader of this new communist state is Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej. This period of history under PMR is called the Stalinist Era, due to the country pretty much following the Soviet style of communism and everything that the Soviet Union 'asked' of them. 1965-1989 Dej dies, in power comes Nicolae Ceaușescu. He renames PMR back to PCR (Romanian Communist Party) and the name of the country becomes The Socialist Republic of Romania. In his first years of governance, Ceaușescu is seen as a reformer, even refusing to invade Czechoslovakia with the Warsaw Pact. Ceaușescu steers the country into the direction of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia. Distancing himself from Moscow and trying to push Romania as a mediator between the East and the West. In the '70's Ceaușescu visits China and North Korea, becomes obsessed with Juche and the grand spectacle that was made for Glorious Leader Kim Il-Sung. He becomes obsessed with the self-sufficiency principle of Juche. This is when everything goes downhill, the beginning of the end as Romania slowly becomes North Korea 2.0., food runs out, 1989 Revolution happens, Democracy is restored. 1989-2000 Yeah, the revolution is messy. Most of the Communist Elite and members of the secret police escape judgement, even holding government positions. Here appears FSN (Frontul Salvării Naționale/National Salvation Front)- led by Ion Iliescu, our first president after democracy came back, it was the party that took power until Democracy was fully restored in 1991. It was (and still is) made of high-ranking members of the Communist Party and of the Secret Police and their relatives. Iliescu was even considered as a future successor of Ceaușescu during communist times. FSN eventually evolves into PSD, the current ruling party, corrupt as fuck. PNL and PNȚ return. They lose the first elections against FSN and Iliescu. PNL would eventually form into the same corrupt bullshit that PSD is today. PNȚ only manages to have one of their own become President, Emil Constantinescu in 2000. After that they disappear from the political scene becoming irrelevant. The 1989-2000 transition was absolutely fucking horrible. Corruption, violent reprisals against protests, economic instability, more corruption etc. This post is already long enough and I don't plan on explaining 2000-2024 politics, so here is your history lesson.
Thank you. I am less ignorant than when I posted the the comment you replied to. I knew I was missing things with the poor translations I was reading. Glad I got better information.