Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge

[PigmerikanMao]

I'm curious as to the antics that went on within Democratic Kampuchea during the rule of Pol Pot and only know what capitalists have told me which is why I need someone with a brain to help me with this. I have a few questions concerning the Khmer Rouge and their acts.

~ How was the structure of socialism different in Democratic Kampuchea then in other self proclaimed socialist states?

~ What caused all of the deaths in Kampuchea at this time period? Was the Khmer Rouge at fault and if so, what went wrong?

~ Why did Vietnam invade Cambodia in '78?

~ Did the Khmer Rouge really hold a primitivist party line or is this just another basic misconception / rumor about Pol Pot's regime?

~ Are there any notable defenses for the atrocities that allegedly happened during the Khmer Rouge dominated period?

~ Has Pol Pot contributed anything notable to socialism or was he just another communist footnote?

Sorry I have so many questions regarding this, like I said, all I have is basic historical information and capitalists telling me he failed because he was communist.

[lvleph]

Well, you find that most if not all members here on rev-left will tell you that Pol Pot was neither a socialist nor a communist. He himself admitted that he had limited knowledge of socialism and communism. I really hope that no one would defend him or his policies that lead to so many deaths.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:33 am
~ Has Pol Pot contributed anything notable to socialism or was he just another communist footnote?
He contributed to the reputation of communism as the ideology of genocidal nutters. If you're asking whether he contributed anything theoretically useful, no. Unless you count a demonstration of "how not to do it".

[KC]

He was a primitivist, not a Marxist.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 04, 2007 12:34 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 04, 2007 12:34 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 01:33 am
~ Has Pol Pot contributed anything notable to socialism or was he just another communist footnote?
He contributed to the reputation of communism as the ideology of genocidal nutters. If you're asking whether he contributed anything theoretically useful, no. Unless you count a demonstration of "how not to do it". [/b]
Sometimes, I wish that you were a woman.

[PigmerikanMao]

It would be far more helpful if people could explain how they've arrived at their decisions through historical observation, not just answering the basic question based on Revleft member dogma.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+December 04, 2007 02:00 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ December 04, 2007 02:00 pm) It would be far more helpful if people could explain how they've arrived at their decisions through historical observation, not just answering the basic question based on Revleft member dogma. [/b]
I cited historical fact, but here is a quote.

Political Affairs Magazine
Here is Pol Pot talking about his “Marxism”-- “the big thick works of Marx... I didn’t really understand them at all.” Ping Say (one of the founders of the CPK ) remarked “Marx was too deep for us.” In fact, although influenced by their own version of “Marxism,” only two Cambodians ever attended the French CP’s school for cadres. For Pol Pot and his cronies “Marxism signified an ideal, not a comprehensive system of thought to be mastered and applied.”

source (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3443/1/186/)

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by lvleph+December 04, 2007 07:33 pm--> (lvleph @ December 04, 2007 07:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:00 pm
It would be far more helpful if people could explain how they've arrived at their decisions through historical observation, not just answering the basic question based on Revleft member dogma.
I cited historical fact, but here is a quote.

Political Affairs Magazine
Here is Pol Pot talking about his “Marxism”-- “the big thick works of Marx... I didn’t really understand them at all.” Ping Say (one of the founders of the CPK ) remarked “Marx was too deep for us.” In fact, although influenced by their own version of “Marxism,” only two Cambodians ever attended the French CP’s school for cadres. For Pol Pot and his cronies “Marxism signified an ideal, not a comprehensive system of thought to be mastered and applied.”

source (http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3443/1/186/) [/b]
thank you :D

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:34 am
nutters.
LOL, nutters that word is funny as hell. :lol:

ROFLMAO

[Tatarin]

How was Pol Pot a primitivist? I thought the used Mao's ides when it came to the peasants and farmers..?

[ShineThePath]

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

Though I am not a big on Pol Pot or the RCP, I think this is a good brief analysis of Pol Pot and Democratic Kampuchea.

[Ismail]

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 04, 2007 01:26 pm
He was a primitivist, not a Marxist.
This sums it all up, in my opinion. I think his supporters had a better understanding of Marxism than he.

Pol Pot study group, has some documents. (http://www.geocities.com/groupstpp/)

[Ander]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+December 04, 2007 04:00 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ December 04, 2007 04:00 pm)It would be far more helpful if people could explain how they've arrived at their decisions through historical observation, not just answering the basic question based on Revleft member dogma.[/b]
Yes, my source is Wikipedia, but if you would really like me to find some more reliable sources I will. I highly doubt that you will find many Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot apologists, especially on the left.


Originally posted by Wikipedia+--> (Wikipedia)In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "Old People" through agricultural labor. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation.[/b]

[email protected]
The Khmer Rouge attempted to turn Cambodia into a classless society by depopulating cities and forcing the urban population ("New People") into agricultural communes. The entire population was forced to become farmers in labour camps. During their four years in power, the Khmer Rouge overworked and starved the population, at the same time executing selected groups who had the potential to undermine the new state (including intellectuals or even those that had signs of learning, such as glasses) and killing many others for even minor breaches of rules.

Wikipedia
The Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured and eventually executed anyone suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed "enemies": anyone with connections to the former government or with foreign governments

professionals and intellectuals - in practice this included almost everyone with an education, or even people wearing glasses (which, according to the regime, meant that they were literate)

ethnic Vietnamese, ethnic Chinese, Cambodian Christians, Muslims and the Buddhist monks

Homosexuals

"economic sabotage" for which many of the former urban dwellers (who had not starved to death in the first place) were deemed to be guilty of by virtue of their lack of agricultural ability.


Now, before making more smart-ass comments, maybe you should ask yourself: are these actions that a communist would commit?

Anyone who believes that the Khmer Rouge was a progressive movement should seriously take some time to reconsider their beliefs.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:30 am
Now, before making more smart-ass comments, maybe you should ask yourself: are these actions that a communist would commit?
I didn't realize that I made a smart ass comment to begin with- I was just wondering if there were people who defended him for any reason. Sorry though.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:02 pm
I didn't realize that I made a smart ass comment to begin with- I was just wondering if there were people who defended him for any reason. Sorry though.
I thought what you said came off as a bit rude...I apologise if I overreacted though. :)

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:02 am
Straight Talk on the Trial of Pol Pot (http://rwor.org/a/v19/910-19/918/polpot.htm)

Though I am not a big on Pol Pot or the RCP, I think this is a good brief analysis of Pol Pot and Democratic Kampuchea.
Thank you, that was very helpful.

[Random Precision]

The most important thing to note about the Khmer Rouge is that there was never even an attempt to get workers involved, nor was there any facade put up of workers controlling the movement. Here are some things that Saloth Sar himself had to say (ripped from another post of mine):


After 1963, when I withdrew into the countryside, my opinions and my thinking and views changed a lot, because I was in a very isolated, remote, rural area, far from the city... I lived among the masses and realized I could trust them.


We [the Khmer Rouge] applied ourselves to define a direction, and then to put it into practice without knowing whether it was right or wrong. [There were] a mixture of influences, a little of this, a little of that... I copied no one. It was what I saw in the country that made an impression on me...

So we can see that it was only "the masses", e.g., the peasants, and the countryside, that mattered to the Khmer Rouge. None of their leaders had a good background in Marxist thought, Sar even saying something to the effect that he could never understand Marx or Lenin (he had read some in French, which his skills at were not the best, and neither he nor the KR leadership ever attempted to have the works translated into Khmer). But that's just fine, because:


Marxism-Leninism resides within the movements forged by the people, and the people's movement in each country puts together its own Marxism-Leninism. Cambodia is also able to contribute to the building of Marxism-Leninism.

Yeah. :rolleyes:

None of their leaders were of proletarian extraction or had any experience organizing the proletariat. In fact, the case was that no urban workers were allowed to join the Khmer Rouge, after they were denounced as "enemy agents" by the Central Committee in 1965. But apparently that was alright as well, because, as Khieu Samphan, Democratic Kampuchea's head of state, said:


It is true that the Cambodian communist party was based on the poor peasantry rather than the working class... But you can't use that as an argument for saying it wasn't a Marxist party, or that there was no economic basis for a communist party in Cambodia. In fact, we applied the criterion of 'material conditions' quite correctly, because the poor peasants were the most impoverished, the most oppressed class in Cambodian society, and it was this class that was the foundation of the Cambodian party.

Yea... so basically "oppression" is the only factor that matters in the creation of a revolutionary class. :lol:

I hope that helps.

[Great Helmsman]

There was effectively no urban working class in Cambodia, and the population in the cities were mostly petty-bourgeois. People attack the Khmer Rouge for marching people out of the cities, but this was necessary given that there was a crisis of food and overpopulation caused by American bombing. Phenom Phen had inflated with thousands of refugees fleeing from the countryside.

I would attribute most of the deaths to the American bombing and the starvation that resulted from that. Death tolls vary greatly, I've heard 160,000 - 2 million. And this covers the period from when the CPK took power and through the Vietnamese invasion. I would be interested in seeing some statistics about how many people actually died as a result of the war, and who are usually lumped into the lump sum.

It's controversial to call what happened in Cambodia genocide at any rate:
http://www.radioislam.org/totus/CGCF/file17thion.html

Interestingly there isn't a whole lot of interest in Cambodia about the Western drive to hunt down Khmer war criminals.

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by Mrdie+December 05, 2007 07:21 am--> (Mrdie @ December 05, 2007 07:21 am)
Zampanò@December 04, 2007 01:26 pm
He was a primitivist, not a Marxist.
This sums it all up, in my opinion. I think his supporters had a better understanding of Marxism than he.

Pol Pot study group, has some documents. (http://www.geocities.com/groupstpp/) [/b]
Interesting find comrade Mrdie, I hadn't seen this before!

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Great [email protected] 06, 2007 02:06 am
Interestingly there isn't a whole lot of interest in Cambodia about the Western drive to hunt down Khmer war criminals.
From what I've been reading it's probably because they don't want to be held responsible for 90% of the deaths.

[Random Precision]

There was effectively no urban working class in Cambodia, and the population in the cities were mostly petty-bourgeois.

On the contrary, there was a large number of proletarians in Phnom Penh, among other largish cities. I'll find the exact data later. But even if that were the case, then their cause was bound to fail.


People attack the Khmer Rouge for marching people out of the cities, but this was necessary given that there was a crisis of food and overpopulation caused by American bombing. Phenom Phen had inflated with thousands of refugees fleeing from the countryside.

Regardless of the motivation for moving everyone out of the cities (which is indeed debatable given the Khmer Rouge's ideology, I'll provide specific quotes later) the disaster that was caused by evacuating the cities was far greater than that which would have been caused by an American bombing campaign. If the KR had truly been concerned with the welfare of the urban population, it could have at least made it a bit more organized. Here are several eyewitness accounts:


It was a stupefying sight, a human flood pouring out of the city, some people pushing their cars, others with overladen motorcycles or bicycles overflowing with bundles, and others behind little home-made carts. Most were on foot... The worst part of the march was the stopping and starting: there was such a crowd that we could never go forward more than a few yards at a time before we had to stop again...


Sick people were left by their families at the roadside. Others were killed [by the KR soldiers] because they could walk no further. Children who had lost their parents cried out in tears, looking for them. The dead were abandoned, covered in flies, sometimes with a piece of cloth thrown over them. Women gave birth wherever they could: in the road or under the trees. We didn't even have the energy to think about eating. At night we fell down with weariness and slept with everyone else at the edge of the highway. When we awoke at dawn, we realized we had been sleeping next to the bodies of some soldiers who had been killed the previous day.


Thousands of the sick and wounded were abandoning the city. The strongest dragged themselves pitifully along, others were carried by friends, some lying on beds pushed by their families with their plasma and IV drips bumping alongside. I shall never forget one cripple who had neither hands nor feet, writhing along the ground like a severed worm. Or a weeping father carrying his 10-year old daughter wrapped in a sheet tied around his neck like a sling, or the man with his foot dangling at the end of a leg to which it was attached by nothing but the skin.

Source: Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare by Philip Short.

Pol Pot's brother Chhem Sar collapsed and died during the forced march from Phnom Penh. The total amount of casualties from the evacuation of that city alone is estimated at around 20,000.

I'll deal with the KR's propensity toward Cambodian nationalism in my next post, there is indeed some very interesting and scary stuff there.


I would attribute most of the deaths to the American bombing and the starvation that resulted from that. Death tolls vary greatly, I've heard 160,000 - 2 million. And this covers the period from when the CPK took power and through the Vietnamese invasion. I would be interested in seeing some statistics about how many people actually died as a result of the war, and who are usually lumped into the lump sum.

Don't know about that, but Short cites a number around 1.5 million dead from execution, illness, overwork, or starvation during the years the Khmer Rouge was in power.

[Great Helmsman]

Some interesting footage of Democratic Kampuchea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uyIlKnITho
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlr4Lb2bQLs&feature=related

[Self Defense]

Also, I thought I would add that the Khmer Rouge had no real communist agenda. The U.S. supported Pol Pot and his regime in the beginning of his uprising.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 04, 2007 06:31 pm--> (Serpent @ December 04, 2007 06:31 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:34 pm

[email protected] 04, 2007 01:33 am
~ Has Pol Pot contributed anything notable to socialism or was he just another communist footnote?
He contributed to the reputation of communism as the ideology of genocidal nutters. If you're asking whether he contributed anything theoretically useful, no. Unless you count a demonstration of "how not to do it".
Sometimes, I wish that you were a woman. [/b]
Why? So you too would know "how not to do it"?

[Killer Enigma]

It's a holiday in Cambodia.
It's tough, kid, but its a life.
It's a holiday in Cambodia.
Don't forget to pack a wife.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Self Defense+December 08, 2007 11:53 am--> (Self Defense @ December 08, 2007 11:53 am) Also, I thought I would add that the Khmer Rouge had no real communist agenda. The U.S. supported Pol Pot and his regime in the beginning of his uprising. [/b]
No they didn't

They supported their pupport, Lon Nol. China supported the Khmer Rouge, and the USSR support some revisionist party. On the basis of peaceful coexistence the Soviet supported party was told to stay out of the national liberation.

It wouldn't surprise me that after the Vietnamese overthrow the Khmer Rouge that the US gave money and materials to the Khmer Rouge. As probally did China, in the hope that the Soviet backed regime would fall in Cambodia.


Wikepdia is CIA shit.


Wikipedia
In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from foreign influence, closing schools, hospitals and factories, abolishing banking, finance and currency, outlawing all religions, confiscating all private property and relocating people from urban areas to collective farms where forced labor was widespread. The purpose of this policy was to turn Cambodians into "Old People" through agricultural labor. These actions resulted in massive deaths through executions, work exhaustion, illness, and starvation.

The Khmer Rogue closed alot of colonial based infrastructure. For instance they closed down the colonial influenced schools. A radical position yes, but also a communist position. Their motive was correct, their method and what replaced the colonial structure was not.

People were moved from the cities because of American bombing that was causing overpopulation and starvation.

We can't trust the bourgeois sources to do our analysis for us. The people who have studied Khmer Rouge, regardless if they have good intentions don't hold our position, so they don't tell us everything.


Regardless of the motivation for moving everyone out of the cities (which is indeed debatable given the Khmer Rouge's ideology, I'll provide specific quotes later)

And that is? I have never known anyone that has a clear understanding of Khmer Rouge ideology. I never found alot of their material on the internet or in any book collection. All I ever hear is that they "primitivist and wanted to create communism in one generation". That is not a clear understanding, that is an assumption.

I have read a few things mainly from this websitehttp://www.dccam.org/

[Random Precision]

Well, I alluded to its substance a bit in my first post- they held the anti-Marxist notion that the peasantry of Cambodia was a revolutionary class for the simple reason that it was oppressed. They believed communism could be established in a collectivized agrarian society- which is why we call them "primitivist". This can be seen in their hatred of all things urban- cities were denounced as "poison" more than a few times, their exclusive base among the peasantry and so on. They also included an amount of Maoism, for example the emphasis on "the masses" and self-criticism (which all except Pol Pot were encouraged to perform regularly).


People were moved from the cities because of American bombing that was causing overpopulation and starvation.

We can't trust the bourgeois sources to do our analysis for us. The people who have studied Khmer Rouge, regardless if they have good intentions don't hold our position, so they don't tell us everything.

But we can trust even less the word of the Khmer Rouge, and their contemporary apologists.

It is true that I have used a bourgeois source- but if you'll look at my posts, I never used Short's analysis. I have actually been quite careful not to do that- I have only used the primary sources he cites (KR leaders in my first post and eyewitness accounts in the next), and only the direct quotations at that.

[Hiero]

But we can trust even less the word of the Khmer Rouge, and their contemporary apologists.

Quick question, who are these contemporary apologists?

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:21 am

But we can trust even less the word of the Khmer Rouge, and their contemporary apologists.

Quick question, who are these contemporary apologists?
People like Great Helmsman, and the website that Mrdie provided.

[PigmerikanMao]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the Proles+December 08, 2007 05:27 am--> (Hope Lies in the Proles @ December 08, 2007 05:27 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 05:21 am

But we can trust even less the word of the Khmer Rouge, and their contemporary apologists.

Quick question, who are these contemporary apologists?
People like Great Helmsman, and the website that Mrdie provided. [/b]
I wouldn't call those apologist, they just defend Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Since when is defending your ideals "apologist?"

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+December 09, 2007 05:22 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ December 09, 2007 05:22 pm)
Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 08, 2007 05:27 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 05:21 am

But we can trust even less the word of the Khmer Rouge, and their contemporary apologists.

Quick question, who are these contemporary apologists?
People like Great Helmsman, and the website that Mrdie provided.
I wouldn't call those apologist, they just defend Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Since when is defending your ideals "apologist?" [/b]
Well ever since the definition of "apologist" was this (http://www.answers.com/apologist&r=67).