Pol Pot's abolition of currency

[NewEast]

Comrade Forstov made an interesting point regarding Pol Pot Theory on the Democratic Kampuchea Yahoo Group when he wrote,


I think most everyone does not truly appreciate the revolutionary
stances of Democratic Kampuchea. Where Mao clearly saw that
Revisionists are continuously existant as a result of the Bourgeois
being created in the country and the Party, he never truly sought to
explain why, he only sought to say that the people must stop this
revisionist take-over. The Capitalists continue to exist and be
created because Socialism in the past has been too much like
Capitalism. It has made concessions to them, it has allowed them for
the most part to remain in-place, allowing for a re-creation of wage-
slavery, failing to abolish currency and place emphasis in Socialism
as a transition rather than as a long stage.

Democratic Kampuchea sought to transition quickly and their
abolition of currency took with it the wage-slavery system that the
Capitalists are created on. Without this, there flat-out is not a
Bourgeois. I have strong faith that Democratic Kampuchea would have
remained without the seeds of Revisionism and reached Communism had
it not been for the invasion. From that we can learn the people must
be fully armed and organized, but that is the biggest error we can
take from Democratic Kampuchea. I would argue that Khieu Samphan and
Pol Pot's Communist Party of Kampuchea advanced Marxism-Leninism-
Maoism further than anyone had (arguably to a new level entirely) or
has and their efforts remain unappreciated.

If we do not learn, we will be doomed to repeat our errors. The
Revisionists, who thrive off of Capitalism, must be prevented from
day one of Socialism and Socialism should act as a quick transition
to Communism. Only in this way can we prevent the opportunism of
Enver Hoxha and the Revisionism of people like Khruschev and Deng.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DemocraticKa...hea/message/180 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DemocraticKampuchea/message/180)

(my emphasis)

What do comrades make of this argument concerning Democratic Kampuchea's abolition of currency? Does Comrade Forstov make a valid point?

[Redmau5]

I don't know how anyone can possibly call Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge 'revolutionary'.

[Vendetta]

The Khmer Rouge were Nazis who killed thousands based on things like education, foreign nationalities, and homosexuality.

However, I don't think simply eliminating a currency eliminates the bourgies overnight.

[KC]

I don't know how anyone can possibly call Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge 'revolutionary'.

Well, they were obviously revolutionary, as they had a revolution. However, they're not progressive at all.


The Khmer Rouge were Nazis who killed thousands based on things like education, foreign nationalities, and homosexuality.


They weren't Nazis...

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I have strong faith that Democratic Kampuchea would have
remained without the seeds of Revisionism and reached Communism had
it not been for the invasion

socialism in one country (although debated) remains on the table for some Marxists .... but Communism in one Country is ..... well .... a fallacy ....

as far as the abolition of currency, this is not realistic either as in economic terms currency represents units of exchange .... if there are still exchanges of goods for services then (even without currency) you have still done nothing to eliminate or change labor relations ..... only the medium in which they are measured has been changed .....

make sense?

[Hiero]

People place to much emphasis on this "Khmer Rouge Theory". When I think material conditions, culture and the condition of the country after the war in the region plays a much greater role. People make claims that the Khmer Rouge wanted to created a communist society immediately, so they abolished currency, though not much is published from the Khmer Rouge promoting this as ideology.

Rather I assume that the conditions in the country lead to the abolition of currency. Bascially the nation was starving, they need food, had no money, so people had to work the fields for no money. Surely if they thought they could destroy the bourgeois and wage slavery by removing currency, they would have "rationlised" it in some theoritical publication.

If anyone does have any material writen by the Khmer Rouge, then please post it. Untill I read some material, I see no convincing arguement that the Khmer Rouge were lead first by theory, then acted on this theory.

[saloth]

The Red Khmer actually printed their own money, but never got around to putting it into circulation. It was thought though that ¨revolutionary spirit¨ was all that the people needed to motivate them to grow the crops that would propel the nation forward. The spirit was lacking - $US, watches, and jewelry were used as currency during the DK years.

No wonder that the regime remains unappreciated. The leadership was composed of paranoid bunglers who worked over a million to death and had absolutely nothing to show for it in the end. Advancing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Pol Pot ended up as a tool for Ronald Reagan in his Cold War posturing.

[Leo]

Well, they were obviously revolutionary, as they had a revolution.

They had a coup d'etat, not a revolution.


Advancing Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Pol Pot ended up as a tool for Ronald Reagan in his Cold War posturing.

Well, Maoism ended up as a tool for American imperialism against Russian imperialism.

[Dimentio]

Who could call the return to the pre-modern Asiatic style of production "progressive"?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:32 am
People place to much emphasis on this "Khmer Rouge Theory". When I think material conditions, culture and the condition of the country after the war in the region plays a much greater role. People make claims that the Khmer Rouge wanted to created a communist society immediately, so they abolished currency, though not much is published from the Khmer Rouge promoting this as ideology.

Rather I assume that the conditions in the country lead to the abolition of currency. Bascially the nation was starving, they need food, had no money, so people had to work the fields for no money. Surely if they thought they could destroy the bourgeois and wage slavery by removing currency, they would have "rationlised" it in some theoritical publication.

If anyone does have any material writen by the Khmer Rouge, then please post it. Untill I read some material, I see no convincing arguement that the Khmer Rouge were lead first by theory, then acted on this theory.
Kampuchea was literally leveled to the stone age at the time Pol Pot came in all agriculture was destroyed cities were left bombed to the ground by the efforts of the US Air Force to destroy the Ho Chi Minh Trail. I've read in places that even US bureacrats admitted that at least a million people would die as a result of starvation due to the destruction of agriculture.

So yeah I wouldn't be suprised if the destruction of currency was because of necessity rather than theory. If it was something that was from theory, it would be done the other way; through industrializing and modernizing the country to a point rather than deindustrializing to primitivism.
Democratic Kampuchea looked more like Jeffersonian America rather than any socialist society, even when we do cast aside the barbaric shit he did like killing people for wearing glasses.

While Comrade Forstov at least has point about why socialism can't be the final goal of the proletariat because it retains capitalist characteristics, capitalists, and capitalist structures like currency which if not fought by the masses from below, leads back to capitalism. Mao fully developed this, and while Stalin I think recognized it he didn't know how to fight it and thus tried to fight the return of capitalism through more bureacratic means.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well, Maoism ended up as a tool for American imperialism against Russian imperialism.

um no? Maoism rejected both and offered another way from both imperialisms

[Leo]

Well at the beginning they did aim to lead the "new" imperialist pole. When it was obvious that it didn't and couldn't work out, Mao and Nixon reached an agreement and in everywhere pro-Russian forces were confronting pro-American forces, Maoists supported the Americans, the most notable examples being some countries in Africa, Afghanistan Cambodia and so forth.

[KC]

They had a coup d'etat, not a revolution.

That is a form of revolution.

[Leo]

Not according to the Marxist meaning of the word.

[Spike]

Democratic Kampuchea was neither Marxist nor Leninist as demonstrated by their constitution. The terms Marxism, Leninism, or communism cannot be located in their constitution. Democratic Kampuchea was ruled by a band of fanatical, feudal minded nationalists with the aim of restoring the glory of the Khmer past. In the process, they engaged in numerous violent provocations towards Vietnam until it was finally overthrown by the Khmer People's National Liberation Front
and the Vietnam People's Army.http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK...onstitution.htm (http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK_Policy/DK_Policy_DK_Constitution.htm)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2007 06:02 pm
Well at the beginning they did aim to lead the "new" imperialist pole. When it was obvious that it didn't and couldn't work out, Mao and Nixon reached an agreement and in everywhere pro-Russian forces were confronting pro-American forces, Maoists supported the Americans, the most notable examples being some countries in Africa, Afghanistan Cambodia and so forth.
what? um no, the People's Republic of China saw the rise of imperialism in the Soviet Union the minute it started and acted against it. That's why Soviet industrial advisors and Soviet Blueprints were pulled out during the Great Leap Forward

Mao and Nixon did reach an agreement; that the American Imperialists would pull out of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China in exchange would stop giving anti-aircraft arms, food, ammunition, arms, supplies, and training to NVA and Vietn Minh fighters. The US would officialize this by recognizing the People's Republic of China. It was this, along with the mass resistance on the homefront, and the fierce fighting of the Vietcong and NVA that ended the US occupation of Vietnam. the PRC supported national liberation movements all over the world. That meant liberation from imperialism from both sides. In Angola, UNITA was maoist at first, when it became imperialist the PRC pulled support. In Cambodia, the Kmher Rouge portrayed themselves as communists but once it became obvious they weren't, the PRC pulled support from there too. In Afghanistan, the Maoists rejected both the Gorbachevist-revisionist imperialists and the Mujadhen reactionary fundamentalists fighting against both for New Democratic and Socialist Revolution because that was the only way Afghanistan wouldn't end up oppressed.

[NewEast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:51 pm
Democratic Kampuchea was neither Marxist nor Leninist as demonstrated by their constitution. The terms Marxism, Leninism, or communism cannot be located in their constitution. Democratic Kampuchea was ruled by a band of fanatical, feudal minded nationalists with the aim of restoring the glory of the Khmer past. In the process, they engaged in numerous violent provocations towards Vietnam until it was finally overthrown by the Khmer People's National Liberation Front
and the Vietnam People's Army.http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK...onstitution.htm (http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK_Policy/DK_Policy_DK_Constitution.htm)


Ieng Sary of the DK Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote this in 1976.


3. New Strategic Standpoint: That is, to make the Socialist Revolution and to build up socialism in Cambodia (Angkar determined that 3 riels are equal to 1 dollar [3 riels = US$1]) and to continue practicing communism in the future.

4. The party takes Marxist-Leninist theory as the basis of its view and as a compass in a combination of theory and real practice, which are considered the most important factors.

Diary of the Khmer Rouge Foreign Ministry (http://geocities.com/groupstpp/ing.txt)

There's more documents on the site of the Group for the Study of the Theories of Pol Pot (http://geocities.com/groupstpp/). This group, which Forstov is part of (?), is run by John Paul Cupp and the same people who run NACAZAI (North American Committee Against Zionism And Imperialism). NACAZAI also supports Robert Mugabe and honours Saddam Hussein as a martyr, by the way.

LeftyHenry, you're in error there, China supported DK right up until the Vietnamese invasion. So much so that they launched a short-lived invasion against Vietnam. Of course this was unsuccessful as the Chinese weren't well armed and the Vietnamese had just come out of an apocalyptic war and were somewhat battle-hardened. By the way, you're in the RCP right? I was always under the impression the RCP supported Pol Pot, judging by this article in Revolutionary Worker:
Straight Talk on the Trial of Pol Pot (http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm)

[Janus]

The Red Khmer actually printed their own money, but never got around to putting it into circulation.
Yeah, simply abolishing currency isn't radical, it's what you do with the labor and economic institutions that the money represents. The Khmer Rouge continued to exploit the workers in the countryside labor camps and farms that they had created with the leadership of course benefitting.

Khmer Rouge currency (http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Physical/Currency.htm)

[KC]

Not according to the Marxist meaning of the word.

Sure it is. It just wasn't a progressive or proletarian revolution.

[Leo]

Sure it is. It just wasn't a progressive or proletarian revolution.

I thought that according to Marxism, a revolution is when a class overthrows another.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by NewEast+June 11, 2007 06:06 am--> (NewEast @ June 11, 2007 06:06 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 08:51 pm
Democratic Kampuchea was neither Marxist nor Leninist as demonstrated by their constitution. The terms Marxism, Leninism, or communism cannot be located in their constitution. Democratic Kampuchea was ruled by a band of fanatical, feudal minded nationalists with the aim of restoring the glory of the Khmer past. In the process, they engaged in numerous violent provocations towards Vietnam until it was finally overthrown by the Khmer People's National Liberation Front
and the Vietnam People's Army.http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK...onstitution.htm (http://www.dccam.org/Archives/Documents/DK_Policy/DK_Policy_DK_Constitution.htm)


Ieng Sary of the DK Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote this in 1976.


3. New Strategic Standpoint: That is, to make the Socialist Revolution and to build up socialism in Cambodia (Angkar determined that 3 riels are equal to 1 dollar [3 riels = US$1]) and to continue practicing communism in the future.

4. The party takes Marxist-Leninist theory as the basis of its view and as a compass in a combination of theory and real practice, which are considered the most important factors.

Diary of the Khmer Rouge Foreign Ministry (http://geocities.com/groupstpp/ing.txt)

There's more documents on the site of the Group for the Study of the Theories of Pol Pot (http://geocities.com/groupstpp/). This group, which Forstov is part of (?), is run by John Paul Cupp and the same people who run NACAZAI (North American Committee Against Zionism And Imperialism). NACAZAI also supports Robert Mugabe and honours Saddam Hussein as a martyr, by the way.

LeftyHenry, you're in error there, China supported DK right up until the Vietnamese invasion. So much so that they launched a short-lived invasion against Vietnam. Of course this was unsuccessful as the Chinese weren't well armed and the Vietnamese had just come out of an apocalyptic war and were somewhat battle-hardened. By the way, you're in the RCP right? I was always under the impression the RCP supported Pol Pot, judging by this article in Revolutionary Worker:
Straight Talk on the Trial of Pol Pot (http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm) [/b]
read it to the end. We just recognize what I've put forward, that there are a shitload of misconceptions about Democratic Kampuchea and Pol Pot, and that the real genocidal war criminals here are the US imperialists who sent Kampuchea literally back to "Year Zero" the fucking stone age! through the mass bombings. Mao Tse-tung died less than a year after Pol-Pot seized power, immediatly after the Gang of Four were imprisoned and tortured, Deng Xioping and his Clique seized power and began the long road to the full restoration of China. Like I said, The CPK gave off the appearance of being communist, not just that, but Democratic Kampuchea had been leveled by US imperialism. It was the fucking duty as the global base of anti-imperialism at the time that the People's Republic of China do whatever it could to aid the new regime which seized power after years of guerrilla warfare. Now when Mao died Pol-Pot exposed himself as what he really was from the begining a nationalist, and thus won the support of the leaders of the coup d'etat in China, primarily, Deng Xioping.

[NewEast]

I see where you're coming from.

It's interesting to note that the People's Republic of Cambodia (not sure how the RCP feels about that regime being from the Maoist tradition), which came about after the Vietnamese intervention, was not recognised by the US and United Nations for over a decade. Sihanouk (the Khmer Rouge's spokesman, and later monarch of post-Marxist Cambodia) continued to be Cambodia's UN representative for years and the Khmer Rouge continued to be recognised as the legal government.

I wonder if the DPRK has gone back on its original support for DK and revised their old position. Seems this topic has strayed far from its original subject though.

[Redmau5]

the real genocidal war criminals here are the US imperialists

No, the real genocidal war criminals were the Khmer Rouge. The amount of Cambodians killed in US bombing raids pales into insignificance when compared with the amount of people executed, starved and over-worked to death by the Khmer Rouge policies.

[NewEast]

You were there?

[Red Scare]

pol pot was no better than hitler, and his followers were more nazi than communist, nothing good happened under his regime

[Naxal]

I apologise if this is considered thread necromancy, but it's only a couple of days old and I think that it's an important topic.

The abolishion of currency was decided on fairly late, in fact the resolution to ban it was only decided on after the victory of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK- don't call them the Khmer Rouge) and in some zones currency was distributed. The Eastern Zone distributed the new money that was printed in China (and gives an interesting insight into the ideals of the CPK- growing rice, Ankor Wat and serving in the military) and continued to be used for several months after the banning of money. The policy also faced opposition within the party- Hu Nim was never convinced of the merits of banning currency.

The rational was that money was responsible for inequality and was linked with the market- thus banning money would eliminate inequality between people (No money = no rich, no poor) and without money the market would cease to exist. These assumptions are fundementally flawed, in my opinion, and more importantly were undermined by other policies of theirs. Khmer society was heavily stratified with the institution of what was, essentially, a caste system combined with a serf like social structure. 'New People' (people who lived in areas that were not controlled by the CPK before their victory, the bulk of their numbers coming from the cities) were treated poorly in the majority of areas, particularly after 1976-77 when they, predictably, failed to grow three tonnes of rice per hectare (roughly double what was produced in a good year) and the bulk of the rice was then sold to and traded with China.

The market was also not eliminated. It continued within the country in the form of barter. The New People would often trade their 'luxury' possessions (watches were particularly prized and a symbol of status. If you were a cadre and you had a watch you were high in the rankings) with the Base People (who lived in the areas controlled by the CPK before their victory. Pretty much all of them were peasants) for food and the like. This did die back in most regions around 1976-77 when foraging was banned (if caught you would be shot) and food became scarce, though it did continue a bit longer in Eastern Zone (which was the 'liberal zone' until after Hu Nim was executed and the Pol Potist faction exerted its domination in it).

So, as a policy it was not only a failure, but it was utterly superficial-

*Inequalities based on money were not eliminated, they were simply replaced by a caste system that was based on where you lived and when as well as race- Chams, ethnic Chinese and Vietnamese were 'New People' regardless of their geographic location and in the case of the Chinese and Vietnamese, almost all of them who did not escape to Thailand or Vietnam were killed ('Khmer body, Vietnamese mind' was the slogan often used in such cases- bearing in mind that Vietnam was Democratic Kampuchea's arch enemy right from 1975). Bartering was still common and the black market thrived for atleast half of the regime's life.

*The market did not dissapear, on an international level it continued with DK selling rice, low quality rubber, coconuts etc to Thailand, North Korea and China- they were paid in US dollars or in weapons or machinery. ON a localised level it only died down, to a certain extent, due to the monitoring and atomisation of people and communities- as well as a regime that instilled fear in the population. In the 'liberal' areas you would get upto three warnings and have to undergo 'reeducation' classes, in more 'conservative' areas you would be taken away and executed.

If you're interested in the CPK or Dk the author I would reccomend would be Ben Kiernan, with his most important book being 'The Pol Pot Regime'. I forget the author of another good book, but it's called 'Pol Pot's Little Red Book' and has an introduction by David Chandler (though I think David Chandler is the poorest of the 'big three' authors on DK in English). The analysis that goes with it is, in my opinion, simplistic and poor and I believe he makes far, far too much of the 'Maoist connection'. Chandler is anti-Marxist and I think this taints his opinions- his basic arguement is that DK was a 'pure Marxist' state and that DK is an example of 'pure' Marxism in action- other countries have been too scared to embrace such 'purity' and from this he concludes that Marxism is evil, if you read between the lines. Michael Vickery is the final of the 'big three' and provides a neo-Marxist explaination of DK- it was all the peasants fault. But if you read Kiernan's book, he very convincingly discredits this theory.

[NewEast]

Thanks for this incredible response, Comrade! It's next to impossible to find information about Democratic Kampuchea these days, you've really gone a long way to explain some of the blanks for me.

[Naxal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:24 pm
Thanks for this incredible response, Comrade! It's next to impossible to find information about Democratic Kampuchea these days, you've really gone a long way to explain some of the blanks for me.
I have a great interest in Democratic Kampuchea and I have read most of the books available in English. I am interested in doing some research on DK, particularly their conception of class and their agarian reforms, but if you have any other questions about DK I'll do my best to answer them.

I'm trying to learn Khmer so that I can actually read the CPK & DK records myself instead of relying on translations...it's a frustrating language when you come from a background of English. So many letters in the alphabet! Genders! Status! Gah!