Motivated by hatred?

[Palingenisis]

On another thread that has been mercifully locked someone accused comrade Red Cat (who to my mind comes across as the most serious revolutionary here) and myself of being motivated by hatred which in turn allowed someone else to troll the forum. While its ironic that the person charging us with that motivation on another thread admitted not to liking people very much the topic itself is interesting. Communists have been accused by reactionaires of being driven by hatred for ages now. Should hatred have a role in the class struggle and more interesting what motivates the Socialism of most people here or in general?

[Bud Struggle]

Jeez. :(

[Palingenisis]

I dont consider hatred a valid motivation for anything. In terms of a "philosophy for living" I guess Im a Stoic....But what motivates people is never the less an interesting topic.

[Spawn of Stalin]

If you hate capitalism you are motivated by hatred. A degree of hatred is perfectly healthy. People who are driven solely by hatred ultimately achieve as little as the "love everyone" utopian types who are driven by compassion. It's a delicate balance, but I would definitely say any genuine revolutionary has a lot of hate in them.

[Dimentio]

I cannot extrapolate what your motivations are, but I have derived enough from your interactions here to find your opinions leading to terrible consequences, especially for those social groups which you claim to defend the most. The defense of for example the Khmer Rogue or the Sendero Luminoso seems to be based more out of them being "anti-imperialist" than them actually installing anything resembling what socialism should look like.

With hatred, I mean that you seem to hate America more than you love the people.

[Palingenisis]

If you hate capitalism you are motivated by hatred. A degree of hatred is perfectly healthy. People who are driven solely by hatred ultimately achieve as little as the "love everyone" utopian types who are driven by compassion. It's a delicate balance, but I would definitely say any genuine revolutionary has a lot of hate in them.

Its important though to see that there is a difference between genuine compassion and the narcisistic sentimentality that often passes for it today. Someone driven by compassion can be capable of carrying out acts that could be labeled horrific because they see them as necessary for the greater good. Hatred on the other hand can distort people's view of reality as well as make them unstable in their behaviour.

Thats how I see it anyway.

[#FF0000]

Yeah I don't think that's too healthy.

But I think "Hate" is something inspired by fear. For example, I hate (I really do) cops. It's for a lot of reasons but the #1 most basic reason is that I am afraid that they can do what they want and there is nothing I can do about it until after the fact, and even then it's far from a certainty.

But I think this question really hinges on what you define as "hatred", I guess.

[Bud Struggle]

Hatred is unproductive. The Bourgeoisie doesn't have you. They don't hate the Proletariat, or the unions, or Communism. It's all business to them. Now they may oppose you--but purely for business reasons.

Once you start hateing your thinking gets blurry and you make mistakes--and those mistake are easy capitalized on. For example as Best Mod stated above--he hates the police. (I'm just using your idea--not YOU as an example Best Mod) Well if you do hate the police that could cloud the thinking and you might run or say the wrong thing or do the wrong thing when they are around and get yourself into a load of problems that you whoudn't get into if yo were thinking totally rationally. That's on the micro scale. But the same thing works in the macro world.

The Cold War was a giant hate fest. It achieved nothing for the Soviets. Nothing except defeat and the set back of Communism. It also hurt the US making it a less progressive paranoid nation. Loosers all around.

[Palingenisis]

But I think "Hate" is something inspired by fear. For example, I hate (I really do) cops. It's for a lot of reasons but the #1 most basic reason is that I am afraid that they can do what they want and there is nothing I can do about it until after the fact, and even then it's far from a certainty.
.

Not all the time but a lot of the time definitely. Very good point.

In a way also capitalism thrives on fear, for instance a lot of consumerism and greed for money is driven out of fear and the need to establish security whether emotional or physical. Some fear is necessary in order to preserve us but all to often people are weighed down by a useless excess of it which prevents them from acting rationally.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Its important though to see that there is a difference between genuine compassion and the narcisistic sentimentality that often passes for it today. Someone driven by compassion can be capable of carrying out acts that could be labeled horrific because they see them as necessary for the greater good. Hatred on the other hand can distort people's view of reality as well as make them unstable in their behaviour.

Thats how I see it anyway.
Yes, narcisistic sentimentality would probably be a good way of describing what I was referring to, compassion is of course required of all revolutionaries. Personally I find it difficult to want to change anything without a degree of both. The difference is, if you are driven by compassion and only compassion you are mostly harmless, but focussing only on the hate for injustice is a dangerous game to be playing. Some time last year at a meeting, Radical was trying to convince me and another comrade that hate should be the only force which drives us, quoting some obscure Che Guevara text, I did mention to him that Che Guevara was also a very compassionate human being but he was completely convinced that we should let hate take over, look what he ended up doing, now he is completely useless.

[Palingenisis]

Hatred is unproductive. The Bourgeoisie doesn't have you. They don't hate the Proletariat, or the unions, or Communism. It's all business to them. Now they may oppose you--but purely for business reasons.


Im not sure that is true, I have encountered much more class hatred among business and upper middle class types than I have among the working class. Also I dont believe that capitalists arent motivated by emotions in their actions and that they are purely mechanical money makers.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Yeah I don't think that's too healthy.

But I think "Hate" is something inspired by fear. For example, I hate (I really do) cops. It's for a lot of reasons but the #1 most basic reason is that I am afraid that they can do what they want and there is nothing I can do about it until after the fact, and even then it's far from a certainty.

But I think this question really hinges on what you define as "hatred", I guess.
Would you agree though that fear can sometimes be one of the most dangerous emotions/states of mind? You are much more likely to do something fucked up with a fear mentality. A lot of Stalin's detractors argue that he killed millions because he was paranoid and afraid, I'm not going to try to back up those claims because I think they are ridiculous but there are plenty of other examples. I suppose it is different in the case of hating/fearing law enforcement, you're not about to take on the police single handedly, but you see where I'm going.

[Palingenisis]

Yes, narcisistic sentimentality would probably be a good way of describing what I was referring to, compassion is of course required of all revolutionaries.

The thing is that I wouldnt consider narcisistic sentimentality to be compassionate, for instance out of compassion it might be very necessary to say beat the hell out of someone who sexually assulted someone else but narcisistic sentimentality would shrink back from that and tell the person in question to think about what they have done or something.

[RGacky3]

Thats such a wierd idea, I don't know are people who want to dismantle dictatorships doing so out of hatred of dictators? Or dictatorships? Its kind of a strange question.

But no, I would'nt say that hatred, as in hating people has any place in the movement.

[Bud Struggle]

Im not sure that is true, I have encountered much more class hatred among business and upper middle class types than I have among the working class. Also I dont believe that capitalists arent motivated by emotions in their actions and that they are purely mechanical money makers.

There may be individual cases all of the time--but in general most businessmen don't even know there are such thing as "classes."

In America at least it's not part of the general consciousness. I for one didn't even know I was different than my workers until RGacky told me I was. :D

[Palingenisis]

There may be individual cases all of the time--but in general most businessmen don't even know there are such thing as "classes."


They know they live in big houses, drive fancy cars, etc and that other people dont. Are you honestly telling me that snobbery doesnt exist in the USA?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

On another thread that has been mercifully locked someone accused comrade Red Cat (who to my mind comes across as the most serious revolutionary here) and myself of being motivated by hatred which in turn allowed someone else to troll the forum.

You have it backwards. ComradeMan trolled the forum, then Dimentio spoke about people being motivated by hatred.


Should hatred have a role in the class struggle and more interesting what motivates the Socialism of most people here or in general?

"Hatred" would be the wrong word for me. I find it hard to have any passionate feelings towards a socioeconomic system, because there's nothing personal about it - the system doesn't hate or have desires of anything, it merely exists to propagate itself. Hating it would be like hating a virus.

No, my motivation is that things can and should be better than this. For too long we have placed our faith in Social Darwinist price systems as the prime movers of our economy. In our current world situation, we can no longer afford to play roulette with our collective wealth.

[RGacky3]

In America at least it's not part of the general consciousness. I for one didn't even know I was different than my workers until RGacky told me I was. :D

You know how much they make and you make, and you know that you make the rules and the follow them.

THATS class.


There may be individual cases all of the time--but in general most businessmen don't even know there are such thing as "classes."


They do, they may not think about it as "class" but they are very much aware of it.

[Palingenisis]

"Hatred" would be the wrong word for me. I find it hard to have any passionate feelings towards a socioeconomic system, because there's nothing personal about it - the system doesn't hate or have desires of anything, it merely exists to propagate itself. Hating it would be like hating a virus.


Thats silly and whats more a reactionary way of looking at it. The system isnt something seperate from humanity but a human creation that is maintained by human persons who have the ability to reason. A structuralist way of looking at things that comes close to denying the responsibility of individual human subjects fits perfectly into how the ruling class want to people to see things.

[red cat]

Should hatred have a role in the class struggle and more interesting what motivates the Socialism of most people here or in general?

You cannot love the sheep and the wolf at the same time, can you? You have to hate one and love the other.

From my experience, I will say that those who do not hate the class enemy have not experienced or witnessed much of class oppression themselves. Surprisingly, they are consciously or unconsciously hateful towards real revolutionaries because they cannot match them with some idealistic dream in their minds.

As for myself, I love the toiling masses more then anything else. Therefore I have nothing but intense hatred for those who starve, enslave, loot, rape and murder them.


"Transform tears into burning hatred towards the class enemy" - Charu Mazumder

[Dimentio]

And if the toiling masses do not want to dig ditches?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Thats silly and whats more a reactionary way of looking at it. The system isnt something seperate from humanity but a human creation that is maintained by human persons who have the ability to reason.

True, but the humans involved have different and quite often conflicting goals. Taken as a whole, there is no place where "the buck stops here", in other words there is no centralised locus of responsibility.


A structuralist way of looking at things that comes close to denying the responsibility of individual human subjects fits perfectly into how the ruling class want to people to see things.

The problem is that "the ruling class" is not some monolithic entity with clearly self-defined goals. Also, recognising that the system has "goals" divergent from the human intentions no more absolves individuals of responsibility than evolution does.

[Palingenisis]

True, but the humans involved have different and quite often conflicting goals. Taken as a whole, there is no place where "the buck stops here", in other words there is no centralised locus of responsibility.


I am far from certain that is true. Anyway there are many locui of responsibility. Pigs are pigs, exploiters are exploiters, and they are fully aware that what they do causes suffering...They have chosen to be the enemies of the people.

[Palingenisis]

You cannot love the sheep and the wolf at the same time, can you? You have to hate one and love the other.
.

Good post and I see where you are coming from. However I would say that there is hatred and hatred...There is an aggression that is born of love for the people or a person, that looks like hatred but is more the angry glow of compassion for their suffering. I would see that as being different to a hatred which has its focus on the various types of pigs themselves...but maybe Im getting too scholastic.

[red cat]

And if the toiling masses do not want to dig ditches?

What does this mean ?

[Palingenisis]

Actually I dont think I was being to scholastic. There is an important difference between the two and from what I have seen I think they effect people differently.

[Dimentio]

What does this mean ?

Like the Khmer Rogue for example forced them to do.

[RGacky3]

As for myself, I love the toiling masses more then anything else.

What if some of them are assholes?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am far from certain that is true. Anyway there are many locui of responsibility. Pigs are pigs, exploiters are exploiters, and they are fully aware that what they do causes suffering...They have chosen to be the enemies of the people.

Most of them don't see it that way, I'm fairly certain. More likely they generally see themselves as guardians and leaders. Even when comitting atrocities, few people view themselves as actively evil. But not even bourgeois courts of law recognise "following orders" as a defence, so why should we?

[Palingenisis]

The defense of for example the Khmer Rogue or the Sendero Luminoso seems to be based more out of them being "anti-imperialist" than them actually installing anything resembling what socialism should look like.


I dont now or ever have upheld Democratic Kampuchea or the Khmer Rouge. I regard them as ultra-leftist national chauvinists, I just dont buy the whole "genocidal" thing. Sendero Luminoso on the other I have no problems saying that I uphold, for despite their exagerated cult of personality around Chairman Gonzola they came incredibly close to establishing a revolutionary society that could move forward to socialism. To label the violence of the oppressed and the oppressor as the same is not something I will do. In times of real revolutionary struggle there can be no neutrality, you are either on the side of the old world or on the side of the people fundamentally despite what ever reservations you might have (I believe that Arundati Roy despite not being a Communist is on the side of the people in the unfolding Indian revolution for example, ComradeMan on the other hand is clearly in my eyes an enemy of the world's oppressed and exploited majority.). History shows that the only way forward to Communism is through violence and without a people's army the people have nothing.

[Dimentio]

The problem is not the "People's Armies" but the conduct of the "People's Armies", when the people are not acting as their commanders want.

[red cat]

What if some of them are assholes?

Good point. :lol:

[red cat]

Like the Khmer Rogue for example forced them to do.

If you are looking for juicy stories, you can enjoy some of the latest (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/76-killed-in-maoist-attack-on-mumbaibound-t/624837/) ones as well. Everyone makes mistakes; even revolutionaries do, but most of these stories are fabricated to defame revolutionary movements. I find no reason to believe that communists of Cambodia, Peru or India have ever systematically engaged in acts of forcing workers to slave, randomly shooting women and children, or derailing trains.

[ComradeMan]

Love and hate are emotions. Say no to duality and look at things without emotion in making judgements and then look at them with human compassion.

Hatred is negative- it breeds nothing but hatred.

[ComradeMan]

Like the Khmer Rogue for example forced them to do.

Who's trolling now... ? ;)


But yeah, well, it's quite clear what my stance is on the Khmer Rouge and I think it highlights the issue at hand. I still don't see why some otherwise reasonable members would wish to carry on with the charade pretending the Khmer Rouge were in any way shape or form representative of all but the most twisted and mutant form of communism that could have existed, if they even can be called communists.


I find no reason to believe that communists of Cambodia, Peru or India have ever systematically engaged in acts of forcing workers to slave, randomly shooting women and children, or derailing trains.

Despite all the evidence that is? I don't know why you insist on this line viz. Cambodia.

[#FF0000]

Would you agree though that fear can sometimes be one of the most dangerous emotions/states of mind? You are much more likely to do something fucked up with a fear mentality. A lot of Stalin's detractors argue that he killed millions because he was paranoid and afraid, I'm not going to try to back up those claims because I think they are ridiculous but there are plenty of other examples. I suppose it is different in the case of hating/fearing law enforcement, you're not about to take on the police single handedly, but you see where I'm going.

Yeah that's definitely true.

This is making me wonder though, how are we defining "Hate" here? What is the difference in acting out of hate as opposed to acting out of rage, desperation, fear...etc?

[scarletghoul]

"Love and hate are not opposites. They're on the same pole, and the opposite of both love and hate is indifference." - Huey P Newton

An authentic revolutionary is fuelled by rage and love. I think acknowledging this union is really a vital ingredient for anyone to have a coherent effect on the world. Its related to Bakunin's point about creation and destruction.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Let us have a dagger between our teeth, a bomb in our hands, and an infinite scorn in our hearts."

- Mussolini

[#FF0000]

Dueling Quotes itt

[ComradeMan]

A samurai whose vision is clouded by emotions cannot think clearly, act decisively nor can he win a battle.

[red cat]

Despite all the evidence that is? I don't know why you insist on this line viz. Cambodia.

If you look at stronger ongoing communist movements then you will see how most of the time the government itself creates these "evidences" and deletes all counter-evidences. Given this is being done while the movements are advancing, we can imagine the extent of false propaganda unleashed by reactionaries once such a movement is defeated and there are not enough people to speak out for it.

[ComradeMan]

If you look at stronger ongoing communist movements then you will see how most of the time the government itself creates these "evidences" and deletes all counter-evidences. Given this is being done while the movements are advancing, we can imagine the extent of false propaganda unleashed by reactionaries once such a movement is defeated and there are not enough people to speak out for it.

Yeah I can appreciate that but I think with the case of Cambodia it's not really that at all. It happened- there's no use trying to deny it or explain it away academically- plenty of critics are also from the left too.

[red cat]

Yeah I can appreciate that but I think with the case of Cambodia it's not really that at all. It happened- there's no use trying to deny it or explain it away academically- plenty of critics are also from the left too.

Again, you can't say that it all happened or was done by the Khmer Rouge, because similar examples can be drawn from other movements where the government has been proved to engage in the same kind of false propaganda. Most of the "left" who criticize it are actually revisionists who never fought a revolutionary war. The revolutionary left criticism of the Khmer Rouge is totally different.

[Palingenisis]

If you look at stronger ongoing communist movements then you will see how most of the time the government itself creates these "evidences" and deletes all counter-evidences. Given this is being done while the movements are advancing, we can imagine the extent of false propaganda unleashed by reactionaries once such a movement is defeated and there are not enough people to speak out for it.

I fully understand your sceptical attitude towards "establishment" sources but I think there is over whelming evidence that Democratic Kampuchea developed into tragedy...Even Pol Pot himself later admitted this. Of course the reactionaires leave out the fact that torture of the type the Khmer Rouge has become infamous for was introduced into the country by the French occupation and used also by Prince Sihanouk and Lon Nol. The poor peasants were badly if at all politically educated, had been through an almost genocidal bombing campaign, brutalized and the cities were in general parasitical on them. All these factors coupled with a lack of central authority, paranio and national chauvinism along with distrust of city dwellers by the "old people" led to tradegy. How far Pol Pot is to blame is very open to question though.

[scarletghoul]

A samurai whose vision is clouded by emotions cannot think clearly, act decisively nor can he win a battle.
sure, but before you even think about winning the battle you have to be able to choose it and commit yourself to it.. do you think there would ever be any revolution anywhere if no one had emotions

[scarletghoul]

I fully understand your sceptical attitude towards "establishment" sources but I think there is over whelming evidence that Democratic Kampuchea developed into tragedy...Even Pol Pot himself later admitted this. Of course the reactionaires leave out the fact that torture of the type the Khmer Rouge has become infamous for was introduced into the country by the French occupation and used also by Prince Sihanouk and Lon Nol. The poor peasants were badly if at all politically educated, had been through an almost genocidal bombing campaign, brutalized and the cities were in general parasitical on them. All these factors coupled with a lack of central authority, paranio and national chauvinism along with distrust of city dwellers by the "old people" led to tradegy. How far Pol Pot is to blame is very open to question though.
I generally agree with this. However we should remember to avoid the trap of thinking that the problems in Cambodia were the absolute fate of the country and that it was the reason for the Vietnamese invasion. In fact it was just a particularly brutal start of the reconstruction of society from scratch, and if it weren't for Vietnamese imperialism would probably have settled down to become a functioning socialist state. We must remember that this was the very beginning of an attempt at socialism; it was essentially War Communism and who knows what could have happened if the years passed allowing them to learn from their mistakes and develop securely from threat of invasion.. we should still criticise the severe mistakes however

[red cat]

I fully understand your sceptical attitude towards "establishment" sources but I think there is over whelming evidence that Democratic Kampuchea developed into tragedy...Even Pol Pot himself later admitted this. Of course the reactionaires leave out the fact that torture of the type the Khmer Rouge has become infamous for was introduced into the country by the French occupation and used also by Prince Sihanouk and Lon Nol. The poor peasants were badly if at all politically educated, had been through an almost genocidal bombing campaign, brutalized and the cities were in general parasitical on them. All these factors coupled with a lack of central authority, paranio and national chauvinism along with distrust of city dwellers by the "old people" led to tradegy. How far Pol Pot is to blame is very open to question though.

Stories of torturing class enemies might be true. But I highly doubt the claims of genocide. You know, at some time during the 80s and 90s it was popular fashion among Indian elites and reactionaries to state that naxals broke into schools and colleges and shot the most brilliant students, whereas the truth was that the most promising students had embraced revolutionary communism and were shot by state goons and police right in front of their friends and relatives in schools, colleges and streets. At that time in upper middle class circles people would very convincingly talk of the murderous naxals, supporting their claims with fake statistics and so on. Such cooked up stories are still told nowadays. Try to relate things. We don't know what really happened in Cambodia.

[Palingenisis]

.... we should still criticise the severe mistakes however

Im not supporting the Vietnamese invasion. However I do think there was an element of "fate" in what enfolded. Particularly the fact that the poor peasants were not politically educated (when was there time to do this?) coupled with the facts of what US Imperialist bombing had done to the country and the inability of the Khmer Rouge to establish a centralized authority.

[Palingenisis]

Stories of torturing class enemies might be true. But I highly doubt the claims of genocide.

I think talk of "genocide" is hysterical in the case of Democratic Kampuchea at best. Its not a word I would use in the case at all. I am also aware of the lies and distortions of the ruling classes....But still there were great execesses that happened there though given the circumstances they were "natural".

[Palingenisis]

On an Irish politics forum someone posted a youtube video about the Salwa Judum and reactionaires came on to abuse the poster and claim that those death squads were tribal self defense forces against the evil Maoists...Given that reality I understand why you take the position you do. A look at the evidence that has come out of India tells a different story however in the case of Democratic Kampuchea Pol Pot himself admitted that a lot happened that should not have happened. I dont believe though that it was genocide. Also I think the article in World to Win about them makes a lot of good points.

[Wanted Man]

Hate is a very loaded word, and people who are hateful all the time don't seem very attractive to me.

On the other hand, one thing union organisers always say is that anger is a very powerful force. When you're talking to someone about their working conditions, they can say all manner of stuff, but then at some point, their boss is mentioned, their voice will raise and they'll say something like, "That man is an absolute terror!" That's the moment when you ask secondary questions and find out which issues are broadly and deeply felt, are of immediate importance and can be dealt with.

Hate can be cold and opportunistic, but anger rarely is. Hate is just something that people need to deal with by themselves, while anger is an emotion that can mobilise masses.

[red cat]

On an Irish politics forum someone posted a youtube video about the Salwa Judum and reactionaires came on to abuse the poster and claim that those death squads were tribal self defense forces against the evil Maoists...Given that reality I understand why you take the position you do. A look at the evidence that has come out of India tells a different story however in the case of Democratic Kampuchea Pol Pot himself admitted that a lot happened that should not have happened. I dont believe though that it was genocide. Also I think the article in World to Win about them makes a lot of good points.

What exactly did Pol Pot admit and at what point of time ? Even Gonzalo is said to have opted for the dissolution of the Peruvian people's war at some point. In case of India you are finding evidence because the movement is growing. Several mass organizations work day and night to bring out these evidences and counter the government's moves to some extent. Had the revolution been crushed, so would have been these democratic organizations and you would have heard only a one-sided story.


Im not supporting the Vietnamese invasion. However I do think there was an element of "fate" in what enfolded. Particularly the fact that the poor peasants were not politically educated (when was there time to do this?) coupled with the facts of what US Imperialist bombing had done to the country and the inability of the Khmer Rouge to establish a centralized authority.In my opinion, the Khmer Rouge did make some mistakes. For example, a proper alliance with the national bourgeoisie would have allowed them to keep some of the population in the cities, use them as battlegrounds and even have intellectuals at home and abroad to speak out for them. At such points the importance of a united front consisting of the national bourgeoisie, and hence most of the intelligentsia, can be realized.

[Palingenisis]

In my opinion, the Khmer Rouge did make some mistakes. For example, a proper alliance with the national bourgeoisie would have allowed them to keep some of the population in the cities, use them as battlegrounds and even have intellectuals at home and abroad to speak out for them. At such points the importance of a united front consisting of the national bourgeoisie, and hence most of the intelligentsia, can be realized.

Firstly the evacutating the cities wasnt something done by choice as such, it was temporary practical measure which came about because of the mass bombing (the significance of that it what happened cant be under-estimated). Also there wasnt much a national bourgeoisie to ally with. Also you have to remember that Pol Pot and his cadre never had effective control over the movement.

[Palingenisis]

Here is the interview towards the end of his life...

BQMyX80jCF8

3qhgmfnRJio

I admit that he comes across as a very appealing personality. I believe that he was out to do the best for his people. Particularly look at the second one.

[red cat]

Firstly the evacutating the cities wasnt something done by choice as such, it was temporary practical measure which came about because of the mass bombing (the significance of that it what happened cant be under-estimated). Also there wasnt much a national bourgeoisie to ally with. Also you have to remember that Pol Pot and his cadre never had effective control over the movement.

There were some intellectuals in Cambodia. Most intellectuals are from the national bourgeoisie. And yes, not having a good understanding with the base level cadres is another demerit.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Is that Kim Il-Sung at the beginning of the first video?

EDIT: I guess Pol Pot resembled Kim Il-Sung quite a bit when he was young

[Palingenisis]

I think the question of intellectuals has to be answered by milk. Remember that Pol Pot and his cadre were in some ways the national intellectuals though Pol Pot came from relatively well off peasant stock himself.

[red cat]

I think the question of intellectuals has to be answered by milk. Remember that Pol Pot and his cadre were in some ways the national intellectuals though Pol Pot came from relatively well off peasant stock himself.

The national bourgeoisie is generally a bit different from that, but let's wait for Milk.

Great videos btw. Did you notice how sad and broken he sounded? Let's hope he came to know about the advancing people's wars of Nepal and India before he died. :)

[Palingenisis]

Great videos btw. Did you notice how sad and broken he sounded? Let's hope he came to know about the advancing people's wars of Nepal and India before he died. :)

That's true. I honestly dont blame him for what happened or consider him evil....But you have to remember the horrific circumstances of the times. Still in some ways you can see the national chauvinism coming out.

[revolution inaction]

They know they live in big houses, drive fancy cars, etc and that other people dont. Are you honestly telling me that snobbery doesnt exist in the USA?

class isn't about the house you live in or the car you drive, it's a social relationship, its about who controls the means of production, snobbery doesn't come into it.

[Palingenisis]

For the haters on Democratic Kampuchea consider this...Especially the last sentence...

http://www.aworldtowin.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm

Once the Pol Pot regime was overthrown, the US had no problem supporting its remaining army. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, international aid directed by the US helped sustain the thousands of fighters in the jungles of the western Cambodian border region and in refugee camps in Thailand.97 For a decade, the US and its ever-subservient United Nations recognised the FUNK (the CPK's united front, of which Sihanouk was still the formal head) as the legal government of Cambodia.

Just as the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia might have gone on even longer if it hadn't been for the collapse of the Soviet bloc, so, too, American aid (and sponsorship in the UN) might have gone on much longer if it hadn't been for that same radically changed international context.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not only has the US found no further use for the Khmer Rouge, it has some specific reasons to act otherwise. For one thing, because of its own efforts to brutally impose its interests through B-52s operating under various "humanitarian" banners, the US has more reason than ever to try to revise the history of Indochina, and indeed to paint itself as the main opponent of genocide instead of its main perpetrator in today's world. And for another, by demanding a trial of remaining CPK leaders, the US can better bring to heel the present government in Phnom Penh, led by former Eastern Zone commander Hun Sen for whom such a trial could be a problem and an embarrassment. (Once reviled as a "Khmer body with a Vietnamese mind", Hun is now supported by China.)

Famine continued to ravage Cambodia under Vietnamese occupation. The occupiers and their People's Republic of Kampuchea encouraged peasants to form "solidarity teams" to maintain the earthen waterworks built under the CPK and pursued some of its economic goals as well. The CPK's successor in power, the Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party, called itself a continuation of the CPK founded, they declared, in 1951.

To facilitate Western support, and perhaps to bury their own past, in 1981 the CPK leadership announced the dissolution of their Party in favour of the united front against Vietnam.

Eventually they were to be deserted even by Sihanouk, in whose name they were supposedly fighting. In 1989, the US brokered a coalition government of old pro-US forces and new pro-Vietnam forces. Sihanouk became king and head of state again. His son, Prince Ranariddh, who does not seem to have enjoyed his father's support, jostled with Hun Sen for control for years, before Hun Sen ousted him in a coup in the late 1990s.

The fortunes of the Khmer Rouge had dwindled along with their reactionary foreign support. They maintained a few thousand soldiers and seemed to have some mass support. But they ended up little more than aimless rebels at best and bandits at worst. They lived by smuggling opium, gems and illegally-cut hardwood through Thailand. Without the support of the reactionary Thai government, they would have all but vanished. Then starting in the mid-1990s, they made a deal with Hun Sen. In return for their backing, he allowed them a certain resurgence and even some political power, this time as his silent partners in the reactionary "stabilisation" of Cambodia. Ieng Sary surrendered in 1996 and received a royal pardon. He was followed within the next two years by Khieu Samphan (Democratic Kampuchea's second head of state) and Party deputy secretary Nuon Chea, along with many of the surviving Paris-trained intellectuals who formed the initial core of Pol Pot's cadre and supporters.

The border town of Pailin (west of Battambang, in the old Northwestern Zone) and the region around it became their fiefdom, in the same way that much of provincial Cambodia is ruled by local warlords. Until his appointment by the central government, the governor of the region was a top Khmer Rouge military commander. The deputy governor is Ieng Sary's son. The region's soldiers and police are former Khmer Rouge fighters. Their old units and command structures are intact but now instead of black pyjamas these 2,000 men wear new government uniforms. Now many of the men on Honda motorcycles tearing up the dust are former guerrillas. The ex-CPK leadership rule over vast smuggling and "legitimate" business operations and their city, Pailin, boasts a Caesar International Casino (meant to attract Thai businessmen), dozens of houses of prostitution, a bank and innumerable karaoke bars that cater to former guerrilla fighters. Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan live in guarded villas overlooking the city.98 Pol Pot died in April 1998 shortly after having been sentenced to life under house arrest by his former comrades. They invited a Western reporter to briefly interview him just before his death, in what was basically a "photo opportunity" to prove that they had disassociated themselves from him. In the internal struggle leading up to his arrest, Pol Pot had ordered the execution of the Party's military leader and 14 of his family members (Pol Pot was to explain later that the killing of Son Sen's infant grandchildren was unintended). The last historic CPK leader in the jungle, the Southwestern Zone chief Ta Mok, who overthrew Pol Pot, tried to negotiate his own surrender in 1999 but was arrested instead. He awaits trial, although by whom remains the object of contention between the US and Hun Sen. It is only fair to ask, then, just what the West has done with Cambodia in the decade since they got it back in their clutches.
The "industrialisation" of Cambodia is supposed to be the up side of the situation. As of January 1999, there were 110 legally recognised garment factories with 72,000 workers, and 39 more factories (110,000 new jobs) authorised to open shortly. US and EU policies give Cambodian products access to their domestic markets at reduced tariffs. But the capital, of course, is Western: the West gets the profit and Cambodians the pain. Wages for many workers in the booming garment industry were recently reduced from $40 to $30/month for a 48-hour work week. Even better-paid workers getting 80 cents an hour were cut back to 50 cents.

Cambodia still, it seems, hardly has its own currency; workers are paid in US dollars. In the context of the Asian financial crisis, this has penalised Cambodia severely, since currencies in Indonesia and Thailand have been devaluated against the dollar, leaving the country behind in the race for the cheapest labour.

The country's other major "industry" and a far bigger employer is prostitution: local and foreign exploiters prey on hundreds of thousands of prostitutes, mostly unemployed young women and men from the countryside. Estimates run as high as 600,000, half of them HIV-positive. Cambodia has the fastest-growing rate of AIDS infection in Asia.

The situation of the 85% percent (out of a current population of 11.4 million) who still live in the countryside is more difficult to see from abroad, since they are of scant concern to imperialist-controlled media. One fact now widely known is that in a country where peasants once pulled many tonnes of fish from an acre of water, the fish are nearing extinction. Tonle Sap, the country's vast central lake, the biggest fresh water body in Southeast Asia, is silting up due to unrestrained logging operations for the Western luxury market. It has been reported that the country may become completely deforested in the next five years. Casinos on the lake front are pushing out the remaining fishing villages and fish breeding grounds. Relief agencies warn of the threat of massive famine.

Cambodia has become so literally a rubbish heap for imperialism that waste so toxic no other country will permit it is brought there. The seriousness of this was recently forced to the attention of the Western press when rioting broke out to protest the deaths of workers at one such enormous dump near the southwestern port of Sihanoukville, where Chinese weapons for the Vietnamese National Liberation Front were once unloaded.

The situation can be summed up like this: as a consequence of the US invasion and subsequent wars, Cambodia has a higher proportion of crippled people and amputees than any other country in the world. There is still no real medical system. The rail and road system destroyed by the US bombing was never rebuilt. Rice harvests never recovered. Half of the country's children are starving or chronically malnourished and the death rates for children at birth and before the age of five are among the world's highest.

The situation can also be summed up like this: politically under the tutelage of the UN, economically under the tutelage of the IMF, investment controlled directly and indirectly from the US and Europe, government a pro-imperialist coalition of every party that ruled Cambodia in the past half-century.

Nobody, of course, would ever call this genocide or demand trials. It's just ordinary life under imperialism.

[Palingenisis]

class isn't about the house you live in or the car you drive, it's a social relationship, its about who controls the means of production, snobbery doesn't come into it.

And people maintain that social relationship to point almost of commiting genocide when its threatened because of why? :rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

i dont think Red cat is motivated by hatred alone, hatred is only a product of the moral outrage of capitalism.

The problem with that is, Morality shouldnt be the main reason why we oppose capitalism.

[Palingenisis]

i dont think Red cat is motivated by hatred alone, hatred is only a product of the moral outrage of capitalism.

The problem with that is, Morality shouldnt be the main reason why we oppose capitalism.

I think Redcat is angry about the way he has seen people treated. The Indian state manifests a lot of extreme hatred towards the poor of the country. Infact the Indian elite seem to hate the toiling masses as much as my mum hates British soldiers and that is scarey when you think about it. Why shouldnt the belief that everyone deserves to develop themselves as much as possible and not be victim of people who treat them as if they were insects be the main reason to oppose capitalism?

[Imposter Marxist]

"What drives me is my anger; what guides me is my hope."

[Amphictyonis]

f4XMgQUqLZ0

[PhoenixAsh]

I fully understand your sceptical attitude towards "establishment" sources but I think there is over whelming evidence that Democratic Kampuchea developed into tragedy...Even Pol Pot himself later admitted this. Of course the reactionaires leave out the fact that torture of the type the Khmer Rouge has become infamous for was introduced into the country by the French occupation and used also by Prince Sihanouk and Lon Nol. The poor peasants were badly if at all politically educated, had been through an almost genocidal bombing campaign, brutalized and the cities were in general parasitical on them. All these factors coupled with a lack of central authority, paranio and national chauvinism along with distrust of city dwellers by the "old people" led to tradegy. How far Pol Pot is to blame is very open to question though.


well...I for one think "tragedy" is a bit of an understatement in well executed mass rapes and forced slavery.


I don not know how you can defend a society based on the primary priority of production and competing chapters instead of workers welfare.

[Palingenisis]

well...I for one think "tragedy" is a bit of an understatement in well executed mass rapes and forced slavery.


I don not know how you can defend a society based on the primary priority of production and competing chapters instead of workers welfare.

Way to misunderstand the situation. But hey I guess you arent interested in reality as such, just feeling groovy and cool with your "radical" ideas?

[PhoenixAsh]

O...I understand the situation completely. I think it is supporters of Pol Pot who are a bit confused here on the "details".


The leader of the party that was supposed to protect the people against imperialism and create a new society in which peole were save from exploitation...degenerated the movement through incompetence of command (which is factually what he is saying in the video interviews...basically I am sorry...mistakes were made) and the fact taht he had no idea what the different chapters of the Khmer Rouge were doing (yeah...sure...because...you know...he didn't travel or anything) that eventually led to nationalistic fueled discriminatory system of factual slavery and forced resettlement, the abolition of the self and the enforcement of the collective..in which the party decided upon "mating" rights which led to rape and forced sex.

No matter what the intentions...this is what it was.

And as such...ANY communist, socialist and revolutionary should denounce it.

It isn't in anyway apologizable.

He was a member of a communist party. He should have known better and he didn't. Mass murder through ignorance is NO excuse.

[PhoenixAsh]

(http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2009033125116/National-news/transcript-from-his-address-to-tribunal.html)

The following is a translation of Kaing Guek Eav's address to the court during his trial's substantive hearing Tuesday, March 30, 2009. (http://www.phnompenhpost.com/index.php/2009033125116/National-news/transcript-from-his-address-to-tribunal.html)

In his remarks, Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, accepted responsibility for his role in the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge regime, including for "everything that took place" at S-21, the secret Khmer Rouge torture centre at Tuol Sleng where more than 12,000 people were brutalised before execution.

He also apologised to survivors and victims' family members and asked that they "would at least leave the door open for forgiveness.

Transcript as follows, translated by Lim Phalla***



I would like to begin by saying that between April 17, 1975, and January 6, 1979, the Cambodian Communist Party was the only one responsible for the crimes committed in Cambodia. As evidence of this, I refer to Cambodia's 1976 Constitution, the first page of which reads in part: "After leading the national revolution that fully and completely obtained democracy on April 17, 1975, the Cambodian Communist Party continues to lead the nationalist revolution and to build the nation emphatically and with a monopoly on all its parts".

This is the evidence I want to show to the nation and to the people through this tribunal.

First, I would like to evaluate the crimes committed throughout the country from April 17, 1975, to January 6, 1979. After April 17, Pol Pot became greedy by enacting policies that claimed the lives of so many people.

This was because Pol Pot controlled everything, especially a party whose members numbered in the tens of thousands. Our crimes at that time were many.

More than 1 million lives were lost under the Cambodian Communist Party, of which I was a member. I admit that I am responsible for my role in these crimes.

Let me express my profound regret for the atrocities committed by the Cambodian Communist Party between April 17, 1975 and January 6, 1979. Secondly, I would like to clarify the crimes committed at the S-21 prison.

I admit my legal responsibility for everything that took place there, especially the torture and killing, as I have already expressed when the co-investigating judges requested the acting out of events in order to assist in recalling what happened at the Cheung Ek killing fields and at the [current] Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum.

I would like to apologise to all surviving victims and their families who were mercilessly killed at S-21. I say that I am sorry now, and I beg all of you to consider this wish.

I wish that you would forgive me for the taking of lives, especially women and children, which I know is too serious to be excused. It is my hope, however, that you would at least leave the door open for forgiveness. Thirdly, my feelings of guilt cause me great suffering whenever I am reminded of the past.

I feel shock whenever I think of the actions I took and the orders I gave to others, which claimed so many innocent lives. Though I was following the orders of Angkar, I still must take responsibility for these crimes.

I have already told the co-investigating judges that I was taken hostage and served merely as a performer in a criminal regime. I am certain that everyone will think that I am a coward, that I am inhuman.

I am willing to accept these words honestly and respectfully. In S-21, I considered my own life and the lives of my family as more important than those of the prisoners, and I could not defy the orders of my superiors. Even though I knew these orders were criminal, I dared not think this way at the time. It was a life-and-death problem for me and my family.

As the head of S-21, I never considered any other alternative to carrying out all orders from my seniors, even though I knew that to do so would mean the loss of thousands of lives.

Now, I feel a deep guilt, regret and shame, as I know that I have made so many enormous mistakes against my nation, against the whole Cambodian population, against the families of all the victims who lost their lives at S-21 and against members of my own family, as well, some of whom have already passed away.

To resolve these mistakes, I have decided to cooperate with the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, as this is the only way to share the great sorrow over the crimes of S-21 and those committed against the Cambodian community as a whole, and to account for what I have done to my people.

I would like to say, further, that the horrible tragedies of S-21 occurred as a practical phenomenon, which compels me to tender myself honestly to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia to be tried under the law.

I promise to continue my cooperation with the Extraordinary Chambers by answering all questions from the judges, from prosecutors and from civil complainants, on the basis of what I can remember and what evidentiary documents show.

Now, please let me express the sorrow of my life in the following way.

It gave me no pleasure doing the things that I did. I requested a transfer to the Ministry of Industry in May 1975, but my request was denied. Instead, I was sent to S-21. I was initially less concerned because I thought I would be only a deputy. But later, I was appointed head of S-21. I protested again and asked that they choose someone else. I was only willing to serve as a deputy.

But I was forced to accept the position, and so I agreed. One date that I will never forget is January 31, 1977, when Son Sein ordered me to arrest several administrators from the Northern Region.

I tried to ask for some clarification, saying: "Brother, they seem to be different". But he threatened me over the phone. "Hey, Duch!" he yelled.

"Who was Thuon or Khuon, from whom you extracted confessions?" I dared not oppose him any longer. But I questioned why those who had sacrificed their lives to liberate our nation and our people would now have to be imprisoned and die as traitors to the party.

I would like to clarify to the nation and to all my countrymen through this hearing that the Northern Region administrators and I were very friendly and sympathetic to one another. Most of them were imprisoned with me in 1968.

I grew more and more surprised as greater numbers of prisoners were sent in from other regions, and when at the end they arrested brother Ngaet Nhau, who we called Pong, on March 13, 1978, I realised that the end of my own life was near.

I was in shock over my activities [at S-21], and I was frightened that I might not be able to survive. Then, Brother Number 2 [Nuon Chea] ordered me to move all remaining prisoners at S-21 to Boeung Cheung Ek, and I thought then that my life was truly over.

So to save myself, I hid in my kitchen day and night. Those who worked at S-21 can testify that they did not see me there any more. Finally, at 11am on January 7, [Vietnamese] tanks went past the front of my house.

I no longer knew what to do. At 2pm that day, I took everybody out of S-21 to the pedagogy centre and then continued my journey that night. During the next year, which I spent on the run, everyone who accompanied me lost their lives. Two of my brothers died. Six of my nieces and nephews also died. Comrade Pon, his wife and his children also died.

Other officials and their wives and children died. No one survived. In the end, only four of us - me, my wife and my two children - remained. You know, at that time I did not agree to obey the new sub-secretary of the Northwest Region.

He assigned someone to fetch me back, and he had a loaded gun waiting for me. I thought about the more than 1 million people had already died, so the four of us were prepared to die.

Thinking about all that had happened under this [Khmer Rouge] regime, I would not have regretted losing my life. Because of my great sorrow, I can think of only one way to apologise sincerely to all the victims and to my parents who gave me life. They wanted me to be good, and I wanted to be grateful to them by leading a good life. But I fell into bad ways in the end.

I have thought of one way to give myself comfort and to ease my suffering. That is, to apologise to all Cambodian people every year on November 17, which is my birthday. On that day, I will always do something to remind myself of my guilt and sorrow. I drew a picture this year about the last days of the Cambodian Communist Party.

The party last celebrated its birth on September 30, 1978, as it thought there would be no more time to celebrate in the future. At the top of the picture, I wrote: Congratulations on the 18th anniversary of the birth of the Cambodian Communist Party. Below this, I drew three chairs. The middle one represented Pol Pot.

The chair on the right represented Brother Number 2, Nuon Chea. The one on the left represented Ta Mok, who also sat on the honorary chair during the celebration of the party's anniversary.

At that time, the only true words were spoken by Pol Pot, who said: "The right way is to win." I added analyses of everybody's desires. I wrote down Ta Mok's dream, which was: "Nothing can be above me". I wrote: "On top of Ta Mok, there is only a hat, and only the sky is above the hat." Meanwhile, Pol Pot's dream is a peaceful dynasty. He stands on Ta Mok's strength.

For Nuon Chea's dream, I wrote: "No matter who is king, I am still an heir." In this way, I tried to symbolise the feelings of each of them. And at the bottom of the picture are the skulls.

I also included the prediction of an old man from Banteay Ampil district [Oddar Meanchey province], which Lieutenant Commander Neak Vong -- who presently serves along the border -- can still remember.

The court can see the picture of those three "rice blades", which form the word "party", and which means that the Cambodian Communist Party since 1974 has never been an oppressor of the lower social classes but rather the blind operator of an agrarian dictatorship. Last Updated ( Thursday, 09 April 2009 23:58 )

[PhoenixAsh]

Now...you can "understand" all you want about the political theory and supposed mistakes out of some fundamental wish to do good. Fact reamains that in reality this is what happened:

Duch admitted freely that he ordered Children (as young as 5 years old) executed. Teenagers executed. Women executed. Men executed. Ordered prisoners to be used in medical experiments often resulting in their deaths or total invalidity. Ordered women to be raped as form of punishment.

All this is substantiated by massive documentary evidence of lists of prisoners with sentences written behind the names by Duch. He reported directly to Son Sen...and as such was considered a pretty important person. One Pol Pot surely knew about...given as he was later promoted by Pol Pot to serve at his secratarial staff. And Pol Pot definately knew about Tuol Sleng....seeing as his 2nd in command Nuon Che was also administrator there.

On an interesting side note. Nuan Che is also the party ideologist...

20.000 prisoners were held in Tuol Sleng....of those 20.000 only a handful survived.

Now tell me again...how are children of the age of 5 reactionary? How is ANYTHING that happened in Cambodia a justification of butchering children? Ordering medical experiments on people and ordering rape as punishment even slightly justfied for a communist party??

[Milk Sheikh]

First world communists are mostly naive. In fact, they're liberals rather than communists. From their comfortable, privileged existence, they judge people who are fighting for their rights - and conveniently brush it aside as hatred. Is it a coincidence that most of them love MLK and Gandhi and attack Malcolm X and other real revolutionaries?

[Lt. Ferret]

this is why its okay to rape children.

[#FF0000]

First world communists are mostly naive. In fact, they're liberals rather than communists. From their comfortable, privileged existence, they judge people who are fighting for their rights - and conveniently brush it aside as hatred. Is it a coincidence that most of them love MLK and Gandhi and attack Malcolm X and other real revolutionaries?

I have never met a communist that has much nice to say about Ghandi. Honestly you just posted a really stupid thing.

I mean lol we all know how much of a friend to the working man Saddam Hussein was.

[Milk Sheikh]

I have never met a communist that has much nice to say about Ghandi. Honestly you just posted a really stupid thing.

I mean lol we all know how much of a friend to the working man Saddam Hussein was.

At least he wasn't a cowardly pacifist, complaining about the situation and not doing anything about it. He had the guts to go out there and do something ... anything. Point is, communists are good at giving speeches and analyzing things in microscopic detail but when it comes to action ...

[#FF0000]

At least he wasn't a cowardly pacifist, complaining about the situation and not doing anything about it. He had the guts to go out there and do something ... anything.

Dude was one half of a lover's spat between two factions of the bourgeoisie. Doesn't matter whether or not he "did something".

And who the fuck said I was a pacifist?


Point is, communists are good at giving speeches and analyzing things in microscopic detail but when it comes to action ...

quick someone gas people and collect tons of American blood money cause we have to do something!

[milk]

I think the question of intellectuals has to be answered by milk. Remember that Pol Pot and his cadre were in some ways the national intellectuals though Pol Pot came from relatively well off peasant stock himself.

During the post-war period, within thirty or so years from 1945, the country attempted to pass through both bourgeois and socialist revolutions without the necessary conditions or classes to carry out those revolutions, in a society altered by colonial capitalism, but not thoroughly changed, and indeed (unlike the changes in Cochinchina in particular) its own centuries-old bureaucratic and declining Asiatic mode of production was maintained and protected by the capitalist colonial power.

An emerging bourgeoisie (entrepreneurial and largely foreign) was unable to take power by way of revolution and the creation of liberal democracy, and so had to form alliances either with the colonial power, the royalty or the emerging petty-bourgeoisie (from which wannabe bourgeois and socialist intellectuals emerged).

Khieu Samphan with his 1959 doctoral thesis offered a way to a more thorough capitalist development in Cambodia, but the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie was not interested in either him or his thesis, still did not constitute a class of and for itself in Cambodia and without much access to political participation, still preferred to make deals with the royal court.

After 1945, the emerging intellectuals tried to take power by way of electoral politics with a post-war constitution, but their short-lived gains over three elections up to 1951 were lost as Sihanouk asserted ever-increasing dictatorial power. A major weakness was that they still did not constitute a fully-formed class, still existing in embryo, and their demands were easily stolen and used by undemocratic and (not necessarily capitalist) royal rivals.

Democracy, or the mere participation in polls every so often meant very little to most Cambodians, particularly the poor peasantry and after the country won its independence in 1955, many bourgeois-oriented intellectuals who remained in the country and if still seeking power, had no choice but to seek a career in the old bureaucracy, take to the gun, or there were those few lucky enough to enjoy relative independence with substantial inherited wealth. Most then, only remained as a growing petty bourgeoisie, frustrated by the old royal elite.

Those intellectuals who were attracted to socialism and wished to implement some form of it in the country, were, in their family backgrounds, more often than not indistinguishable from those with bourgeois aims, and faced their own difficulties. There was only a tiny proletariat (if you could call it that), and a lot of these workers were also foreign. The only demand which could attract the peasantry, and with whom, in the absence of a working class, they tried to identify with in their aims, was independence for the country with the ridding of French taxation. Again, these demands were easily taken up and used by the old elite for its own ends.

The bourgeois-oriented intellectuals were either co-opted and neutralised, or as hopeless rebels, confined to the margins, much like the early days of the Khmer Rouge until the Second Indochina War provided opportunities to increase their influence. Throughout the period of Sihanouk's Sangkum government, it became clear by way of the Prince's despotic rule that democracy was off the cards, mainstream political activity became a dangerous avenue to go down if pursuing power, and the only way the socialist intellectuals could conceive of winning power was through an alliance with the peasantry and then armed struggle to overthrow the government

[RGacky3]

First world communists are mostly naive. In fact, they're liberals rather than communists. From their comfortable, privileged existence, they judge people who are fighting for their rights - and conveniently brush it aside as hatred. Is it a coincidence that most of them love MLK and Gandhi and attack Malcolm X and other real revolutionaries?


Your an idiot, a moron, NO ONE brushes off third world movements as just hatred.


At least he wasn't a cowardly pacifist, complaining about the situation and not doing anything about it. He had the guts to go out there and do something ... anything. Point is, communists are good at giving speeches and analyzing things in microscopic detail but when it comes to action ...

Yeah, real guts, having women brought in for his sons to rape, gassing kurds, murding shiate rebels with an order fro mhis palace, what a tough guy Saddam was.

Go fuck yourself, with your Prolierthanthough attitude, you don't have a clue what many workers in the first world and second world and other third world countries have suffered nor what they accomplished.

BTW, I support both Malcolm X and MLK, but guess who succeded?

Being an idiot tough guy does'nt always work, sending other people out to kill people who don't agree with you is'nt tough, its a mark of a coward.

[Milk Sheikh]

Dude was one half of a lover's spat between two factions of the bourgeoisie. Doesn't matter whether or not he "did something".

And who the fuck said I was a pacifist?

Not only you but most first world communists are. They may claim otherwise, but actions speak louder than words. You may hide it by saying the system is the problem and not individuals. Well, that's a clever way of saying: do nothing.

Endless rationalizations, no action. You often see this with respect to Maoist action. Whenever Maoists indulge in violence against the state, you'll see Trots, anarchists, left-commies, and the rest attacking them, clearly oblivious of ground realities. Like I said, first world communists analyze the situation and make criticisms from the comfort of their homes; the fighters in the 'real world' don't have that luxury.

[Milk Sheikh]

Your an idiot, a moron, NO ONE brushes off third world movements as just hatred.

Have you been asleep all this time? All self-proclaimed commies attack Maoists for their 'violence' against the state. Yet these commies do absolutely nothing for the working class.


Yeah, real guts, having women brought in for his sons to rape, gassing kurds, murding shiate rebels with an order fro mhis palace, what a tough guy Saddam was.

And you know all this, how? Were you there?


Go fuck yourself, with your Prolierthanthough attitude, you don't have a clue what many workers in the first world and second world and other third world countries have suffered nor what they accomplished.

Easy for you to become angry on the net, and against a fellow worker. Why don't you show this anger against the state? That'll perhaps have some value.


BTW, I support both Malcolm X and MLK, but guess who succeded?

Being an idiot tough guy does'nt always work, sending other people out to kill people who don't agree with you is'nt tough, its a mark of a coward.

MLK succeeded in doing what exactly? Malcolm X inspires many people even today, whereas MLK's image is being used by the bourgeois to suppress anyone who dares to question the state.

[#FF0000]

Have you been asleep all this time? All self-proclaimed commies attack Maoists for their 'violence' against the state. Yet these commies do absolutely nothing for the working class.

All of them

really

all of them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have you been asleep all this time? All self-proclaimed commies attack Maoists for their 'violence' against the state. Yet these commies do absolutely nothing for the working class.

You're either an idiot or a troll. Which one are you?

[Milk Sheikh]

You're either an idiot or a troll. Which one are you?

See, you just proved my point.:)

[Unclebananahead]

My GF is convinced that the MTW's are just trollin for the LULZ, and Milk Sheikh at least, is kind of making that seem like that's the case. Unlike my GF, I think the MTW's are completely sincere, and suffer from a lack of nuanced class analysis. They have this notion of a monolithic first world all united together to oppress the third world. Interestingly, I have yet to encounter any MTW's who are actually from, or reside in, the third world. Honestly, that strikes me as a little odd. If its such a correct analysis, why aren't any third worlders (which MTW supposedly claims to represent) taking up this stance? You MTW's seem to think that us first world communists are 'soft on imperialism' because we are 'net exploiters' deriving benefits from its continued existence. The problem is that the first world is nowhere as monolithic and unified as you make it out to be. I think the vast majority of communists (at least the serious ones) recognize US imperialism as the biggest obstacle towards the forward momentum of the class struggle in smashing capitalism. I challenge you to find someone here (in the regular forum -- not OI) who isn't of that opinion. I think that all serious anti-imperialist revolutionary minded folks interested in getting a good grasp of the subject in question simply need to 1) be familiar with Lenin's analysis, and 2) get the perspectives of actual third world revolutionaries. I'm not certain that MTW's actually contribute anything at all to that process other than throwing out red herrings.

[RGacky3]

Not only you but most first world communists are. They may claim otherwise, but actions speak louder than words. You may hide it by saying the system is the problem and not individuals. Well, that's a clever way of saying: do nothing.


Well then most third world workers are doing nothing too.


Have you been asleep all this time? All self-proclaimed commies attack Maoists for their 'violence' against the state. Yet these commies do absolutely nothing for the working class.


You have no idea what your talking about-


And you know all this, how? Were you there?


Documented facts.


Easy for you to become angry on the net, and against a fellow worker. Why don't you show this anger against the state? That'll perhaps have some value.


Perhaps you should'nt judge people you don't know have no idea what they do, or their situation.


MLK succeeded in doing what exactly? Malcolm X inspires many people even today, whereas MLK's image is being used by the bourgeois to suppress anyone who dares to question the state.

Ending segregation, seriously hampering white supremicy in the region, I don't care if the state uses MLKs image, it does'nt change the fact that he accomplished something extraordinary and faught against the state.

BTW, I lived in Mexico for various years, and there is nothing worse, than a middle/upper class leftist who talks big but in real life has disdain for the poor, I'm not saying thats anyone here, but it does exist, but this idiotic proliorthanthough attitdue from some people here is nothing but emotional weakness.

[red cat]

Endless rationalizations, no action. You often see this with respect to Maoist action. Whenever Maoists indulge in violence against the state, you'll see Trots, anarchists, left-commies, and the rest attacking them, clearly oblivious of ground realities. Like I said, first world communists analyze the situation and make criticisms from the comfort of their homes; the fighters in the 'real world' don't have that luxury.

Calm down. Everyone here is not like that. We have comrades, even non-Maoist ones, in the first world.

[Palingenisis]

Yeah that's definitely true.

This is making me wonder though, how are we defining "Hate" here? What is the difference in acting out of hate as opposed to acting out of rage, desperation, fear...etc?

Good post...Im going have a think about this and try to get back to you on that.

Its a shame that this thread has gone way off topic.