Khmer Rouge

[ComradeChris]

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts on the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia? I think in ideology I completely agree with it: The creation of a completely equal rural communist society (An Eden if you want the religious context). There was an excellent quote from Pol Pot that pretty much summed up the party's ideology but I can no longer locate it.

Had they not have gone astray killing millions of people, I would support their ideologies more directly. Although they probably came closest to achieving an egalitarian society.

I would also like to know what people think of their flag. It seems to incorporate the Anarcho-syndicalism colours and pattern.

[redstar2000]

Interesting to see someone raise this subject without immediately burying it in piles of corpses. (We'd have better discussions about "Stalinism" if people could do likewise.)

I've never seen a single document about the Khmer Rouge or what they actually hoped to accomplish.

That hasn't stopped some people, of course, from arguing that my "straight to communism" views are the "same" as Pol Pot's...and then start rolling out the corpses again.

If, as people seem to assume, Pol Pot wanted to build an agricultural classless society "right away", I'd have to wonder where he got that idea?

It's not Marxist or Leninist or even Maoist. In a way, it reminds me somewhat of what the "left"-Protestants of the 16th century might have done (or tried to do) had their rebellions against serfdom been successful. Did Pol Pot read Engels' The Peasant War in Germany?

In any event, I think it was a hopeless proposition from the beginning. If Marx was right, there is no chance of a medieval peasantry establishing communism...whether or not they kill anyone or everyone.

(And it would be helpful if those who can't refrain from rolling out the corpses whenever the subject of the Khmer Rouge arises would remember that many of the dead were, in fact, killed in America's secret saturation bombings of Cambodian villages. Just thought I'd mention that.)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[MKS]

Quote from redstar200
Interesting to see someone raise this subject without immediately burying it in piles of corpses. (We'd have better discussions about "Stalinism" if people could do likewise.)

It is my opinion that when one discusses the Khmer Rouge, Stalinsm etc. They cannot ignore the corpses. Maybe I am naive, but I think when such great numbers are killed it automaticaly destroys any legitimate point that existed.

and I am aware of the Genocide committed by Nixon against the Cambodians, Vietmanese and Laosians. My father fought in the war and led patrols into Cambodia. However there was still a large number killied by Pol Pot without Nixons help.

[rice349]

It is my opinion that when one discusses the Khmer Rouge, Stalinsm etc. They cannot ignore the corpses. Maybe I am naive, but I think when such great numbers are killed it automaticaly destroys any legitimate point that existed.

and I am aware of the Genocide committed by Nixon against the Cambodians, Vietmanese and Laosians. My father fought in the war and led patrols into Cambodia. However there was still a large number killied by Pol Pot without Nixons help.

Urgh...your sheer ignorance is really annoying. First, have you not paid any attention to the posts that have been made by numerous people on this site (even non "Stalinists" that the numbers of "corpses" you throw out are completely exaggerated and false? While your basing your arguments on your moral objection to violence (I suppose), you're getting your information from what seems like High school textbooks. Secondly, the Khmer Rouge wasn't a monolithic body headed by Pol Pot, so accrediting "all those deaths" with him is a bit premature to say the least.

[Paradox]

Quote from redstar2000


Interesting to see someone raise this subject without immediately burying it in piles of corpses. (We'd have better discussions about "Stalinism" if people could do likewise.)



It is my opinion that when one discusses the Khmer Rouge, Stalinsm etc. They cannot ignore the corpses. Maybe I am naive, but I think when such great numbers are killed it automaticaly destroys any legitimate point that existed.

I think what redstar was trying to say is that for once we're reviewing an ideology without connecting it to what was actually done by those who proposed it, the Khmer Rouge being an example. Instead of just saying "they killed a bunch of people, so their ideology was worthless," you examine the ideology ITSELF for flaws without associating it with the killings. For example, redstar pointed out that the Khmer Rouge's idea of agricultural classless society is an imposssibility (if Marx is correct), and so the Khmer Rouge's ideology ITSELF was flawed. So, regardless of whether they had killed ANYONE, because their ideology was wrong, they had no chance of success. Now that's a much more indepth analysis and critique than just saying "they were murderers," don't you think?

[MKS]

Quote from rice349
Urgh...your sheer ignorance is really annoying. First, have you not paid any attention to the posts that have been made by numerous people on this site (even non "Stalinists" that the numbers of "corpses" you throw out are completely exaggerated and false? While your basing your arguments on your moral objection to violence (I suppose), you're getting your information from what seems like High school textbooks. Secondly, the Khmer Rouge wasn't a monolithic body headed by Pol Pot, so accrediting "all those deaths" with him is a bit premature to say the least.

How am Ignorant? You cannot deny that Stalin and Pol Pot were responsible whether directly or indeirectly for the deaths of many people. The corpses cannot be ignored, because they are not the bodies of resistant enemies but those of innocent people. The killings did happen, that is historical fact. Whether it was 1 million or 100,00 is irrelevant. And any valid point Pol Pot or Stalin even made is nulled by such inhumanity. Just as any valid the U$ ever made (if there are any) are nulled by there terror wars that have killed hundreds of thousands.

I was addressing a previous post about why when Pol Pot or people like him are mentioned, some people always bring up a body count. My answer was because the body count cannot be ignored, ever. It is a permanent scar. It si a moral objection, and I think any rational person would have the same objection.

The information I get is not from high school text books, its from a study of history and current events, accumulated through instiutionalized education and self education.

It seems that your cynisism (sp) about history can be compared to those that said the holocaust never happened or wasnt as bad as reported. Not all history is manufactured by capitalist oppurtunists, some is actually gathered by people with a geniune intrest in the vents of the past and their affects on the prsent.

Quote from Paradox
Now that's a much more indepth analysis and critique than just saying "they were murderers," don't you think?

Once it is established that they were murderers there need not to be any analysis of their idealogy, because who cares about the idealogy of murderers?

[rice349]

Part of my "problem" is that i don't have a "problem" with the "murders" in which you are describing..

[Paradox]

Once it is established that they were murderers there need not to be any analysis of their idealogy, because who cares about the idealogy of murderers?

So then would you say "who cares about Socialism/Communism" because of all the killings and oppression done by those who claim to be Socialists or Communists? Or would you say that about democracy because people who claim to believe in it kill and oppress, such as the u$ government officials? Do their actions automatically nullify the ideologies themselves? Or are their actions and the ideologies two separate things? Except for when the ideology explicitly calls for the killing and oppression of innocent people, I'd say it's the latter. The Khmer Rouge's ideology was flawed, and ON TOP OF THAT, they murdered people. That's not a good combination.

[waltersm]

I beleive that their regime is too authoritarian, a counrty that is for the people should need not to kill

[MKS]

Quote From Paradox
So then would you say "who cares about Socialism/Communism" because of all the killings and oppression done by those who claim to be Socialists or Communists?

No, because not ALL socialists killed or were oprressors. But all Khmer Rouge were either indirectly or directly involved in the killings. Therefore their idealogy in my opinion in nullified. Just like the idealogy that drives America, because the American government has killed probably millions by now, thier basic idealogy of "liberty", "justice" etc, is nullified.

[slightlyleft7_26]

There is a new biography of Pol Pot if anyone would like to read more about him and teh Khmer Rouge...i haven't read it yet but it is by the same author of Mao:A Life, which was amazingly written. The author is Philip Short

[ComradeChris]

I've never seen a single document about the Khmer Rouge or what they actually hoped to accomplish.

Like I said if I could find this quote I'm really looking forward to sharing it. But I don't know too many good Pol Pot, or Khmer Rouge books that don't just talk about the killings.


In any event, I think it was a hopeless proposition from the beginning. If Marx was right, there is no chance of a medieval peasantry establishing communism...whether or not they kill anyone or everyone.

Actually to me, peasantry would be the ideal way to acheive equality. Even after a revolution I'm sure some jobs will still have elitist stigmas, like doctors for instance; well others may have the opposite stigma. If everyone was agrarian workers there wouldn't be any different groups of people to feel superior or inferior to.

It also would save handing out pay (if we kept money; and to date all "socialist" countries have). Of course Cambodia eliminated money, and had foreign intervention been eliminated I think it could have worked. Some people blame part of the starvation on the bombing the US did that destroyed roads, fields, etc. that made distribution of food to some areas near impossible.

As to the killings, I'm surprised, but the US actually had the lowest estimate of 50,000-100,000 killings. The rest seems to take into account the starvation and the civil war and fights with Viet Nam.


Urgh...your sheer ignorance is really annoying. First, have you not paid any attention to the posts that have been made by numerous people on this site (even non "Stalinists" that the numbers of "corpses" you throw out are completely exaggerated and false? While your basing your arguments on your moral objection to violence (I suppose), you're getting your information from what seems like High school textbooks. Secondly, the Khmer Rouge wasn't a monolithic body headed by Pol Pot, so accrediting "all those deaths" with him is a bit premature to say the least.

Well I agree with this, I want to go on a little tangeant, the same can be said about Hitler. In high school, we learned to blame only Hitler; "Hitler killed over six million Jewish people." However, upon entrance to university a new picture was painted. Firstly, Hitler didn't particularly care what happened to the Jewish people, and most of the dirty work was actually organized by his ministers. Sorry just to draw a parallel. I was flabbergasted when I first learned this. However, I do believe that leaders must take some responsibility for the deaths of "their" people. However, in extreme parties, it is difficult to get anything achieved without blood on your hands...unfortunately.


There is a new biography of Pol Pot if anyone would like to read more about him and teh Khmer Rouge...i haven't read it yet but it is by the same author of Mao:A Life, which was amazingly written. The author is Philip Short

It's coming out, or it is out? I really would like to pick up some Khmer Rouge readings...other than the Killing Fields.

I'd also like to add: nobody's really touched on the flag issue. is that symbolic of anything? I'd post the picture, but it seems I've forgotten how.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:48 AM

I've never seen a single document about the Khmer Rouge or what they actually hoped to accomplish.


http://ixabert.4t.com/polpot.html

Not exactly what you want but there is some hard to find stuff here, courtesy of who else but Ixabert.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ComradeChris
Actually to me, peasantry would be the ideal way to achieve equality...If everyone was agrarian workers there wouldn't be any different groups of people to feel superior or inferior to...Of course Cambodia eliminated money, and had foreign intervention been eliminated I think it could have worked.

If everyone were agrarian workers, there would be no pots to cook their rice in.

No one would know how to make a pot.

The first guy to figure out how to make a good pot would be "a big man" and could stop being an agrarian worker...people would give him some of their rice so that he would make pots for them.

And thus the beginning of commodity exchange and class society.

So even if Pol Pot's Cambodia had been the only inhabited country on the planet, classes would still, sooner or later, arise...because someone learned how to make pots. Or knives. Or fishing nets.

The human impulse to innovate technology cannot be stifled. Which is why all "ideal societies" based on "permanent backwardness" are doomed to failure.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 3 2005, 01:01 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 3 2005, 01:01 PM)
ComradeChris
Actually to me, peasantry would be the ideal way to achieve equality...If everyone was agrarian workers there wouldn't be any different groups of people to feel superior or inferior to...Of course Cambodia eliminated money, and had foreign intervention been eliminated I think it could have worked.

If everyone were agrarian workers, there would be no pots to cook their rice in.

No one would know how to make a pot.

The first guy to figure out how to make a good pot would be "a big man" and could stop being an agrarian worker...people would give him some of their rice so that he would make pots for them.

And thus the beginning of commodity exchange and class society.

So even if Pol Pot's Cambodia had been the only inhabited country on the planet, classes would still, sooner or later, arise...because someone learned how to make pots. Or knives. Or fishing nets.

The human impulse to innovate technology cannot be stifled. Which is why all "ideal societies" based on "permanent backwardness" are doomed to failure.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I do believe in limited industries. And industries would rotate what that produced according to need and/or desire. Like one or two factories per commune to produce tools and the what not for the work. Even Pol Pot had education and medicine.

[Lance Murdoch]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 01:48 AM
I've never seen a single document about the Khmer Rouge or what they actually hoped to accomplish.

I have...although certainly they are certainly not easy to find. Actually there is no Khmer Rouge, just like there was no Viet Cong or Shining Path, these are all terms invented or used by the US media. The Communist Party of Kampuchea (Cambodia) was concerned primarily with Cambodia, and wasn't big on publicizing their ideas internationally. This worked against them somewhat, as it allowed the bourgeois press to print a lot of nonsense about them.

If one reads over most bourgeois reviews of deaths in Cambodia during CPK rule, very few of the deaths were from execution, most were from malnutrition. Which leads one to question - was this the CPK's doing? Well, for one thing, death from malnutrition started before the CPK took over. The civil war in Cambodia with the American bombing and invasion thrown in (which students in the US protested - the US killed four of the Cambodian invasion student protestors at Kent State and two at Jackson State) caused farmers to stop planting and flee to the cities. Thus Cambodia was not growing food, and the cities were filled with refugees from the fighting who needed to eat. International food aid was keeping people alive somewhat, but that was cut off as soon as the CPK took over. So the CPK inherited a country that was already in a famine due to the war, which is when most of the malnutrition deaths took place.

One can have different views about the CPK, but they are certainly not the monsters that the corporate press makes them out to be. Also, the US ended its campaign of defamation against them in 1979 when the US powers-that-be found it more to their advantage to bash Vietnam instead of Cambodia.

[Edward Norton]

I do believe in limited industries. And industries would rotate what that produced according to need and/or desire. Like one or two factories per commune to produce tools and the what not for the work. Even Pol Pot had education and medicine.

Are you a primitivist?

For me the ideology of the Khmer Rouge/CPK was far more in line with anti technological primitivism than any form of communism (Maoism/Stalinism/Trotskyism/council communism or anarcho-communism).

Indeed people like the 'unabomber' Ted Kyzienski (sp?) had similar views with urban modern society and its reliance on machines and technology, just like the Khmer Rouge/CPK.

The whole idea of moving the nations entire population into the countryside and the abolition of cities, with the abolition of organised religion, money, markets, education, trade and even restarting the date back to year zero in 1975, all of this has MUCH more to do with a premeditated rejection of modern technological society than Marxism.

Marxism/communism aims for global revolution and the emancipation of the proletariat and communism is very much in FAVOUR of continued human progress in the area of technology and science (indeed with the restrictions based on power and profit that exist under capitalism removed, communism will a much more modern and advanced society than anything we have yet seen).

Personally I don't follow primitivism (including the Khmer Rouge variety) as like Redstar2000 pointed out, humans are forever advancing due to their intelligence and evolution, to put ourselves back means that we could never evolve, impossible for a non animalistic species like ours.

Also certain technologies could SAVE our species from extinction. Nuclear missles are the first to come to mind as they are all we have at the moment against a large meteorite crashing into the earth. Besides sooner or later (thousands of years from now) we may have to leave this planet for others, as we may get to a stage where this planet is no longer suited for our species. How would we get around this without technology?

BTW, someone said that the Americans invented the term Khmer Rouge, wrong the Americans along with others do USE it, but it was intvented as a nickname for the CPK by the former ruler of Cambodia Prince Shinouak who was overthrown in 1970 by his own military. Khmer Rouge is French (being and ex-French colony) for Red Cambodians.

Aslo I read a text, can't remeber which one, that claimed that Khmer Rouge leaders themselves along with their writings, were not 'anti-civilisation/technology primitivists' and that they did WANT a modern society, but that they put the clock back on society to 'start all over again'. In other words they wanted to go back to the begining of human progress and restart it all over again.

[MKS]

Quote from Lance Murdoch
just like there was no Viet Cong

Then who shot my father? Of course there was a Viet Cong, Ive seen it with my own eyes.(pics brought back from the war) My father fought with the 25th in Vietnam and Cambodia in 1969-1970, was wounded by a Vietcong sniper. The vietcong was a real gurreilla force, that aided the NVA and some say won the war of Vietnamese Independence. Maybe the label, "vietcong" was contrived, but its mission and power was very real.

By the way I am not condoning what my father did by any means, Im just adding some personal expierence to illustrate a point.

[ComradeChris]

Are you a primitivist?

I'm an environmentalist? I honestly have my own beliefs and stigmas kind of bother me. Although at the time being my ideologies loosely follow those of the Khmer Rouge.


The whole idea of moving the nations entire population into the countryside and the abolition of cities, with the abolition of organised religion, money, markets, education, trade and even restarting the date back to year zero in 1975, all of this has MUCH more to do with a premeditated rejection of modern technological society than Marxism.

You don't have to be Marxist to be an egalitarian society. And who said they were Marxist? They were anti-USSR.


Marxism/communism aims for global revolution and the emancipation of the proletariat and communism is very much in FAVOUR of continued human progress in the area of technology and science (indeed with the restrictions based on power and profit that exist under capitalism removed, communism will a much more modern and advanced society than anything we have yet seen).

Well maybe the bad stigma surrounding technology exists because to date, there's most likely more harmful technologies than good. There's more cancer producing agents in the world, and that's just increasing. And guess what? No cure for cancer yet! There was a quote, or something, that basically said that the largest growing technological advancement in the 19th century was Bombs.


Personally I don't follow primitivism (including the Khmer Rouge variety) as like Redstar2000 pointed out, humans are forever advancing due to their intelligence and evolution, to put ourselves back means that we could never evolve, impossible for a non animalistic species like ours.

I don't see how you can say that. There are tribes that only evolve because of the Western world. They really don't seem to be trying to develop nuclea arsenals. Evolution is a competion, and if a species is safe, why does it require evolution??


Also certain technologies could SAVE our species from extinction. Nuclear missles are the first to come to mind as they are all we have at the moment against a large meteorite crashing into the earth. Besides sooner or later (thousands of years from now) we may have to leave this planet for others, as we may get to a stage where this planet is no longer suited for our species. How would we get around this without technology?

Actually, you really don't need an nuclear explosive devices to detonate a meteor. Even though a meteor large enough to extinct a species comes what, every several million years? But there was an article, from NASA, that stated that just launched a copper tipped rocket at a meteor they wanted to see the innards of. And the impact alone caused a large explosion.

If there wasn't industries to exploit, capitalism would have never occured. Progress has continued it seems, because people want to make a profit (whether that is different in a Marxist society we don't know yet). Eliminate the industries, you eliminate the Bourgeoisie.

[Anarchist Freedom]

I feel in this debate people shouldnt look at the death count for now as that always swamps this subject when it comes up.

[Edward Norton]

No, primitivism has NOHING to do with environmentalism, apart from a few radical ecologists, most environmentalisms just wants industrial society to be more 'greener'.

Look up primitivism on the net, you will get lots of info, also look up the 'unabomber' and you will see the correlation.


You don't have to be Marxist to be an egalitarian society. And who said they were Marxist? They were anti-USSR.

Im opposed to what the USSR turned into, yet Im a Marxist.

Not all communists support the USSR model.

My communism is classical Marxism, that is I reject Leninism, the state and believe
that socialism has lost it's need. I favour a straight to communism approach.


Well maybe the bad stigma surrounding technology exists because to date, there's most likely more harmful technologies than good. There's more cancer producing agents in the world, and that's just increasing. And guess what? No cure for cancer yet! There was a quote, or something, that basically said that the largest growing technological advancement in the 19th century was Bombs.

And by going back on society there would never have been a cure for many other illnesses, and we would be FURTHER away from finding a cure for cancer.

Technology on its own is neither good OR bad! It's the reason for using it (ie: human desire and motives/objectives) are what cause it's results on society.

Under capitalism technology will be used for the wrong reasons, but in a communist world (without class oppression, nations, money) technoloy will ONLY be used to advance and better ourselves.


I don't see how you can say that. There are tribes that only evolve because of the Western world. They really don't seem to be trying to develop nuclea arsenals. Evolution is a competion, and if a species is safe, why does it require evolution?

Spot on, tribes lack any means to preserve themselves due to their backwardness, then more advanced societies wipe them out. Look at the aboriginals of Austrialia, spears never work against guns!

To survive, species need to evolve to face the threats that wish them extinction, whether those threats are man made or natural. Evolution can NEVER regress, no matter how idealistic a theory that says you can.


If there wasn't industries to exploit, capitalism would have never occured. Progress has continued it seems, because people want to make a profit (whether that is different in a Marxist society we don't know yet). Eliminate the industries, you eliminate the Bourgeoisie.

Capitalist exploitation exists for ONE reason, capitalism!

Going back wont do that, overthrowing capitalism and using technology and societies advances for human NEED, not profit or power, will.

Besides you could join a tribe and live out the primitivist system, but the majority of people would never won't to turn the clock back on 10,000 years of human history, progress and evolution.

[ComradeChris]

No, primitivism has NOHING to do with environmentalism, apart from a few radical ecologists, most environmentalisms just wants industrial society to be more 'greener'.

Look up primitivism on the net, you will get lots of info, also look up the 'unabomber' and you will see the correlation.

That's why I said I wasn't a primitivist...good grief. Primitivism is used sometimes for the environment though. Going back to grass roots farming. You really can't screw up the environment too much by planting new plants.


Im opposed to what the USSR turned into, yet Im a Marxist.

Not all communists support the USSR model.

My communism is classical Marxism, that is I reject Leninism, the state and believe
that socialism has lost it's need. I favour a straight to communism approach.

Then why'd you even bring up Marxism then?


And by going back on society there would never have been a cure for many other illnesses, and we would be FURTHER away from finding a cure for cancer.

Or going away from a lot of the cancer causing agents. I'm for vaccines and the sort.


Technology on its own is neither good OR bad! It's the reason for using it (ie: human desire and motives/objectives) are what cause it's results on society.

I never said it was. Most of it serves a destructive purpose. Kind of hard to use that for good. Unless, like you seem to think, there will be millions of meteors hitting earth simultaneously.


Under capitalism technology will be used for the wrong reasons, but in a communist world (without class oppression, nations, money) technoloy will ONLY be used to advance and better ourselves.

Well that has yet to be proven. A lot of the technology the USSR had was actually stolen from other countries by spies.


Spot on, tribes lack any means to preserve themselves due to their backwardness, then more advanced societies wipe them out. Look at the aboriginals of Austrialia, spears never work against guns!

Exactly...you're referring to evolution. Which won't occur if there's no need to advance against a threatening neighbour. So if global communism is ever achieved how would we evolve? After that it's about being self-sufficient...advancement is NOT a requirment.


To survive, species need to evolve to face the threats that wish them extinction, whether those threats are man made or natural. Evolution can NEVER regress, no matter how idealistic a theory that says you can.

Who's saying it's regressing? There still are agrarian societies...in fact most of the food in teh world is produced on farms. So I don't see how that's a regression.


Capitalist exploitation exists for ONE reason, capitalism!

Brilliant observation!


Going back wont do that, overthrowing capitalism and using technology and societies advances for human NEED, not profit or power, will.

No...because advancing while under capitalism gives the Bourgeois the upper hand. They've already been eliminating millions of jobs that can be done by machinery. Eventually, they couldn't care less what the Proletariat does.


Besides you could join a tribe and live out the primitivist system, but the majority of people would never won't to turn the clock back on 10,000 years of human history, progress and evolution.

Who said I wanted to join a tribe?

[Edward Norton]

Well what stage of advancement do you think is enough for humans?

You speak in favour of medicine then speak in favour of third world rural societies.

Most tribes don't even have a written language, let alone a basic knowledge of science and medicine.

When I spoke of communism using technology for the good of humans, don't use the USSR as an example, it was not even communist, it was socialist and that proved to be a failure for all concerned, save the capitalists.

I have already made clear my own ideological differences on communism with the USSR model, so they cannot be compared communism.

You somehow think that by default technology is destructive by its very existence. How can that be, as for it to be destructive it would be self aware and able to think, machines are not living thinking beings, just tools that we use!

Maybe your arguement would stand if machines did indeed think and start getting destructive, but they haven't, technology is only destructive if we USE it for that end, under a communist system that would cease to exist.

The problem is the reasons humans USE technology, not the technology itself.

Besides your claim that as technology advances humans move ever more near to their own destruction is backed up without ANY fact.

The system you propose suited us many thousands of years ago, when the global human population was no more than about 10 to 20 million, now we have 6 billion people.

Not only does our system that you propose, only suit a society much smaller in numbers than we have at present, but the fact that the human population has GROWN to 6 billion over time proves that the increase in technology goes hand in hand with our own species growth and thus securing our future exisitence.

Besides, you failed to answer my point on how you envision this society to come about?

The vast majority of people would reject, with good reason, being uprooted and sent back into a primitive rural society.

Your system does appeal to some individuals, but so small are the numbers that you would have to just 'drop out' of modern society and go and form a farming community yourselves, I for one will not be moving to the countryside to work on some farm!

[ComradeChris]

Well what stage of advancement do you think is enough for humans?

Until we're self-sufficient but not damaging the ecosystem.


You speak in favour of medicine then speak in favour of third world rural societies.

No I speak of predominantly agricultural producing societies. I don't know if you realize but most of the world's food comes from farms! I'd consider Canada to be predominantly agricultural based.


Most tribes don't even have a written language, let alone a basic knowledge of science and medicine.

What are you saying?


When I spoke of communism using technology for the good of humans, don't use the USSR as an example, it was not even communist, it was socialist and that proved to be a failure for all concerned, save the capitalists.

It was Marxist...or at least people here claim it was. But other than the Khmer Rouge it was probably the closest to achieving communism.


Maybe your arguement would stand if machines did indeed think and start getting destructive, but they haven't, technology is only destructive if we USE it for that end, under a communist system that would cease to exist.

Machines produce vast amounts of pollutants...that's destruction. So does my argument stand?


Besides your claim that as technology advances humans move ever more near to their own destruction is backed up without ANY fact.

Who said anything to their own destruction? And if I did I apologize. I've been cautious only to use ecosystem, nature, etc. But pollutants aren't good for humans however.



The system you propose suited us many thousands of years ago, when the global human population was no more than about 10 to 20 million, now we have 6 billion people.

No speaking of non-factual statements... Agriculture produces food for that many people. Unfortunately it's unevenly distributed in the Capitalist system.


Not only does our system that you propose, only suit a society much smaller in numbers than we have at present, but the fact that the human population has GROWN to 6 billion over time proves that the increase in technology goes hand in hand with our own species growth and thus securing our future exisitence.

Human's predominant means of food production is still agriculture. I'm not saying eliminate agricultural technology...although I'm for making it more environmentally friendly.


Besides, you failed to answer my point on how you envision this society to come about?

Kind of hard when I'm busy arguing you're other assumptions.


The vast majority of people would reject, with good reason, being uprooted and sent back into a primitive rural society.

Actually, did you know, in ancient Greece, Pythagoras lived in a rural commune much like that of which I speak. He lived to be 100. Back on topic, but the Khmer Rouge was the closest to creating an egalitarian society. If it wasn't for the Viet Minh, and the US constantly attacking them, they might have made it work.


Your system does appeal to some individuals, but so small are the numbers that you would have to just 'drop out' of modern society and go and form a farming community yourselves, I for one will not be moving to the countryside to work on some farm!

Who said you have to? It takes a strong person to do farm labour anyway.