Pol Pot? What were his theories? [Archive]

scarletghoul

24th February 2010, 01:46

Cool questions; its good that some people actually want to learn about what happened. But I warn you, be prepared for a lot of replies to this thread that are useless like many in the thread linked to above.

I know Pol Pot was a complete asshole that killed millions of people,
I dont wanna come off as some kinda crazt PolPotist but the death that occured in Kampuchea is grossly misrepresented and unexplained in popular media. The Khmer Rouge regime was a result of the American campaign of terror in Cambodia, which killed an estimated 700,000 civilians and destroyed much of the country's infastructure. Cambodia had been in a state of Hell for decades, and the idealist nationalism of the Khmer Rouge won a lot of support in a country under imperialistic attack and where mass slaughter was a fact of life. So the Americans are as much to blame as any Cambodian. Its also worth noting that the threat of Vietnamese invasion instigated huge purges of the Party and the people, and the eventual vietnamese and vietnamese-backed forces that did overthrow the Khmer Rouge were behind a lot of the deaths in the eastern zone of the country, and caused a load of famine throughout the whole country too.

So yeah the background is a country full of extreme violence, much of it destroyed in need of reconstruction, and under constant imperialist attack.

but what exactly were his theories about socialism and how to progress through to communism?Pol Pot was pretty idealist and ultra-leftist. He tried to just build communism instantly and abolish all classes, abolish the differance between town and countryside, abolish the family, etc.
He tried to force it right away from the top down, rather than slowly developing socialism and creating the correct conditions for communism.

I know that it is the only communist regime in history (or any regime in the modern era) to ban money. But it's actually a bigger question of why other communist countries kept money around? Money is only good for private, capitalist transactions not for collective planning.Well he abolished money for the reason you say, that its a part of capitalist transaction rather than collective planning. He thought it was not needed in an ideal communist country that was being made.
But it failed miserably, and by 1978 the Communist Party of Kampuchea had decided to phase in a currency again. Though it was too late because they were shortly overthrown by the vietnamese.
The reason it failed, and the reason other communist governments have not abolished money, is because they still needed to trade with capitalist countries as well as among themselves and money is much better for this, especially when there are still seperate classes and socialism is not fully developed.

Khmer Rouge isn't the only regime to try and abolish money btw; I think the spanish anarchists tried it in areas too for example.

I know he also tried moving everybody out of the cities, because he saw cities as "parasitic".Yeah. Well this was an attempt to resolve the age-old contradiction of city and countryside. The peasants in the countryside were living pretty crap lives that had not developed with the city. The city people however prospered and developed capitalism while the peasants carried on their centuries-old toiling.
Pol and the rest saw the city as a centre of capitalist and foreign* infestation and decadence, as well as a force oppressing the countryside. The vast majority of accounts we hear from "victims of the Khmer Rouge" are from evacuated city-dwellers, because they are the ones who could write, who had money to get their message heard, and who could go to the west. Because they had such a better quality of life in the city, being moved to the countryside was a huge shock and must have seemed like slavery in comparison. In fact for the majority of peasants, life under the Khmer Rouge was not much worse than life before or after. There was always famines, brutality, etc.

*nationalism was a huge part of the khmer rouge, born between US and Vietnamese imperialism.

Also, how did he justify all the killings? Or did he leave that up to his officers(whether to kill all those people)? That's an important point too. The Khmer Rouge system was hugely decentralised. Much of the death and hardship was due to policies of local party cadre. There was huge variation in the quality of life and freedom for people in differant villages and regions.
As I said before a lot of the deaths were also due to Vietnamese invasion, and the whole situation emerged from the US destruction of the whole country.
I think Pol is responsable for much of the tragedy due to his ultra-leftist ideals and irresponsable handling of some things. He didn't seem to concerned about loss of life and suffering as viewed it as a necessary cost of building the country. But blame must also be placed at the US, Vietnam, and local party leaders.

Especially how did he justify killing people based on ethnicity when communism is supposed to be against nationalism and racism?Well the Khmer Rouge was heavily nationalist. Pol Pot was motivated as much by patriotism as he was by communism. Probably more so.
Nationalism has been a driving force in revolutions of every country oppressed by imperialism. Though the idea of nationalism itself is reactionary, a nationalist movement can be largely progressive as a force to fight imperialism. For example, nationalist feeling in Palestine is not so bad as 'british nationalism', because Palestine is oppressed and Britain is not.

So yeah Cambodia has long been subject to imperialist oppression, especially by Vietnam. Vietnam has been oppressing Cambodia for 100s of years, stealing its territory and slaughtering and subjugating its people. This oppression extended even into the revolutionary movement, with the Vietnamese Workers Party trying to control the cambodian communist movement during the vietnam war. They used the cambodian movement as a pawn, a bargaining chip, and did not show much respect to the cambodians. So the Communist Party of Kampuchea under Pol Pot broke away from vietnam and sought a path of independence and self-determination for Cambodia. In other words the nationalism was a response to centuries-old oppression. Vietnam still tried to dominate Cambodia, and when it was clear that the Khmer Rouge was persuing an idependant path, the Vietnamese invaded.

This threat and subsequent reality of Vietnamese invasion is the reason that many Vietnamese people suffered in Cambodia under Pol Pot. Populations were expelled from the country, put into camps, and sometimes massacred. It was terrible and unjustified, but well that was the reason it happened.

Anything of value in his theories?(obviously not the mass killings but maybe other aspects?)He wasn't a great theorist tbh. However a few things I admire among all the shit are-
There were some very impressive rural development projects that he initiated, much more successful than anything previous governments had tried.
He was also a genius in terms of secretive organising. For example, most of the population didn't even know the name 'Pol Pot' until one or two years after he had taken over the country. He was only known as the leader to about 200 or so top Party officials. He kept everything top secret, and this was a key reason for his winning the guerrilla war.
Personally he seems to have been quite a polite and modest man.
Umm. That's all I can think of. No proper contributions to Marxist theory afaik

The most valuble thing is to learn from his mistakes.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

24th February 2010, 02:00

Communist

24th February 2010, 02:10

Pol Pot had no theories of note, I've never heard of any either. The older thread which I linked to is where this thread should be as well.

To Learning, from Theory.

Moved.

scarletghoul

24th February 2010, 02:58

Thank you scarletghoul, that was a very informative post.

Since you seem to have a pretty broad knowledge on the subject, what was the (communist) international reaction to the Khmer Rouge taking power? To the subsequent Vietnamese invasion?
The international communist view was largely shaped by the Sino-Soviet split, with China, North Korea, and the international Maoists generally supportive of them whereas the Soviet camp wanted them gone. I dunno a lot about the thoughts of individual parties and groups on the atrocities and stuff though sorry.

When they took power I think they were viewed as just another progressive force like the Vietnamese and Laos parties. China and the USSR were competing for influence over them all and when Vietnam established itself as a Soviet ally China and its allies started giving a lot of support to Pol Pot to counter Soviet power in the region. There was a lot of hope and happiness at the inital Khmer Rouge victory. A few sympathetic westerners visited, including a journalist who was shot under mysterious circumstances and a french wife of one of the Khmer Rouge ministers who seemed to have supported the regime despite its failings. A bunch of Cambodian students returned from France, and were put to work rebuilding the country.

Khmer Rouge also had the support of some noncommunist countries as they were officially a part of the FUNK coalition (Front Uni National Du Kampuchea) with Prince Sihanouk who was a respected statesman and has ruled since the 40s. Sihanouk had no real power once the Khmer Rouge took over, but he was a useful figurehead for what was sold to many countries as a national alliance rather than a far-left revolution. Pol was a master of strategic alliance, and knew how to use other forces to advance his own.

When the Vietnamese invaded, the Khmer Rouge got support from the US and the UN as the legitimate government even though by then most people even on the Left didnt like them. By then the Maoist movement had died down in a lot of the world and the more revolutionary alternative to Soviet Communism was no longer a reality. I dunno if leftists supported the vietnamese or what as ive not really looked into this part of things sorry.

red cat

24th February 2010, 03:38

The international communist view was largely shaped by the Sino-Soviet split, with China, North Korea, and the international Maoists generally supportive of them whereas the Soviet camp wanted them gone. I dunno a lot about the thoughts of individual parties and groups on the atrocities and stuff though sorry.

When they took power I think they were viewed as just another progressive force like the Vietnamese and Laos parties. China and the USSR were competing for influence over them all and when Vietnam established itself as a Soviet ally China and its allies started giving a lot of support to Pol Pot to counter Soviet power in the region. There was a lot of hope and happiness at the inital Khmer Rouge victory. A few sympathetic westerners visited, including a journalist who was shot under mysterious circumstances and a french wife of one of the Khmer Rouge ministers who seemed to have supported the regime despite its failings. A bunch of Cambodian students returned from France, and were put to work rebuilding the country.

Khmer Rouge also had the support of some noncommunist countries as they were officially a part of the FUNK coalition (Front Uni National Du Kampuchea) with Prince Sihanouk who was a respected statesman and has ruled since the 40s. Sihanouk had no real power once the Khmer Rouge took over, but he was a useful figurehead for what was sold to many countries as a national alliance rather than a far-left revolution. Pol was a master of strategic alliance, and knew how to use other forces to advance his own.

When the Vietnamese invaded, the Khmer Rouge got support from the US and the UN as the legitimate government even though by then most people even on the Left didnt like them. By then the Maoist movement had died down in a lot of the world and the more revolutionary alternative to Soviet Communism was no longer a reality. I dunno if leftists supported the vietnamese or what as ive not really looked into this part of things sorry.

A line of thought prevalent among many third world Maoists differs a bit.

Due to the partial collaboration of USA and USSR for encircling PRC with their puppet regimes, the USA actually gave way to the USSR in Vietnam much before facing the natural strategic-offensive from Vietnamese Maoists. The CP of Vietnam was infiltrated by revisionists. Whether Ho Chi Minh himself adopted a wrong line or was successfully encircled by revisionists, is not yet known, but I remember that in 2001 most probably Prachanda had mentioned about something wrong in the Vietnamese line.

However, we consider Vietnam to have suffered a revisionist takeover by the time it attacked Cambodia. The offensive of the PRC was most certainly due to some unresolved contradictions between the Soviet and Chinese revisionists, specially because the Chinese revisionists were trying to use the previously tactical alliance with the USA to gain supremacy over South Asia.

Also, presently it is unclear whether Pol Pot had succumbed to Chinese revisionism or temporarily succeeded in applying the Maoist technique of laying one enemy on another.

But given the condition of Pol Pot in his later life, and the tendency of the bourgeoisie to engage in the worst kind of demonization of the greatest communists, I would rather believe that Pol Pot had remained a communist till the very last day of his life.

robbo203

24th February 2010, 08:16

I know Pol Pot was a complete asshole that killed millions of people, but what exactly were his theories about socialism and how to progress through to communism?

I know that it is the only communist regime in history (or any regime in the modern era) to ban money. But it's actually a bigger question of why other communist countries kept money around? Money is only good for private, capitalist transactions not for collective planning.

I know he also tried moving everybody out of the cities, because he saw cities as "parasitic".

Also, how did he justify all the killings? Or did he leave that up to his officers(whether to kill all those people)? Especially how did he justify killing people based on ethnicity when communism is supposed to be against nationalism and racism?

Anything of value in his theories?(obviously not the mass killings but maybe other aspects?)

A communist society is a moneyless society but a moneyless society is not necessarily a communist society.

Pol Pot's regime had nothing whatsoever to do with communism. If anything it was a reversion to some kind of pre-capitalist social formation. Communism is a classless stateless society in which individuals freely give according to their abilities and freely take according to their needs. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was just about as far removed from this as is possible to get.

Firstly, it was a statified class-based society which exercised brutal authoritarian power over the population. Secondly it was not a free access economy but an exchange economy where barter was the norm and rice was used as a kind of surrogate money (although conventional money was not completely abolished). Economic exchange means sectional or class ownership of the means of production - such as they were - which was effectively exercised by that class which exercised power over the population. Thirdly, labour was coerced alienated labour not the freely associated labour of a communist society.

There is no way the Khmer Rouge could have created a communist society anyway - not in isolation from the rest of the world and with such meagrely developed means of production. Nor indeed can communism emerge by being forcibly imposed from above upon a population that is unwilling or has little or no understanding of what real communism is about.

It is ludicrous to even suggest that Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge had anything to do with communism as such

Devrim

24th February 2010, 09:47

It is ludicrous to even suggest that Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge had anything to do with communism as such

I agree with all of Robbo's points, but would like to expand a little on the international situation.

The international communist view was largely shaped by the Sino-Soviet split, with China, North Korea, and the international Maoists generally supportive of them whereas the Soviet camp wanted them gone.

This is only relevant if you think that the USSR and PRC had anything to do with socialism, or the 'international communist view'.

If you hold to the analysis that both of them were imperialistic capitalist states, you reach very different conclusions.

When they took power I think they were viewed as just another progressive force like the Vietnamese and Laos parties.

Communist viewed them as tools of Chinese and ultimately US imperialism.

China and the USSR were competing for influence over them all and when Vietnam established itself as a Soviet ally China and its allies started giving a lot of support to Pol Pot to counter Soviet power in the region.

Imperialist tensions in the region, and China ever closening to the US led to wars carried out by their proxies.

When the Vietnamese invaded, the Khmer Rouge got support from the US and the UN as the legitimate government even though by then most people even on the Left didnt like them. By then the Maoist movement had died down in a lot of the world and the more revolutionary alternative to Soviet Communism was no longer a reality. I dunno if leftists supported the vietnamese or what as ive not really looked into this part of things sorry.

Some supported Vietnam. Some supported Cambodia. Communists didn't support different imperialist forces.

Devrim

Saorsa

24th February 2010, 11:04

It's also worth noting that the Khmer Rouge actually had very legitimate and very real reasons for emptying the cities. Thanks to the merciless US bombing campaign, the cities had been flooded with refugees from the countryside. In their hundreds of thousands, the peasants fled to the urban areas to try and hide from the rain of death, and also because after the destruction of their homes and crops they had nowhere to go and no way to survive.

And this is a key point. As the cities swelled, thus requiring more food from the countryside to feed everyone, the countryside emptied, thus meaning less food was produced and sent to the cities. The Khmer Rouge did not deliberately cause a famine that killed millions, they would have been unable to prevent it happening if they tried.

The Khmer Rouge seized power in a situation where the cities were full of starving refugees and there was simply no way of enough food being produced to feed them all. So they made the decision to empty the cities, and try to rebuild things from scratch - Year Zero. It's not actually insane at all, it's quite logical.

That said, the KR were not communists. They did not see the working class as the leading force in the revolutionary struggle, and did not seek progression and modernisation, but instead looked backwards, and sought to build an agrarian communal utopia. This isn't Marxism, and it certainly isn't Maoism, despite what some liars and idiots often claim.

Uppercut

24th February 2010, 11:39

The only thing I might want to add is that he waited till after Mao's death to called himself a "Maoist", which leads me to believe that he was trying to please whoever he thought would give Cambodia the most aid.

scarletghoul

24th February 2010, 13:35

I dont remember ever reading him calling himself a Maoist. Are there any sources for that

And yeah Alastair thats true about emptying the cities; cant believe i forgot to say that

Due to the partial collaboration of USA and USSR for encircling PRC with their puppet regimes, the USA actually gave way to the USSR in Vietnam much before facing the natural strategic-offensive from Vietnamese Maoists. The CP of Vietnam was infiltrated by revisionists. Whether Ho Chi Minh himself adopted a wrong line or was successfully encircled by revisionists, is not yet known, but I remember that in 2001 most probably Prachanda had mentioned about something wrong in the Vietnamese line.
Yeah Vietnam wasnt always Soviet aligned. During the war they got support from both USSR and PRC, and were very maoist influenced. They only established themselves in the USSR sphere a few years after the war. However the tensions between the Vietnamese and Cambodian communists were existing before the Vietnamese turned revisionist, due to Vietnam controlling the Cambodian movement and trying to manipulate it for themselves.

But given the condition of Pol Pot in his later life, and the tendency of the bourgeoisie to engage in the worst kind of demonization of the greatest communists, I would rather believe that Pol Pot had remained a communist till the very last day of his life.
Actually the Khmer Rouge officially abandoned the goal of communism towards the end of their existance in the 90s I think. Not sure exactly why and how much they meant it tho

Invincible Summer

25th February 2010, 18:50

Didn't Pol Pot have some sort of irrational fear/hate towards people who wore glasses?

red cat

25th February 2010, 19:16

http://www.sovlit.com/sisters/trotsky1.jpg
:lol:

If you don't delete this picture then I will report it and troll Trot threads on top of it. You want that ?

scarletghoul

25th February 2010, 19:35

Didn't Pol Pot have some sort of irrational fear/hate towards people who wore glasses?
Ive looked for info on the glasses thing and havnt come across any proper source that says he persecuted people just because they wore glasses. That allegation is usually just mentioned in passing as part of the usual sensationalist 'killed millions of people' articles.
Its quite possible that there were a few incidents of people being singled out for their glasses. Intellectuals were heavily persecuted, and glasses was an obvious sign that someone was likely to be intellectual or well educated. The people evacuated from the cities were initially treated as second class citizens. However i dont think there was an institutionalised policy of killing everyone with glasses or whatever. Maybe one or two local cadre acted in that irrational way but Pol himself and the rest of the national leaders never done anything quite that silly.

red cat

25th February 2010, 19:41

I think that we should wait for a Maoist party of Cambodia to announce its line on Pol Pot. Or even a statement by one of the big CPs of South Asia can suffice.

Devrim

26th February 2010, 11:52

I think that we should wait for a Maoist party of Cambodia to announce its line on Pol Pot. Or even a statement by one of the big CPs of South Asia can suffice.

Yes, let's wait for one armed anti-working class gang to asses another. That is sure to give us an unbiased objective opinion.

Devrim

red cat

26th February 2010, 12:06

Yes, let's wait for one armed anti-working class gang to asses another. That is sure to give us an unbiased objective opinion.

Devrim

No. I now think that we should rather listen to the opinion of parties of cowardly armchair-revolutionaries who don't have enough guts to challenge the state.

Devrim

1st March 2010, 17:15

No. I now think that we should rather listen to the opinion of parties of cowardly armchair-revolutionaries who don't have enough guts to challenge the state.

I don't think that questioning people's personal courage has anything to do with it at all. The idea that people adopt political positions because they don't have the 'guts' to fight 'people's war' is plainly absurd. Even if I wasn't personally brave enough to be up in the mountains with the Maoists, I could still hold such positions and argue for them in public, if I was so inclined. Much like you do.

Actually though, in the Philippines all of our members are ex-Maoist militants including people who spent twenty years in guerilla armies as political commissionaires of the NPA, and regional committee members of the PKP. In India, especially in West Bengal, many of our members are ex-Maoist militants including one who was nationally known, and spent 8 years in prison. People don't change their politics after decades because they suddenly become frightened, but because they were convinced that Maoism offered no way forward for the working class.

Devrim

red cat

1st March 2010, 22:17

I don't think that questioning people's personal courage has anything to do with it at all. The idea that people adopt political positions because they don't have the 'guts' to fight 'people's war' is plainly absurd. Even if I wasn't personally brave enough to be up in the mountains with the Maoists, I could still hold such positions and argue for them in public, if I was so inclined. Much like you do.

Actually though, in the Philippines all of our members are ex-Maoist militants including people who spent twenty years in guerilla armies as political commissionaires of the NPA, and regional committee members of the PKP. In India, especially in West Bengal, many of our members are ex-Maoist militants including one who was nationally known, and spent 8 years in prison. People don't change their politics after decades because they suddenly become frightened, but because they were convinced that Maoism offered no way forward for the working class.

Devrim

I am not referring to you any single person in my post. The whole left communist movement does not organize any armed struggles anywhere.

Not only your organization; in India, even the state-militia of Salwa Judum has many ex-Maoists. People take up all kinds of reactionary positions when they quit fighting for the revolution.

By the way, could you please provide the names of your organizations and its whereabouts in India and the Philippines ? And who is this nationally known ex-Maoist you are talking about ?

Devrim

2nd March 2010, 09:06

I am not referring to you any single person in my post. The whole left communist movement does not organize any armed struggles anywhere.

Yes, we don't. It is because we don't think that there is anything at all socialist about leftist or nationalist groups organising armed struggles. It has nothing to do with the working class.

Not only your organization; in India, even the state-militia of Salwa Judum has many ex-Maoists. People take up all kinds of reactionary positions when they quit fighting for the revolution.

I'd imagine that there are lots of ex-Maoists everywhere. The Maoist movement is large today and was massive between 1968-72.

By the way, could you please provide the names of your organizations and its whereabouts in India and the Philippines ?
Our organisation is called the ICC:
इंटरनेशनल कम्*युनिस्*ट करण्*ट in Hindi.
ইন্টারন্যাশানাল কম্যুনিস্ট কারেন্ট in Bengali.
Internasyunal na Komunistang Tunguhin in Tagalog.

Our address in India is:
POB 25, NIT, Faridabad, 121001, Haryana, India
Due to the political situation in the Philippines we don't have a postal address there.

And who is this nationally known ex-Maoist you are talking about ?

You don't really expect me to name individual militants on line do you?

Devrim

Saorsa

2nd March 2010, 09:08

You don't really expect me to name individual militants on line do you?

While I appreciate the need for security, if the guy's an ex-Maoist now identified with the ICC and is 'internationally known' as such how would it put him in any more danger than he's already in?

Devrim

2nd March 2010, 09:57

While I appreciate the need for security, if the guy's an ex-Maoist now identified with the ICC and is 'internationally known' as such how would it put him in any more danger than he's already in?
Actually I said "nationally known". It doesn't change the point though. We don't name people in public.

Devrim

Niccolò Rossi

2nd March 2010, 11:15

Actually I said "nationally known". It doesn't change thecpoint though. We don't name people in public.

Ironically this is coming from the same person who when asked about his real life political activity on revleft by Yehuda Stern, insulted him and replied that this was a 'revolutionary faux pas' despite his anonmity.

red cat

2nd March 2010, 11:21

Yes, we don't. It is because we don't think that there is anything at all socialist about leftist or nationalist groups organising armed struggles. It has nothing to do with the working class.

I don't quite understand your logic here. How is your opinion of the nature of other groups keeping you left communists from organizing armed struggle ?

I'd imagine that there are lots of ex-Maoists everywhere. The Maoist movement is large today and was massive between 1968-72.

Actually it is larger now than in 1968-72.

Our organisation is called the ICC:
इंटरनेशनल कम्*युनिस्*ट करण्*ट in Hindi.
ইন্টারন্যাশানাল কম্যুনিস্ট কারেন্ট in Bengali.
Internasyunal na Komunistang Tunguhin in Tagalog.

Our address in India is:
POB 25, NIT, Faridabad, 121001, Haryana, India
Due to the political situation in the Philippines we don't have a postal address there.

Thank you.

You don't really expect me to name individual militants on line do you?

Devrim

If he is already nationally known then it won't harm him. I think that you might be making a mistake. Ex-Maoists in India associate with "parliamentary Naxalism", not left communism.

red cat

2nd March 2010, 11:26

Ironically this is coming from the same person who when asked about his real life political activity on revleft by Yehuda Stern, insulted him and replied that this was a 'revolutionary faux pas' despite his anonmity.

I am not nationally known, and left communism is not outlawed in India, as far as I know. Even if it was, the fact that this Maoist turned left communist was nationally known proves that it is safe to name him here. For example we can name Jose Maria Sison, Koteshwar Rao, Muppala Laxman Rao, Mohan Baidya, Pushpa Kamal Dahal etc. without causing them any trouble.

You really are an expert in comparing situations. :)

Devrim

3rd March 2010, 14:42

I don't quite understand your logic here. How is your opinion of the nature of other groups keeping you left communists from organizing armed struggle ?

We think that communist revolution is something which is made by the working class, not by political groups acting 'on their behalf'. We also don't think that guerilla warfare is a method that is useful to the working class.

Actually it is larger now than in 1968-72.

It may will be. It is certainly massive now. I was in West Bengal for some political meetings a couple of weeks ago. It certainly dominates the media.

While I appreciate the need for security, if the guy's an ex-Maoist now identified with the ICC and is 'internationally known' as such how would it put him in any more danger than he's already in?

If he is already nationally known then it won't harm him.

We don't name people. Even if it would do him no harm. We don't do it.

I think that you might be making a mistake. Ex-Maoists in India associate with "parliamentary Naxalism", not left communism.

I am not making a mistake. There were a lot of Maoists at the time. It is hardly surprising that a few of them went to left communism.

Ironically this is coming from the same person who when asked about his real life political activity on revleft by Yehuda Stern, insulted him and replied that this was a 'revolutionary faux pas' despite his anonmity.

I am not nationally known, and left communism is not outlawed in India, as far as I know. Even if it was, the fact that this Maoist turned left communist was nationally known proves that it is safe to name him here. For example we can name Jose Maria Sison, Koteshwar Rao, Muppala Laxman Rao, Mohan Baidya, Pushpa Kamal Dahal etc. without causing them any trouble.

You really are an expert in comparing situations. :)

I think that your refusal to even say which country you are in is quite amusing considering that if some state agency wanted to know it wouldn't be very difficult to get your IP address from the site.

Devrim

red cat

3rd March 2010, 17:04

We think that communist revolution is something which is made by the working class, not by political groups acting 'on their behalf'. We also don't think that guerilla warfare is a method that is useful to the working class.

What is the reason for rejecting guerrilla warfare as a useful method altogether ?

It may will be. It is certainly massive now. I was in West Bengal for some political meetings a couple of weeks ago. It certainly dominates the media.

We don't name people. Even if it would do him no harm. We don't do it.

But you should be at least able to prove the claims you make. Otherwise we cannot be sure that this ex-Maoist turned left-communist really exists.

I am not making a mistake. There were a lot of Maoists at the time. It is hardly surprising that a few of them went to left communism.

Left communism is so little known in South Asia that I really doubt the correctness of your information. However, since you refuse to name this "nationally known" ex-Maoist who has joined your ranks, it is impossible for us to verify.

I think that your refusal to even say which country you are in is quite amusing considering that if some state agency wanted to know it wouldn't be very difficult to get your IP address from the site.

Devrim

True. But I did not claim anything that would make my nationality important to any of my posts. I always try to support my claims about different societies and organizations with documents available online.

black magick hustla

4th March 2010, 08:20

Who the hell asks to name militants of an organization?

I don't see what is so hard to believe that there are ex maoists in the ICC. maoism is huge in india and the phillippines. Its like saying that there are no ex anarchists in the ICC.

Devrim

4th March 2010, 08:33

What is the reason for rejecting guerrilla warfare as a useful method altogether ?

I think a more relevant question is asking what the reason for thinking it is in anyway useful at all, or has anything to do with the working class.

But you should be at least able to prove the claims you make. Otherwise we cannot be sure that this ex-Maoist turned left-communist really exists.

Welll no you can't. The you can't be sure that 'I' really exist. I could be a sixteen year old girl in Waco, Texas. Either you believe me or you don't. I don't really care either way.

Left communism is so little known in South Asia that I really doubt the correctness of your information. However, since you refuse to name this "nationally known" ex-Maoist who has joined your ranks, it is impossible for us to verify.

Yes, left communism is very little known in SE Asia. Does that me that the very few militants we have can't come from Maoist backgrounds?

But I did not claim anything that would make my nationality important to any of my posts. I always try to support my claims about different societies and organizations with documents available online.

As with the hilarious claims you made about women workers in Bangladesh or contraception in Muslim countries.

Devrim

red cat

4th March 2010, 08:37

Who the hell asks to name militants of an organization?

Devrim has claimed that this "militant" of yours is already nationally known in India. This makes it obvious that telling his name won't harm him in any way. I don't see why you have any objection or difficulty in writing his name here, if he really exists, that is.

I don't see what is so hard to believe that there are ex maoists in the ICC. maoism is huge in india and the phillippines. Its like saying that there are no ex anarchists in the ICC.

Maoism is huge in India and the Philippines does not mean that ex- Maoists will stream into any organization containing not even a hundred people.

red cat

4th March 2010, 08:50

I think a more relevant question is asking what the reason for thinking it is in anyway useful at all, or has anything to do with the working class.

I get your point. With you denying the class character of almost every new democratic and socialist revolutions in history, I really cannot prove anything.

Welll no you can't. The you can't be sure that 'I' really exist. I could be a sixteen year old girl in Waco, Texas. Either you believe me or you don't. I don't really care either way.

You haven't claimed that you are a nationally known personality. I couldn't care less even if you were a teen from Texas or a Japanese octogenarian.

Yes, left communism is very little known in SE Asia. Does that me that the very few militants we have can't come from Maoist backgrounds?

May be a few can. But the chances that a nationally known ex- Maoist will join you are extremely low.

As with the hilarious claims you made about women workers in Bangladesh or contraception in Muslim countries.

Devrim

The claim that I made about Bangladeshi women workers, as far as I remember, was a general one about working women in South Asia. I was not informed about the Bangladeshi garments industry very well. But my claim holds true for many other industries.

I have met workers from Islamic countries, and I know how the Islamic system forbids contraception.

scarletghoul

5th March 2010, 03:06

Actually Devrim is correct. I've got some Filipino ICC guy on FaceBook who says he was political commissar for an NPA unit for 20 years. Probably the same person Devrim's talking about.. He's pretty interesting to talk to, much better than most of the left communists on here. I've no idea how famous he is or anything though.

His FB page isnt in his real name; would it be ok to give it out ?

red cat

5th March 2010, 03:47

Devrim

5th March 2010, 06:05

Devrim was talking about someone from India, specifically from West Bengal. If he names that person, we can ask comrade pranabjyoti and verify.

I know that this is a deep philosophical discussion, and that some of the terms that have been used may be difficult for people to understand particulary if English is not their native language.

If you could just clarify which part of this sentence seemed to confuse you then maybe I could try to explain it more clearly:

We don't name people in public.

Devrim

Devrim

5th March 2010, 06:08

His FB page isnt in his real name; would it be ok to give it out ?

I don't think it is really OK to give out people's personal contact details without their permission in any case whether political or not.

Devrim

black magick hustla

5th March 2010, 06:45

Maoism is huge in India and the Philippines does not mean that ex- Maoists will stream into any organization containing not even a hundred people.
there are more than a hundred people in the icc. second, your argument makes no sense. its like claiming no ex democrat is going to stream to an organization with less than a hundred people :rolleyes:

Niccolò Rossi

5th March 2010, 11:15

I don't think it is really OK to give out people's personal contact details without their permission in any case whether political or not.

In scarletghoul's defence, a publicly viewable, political facebook account is hardly personal contact details. Facebook was actually something he and I discussed. He showed me his and encouraged me to make one also, which I have. I was and still am dubious about it's usefulness, however he seems to put it to good use (to be honest it seems to be the only ICC account which is used at all).

What I'm more suprised by his how openly and in how much detail he is willing to admit about his political background online.I think he knows what he is doing though.

Small Geezer

5th March 2010, 11:29

By the way, could you please provide the names of your organizations and its whereabouts in India and the Philippines ? And who is this nationally known ex-Maoist you are talking about ?

Purge on!

red cat

5th March 2010, 11:39

I know that this is a deep philosophical discussion, and that some of the terms that have been used may be difficult for people to understand particulary if English is not their native language.

If you could just clarify which part of this sentence seemed to confuse you then maybe I could try to explain it more clearly:

Devrim

This type of mockery only exhibits your desperation to cover up the fact that you cannot prove the claims you make.

If you won't name members of your organization, then please refrain from boasting that they are nationally known ex-Maoists and so on. Your principles and your actions are not politically compatible.

red cat

5th March 2010, 11:42

there are more than a hundred people in the icc. second, your argument makes no sense. its like claiming no ex democrat is going to stream to an organization with less than a hundred people :rolleyes:

Well, it is not totally impossible. But generally renegades tend to choose more effective forms of revisionism. In India left-communists have no influence. So, that is supposed to be a poor choice for anyone who wants to delude the working class.

In general, ex-Maoists ( as in the revolutionary Maoist parties ) tend to choose parties that uphold Maoism in words but oppose the peoples' war.

pranabjyoti

5th March 2010, 14:27

So far, if by the word "Maoist", someone mean to say former naxalites, I don't know anybody who had later turned into "left communist" ("anarchist" in my opinion). Anarchism and trotskyism is very very weak in India. I personally know some people, whom I can say as "left communist", but their numbers very very very ...... small in the vast population of India.
Though, the naxalbari movement has quite a lot of anarchist and other petty-bourgeoisie tendency and inclination, for which it has suffered a lot and some of those former "anarchist" leaders (like Ashim Chatterjee, Kanu Sanyal and some others) are now nothing more than mere "revisionists" and often they talk in the same way regarding CPI(Maoist) as the rulers of India.
So far, what I can understand that "left communism", "anarchism" are nothing but basically petty-bourgeoisie ideology and India lacks a well defined petty-bourgeoisie class to hold the flags of those ideologies. This kind of ideologies grows well in the comparatively calm and developed and secured "democratic" weather of the West. In a semi-feudal underdeveloped country like India, it has no future in reality.

black magick hustla

5th March 2010, 23:16

So far, if by the word "Maoist", someone mean to say former naxalites, I don't know anybody who had later turned into "left communist" ("anarchist" in my opinion). Anarchism and trotskyism is very very week in India. I personally know some people, whom I can say as "left communist", but their numbers very very very ...... small in the vast population of India.

Of course they are small. left communism is a tiny movement. It is tiny here in the US and it is tiny in India.

[quote}

So far, what I can understand that "left communism", "anarchism" are nothing but basically petty-bourgeoisie ideology and India lacks a well defined petty-bourgeoisie class to hold the flags of those ideologies. This kind of ideologies grows well in the comparatively calm and developed and secured "democratic" weather of the West. In a semi-feudal underdeveloped country like India, it has no future in reality.[/QUOTE]

Of course this is unfounded bullshit. Devrim lives in Turkey, I am mexican, and one of the biggest sections lies in Mexico.

Maosim is the byproduct of a decomposing petit bourgeois intelligentsia. You just have to take a peek at the class background of the most important maoist leaders.

red cat

5th March 2010, 23:25

Maosim is the byproduct of a decomposing petit bourgeois intelligentsia. You just have to take a peek at the class background of the most important maoist leaders.

Prachanda: proletarian (school teacher)

Baburam Bhattarai: peasant family

Ganapati: proletarian (school teacher)

Kishenji: proletarian (school teacher)

Jose Maria Sison: proletarian (university professor)

black magick hustla

5th March 2010, 23:34

red cat

5th March 2010, 23:41

prachanda - comes from a landlord family

That allegation has already been taken care of here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nepal-maoists-launch-t129757/index.html?p=1682449&highlight=landlord#post1682449) .

Искра

6th March 2010, 01:13

So far, what I can understand that "left communism", "anarchism" are nothing but basically petty-bourgeoisie ideology and India lacks a well defined petty-bourgeoisie class to hold the flags of those ideologies. This kind of ideologies grows well in the comparatively calm and developed and secured "democratic" weather of the West. In a semi-feudal underdeveloped country like India, it has no future in reality.
Like on Balkans? I didn't know that bourgeoisie people are unemployed, that they work in shipyard, in factory, that they produce surplus values to ex-Leninist's, that they are on the dole, that they work 3 jobs to pay the rent. Fuck it, probably they are bourgeoisie because they refuse to take a part in nationalist movements and they are using direct action on their workplaces instead of parliament.

Seriously you Leninist should get out from your 1860's cave. Proudhon is not anarchist, neither is Stirner... Anarchism is working class ideology.

Autonome

6th March 2010, 01:38

Искра

6th March 2010, 02:34

Anarchism is a liberal ideology and therefore can span from Sorel to Bakunin. It always seems strange to me that for every anarchist that actually does anything, there will always be several other anarchists prepared to step forward to protest that these are, 'not real anarchists'.
Sorel was anarchist?! Have you been on lobotomy?

And for your "not real anarchist" part I can only say: "Original" Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism #1, #2, #3..., Maoism, Hoaxhaism, Left Communism, Eurocommunism... Who's real communist?

Also, your "Marxist" critics of anarchism is way too in 1860's and it don't make any sense today. It's quite amusing how all that crap is based on Proudhon, who wasn't against free market or, later, the state. So, tell me what's anarchist about it?

And who are you to judge who's doing something and who's not? Like you know who m I?

Autonome

6th March 2010, 08:15

Sorel was anarchist?! Have you been on lobotomy?

And for your "not real anarchist" part I can only say: "Original" Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism #1, #2, #3..., Maoism, Hoaxhaism, Left Communism, Eurocommunism... Who's real communist?

Also, your "Marxist" critics of anarchism is way too in 1860's and it don't make any sense today. It's quite amusing how all that crap is based on Proudhon, who wasn't against free market or, later, the state. So, tell me what's anarchist about it?

And who are you to judge who's doing something and who's not? Like you know who m I?

I didn't judge anyone, I just thought that anarchists should accept that they are a 'broad church'. A bit like Marxists. And yes Sorel was an anarchist, the 1860s is a period of history and therefore it did exist. Consequently anarchists in that time are still to be defined as anarchists.

Devrim

6th March 2010, 10:13

Prachanda: proletarian (school teacher)
Ganapati: proletarian (school teacher)
Kishenji: proletarian (school teacher)

I seem to remember this poster arguing that in countries such as India, school teachers are not proletarians, but petit-bourgeois:

Why do third-world Maoists classify students and teachers as petit-bourgeois?

Consider India, for example. A proletarian there, who engages in physical work, owns almost nothing. He can barely earn enough to feed his family.

Of course, the government claims that it provides free education up to a certain level. But in general the schools concerned are so low-quality, that the students learn practically nothing. There is a scheme under which each student is supposed to be getting a free-meal in school everyday. The money allotted for this scheme is almost fully gobbled up by bureaucrats and other opportunists in various levels. So what reaches the students is generally a handful rejected and rotting foodstuff.

Many dedicated teachers in such schools ( though relatively they are a minority) have explained why the students coming from proletarian families learn nothing. For them, its a bit of work in the factory starting in the early morning ( yes, I am talking about children under sixteen )and no breakfast. As a result, they mostly sleep during the classes before lunch. So even if some teacher tries to teach, the outcome is void. After lunch, the children leave in order to work again.

As they grow up, the mid-day meal(as it is called there) becomes too meagre for their ever growing bodies. So they have to leave school before they complete even the primary level of education. There is another reason to this which I will explain next. Anyway, you will find almost no proletarian student who has crossed the primary level in India.

India, being semi feudal - semi colonial , is probably home to the worst caste -system ever. There is a notion of "the laborer's son becoming nothing but a laborer". So, what a person will become is decided by what "caste" he belongs to. Of course, very few lower caste people do create exceptions by having good luck and fighting viciously all their lives, but mostly the story is very tragic. There are many instances each year were proletarian students who excelled in academics while starving are tortured or sexually abused to such a level by their batch-mates and seniors in college, that they either die or commit suicide. Even in primary-schools, proletarian ( who generally belong to the lower castes and are called "dalits") children are asked to clean toilets ( for no wages, of course), because that is what they are "meant for".

On the other hand, teachers, even those coming from the lowest levels of the petite-bourgeoisie, have a much higher standard of living. Most of them belong to the higher castes. To them, physical labor is a taboo. Of course, some of them are getting so low salaries now that they are turning revolutionary. But in addition to their salary, many of them own some small business or land, and they also teach students from the higher leveles of the petite-bourgeoisie as "private tutors". This often forms a good chunk of their income. In general, they view physical laborers as inferior to them, and till today, most are neutral or oppose the revolution even in areas where Maoists have their influence, as opposed to the participation of the entire proletarian population.

It must be clear by now that almost all the students in high-school and college come from even higher classes. I am not going into further details.

Is this different in Nepal. Is this difference caused by the fact that Nepal is obviously a much richer country than India, which is reflected in the fact that it has less than half of the GDP per head of India, and therefore that analysis doesn't apply, or is it more connected to the fact that the leadership of the Nepali Maoists happen to haver been teachers.

We have people who are teachers in India, but that we think that they war workers and don't have to engage in justifying it. Incidentally, of our comrades in India, most of the ones who were teachers in West Bengal, and the only two that I met who came from the Bramhim caste, both happened to come from that most proletarian of movements Maoism.

On a more serious note, the Maoist movement in India appeals to the poorest levels of society, and that is where the vast majority of its militants come from. Its leadership tends to come from the sociological 'middle class', which it should be remembered is not a category, which is in anyway useful to communists except as mayabe as a descriptive term. It has extremely little support amongst the working class.

Devrim

red cat

6th March 2010, 10:59

I seem to remember this poster arguing that in countries such as India, school teachers are not proletarians, but petit-bourgeois:

True. But as far as I remember, you remained consistently silent on this topic all the while your comrades argued that teachers are in fact proletarians. Why this selective silence ?

And what is the left communist line on third world teachers ?

Is this different in Nepal. Is this difference caused by the fact that Nepal is obviously a much richer country than India, which is reflected in the fact that it has less than half of the GDP per head of India, and therefore that analysis doesn't apply, or is it more connected to the fact that the leadership of the Nepali Maoists happen to haver been teachers.

We have people who are teachers in India, but that we think that they war workers and don't have to engage in justifying it. Incidentally, of our comrades in India, most of the ones who were teachers in West Bengal, and the only two that I met who came from the Bramhim caste, both happened to come from that most proletarian of movements Maoism.

On a more serious note, the Maoist movement in India appeals to the poorest levels of society, and that is where the vast majority of its militants come from. Its leadership tends to come from the sociological 'middle class', which it should be remembered is not a category, which is in anyway useful to communists except as mayabe as a descriptive term. It has extremely little support amongst the working class.

Devrim

First let us have a concrete line from left communists here on teachers, the middle-class and the petite bourgeoisie in general, then we will debate.

Devrim

6th March 2010, 11:08

True. But as far as I remember, you remained consistently silent on this topic all the while your comrades argued that teachers are in fact proletarians. Why this selective silence ?

And what is the left communist line on third world teachers ?

First let us have a concrete line from left communists here on teachers, the middle-class and the petite bourgeoisie in general, then we will debate.
Teachers are of course workers.

There is no 'selective silence'. I just didn't comment because it is so obviouly true.

Devrim

red cat

6th March 2010, 11:21

Teachers are of course workers.

There is no 'selective silence'. I just didn't comment because it is so obviouly true.

Devrim

Then what exactly is the point of your previous post ?

Devrim

6th March 2010, 12:35

Then what exactly is the point of your previous post ?

I was just pointing out the utter inconsistency in your approach where class is not at all connected to the communist view and the relationship to the means of production, but with whatever you find expedient at the time. Teachers in India are not working class but instead petit-bourgoies, whereas in Nepal, for no other reason that I can see than the fact the a few Maoist leaders used to be teachers they are proletarians.

Devrim

red cat

6th March 2010, 13:07

I was just pointing out the utter inconsistency in your approach where class is not at all connected to the communist view and the relationship to the means of production, but with whatever you find expedient at the time.

Actually I have given up explaining certain things to left communists. That is why I proceed to argue starting with your own beliefs.

Teachers in India are not working class but instead petit-bourgoies, whereas in Nepal, for no other reason that I can see than the fact the a few Maoist leaders used to be teachers they are proletarians.

Devrim

Just in your previous post you agreed on the fact(or at least our assumption for now) that teachers are working class. :rolleyes:

pranabjyoti

6th March 2010, 13:42

I want to say all that PLEASE DON'T JUDGE A PERSON ONLY BY HIS/HER CLASS BACKGROUND. History is full of examples that a single person can certainly rise over or fall below his/her class. Kindly read "What is to be done" by Lenin and stop this useless argument here. We have to judge a leader by his/her actions only, not by his/her class background, instead at present which class does he/she represents.
Moreover, petty-bourgeoisie as a class is very much volatile in nature and is constantly shifting from one point to another. Therefore, during the 20th century, a huge of leaders of proletariat rises from the petty-bourgeoisie class.
BOTH MARX AND ENGELS ARE FROM A "NON-PROLETARIAT" FAMILY, BUT ONLY GOBBETS CAN DENY BOTH OF THEM FOR JUST THIS REASON. Actually, Marx himself was dependent on the assistance from Engels, which in fact came from his (Engels's) family business. I hope none here going to describe Marx as a "vermin, who lived by sucking blood of the poor etc" type of adjectives.

Nosotros

6th March 2010, 19:10

Wasn't Pol Pot against modern technology?

Devrim

7th March 2010, 07:11

Just in your previous post you agreed on the fact(or at least our assumption for now) that teachers are working class. :rolleyes:

Go back and read it again. Of course I think that teachers are workers. Here I explaining the inconstancies in your argument, not my own views.

Devrim

red cat

7th March 2010, 08:07

Go back and read it again. Of course I think that teachers are workers. Here I explaining the inconstancies in your argument, not my own views.

Devrim

But I just want to make things easier for you. Moreover, if you think that teachers are workers, then you shouldn't complain about the class background of Maoist leaders in the first place.

Sendo

7th March 2010, 08:11

Wasn't Pol Pot against modern technology?

Check the last two pages, there's no way in hell you can get this thread on topic again, but anyway,...there is some truth to that statement. It's not like Pol Pot thought electricity was the devil or refused to handle firearms, but Khmer Rouge did go for an agrarian communal coercive utopia and Khmer Rouge could have been anywhere between saying "we will industrialize as soon as we can" and "our money-less communism doesn't need it". It's really hard to get evidence for either case. On the one hand, intellectual, cosmopolitan, urban lifestyles were impossible given the bombing campaigns, but on the other hand, a "Year Zero" project in attempted isolation in such a connected and hostile world was insanity. For whatever reason, nationalist or not, it rejected non-Khmers and foreigners and also seemed to evacuate the cities wholesale.

I've seen John Pilger's documentaries, and Phnom Penh looked like some Star Trek set of a world that was spontaneously de-inhabited. I can understand the city-village conflict...but I see "all urban" (relying on imported food and a dematerialized local economy) and "all rural" (everyone spending every spring, summer, fall engaged in self-sufficient production) as bad.

Pol Pot definitely did not take advantage of modern technology. That's about all that can be known.

Devrim

7th March 2010, 11:57

But I just want to make things easier for you. Moreover, if you think that teachers are workers, then you shouldn't complain about the class background of Maoist leaders in the first place.

I wasn't complaining about them being teachers. I was pointing out the way your view of class has nothin to do with people's relationship to the means of production at all. You said previously that teachers in India are petit-bourgeois, but you then claim that teachers in Nepal are proletarians. What is the difference?

Devrim

Hiero

7th March 2010, 12:49

prachanda - comes from a landlord family

baburan - middle class peasant family. i dont know what this means, i imagine small land owning petit bourgeois.

jose maria sison - university professors in general are not workers because they have hiring and firing abilities.

the rest i couldnt find a quick google page. but definitely these are bad examples

Unlike the rest of us Holden driving working class professionals!

Face it, everyone who has spoken for the working class who has their voice heard by the working class has been the most educated people from the upper working class, labour aristocracy, middle class or petty bourgeoisie.

Even thoose who do speak from the slums, the working class neighbourhoods, the nine to fivers, have been given accesses to some form of prestige through bourgeoisie institutions (Stalin through the church) or labour aristocrat (Unions).

Educaton is where the money is at.

Alf

7th March 2010, 21:06

One of the reasons that our comrades are not going to give out the names of those who have broken from Maoism and become communists and internationalists is that in many countries Maoist political gangs habitually settle their scores with violence. This was one of the first things our comrades in the Philippines told us when they were in the process of rejecting the nationalist ideology and militarist methods of the Maoist party they had been in. We had every reason for taking them seriously because one of our comrades in Mexico - and there as well the founding nucleus of the ICC section came out of break with Maoist 'armed struggle' ideology - was kidnapped and tortured by members of the group he had rejected as a punishment. I am sure the Turkish comrades will be able to provide other examples of this kind of leftist violence.

red cat

7th March 2010, 21:19

red cat

8th March 2010, 02:09

I wasn't complaining about them being teachers. I was pointing out the way your view of class has nothin to do with people's relationship to the means of production at all. You said previously that teachers in India are petit-bourgeois, but you then claim that teachers in Nepal are proletarians. What is the difference?

Devrim

Good to see that now you are sparing our leaders at least.

We explain communism to orthodox christian workers by refering to the bible and thus compromising on a minor scale. Similarly, while debating left communists, I assume that teachers are workers.

To understand why third world Maoists consider teachers(in the third world) as petit bourgeois, one has to understand the dynamics of the revolutionary process. Therefore I prefer to have any future discussion on this matter only inside our MLM group.

Devrim

8th March 2010, 08:35

We explain communism to orthodox christian workers by refering to the bible and thus compromising on a minor scale. Similarly, while debating left communists, I assume that teachers are workers.

To understand why third world Maoists consider teachers(in the third world) as petit bourgeois, one has to understand the dynamics of the revolutionary process. Therefore I prefer to have any future discussion on this matter only inside our MLM group.

Oh right! It is a planned strategy of debate!. And there was I mistakenly thinking that you were just hopelessly confused, silly me.

Devrim

red cat

8th March 2010, 08:41

Oh right! It is a planned strategy of debate!. And there was I mistakenly thinking that you were just hopelessly confused, silly me.

Devrim

Your analytical powers are developing.

Saorsa

8th March 2010, 08:59

Sarcasm is a wonderful thing

spaßmaschine

8th March 2010, 10:54

Well, it is not totally impossible. But generally renegades tend to choose more effective forms of revisionism. In India left-communists have no influence. So, that is supposed to be a poor choice for anyone who wants to delude the working class.
My god you're condescending. No one could possibly break with Maoism as a result of political clarification and reflection on experience. It must be a deliberate plot to 'delude the working class'.:blink:

red cat

8th March 2010, 11:48

8th March 2010, 11:58

Your post implies that Maoists in India don't know about this ex-Maoist left communist already. Given that he is nationally known, this means that the fact he is a left communist now is not known to the public. So he must be someone who still pretends to be a Maoist or apolitical and is secretly conspiring with left communists, right ?

Exotic theories about l-cs covertly working within maoist organisations (:rolleyes: jesus christ) don't somehow divert from the facts, they've historically never practised 'entryism' into bourgeois organisations so there's no reason to think they would start now. Also, it's entirely possible this guy was nationally known as a Maoist but has since gone off the radar.

red cat

8th March 2010, 12:22

Exotic theories about l-cs covertly working within maoist organisations (:rolleyes: jesus christ) don't somehow divert from the facts, they've historically never practised 'entryism' into bourgeois organisations so there's no reason to think they would start now.

It's not that; it's bourgeois infiltration into a communist organization.

Also, it's entirely possible this guy was nationally known as a Maoist but has since gone off the radar.

There is no such ex-Maoist in India who now belongs to a different leftist(?) stream but receives low or no attention from the bourgeois-press.

8th March 2010, 15:34

It's not that; it's bourgeois infiltration into a communist organization.

How can it be bourgeois infiltration if the Maoist in question is not in the organisation? Honest question here, have you paid any attention to the thread at all?

There is no such ex-Maoist in India who now belongs to a different leftist(?) stream but receives low or no attention from the bourgeois-press.

See above.

Nosotros

9th March 2010, 11:46

Wasn't Pol Pot Against modern technology? :)

Invincible Summer

9th March 2010, 18:58

Wasn't Pol Pot Against modern technology? :)

Sendo already answered your q at the top of this page.. :confused:

zimmerwald1915

9th March 2010, 21:27

Sendo already answered your q at the top of this page.. :confused:
Let him have his fun at the expense of our tendency to derail discussions:rolleyes:

milk

28th April 2010, 11:47

Check the last two pages, there's no way in hell you can get this thread on topic again, but anyway,...there is some truth to that statement. It's not like Pol Pot thought electricity was the devil or refused to handle firearms, but Khmer Rouge did go for an agrarian communal coercive utopia and Khmer Rouge could have been anywhere between saying "we will industrialize as soon as we can" and "our money-less communism doesn't need it". It's really hard to get evidence for either case. On the one hand, intellectual, cosmopolitan, urban lifestyles were impossible given the bombing campaigns, but on the other hand, a "Year Zero" project in attempted isolation in such a connected and hostile world was insanity. For whatever reason, nationalist or not, it rejected non-Khmers and foreigners and also seemed to evacuate the cities wholesale.

I've seen John Pilger's documentaries, and Phnom Penh looked like some Star Trek set of a world that was spontaneously de-inhabited. I can understand the city-village conflict...but I see "all urban" (relying on imported food and a dematerialized local economy) and "all rural" (everyone spending every spring, summer, fall engaged in self-sufficient production) as bad.

Pol Pot definitely did not take advantage of modern technology. That's about all that can be known.

Well, this thread seemed to have gotten derailed, and sorry to resurrect it, but given its title, there's been much confusion over Khmer Communist policy, so hopefully I can offer some clarity.

Pol Pot was a moderniser, and an ambitious one at that, and one of the fatal flaws of the DK regime was with the extreme interpretation of a Maoist-inspired form of voluntarism, and how this came to override some rational policy decisions. Yes, it's good to note that Pol Pot was apparently enthused by reports of 'success,' regarding development occurring through this emphasis on working elan, and supposed proof of mind reconfiguration through manual work (human labour power was the most plentiful resource available in the ruined country), concentrated and steered by the Party. But, that said, him and indeed they were never against modern technology per se, for the government did repair factories and machinery, equipment and other such things after the war, and in an ad hoc fashion too for the purposes of production. There were also tentative steps made to open links of trade with countries both in the old capitalist and communist world blocs. This included modern equipment related to agriculture, including tractors from Yugoslavia and Albania, as well as chemical pesticides like DDT, a lot of which came from the United States believe it or not. There was an irrationalism to their politics which took on fetishist forms at times, but the Khmer Communists were never agrarian but rather agricultural modernisers, for their vast infrastructural program was for eventually industrialising the country. Put simply, the initial step for this process was the centralised state control of a countrywide irrigation system intended for the mass production of rice. The sending of urban people out to the rural areas was firstly a political decision, rather than humanitarian, for it was in the rural areas where they had most support, and importantly where their own form of war communism had been developing since the early 1970s. A forced, and what they called a 'cooperative' system, to meet the terrible exigencies of the war. It is this method of organisation, and the only one they knew in practice when in power in their liberated zones which was carried over into peacetime, enlarged with the almost doubling of the rural population with urban evacuees from April 1975, and then the use of this to thrust the country into the modern world.

Abolishing money perhaps would have been only a temporary measure, after all it wasn't until 1976 that the decision was made to do without it, for the time being. In earlier years, the Lon Nol currency had been removed from the liberated areas during wartime, and the cooperatives, or rather villages and peasant smallholdings having a strict form of collectivisation imposed upon them by the Communists, saw little need for monetary forms, apart from their retention for outside trade, for things the cooperatives couldn't produce. Their function was mostly to provide food and manpower for the liberation army. But, there had been plans to introduce a revolutionary currency, and this had been discussed from as early as, I think, 1972. New notes were printed in China, inspected by the CPK leadership in 1973 and it was agreed that they would be introduced with a reorganising of the National Bank after they won control of the entire country. Upper-level debate after victory changed this decision, however, and it was formally abolished, the new money withdrawn from one trial area. It seems their 'war communism' was viewed as the best model for rapidly realising their rice production plan. And had that succeeded, it would be the base for industrialising the country. Although it would be foolish to over-generalise, there are nevertheless are similarities with Khmer Rouge aims, and practice in the early stages of their never-finished development, and the Great Leap in China. And not just with words, for the Khmer Communists also referred to their infrastructural program as a 'great leap.' For what it's worth, they believed they were leaping into socialism, but in a bid to break from the past it could be said that, ironically, theirs was a Great Leap into an Asiatic Mode of Production.

milk

28th April 2010, 13:43

Perhaps of interest, regarding what I posted above, then here's a Khmer Rouge banknote, never used:

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/8663/note1024x442.jpg (http://img594.imageshack.us/i/note1024x442.jpg/)

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/640/note21024x455.jpg (http://img140.imageshack.us/i/note21024x455.jpg/)

The image used in the note above originated in this photo of a Khmer Rouge women's battalion, taken in 1974:

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3240/women1024x592.jpg (http://img710.imageshack.us/i/women1024x592.jpg/)

Thirsty Crow

28th April 2010, 14:28

Palingenisis

28th April 2010, 16:04

My god you're condescending. No one could possibly break with Maoism as a result of political clarification and reflection on experience. It must be a deliberate plot to 'delude the working class'.:blink:

Oh wow...Where do I begin?

We are talking about a country where a revolution is going on...Where classes are fighting each other for their life. Very different from revleft and the world that most of us live in. Its not a matter of "breaking with Maoism" its a matter in contexts like this of breaking with the working class and the revolution. Chairman Gonzalo correctly stated that once the red flag of revolution has been raised it cannot be lowered...From there on in its either victory or destruction.

Barry Lyndon

28th April 2010, 18:39

red cat

28th April 2010, 18:45

Things might not at all be what they seem to you at the first glance. Sometimes it is better to go for a deeper analysis than to just make statements. Just an advice.

Barry Lyndon

28th April 2010, 19:27

Things might not at all be what they seem to you at the first glance. Sometimes it is better to go for a deeper analysis than to just make statements. Just an advice.

Actually I have seen John Pilger's on-the-scene journalist reports from Cambodia, 'Year Zero'(1979) and 'The Betrayal'(1989). Pilger is hardly a reactionary, his portrayal of the Vietnamese role in Cambodia is quite positive, and other documentaries he has made have exposed the US sanctions on Iraq, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the East Timor genocide and US-backed death squads in Latin America, and he is also a strong supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution.
I also have a close friend who visited Cambodia on an student exchange trip to do aid work in the countryside there. When he was in Phnom Penh he visited the Tuol Sleng Genocide museum, a school that the Khmer Rogue transformed into a Asian Auschwitz. 17,000 men, women, and children were sent there to be brutally tortured to death and only 12 came out alive.

So I have hardly just 'glanced' at the issue.

milk

28th April 2010, 23:30

Pol Pot, in my view was not a communist at all. The Khmer Rogue waved the red flag and denounced "imperialism" but their whole ideology revolved around this bizarre ultra-nationalist desire to resurrect the Khmer Empire, which to my understanding was a feudal slave state. And they succeeded. They didn't bother setting up health clinics, they had doctors executed along with their families. They didn't educate children, they turned schools into torture chambers. They are probably the worst regime in modern history that has ever existed, with the exception of Nazi Germany. I cannot think of a single redeeming feature about them, and I am stunned that some people on the left continue to engage in apologetics, like 'oh they didn't kill 2 million people, they only killed 700,000', and so on. I mean, really, do you hear yourself? It makes me want to vomit.

Thank goodness for the Vietnamese communists for invading Cambodia and throwing those lunatics out of power, an act of true humanitarian intervention that undoubtedly saved millions of lives. Shame on US imperialism which then proceeded to shelter and protect the monsters in Thailand for years afterward, preventing them from receiving their just desserts, just to spite the Vietnamese.

The bullshit argument that is often made is that the Killing Fields occurred because 'we cut and ran' from Vietnam. But as ScarletGhoul has pointed out, the Khmer Rogue wouldn't have come to power if it weren't for the massive US bombing of Cambodia, and to top it off it was the Vietnamese communists who ended the genocide.

It wouldn't do to say I either "I told you so," or to take the utopian position that the Khmer Rouge weren't Communists. The Vietnamese in viewing Cambodia as a place not of socialist revolution, but of geopolitical significance in the fight against powerful foreign foes, had over the years ensured that the government in Phnom Penh in 1975 would consist of those same leaders who for years they had treated rather abysmally, and would be intent on less than cordial relations with their neighbour. And it could also be said the Vietnamese government couldn't have cared fig for what went on in Democratic Kampuchea, as long as it didn't interfere with their own attempts at reconstruction.

milk

28th April 2010, 23:36

So I have hardly just 'glanced' at the issue.

No offence, but you seem to be a little naive regarding the complexity of the history of the region, particularly relations between Communists and how they developed through years of war. The Tuol Sleng prison has been turned into a ghoulish tourist attraction over the years, after its former use was to help legitimate the PRK regime.

milk

28th April 2010, 23:38

Things might not at all be what they seem to you at the first glance. Sometimes it is better to go for a deeper analysis than to just make statements. Just an advice.

I agree. So far, a lot of cliched and hackneyed statements have been made, without much analysis.

"Worse than Hitler," or somesuch.

The Vietnamese also described DK as fascist, but given the context, the label is meaningless.

The Ben G

28th April 2010, 23:41

Pol Pot was as harmful to the world's perception of socialism as Stalin and the Kims.

He was a Primitivist who didnt think much stuff through (Come on guys! Lets go send all of the hospitalized people and office workers to go work in the farms!).

milk

28th April 2010, 23:45

He was a Primitivist

That's one of the biggest myths surrounding the Khmer Rouge. They instead used a peculiar interpretation of the Leninist paradigm. They were modernisers.

Barry Lyndon

28th April 2010, 23:49

I agree. So far, a lot of cliched and hackneyed statements have been made, without much analysis.

"Worse than Hitler," or somesuch.

The Vietnamese also described DK as fascist, but given the context, the label is meaningless.

I'm sorry, what 'complex' chain of events would justify turning Cambodia into a gigantic concentration camp and starving and torturing millions to death? Am I missing something here?

The Vietnamese also suffered horribly from American imperialism, and they didn't do anything remotely like many of things the Khmer Rogue did.

I think that given the fact that the Khmer Rogue were ultra-nationalists who wanted to restore Kampuchea, a medieval Khmer empire, that they considered the Vietnamese and the Cham to be inferior races worthy of extermination, and that they put virtually no effort whatsoever into providing food, medicine, and education for people like Communist revolutionaries did in other countries but instead systematically slaughtered doctors and teachers in large numbers I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that they were not Communists! It's not utopian to say that at all.

milk

29th April 2010, 00:01

I'm sorry, what 'complex' chain of events would justify turning Cambodia into a gigantic concentration camp and starving and torturing millions to death? Am I missing something here?

The Vietnamese also suffered horribly from American imperialism, and they didn't do anything remotely like many of things the Khmer Rogue did.

I think that given the fact that the Khmer Rogue were ultra-nationalists who wanted to restore Kampuchea, a medieval Khmer empire, that they considered the Vietnamese and the Cham to be inferior races worthy of extermination, and that they put virtually no effort whatsoever into providing food, medicine, and education for people like Communist revolutionaries did in other countries but instead systematically exterminated doctors and teachers in large numbers I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that they were not Communists! It's not utopian to say that at all.

Who here has justified Khmer Rouge methods, once in power? I think there should perhaps be discussion on how they came to power, and their (or one particular group among the Khmer Communists) relations with the Vietnamese can't be ignored. After all, the Communist Party of Kampuchea evolved from a political party formed during the First Indochina War largely by the Vietnamese, and was dependent on the Indochinese Communist Party. Regarding the bits I Have bolded in the quote made of your previous post: they never wanted to do anything of the sort. As for their system of government, then please read post 78 on this thread. That is my position on their aims. Instead of hyperbole and just plain silliness (and out of interest), who and what have you read on the subject?

Barry Lyndon

29th April 2010, 00:02

No offence, but you seem to be a little naive regarding the complexity of the history of the region, particularly relations between Communists and how they developed through years of war. The Tuol Sleng prison has been turned into a ghoulish tourist attraction over the years, after its former use was to help legitimate the PRK regime.

Weasel words. That's like saying I'm 'naive' about the 'complexity' of the rise of Nazism, and that Auschwitz is a 'ghoulish tourist attraction' that is used to 'legitimate' the Allies.
The bottom line is, did these things happen or not? Yes, they did. Stop running in circles and blowing smoke. Your behaving like a left-wing David Irving.

milk

29th April 2010, 00:06

Weasel words. That's like saying I'm 'naive' about the 'complexity' of the rise of Nazism, and that Auschwitz is a 'ghoulish tourist attraction' that is used to 'legitimate' the Allies.
The bottom line is, did these things happen or not? Yes, they did. Stop running in circles and blowing smoke. Your behaving like a left-wing David Irving.

The rise of Nazism has got nothing to do with Khmer Communism. It's a none point. And it isn't weasel words to point out your simplistic view of politics in the region. And, I might add, it's naive to believe that the Vietnamese government were "true" humanitarians regarding their invasion of DK. Did you come down in the last shower?

Barry Lyndon

29th April 2010, 00:10

[QUOTE=milk;1734033]Who here has justified Khmer Rouge methods, once in power? I think there should perhaps be discussion on how they came to power, and their (or one particular group among the Khmer Communists) relations with the Vietnamese can't be ignored. After all, the Communist Party of Kampuchea evolved from a political party formed during the First Indochina War largely by the Vietnamese, and was dependent on the Indochinese Communist Party. Regarding the bits I Have bolded in the quote made of your previous post: they never wanted to do anything of the sort. [QUOTE]

Yes, I am aware that they originated from the Viet Minh during the anti-colonial war against the French. But we are talking about an independent political development of at least 20 years(between Cambodia's independence in 1956 and the Khmer Rogue taking power in 1975)-the gap between what their politics was then and what it became is very wide. I mean, Mussolini started out as a socialist, their origins by themselves are not neccessarily what their politics eventually became.
Really, restoring the Khmer Empire wasn't on their agenda? Then why did they have Angor Wat, symbol of the empire, on their FLAG, and not a hammer and sickle and/or star? You really are a card.

red cat

29th April 2010, 00:33

Actually I have seen John Pilger's on-the-scene journalist reports from Cambodia, 'Year Zero'(1979) and 'The Betrayal'(1989). Pilger is hardly a reactionary, his portrayal of the Vietnamese role in Cambodia is quite positive, and other documentaries he has made have exposed the US sanctions on Iraq, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the East Timor genocide and US-backed death squads in Latin America, and he is also a strong supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution.
I also have a close friend who visited Cambodia on an student exchange trip to do aid work in the countryside there. When he was in Phnom Penh he visited the Tuol Sleng Genocide museum, a school that the Khmer Rogue transformed into a Asian Auschwitz. 17,000 men, women, and children were sent there to be brutally tortured to death and only 12 came out alive.

So I have hardly just 'glanced' at the issue.

Your description of Pilger actually indicates that he was an anti-Maoist, at least to me it seems so until I made a big mistake somewhere...

It is very difficult to tell right now which of these facts are true. If you visited India fifteen years ago, you would probably be hearing more horrific stories about Maoists there.

milk

29th April 2010, 00:37

Yes, I am aware that they originated from the Viet Minh during the anti-colonial war against the French. But we are talking about an independent political development of at least 20 years(between Cambodia's independence in 1956 and the Khmer Rogue taking power in 1975)-the gap between what their politics was then and what it became is very wide. I mean, Mussolini started out as a socialist, their origins by themselves are not neccessarily what their politics eventually became.
Really, restoring the Khmer Empire wasn't on their agenda? Then why did they have Angor Wat, symbol of the empire, on their FLAG, and not a hammer and sickle and/or star? You really are a card.

Mussolini has nothing to do with the development Khmer Communism. Again, ahistorical nonsense which is irrelevant to this discussion. I think there is a wide gap between your understanding of the development Khmer Communism and what actually happened.

Here is the flag of the Communist Party of Kampuchea:

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6245/cpk.jpg (http://img217.imageshack.us/i/cpk.jpg/)

Here is the national flag of Democratic Kampuchea:

http://flagspot.net/images/k/kh-1976.gif

The three-towered temple on a red background is the same design used by the Issarak Khmer National Liberation Committee, with some Vietminh involvement, during the First Indochina War.

Here is the national flag of the Peoples Republic of Kampuchea:

http://flagspot.net/images/k/kh-1979.gif

The five-towered temple on a red background was also used by another Issarak group, heavily supported by Vietminh, and had more ICP involvement than the other. Its name was the United Issarak Front.

The use of the above two flags by the two governments of Cambodia indicate the division and rivalry of differing tendencies in the Khmer Communist movement going back years before DK. And also suggest the need by either group to ensure a "correct" historical continuity.

That they wanted to "restore" the Khmer Empire is, well, batshit.