Pol Pot?

[PigmerikanMao]

Does anyone know where I can find a collection of Pol Pot's writings? I've been looking all over the internet but cannot seem to find anything more than the Democratic Kampuchean Constitution. It would be helpful,

~PMao :)

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Howtokillmillions.org probably

[rocker935]

haha, yeh, pol pot was a douche. Don't rly know why you would want to read any of his writings, I would just rather watch a documentary on him or something.

[Prairie Fire]

rocker935:
http://rawsocket.org/rtfm/images/beavis.jpg

haha, yeh, pol pot was a douche

More excellent discussion, revleft style :rolleyes:.

Anyways, Pigmerikan Mao, there is a pol pot/Angkor study group website on Yahoo geocities.

http://geocities.com/groupstpp/

Use these materials for whatever you wish.

As for the others who posted on this thread, maybe knee-jerk cliches are not the socialist way to handle this question. I'm not insinuating that Pol Pot was a genuine Marxist-Leninist, but I am saying that quoting death tolls is not a socialist way to handle a political discussion.

As socialists, perhaps we should analyze the historical role played by the Khmer Rouge, the situation and history of Cambodia (from Buddhist monks,to French colonialism, to being one of the most heavilly bombed countries during the American war in Vietnam...). We should analyze the role that vietnam played to Kampuchea, first in aid, and then in social imperialist aggression. We should analyze the ideological under pinnings of "Angkor", compare the accomplishments and detractions of Kampuchea under the Khmer rouge... this is the way to take a socialist stand on Kampuchea/the Khmer rouge/Pol Pot. Just a thought.

[shorelinetrance]

"MANIFESTO OF THE PERIODICAL REVOLUTIONARY YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN"

is actually an interesting read, thanks for the link, fire.

[Ismail]

Women had better rights under the Khmer Rouge.

That seems to be the only good thing I can say about them. Their view that society must be restarted (industry and such comes much later) is clearly flawed and anti-Marxist. The proletariat leads the revolution, not the peasantry; this is assuming the Khmer Rouge even had a majority of their support, which I doubt since peasants tend to be vacillate, especially early on. They also had nationalist views to the extent that it conflicted with their supposed socialist ideology. (Allowing the King to stay, etc.)

See? A Marxist analysis!

[Lynx]

rocker935:
http://rawsocket.org/rtfm/images/beavis.jpg


More excellent discussion, revleft style :rolleyes:.

Anyways, Pigmerikan Mao, there is a pol pot/Angkor study group website on Yahoo geocities.

http://geocities.com/groupstpp/

Use these materials for whatever you wish.

As for the others who posted on this thread, maybe knee-jerk cliches are not the socialist way to handle this question. I'm not insinuating that Pol Pot was a genuine Marxist-Leninist, but I am saying that quoting death tolls is not a socialist way to handle a political discussion.

As socialists, perhaps we should analyze the historical role played by the Khmer Rouge, the situation and history of Cambodia (from Buddhist monks,to French colonialism, to being one of the most heavilly bombed countries during the American war in Vietnam...). We should analyze the role that vietnam played to Kampuchea, first in aid, and then in social imperialist aggression. We should analyze the ideological under pinnings of "Angkor", compare the accomplishments and detractions of Kampuchea under the Khmer rouge... this is the way to take a socialist stand on Kampuchea/the Khmer rouge/Pol Pot. Just a thought.
Yes, we should strive to do this first, then start with the one liners.

[Post-Something]

Howtokillmillions.org probably

Fuck you I actually searched that!!:lol:

I feel like a douche now..

[Chapter 24]

I don't see what we have to read from him that would actually let us learn more about him. Who cares what his "theories" were? He was a genocidal primitivist who only cared about gaining power and couldn't give a shit if he killed millions of Cambodians in the process. In fact, worse, he created an uber totalitarian (and please don't call me a "liberal" in using that word) society where someone could be killed for absolutely no reason at all.

[spartan]

In fact, worse, he created an uber totalitarian (and please don't call me a "liberal" in using that word) society where someone could be killed for absolutely no reason at all.
Actually they were killed for reasons, fucked up reasons!

For example anyone wearing glasses was deemed an "intellectual" who was a "threat to the regime" because they were "too smart" and was thus killed.

I personally wouldn't waste my time reading the words of a man who thinks this sort of shit is acceptable.

Women had better rights under the Khmer Rouge.
Yeah they got to toil and die on the fields with their men folk as equals.

Yay for equality!

[Random Precision]

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

You're a star-belly sneech
You suck like a leach
You want everyone to act like you
Kiss ass while you *****, so you can get rich
But your boss gets richer off you.

Well you'll work harder with a gun in your back
For a bowl of rice a day
Slave for soldiers till you starve,
then your head is skewered on a stake.

[milk]

I don't see what we have to read from him that would actually let us learn more about him. Who cares what his "theories" were? He was a genocidal primitivist who only cared about gaining power and couldn't give a shit if he killed millions of Cambodians in the process. In fact, worse, he created an uber totalitarian (and please don't call me a "liberal" in using that word) society where someone could be killed for absolutely no reason at all.

Not a particularly fruitful analysis.

[milk]

Women had better rights under the Khmer Rouge.

That seems to be the only good thing I can say about them. Their view that society must be restarted (industry and such comes much later) is clearly flawed and anti-Marxist. The proletariat leads the revolution, not the peasantry; this is assuming the Khmer Rouge even had a majority of their support, which I doubt since peasants tend to be vacillate, especially early on. They also had nationalist views to the extent that it conflicted with their supposed socialist ideology. (Allowing the King to stay, etc.)

See? A Marxist analysis!

The idea of a developing agriculture to help furnish future light industrial development isn't necessarily unworkable, but the methods used and the irrationality of ideological considerations overriding the carrying out of what had been suggested in a reformist manner years previously was. Of course there is debate as to whether they were proper communists, but they thought they were nevertheless. One of the myths about the Khmer Rouge is that they were primitivist. They weren't. They were modernisers, and if not actually being so, then at least being quasi-Leninists.

[milk]

As socialists, perhaps we should analyze the historical role played by the Khmer Rouge, the situation and history of Cambodia (from Buddhist monks,to French colonialism, to being one of the most heavilly bombed countries during the American war in Vietnam...). We should analyze the role that vietnam played to Kampuchea, first in aid, and then in social imperialist aggression. We should analyze the ideological under pinnings of "Angkor", compare the accomplishments and detractions of Kampuchea under the Khmer rouge... this is the way to take a socialist stand on Kampuchea/the Khmer rouge/Pol Pot. Just a thought.

What were these "ideological underpinnings" of Angkor?

[ZeroNowhere]

Bringing you the news of one year ago today!