Pol Potism

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Before I start, I should probably claim I'm not in any way a fan of Pol Pot; he is nothing more than a putrid scar on the face of Communism for me. But I'd be interested to know A) if they are any legitimate supporters of Pol Pot (Pol Potists?) and B) what exactly would his political alignment go under? I mean he called himself a Maoist after Mao's deaths, but his politics seem to be far from Mao's, perhaps aside from believing in peasant revolution. I just can't seem to fathom why he identified as a communist, seeing as he and the Khmer Rouge was racist towards the Vietnamese and were extremely nationalist in their doctrine, as well as totalitarian; isn't that essentially fascism (i.e. nationalism, racial supremacy and total control)?

[Counterculturalist]

Not surprisingly considering Pol Pot's ideology, you're more likely to find adherents among the cryptofascist scum that occasionally slithers around left circles. For example the out-to-lunch Rural People's Party (which was apparently a front group for neo-nazis) were big fans, and professional anti-semite Israel Shamir has a positive view, as do some "third positionist" factions. Basically - as if it wasn't already obvious - anyone claiming to "uphold" Pol Pot is no leftist.

[RedWorker]

The Khmer Rouge were possibly the best match for the definition of "reactionary" that ever existed: aiming to destroy modern society and technology and return back to a peasant-based order. And through what methods? Genocide, extermination. The fact that they were able to call themselves communists - the ENTIRE opposite - speaks volumes about the degeneration this label has suffered.

You'll probably find some people who do apologism for them amongst ignorant, arrogant, immature, posseur-style lifestylist Stalinists and Maoists.

Historically, the Khmer Rouge were supported by the U.S. and China, united against the USSR.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The closest ideology I could match Pol Pot to (since the Khmer Rouge were a strange, macabre creature all their own), would be sometime akin to NazBols.

The Khmer Rouge were, above anything else, Khmer nationalists. They despised non-Khmer Cambodians and actively set out a campaign of ethnic cleansing to kill non-Khmers....particularly Han Chinese.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

I didn't really think there'd be much of a deeper answer to the question, but I was just curious as to why Pol Pot is labelled as a communist. I have yet to meet a Pol Pot sympathiser or supporter anywhere on the internet and I assume they're banned on here (or at least I'd hope so). I've even met Pinochet sympathisers, which you'd think would be nonexistent too, so I assumed there must be some dark corner of the internet where one is.

What about Pol Pot's economics? That's really the only area I could place him as "left-wing" on, due to his collectivisation programme, but even then I couldn't argue much of a case for that.

[Aslan]

pol pot's ''collectivization'' was effectively, ''Get out of the cities or I'll kill your entire family''. I truely am disgusted that people exist in this world who support him. In fact, after a quick google I've found that that website you showed was also supportive of Jim Jones.

Why am I not surprised...

[willowtooth]

why did he change his name?

[Intourist]

He believed he was a Marxist-Leninist and followed Vietnamese-taught doctrine in a crude and formulaic way, regardess of whether it was appropriate to the situation in which the Cambodian party found itself.

The focus on the countryside was for the goal of primitive capital accumulation to provide an investment surplus in order to fund projected industrial development.

It would be inaccurate to say that he said he was a 'Maoist,' following Mao's death. Like the Vietnamese (depending on the time), he would identify as a Marxist-Leninist with the contribution of Mao Tse-tung Thought in a Southeast Asian context, not least People's War.

Any talk of the Cambodian Communists being anti-modern is silly. DK and its horrors are very much a part of the modern world. The failure to realise a particular version of modernity on the other hand...

[RedWorker]

I've even met Pinochet sympathisers, which you'd think would be nonexistent too, so I assumed there must be some dark corner of the internet where one is.

There's plenty of casually-brought-up support for Pinochet among the world's conservatives... he basically got out of government guaranteed impunity, never faced justice, and probably there are deeply-rooted apologists of him in the main right-wing parties in Chile; just like with Franco in Spain. The bourgeois regime entirely tolerated Pinochet and guaranteed that him and his criminals would be safe. Every neoliberal economist supported him and argued there was more freedom under him than the democratically-elected Allende. Previous Spanish head of government Felipe Gonzalez (the one caught up in the state terrorism scandal; the GAL, and representative of the right-wing shift of the social-democratic party) recently argued that Pinochet respected human rights more than Maduro - an evidently apologetic statement.


What about Pol Pot's economics? That's really the only area I could place him as "left-wing" on, due to his collectivisation programme, but even then I couldn't argue much of a case for that.

You cannot separate a social stance from an economical stance. But: his economics were reactionary right-wing. He aimed to go towards an economy based on the fields.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Not surprisingly considering Pol Pot's ideology, you're more likely to find adherents among the cryptofascist scum that occasionally slithers around left circles. For example the out-to-lunch Rural People's Party (which was apparently a front group for neo-nazis) were big fans, and professional anti-semite Israel Shamir has a positive view, as do some "third positionist" factions. Basically - as if it wasn't already obvious - anyone claiming to "uphold" Pol Pot is no leftist.

Wasn't the "Rural People's Party" literally one crazy lady who lived out in a trailer somewhere, and idolized (along with Pol Pot) Jim Jones and the People's Temple?

[Counterculturalist]

Wasn't the "Rural People's Party" literally one crazy lady who lived out in a trailer somewhere, and idolized (along with Pol Pot) Jim Jones and the People's Temple?

Close, but there was a bit more to it than that. It was the brainchild of a couple of nutjobs who were obsessed with the DPRK and were also active in various neo-Nazi organizations, and was one of a series of front groups they created. They were also into eastern mysticism and radical Islam. The "crazy lady" was one of their wives. I don't think there were ever more than three or four members.

Oh, and they were probably all FBI informants, to top it off. Here's a pretty in-depth (but sloppily put together) article that someone linked here awhile back:

http://www.nate-thayer.com/white-power-and-apocalyptic-cults-pro-dprk-homegrown-u-s-terrorist-groups-are-pyongyang-chosen-favorites/

Worth a read if you get a kick out of bizarro-world political cults.

[billydan225]

Pol Pot was a piece of shit tat left a bad tatse for communism>Complete opposite

[Emmett Till]

He believed he was a Marxist-Leninist and followed Vietnamese-taught doctrine in a crude and formulaic way, regardess of whether it was appropriate to the situation in which the Cambodian party found itself.

The focus on the countryside was for the goal of primitive capital accumulation to provide an investment surplus in order to fund projected industrial development.

It would be inaccurate to say that he said he was a 'Maoist,' following Mao's death. Like the Vietnamese (depending on the time), he would identify as a Marxist-Leninist with the contribution of Mao Tse-tung Thought in a Southeast Asian context, not least People's War.

Any talk of the Cambodian Communists being anti-modern is silly. DK and its horrors are very much a part of the modern world. The failure to realise a particular version of modernity on the other hand...

What's the basic idea of communism?

"Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."

What was the basic idea of Pol Pot?

Take all the workers, drag them in chains to the countryside and put them to work in the fields, kill them if they complain, and kill any non-Cambodians you can get your hands on.

The purpose was ultimately to industrialize Cambodia? Who cares what they said the Grand Plan was, what matters is what they did.

Communism, even in its most utterly Stalinist-perverted guise, is about the working class. Brezhnev was a steelworker, Khrushchev a coal miner, autoworkers were paid more than doctors when they were in charge. And even in China, let's leave the nature of China to another discussion thread, at least the CCP claims to represent the workers and defend their interests, and indeed working people in China now are vastly better off than under the KMT, and under Mao for that matter.

Definitely not the case under the Khmer Rouge!

[Hatshepsut]

One need not go far to find Pol Pot fans. The U.S. government, for instance, if reluctantly, because the Americans preferred "stability" over the long-running chaos. After Vietnam's occupation ended in 1989, Pol Pot and other Khmer Rouge cronies returned to continue fighting and then share power with Sihanouk (and yet other factions) in the new Cambodian regime. China backed Pol Pot during the 1991-1993 civil warfare which led to the power-sharing arrangement. No one from the Khmer Rouge was ever held accountable in court until 2007; even now it seems only a handful of the butchers will face justice, a majority of the leadership having already passed of natural causes. Leng Sary, arrested in 2007, was excused from trial in 2012 for failing health and died in 2013.

The fact that Pol Pot remained in Cambodia's ruling class after his deposition by the Vietnamese invasion is almost completely forgotten today. But he never really left the scene, enjoying perks & privileges up to his death in 1998.

[Comrade Jacob]

Never seen a "Potist" on this site. They are even less in numbers in the real world than the left-coms, so it's not something to worry about.

[Intourist]

What's the basic idea of communism?

"Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."

What was the basic idea of Pol Pot?

Take all the workers, drag them in chains to the countryside and put them to work in the fields, kill them if they complain, and kill any non-Cambodians you can get your hands on.

The purpose was ultimately to industrialize Cambodia? Who cares what they said the Grand Plan was, what matters is what they did.

Communism, even in its most utterly Stalinist-perverted guise, is about the working class. Brezhnev was a steelworker, Khrushchev a coal miner, autoworkers were paid more than doctors when they were in charge. And even in China, let's leave the nature of China to another discussion thread, at least the CCP claims to represent the workers and defend their interests, and indeed working people in China now are vastly better off than under the KMT, and under Mao for that matter.

Definitely not the case under the Khmer Rouge!

You need to do a lot more reading. And no, you don't get to decide what people can talk about with regard to the subject.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

[Intourist]

If the OP would like some reading suggestions then I'd be happy to give some.

I can elaborate on what I think they were, but later. At the moment I need to rest after a hard shift at work.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

If the OP would like some reading suggestions then I'd be happy to give some.

I can elaborate on what I think they were, but later. At the moment I need to rest after a hard shift at work.

I wouldn't mind getting some. I have the famous "Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare" biography by Philip Short but evidently it doesn't seem like the most balanced of works about Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge.

[Emmett Till]

You need to do a lot more reading. And no, you don't get to decide what people can talk about with regard to the subject.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

I get to decide what I want to talk about. You got a problem with that? Guess you do.

Pot Pot had a similar mentality, but more so.

[Comrade Jacob]

I've only met 1 Maoist who likes Pol Pot and I've met dozens that despise him and a few who are neutral. Stop with this "Errr Moists leik pul pat"

[RedWorker]

I've only met 1 Maoist who likes Pol Pot and I've met dozens that despise him and a few who are neutral. Stop with this "Errr Moists leik pul pat"

Yet Mao was the one behind support of Pot - in cooperation with the U.S., even, for the complete caricature! - was he not?

[John Nada]

Yet Mao was the one behind support of Pot - in cooperation with the U.S., even, for the complete caricature! - was he not?Mao was dead by the time both the US and China supported the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge's support came due to the US bombing campaign which killed hundreds of thousands. That drove a lot of people towards the Khmer Rouge.

[lutraphile]

Mao was dead by the time both the US and China supported the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge's support came due to the US bombing campaign which killed hundreds of thousands. That drove a lot of people towards the Khmer Rouge.

I may be wrong, but that's not really true from what I've read. China backed the Khmer Rouge in 1970.

From Wiki

The political appeal of the Khmer Rouge was increased as a result of the situation created by the removal of Sihanouk as head of state in 1970. Premier Lon Nol, with the support of the National Assembly, deposed Sihanouk. Sihanouk, in exile in Beijing, made an alliance with the Khmer Rouge and became the nominal head of a Khmer Rouge–dominated government-in-exile (known by its French acronym, GRUNK) backed by China. The Nixon administration, although thoroughly aware of the weakness of Lon Nol's forces and loath to commit American military force to the new conflict in any form other than air power, announced its support of the newly proclaimed Khmer Republic.[26]

[Soviet Aggression]

I find this subject to always be ripe with propaganda.

Pol Pot was nothing more than an opportunist. HOWEVER, we must also look at what the decadent Nixon administration did with the illegal crossovers into Cambodia, which were nothing more than bombing runs that displaced millions in their search for Vietcong operation centers.

In regards to support from Mao, of course there was support from China. China, at the time, aided and armed many Asian/African countries entrenched in their own struggles, even if these countries didn't proclaim a socialist foundation.

[Intourist]

I get to decide what I want to talk about. You got a problem with that? Guess you do.

Pot Pot had a similar mentality, but more so.

Yes, I am like Pol Pot.

[John Nada]

I may be wrong, but that's not really true from what I've read. China backed the Khmer Rouge in 1970.Yes, the PRC did support the Khmer Rouge, and earlier Pol Pot was in China during the GPCR and, IIRC, he did meet with Mao. But at that time, north Vietnam also supported the Khmer Rouge. Lon Nol had launched a coup and was rather oppressive himself. And the US was bombing the shit out of Cambodia, which hurt peasant civilians more due to the Khmer Rouge "hugging"(moving close where an attack would result in friendly fire) the government forces in battle. The US and the PRC didn't collaborate in 1970 to back the Khmer Rouge. That was later under Deng.

This is a Maoist view of Democratic Kampuchea: http://www.bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm And op, Michael Vickery has written some books on the Khmer Rouge and Cambodia: http://michaelvickery.org/

[Ismail]

I may be wrong, but that's not really true from what I've read. China backed the Khmer Rouge in 1970.In the early 70s pretty much every country claiming the mantle of socialism (including the USSR, China and North Vietnam) publicly backed the government in exile set up by Prince Sihanouk, because he had been deposed in a US-sponsored military coup for adopting a policy of neutralism in foreign affairs.

The Khmer Rouge formed an alliance with Sihanouk as they had a common enemy in the form of the military government, even though Sihanouk and the KR had been enemies beforehand. The KR hid its existence from the Cambodian people during the struggle, claiming that they were merely patriots interested in the return of the Prince. The government in exile ostensibly had its own army called FUNK which was supposed to be a coalition of guerrillas from different ideological tendencies including Sihanoukists and the KR, but the KR assumed total control over it by the time Lon Nol's government fell. When North Vietnam, the USSR, etc. sent weapons to FUNK, in practice it unwittingly ended up assisting the KR.

Upon taking power the KR gave perfunctory respect to Sihanouk for a little while, and then unceremoniously booted him from office and assumed total control, openly announcing its existence to the people.

As far as the USSR and its allies were concerned, they had spent the prior years supporting the return of Sihanouk. As far as China was concerned, they liked both Sihanouk and the KR and ideally wanted them to get along but otherwise had no problem backing the KR once it deposed Sihanouk. The assumption of power by the KR, which was openly pro-Chinese, greatly annoyed the Soviets and worried Vietnam due to the KR's claims to large portions of Vietnamese territory.

One good read (despite the pro-Soviet revisionist politics of the author) on the subject of the Khmer Rouge from its reactionary origins, its disastrous period in power, and its descent by the 80s into a group that praised the election of Ronald Reagan and was an imperialist proxy against Vietnam, see: https://archive.org/details/KampucheaTheRevolutionRescued

Internationally, no party of any significance has upheld "Polpotism." Even Juche had more of a global following.

[Intourist]

Yes, the PRC did support the Khmer Rouge, and earlier Pol Pot was in China during the GPCR and, IIRC, he did meet with Mao. But at that time, north Vietnam also supported the Khmer Rouge. Lon Nol had launched a coup and was rather oppressive himself. And the US was bombing the shit out of Cambodia, which hurt peasant civilians more due to the Khmer Rouge "hugging"(moving close where an attack would result in friendly fire) the government forces in battle. The US and the PRC didn't collaborate in 1970 to back the Khmer Rouge. That was later under Deng.

The Chinese and the Vietnamese wanted the Cambodian Communists restrained until Sihanouk's dismissal in 1970 saw them have to support the Cambodian armed struggle while the Vietnamese tried to infleunce its direction in the wider context of their own war, and the protection of the vital border camp complexes that allowed PAVN and NLF to escape direct American military pressures and enable their resupply.

Saloth Sar visited the PRC in 1965 following a visit to Hanoi for a top-level meeting with the VWP as part of the recently elected Cambodian leadership of the WPK. There he was rebuffed by Le Duan for putting forward the case for armed struggle to begin in the national liberation of Cambodia. His visit to China also met the same disagreement with regard to people's war in his country so soon. For the Vietnamese, the Cambodian revolution would necessarily follow behind the former.

As the Vietnamese situation escalated with US involvement, the VWP needed Sihanouk's 'non-aligned' stability and fake neutrality to transport arms and equipment to its network of border camps. The launching of a people's war against Sihanouk would disrupt and jeapordise this relationship. Meanwhile, peaceful mainstream political oppostion had for years seen Cambodian Communists arrested, imprisoned and killed by Lon Nol's security forces, including the smashing of the underground's rural organisation. Sihanouk's Sangkum was outwardly friendly towards Communist forces (for the sake of expediency) while inwardly repressive. The situation for the Cambodians became unacceptable.