Did he contribute anything positive?

It seems to me like the main criterium how to determine if some socialist leader of 20th century was good is to ask:
He is no Stalin, he didn't popularized communism outside of Romania, BUT it seems like he's name will be used to legitimize next socialist revolution in Romania, and is therefore one of the best socialist leaders of history.

My God, I need to recheck my English grammar book.

Same for Hoxha. I was watching some Albanian music videos from the Communist era, and most comments, when put under Google translate, were saying how much better things were under Hoxha.

Those are the same reactionary liberals who rank the Kims as buffoons and Stalin as a genocidal maniac.

We must breed a society of proletarian chads

The first part of his rule, aka the "not being the USSR's bitch and letting artists write freely" was ok
Then he caught Maoism

The lad decided that HiV didn't exist and contamined children
He destroyed most of old Bucharest for his shiny, useless, and costly palace
He appointed his wife, which didn't knew CO2 was a gas, to the position of chairwoman of the Academy of Science

He did a lot of things wrong

Lol he was a corrupt embarrassment but as long as capitalists stress this particular point anything he didn't fuck up redeems him completely lol

Dacia!

Read more books!

He undid his own progress. He turned a backwater country of peasants into a relatively urbanized exporter of all sorts of industrial products, and then cracked and managed to force people to resort to peasant agriculture to survive.

Ceausescu was a European Jucheist.

No.

Unlike virtually every other Eastern Bloc dictator, Ceausescu is a good argument AGAINST planned economies.

Yes because his policies were run by nationalists.

Except that is just untrue.
I've been watching a lot of videos of him and every single one of them fosters hundreds of comments trashtalking him. The Romanian socialist sentiment is pretty much dead. Nobody talks about it without mentioning obvious propaganda or the conditions created by Ceaușescu, which is justified, considering his rather poor usage of resources, the cult of personality or the rationing.
There really is no need to defend him. He really was not a smart leader.

how did he do that i want to know can u give me a source?

balkanalysis.com/romania/2011/12/27/in-romania-opinion-polls-show-nostalgia-for-communism/
youtube.com/watch?v=XhXui5i0wI4

The only bad thing he did was trying to be friendly with Pol Pot.

That does not make him any less foolish.
One may think that with 41% of the population who'd rather vote for Ceausescu, there would be more support for socialist parties.
psr.org.ro
Just look at the state of this, 80% of the page is nationalistic bullshit. Most people would be surprised they even exist.
Or maybe the current leader of the Communist Party of Romania
vice.com/ro/article/3dngw5/ce-fac-comunistii-romani-la-25-de-ani-de-la-revolutie-152
(I do know it's vice)

Not even to mention that on the other side you have the New Right Movement which are literally fascist and gather a lot more traction from the average reactionary Romanian. Nonetheless, there is no consensus among the general population, since a significant part of the country is liberals who are visibly pissed at the level of barbarism these right wingers show. They get into these endless fights over gay rights, the latest example being them storming into an lgbt film screening while singing religious songs. Not a single mentionin of socialist ideas. This is the level of the populace.

Overall, I do think we are salvageable, since the majority of our people can develop class conciousness. They just need a push