The Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK) [Archive]

Random Precision

1st April 2009, 23:19

The leaders of the CPK were not Marxists, nor any modern kind of communists. Mostly their actions were derived from a naïve belief in the Cambodian peasant commune as the ideal way of life. Industrial workers were denounced as saboteurs and not allowed to join the CPK. They did believe they were building communism but their beliefs have more in common with the Narodniki and agricultural utopians. It would be a stretch to call them Stalinists or Maoists even, because each of those ideologies undertook industrial development in the countries where they took root.

In any case, while considering the Khmer Rouge and their actions we cannot forget that their rise to power was largely the result of an American bombing campaign that devastated the country and drove the peasantry toward the insurgents.

Furthermore the "genocide trials" that the (capitalist) government of Cambodia is undertaking are very long delayed, and completely cosmetic in nature as they're aimed at only the very few high-rankers left over from the seventies. They're not intended to displace any of the KR members who about-faced and joined the state bureaucracy and military.

Pogue

1st April 2009, 23:42

They weren't communists. And communism has and will be barstadised nonetheless. But communism is just a name, misunderstood and lied about. Our ideas remain the same, true, relevant and enccesary, depsite the associations one of the names has.

trivas7

1st April 2009, 23:53

They weren't communists. And communism has and will be barstadised nonetheless.

Well, yours and Random Precision's responses are very different than what anti-revisionist Stalinist-Maoists conclude about the Khmer Rouge. Viz: "We are out to overthrow "common knowledge" on this question. Unlike others who falsely claim they have no particular viewpoint from which they judge, our basic stand is explicit: as Mao said, "It's right to rebel against reaction." In other words, here our starting point is that the war waged by the three Indochinese peoples (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) against imperialism was just. No matter how critical our conclusions on the Pol Pot regime, the fact is that they had to deal with the horror that the US created. If anyone should be on trial for genocide in Southeast Asia, it should be the US ruling class. The charges of genocide the rulers of the US want to press against former CPK leaders are an attempt to reverse right and wrong."

What am I to understand by that last sentence? That the CPK was right in its genocide?? That the US government is the real culprit in this atrocity?? What exactly?

GracchusBabeuf

2nd April 2009, 00:25

1) The genocide by Indonesia in East Timor (http://www.yale.edu/gsp/east_timor/) took place under US sponsorship about the same time as the Cambodian genocide. Have you heard of that?

2) Also do you know of the US atrocities in Cambodia that made the Khmer Rouge popular with the peasants in East Timor, causing them to come to power.

I'm not trying to justify the atrocities committed by Pol Pot, but I'm saying that we need a balanced view of events.

Bud Struggle

2nd April 2009, 00:29

rednordman

2nd April 2009, 00:40

trivas7

2nd April 2009, 01:39

I'm not trying to justify the atrocities committed by Pol Pot, but I'm saying that we need a balanced view of events.
Clearly West Europeans were guilty of attempted genocide of American Indians and many other atrocities. Why do you feel the need to "balance" such views?

This is one of the greatest tragedies in history. Even the west had their hand in this.

Excuse my ignorance; how exactly was the West complicit?

GracchusBabeuf

2nd April 2009, 02:07

Clearly West Europeans were guilty of attempted genocide of American Indians and many other atrocities. Why do you feel the need to "balance" such views?It was a quite successful genocide by any standard. My point was that both Soviet-supported and West-supported regimes have been complicit in genocides. To those who say that the Soviet supported regimes were communist or not, it would be easier if they said what they have in mind when saying things like communism, capitalism etc. AFAIK communism literally means common ownership of the means of production.

trivas7

2nd April 2009, 02:16

To those who say that the Soviet supported regimes were communist or not, it would be easier if they said what they have in mind when saying things like communism, capitalism etc. AFAIK communism literally means common ownership of the means of production.
I agree w/ TomK (if I understand him) that this simplifies too much and whitewashes history. See, e.g.: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/on-the-idea-of-communism-communism-is-dead-long-live-communism/

GracchusBabeuf

2nd April 2009, 02:42

I agree w/ TomK (if I understand him) that this simplifies too much and whitewashes history. See, e.g.: http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/on-the-idea-of-communism-communism-is-dead-long-live-communism/Personally, I don't even support communism and don't think it will ever work. I am an anarchist, but I think we need to understand that these terms have been manipulated and twisted around a lot by the current and former power centers of the world, including the US and the Soviet Union. Probably a good reason why we should no longer use those terms to describe ideas of common control of means of production etc.

RGacky3

2nd April 2009, 11:09

Many argue that Stalin was indeed a Communist and that communism was practiced in the Soviet Union till Khrushchev.

What do you think of Jacob Richter's suggestion of calling it (social) proletocracy?

Yeah, but those people are wrong. Communism by definition, is impossible under the circumstances of the USSR, not even close, how can the workers as a whole control the means of production when the State does, and it is barely accountable to the people. COmmunism is impossible without equal rights (which means ultimately no state) and complete personal freedom (again, no state).

Its not a proletocracy, it was an ologarchy, thats what it was, a barely democratic republic, which replaced teh Capitalist class with teh state.

There really hasn't been nor probably be a "real" Communism in the world--people will always be going off into tangents--some better than others some worse.

Yes there has, there have been many examples of societies, whre the people were free and had equal access and control of the means of production and resources. Anarchist Spain, Parts of Chiapas, parts of Ukrain early on, and so on and so forth. Communism is'nt some holy grail utopia. But niether is it State controlled tyrranies.

To say the CPK weren't Communist or that Stalin wasn't a Communist is rediculous. Or for that matter Hugo Chavez. They are a "form" that Communism took in a particular time and place.

No they are not, by definition they are not. They were ultimately as much communist as the US, becaue the workers had pretty much as much say over their lives and their work enviroments, and they pretty much enjoyed the fruits of their labor equally.

You folks have no more right to say anyone is or is not a Communist than I do in claiming that Bill Gates isn't a "capitalist" because he isn't of the old Rockefeller or JP Morgan model.

Yes we do, because Communism, is by definiiton, not even close to what those people implimented. Bill Gates and Rockefeller were both righ owners of Capital, which by definition means they are Capitalist.

Bud Struggle

2nd April 2009, 11:39

Yes there has, there have been many examples of societies, whre the people were free and had equal access and control of the means of production and resources. Anarchist Spain, Parts of Chiapas, parts of Ukrain early on, and so on and so forth. Communism is'nt some holy grail utopia. But niether is it State controlled tyrranies.

For a moment here and there they got the Communist model to work perfectly--fine, but on the large scale there are too many variables. I think you can get something close at times--but Communism is like Capitalism (and Feudalism for that matter) it will always keep mutating. I don't think the idea of any sort of static world is possible, people are just too quirky. And there alway IS the problem of a Bill O'Reilly or a Glen Beck or writ larger a Stalin or Hitler--there are people that other people like to follow. These guys come along now and again with their own ideas (granted mostly bad ideas) and they change the order of the way things are run.

I have no doubt that Communist can be achieved now and again but I don't think perfect Communism could be sustained.

No they are not, by definition they are not. They were ultimately as much communist as the US, becaue the workers had pretty much as much say over their lives and their work enviroments, and they pretty much enjoyed the fruits of their labor equally. They are because THEY write the definition. Not you or me. It's not text books that matter but guns and governments. These are the ways the Communism looks in the real world. Just like Capitalism in Russia and the USA and South Africa and Argentina is all Capitalism.

Communism has been tried over and over and over and when it succeeds (and that's the operative word) it has a certain look and feel and govermental system. For Communism to succeed there is always a Glorious Leader that makes it work. Mao knew that, so did Lenin and Stalin. Chavez and Castro and Kim know that, too. Communist revolutions always take place in backward pre-industrial countries. A king (almost) always leaves town when a Communist revolution takes place. I could also say that Communism dissipates when a certain level of industrialization is achieved.

Yes we do, because Communism, is by definiiton, not even close to what those people implimented. Bill Gates and Rockefeller were both righ owners of Capital, which by definition means they are Capitalist.

As I said, definitions of REALITY are written by governments not by bloggers and posters.

RGacky3

2nd April 2009, 12:43

For a moment here and there they got the Communist model to work perfectly--fine, but on the large scale there are too many variables.

Historically thats never been the case, historically, everysingle time, its been outside violent forces, which has really been the only variable. Be it Lenin, the fascists, the Mexican government, or the Prussians.

but Communism is like Capitalism (and Feudalism for that matter) it will always keep mutating. I don't think the idea of any sort of static world is possible, people are just too quirky. And there alway IS the problem of a Bill O'Reilly or a Glen Beck or writ larger a Stalin or Hitler--there are people that other people like to follow. These guys come along now and again with their own ideas (granted mostly bad ideas) and they change the order of the way things are run.

Yes, but the core pricniples are the same. Capitalism will always, be about private property. Communism will always be about equal rights over the means of production and resources.

If you move Communism away from that, such as Stalin did, its simply not communism anymore. The Communism in Anarchist Spain, or in Chiapas are different, but the core pinciples are the same.

They are because THEY write the definition. Not you or me. It's not text books that matter but guns and governments. These are the ways the Communism looks in the real world. Just like Capitalism in Russia and the USA and South Africa and Argentina is all Capitalism.

Ok, well let me put it too you this way, all Communists, almost all of them, agree with my definition, or some slight variation of it, now the governments who call themselves that, might also have the same definition, but they run their country a different way.

The same way everyone knows what democracy means, but whether or not those principles are implimented is another thing.

If you asked Stalin to define communism, he might have a similar definition to mine. But Stalinist Russia was be no means communist. By any stretch of the word.

But if your going to redefine definitions, I'll just say Socialist-Anarchism (which is essencially the same thing, but if words are gonna get in your way, then we'll change it).

Communism has been tried over and over and over and when it succeeds (and that's the operative word) it has a certain look and feel and govermental system. For Communism to succeed there is always a Glorious Leader that makes it work. Mao knew that, so did Lenin and Stalin. Chavez and Castro and Kim know that, too. Communist revolutions always take place in backward pre-industrial countries. A king (almost) always leaves town when a Communist revolution takes place. I could also say that Communism dissipates when a certain level of industrialization is achieved.

Under those circumstances, was there equal control over the means of production? Nope, was there self-governance by the people? Nope. Then they wern't communism, so they did'nt "work" did they.

Also Chavez, Castro and Kim are 3 extreamly extreamly different heads of state. But none are communist, 1 could be considered socialist, the other Leninist (which is psudo socialism) and the third a psychopath. None are communist though.

So right now your arguing against the wind.

As I said, definitions of REALITY are written by governments not by bloggers and posters.

The definition of communism is defined by those who call themselves communists, and almost all of them have those basic principles.

rednordman

2nd April 2009, 13:04

Clearly West Europeans were guilty of attempted genocide of American Indians and many other atrocities. Why do you feel the need to "balance" such views?

Excuse my ignorance; how exactly was the West complicit?Sorry for my late response. Im refering to what happened after the fall of the KR when the west basically ended up funding the KR and prolonged the fighting and deaths. I do not know the figures, but I have heard that the KR still ran the cambodian refugee settlements (Some of these where in Thailand), and despite putting on a friendly face to the peacemakers, still tourtured and killed alot of non compliant refugees. I have even heard about isolated incidents up until 1985 -six years after their defeat to the vietnamese.

Dimentio

2nd April 2009, 18:22

We have only had one user - to my memory - who has supported the Khmer Rogue in revleft, and it got restricted. Most of the leninists here denounce Pol Pot on the basis of the romantic primitivism expressed by the Khmer Rogue.

As for cruelty and "evil". I would not define the Khmer Rogue as "evil" (but neither would I define Hitler as "evil"). I would define them as ideologically dogmatic and extremely authoritarian.

I think the same tendencies could be seen with maoism, but I think the Khmer Rogue took maoism to its logical conclusion.

I think these trials are rather funny. Because a lot of them who are sentencing Duc are other former Khmer rogue supporters. Cambodia's former prime minister Hun Sen was as far as I know a Khmer Rogue supporter, and prince Sihanouk himself supported them.

I get either depressed or amused when thinking about South East Asia.

We have the brutal Burmese dictatorship, the Vietnamese authoritarian stalinist state, the Laotian hell, the Cambodian hell and then the Thai capitalist brothel, where rural people have no rights and children are sold as sex slaves to western tourists. I understand if people who have grown up there could turn to very strange political beliefs. I know I would do that.

We had one guy here who called himself "The Sizpoao Communist", allegedly from Burma. He wanted to ban people from thinking "sex thoughts" about members of the same sex, and also ban them from living near water and in mountains.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjw8K7kY2c&feature=PlayList&p=CE10CADE8B103886&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=22

Conquer or Die

5th April 2009, 19:15

What am I to understand by that last sentence? That the CPK was right in its genocide?? That the US government is the real culprit in this atrocity?? What exactly?

Their claim is that the Rebellion against imperialism was just and the States' appeal to genocide as a justification for the war is wrong. There was no justification for the war, period. The justification for the genocide? That is another matter that can be judged separate of determining whether or not reaction was good against imperialism. They conclude that through a complex historical viewpoint, that the CPK were horrendous in their execution of rule.

RGacky3

6th April 2009, 12:27

That is another matter that can be judged separate of determining whether or not reaction was good against imperialism.

You cannot judge something based on solely whether it is good or not against imperialism.

Why are we against imperialism? Because it causes human suffering and tyranny. So how could you justify cuasing vast human suffering and tyranny because it fights imperialism (some how).

Some communists forget the whole reason we fight against Capitalism and the imperialism it cuases. Its not us against them, any means nessesary. We are trying to end as much human suffering and tyranny as possible.

ibn Bruce

6th April 2009, 12:37

who are we sitting on computers at home in our underwear to contradict them?

Are you watching me?

Bud Struggle

6th April 2009, 15:08

Are you watching me?

Everyone here is on the RevLeft "Commie Cam"--can't you see them? :D

Hiero

6th April 2009, 15:44

I get either depressed or amused when thinking about South East Asia.

We have the brutal Burmese dictatorship, the Vietnamese authoritarian stalinist state, the Laotian hell, the Cambodian hell and then the Thai capitalist brothel, where rural people have no rights and children are sold as sex slaves to western tourists. I understand if people who have grown up there could turn to very strange political beliefs. I know I would do that

Yes, very amusing.

Conquer or Die

10th April 2009, 10:43

You cannot judge something based on solely whether it is good or not against imperialism.

Why are we against imperialism? Because it causes human suffering and tyranny. So how could you justify cuasing vast human suffering and tyranny because it fights imperialism (some how).

Some communists forget the whole reason we fight against Capitalism and the imperialism it cuases. Its not us against them, any means nessesary. We are trying to end as much human suffering and tyranny as possible.

The actual perversities of the CPK are not linked to the struggle against imperialism. That is the whole point.

I do not hold Trotsky Spartacist League line to uphold Capitalist-Fascist China or Monarchial North Korea.

Patchd

10th April 2009, 10:57

This is one of the greatest tragedies in history. Even the west had their hand in this. Considering that they accused their victims of being CIA or KGB spies, i wouldnt even use the stalinist tag against them. If stalin had have killed people on the same ratio as the khymer rouge did, there wouldnt be much of Russia left now. And that is saying something. I guess they where potist!?...and the answer lies with him for eternity.

To add to that, as the Khmer rouge represented the Chinese faction in the Sino-Soviet split, the CIA funded to an extent the regime, as well as sending in agents, not only did they do this in Kampuchea, but also in Laos and Thailand. I went to Kampuchea almost two years back, and the killing fields were fucking horrendous.

What I also noticed is that not much has changed in terms of social and economic progress (mind you, I wasn't around during the Khmer rouge), children would trade a picture for a comb from the hotel simply because they can't afford toys. Roads were bumpy and in many cases, even in the city, were dirt tracks, certain areas had no electricity or decent sanitation or water supplies, I guess the only thing to have changed is no massacre and eviction of the urban populace (the working class) and intellectuals.

The Kampuchean Communist Party was simply a primitivist authoritarian group, there's a number of people on the left who wouldn't consider them Communists, I'd be in that same camp.

... and yes, I do acknowledge that it is crimes like these, as well as authoritarianism in certain "Socialist" countries, as well as poor media portrayal of Communism which antagonises many workers into having a hatred for Communism.

One thing to take light on, although with criticism, is the uplifting spirit of many of the people there who might have even grown up during the time of the Khmer rouge in Kampuchea, or in refugee camps in Thailand, who potentially witnessed some of the worst crimes ever. The same goes for many Vietnamese people who still talk about solidarity with American workers.

RHIZOMES

15th April 2009, 13:31

Questions for revlefters: In the light of the first genocide trial of "Duc" in Cambodia, how do you square such blatant evil as the practice of genocide carried out by the Communist Party of Kampuchea w/ their Communist political beliefs? How could such thing happen? Do you acknowledge it is events such as this that cause the average non-communist to tremble? How can the reputation of Communism ever be rehabilitated from such an association and such images?

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/03/31/cambodia-trial-begins-for-khmer-rouge-leader/

http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/khmeryears/angka.html

Pol Pot was a primitivist.

Bud Struggle

15th April 2009, 22:07

Pol Pot was a primitivist.

Maybe so but a Marxist, too.

Hoxhaist

15th April 2009, 22:13

Hoxhaist

15th April 2009, 22:26

The Khmer Rouge were supported by the US through China:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/17/world/death-of-pol-pot-the-diplomacy-pol-pot-s-end-won-t-stop-us-pursuit-of-his-circle.html

"In one of the cold war's proxy battles, the United States took China's side against the Soviet Union, which meant accepting the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate Government of Cambodia in opposition to the Vietnamese-imposed regime in Phnom Penh. Previously, the United States had sided with China to punish the Soviet Union for its 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.
It was not until last year, long after the Vietnamese had withdrawn, that the United States gave the green light to go after the elusive Khmer Rouge leader. By then the cold war had ended, peace had been secured for Cambodia and Pol Pot had lost any value in the power politics of the region.
''But by not having a trial and not punishing Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge over the past two decades we have, in effect, told the Cambodians that what happened wasn't a crime,'' said Diane Orentlicher, professor of law at American University. ''If there was no punishment, there was no crime.''
American diplomats have long called Cambodia one of the lost causes of United States foreign policy. The secret bombing of the Cambodian border region in 1969 became one of the potential articles of impeachment against former President Richard M. Nixon in 1974. The 1973 saturation bombing of the country was only ended by an order from Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
The 1975 Khmer Rouge victory was the first in the series of Communist triumphs against United States-supported governments in this country's longest war.
''There's certainly a major American responsibility for this whole situation,'' said Stephen Heder, an American scholar on Cambodia and lecturer at London's School of Oriental and African Studies. ''A war-crimes trial could have posed a problem for the U.S. because it could have raised questions about U.S. bombing from 1969 through 1973.''
When refugees began fleeing from Cambodia after the 1979 Vietnamese invasion, the United States accepted the bulk of the responsibility for resettling them, and more than 150,000 Cambodians came to this country.
But while the United States gave tens of millions of dollars in aid throughout the 1980's to Cambodian refugees, it orchestrated a complete program of sanctions against Cambodia because it was under Vietnamese occupation. And to insure that Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would fight the Vietnamese occupiers, the Carter Administration helped arrange continued Chinese aid.
''I encourage the Chinese to support Pol Pot,'' said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser at the time. ''The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.''
At the United Nations, the United States, along with most countries of Europe and Asia, gave the Cambodia seat to the Khmer Rouge Government by itself and, after 1983, in coalition with other anti-Vietnamese Cambodian groups."

Dimentio

16th April 2009, 07:28

Each time Hoxhaist writes an entry, I get amused.

Hiero

16th April 2009, 11:31

They werent real Marxists. They eliminated cities and the urban proletariat. They had bizarre practices like declaring that anyone who remembered any political party other than the Khmer Rouge being in power suffered from "memory sickness" and killed anyone wearing glasses or seemed "educated"

They didn't eliminate cities. And I would like to see evidence for the last two claims. I have never seen evidence that it was a policy of the CPK to kill people because they wore glasses. It sounds like slander.

RGacky3

16th April 2009, 13:12

It sounds like slander.

Using the word slander when it comes to talking about governments sounds so rediculous. Such a Maoist term.

Patchd

16th April 2009, 18:48

Maybe so but a Marxist, too.
Calling oneself a Marxist doesn't make you one.

PRC-UTE

16th April 2009, 19:17

Maybe so but a Marxist, too.

You can't be a Marxist and a primitivist. Their Year Zero philosophy was a kind of (moral) peasant communsim, but not the Marxist kind. Not even close.

from the wiki entry on Pol Pot: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot)

The central committee of the party met later that year and issued a declaration calling for armed struggle. The declaration also emphasized the idea of "self-reliance" in the sense of extreme Cambodian nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism). In the border camps, the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was gradually developed. The party, breaking with Marxism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism), declared rural peasant farmers to be the true working class proletarian and the lifeblood of the revolution. This is in some sense explained by the fact that none of the central committee were in any sense "working class". All of them had grown up in a feudal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism) peasant society. The party adapted elements of Theravada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada) Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) to justify their non-standard communism.

It would be accurate to call the KR a mix of ethnic nationalism, moral philosophy and middle class pathology. it's an example of taking Maoism to an extreme- in the other direction.

trivas7

16th April 2009, 23:14

It would be accurate to call the KR a mix of ethnic nationalism, moral philosophy and middle class pathology. it's an example of taking Maoism to an extreme- in the other direction.
"The lady doth protest too much me thinks". This is meaningless verbal garbage. :blushing:

Patchd

17th April 2009, 11:00

"The lady doth protest too much me thinks". This is meaningless verbal garbage. :blushing:
Well then you better get on with learning what those words mean then methinks ;) :D

Revy

17th April 2009, 21:18

The Khmer Rouge were feudalistic primitivists. They despised the urban working class and forced everyone in the cities to work in rural agricultural labor camps. They were moving society backward.

Yazman

19th April 2009, 12:43

synthesis

20th April 2009, 16:39

Hmm... The Bible says to "love thy neighbor," yet we still claim the Spanish Inquisition to represent some intrinsic fault of Christianity. Perhaps the error lies in a constructed duality... both sides are sacrificing explanation in favor of classification. Capitalists trip over themselves to dismiss sober discussion as "verbal garbage" in their quest to pigeonhole us with Pol Pot, but I suppose sometimes we do the same.

Bud Struggle

20th April 2009, 23:21

Nobody in the left or from the soviet union has EVER argued that the Soviet Union operated a communist society.

That's one of the great lessons I've learned here on RevLeft. After taking in the usual American media propaganda about Communism for years and years (and yea, without questioning it :crying: ) stumbling into RevLeft was a real eye opener.

redSHARP

21st April 2009, 07:19

JimmyJazz

21st April 2009, 07:31

Communism is like Capitalism--each is a whole lot of things thrown together in a particular time and place that serve a particular purpose. To say the CPK weren't Communist or that Stalin wasn't a Communist is rediculous. Or for that matter Hugo Chavez. They are a "form" that Communism took in a particular time and place. There really hasn't been nor probably be a "real" Communism in the world--people will always be going off into tangents--some better than others some worse.

You folks have no more right to say anyone is or is not a Communist than I do in claiming that Bill Gates isn't a "capitalist" because he isn't of the old Rockefeller or JP Morgan model.

When people DO THINGS they have the right to call themselves what they wish--and it seemed the CPK called themselves Communists--who are we sitting on computers at home in our underwear to contradict them?

Yea, they were bad--accept it and move on.

This seems to be the exact kind of Newspeak linguistic twisting that Orwell talked about in the Appendix to 1984 and in "Politics and the English Language."

You're literally saying that words don't have meaning, and that when someone uses a word as a label for themselves, they become that thing. Apparently all I would have to do to win you over is to the left is put on a Reagan t-shirt and shoot up an elementary school. I never knew you were a postmodernist, Tom.

Only you're not. Because you include Hugo Chavez, who doesn't call himself a communist, and never has. So I can only conclude that you're trying to cheaply discredit communism. If there's any other way to interpret this post, let me know.

I also find it rather odd that you choose Bill Gates as the capitalist counterpart to the Khmer Rouge. Wouldn't Hitler or Pinochet be a more apt example?

Bud Struggle

21st April 2009, 12:04

This seems to be the exact kind of Newspeak linguistic twisting that Orwell talked about in the Appendix to 1984 and in "Politics and the English Language."

You're literally saying that words don't have meaning, and that when someone uses a word as a label for themselves, they become that thing. Apparently all I would have to do to win you over is to the left is put on a Reagan t-shirt and shoot up an elementary school. I never knew you were a postmodernist, Tom.

Only you're not. Because you include Hugo Chavez, who doesn't call himself a communist, and never has. So I can only conclude that you're trying to cheaply discredit communism. If there's any other way to interpret this post, let me know.

I also find it rather odd that you choose Bill Gates as the capitalist counterpart to the Khmer Rouge. Wouldn't Hitler or Pinochet be a more apt example?

I'm not trying to discredit Communism. It's just that words take on meanings in the real world way beyond what their coiners intended for them. For example, was the USSR Communist? Without a doubt, formally, no. But in the common parlance of the US and large parts of the world, it was--the USSR is Communism personified in the minds of millions if not billions of people. It almost doesn't matter what the USSR actually called itself.

And there's the second question of the difference between the theory and the reality--the theory of Communism may be something quite different from the USSR or Maoist China, but both countries did go to the bother of called themselves Marxist and used Marxist Communism as an ideal. One has to take their word on what their intentions were. And those intentions looked like the USSR and Maoist China--in real life.

There are as I said lots of models for what Capitalism looks like--some agree with the USA's economic model and some disagree--but it would be unfair to say that America isn't Capitalist. It is--because regardless of the theoretical economic models--this is what Capitalism looks like today.

And words are improtant--but both their theoretical and the common useage are of importance.

RGacky3

21st April 2009, 13:12

There are as I said lots of models for what Capitalism looks like--some agree with the USA's economic model and some disagree--but it would be unfair to say that America isn't Capitalist. It is--because regardless of the theoretical economic models--this is what Capitalism looks like today.

Yes, whenever Capitalism is mentioned its the US and japan and Britain, however to have an accurate picture, you MUST unclude all the third world as well, because they are an essencial part of the Global Capitalist system.

Bud Struggle

21st April 2009, 13:16

Yes, whenever Capitalism is mentioned its the US and japan and Britain, however to have an accurate picture, you MUST unclude all the third world as well, because they are an essencial part of the Global Capitalist system.

That is definitely a fair point. But it's always been America's goal (stated goal at least) that we want to get the rest of the world up to our standards of wealth. We would all be richer if Africa (for example) was on a par with Europe economically.

STJ

21st April 2009, 14:47

Pol Pot was a fucking back to the Dark Ages madman. And in no way shape or form is that Communism. We look to the future not the past like that crazy bastard did.

If there is a hell i hope that Pol Pot and his cronies are in a extra hot part of it.

RGacky3

22nd April 2009, 08:20

But it's always been America's goal (stated goal at least) that we want to get the rest of the world up to our standards of wealth. We would all be richer if Africa (for example) was on a par with Europe economically.

You've got to be kidding me, Tomk I'm dissapointed, first of all America (meaning American Capitalists) profit immensely from the third world poverty and dispaire, secondly we would not all be richer if Africa was on par with Europe because then they would have more economic clout and Europe America and China could'nt exploit them for profit, which means less profit.

You are clearly extreamly naive here. Also when you say "America" are you talking about the government? Or what? Because the goernment can say whatever it wants, ultimately it must put the interests of profit first, and the interests of profit by no means is a socially healthy and relatively rich 3rd world. Plus, even if that was their goal (which it is most definately not), its clear its not being brought about by Capitalism. Common Tomk, you know better than this.

JimmyJazz

22nd April 2009, 08:30

And words are improtant--but both their theoretical and the common useage are of importance.

I agree, but this is radically different from what you were saying before: that the Khmer Rouge was communist because it called itself communist.

This:

You folks have no...right to say anyone is or is not a CommunistIs plain and utter postmodern rubbish.

trivas7

22nd April 2009, 16:27

I agree, but this is radically different from what you were saying before: that the Khmer Rouge was communist because it called itself communist.
Dissociate yourself however much you like the fact remains that just as the robber barons and Al Capone are part of capitalism's history, the Khmer Rouge is part of the history of the world Communist movement.

JimmyJazz

22nd April 2009, 19:49

Words don't have meanings

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc101/vtm20002000/no.gif

trivas7

22nd April 2009, 20:00

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc101/vtm20002000/no.gif
:confused:

Bud Struggle

22nd April 2009, 21:47

I agree, but this is radically different from what you were saying before: that the Khmer Rouge was communist because it called itself communist.

No. the Khmer Rouge SAID they were Communist. Held Communst ideals (perverted though they were) and professed a Communist worldview. That's Communist.

I could find many Fascists that would profess that Hitler misused and abused Fascist principals--how seriously shoudld we then take Fascism?

Sorry, you have to take both the theory and what that theory begot no matter if it's a work of beauty or the misbourn.

We have to take responsibility for what we wish for. What holds for Fascists and Capitalists--holds for Communists, too.

Bud Struggle

22nd April 2009, 21:55

You've got to be kidding me, Tomk I'm dissapointed, first of all America (meaning American Capitalists) profit immensely from the third world poverty and dispaire, secondly we would not all be richer if Africa was on par with Europe because then they would have more economic clout and Europe America and China could'nt exploit them for profit, which means less profit.

You are clearly extreamly naive here. Also when you say "America" are you talking about the government? Or what? Because the goernment can say whatever it wants, ultimately it must put the interests of profit first, and the interests of profit by no means is a socially healthy and relatively rich 3rd world. Plus, even if that was their goal (which it is most definately not), its clear its not being brought about by Capitalism. Common Tomk, you know better than this.

No, no, no. I'm rich because America's rich. If America was a poor country, I'd be poor, too. I'd be richer if instead of just doing business in America, I could do business with hundreds of other wealthy countries around the world. I want the world to become rich--so I as a Capitalist could sell them stuff. Poor countries don't buy exotic smelling bath gells. Middle class people (women) do. I want lots more middle classes.

I couldn't care less about economic clout. I'm my own man (and company) I as a Capitalist could compete with the best of them. I do fine against other Americans--I'd do lots better against the world.

As a Capitalist--I'd be happy to take on all commers. (And I'll kick their ass!)

JimmyJazz

22nd April 2009, 22:32

the Khmer Rouge SAID they were Communist...and professed a Communist worldview.

Two ways of saying the same thing. Relatively meaningless both times.

Held Communst ideals (perverted though they were)

Ideals can't be capitalized. Party names are capitalized. So either you mean small-c "communism", or you are saying the same thing yet a third way.

Assuming you mean small-c "communism", please provide evidence that this political party in a pre-captialist country sought to bring about a free association of workers.

Considering that even wikipedia is more honest than you are being on this issue:

After 1960, the Khmer Rouge developed its own unique political ideas. For example, contrary to most Marxist doctrine, the Khmer Rouge considered the farmers in the countryside to be the proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat)I strongly suggest you just let this one go.

Bud Struggle

22nd April 2009, 23:15

Two ways of saying the same thing. Relatively meaningless both times. Your opinion, of course. Most of the world consdered the Khmer Rouge Communist, though. It's seems like it's Jimmy Jazz contra mundum.

Considering that even wikipedia is more honest than you are being on this issue:

I strongly suggest you just let this one go.

And what Socialist country doesn't develop its own ideals and interests? Russia did so did E. Germany and Bulgaria. Same with China. All these countries are "Communist" in respect to the way Communism looks in the REAL WORLD. I understand it's not text book Marxism--nothing is. Cambodia and the USSR are what Communism IS in the real world.

Next thing you'll be saying North Korea isn't Communist! :D

[Edit] Let me tell you how I know a country is "Communist" (that is in real world terms.) They all have one thing in common. I've seen it in the USSR, China, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Cuba. It's ubitutous in Socialist countries. It's something called the Xvost. It's a Queue. You stand in line to pick out what you want to buy. You pick it out and get a ticket. You stand in another line and pay for it. You get a receipt. Then you take that receipt and stand in a third line to pick up your puchase. You move on to the next store to buy something else....

JimmyJazz

23rd April 2009, 00:23

hurrrrr

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc101/vtm20002000/nada.jpg

RGacky3

23rd April 2009, 08:31

No, no, no. I'm rich because America's rich. If America was a poor country, I'd be poor, too. I'd be richer if instead of just doing business in America, I could do business with hundreds of other wealthy countries around the world. I want the world to become rich--so I as a Capitalist could sell them stuff. Poor countries don't buy exotic smelling bath gells. Middle class people (women) do. I want lots more middle classes.

I couldn't care less about economic clout. I'm my own man (and company) I as a Capitalist could compete with the best of them. I do fine against other Americans--I'd do lots better against the world.

As a Capitalist--I'd be happy to take on all commers. (And I'll kick their ass!)

You know there are more Millionares in Mexico than the US?
Also, the reason there are so many wealthy people in the US is because of Cheap Labor, which causes chaep products, and makes large profit, and allows Capital to be obtained rather cheap, also poor countries sell resources for less, they have less options, which makes production cheaper.

YOUR company is rich because America is rich (maybe), but America is rich because there are mega profits, and there are mega profits because of exploitation and much of that exploitation comes from the third world. Companies are not an island, the economic meltdown showed us that.

Most of the world consdered the Khmer Rouge Communist, though. It's seems like it's Jimmy Jazz contra mundum.

You know this how?

All these countries are "Communist" in respect to the way Communism looks in the REAL WORLD. I understand it's not text book Marxism--nothing is. Cambodia and the USSR are what Communism IS in the real world.

No they arn't, they don't even try to follow communist principles. Not even the most basic of communist principles are applied .... So ... it does'nt matter.

its a typical Capitalist argument, try and make it the USSR against the US, but thats not what this is about. You can't change the argument and tell us what we should be defending. Those arn't Communism in the real world, not even close.

Bud Struggle

23rd April 2009, 11:11

Those arn't Communism in the real world, not even close.

Then you can't say the economic system of Nigeria or the Congo are REAL Capitalism. You can't have it both ways--all the bad Capitalism dies around the world is still Capitalism and then if Communism runs amuck--it's "Nope, that's not us!"

I've been reading about Lenin pretty closely lately and it seems that he never wanted to intentionally corrupt Marxism. I never wanted to set up a "Leninism". He was a "true believer" and the USSR is the way it worked out. It may be the way Communism ALWAYS works out (on a large scale.)

[Edit] And actually Mexico has more millionaires than Germany not the US, but your point is taken--there is a hoarding of wealth there that is generally bad for the overall economy. But that's why the neo-Social Democracy of places like Germany or Sweden work so well.

RGacky3

23rd April 2009, 11:34

Then you can't say the economic system of Nigeria or the Congo are REAL Capitalism. You can't have it both ways--all the bad Capitalism dies around the world is still Capitalism and then if Communism runs amuck--it's "Nope, that's not us!"

Why not? How are those countries not capitalist? Do they not have private property laws? Do they not have a relatively free market?

Bud Struggle

23rd April 2009, 11:44

Why not? How are those countries not capitalist? Do they not have private property laws? Do they not have a relatively free market?

And Cambodia--didn't it have universal ownership of property, i.e. no private property? Didn't it have a controlled Socialist market?

You can't have a different set of standards for Capitalists and Communists.

And on a non realted topic---some interesting stats on where the world's millionaires are beingcreated:

http://www.wealth-bulletin.com/home/content/2451056400/

RGacky3

23rd April 2009, 13:16

And Cambodia--didn't it have universal ownership of property, i.e. no private property? Didn't it have a controlled Socialist market?

You can't have a different set of standards for Capitalists and Communists.

No it did'nt, it was 100% state controled property, and yes it did have a controlled "market" but it was'nt socialistic, because it was'nt democratic, (think of the word socialist, it pretty much maens run by society, which means democratic). So it was'nt remotely Socialistic

However, those poor Capitalist countries are very much Capitalistic, or part of the global Capitalist system.

Random Precision

26th April 2009, 17:13

No. the Khmer Rouge SAID they were Communist. Held Communst ideals (perverted though they were) and professed a Communist worldview. That's Communist.

For Marxists at least, what people label and title themselves is irrelevant. We instead look at their origins and what class interests they are serving. The Marxist definition of communism is the ideology of the class-conscious industrial proletariat. Any cursory look at the Khmer Rouge will reveal that they in fact did not originate in the working class (their leadership was entirely of petty-bourgeois intellectual origin) and their main support came from the peasant class- as I pointed out, industrial workers weren't even allowed to join the party after 1965.

So were the Khmer Rouge "communist"? Sure... as long as you're comfortable with that word being completely meaningless.

trivas7

26th April 2009, 17:30

For Marxists at least, what people label and title themselves is irrelevant.
Nonsense. You've never argued w/ Rosa Lichtenstein.

Just kidding...:)

Bud Struggle

26th April 2009, 22:22

So were the Khmer Rouge "communist"? Sure... as long as you're comfortable with that word being completely meaningless.

The word isn't "meaningless." It discribes what Communism looks like in the world. The word "Communism" if taken literally is a word like Oz or Utopia--it's doesn't discribe and actual thing that exists.

Random Precision

27th April 2009, 04:31

The word isn't "meaningless." It discribes what Communism looks like in the world.

Sigh. As I said, communism is the ideology of the class-conscious proletariat. The Khmer Rouge's ideology did not resemble that.

The word "Communism" if taken literally is a word like Oz or Utopia--it's doesn't discribe and actual thing that exists.

I'm finding it hard to piece this sentence together out of all the spelling and grammar errors. If you're saying that "it doesn't describe an actual thing that exists"- well, yes, because no one knows what "the higher stage of communism" as Marx called it, will look like.

synthesis

27th April 2009, 04:36

I think we might focus a little too much on how the Khmer Rouge's ideology differs from ours and not enough on how their circumstances led them to their "adaptation" of communist ideology. Materialist Marx would be disappointed...

RGacky3

27th April 2009, 07:36

The word "Communism" if taken literally is a word like Oz or Utopia--it's doesn't discribe and actual thing that exists.

Yes it does Tomk.

Bud Struggle

27th April 2009, 12:17

I'm finding it hard to piece this sentence together out of all the spelling and grammar errors. If you're saying that "it doesn't describe an actual thing that exists"- well, yes, because no one knows what "the higher stage of communism" as Marx called it, will look like.

Yea, sorry about the spelling and grammar (was typing at my father-in-law's and not paying enough attention to such things.)

Well that's my trouble with the "higher Stage of Communism." Nobody knows what it will look like, and that makes me slightly afraid: Maybe the USSR is the best we can do on a large scale.

The thing about the Khmer Rouge is that like ALL Communist societies that have came into being in the world--it has SOME of the characteristics of Communism, but not all of them so it's easy to pick and choose.

Again: I'm not against Communism, I'm just worried about the uncertainly of things. It's fine to be a 20 year old guy looking to reinvent the world, but if you have a family and commitments you tend to be somewhat concerned about how these things will play out if things changed. I know I'd do well in Soviet society, but I'm not so sure about my kids--on the other hand I do know they will do well under Capitalism.

RGacky3

27th April 2009, 13:07

it has SOME of the characteristics of Communism, but not all of them so it's easy to pick and choose.

like what? Less then a country like Sweeden.

Well that's my trouble with the "higher Stage of Communism." Nobody knows what it will look like, and that makes me slightly afraid: Maybe the USSR is the best we can do on a large scale.

democracy is'nt "hard" they did'nt try.

Hiero

28th April 2009, 07:09

democracy is'nt "hard" they did'nt try.

Yes it is, it is a really hard processes to millions of people to participate effectively in political decisions in society, and finding where this is possible.

And there is not thing as just "democracy". There would have been elements of democracy for peasants in Democractic Kampuchea. The whole society ran on the basis that peasants would be able to maintian the system of argarian collectivism.

I think we might focus a little too much on how the Khmer Rouge's ideology differs from ours and not enough on how their circumstances led them to their "adaptation" of communist ideology. Materialist Marx would be disappointed...

Well yeah. But using our materialist outlook we see how people's criticism is shaped by their own material world. Democractic Kampuchea and all societies that are in opposition to the western liberal political discourse all come under attack from the liberal humintarian criticism, which infects all people living in the west and the intellectuals from all over the world.

Like this idea of democracy, there needed to be more democracy. They are talking about giving more democracy to the very people who maintianed the system, the peasantary. It is just some sort of fantasy in the liberal-humaniterian view that the state and evil dictators simply maintained the system and the "people" were simple either dupes or enslaved under this system and if given the choice (democracy) would have choosen a different system. When in reality many of this people were the centre of the system maintianing it through their violence against former class oppressors, or whoever seem fit in this instance.

RGacky3

28th April 2009, 07:48

Yes it is, it is a really hard processes to millions of people to participate effectively in political decisions in society, and finding where this is possible.

Its hard if you have a massiave beaucracy, which ONLY exists when you have a strict hiarchy and a centralization of power. Again I look at the Anarchist Spain model, no one had to process the desicions and decide where it is possible, because there was no centralization of power and hiarchy, when a collective decision needed to be made it was made by those involved, if it was a big desicio involving many people, people were elected to make the desicion (not permanently).

And there is not thing as just "democracy". There would have been elements of democracy for peasants in Democractic Kampuchea. The whole society ran on the basis that peasants would be able to maintian the system of argarian collectivism.

The whole system ran on the basis that Paul Pot was the boss, everything else comes after that.

They are talking about giving more democracy to the very people who maintianed the system, the peasantary. It is just some sort of fantasy in the liberal-humaniterian view that the state and evil dictators simply maintained the system and the "people" were simple either dupes or enslaved under this system and if given the choice (democracy) would have choosen a different system. When in reality many of this people were the centre of the system maintianing it through their violence against former class oppressors, or whoever seem fit in this instance.

What are you talking about, if your talking about cambodia you have absolutely no way of knowing, they, the peasentry, had no choice, and the former "class oppressors" were just people that Paul Pot wanted dead, many of them were just city dwellers, in no way class oppressors.

Seriously, sometimes Maoists blow my mind, how detached they can be from reality because of marxist mumbo jumbo.

Bud Struggle

28th April 2009, 14:08

Like this idea of democracy, there needed to be more democracy. They are talking about giving more democracy to the very people who maintianed the system, the peasantary. It is just some sort of fantasy in the liberal-humaniterian view that the state and evil dictators simply maintained the system and the "people" were simple either dupes or enslaved under this system and if given the choice (democracy) would have choosen a different system. When in reality many of this people were the centre of the system maintianing it through their violence against former class oppressors, or whoever seem fit in this instance.

I think this is a pretty improtant point. In a lot of circumstances (though not all) there is always a sort of democracy. For what ever reason the people of the country keep the rulers in power. I think the people wanted Pinochet and Hitler and Stalin or they would have been removed. The motives of the populace, of the workers aren't always good or benevolent. the workers are always interested in theor long term self interest--sometimes the quick and dirty short term self interesst comes into play. Often the people are fed bad or misleading information--but it's still the will of the people that comes through.

As charming as I think Anarchism is, I am rather worried that even if such an order is established it would become prey to different factions that would want to advance themselves at the expense of other factions.

It just concerns me.

RGacky3

28th April 2009, 14:31

I think the people wanted Pinochet and Hitler and Stalin or they would have been removed. The motives of the populace, of the workers aren't always good or benevolent. the workers are always interested in theor long term self interest--sometimes the quick and dirty short term self interesst comes into play. Often the people are fed bad or misleading information--but it's still the will of the people that comes through.

Thats rediculous, you ignore the ENTIRE history and background of all of those rulers.

1. Pinochet, no the people wanted Slavador Alende, how do I know this? They voted him in, Pinochet came about through a military coup.

2. Hitler, hiltler did'nt run on a kill the jews and take over the world ticket, people were desperate and he seamed like he had some answers.

3. Stalin, also did'nt run on a Gulag and massive state oppression ticket, plus it was the party, not the people, that chose him.

All of these examples held the people down violently, restricted information, held total authoritarian power.

Most people don't know whats going on, are afraid to die if they try and organize anything and simply have no power over the state. Saying the will of the people comes through is insanely ignorant at best.

What your saying about factions in Anarchism, what exactly would factions for over? What could they "politic" about?

mykittyhasaboner

28th April 2009, 14:36

Its hard if you have a massiave beaucracy, which ONLY exists when you have a strict hiarchy and a centralization of power. Again I look at the Anarchist Spain model, no one had to process the desicions and decide where it is possible, because there was no centralization of power and hiarchy, when a collective decision needed to be made it was made by those involved, if it was a big desicio involving many people, people were elected to make the desicion (not permanently).
Like most of your arguments, this pretty much amounts to "they did this, and this was like that, and that worked like this". To claim that there was absolutely no hierarchy in Catalonia or even Barcelona is absurd, mind you this was going on during a civil war. This is really off topic, and I don't see how it relates to relates to Democratic Kampuchea.

The whole system ran on the basis that Paul Pot was the boss, everything else comes after that.

What a crock, and you claim Maoists are detached from reality?

Seriously, sometimes Maoists blow my mind, how detached they can be from reality because of marxist mumbo jumbo.
Really, and what "Marxist mumbo jumbo" would you be talking about?

RGacky3

28th April 2009, 15:04

To claim that there was absolutely no hierarchy in Catalonia or even Barcelona is absurd, mind you this was going on during a civil war. This is really off topic, and I don't see how it relates to relates to Democratic Kampuchea.

Mind pointing out in those areas actual static and nonconsencual hiarchies? Who had innate power? It relates to those who believe that revolution is impossible without hiarchies.

What a crock, and you claim Maoists are detached from reality?

Yes. Was Paul Pot not the man with absolute innate power in Cambodia, that controlled the population by force? Or was he just a product of material conditions, ruling on behalf of the peasentry, whatever the hell that means.

Really, and what "Marxist mumbo jumbo" would you be talking about?

For example, explaining a societies course of action, that was chosen by a dictator, meaning official policies he WROTE DOWN and GAVE ORDERS, away with some obscure reference to class politics and material conditions. For example in Cambodia, masses of people from cities wern't murdered because of material conditions, or class politics, they were ordered killed, by a person drunk with power.

Like most of your arguments, this pretty much amounts to "they did this, and this was like that, and that worked like this".

Yeah, its called facts and reality.

mykittyhasaboner

28th April 2009, 15:39

Mind pointing out in those areas actual static and nonconsencual hiarchies?
First, define "static, non consensual hierarchies.

Who had innate power?Nobody, because nobody ever has "innate" or absolute power, ever.

It relates to those who believe that revolution is impossible without hiarchies.Revolution is impossible with out hierarchies, because if there were no hierarchies (meaning one class oppressing another), then there is no need for revolution. Now on the question of organizing a revolutionary workers movement, not all workers are going to spontaneously organize with out any form or leadership or centralization, this was not the case in Spain, nor in any other actual worker's revolution. The CNT-FAI did have leadership, and they did join the popular front, so there you have it, centralization and "hierarchy".

Yes. Was Paul Pot not the man with absolute innate power in Cambodia, that controlled the population by force?Or was he just a product of material conditions, ruling on behalf of the peasentry, whatever the hell that means.He was part of a revolutionary movement that committed many mistakes and pretty much did not accomplish anything they initially set out to do, like develop socialism. So yeah I would say he is a product of material conditions. As for Pol Pot himself he was simply an opportunist who had a reactionary, anti-Marxist ideology guiding his mischievous actions.

For example, explaining a societies course of action, that was chosen by a dictator, meaning official policies he WROTE DOWN and GAVE ORDERS, away with some obscure reference to class politics and material conditions. For example in Cambodia, masses of people from cities wern't murdered because of material conditions, or class politics, they were ordered killed, by a person drunk with power.So I see your one of those people who believe political actions take place in a vacuum, unaffected by class interests and conditions that people are dealing with. There are actual reasons behind people who make decisions like that (most of the time in order to defend bourgeois class interests), and "being drunk with power" is a thin, idealistic perception of any political figure that is not grounded in reality.

You say that material conditions play no part in the supposed murder (I say supposed because you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims) of masses of people have nothing to do with the realistic conditions of Cambodia at the time, but yet they were at war with Vietnam and killings were taking place all over the region. If you really want to prove Pol Pot was simply drunk with power, than why not provide evidence suggesting that he personally ordered executions, torture, etc. That way we can actually analyze a specific incident, instead of your (so far) empty claims.

Yeah, its called facts and reality.I thought facts and reality are supposed to be presented with sourced information and systematic analysis. But I guess "this guy had absolute power, and these guys did this" is good enough for you.

RGacky3

29th April 2009, 08:49

First, define "static, non consensual hierarchies.

I hiarchy that is not, directly consented too by the people under his authority, and static in the sense that its permanent or for a determined amount of time, not set by the people under his authority.

Nobody, because nobody ever has "innate" or absolute power, ever.

Innate, means power that is not given, but power assumed, meaning he has power in his post, for example, the president, has certain powers simply because he is president.

The reason I use that word is because Leninists always chop things up and word play, even though they know damn well what I mean, so I have to be absolutely specific.

Revolution is impossible with out hierarchies, because if there were no hierarchies (meaning one class oppressing another), then there is no need for revolution.

There we go, you know DAMN well thats not what I ment. Of coarse revolutions are about braking down hiarchies.

Now on the question of organizing a revolutionary workers movement, not all workers are going to spontaneously organize with out any form or leadership or centralization, this was not the case in Spain, nor in any other actual worker's revolution. The CNT-FAI did have leadership, and they did join the popular front, so there you have it, centralization and "hierarchy".

What leadership and centralization did the CNT-FAI have? Pray tell. Did they have people with certain responsibilites, of coarse, they were elected to fulfill those. But NO ONE could tell someone something to do that he did'nt wnat to and just say "well you have to because I'm the boss" (innate authority). There was no real hiarchy in that sense.

Who said anything about spontaneously organizing? Its not spontaneous at all, its after years and years of hard work and working todard solidarity.

He was part of a revolutionary movement that committed many mistakes and pretty much did not accomplish anything they initially set out to do, like develop socialism.

They wern't mistakes, don't give me that stalinist hogwash. He did'nt trip and accidently order people shot.

As for Pol Pot himself he was simply an opportunist who had a reactionary, anti-Marxist ideology guiding his mischievous actions.

Pol Pot was an honest Maoist/Stalinist that took the ideology to its logical conclusion.

So I see your one of those people who believe political actions take place in a vacuum, unaffected by class interests and conditions that people are dealing with.

I did'nt say that, of coarse class interests and conditinos have something to do with it. But remember, when you have a dictator, and no Capitalist class, his desicions arn't really based on class anymore, he IS a class into himself.

There are actual reasons behind people who make decisions like that (most of the time in order to defend bourgeois class interests), and "being drunk with power" is a thin, idealistic perception of any political figure that is not grounded in reality.

No its not. The ACTUAL reasons peopl defend bourgeois interests is because they have a PERSONAL interest in the preservation of bourgeois power. So most power actios and desicions are ultimately based on their OWN interests which are many times attached to Class Interests. However, explaining a dictators actions away this way is compleatly rediculous and idealistic because him defending bourgeois interests after a Leninist revolution does'nt benefit him at all.

You say that material conditions play no part in the supposed murder (I say supposed because you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims) of masses of people have nothing to do with the realistic conditions of Cambodia at the time, but yet they were at war with Vietnam and killings were taking place all over the region. If you really want to prove Pol Pot was simply drunk with power, than why not provide evidence suggesting that he personally ordered executions, torture, etc. That way we can actually analyze a specific incident, instead of your (so far) empty claims.

Please explain to me, how mass shootings of the urban populations and working people to death helps a war effort or was made by material conditions? What material conditions? War? How does war cause that ... Specifically.

I thought facts and reality are supposed to be presented with sourced information and systematic analysis. But I guess "this guy had absolute power, and these guys did this" is good enough for you.

I can get facts and th esuch if you want me too, but first you gotta tell me that YOU believe that the Kama Ruge did NOT murder thousands of people in cold blood, and work many of the urban populatio nto death in worse than slavery conditions, and that Pol Pot did not approve of those things and that Pol Pot did not have control over his military.

Do you Believe that? If so I'll look up the facts.

Hiero

29th April 2009, 12:08

Its hard if you have a massiave beaucracy, which ONLY exists when you have a strict hiarchy and a centralization of power. Again I look at the Anarchist Spain model, no one had to process the desicions and decide where it is possible, because there was no centralization of power and hiarchy, when a collective decision needed to be made it was made by those involved, if it was a big desicio involving many people, people were elected to make the desicion (not permanently).

The whole system ran on the basis that Paul Pot was the boss, everything else comes after that.

What are you talking about, if your talking about cambodia you have absolutely no way of knowing, they, the peasentry, had no choice, and the former "class oppressors" were just people that Paul Pot wanted dead, many of them were just city dwellers, in no way class oppressors.

Seriously, sometimes Maoists blow my mind, how detached they can be from reality because of marxist mumbo jumbo.

A perfect example of the liberal-humanitarian analysis of society in all it's stupidity.

Are we really meant to believe that Democratic Kampuchea was a result of an idea in Pol Pots head? That bourgeiosie, kulak, peasant and worker were really just objects, deviod of agency, deviod of their own subjectivity, they merely are an object in the oriental despots fantasy?

The liberal-humanitarian thinks so, and this sort of idealist thinking leads to support for intevernetion against the free thinking and democratic west.

RGacky3

29th April 2009, 12:13

Are we really meant to believe that Democratic Kampuchea was a result of an idea in Pol Pots head? That bourgeiosie, kulak, peasant and worker were really just objects, deviod of agency, deviod of their own subjectivity, they merely are an object in the oriental despots fantasy?

You want to explain to me why what your sayaing has anything to do with my post ... specifically?

Glenn Beck

30th April 2009, 00:27

Pol Pot really undermines socialism backed as he was by the arch-communists Nixon and Deng

mykittyhasaboner

30th April 2009, 00:37

I hiarchy that is not, directly consented too by the people under his authority, and static in the sense that its permanent or for a determined amount of time, not set by the people under his authority.

Right, so basically your admitting that there were hierarchies, but everyone approved of them. I would love some of that evidence.

Innate, means power that is not given, but power assumed, meaning he has power in his post, for example, the president, has certain powers simply because he is president.

The reason I use that word is because Leninists always chop things up and word play, even though they know damn well what I mean, so I have to be absolutely specific.
More sectarian swipes eh? If you are going to try and explain a political position, then you better be specific and elaborate, or else nobody will get what you are saying.

There we go, you know DAMN well thats not what I ment. Of coarse revolutions are about braking down hiarchies.Really? I thought proletarian revolutions were about putting the working class in power? All this emphasis of eliminating hierarchies is counter productive in my opinion.

What leadership and centralization did the CNT-FAI have? Pray tell. Why are you so defensive against the idea of leadership or centralization? Its a good thing when it comes to workers movements; it means they are organized and united.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/CNT_structure.png

from Wikipedia.

Did they have people with certain responsibilites, of coarse, they were elected to fulfill those. But NO ONE could tell someone something to do that he did'nt wnat to and just say "well you have to because I'm the boss" (innate authority). There was no real hiarchy in that sense.
OK, and? When was there ever a hierarchy based upon "you work for me because I'm the boss"?

They wern't mistakes, don't give me that stalinist hogwash. He did'nt trip and accidently order people shot.Oh, so they weren't mistakes? Then your suggesting that murdering innocent people is a success? See I can use strawmans as well.

Pol Pot was an honest Maoist/Stalinist that took the ideology to its logical conclusion. I'm not very convinced. Perhaps you could try harder?

I did'nt say that, of coarse class interests and conditinos have something to do with it. But remember, when you have a dictator, and no Capitalist class, his desicions arn't really based on class anymore, he IS a class into himself.What are you on a bout? A dictator is a class into himself? Come on, don't waste my time. Pol Pot was all about the peasantry, and the Khmer Rouge's time in power was characterized by policies surrounding the organization of the peasantry.

No its not. The ACTUAL reasons peopl defend bourgeois interests is because they have a PERSONAL interest in the preservation of bourgeois power.Then explain the police force in any country, they work for payments from their bosses, yet they enforce bourgeois rule.

So most power actios and desicions are ultimately based on their OWN interests which are many times attached to Class Interests. However, explaining a dictators actions away this way is compleatly rediculous and idealistic because him defending bourgeois interests after a Leninist revolution does'nt benefit him at all.You really don't like to debate productively do you? Its seems to be all about name calling and strawmans in your arguments. Personal interests certainly do play a part in people's decisions, but you can't simply point fingers and blame everything on one individual. Nor can you assume I'm trying to explain anyone's actions away, because I haven't done anything of the sort. You, are the one who is perpetuating an idealist conception of history, by holding a sinlge individual accountable for crimes that you haven't provided any evidence for.

Also, your claim about a "Leninist" revolution in Cambodia is completely bunk, because Lenin himself was a diehard advocate of the revolutionary potential of the industrial working class; which (to the best of my knowledge) didn't play a major role, if any role, in the movement which brought the Khmer Rouge to power.

Please explain to me, how mass shootings of the urban populations and working people to death helps a war effort or was made by material conditions? What material conditions? War? How does war cause that ... Specifically.Er, its simple really. Those decisions may or may have not been made due to the situation that the Khmer Rouge were presented with. When people make choices, they factor in external conditions which can alter the outcome. I figured this was a simple fact of life, but with you it isn't I guess.

War, specifically the Second-Indochina war, was going on during this whole time, so its VERY likely that this had an impact on the Khmer Rouge's officials' decisions.

I can get facts and th esuch if you want me too, but first you gotta tell me that YOU believe that the Kama Ruge did NOT murder thousands of people in cold blood, and work many of the urban populatio nto death in worse than slavery conditions, and that Pol Pot did not approve of those things and that Pol Pot did not have control over his military.

Do you Believe that? If so I'll look up the facts.Why the hell do I have to tell you anything? I'm no Khmer Rouge apologist. I'm merely asking that you provide evidence. It is highly likely that crimes were committed, but until you show what these crimes were, using sources that aren't simply your word, then we wont get anywhere.

Hiero

30th April 2009, 03:03

Becuase you have some fairy tale fantasy that Pol Pot and bandits came along and held khmer society as hostage. And everyone else was either a dupe or slave. The fact was that much of violence was upheld by the lower oppressed classes, the peasantry against such people as the kulaks. But also the violence against urban people was perputrated and held up by the peasantry. Social systems need social actors and they need social classes to hold up power.

My point about Democractic Kampuchea was there was class war, the CPK was a comunist party, but they misdirected the class war. It's social basis was peasantry, while having lots of class hatred of bourgeiosie society, imperialism and the feudalism they can not be relied upon to build socialism. Collectivisation is progressive but it does not amount to dictatorship of the proleteriat. The Khmer Rouge made alot of mistakes.

Generall these mistakes are ideaological. However some of the criticism made against the CPK is lacking in original thought. Such as the criticism of empty cities as a ideological war against the urban bourgeiosie. Places like Phnom Penh where overcrowded with rural refugees, thoose were peasants who were part of the production of food. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea was going to face starvation at some point thankts to US bombing which obliterated the social system of production. Any Communist would have ordered the emptying of the cities to kick start the economy. The idiotic liberals view things primarily from the rights of individuals, not from any pragmatic point of national planing for instance.

RGacky3

30th April 2009, 07:55

Why the hell do I have to tell you anything?

Well, I don't keep sources around, or articles I read, so for it to be worth my while too look things up about the history of Cambodia under Pol Pot, I would need to be doing for a reason, and that reason being YOU don't believe that those crimes actually happend, so if you seirously don't believe it, then I will look up the sources.

Er, its simple really. Those decisions may or may have not been made due to the situation that the Khmer Rouge were presented with. When people make choices, they factor in external conditions which can alter the outcome. I figured this was a simple fact of life, but with you it isn't I guess.

War, specifically the Second-Indochina war, was going on during this whole time, so its VERY likely that this had an impact on the Khmer Rouge's officials' decisions.

HOW!!! HOW would mass murder of the shooting population have been related to the indochina war, specifically, you can be hypothetical here because we don't know the mind of the Khmer Rouge. What would the reasoning be?

Personal interests certainly do play a part in people's decisions, but you can't simply point fingers and blame everything on one individual. Nor can you assume I'm trying to explain anyone's actions away, because I haven't done anything of the sort. You, are the one who is perpetuating an idealist conception of history, by holding a sinlge individual accountable for crimes that you haven't provided any evidence for.

I'm blaming desicions made by individuals on that individual. Or group of individuals. If your not explaining away actions then thats fine. Its not idealist to realize that people in power are motivated by power, thats the same principle behind class struggle, when you forget that then your forgetting the whole basis of class struggle.

Also, your claim about a "Leninist" revolution in Cambodia is completely bunk, because Lenin himself was a diehard advocate of the revolutionary potential of the industrial working class; which (to the best of my knowledge) didn't play a major role, if any role, in the movement which brought the Khmer Rouge to power.

When I say leninist, I mean authoritarian socialist, I know authoritarian socialists don't like that word, because of the connotation, so I mean the socialist styles that were derived from Leninist principles, such as maoism and trotskyism. But you know what I mean.

BTW, if it was the industrial working class rather than the peasents, that the Khama Ruge had the backing from really does'nt make as more of a difference than the Khama Ruges actual power. The peasentry was'nt in power in Cambodia, and the industrial working class was'nt in power in the USSR, the Communist parties of those countries were.

Then explain the police force in any country, they work for payments from their bosses, yet they enforce bourgeois rule.

They have a personal interest in getting a pay check .... Also they have an idealistic fantasy that they are protecting their neighborhoods, not enforcing bourgeois rule. But mainly, they want a pay check! Pretty simple.

What are you on a bout? A dictator is a class into himself? Come on, don't waste my time. Pol Pot was all about the peasantry, and the Khmer Rouge's time in power was characterized by policies surrounding the organization of the peasantry.

just because Pol Pot was all about the peasantry does'nt make him a peasant. Pol Pot had authority that no one else in the country had, he had control that no one else in the country had. So HE was a Class in himself. The power he had, the peasentry did'nt have, so it doea'nt matter what policies he implimented, it does'nt change the fact of his power over others.

Oh, so they weren't mistakes? Then your suggesting that murdering innocent people is a success? See I can use strawmans as well.

Mistakes in the sense that they wern't doing them accidently. Let me ask you, do you actually not understand my statements? Or are you just misreading them for arguments sake?

they wern't mistakes, they were done on purpose. Plus success is relative, it depends what your goals are. But either way, he did'nt accidently kill innocent people.

OK, and? When was there ever a hierarchy based upon "you work for me because I'm the boss"?

LOOK AROUND YOU, thats what all hiarchies are, its innate power based on private property, its not conceded power. I don't listen to my boss at work because I want too, I do it because he's the boss.

Why are you so defensive against the idea of leadership or centralization? Its a good thing when it comes to workers movements; it means they are organized and united.

organization is a good thing. Also that CNT organization was 100% voluntary and directly elected and recallable. So its not actual leadership. Could the people recall Lenin? or Pol Pot?

Also the people leading in the CNT did'nt really have any power because their responsibilities lay directly in the hands of the people who elected them, in other words, they could loose their responsibilities at anytime, and it was all voluntary. HUUUGEEE difference.

Really? I thought proletarian revolutions were about putting the working class in power? All this emphasis of eliminating hierarchies is counter productive in my opinion.

Over who?

Right, so basically your admitting that there were hierarchies, but everyone approved of them. I would love some of that evidence.

Well, based on the fact that the "hiarchies" were directly elected and recallable, and obedience was essencially voluntary.

mykittyhasaboner

30th April 2009, 14:26

Well, I don't keep sources around, or articles I read, so for it to be worth my while too look things up about the history of Cambodia under Pol Pot, I would need to be doing for a reason, and that reason being YOU don't believe that those crimes actually happened, so if you seirously don't believe it, then I will look up the sources.
The reason is plainly fucking obvious, you need to prove what your saying. I will repeat myself, I'm sure crimes were committed, but until we see some evidence to suggest what "those crimes" were, then we aren't getting anywhere. Since you are trying to prove Pol Pot was a dictator who was absolutely drunk with power, then you should provide some sourced information suggesting that he was what you claim.

HOW!!! HOW would mass murder of the shooting population have been related to the indochina war, specifically, you can be hypothetical here because we don't know the mind of the Khmer Rouge. What would the reasoning be?
There are plenty of reasons why the Second-Indochina war had an effect on Khmer Rouge's rule, to many for me to be bothered to type. Pol Pot was just another revisionist, the worst of them all though.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf

Its not idealist to realize that people in power are motivated by power, thats the same principle behind class struggle, when you forget that then your forgetting the whole basis of class struggle.
Um, the main principle behind class struggle is that we live in a class divided society, that is ruled and controlled (mainly) by the bourgeoisie; so the proletariat and peasantry are opposed to the ruling class, and wish to overthrow them. Taking power is merely one step in this overall process, and is not the prime motivation for class struggle.

You make it seem like Pol Pot was motivated merely by preserving his own power, then tell me: what was his motivation before he got into power?

When I say leninist, I mean authoritarian socialist, I know authoritarian socialists don't like that word, because of the connotation, so I mean the socialist styles that were derived from Leninist principles, such as maoism and trotskyism. But you know what I mean.Yeah, whatever. This is so anti-historical, it's just a bunch of lumping of different movements into one ill defined category. But really I don't care how you wish to view proletarian led socialist revolutions.

They have a personal interest in getting a pay check .... Also they have an idealistic fantasy that they are protecting their neighborhoods, not enforcing bourgeois rule. But mainly, they want a pay check! Pretty simple.Police do enforce bourgeois rule; how you came to any other conclusion is beyond me. But anyways, if you admit that police only want there paycheck, then you would admit that your statement is incorrect because the police don't personally gain from bourgeois rule:
You:

No its not. The ACTUAL reasons peopl defend bourgeois interests is because they have a PERSONAL interest in the preservation of bourgeois power.This is really just part of larger issue, which you claim that people in power are only motivated by their personal gain and preservation of power. But that claim is in fact false.

just because Pol Pot was all about the peasantry does'nt make him a peasant. Your right, he was actually petit-bourgeois if my memory serves me right. He even went to study in France, where he first was introduced to Marxism by the PCF.

Pol Pot had authority that no one else in the country had, he had control that no one else in the country had. So HE was a Class in himself. The power he had, the peasentry did'nt have, so it doea'nt matter what policies he implimented, it does'nt change the fact of his power over others.
Evidence? Surely I'm not going to take your word for it.

Mistakes in the sense that they wern't doing them accidently. Let me ask you, do you actually not understand my statements? Or are you just misreading them for arguments sake?they wern't mistakes, they were done on purpose. Plus success is relative, it depends what your goals are. But either way, he did'nt accidently kill innocent people.
A mistake is a mistake, whether if it was consciously made or simply an accident. There is little doubt in my mind that Saloth really wanted to kill innocent people simply out of blood lust.

LOOK AROUND YOU, thats what all hiarchies are, its innate power based on private property, its not conceded power. I don't listen to my boss at work because I want too, I do it because he's the boss.
Hierarchies aren't based on "you do this because im the boss", that is idealist and anti-scientific. Hiearchies are a result of the conditions of society, in our case capitalist society. We have the owners of private property, and those who labor on/over it for wages given from the owner. If you know this, then don't claim they are based on "you work for me because I'm the boss'; since that negates any type of real explanation of said hierarchy.

Over who?What do you mean?

RGacky3

30th April 2009, 14:57

[/QUOTE]
The reason is plainly fucking obvious, you need to prove what your saying. I will repeat myself, I'm sure crimes were committed, but until we see some evidence to suggest what "those crimes" were, then we aren't getting anywhere. Since you are trying to prove Pol Pot was a dictator who was absolutely drunk with power, then you should provide some sourced information suggesting that he was what you claim.

Really we are discussing motivations behind atrocities. So the only reason you would need evidence would be if you believed that the autrocities did'nt happen. Do you believe that?

Anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_(1975%E2%80%931979)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields

There are plenty of reasons why the Second-Indochina war had an effect on Khmer Rouge's rule, to many for me to be bothered to type. Pol Pot was just another revisionist, the worst of them all though.

http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...rpolpotnus.pdf (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf)

That article is about how the khmer Rouge was supported by the US. You did'nt answer how, hypothetically, killing thousands of his own people, would help the Indochina war, or how that war would be the motivation behind it. When someone orders someone killed there is generally a motivation. What is the motivation?

Um, the main principle behind class struggle is that we live in a class divided society, that is ruled and controlled (mainly) by the bourgeoisie; so the proletariat and peasantry are opposed to the ruling class, and wish to overthrow them. Taking power is merely one step in this overall process, and is not the prime motivation for class struggle.

You make it seem like Pol Pot was motivated merely by preserving his own power, then tell me: what was his motivation before he got into power?

one class NOW, has POWER over another class, (thats what makes it a class), the other class wants to get rid of that power. The reason we live in a class divided society is because, again, ONE class has POWER over the other.

His motivation before he got into power? To get into power, so he could create his socialist utopia.

To suggest that he was motivated by the class struggle of the peasents or whoever else, is to suggest that he's simply a benevolent guy motivated not out of self-interest. That he has all this power and he just wants to give it away to the peasentry.

Yeah, whatever. This is so anti-historical, it's just a bunch of lumping of different movements into one ill defined category. But really I don't care how you wish to view proletarian led socialist revolutions.

All of those offshoots origionated from Leninism. You know that, I know that, what exactly are you arguing?

Police do enforce bourgeois rule; how you came to any other conclusion is beyond me. But anyways, if you admit that police only want there paycheck, then you would admit that your statement is incorrect because the police don't personally gain from bourgeois rule:
You:

Well, the police get a paycheck from the bourgeois State, so in a way they benefit from bourgeois rule. But then again, workers get checks from the bourgeois, so they all benefit from bourgeois rule under your reasoning.

Police are motivated by getting a pay check, its as simple as that, do they enforce bourgeois rule? Yeah, thats because thats what gets them a pay check. Do Mcdonalds workers benefit from people being unhealthy? Sure, in a way, is that their motivation? I doubt it.

This is really just part of larger issue, which you claim that people in power are only motivated by their personal gain and preservation of power. But that claim is in fact false.

Not only, but that comes first.

Evidence? Surely I'm not going to take your word for it.

I'll look it up, when you say that you actually think that there were others in Cambodia that had the same power as Pol Pot.

A mistake is a mistake, whether if it was consciously made or simply an accident. There is little doubt in my mind that Saloth really wanted to kill innocent people simply out of blood lust.

Well if thats the case, you can write off, the murdering of the Indians of America as a mistake, the murder of many thousands in Iraq as a mistake, even Hilters genocide as a mistake. Because none of those situations were motivated out of bloodlust. It was not a mistake, Pol Pot DID want to kill thousands of innocent (although maybe not in his demented mind) people, whatever the motivation was does'nt change the fact that he did it on purpose. Maybe if the order was "Kiss such and such people" and he accidently wrote l instead of s, THAT would be a mistake.

Hierarchies aren't based on "you do this because im the boss", that is idealist and anti-scientific. Hiearchies are a result of the conditions of society, in our case capitalist society. We have the owners of private property, and those who labor on/over it for wages given from the owner. If you know this, then don't claim they are based on "you work for me because I'm the boss'; since that negates any type of real explanation of said hierarchy.

The origional reason for that explination was to show that anarchist hiarchies are voluntarily based, and thus fundemtally different from other type of Hiarchies.

What do you mean?

Who are the proletariate having power over.

mykittyhasaboner

30th April 2009, 15:35

Really we are discussing motivations behind atrocities. So the only reason you would need evidence would be if you believed that the autrocities did'nt happen. Do you believe that?
No that is not true, evidence is needed to prove one's claims. So if you say that Pol Pot killed millions etc, etc; then you need to provide evidence, regardless of what I think.

Anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_(1975%E2%80%931979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_period_%281975%E2%80%931979))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields

The first link doesn't go to an article. As for the second, thank you for finally providing some information, although I'm terribly unsurprised that it is from wikipeida.

That article is about how the khmer Rouge was supported by the US. You did'nt answer how, hypothetically, killing thousands of his own people, would help the Indochina war, or how that war would be the motivation behind it. When someone orders someone killed there is generally a motivation. What is the motivation?

Wow, you need me to explain this? Do you understand the nature of war, imperialism? I really don't think you do, and it seems like your actively trying to not understand it.

The US was at war with Vietnam, the US supported the Khmer Rouge in hopes of weakening the Vietnamese/Soviet control of the region. Seriously read the article and quit talking out of your ass.

Frankly, I'm done wasting my time with your half-assed arguments, because you clearly have no interest in productive discussion.

danyboy27

30th April 2009, 17:25

credible evidence here:
http://www.massviolence.org

between 1.6 and 1.8 million people, around 22% of the general population.

1975-1979 Estimated overall death toll: The latest evaluation, thoroughly reviewing previous works and estimations, was made by Kiernan: “the 1975-79 death toll was between 1.671 and 1.871 million people, 21 to 24 percent of Cambodia’s 1975 population” **(Kiernan, 2003: 587).
1975 (April): Emptying the cities (for detailed accounts published, see, for example, Chandler, 1992: 246-255; Kiernan, 1996: 31-64)
The cities and towns, populated with those who had not joined the FUNK, were emptied, as the CPK had secretly decided at the end of 1974 ***(Heder, 2002a: 1), although this decision was not unanimously welcomed within the party ***(Heder, 2002b: 2-3; Kiernan, 1996: 59-61). As a consequence, between 2 and 3 million people left their home, hospitals or refugees’ camps for the countryside **(Chandler, 1992: 247; Kiernan, 1996: 48).
Kiernan suggests a death rate of 0.53% for the evacuation of Phnom Penh, i.e. around 10.600 deaths for a 2 million people city **(Kiernan, 1996: 48). An unknown death toll related to the evacuation of other cities and towns should be added.

mykittyhasaboner

30th April 2009, 20:51

Thanks spetnaz, good source.

Hiero

1st May 2009, 07:08

Showing evidence that people did die, is not evidence that it was through the will and power of one man.

I guess what I am getting at you need to take a wider outlook that includes the political, cultural and social aspects of the regime.

Rgacky3 no wonder you're in OI, because you have not original line of thought other then the offical discourse from the liberal sources.

RGacky3

1st May 2009, 20:30

So if you say that Pol Pot killed millions etc, etc; then you need to provide evidence, regardless of what I think.

So if you say that Pol Pot killed millions etc, etc; then you need to provide evidence, regardless of what I think.

I did it really quick. Because its pointless for me to go back into books and stuff for something that you agree on. THe only reason would be if you did'nt agree with me. So your request for information is'nt really about the discussion for you.

Wow, you need me to explain this? Do you understand the nature of war, imperialism? I really don't think you do, and it seems like your actively trying to not understand it.

The US was at war with Vietnam, the US supported the Khmer Rouge in hopes of weakening the Vietnamese/Soviet control of the region. Seriously read the article and quit talking out of your ass.

Frankly, I'm done wasting my time with your half-assed arguments, because you clearly have no interest in productive discussion.

There are many many examples of nations that go to war, and can engage in war without murdering thousands of innocents, and frankly I don't know why war would cause a government to have to do that. Explain please.

Showing evidence that people did die, is not evidence that it was through the will and power of one man.

I guess what I am getting at you need to take a wider outlook that includes the political, cultural and social aspects of the regime.

Rgacky3 no wonder you're in OI, because you have not original line of thought other then the offical discourse from the liberal sources.

The reason I'm in the OI has nothing to do with my refusal to only see things within the narrow marxist-leninist view.

You can look at all those aspects, however, the fact remains, people were ordered killed, and those orders came from somewhere, and the motivation for those orders came from somewhere.

Still no one has explained to me how the enviroment and war in Cambodia actually cause thousands to be executed, rather than actual orders.

Bud Struggle

1st May 2009, 20:46

Wow Gack! You're fighting them on all fronts!

Good going.:reda::thumbup::blackA:

Chambered Word

2nd May 2009, 19:29

The Cambodians weren't actually communists, they just wanted to create communal lifestyle bullshit and do it forcefully - in a way that the people would not have wanted at all, as all forms of socialism are rooted in giving power to the people for their well-being, not so a few crazies can create their ideal society based on whatever crap they've been listening to.

Personally I'm a democratic socialist, not a communist, but communist in its proper form hasn't really been practised anywhere, mainly due to the fact that the masses are still too stupid and deluded to take power for themselves and use it properly.

It always pissed me nonetheless when people give these 'communism has killed xxxx people' when it wasn't actually communism that killed them, as real communism has never in reality been tried (for long, anyway) and it certainly wasn't the ideology or people properly following it who killed them anyway. You also have to detract a figure of people who deserved it (not many, but the factor remains regardless).

Chambered Word

2nd May 2009, 19:41

No. the Khmer Rouge SAID they were Communist. Held Communst ideals (perverted though they were) and professed a Communist worldview. That's Communist.

I could find many Fascists that would profess that Hitler misused and abused Fascist principals--how seriously shoudld we then take Fascism?

Sorry, you have to take both the theory and what that theory begot no matter if it's a work of beauty or the misbourn.

We have to take responsibility for what we wish for. What holds for Fascists and Capitalists--holds for Communists, too.

They did not hold communist ideals. Forcing the people into a mould of society and killing anyone who did not agree is Stalinism, which is NOT communism, and pretty much equates to fascism.

Also, fascism is a pretty loose term, fascism is not an ideaology with tight rules and is mostly an adjective to describe someone else and almost always a perjorative. There are many different forms of fascist ideologies, just as there are many different forms of socialist ideologies. Stop bullshitting with words.

You're the kind of person who thinks National Socialism is an actual form of socialism. One can call oneself a nice person, which doesn't really mean they're necessarily a nice person.

Stop with the cheap word games and make a real point.

milk

18th July 2009, 04:00

The leaders of the CPK were not Marxists, nor any modern kind of communists. Mostly their actions were derived from a naïve belief in the Cambodian peasant commune as the ideal way of life. Industrial workers were denounced as saboteurs and not allowed to join the CPK. They did believe they were building communism but their beliefs have more in common with the Narodniki and agricultural utopians. It would be a stretch to call them Stalinists or Maoists even, because each of those ideologies undertook industrial development in the countries where they took root.

I'm sorry for bumping this thread, and this is my first post in a while, but the above is inaccurate. That in practice there may have been seeming absurdities, they were never primitivist, or the above, and never espoused such positions before or after capturing state power. They were modernisers, informed by a peculiarly concocted Marxist-Leninist framework of development, and attempted a rapid path toward the building of a socialist state.

Random Precision

18th July 2009, 05:46

I'm sorry for bumping this thread, and this is my first post in a while, but the above is inaccurate. That in practice there may have been seeming absurdities, they were never primitivist, or the above, and never espoused such positions before or after capturing state power. They were modernisers, informed by a peculiarly concocted Marxist-Leninist framework of development, and attempted a rapid path toward the building of a socialist state.

From what I have read this is not true. They did not attempt the building of a socialist state, but attempted to immediately lay the basis for a communist society, as they imagined one working. We see this in such measures as strict rationing, uniforms and the abolition of money.

Toward the end of their tenure they were forced more and more to reopen Cambodia's small number of factories and start shipping skilled workers back to the area around Phnom Penh as a result of their conflict with Vietnam, the small amount of foreign aid and the contradictions of a purely agricultural society. I think Democratic Kampuchea would have become more of a modernizing Stalinist state had the Vietnamese allowed it to survive. However in the small time they had there was no attempt to industrialize past the meager development of prewar Cambodia.

scarletghoul

18th July 2009, 06:20

Khmer Rouge were not great, but it's annoying the way some people go on about the deaths they caused as a reason to hate communism, while completely ignoring all the death and destruction caused by american imperialism in Cambodia before 1975. The American/capitalist imperialism in southeast asia killed milllions and was the main reason the CPK came to power. Also too many people ignore the fact that the capitalists later actively supported Pol Pot to try and get him back in power

milk

18th July 2009, 06:53

From what I have read this is not true. They did not attempt the building of a socialist state, but attempted to immediately lay the basis for a communist society, as they imagined one working. We see this in such measures as strict rationing, uniforms and the abolition of money.

Toward the end of their tenure they were forced more and more to reopen Cambodia's small number of factories and start shipping skilled workers back to the area around Phnom Penh as a result of their conflict with Vietnam, the small amount of foreign aid and the contradictions of a purely agricultural society. I think Democratic Kampuchea would have become more of a modernizing Stalinist state had the Vietnamese allowed it to survive. However in the small time they had there was no attempt to industrialize past the meager development of prewar Cambodia.

Then you really haven't done much reading.

As well as historical external (Vietnamese) factors, when looking at Khmer Rouge ideology, then there can be pieced together familiar theory mixed with a strong moral tendency. They did claim, at times, that they were building socialism without any known model, that they were unique. But some of it can be traced to their earlier influences, and it just depends on how you want to piece together the clues. It is true that until the 1970s those whose trajectories would send them into the Pol Pot group had never been part of the international Communist movement independent of the Vietnamese. However, their autarky once in power was only partial, and had the Vietnamese not invaded in 1978, then the regime probably would have survived. Terror would still have beaten down upon the population, but the infrastructure development would have at least been partially completed, and the situation stabilised. Year Zero is misunderstood, and is an analogy to the revolutionary calender used by the French. They never wanted to turn the clock back, but rather under their leadership, the country would make a prodigious jump into a becoming an independent industrialised socialist state by the 1990s, presumably integrated into the Communist world bloc, instead of subserviently integrated into the Capitalist bloc. This did not mean, however, simply sending the country back to a pre-civilised state, but using a class analysis which (having recognised that a working class was in short supply) created artificial divisions among the population, and saw the peasantry as the rural base from which all else would grow. Although a rural focus on the key to future industrial development was not unique to Communist thought, for one of their own (Khieu Samphan) had earlier argued for such things but using reformist measures. As for variants of Marxism-Leninism, then their politics could be roughly seen as including the convergence of a vulgar form of Maoism courtesy of Lin Biao with earlier influences borrowed from both the Vietnamese and the French Communist Party, as well as a tendency which saw intellectualism as defined by them suspect if outside of Party control. Of course there are other influences which feed into this, but I'm just being specific about Marxism-Leninism, of which there are traces that can't be ignored.

Their comprehensive development plan was also inspired by the Great Leap of China, as well as the cliche of Angkor. Angkor was a focal point in shaping a new Khmer identity, the apogee of a distant and more glorious cultural heritage, from which inspiration could be derived. It wasn't a model to be followed. They knew of the sophisticated irrigation system built under the Angkor Kings and which was a key to the success of the old Empire, yes, but the DK admiistration did not seek to replicate it, but rather surpass it with a break into modernity, in their distorted Pharaonic endeavors. After all, Prince Norodom Sihanouk's Sangkum government had also toyed with the idea of better harnessing water power for the purposes of improving the national rice yield. I do not personally believe that their rhetoric and propaganda was merely a clever ruse to con others in the Communist world into believing that the Khmer Rouge were genuine Communists in the Marxist-Leninist mould. The DK national emblem, for example, depicts not only uniform rice fields and waterworks, but has as its central focus, a factory. It was an ideal to be reached: a working class was to arrive later, in a controlled and planned manner, when a reforging of the population had laid the foundations for their coming. It is possible to see an attempt at top-down forced development within a national framework as being not too alien from other Marxist-Leninist or Communist-rule regimes elsewhere.