10

During the Cold War the Socialist Republic of Romania was aligned with the USSR and within the Soviet sphere of influence. What appears odd is that while Russian Communism slowly liberalised after Stalin's death and Khrushchev's 1956 speech "On the Cult of Personality and its Consequences", Romania went the other way.

Nicolae Ceaușescu's denunciation of the invasion of Czechoslovakia and brief liberalisation of the press preceded a slide into a decidedly more totalitarian society. Russian politics over the same time frame appeared to grow less about personality cults and the like, while Romania became more about this sort of thing.

Russia underwent de-Stalinisation beginning 1956, while Ceaușescu started his personality cult (inspired by Kim Il-sung's) around 1971. This was long after Stalin's was no longer in effect, and became far more powerful than the cult of Ceaușescu's predecessor.

Why did Russian Communism evolve from Stalinism into Glasnost, and yet Romanian Communism mutated from denouncing the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia into a Maoist personality cult inspired by North Korea?

Soviet leaders appeared to alternate between progressive and regressive policy. From Stalin's purges to Khrushchev's thaw, from Brezhnev's freeze to Gorbachev's openness... and then a coup to try and stop Gorbachev.

The general character of repressive policy became less severe each time. Brezhnev's repression never went as far as Stalin's, and Andropov's rule included the first publication of economic facts and anti-corruption efforts. Furthermore, each time liberalisation went further than it had before. This does suggest a slow but continual liberalisation since the death of Stalin and appointment of Khrushchev.

  • 5
    I have removed my downvote; I continue to believe the question would be infinitely stronger if it were based on more than unsupported assertions, but I think the revision makes that my preference rather than a weakness. – MCW Aug 27 '18 at 13:20
  • 3
    @MarkC.Wallace Trying hard to reduce the scope and explain myself. Sorry. Questions are hard! –  Aug 27 '18 at 13:30
  • 1
    Some of the assumptions such as a transmission belt of ideology and "liberalism / totalitarianism" are sufficiently indicative of a lack of preliminary research that I'm not willing to vote to reopen. – Samuel Russell Sep 12 '18 at 06:33
  • 1
    @SamuelRussell Thank you for this comment. I have edited the question to attempt to clarify this point, and hope you find it helpful. –  Sep 12 '18 at 08:41
  • I think you've expounded the theoretical terms you're using sufficiently, in relationship to the extent of "repression" that the question is openable. – Samuel Russell Sep 12 '18 at 08:46
  • Answer to a different question, here that might answer partially this one. It says how it happened mostly, though, and not as much why it happened. –  Nov 13 '18 at 11:54
  • 4
    What part is opinion-based? Stalinist personality-cult is a very identifiable phenomenon that must have its reasons. It is mostly represented by Stalin, Mao, the Kim dynasty, and Ceausescu. What the question asks is how come this happened in an USSR satellite at a time when USSR was not promoting that model. Khrushchev had dismantled it and started reforms that Brezhnev stopped, but Brezhnev never re-instated that cult. The answer lays in Ceausescu's paradoxical independence from USSR, starting ironically in 1968, when he was seen as a Prague Spring sympathizer. –  Nov 13 '18 at 12:04
  • 1
    Possibly changing the title would help re-opening, by naming the personality-cult and possibly totalitarian instead of simply the authoritarian aspect of the regime, which in fact never left URSS and Russia. –  Nov 13 '18 at 12:13
  • 1
    As I cannot post an answer I'll suggest one as comment: the Romanian situation is not in contradiction with the logic of the Soviet regime, neither structurally or chronologically, it is just a step behind. Romanian communism was imported from USSR during stalinism and became stable in the fifties. Then, it took a local trend but given a similar economic and cultural background (rural economy, orthodox religion, authoritarian tradition) it followed the Russian/Soviet model closely. Imported stalinism was replaced with a locally produced one because the local system was able to produce it. –  Nov 13 '18 at 12:25
  • 1
    As for why the non-or-less stalinist URSS didn't counter this discrepancy? This is the same as asking How did Ceaușescu survive the condemnation of the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?. - And in the end it did counter it - that is: Gorbachev did. - That would be a different hot potato, but URSS interference in Ceausescu's downfall is more than probable. –  Nov 13 '18 at 12:28
  • 2
    I challenge the premise that Romania did not become more liberal: Romanian communism had only one leader: Ceausescu. He personally got worse and worse as he became more crazy and senile. There was no successor. Stalin was also a totalitarian and his cementing of power grew with the length of his reign as all the credible challengers got purged away. Both countries became more liberal except Romania's entire totalitarian system collapsed. – Clint Eastwood Nov 13 '18 at 14:27
  • Nice edit, I vote to reopen. I still fear this is opinion-based, and just because Ceausestru's own personality, but maybe this could possibly be explained rationally after all. – Bregalad Sep 30 '19 at 17:24
  • 1
    Isn't the answer contained within your question? Specifically, "... Ceaușescu started his personality cult (inspired by Kim Il-sung's) around 1971" and the associated linked Wikipedia article? Or to put it another way, isn't the answer just that the Soviet / Russian leaders and Ceausescu simply made different choices based on their different personalities? – sempaiscuba Sep 30 '19 at 19:37
  • I've heard that Ceausescu changed his views or at least his leadership style after visiting China in 1971. It's hard to prove cause and effect without some memoirs and I think he did not write any. (He was executed pretty quickly after his downfall.) Actually he visited North Korea as well that year. I guess the latter made more of an impression. http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/TolnayPAPER.pdf – the gods from engineering Nov 05 '19 at 01:39
  • "Dennis Deletant makes the case most explicitly, arguing “It is now clear that this visit aroused in him an admiration for the Cultural Revolution and for the grandiose spectacles dedicated to the cult of personality. The stage-managed adulation of Mao and Kim Il Sung, so meticulously choreographed, fired Ceausescu’s imagination and he demanded the same upon his return to Romania.”" – the gods from engineering Nov 05 '19 at 01:42
  • "Definitive confirmation of the role played by Ceausescu’s trip to east Asia in the later political developments in Romania is practically impossible given the lack of candid of high level government officials who had access to the directives of the Conducator. " – the gods from engineering Nov 05 '19 at 01:46
  • 1
    I think this mania with closing questions is utterly silly. It is better to keep the questions and then indicate in answers if there are some problems with it. Of course, sometimes the questions may be in wrong ballparks; but that is not the case here. – Sapiens Nov 05 '19 at 17:07

0 Answers0