What were the Khmer Rouge, and were they (actual) communists?

[Le Socialiste]

They were in name, correct? But from what I've read, little about them seemed remotely communistic. Anybody have any info on them, their policies?

[red cat]

You can ask your question in this group if you want a scholarly discussion instead of a massive trollery:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=595

[Le Socialiste]

You can ask your question in this group if you want a scholarly discussion instead of a massive trollery:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=595 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=595)


Thanks. I will. Do I have to join first, or can I just ask?

[red cat]

Thanks. I will. Do I have to join first, or can I just ask?

You will have to join it.

[Le Socialiste]

You will have to join it.


I've put in my request. As soon as I'm admitted, I'll post the question.

[milk]

What have read on them?

[Apoi_Viitor]

You can ask your question in this group if you want a scholarly discussion instead of a massive trollery:

Really? I've never seen any Khmer Rouge discussion on here that turned into a trollfest. Granted there are always a few "They were evil fascists who wanted to destroy Cambodia" comments, but they're always the minority.

Anyways, I think most people here will recommend Michel Vickery's work on the Khmer Rouge, and I attached an important PDF of his - that deals with the "urban-rural" cleavage, which inevitably comes up in any discussion of the Khmer Rouge's policies.

[The Man]

I wouldn't say they were Communists because they were Nationalists.. Right?

[milk]

Really? I've never seen any Khmer Rouge discussion on here that turned into a trollfest. Granted there are always a few "They were evil fascists who wanted to destroy Cambodia" comments, but they're always the minority.

Anyways, I think most people here will recommend Michel Vickery's work on the Khmer Rouge, and I attached an important PDF of his - that deals with the "urban-rural" cleavage, which inevitably comes up in any discussion of the Khmer Rouge's policies.

I think he's referring to the epic thread battle between myself and ComradeMan back in November last year (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pol-pot-another-t145093/index.html?t=145093).

The PDF you posted is the first chapter of Vickery's very good book Cambodia 1975-1982, although a little outdated regarding the death toll. The title of that chapter, The Gentle Land, is used sarcastically, in reference to the crap book Murder of a Gentle Land: The Untold Story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia, written by John Barron and Anthony Paul.

[Gorilla]

I wouldn't say they were Communists because they were Nationalists.. Right?

???

You have tendency listed as Stalinists and are a PSL applicant...but you think being a nationalist disqualifies you from being a communist? :confused:

[Return to the Source]

I really haven't read much about Democratic Kampuchea (DK) or the People's Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) that followed after the Vietnamese invasion in 1979. Thanks for recommending Vickery's book. I'll try and track it down when I get a free moment.

Generally, what are people's feelings about the PRK? Whereas the DK was Chinese-supported, the PRK oriented itself towards the USSR--obviously the product of the Vietnamese assistance in establishing the regime.

[milk]

A country that found itself isolated, blocked of trade and diplomatic recognition, having to contend with renewed war against deposed Khmer Rouge and non-communist guerrillas, and a very low infrastructural and social base from which the new government would have to begin a rebuilding of Cambodian society. Pressures political and economic from the US, its support for the Khmer Rouge via a partnership with China, the receding power of the Soviet Union, and the strains it put on both Vietnam and its allied Cambodian state, saw to it that the PRK failed to revive a Marxist-Leninist revolution with 'Cambodian characteristics.'

While collectivisation of agriculture failed in it's wider aims of socialsing production as part of a revival of the revolution (among a population largely not interested in socialism), what it did do, however, was help to stabilise the situation in the country against difficult odds. And in that, I mean it eventually brought the living standards of poor peasants back to the levels experienced before the severe disruption of the war and DK regime. It might not seem impressive, but given the state of the country, and its isolation, this was an achievement. The multi-billion dollar United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) from 1992-93 is given credit for stabilising the country, but it was powerful and influential member states of the UN who had protected the Khmer Rouge and helped them while they attempted to disrupt and destabilise the PRK during the 1980s. UNTAC in the end implemented changes during the political and military readjustments made following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and much else of the old Socialist world bloc. In the preceding decade, the PRK did the actual stabilising, even if not fulfilling its wider 'socialist' goals, and did so while contending with UN-backed enemies, until significant outside developments saw the belligerents try and reach a political settlement.

[Return to the Source]

Yeah, that's what I've gathered in the brief reading I did on the subject last night. The DK left so much destruction in its wake that hindered the PRK's ability to build socialism. The Sino-Soviet split was devastating to the world communist movement on all sides, but generally I've found that China was wrong on nearly every major geopolitical question (supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, Savimbi and UNITA in Angola, the KR and the DK, etc.). Their errors are understandable, in that they arose from very real material concerns about Soviet aggression, but holy hell..

I'd say the PRK did a hell of a lot with what they had. It's unfortunate more comrades don't know that the PRK subverted, opposed, and led the recovery effort after the DK. I imagine most people see "Kampuchea" and immediately think "Pol Pot".

[milk]

Michael Vickery's paper Notes on the Political Economy of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, can be found here (http://michaelvickery.org/vickery2010kicking.pdf), (Ch. 1, p 50). The rest of the book is worth reading too.

[Return to the Source]

Are there any more recent accounts of the PRK?

[milk]

The most recent is Margaret Slocomb's monograph, published about ten years ago. It's called The People's Republic of Kampuchea 1979-1989: The Revolution After Pol Pot. It's easy to find, and for a cheap price, too.

The online archives at the French National Audiovisual Institute have many films from Cambodia, most of them available to watch for free.

Something which might be of interest here, is a PRK documentary made in 1979/80, called Kampuchea after Pol Pot (http://www.ina.fr/video/VDD06000561/le-cambodge-apres-pol-pot.fr.html).

Another PRK documentary in a similar vein, about life in Cambodia a year after the fall of DK, called One Year after Liberation (http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/vie-sociale/video/VDD06001501/un-an-apres-la-liberation.fr.html).

Another film documents the first general election (http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/vie-sociale/video/VDD06000681/evenement-des-elections-legislatives-du-premier-mandat-1981.fr.html) held in the PRK in 1981.

There's also a film documenting the withdrawal (http://www.ina.fr/video/VDD06001681/se-souvenir-pour-toujours-de-la-solidarite-des-combattants.fr.html)of Vietnamese troops in 1986. Although not all of them left. It was after consolidating some measure of control for implementing the K5 Plan. Which meant in part removing Khmer Rouge camps from Cambodian territory in the west.

The archives also store many films from the civil war, by both sides, Republican and Khmer Rouge. There are also films from the DK years too. It's a treasure trove.