Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge

[red_orchestra]

I have just came back from an 8 month journey to SE Asia. I traveled to war torn Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia. In all the journey was a real eye opener to the condition that people face in this part of the world. Laos and Cambodia are still recovering after the americans dropped millions of cluster bombs in their country.

So what is your opinion on PolPot and the Khmer Rouge forces?

[bezdomni]

I don't think there will really be any pro-Pol Pot people on this forum....

[red_orchestra]

obviously not -- opinions, thoughts are all welcomed. This is a discussion... to educate the masses.

[Red October]

as far as i can tell he was a murderous psycho and no friend of the left.

[red_orchestra]

interestiingly enough he did have allies in China and Russia, who supplied him with weaponry. From what I was told he was NOT supported by any country just individuals. It is a sad legacy, and one that was never taught in the history books in school. It should be...
600,000-1.25 Million men women and children died as a result of PolPot cleansing operation. To make things worse the US dropped over 10 million cluster mines in Cambodia alone... still children are being killed from a war which ended 20+ years ago.

[Brownfist]

Some people have said that Pol Pot was a Maoist, and I completely disagree. It is true that he enjoyed some relationship with the PRC, however, most Maoists would not even recognize that PRC due to the revisionist Dengist clique that had taken over power. It is true that Pol Pot did learn some Maoist theory in France from Samir Amin, but I do not think that there is very much in common between Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. I don't even think ideologically there was much in similar besides a tokenistic use of Marxist phraseology.

He was no friend of the left.

[Brownfist]

Although, I do know one person who has defended Pol Pot and has argued that the deaths that are attributed to Pol Pot is due to the American aerial bombing of Cambodia, and due to Vietnamese Communist Party attacks. He further claimed, that many of the statistics are falsified by the Vietnamese Communist Part. His explanation of the entire abandoning of cities into the fields, so that people could achieve "proletarian consciousness", and anti-intellectualism was that there was widespread disease in the cities and to minimize that people were required to leave the cities.

I personally think that his arguments are bollocks.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 01:51 pm
I don't think there will really be any pro-Pol Pot people on this forum....
They become banned.


Although, I do know one person who has defended Pol Pot and has argued that the deaths that are attributed to Pol Pot is due to the American aerial bombing of Cambodia, and due to Vietnamese Communist Party attacks.

These factors no doubt would have contributed to the deaths. One reason to evacuate the city was American bombing of the capitals.

In this document (http://www.khmer.org/us/doc/doc60.htm), the Khmer Rouge seems like a reasonable Communist party. They mention the workers and students in the city. Here we see what bad affect Soviet revisionism and Peacefull Coexistence had on the world Communist movement. With the USSR and Vietnam against Cambodia this left the Khmer Rouge's only allies being China. By the time the Communist Party of Kampuchea achieved power Mao was dead, and the revisionist were in power. We can see in the start that the Khmer Rouge were left in the dark with no real friends and no real ideological support from a friendly camp. It would have been hard for the Communist in Cambodia to do some good and correct work. I think in that case they failed to act as proper Communist.

[R_P_A_S]

what did pol pot basically do? like how was he "marxist" if he is soo bad..?

[Brownfist]

Hiero I have not read enough to argue either way. I was wondering whether anyone in the Khmer Rouge had any theoretical works? If so, I would like to get them and read them and develop a better understanding of their ideology.

[red_orchestra]

By killing off the intellectuals of the country and destroying the labour guilds he ultimately destroyed the country. The skilled workers were the ones who would keep the reigim going --- he killed off 85% of the working class - 98% of the intellectuals/doctors/and those educated. He systematically rounded up children and butchered them, simply to make examples out of them.

Simple. It wasn't a revolution... The VietCom were horrified that PolPot called himself a "brother". As Sang told me, PolPots crimes were so sadistic many of the VietCom wept when they saw the mass graves and vowed to find the butcher himself and shoot him in the public square. The Vietnamese Communist party tried to restore the country as much they could... they waged all out war on the remnents of the Khmer Rouge.

[Brownfist]

I think that it would be interesting to do a more thorough reading of Khmer Rouge theoretical documents, and also history to figure out what really happened. I mean I think that we cannot just assume that what the bourgeois media has relayed about Cambodia is true, but I am more inclined to believe it. I mean it doesnt seem like the Khmer Rouge had very much in common with communism or maoism in practice.

[Honggweilo]

As little objective information i could find on the kmher rouge, it seemed to me that PolPot started off as a marxist-leninist, he was in the PCF during his study in france and helped with student demonstrations, was prominent in the Indochina CP. Due to alot of dificult factors cambodia faced Hiero pointed out, the Kmher Rouge, or the Angkhar party took a radical course after mao's death. They wanted to create a pure agricultural state that could provide for a its citizens and do away with any remnants of former society, using reactionary fascistiode methods like killing of any form of intelectualism and depopulation of the city's. Also he supported the American bombings on Vietnam and a load of other really disputable stances.

I would describe his rule as a Reactionary, wrongfull interpretation of the maoist view of cultural revolution, rascist and Primitivism in action.

Please, correct me if im wrong, im also willing to look into the subjet :)

[Joseph Ball]

When it comes to Pol Pot the 'He was just a nationalist' line of many western leftists doesn't wash. His movement espoused a Marxist ideology up and till 1980s. However, they supported the arrest of the Gang of Four (see Phillip Short's book on Pol Pot) hence they were revisionist.

Pol Pot's actions are often described as insane or deliberately destructive of his own people. Short's book is worth reading as a partial corrective to this view.

I think there are issues that Short does not explore much however in relation to the evacuation of the towns. Short makes some reference to Pol Pot worrying about capitalist trade carrying on in towns occupied by his forces. I think the evacuation of the towns may have been linked to the food dictatorship established by Angkhar (the name Pol Pot's administration gave itself). US food aid was cut off after Angkhar took power and Chinese food aid was never going to be enough to meet the vast need existing in Kampuchea at the time. Angkhar needed to enforce rationing and could not allow better off Kampuchean peasants to sell off surplus rice, especially as much of this surplus was traditionally sold to Vietnam.

Secondly in 1975, the populaton of urban centres had swollen with former peasants who were no longer growing food. Phnom Penh's population had swollen from 600000 to 2 million due to civil war and the US bombing. Although the bombing ended in 1973, US food handouts kept them there and when these abruptly stopped something had to be done. Peasants had to go back to the land and start feeding themselves again.

Certainly Angkhar's policy of burning all peasant markets and displacing all urban populations as a way of dealing with food shortage, is not to be recommended. However, this was more of a extreme and bone-headed solution to a very desperate problem than a complete act of madness.

Short argues that the worst massacres began in late 1976 and carried on to the end of the regime. Primarily these were directed at those suspected of sympathy for Vietnam. Relations with Vietnam were deteriorating but a large proportion of Angkhar had spent a lot of time in Vietnam and had loyalty to the regime there. It seems like the notorious 'killing fields' may have come into being when a pro-Vietnamese revolt in Angkhar was suppressed (Short p. 386). It's also worth noting that Angkhar banned the cremation of bodies-the traditional method of disposing of the dead in Kampuchea. Could it be that some of those bones in the jungle were people who died of natural causes and were simply dumped because the usual way of disposal was no longer available and not much had been put in place to replace it?

Vietnam's behaviour was pretty disgraceful. It wanted an area of Kampuchea's sea territory off the coast of Kampot where they thought there was oil. In 1977 they seized it (Short p.357 and 373). It was this behaviour that provoked Kampuchean border raids not simple insanity on Pol Pot's part as Ben Kiernan and others sympathetic to Vietnam would have it.

Starvation also became more of a problem at this time. Angkhar wanted to concentrate all peasant activity in collective production and the development of rural infrastructure. All private activity-even foraging-was banned in order to fulfil this goal. Collective agriculture wasn't well-developed enough to bear the whole burden of feeding the problem and serious problems arose, though later Angkhar reversed its mistaken, restrictive policies.

As for the death toll... Most of the estimates are based on extrapolations from census data which is unreliable to say the least. Vietnam's estimate, post-invasion, that Pol Pot killed half of the country's population was ridiculous, though swallowed whole by most of the western left at the time.

In 'Ferry Acros the Mekong' a radio program on BBC 4 in 20/06/05, Simon Groom went back to Cambodia and noted that many of the young people he met doubted that genocide had occurred in Democratic Kampuchea, though people seemed to agree it was a bad time for the country. Enthusiasm for western imposed 'genocide' trials on former Angkhar leaders seems wholly lacking in the country.

The Communist Party of Kampuchea drove out the US puppet regime of Lon Nol and drove out Vietnamese troops in the 90s, though the pro-Vietnamese puppet regime remained. It was dealt a bad hand when it took over. It played it badly. The people would have suffered under any circumstances after 1975. However, incompetence, dogmatism and lack of faith in the people made things worse than they had to be.

[Honggweilo]

Thx for your contribution Joseph, this is alot of info that takes an somewhat more unfamiliar perspective, good to reflect about.

[Janus]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ST&f=36&t=47496 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=36&t=47496)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ST&f=36&t=46013 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=46013)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversi...php/t29219.html (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t29219.html)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversi...php/t28597.html (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t28597.html)

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversi...php/t31861.html (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t31861.html)

[Brownfist]

Joseph thank you for the citation. Is the book widely available? Also, I was wondering whether the book's bibliography had any suggestions of Khmer Rouge related materials by which one could understand the ideological position of the party? I think it is very clear that the party was definitely revisionist, and followed a mechanical interpretation of what they considered communism to be which probably did result in widespread famine (especially when food production was already insufficient).

Your arguments that a large section of the massacres may have been related to the suppression of a pro-Vietnamese uprising is indeed an interesting one, and the brief note on the extrapolations from the census data is very similar to the argument you make about the GLF. I mean the problem that has been noted is that much of the data about the killing fields has come Western and Vietnamese sources. However, I do think that we need to note that even Jose Maria Sison has distanced himself from the Khmer Rouge, thus possibly suggesting that the experience in Kampuchea was probably not one that could be upheld by communists.

Indeed it seems that the policies of the party were completely rigid, and may have even exacerbated the death toll, instead of decreasing it, whereas in your argument about the GLF it seems that the death tolls there was actually lower than previous famines (which seemed to follow a cyclical pattern). I mean is there any data about previous famines in Kampuchea, and what were the famine cycles like then?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 30, 2007 04:45 pm
When it comes to Pol Pot the 'He was just a nationalist' line of many western leftists doesn't wash. His movement espoused a Marxist ideology up and till 1980s. However, they supported the arrest of the Gang of Four (see Phillip Short's book on Pol Pot) hence they were revisionist.
Oh...it's a wrong line on a Chinese faction fight that which makes them "revisionist", aka not really Marxist? Not, say, the fact they eliminated the working class in Cambodia? That's like criticizing Jeffrey Dahmer's table manners.

I gotta say discussing the theoretical errors of the Khmer Rouge or where exactly they can be pigeonholed ideologically - are they really Maoist? - is one of the most clueless questions anybody can ask about politics. If you don't ask the right questions, you'll never get useful answers.

A Marxist approach is to ask what class they served - and looking at their actions, they were a petty-bourgeois utopian sect who tried to forcibly shoehorn working people into their vision of agrarian paradise. They especially hated and feared the working class, but peasants also suffered.

On a less bloody scale, we see the same thing more recently with the Shining Path in Peru and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - 'course the Khmer Rouge were also on a less bloody scale before taking power.


Pol Pot's actions are often described as insane or deliberately destructive of his own people.

"Deliberately", who cares? Do I have to remind you what's paved with good intentions?


Certainly Angkhar's policy of burning all peasant markets and displacing all urban populations as a way of dealing with food shortage, is not to be recommended.

"Is not to be recommended"? You praise them with faint damns.


Vietnam's behaviour was pretty disgraceful. It wanted an area of Kampuchea's sea territory off the coast of Kampot where they thought there was oil. In 1977 they seized it (Short p.357 and 373). It was this behaviour that provoked Kampuchean border raids not simple insanity on Pol Pot's part as Ben Kiernan and others sympathetic to Vietnam would have it.

Oh. And the Khmer Rouge's genocidal chauvinism against ethnic Vietnamese, was that also "provoked"? Anyway.

I'm not going to attempt a defense of every action of the Vietnamese regime. But the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia 1. Liberated its population from a truly monstrous regime and 2. had the potential to extend Vietnam's workers' revolution - however bureaucratically distorted that was.

The Khmer Rouge's horror show cannot be described as any kind of proletarian revolution.

The conflict between the Khmer Rouge and Vietnam cannot be reduced to some petty matter of "who started it." It's a question of which side are you on in class terms.


Starvation also became more of a problem at this time.

Apparently refers to 1977. That is, about 2 years after they took power.

Note that: if starvation was not worst immediately after the war against the U.S. ended - then probably it wasn't simply a result of U.S. bombing, or the war. It was greatly aggravated by....Khmer Rouge policies.

Not suprisingly. Forced collectivization has always been a failure - and treating the working population like beasts of burden makes it even worse.

One film crew in "People's Kampuchea" captured a scene of an almost empty rice paddy - and right next to it a lot of people doing forced labor on a road. Which, BTW, reminds me of an argument Joseph Ball and I had about forced labor in the "liberated zones" of Nepal.


As for the death toll... Most of the estimates are based on extrapolations from census data which is unreliable to say the least. Vietnam's estimate, post-invasion, that Pol Pot killed half of the country's population was ridiculous, though swallowed whole by most of the western left at the time.

Which is like arguing over whether Dahmer or Ted Bundy is worse based on their relative body counts. Pol Pot is a mass murderer. The assessment of the class and political character of the Khmer Rouge does not depend on the exact size of his body count.


Enthusiasm for western imposed 'genocide' trials on former Angkhar leaders seems wholly lacking in the country.

I also lack that enthusiasm - for one thing the UN, which is to organize the trials, is one of Pol Pot's accomplices. They continued recognizing the Khmer Rouge as the government of Cambodia after they lost control of it. UN "humanitarian" aid fed Khmer Rouge fighters after 1979, as John Pilger and others have pointed out.

This was part of Chinese, U.S., and British aid to the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam.

Like the Nuremberg trials, all the present-day "genocide" and "war crimes" trials sponsored by imperialism are about establishing the victors' right to administer justice. The big fish eat the little ones, and the more powerful war criminals prosecute the less powerful ones.


The Communist Party of Kampuchea drove out the US puppet regime of Lon Nol and drove out Vietnamese troops in the 90s, though the pro-Vietnamese puppet regime remained.

Which I have to take as implying your sympathy with them againt Vietnam and the new regime in Cambodia. You have Deng's and Reagan's comradeship there, of course.

You don't describe the "Communist Party of Kampuchea" as a "puppet" of China and the U.S., though obviously they were wholly dependent on that support - and basing in Thailand. And had no chance of retaking power, so they served no higher purpose than Beijing's and Washington's harassment of Vietnam.

This might be a good place to mention the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam, which among other things served to punish Hanoi for liberating Cambodia. Did you sympathize with that too?


It was dealt a bad hand when it took over. It played it badly. The people would have suffered under any circumstances after 1975. However, incompetence, dogmatism and lack of faith in the people made things worse than they had to be.

Which is like saying Charles Manson did not improve the psychological health of his followers.

****

This is definitely a frequently repeated topic. The History forum could probably use its own sticky thread for frequent topics, like the Politics forum has. Hampton?

Besides the threads Janus linked, I have two which I think are more in-depth discussions of the Khmer Rouge: here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32040) and here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/lofiversion/index.php/t36546-0.html)

The first one includes Redstar's comments on the subject for people who are interested in that kind of thing.

Also: Thread on U.S. aid to the Khmer Rouge after 1979. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=16314)

I gotta say this thread is probably unique for having the closest to an outright defense of the Khmer Rouge, or the most detailed effort along those lines.

[Joseph Ball]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 02:45 am
Also, I was wondering whether the book's bibliography had any suggestions of Khmer Rouge related materials by which one could understand the ideological position of the party?

Your arguments that a large section of the massacres may have been related to the suppression of a pro-Vietnamese uprising is indeed an interesting one, and the brief note on the extrapolations from the census data is very similar to the argument you make about the GLF.

Indeed it seems that the policies of the party were completely rigid, and may have even exacerbated the death toll, instead of decreasing it, whereas in your argument about the GLF it seems that the death tolls there was actually lower than previous famines (which seemed to follow a cyclical pattern). I mean is there any data about previous famines in Kampuchea, and what were the famine cycles like then?

There is not a lot of original material written by the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). It was a secret party until 1977 and it dissolved itself 4 years later. I understand there's some original documents by Pol Pot and the CPK in David Chandler, Ben Kiernan and Chanthou Boua's monograph s Pol Pot Plan's The Future (1988) which you're only going to get in an academic library. It's striking how little the CPK developed any ideology.

My arguments about Democratic Kampuchea (DK) death tolls are not really the same as the GLF. For one thing I haven't studied the issue of the DK death tolls in as much detail. The real problem with the GLF death tolls is probably the unreliable crude death rate figures. Extrapolations from censuses are a secondary factor (arguably if the former was reliable there wouldn't be a problem with the latter, but I have heard arguments to the contrary).

I haven't really studied previous famines in Cambodia. I have little doubt that CPK policies made
a bad situation worse in Kampuchea. As I said, the CPK seems to have just been incompetent and when this destabilised things they resorted to very large-scale repression to try and stay in power. Undeveloped countries like Kampuchea need to go through a period of 'New Democracy' before advancing to socialism. The national capitalists need to develop the forces of production under the leadership of the proletariat. As Bob Avakian (US maoist leader) once pointed out CPK seemed to try and completely skip this stage. They took over a country where the economy had collapsed and boasted that they were advancing to communism far quicker than the Chinese! This echoed the worst lunacies of the left communists in the Bolshevik party who thought the hyper-inflation of war communism heralded a moneyless utopia!

[Joseph Ball]

Severin-'Oh...it's a wrong line on a Chinese faction fight that which makes them "revisionist", aka not really Marxist? Not, say, the fact they eliminated the working class in Cambodia? That's like criticizing Jeffrey Dahmer's table manners.'

Joseph Ball-I know these distinctions don't mean much to a Trotskyist but for a Maoist, revisionist=capitalist so we don't defend revisionists. Fair enough before 1981 the CPK didn't espouse free market capitalism but they had no developed socialist ideology either. We can say they probably had a capitalist way of thinking even though they presided over a collectivised economy. They did not understand the need for popular mobilisation, the dictatorship of the people, not the party etc. For socialism to exist socialist thinking must exist in the ideological superstructure which must breath life into the material base or you just get socialism in form not content-which is the essence of revisionism.

Severin-'On a less bloody scale, we see the same thing more recently with the Shining Path in Peru and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - 'course the Khmer Rouge were also on a less bloody scale before taking power.'

Joseph Ball-Come off it Severin! What on earth has either of these two parties done that remotely suggests they would follow the same path as the CPK? See my reply to Brownfist. Both parties advocate New Democracy and Maoism so they will follow the path of Mao, not the CPK.

Severin-'Oh. And the Khmer Rouge's genocidal chauvinism against ethnic Vietnamese, was that also "provoked"?'

Joseph Ball-No, but the CPK wasn't going to start a war with Vietnam over nothing, that really is a myth of Vietnam sympathisers in the west.

Severin-'I'm not going to attempt a defense of every action of the Vietnamese regime. But the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia 1. Liberated its population from a truly monstrous regime and 2. had the potential to extend Vietnam's workers' revolution - however bureaucratically distorted that was.'

Joseph Ball-To be honest I think this is where the rot set in. This invasion gave rise to the idea of 'humanitarian intervention' which has taken in large sections of the left. I remember many leftists in the UK supporting the US bombing of Kosovo, tacitly or even openly, on these grounds. Similarly, with UK intervention in Sierra Leone, the 'liberation' of Afghanistan from the Taliban, all the way to the current humanitarian genocide in Iraq being carried out by the US and the Brits. The invasion of Democratic Kampuchea led to famine and a massive refugee crisis. The desperate purges of the last year of CPK rule were a direct response to the threat of Vietnamese invasion, though I do not defend them on those grounds. The regime was moderating its senseless leftism in its last year. I don't say life would have been good if the CPK had carried on in power but it has hardly been good anyway. I might tentatively suggest that the CPK would have followed Deng Xiaoping's line and created a mixed economy under authoritarian rule, which is what they got under Hun Sen anyway.


Severin-'Note that: if starvation was not worst immediately after the war against the U.S. ended - then probably it wasn't simply a result of U.S. bombing, or the war. It was greatly aggravated by....Khmer Rouge policies.'

Joseph Ball-Agreed.

Severin-'One film crew in "People's Kampuchea" captured a scene of an almost empty rice paddy - and right next to it a lot of people doing forced labor on a road. Which, BTW, reminds me of an argument Joseph Ball and I had about forced labor in the "liberated zones" of Nepal.'

Joseph Ball'Yes, but in Nepal each household only provides one person per year for 15 days to work on the Martyr's Road in the agricultural slack season. Is Severin really suggesting this is leading to mass starvation? I certainly didn't see any evidence of this when I was there and I spent a lot of time walking around without any guide.


Severin-'You don't describe the "Communist Party of Kampuchea" as a "puppet" of China and the U.S., though obviously they were wholly dependent on that support - and basing in Thailand. '

Joseph Ball-It wasn't really. For all it's awful errors it did fight for national liberation.

Severin-'This might be a good place to mention the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam, which among other things served to punish Hanoi for liberating Cambodia. Did you sympathize with that too?'

Joseph Ball-No, it's never right for one country to invade another. This invasion caused untold suffering, not least for the Chinese in Vietnam who were driven out and it reflected very badly on the Chinese government.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

In my opinon, Pol Pot was a brutal ultra-stalinist, but we on the left should definetly not try a "educate the masses' campaign for this, because most people don't know what Pol Pot is, and more often than not when they learn about him they will immediatly go anti-communist, so it is best to leave this out of the picture and simply reason with those who do criticize marxism because of this on an individual basis.

[red_orchestra]

Thanks to Vietnamese Communist Party and its forces, Cambodia is better off. Go to Phnom Pehn and you will see a massive statue comemorating the liberation of Cambodia from occupation and genocide.

Pol Pot was a stalinist...

[Brownfist]

I would hardly call Pol Pot a stalinist. He really wasnt much of anything besides someone that had a rudimentary of Marxist theory. I think that if people want to call Pol Pot a stalinist then they have to demonstrate some kind of ideological continuity, its like me calling Pol Pot a fascist, it probably isnt true because fascism is a particular ideological variant. I mean if you are just trying to use a bourgeois American metaphor for "mass murderer" then just say that, dont impose an ideological characterization.

I dont think we should mention Pol Pot because he isnt a communist. I mean just because they have the name "Communist Party of Kampuchea", doesnt make them a genuine communist party! I mean the only people who would bring up Pol Pot are those who are already predisposed to the myth that communism = mass murder.

Red_orchestra am I to assume that you have been to Cambodia? And just because they have a statue up doesnt mean shit. I mean that is like saying if tomorrow the American government built a statue commemorating the "American Liberation of Iraq", would we then argue that the Iraqi's actually supported the American invasion? I think that we need to remember that victors often need to create historical narratives to justify their interventions and presence. I am not suggesting that the Vietnamese Communist Party was not greeted as liberators, however, unless I see evidence of such a sentiment I am not likely to believe it, the same way I did not believe that the Americans would be greeted with flowers as liberators by the Iraqi people.

[Guerrilla22]

Pol Poy was a crazed nut job, reactionaries love to bring him up when discussing communism

[ComradeR]

Pol Pot was no more a Communist then Hitler was a Socialist. Just because they named their parties as such does not mean they were actually Socialist/Communist. They took the name in order to rally the working class people behind them, it was just a way for those crazed power hungry sobs to gain support for their rise to power.

[Joseph Ball]

I'm very sceptical about the 'power mad' dictator view of history. This applies to Hitler's genocide against the Jews-there was no earthly reason for this madness- but in general dictators only act repressively when their people are organising together for their rights or when some other clique wants to overthrow them. Saddam gassed the Kurds because they wanted independence and took up arms to achieve it not just because he didn't like Kurds.

I'm not excusing behaviour such as Saddam's gassing of the Kurds or the persecution of the Muslims in Kampuchea alleged against the CPK. The details of the latter, if true, are absolutely shameful. What I would say is that we need to analyse these events in a Historical Materialist way. We need to understand the forces that gave rise to these events. Ultimately, the CPK was trying to gain independence from imperialism. It was as a response to imperialism that they made their revolution and because of imperialism that they faced the problems that they did. However, they must bear the responsibility for failing to adopt a proper proletarian line, failing to win the support of the masses and-if allegations are true-persecuting minorities as the conflict with Vietnam and internal conflicts developed. It also must be said that the Vietnamese party has absolutely nothing to be proud of in its dealings with Democratic Kampuchea.

[red_orchestra]

Red_orchestra am I to assume that you have been to Cambodia? And just because they have a statue up doesnt mean shit. I mean that is like saying if tomorrow the American government built a statue commemorating the "American Liberation of Iraq", would we then argue that the Iraqi's actually supported the American invasion? I think that we need to remember that victors often need to create historical narratives to justify their interventions and presence.

Yes, I spent quite a lot of time in Cambodia and many older generation Cambodians see the Vietnamese interferance of their country to be a mostly positive experience. The statue is a reminder of the link that Cambodia and Vietnam share. As you are aware - Phnom Pehn nearly fell in the mid 70's back into Pol Pots hands. The Vietnamese - under Ho Chi Min decided to launch an full out assault preventing Pol Pot from capturing the any boarder towns or take control of the Mekong river area. The Vietnamese took over and used ex Khmer rouge soliders to help run the Khmer government - which they did. So thats why their is a statue - Vietnam helped out and stopped much of the genocide that took place in the country. There are some great stories of child Khmer rouge soliders that were turned around by the Vietnamese to do good for their community. In Siem Reap, one child solider (now an adult) who adopts children and raises funds from his "Land Mine Museam" to help those in need. He also go after landmines, UXOs and other explosive devices by hand.

Their are many such stories like this. You can thank the US too... for all the landmines and UXOs that they have never cleaned up. :(

[Severian]

Originally posted by Brownfist+February 01, 2007 01:53 am--> (Brownfist @ February 01, 2007 01:53 am) I think that if people want to call Pol Pot a stalinist then they have to demonstrate some kind of ideological continuity, its like me calling Pol Pot a fascist, it probably isnt true because fascism is a particular ideological variant. [/b]
This is not a terribly materialist approach. Neither Stalinism (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41124) nor fascism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43120) is primarily an ideological phenomenon. If you are going to take this approach, certainly the Khmer Rouge did take more ideologically from the Stalinist tradition than anywhere else.

But I'll partly agree: the "Stalinist" label doesn't do that much to help understand the phenomenon. Clearly "Democratic Kampuchea", as a social formation, was not that much like the USSR, PRC, or Vietnam.


Originally posted by Brownfist+--> (Brownfist)I dont think we should mention Pol Pot because he isnt a communist. I mean just because they have the name "Communist Party of Kampuchea", doesnt make them a genuine communist party![/b]

I agree completely. But then: what do you have to say about people who use the name "Communist" - but treat the Khmer Rouge as if they were just comrades who went astray? Case in point:


Joseph [email protected]
What I would say is that we need to analyse these events in a Historical Materialist way. We need to understand the forces that gave rise to these events. Ultimately, the CPK was trying to gain independence from imperialism. It was as a response to imperialism that they made their revolution and because of imperialism that they faced the problems that they did. However, they must bear the responsibility for failing to adopt a proper proletarian line,

See, how is that Historical Materialist? Everything is blamed on "failing to adopt a proper proletarian line". A line is an idea, so this is just as idealist as blaming something on "power mad dictators".

This completely anti-Marxist and anti-materialist approach comes out of a political tradition that will label a party "Communist" and claim that it represents the working class as long as it has the allegedly correct line - even if not a single worker belongs to it.


Joseph Ball
To be honest I think this is where the rot set in. This invasion gave rise to the idea of 'humanitarian intervention' which has taken in large sections of the left. I remember many leftists in the UK supporting the US bombing of Kosovo, tacitly or even openly, on these grounds.

Someone supported the NATO (not just US) bombing on the basis that it was spreading a proletarian revolution? Doubt it. You've evaded my central points, including the need for a materialist analysis of what class interests the Khmer Rouge represented.

No, supporting a revolutionary war does not lead to supporting imperialist wars. The distinction is a class distinction, which is of course precisely why you're incapable of understanding it.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:17 am
what did pol pot basically do? like how was he "marxist" if he is soo bad..?
Pol Pot can hardley be described as a Marxist. He was a Primitivist that used certain Marxist ideas to form his ideology, just in the same way that National-Bolsheivks use certain Marxist ideas. It doesn't make them Marxist over all.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] February 2, 2007, 03:52 am
See, how is that Historical Materialist? Everything is blamed on "failing to adopt a proper proletarian line". A line is an idea, so this is just as idealist as blaming something on "power mad dictators".

This completely anti-Marxist and anti-materialist approach comes out of a political tradition that will label a party "Communist" and claim that it represents the working class as long as it has the allegedly correct line - even if not a single worker belongs to it.

A Communist organization adopts a "proletarian line" (strategy) based on the objective material conditions present in the society in question. By using a dialectic analysis to study the quantitative and qualitative changes and the contradictions present in the base and the superstructure, the Communist organization formulates its strategy ("line") in accordance with the material conditions in order to accelerate the revolutionary movement of the working class. For instance, when to strike, when to fight, when not to fight, when to adopt industrialization as a policy, when the time is ripe for total action of the working class and peasantry in seizing power, etc. If the Communist organization does not adapt a "proper line" in accordance with the material conditions, then the movement of revolution is hindered. Hence the phrase, "philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it." The Communist organizations are studying the particular conditions in order to enact the necessary changes which lead progressively forwards towards communism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+February 03, 2007 06:53 pm--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ February 03, 2007 06:53 pm)
[email protected] February 2, 2007, 03:52 am
See, how is that Historical Materialist? Everything is blamed on "failing to adopt a proper proletarian line". A line is an idea, so this is just as idealist as blaming something on "power mad dictators".

This completely anti-Marxist and anti-materialist approach comes out of a political tradition that will label a party "Communist" and claim that it represents the working class as long as it has the allegedly correct line - even if not a single worker belongs to it.

A Communist organization adopts a "proletarian line" (strategy) based on the objective material conditions present in the society in question. [/b]
Shouldn't you change your username if you're going to make this kind of uncritical assumption?

[The Author]

Where do you get the impression that my "assumption" as you have labeled my response is uncritical?

A Communist organization uses criticism and self-criticism to determine its policies and how they relate to the material conditions of society and see what works and what does not in order to change strategy to stay in line with the material conditions. The point of historical materialism is studying class struggles and the relations of production and superstructure in the past and in the present to devise the correct strategy for a revolutionary movement to take. Otherwise, the possibility of revolutionary gain towards Communism is nil. This is one of the basic tenets behind the use of dialectical and historical materialism.

Perhaps you should acquaint (or re-acquaint, if you have read this pamphlet already) yourself with Lenin's Two Tactics of Social-Democracy (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html) to understand the relation between tactics in relation to material conditions.

[Severian]

OK, so lets see some of that "criticism and self-criticism". How do you know these "Communist" parties represent the working class and not some other class? And please, give me a historical materialist explanation of why parties composed of other classes, led by other classes, and tied to regimes led by other classes - would adopt a line serving the interests of the working class.

When you're done with that, explain how that's compatible with the idea that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers ourselves.

[Joseph Ball]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 03, 2007 12:16 pm

Pol Pot can hardley be described as a Marxist. He was a Primitivist that used certain Marxist ideas to form his ideology, just in the same way that National-Bolsheivks use certain Marxist ideas. It doesn't make them Marxist over all.
Pol Pot wasn't a primitivist. The point of his party's economic program was rural, agricutural development. The idea was to develop agriculture through the creation of irrigation systems, dams to prevent flooding etc. Pol Pot stated that the agricultural suplus he hoped would be produced should be used partly to fincance development and to buy medicine from abroad (see Phillip Short's book p. 305). He spoke of the need for communes to build hospitals and schools. He stated that 'Don't forget that later on we will need more advanced technology.' (p.306)

The 'primitivist' tag originates in Vietnamese propaganda.

Unfortunately, no surplus was ever produced and things went very badly.

As Short points out (though I certainly don't endorse all his statements), Pol Pot never intended Democratic Kampuchea to end up as it did.

Leftists that condemn Maoists for working to build up national capitalism in the phase of 'New Democracy' should ask themselves whether they want to repeat Pol Pot's policies. Later, as the CPK publically adopted revisionism it became clear that their policies were left in appearance but right in essence. Mao developed revolutionary theory to the highest extent that humanity has ever achieved. People who dismiss his approach for the sake of the superficialites of ultra-leftism are likely to find themselves becoming unstuck rather soon.

[red_orchestra]

Unfortunately, no surplus was ever produced and things went very badly.

As Short points out (though I certainly don't endorse all his statements), Pol Pot never intended Democratic Kampuchea to end up as it did.

Thats like saying, Pol Pot accidentally murdered 1 million people - bullshit! Pol Pot got into power and ruled over his people with an iron fist. His values were reflected when he rounded up children tied them to trees and killed them for being weak with hunger. Thats barbarism in the worst degree. Pol Pot knew what he was doing and got caught up in his orgy of slaughter. He may have believed what he was doing served a better purpose but he was far gone. The countries doctors, and other professionals were either in hiding or dead.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Pol-Pot is definatly not a marxist of any sort. At best he was a Utopian Socialist of some odd sort however is "back to the countryside" plan was anti-marxist and was the opposite of what every other country was doing at the time.

That said, Remember that Pol-Pot emerged out of the Anarchy and Chaos that was Cambodia after having been bombed into the middle ages by Americans trying to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail. The US killed 650,000 in the bombings and estimated another 1000000 would die as a result of the infrastructure and crops being ruined.

Pol-Pot was a blessing to the Americans, which was why they aided him, because, here out of the shit mess the Americans made, a guy calling himself a commie can now be scapegoated!!!

Of course, in the end, about a million died as predicted, however, weither or not the evacuation of the cities was a terrible idea is questionable. It may have actually prevented millions from starving in the cities for lack of food (as the farmers would keep it for themselves), on the otherhand, it was a replay of Rome after it had fallen when millions died fleeing the major cities of the empire and attempting to adjust to new agricultural life.

In Short: Kampuchea was fucked no matter who came in.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Just to clarify, the Khmer Rouge were NOT Maoist, that is an assumption made by idiots in the western media who have never read Marx nor Mao, and just assume that since Mao and Pol-Pot were Asians they were Maoists. The same was said about Vietnam and North Korea which neither was.

[Brownfist]

I was wondering what people thought of the Vietnamese invasion into Cambodia, because I understand that Pol Pot's policies were suicidal, but does that mean another party and country has the right to violate their sovereignty? Because doesnt that legitimate other "humanitarian" interventions?

[red_orchestra]

The Vietnamese involvement in Cambodia was seen as a relief to Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. It is must also be said that Vietnamese rule was also "far from perfect" as well... it did have its problems too.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:54 am
I was wondering what people thought of the Vietnamese invasion into Cambodia, because I understand that Pol Pot's policies were suicidal, but does that mean another party and country has the right to violate their sovereignty? Because doesnt that legitimate other "humanitarian" interventions?
It is interesting that so-called Marxists are more concerned with the violation of bourgeois rights such as ‘national sovereignty’ than they are with the working class.

Devrim

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by devrimankara+February 15, 2007 09:37 am--> (devrimankara @ February 15, 2007 09:37 am)
[email protected] 15, 2007 07:54 am
I was wondering what people thought of the Vietnamese invasion into Cambodia, because I understand that Pol Pot's policies were suicidal, but does that mean another party and country has the right to violate their sovereignty? Because doesnt that legitimate other "humanitarian" interventions?
It is interesting that so-called Marxists are more concerned with the violation of bourgeois rights such as ‘national sovereignty’ than they are with the working class.

Devrim [/b]
Please inform us on your indept masterplan on cambodia, or would it be liberated by a utopian international left communist workers state? Please provide some indept info on the topic or stop your pompous flaming <_<

But hey dont take advice from the "petit-bourgeois stalin kiddy".

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:46 am
Please inform us on your indept masterplan on cambodia, or would it be liberated by a utopian international left communist workers state? Please provide some indept info on the topic or stop your pompous flaming <_<

But hey dont take advice from the "petit-bourgeois stalin kiddy".
I think that it was probably Leo who called you a "petit-bourgeois stalin kiddy". It certainly wasn&#39;t me. I understand the confusion though. The icons are the same.

We are not claiming to put forward any &#39;in-depth master plan on Cambodia&#39;. We do think though that there are certainly basic principles that Communists apply internationally. It starts with looking at things from a class perspective, not from one of bourgeois rights. There are so many people who call themselves Marxists, but are always talking about &#39;national rights&#39;, and the &#39;people&#39;, but very rarely about the working class, which is where in our opinion any communist analysis must begin.

Devrim

[Honggweilo]

I think that it was probably Leo who called you a "petit-bourgeois stalin kiddy". It certainly wasn&#39;t me. I understand the confusion though. The icons are the same.

Ow lol, then a minor apology should be apropiate since i made that comment out of personal grudge :P


We are not claiming to put forward any &#39;in-depth master plan on Cambodia&#39;. We do think though that there are certainly basic principles that Communists apply internationally. It starts with looking at things from a class perspective, not from one of bourgeois rights. There are so many people who call themselves Marxists, but are always talking about &#39;national rights&#39;, and the &#39;people&#39;, but very rarely about the working class, which is where in our opinion any communist analysis must begin.
Certainly from a class perspective the right of respecting "national" sovereignity is inrelevant, though self-determination, and the marxist practice applied in the material situation holding culture and material conditions in mind is a marxist analysis. However in a the socialist fase of a nation, national sovereignity in the face of imperialism is still an issue and must be accounted for.

The analysis here concerns the question if Viet Nam violated the kapuchean working class through social-imperialism or that it liberated them from a misguided, strayed or suicidal regime.


I was wondering what people thought of the Vietnamese invasion into Cambodia, because I understand that Pol Pot&#39;s policies were suicidal, but does that mean another party and country has the right to violate their sovereignty? Because doesnt that legitimate other "humanitarian" interventions?

We must also hold in account that Vietnam and Kapuchea, although under French imperialism where part of Indochina for a long time, so there was a cultural bond between the 2 people. The country (Indochina) was also largely divided due to ethnic chauvinism (due to the comintern which insisted national sovereignty to form a united front against japanese imperialism/fascism in WWII). The Communist Party of Indochina was desolved due to presure from the Comintern in the 30&#39;s. Therefore i doubt the theory of social-imperialism would apply for Viet Nam. It was basically a struggle between different theoretical and practical lines within the traid of Laos, Viet Nam and Kampuchea. The national boarders didnt play the most significant role in the conflict.

[Devrim]

though self-determination, and the marxist practice applied in the material situation holding culture and material conditions in mind is a marxist analysis.

We don&#39;t believe that a policy of support for national self determination has anything to offer the working class. In fact it is directly anti-working class.
See this post for our explanation of how Lenin&#39;s policy on the national question was disastrous for the revolution: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=...st&p=1292139474 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=54176&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292139474)

Devrim

[Brownfist]

I think that we need to recognize that even Lenin and Stalin talked about nation and national sovereignty which definitely is a bourgeois construct, and as a Maoist-leaning professor of mine described it, "the USSR and the Bolshevik revolution was the outside of the inside, rather than a complete outside of capitalism". Having said that, the logic of "humanitarian" intervention has been used by colonialist for centuries, and I do not think that "saving the working-class" is any better a mantra. I mean that would be like saying to Bush, "OK if you want to save the Iraqi working class than go right ahead, invade Iraq". What I am trying to understand is whether the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia can be justified using non-imperialist logic.

As for my interest in the working-class I am glad through my one comment you discern my lack of interest. You must be a psychic.

[Devrim]

I think that we need to recognize that even Lenin and Stalin talked about nation and national sovereignty which definitely is a bourgeois construct, and as a Maoist-leaning professor of mine described it, "the USSR and the Bolshevik revolution was the outside of the inside, rather than a complete outside of capitalism".

Our position on the disastrous results of Lenin&#39;s position on national liberation is laid out clearly in the link above. If you want to argue about it come back to the specific points we make on that thread. I don&#39;t expect you will. Stalin represents the counter revolution triumphant. I don&#39;t care what your &#39;Maoist-leaning&#39; professor, or any other third worldists say. There is obviously a distinct class line between us. The line between those who belive in a working class revolution, and those who support any petty bourgoise nationalists with guns who are waving a red flag.


Having said that, the logic of "humanitarian" intervention has been used by colonialist for centuries, and I do not think that "saving the working-class" is any better a mantra.

Of course "humanitarian" intervention is a weapon of the bourgeoisie. I didn&#39;t talk about &#39;saving the working class&#39;. I said that communist politics begin with a class perspective. Yours obviously isn’t. Why else would you argue that:


What I am trying to understand is whether the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia can be justified using non-imperialist logic.

It does not come from any perspective of the working class, but instead from bourgeois nationalism. Imperialism is a world system today (see the post linked to above). No country can opt out of it outside of communist revolution, which must spread to survive. Any attempt to tie the working class to one nationalist faction, or another, is anti-working class, whether it goes under the name of anti-imperialism, or the name of imperialist expansion.


As for my interest in the working-class I am glad through my one comment you discern my lack of interest. You must be a psychic.

The communists are not concerned with the rights of the bourgeoisie, or different nationalist factions. They are concerned with the working class. One does not need to be psychic to understand that those who back the sides of different nation states, are not on the side of the workers dying in their nationalist wars.

Devrim

[Joseph Ball]

Devrimankara&#39;s comments are based on a misunderstanding about nationalism. Nationalism in oppressor nations (USA, Western Europe, Japan) is reactionary because it is an ideology that justifies the subjugation of the oppressed nations in order to make super-profits. Nationalism in oppressed nations is progressive because it resists imperialism. However, it is not enough on its own. It must be led, in a united front, by the Party of the Proletariat, otherwise it will not be able to guarantee sustained liberation. It&#39;s like Marx said in the Communist Manifesto-reforms are great but unless capitalism is overthrown they can only exist for a time. You have to go all the way from national liberation to socialism to communism.

It&#39;s no good to just talk about the working class in isolation from imperialism. When your country is being reduced to rubble by yankee imperialists, as in Iraq, its no good to concentrate on workers&#39; rights. That isn&#39;t the main issue. You live in a nation in collapse. The first priority is to get rid of the people that are causing this-the yankees and their British allies. As Mao taught, in any given situation there is one main contradiction. You have to find what that is, overcome it and move onto the next stage. You can&#39;t fight all your enemies at once.

I don&#39;t think the western liberal-left, nursed on propaganda about &#39;humanitarian intervention&#39; really understand what it is like to have your country invaded. Of course, we can learn a bit about this by studying Iraq-mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands, rape and torture by ocuupying forces and their collaborators, the collapse of order, the collapse of health and education systems etc. In Democratic Kampuchea the invasion by Vietnamese forces backed by those adhering to the Soviet Social Imperialist line led to a massive refugee crisis and a famine. Why do we defend national sovereignty against invasion? Because invasion always leads to misery for those who are invaded.

As I said before, many of the Communist Party of Kampuchea&#39;s purges were a (misguided) effort to prevent this situation by eliminating the pro-Vietnamese fifth column in Democratic Kampuchea. As Mao demonstrated, you can deal with people of doubtful loyalties by better means than execution.

[Brownfist]

Devrimankara,
I think that one needs to be less dismissive of serious theoretical-political questions and that has to do with the question of being outside of capitalism. The problem becomes whether there is really is an outside. If indeed, the USSR was just an outside of the inside of capitalism, and not really an outside then we need to understand why. I am also thinking about what needs to be done with a socialist/communist country, and what do we mean by our vision of a communist future. Thus, we need to dwell on the theoretical questions of alienation, the commodification of labour power etc. I do not think that just yelling, "working-class revolution" all the time will result in dealing with these very serious questions. Thus, the statement of my professor has less to do with the question of bourgeois nationalism, but the very parameters of revolution.

Now I understand that you are organizing under very difficult conditions, but that does not mean that you have the right to dismiss the opinions and positions of other comrades. What you are engaging in is not even left-communism, but rather anti-intellectualism. I find this to be ridiculous considering the fact that one of the main demands of the Marxist left should be dis-alienation of the working class and the ability for the working class to engage in intellectual labour in their everyday lives. Thus, we then need to have a very serious analysis of the question of everyday life.

I find that rather than engaging in dialogue and debate with other people who although having several lines differences than yourself but are largely on the same side as yourself, you have a tendency to engage in sectarianism and lambast others. I am trying to engage you in a serious discussion about this question. Thus, let us get out of the intellectual rut that has plagued Marxism in general. My politics indeed do start with the working class however, they do not look for simple answers because I don&#39;t think that such answers exist. I think the fact that we do not have answers to the above questions then we will repeat many of the mistakes that you are so keen to point out.

[Devrim]

Devrimankara&#39;s comments are based on a misunderstanding about nationalism.
As I said before, those who wish to reply to our position on the disastrous policy of the comintern on national liberation are welcome to read the post referenced above. In it are laid out our specific critisisms of the effects that that policy had on the international communist movement.

When your country is being reduced to rubble by yankee imperialists, as in Iraq, its no good to concentrate on workers&#39; rights.
However, I can not see us reaching any common ground with those who are ready to drop support of the working class in defence of the national interest.

I don&#39;t think the western liberal-left, nursed on propaganda about &#39;humanitarian intervention&#39; really understand what it is like to have your country invaded.
I presume this is coming from North America. I would say that it is typical petty bourgeois third worldism. We on the other hand actually operate in the Middle East, and still manage to defend class positions. On the point of Iraq, the Worker Communist Party of Iraq(not a party I have such a close agreement with, but who at least have a class line on this position) expresses it like this:

Thus, it has become commonplace for the American and European Left to blame communists in Iraq for standing against these “resisting” forces and for viewing the resistance as one player of a terrorist and reactionary conflict. The manifestations of this illusion are diverse and we find ourselves obliged to answer those holding these illusions. These illusions are based on wrong and non-revolutionary theoretical and political views. I will try here to criticize, in the main, these illusions and clarify what is taking root in Iraq and the nature of the political stand we, the Worker-communists of Iraq, adopt about this issue. “The foreign occupation legitimizes resistance and leftists should support the resistance regardless of the nature of its leadership. As long as there is an occupation, there will be resistance and communists participating in the national movement to achieve the tasks of democratic national revolution along with other national forces and spectrums.” The very definitions of “occupation” and “resistance” and their political background, which originate from terms such as “sovereignty,” and “nation” as “sanctities” have never been among the revolutionary language used by Worker-communists. These ready-made formulas declared by the international Left today were never the spoken or practical language in Marx’s or Lenin’s time to deal with wars, their political consequences and movements which stood up to occupation forces.

The only standard to assess political movements, whether armed or otherwise, is knowing their objective nature, goals and characteristics rather than UN’s resolutions or knowing what actions are sanctioned or banned by the UN in dealing with occupation forces. The struggle of Iraqi workers against a “foreign” army does not originate from the concept that this intervention is a violation of their national sanctities&#33; What sanctity is left for us, the workers, that the foreign army can violate&#33; Is it the “Sovereignty,” which was in the hands of our oppressors? Or the “motherland” that we own not one inch of? The “motherland”, which we said as Marx did 150 years ago, is never ours? Or “national freedom,” which always meant the freedom for our prison guards to torment us&#33; The nationalist nonsense, which says that a local and “national” wolf is better than a foreigner because if it happened to eat our flesh it will never break our bones, is no longer able to numb the masses. The conscious workers who have seen nothing from the national bourgeoisie and its governments but wars, poverty, absolute oppression and humiliation do not care about the backward nationalist discourses, which will no longer deceive them. All the sacrifices we have made or rather were forced to make in wars waged by our national bourgeoisie have yielded nothing more than the dispersing of our ranks, the killing of our leaders and fighters in the prisons of Jamal Abdulnasar, Saddam and Asaad and in forcing us to bear “national” bondage once again.

I presume that they too are unaware of what it is like when &#39;When your country is being reduced to rubble by yankee imperialists, as in Iraq, its no good to concentrate on workers&#39; rights. That isn&#39;t the main issue. You live in a nation in collapse.&#39;


Devrim

[Devrim]

I do not think that just yelling, "working-class revolution" all the time will result in dealing with these very serious questions.

We don&#39;t yell "working-class revolution" all the time. We do, however, start from what we consider to be the most important point, defending working class living conditions, which are under attack by capital now, in the first world as well as the &#39;third&#39;.


Now I understand that you are organizing under very difficult conditions, but that does not mean that you have the right to dismiss the opinions and positions of other comrades. What you are engaging in is not even left-communism, but rather anti-intellectualism.

Firstly we don&#39;t consider those who take sides in imperialist wars to be &#39;comrades&#39;. This includes &#39;national liberation struggles&#39;. In this period no nation can liberate itself from the system of imperialism as imperialism is a world system. Try telling us about the progressive nature of Kurdish nationalism whilst the PKK are shooting school teachers, and the PUK are shooting striking factory workers.

Secondly, it wasn&#39;t particularly aimed at the fact that he was a university professor. It was aimed at any third worldist, anti-working class, nationalist leftism.


I find that rather than engaging in dialogue and debate with other people who although having several lines differences than yourself but are largely on the same side as yourself, you have a tendency to engage in sectarianism and lambast others.

It is not sectarian to say that there are class lines, and that those who support nationalism are on the other side of it. In fact, Lenin, himself said it at Zimmerwald in 1917. I am quite willing to engage in debate with those who take up an internationalist position. Those who would act as recruiting sergeants for different national bourgeoisies are, however, anti-working class. There can be discussion with them as individuals, but I don&#39;t really look on it as different from discussing with any social democratic, or even fascist worker.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:54 am
I was wondering what people thought of the Vietnamese invasion into Cambodia, because I understand that Pol Pot&#39;s policies were suicidal, but does that mean another party and country has the right to violate their sovereignty? Because doesnt that legitimate other "humanitarian" interventions?
Well, that is a risk. But there are times when it is necessary to run risks, and the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia was one of them. It stopped an ongoing genocide.

But the above is theoric. In practice, the Cambodian army was making repeated small incursions into Vietnamese territory, trying to play the nationalist card to boost support for the Red Khmer government, giving Vietnam the excuse of "self-defence". After some hesitation, the Vietnamese army decided to go for a deeper incursion into Cambodia to show them that they could beat them militarily. To the surprise of the Vietnamese themselves, the Cambodian army routed at the first punch, the State structures broke down and the population expressed sheer relief at the end of the RK reign of terror. And so what was planned as "teaching them a lesson" ended in the complete destruction of the Red Khmer dictatorship.

Luís Henrique

[Joseph Ball]

Firstly, 61% of the Iraqi people support the resistance, according to a poll carried out by the University of Maryland. Mao defeated left lines on rejecting national liberation decades ago. He showed that communists must have the masses with them and therefore must struggle with the masses on the main issues effecting their lives at any given time. In Iraq at the moment that is the effect of the occupation. &#39;Left&#39; parties like the Worker-Communist Party of Iraq stay marginal because they cannot unite with the people on such issues. Continually stressing lines about workers revolution while not addressing the objecive question of occupation in the only way it can be addressed-by resistance-is just subjectivisim. It is substituting your own desires about how you would like a situation to be for an objective understanding of what the situation is.

As I said before about Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam provoked the border clashes by its bullying behaviour in seizing Kampuchean territory. The idea that all Kampucheans welcomed the invaders is Vietnamese propaganda. There was a huge refugee exodus ahead of the invasion with vast numbers of Kampucheans going into exile in Thailand.

I don&#39;t think the majority missed their former CPK rulers. But they certainly didn&#39;t welcome invasion. Again, its like Iraq when Saddam was deposed. And I maintain that support among some on the left for Vietnam&#39;s invasion started off the line of &#39;humanitarian intervention&#39;. This line was used by the imperialists to mobilise support among many liberals for western interventions such as in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In the UK some liberals supported the Iraqi invasion on &#39;humanitarian&#39; grounds although many had got cold feet about this line by then.) Certainly Tony Blair thought he could get their support for the Iraqi regime with this line once the invasion was over and elections were organised. I have no doubt that past liberal stupidity on this issue contributed to the disaster in Iraq.

[Red Scare]

POL POT WAS A FUCKING IMPERIALIST STALINIST SHITHEAD&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: :angry: :angry:

[La Comédie Noire]

Insane Despot + Collectivist Farming = Shit.

I&#39;m talking bad shit, the kind you have to flush twice and spray air freshener after.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:51 pm
I don&#39;t think there will really be any pro-Pol Pot people on this forum....
I&#39;m pro-Pol-Pot getting his head caved in&#33; :D Doesn&#39;t that count&#33;&#33; :lol:

Pol-Pot was a fascist troll funded by the U. S. He was convicted circa 1996 by the Khmer Rouge for crimes against humanity.