i have a history question

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

was pol pot a communist or leftist of any kind?

[RedAnarchist]

No, and neither was the Khmer Rouge. They may have been given that label by the capitalist media, but they couldnt have been less communist.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

okay my comfort level with sympathizing with communists went up just now, not that I would accept that label to represent me :)

[Karl Marx's Camel]

No, and neither was the Khmer Rouge. They may have been given that label by the capitalist media, but they couldnt have been less communist.


Proof?


okay my comfort level with sympathizing with communists went up just now, not that I would accept that label to represent me

How can you judge yourself or anyone else just because of a label?

What is important is that you believe what you believe. Every "label" has dirt on their hands.


You can be liberal without supporting John Kerry, just as you can be a communist without supporting Khmer Rouge.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I dig

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 06:16 PM
was pol pot a communist or leftist of any kind?
What you should do to answer your question is look at what Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge believe and what they say they did and what others say they did. Of course, such information is quite hard to attain. Personally, I wouldn't pay much time to the question at all. I couldn't say for certain why the Khymer Rouge did what they and what they did as I have never been interested in the subject. But I wouldn't assume they killed 3 million people or that they were communists.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Dec 27 2004, 09:23 PM--> (Chairman Mao @ Dec 27 2004, 09:23 PM)
[email protected] 27 2004, 06:16 PM
was pol pot a communist or leftist of any kind?
What you should do to answer your question is look at what Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge believe and what they say they did and what others say they did. Of course, such information is quite hard to attain. Personally, I wouldn't pay much time to the question at all. I couldn't say for certain why the Khymer Rouge did what they and what they did as I have never been interested in the subject. But I wouldn't assume they killed 3 million people or that they were communists. [/b]
the fact remains I've done some talking to my dad (a pinko commie) and over the years I have arrived at the conclusion that not only would my defiance have got me killed in cambodia, and stalinist russia but your very own cultural revolution in china...

but in a democratic socialist societyI can only hope for the best and maybe we can get as close to over all equality as we can get

"and we'll keep working on the problems though we'll never solve."
-bright eyes

[Saint-Just]

the fact remains I've done some talking to my dad (a pinko commie) and over the years I have arrived at the conclusion that not only would my defiance have got me killed in cambodia, and stalinist russia but your very own cultural revolution in china...

Why would you stand in defiance of the cultural revolution?

I am sure your dad is very clever, but I wouldn't believe everything he says. My dad is also clever, however, I still look at his views with a degree of skepticism. He believes that the USSR and PRC were bad places to live. But, he does not have as great a knowledge of political ideology or history as I.

I don't necessarily support the Cultural Revolution by the way. I don't necessarily support Mao either. Having said that, if I did, I may agree with the circumstances that you imply would have led to your death were you living in China at the time of the cultural revolution. But, I seriously doubt you would have been killed. Not only because of your age (I presume you to be a teen or in your early 20s) but because you had to commit some kind of crime. Even if you did commit a crime Mao sought re-education for most people which is something you may well be familiar with if you have read Quotations from the Chairman Mao Zedong.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

no I havent read the little red book...

...I read (when I read) about GLBT issues... and to top it off I have read some Emma Goldman...and through in a little marx and albert einstien....

...and you see where I am coming from

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 03:26 PM
no I havent read the little red book...

...I read (when I read) about GLBT issues... and to top it off I have read some Emma Goldman...and through in a little marx and albert einstien....

...and you see where I am coming from
Yes, I am well aware of where you are coming from. The majority of people on this site share your perceptions of society and history.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

you do?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 04:22 PM
you do?
Yes, certainly.

On history, people think that history is history; that it is what happened. But it is not. It is a story; a person expressing their life on to reality, altering what happened to appeal to their view of the world in the present. It is often one person or a group of people or an entire nation trying to shape the future by proving the past.

[flyby]

The RCP is producing a work called "Everything You've Been Told About Communism Is Wrong: Frequently Asked Questions About Socialism, Communism, and the Cultural Revolution"

Some excerpts are already available:

The Truth About the Cultural Revolution (http://rwor.org/a/1251/communism_socialism_mao_china_facts.htm)

Social and Economic Achievements Under Mao (http://rwor.org/a/1248/mao_china_setting_record_straight.htm)

They also wrote a piece on Pol Pot:

Straight Talk on the Trial of Pol Pot (http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm)

[Saint-Just]

Those are some good articles. MIM have similar material, although I am sure you dislike MIM.

flyby, do you not post at www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums?, I am sure I recognise your avatar but not your name.

[encephalon]

a communist should not feel be ashamed of being a communist because someone else used the word "communism" to describe and cover up atrocities any more than a german should feel bad about calling himself a german because hitler called himself one. Or any more than a catholic should feel bad about being a catholic because of past atrocities of the church (though really.. people should be ashamed just for being catholics regardless of the church ;))

The so-called "Communist regimes" out there do not represent communism. Communism is easily hijacked--and this is probably the only thing it has in common with religion--because, if a person isn't careful, it can easily appeal to the emotions instead of the intellect, especially in impoverished places. If people are provided with hope, they'll follow someone to hell and back, even if that person is doing the opposite of what is right (see IRAQ WAR, for instance). People let their dreams get in the way and give up control. This is the greatest challenge for communists to get rid of, I think. If communists let charismatic politicians hijack the communist cause, communism itself will suffer.

This is why Marx+Engels insisted it be democratic, not a minority. It has to be controlled by the masses in order to work for the masses.

Huge human rights violations and other such atrocities have been done in the name of every ideology, religion and culture out there, period. The difference is that communism is, in historical terms, a very new concept, and thus less ingrained into people and easily mistaken to be something it isn't (or portrayed to be something it isn't, and easily believed). If you agree with the basic tenants of communism, then call yourself a communist--and make it your cause to let people know what it is, not have them believe something it isn't. Educating others is the issue, not shame for knowing.

[Urban Rubble]

No, and neither was the Khmer Rouge. They may have been given that label by the capitalist media, but they couldnt have been less communist.

I disagree completely. What are your reasons for saying this ?

First off, I want to make a disclaimer: I'm in no way an admirer of Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge. I think he was probably the most sadistic tyrant in the 20th century aside from Hitler. Also I have a personal reason for hating him, he killed many of my ex girlfriend's family members.

With that said, I think that the Cambodian Revolution was an actual attempt at real, working Communism. A horribly brutal and hardly even planned out attempt, but an attempt nontheless.

When The Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh in 75, they attempted to go straight to Communism. They abolished money, private property, emptied the cities and attempted to make a rural collective of the entire country.

Pol Pot wanted to go right to Communism, regardless of how many people he killed in his attempts. He wanted to use every single person in the country as a workhorse to build his agrarian society. It didn't even come close to working.

Like I said, Pol Pot was nuts. His cadre killed people for wearing glasses, knowing foreign languages and having uncalloused hands. Ixabert over at E-G likes to claim that the U.S was responsible for the majority of his casualties and that he evacuated Phnom Penh to protect the civilians from U.S airstrikes. That is the most blatant lie I've ever heard.

[1949]

I only skimmed through this thread, but I would like to say that the best revolutionary communist analysis of the Khmer Rouge regime is:

Condescending Saviours: What Went Wrong with the Pol Pot Regime (http://www.awtw.org/back_issues/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm)

It is a powerful, damning indictment of the revisionist nature of the Khmer Rouge, and totally destroys the false argument made by certain people that "Pol Pot is supported by Maoists" (and don't use Ixabert as an example, because he is a rabid dogmato-revisionist bordering on fascism, even though he has at times called himself a Maoist).

[Urban Rubble]

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

That's all I needed to read of that 1949. The genocide in Cambodia had very little to do with the U.S war in Southeast Asia. It is ridiculous to say the U.S ruling class is responsible for Pol Pot's actions.

Sure, they contributed and did alot of damage, but that doesn't mean ignoring Pol Pot's crimes.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 29 2004, 04:51 AM

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

That's all I needed to read of that 1949. The genocide in Cambodia had very little to do with the U.S war in Southeast Asia. It is ridiculous to say the U.S ruling class is responsible for Pol Pot's actions.

Sure, they contributed and did alot of damage, but that doesn't mean ignoring Pol Pot's crimes.
I didn't look at that article. But, looking at the article flyby linked to from rwor, it did not say that Pol Pot's crimes should be ignored. It said that the U.S. used Pol Pot's crimes for the purpose of discrediting social change.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

all of you-
I like what you have to say idealogicly. but it apaers that ideals never work in a thing called reality.
-petey the punk

pol pot and stalin pushed me and others away from communism....

...the thing that seperates me from others who got pushed away is I still stay left of center george orwell is alot like me in thought if you read animal farm...

[1949]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 09:24 AM
pol pot and stalin pushed me and others away from communism....
...but if you took the time to read the thing I linked to, you would see that Pol Pot was not a communist in any way. Once people understand that he was not a communist, they might not be so "pushed away" from communism.

As for Stalin, Maoists uphold a view of him as having been "70% good, 30% bad". There have been many very thorough criticisms of him made. I don't feel like trying to sum them up in my own words now, so I have some more links to start you out with...

Avakian on Stalin (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1101054499)
The Stalin Question (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&num=1067899956)
Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov (http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&num=1091569000)

[Urban Rubble]

...but if you took the time to read the thing I linked to, you would see that Pol Pot was not a communist in any way. Once people understand that he was not a communist, they might not be so "pushed away" from communism.

Why don't you debate this then 1949 ? Come on man, I can't harrass you at E-G right now, let's do it !

I think Pol Pot WAS a communist, I think he really did attempt to go straight to the Communism phase. I just think he was a nut and he was willing to kill as many as he had to to acheive it.

And Petey, comparing Pol Pot to Stalin is ridiculous.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

they were both heartless murderers. apparantly both "communists".
and because of the first fact that I mentioned, I dispise both of them...

...for that same reason I dispise Bush...

"take a look around you and see the world today, its full of fucking hypocrytes who'd like to get their way."

-agostic front



....true democracy is the answer both political and economic democracy...

....democratic socialism!