Fake Leftists or "Red Fascists"

I kind of find it humorous because it mostly shows how little they understand or know the history of their ideology.

Yes it was insignificant as an overall influence, when compared to ICP membership, political and military teaching within that organisation, or with the Vietnamese-created and guided Khmer People's Revolutionary Party (which was renamed the CPK in 1966). And several leading cadre, while being ICP members had never been to France, let alone joined a marginal cell connected to the PCF, a cell that was overshadowed in importance by the Vietnamese anti-imperialist radicals then in the French capital. A few leading CPK cadre, while in France, never joined the PCF either. And all this, according to Ben Kiernan in his seminal study How Pol Pot Came to Power. According to David Chandler in his Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot. According to Thomas Engelbert and Christopher E. Goscha in Falling Out of Touch: A Study on Vietnamese Communist Policy Towards an Emerging Cambodian Communist Movement, 1930-1975. And, according to Steve Heder in his Cambodian Communism and the Vietnamese Model Volume. 1: Imitation and Independence, 1930-1975.

If I recall, it was you who got the hump, because I pointed out that it was the sources you cited which contradicted your position on the subject.

They were never primitivists, with or without adjectives. This is quite clear to those who have studied the subject. As for 'actions' in using a Stalin-Mao political overlay (revolution from above and great leap respectively) speaking for 'themselves,' then full-steam ahead with primitive (note: don't get confused here) capital accumulation for an investment surplus, in order to kick-start country-wide industrialisation, however unrealistic in the circumstances, is definitely not 'primitivist.'

Of course I can back it up, and will use my sources to beat you over the head with later on if you wish, but we've already been there before. So, anyway, what you're saying is that the intention of the CPK was not to create a fully-functioning industrialised country within twenty or thirty years?

Their policies were doomed, yes, but the problem here is that you seem to be confused as to just what their policies were. I would also advise you not to wrench other 'lessons' in history from their specific historical contexts.

I don't take a shitty attitude to people who 'dare' to tackle the subject. I dare say, though, that hastily googling articles and posting up videos without really knowing much about the content of such, nor the sources, isn't tackling the subject. Also, in response to your pathetic dig, I think you should stick to your metaphysics, and I'll deal with history.

How can you prove it was insignificant though? The fact is that Pol Pot, the main leader of the KR along with Ieng Sary, Khieu Sampan, Hou Yon and Son Sen, was involved with French communists and the Cercle Marxiste in Paris for about four years and it's likely where he got his first "taste" of communism and radical politics. The FCP at the time was fervently Stalinist and anti-colonialist and given the geopolitics of Indochina at the time it's not hard to understand why it attracted the students from Indochina too. It is certainly during Pol Pot's sojourn in France that an influence from Rousseau may be detected according to French writers. The taking of the name "[FONT=Times New Roman]Khmaer daœm[/FONT]" which may be translated as "original Khmer" hints at an almost Rousseauesque idea of the "noble savage" as such. Here is an interesting and referenced article in French[FONT=Verdana] L’influence de Rousseau sur l’idéologie et le comportement de Pol Pot et de ses camarades[/FONT]" at http://rousseaustudies.free.fr/artic...eauPolPot.html

I think that you understate or negate the influence of the Paris years on some of, if not the, most important figures in KR leadership. There are many parallels with Rousseau and other Lumières' philosophies in what was to happen in the 1970s in Cambodia. Vickery uses the words "conservative utopianism" to describe KR ideology along with the sacred nature of the soil Michael Vickery, Cambodia: 1975-1982, (1984) p285.

Until of course you were contradicted.... yeah.... whatever.

Touché, but I don't actually think you are a good historian to be honest, yes you can parrot sources and references that seem to fit with your somewhat dubious and sinister "soft" stance you adopt towards anything to do with the KR but you refuse to acknowledge anything that might disagree with your positions. The very fact that no one was really disagreeing with you in the first place, more like adding something which you take to be some kind of personal affront says it all. As for your childish position on googling sources, what? Finding academic articles and sources on internet in the 21st century... what's the problem with that? Or would your own Year Zero somehow abolish such bourgeois trivialities? LOL!

Here's another article that is fairly balanced and seems to come to the conclusion that they were nationalists first and foremost- as well as being idiots.
http://www.junge-linke.org/en/if-we-...ave-everything

Ben Kiernan states in How Pol Pot Came to Power, that 'Original Khmer' was most likely a cultural reference related to his home town of Prek Sbauv. The name was used as a pseudonym when he published a handwritten eight-page article in Cambodian student magazine Khmer Nisut, called Monarchy or Democracy?

Sar and others, when members of the ICP, were indoctrinated and otherwise absorbed Vietnamese Communist doctrine starting in the early 1950s, either in the ICP itself, or the Vietnamese-led movement in Cambodia. A brief and largely marginal sojourn in France was unimportant when compared to the Vietnamese movement in the region, and its influence in not only being central to setting up the Cambodian movement but also guiding it. However, Paris set the stage for Sar at least, with regard to Soviet (or Stalinist) orthodoxy and the CPK's future ideological trajectory.

It is worth pointing to Steve Heder, in his seminal re-interpretation of Cambodian Communism, that when the CPK won power, it had a striking attachment to 'formulaicism' (sticking to formulas regardless of facts and the inappropriateness of their application), and in that, they never jettisoned what they had learned from previously fraternal 'big brothers.' All of this came from Vietnamese Communist teaching, something they had never jettisoned, even when the two groups were at loggerheads after 1975. Indeed, the specific strategy, tactics, and general 'rules' of Marxist-Leninist revolution in an Indochinese context, were learned and internalised by the Cambodians. And in rejecting two central dictates of the Vietnamese Stalinists: that the Cambodian revolution must always lag behind the Vietnamese, and the Cambodians must follow Vietnamese advice in this regard, it could be argued that in doing so, the Cambodians were aiming to be 'more Vietnamese than the Vietnamese,' with regard to building socialism rapidly and creating the conditions for eventual communism.

What parallels? Which others?

I have read Marxist historian Michael Vickery's book numerous times, have checked it for this reply, and he does not give mention to a 'conservative utopianism' on that particular page, or indeed at all in his book. Indeed, on page 285, Vickery talks about Cambodia's economy with regard to the Marxist concept of socialism (or rather the necessary conditions in which to get there), by looking at Cambodia's bureaucratic proto-capitalist mode of production during the twentieth-century, arising from the gradual dissolving of an old pre-modern Asiatic Mode, under the impact of French colonial capitalism. Although Cambodia's status in the French creation of Indochina was never an actual colony, but a protectorate, which explains Cambodia's slower development, and the preservation rather than eventual replacement of the aforementioned pre-capitalist royal bureaucratic system, with some other system mimicking western European (French) capitalism. He also goes on to refute the assumption that Khieu Samphan's 1959 doctoral dissertation had a central influence on CPK economic policy. Your indiscriminate googling has let you down, it appears.


No, if I recall, you merely had a tantrum because you disliked my correcting you.

Using sources, academic or otherwise, in discussion is fine by me. Don't not expect to be questioned about them, however.

And there was no such policy as 'Year Zero.'

Of course not. However, many fascists have held an idealised, romantic vision of "the good old days" as one of their goals. Personally I think it has something to do with their conservatism and the social-Darwinist aspect of their ideology - so something "natural" and "traditional" is usually thought of as desirable.

Well I did say "may be translated" however Ben Kiernan's hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis and on what ground can we say it is most likely?

I would hardly say that 4 years was brief and given the political climate in France at the time, especially in Parisian university and intellectual circles I don't know how you can state in qualitative terms that it was marginal. Wasn't it obligatory for the Paris students group to read L'Humanité for example? Even the infamous "year zero" was derived from French history as you point out on your user group. No one is negating the influence of the Vietnamese, rather adding the influence of the FCP etc. Khieu Samphan cites Samin Amir's 1957 thesis written in Paris in his bibliography, this same Samin was a member of the French Communist Party and his thesis was supervised by François Perroux who was very critical of western attitudes and policies towards the "Third World" and encouraged these nations to develop autonomously.
http://www.iseor.com/upload/Perroux_...8janv08-SI.pdf

All I am saying is that you ought to be cautious underestimating the influence of the FCP and contemporary French intellectual circles at the time.

Read the French Article.

Well we will have to look into this as I have that reference from an article, however article references on internet can be notoriously inaccurate- admitted. However the article in question is to be found here with the reference in the footnotes (128)
http://www.imaginaryfutures.net/2007...hard-barbrook/

In Pacific Affairs, Vol 61 No 3 Fall 1988
Copyright CO 1988, University of British Columbia. ISSN 0030-851X, talks about how Vickery draws parallels with More's Utopio and the DK.
http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/p..._Fall_1988.pdf
: citing Vickery, Cambodia 1975-1982, p . 281.

Now- we can go on analysing who said what and who didn't say what but you seem to avoid conveniently what actually happened, in material terms which is rather strange from someone who eschews historical materialism. :rolleyes: As for being snarky about references and quotes etc a serious historian wouldn't try to score silly little internet points but would actually try to get to the bottom of it and find out where the quote was from and if/why it was erroneously cited. ;)

By the way, who ever said that "Year Zero" was a policy? Trying to build a strawman here?

I don't understand why you have this kind of aversion to anyone suggesting that there was a French communist and radical influence on the KR leadership- this is no way negates any of the other influences. It seems you reluctantly concede that there was, however stating that it was marginal. This is also of course ignoring the fact that for Pol Pot involvement with the FCP predated involvement with the ICP.

Leaving aside the various interpolations and interpretations, because that's what they fundamentally are and will remain due to the nature of the sources- could you demonstrate effectively and not relying on political statements or rhetoric, how the Khmer Rouge

1) were not ethnic nationalists first and foremost and not guilty of ethnic cleansing
2) were not criminally negligent in their insane policies- you seem to take the stance that despite the tragic outcomes they were somehow politically "sincere" in their intentions from a leftist point of view.
3) in any way shape or form could justify their ACTIONS in terms of leftist/socialist/marxist theory
4) were not guilty of genocide - quote you on your site at "I personally don’t believe that genocide occurred in Cambodia" http://padevat.info/2010/07/02/whose-side-are-you-on/
Here's an article you may be interested in http://www.genocidewatch.org/THE%20C...ONAL%20LAW.htm
-?

All Communists aren't Red Fascists. Red Fascist is a term refering to Totalitarian Communist Regimes like The Soviet Union China and North Korea, and does not apply to some Marxists. The term "Red Fascist" is used to describe the extermination of opponents of Communism or Anarchists, or Anti-Soviet Communists by The Soviet Union by sending them to Gulag to be killed.

Wrong!! North Korea opposes fascism completely and totally. Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung repeatedly in their writings denounced fascism in the strongest terms. As Kim Il Sung stated in Juche 80 (1991) with regards to the division of Korea:

"Our people contributed to destroying fascism"

and has come up with its very own totalitarian, authoritarian statist form of oppression headed by an absolute fuehrer instead. :thumbup1:

?

No one calls Kim Jong Il or the eternal president Kim Il Sung fuehrer.. properly Kim Jong Il's title is Generalissimo, but that confers only military rank and has none of the implications of the title Fuehrer that you suggest.

Fuehrer just means leader as in Suryong (수령)or "Great Leader". Trying to play the generalissimo card doesn't get you far either, well loved title of Franco. ;)

Facetious at it is, funny how "juche" rhymes with "duce" ;)

Yes, this has just as much truth as the proclamations of the US that it is spreading freedom and democracy.

You hastily googled an article about a French philosopher, which amounts to nothing more than speculative crap. You don't even understand any of it yourself.

Are you seriously saying that the Cambodian cell was not marginal - that it wasn't a mere adjunct to the Vietnamese anti-imperialist movement, which was courted much more by the PCF? Khieu Samphan's thesis is irrelevant to DK. It's influence has been refuted by scholars, including the woman who translated the thing. You haven't read it. But we've already been here before ...

Stop backtracking, idiot. You haven't read Vickery. I have that very book to hand. Nowhere is there mention of a 'conservative utopianism.' As I said, your googling let you down, big time.


You implied as such, despite it being nothing more than an intellectual nod, an historical analogy.

Cambodian radicals' membership of the ICP predated Pol Pot's. People who also became leading cadre in DK, and never went to France either. Your point is, caller?

I've already trounced you time and time again, on these very points, in previous threads. You know that, painfully so. I'm not going through it all again. Vickery, by the way, doesn't believe genocide occurred there either. You like citing him though. Even though you've never 'read' him. His analysis is a heck of a lot more sophisticated than yours, however.

I also note you've just completely ignored the part of my post regarding Heder's book.

Ah, well. nevermind.

Unlike Kiernan's speculation about the significance of "Original Khmer" that you present as definitive, when it isn't.

I found an article that discussed something and you can't even be bothered to say why you think it is "speculative crap" and then you have the audacity to say what people understand and don't- really open-minded and intellectual of you there.

Ah... but your shifting the goalpoasts here. I was talking about the influence of the French FCP on leaders of the KR during their stay in Paris. Khieu Samphan's thesis was irrelevant because the scholars you choose to cherrypick may have said so- does that mean this is the case? I have read it too- sitting in my PDF archive. But can you demonstrate there was no influence, not the slightest bit.... ?

In Cambodia, 1975-1978: Rendezvous with Death, by Karl D. Jackson I found an interesting discussion pp 241-246 in which Jackson seems to indicate that there was a discernable influence from France, notably Samin to which Jackson says, "Amin's work is the probable source of many of Khieu Samphan's ideas about the pernicious effects of integrating Cambodia's precapitalist economy into the international economic system and the wholesome effects of partial autarky." (p 245) and goes onto state on (p246) that "Samir Amin provides only a part of the French connection. The intellectual ancesty of the Khmer Rouge most probably included Frantz Fanon, the French-educated apostle of violent revolution." concluding that despite a lack of direct proof "Khmer Rouge practices of the 1970s are foreshadowed by Fanon's writing of the 1960s"

And I referred to the source and questioned it. I was hoping you could maybe come up with an answer as to why the reference was wrong and what may have happened- but instead you adopt your persona of being arrogant and obnoxious. I do apologise that I do not have an entire library dedicated to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge at my own personal disposal. But seeing as you have that book to hand could you tell us what it does say on that page and offer any explanation as to where this erroneous reference may have come from? This is common practice on an internet forum- we look for citations and for quotes and ... err... try to help each other, but perhaps you don't understand that because you are, by your own confession NOT a leftist.

Quote you: "and just to point out here I am not “left-wing” in a Marxist-Leninist sense"
http://padevat.info/2010/05/04/a-ham...dow-of-angkor/

So in what sense are you then?

Ah...I see.... I implied it, that means you interpret it as such and your interpretation must be right? :laugh:

But a lot who were the actual fucking main players did... Your point is...?

But.... but.... I am not arguing against you really am I? I'm asking you some questions you always seem to refuse to answer and was adding something to the discourse. It's not about "trouncing" people and "owning" them, especially not in OI Learning (read the notice at the top).

Why do you refuse to answer the questions?

I am genuinely curious to know why you say on your site that you don't personally believe it was "genocide" in Cambodia. Seeing as you have already trounced me time and again on these simple questions it won't require much to answer them here for the benefit of others, will it? ;)

Go on surprise me....

There certainly were people who differed from Hitler in the Nazi party, but a "left" wing only existed in relative terms. Strasser or Roehm were fascists too, with a long record of provocation and street confrontation against socialdemocrats and communists. And race and nationalism were the main issue to them too, as they were for Goebbels.

Luís Henrique

Reckless would be the word, methinks.

Luís Henrique

True, I should have said "less-right wing."

I've already been through everything with you before, and the way in which you answer a question with another question is tedious. As caramelpence has discovered on your Mao was Bad thread, it's pointless discussing anything with you.

Do you have nothing to add on Heder's study? I won't hold my breath.

This was the old thread I believe: http://www.revleft.org/vb/showthread.php?t=145093

But you didn't answer the questions though did you and a couple of other users stated that too. You even had the nerve to accuse me of using anti-Khmer Rouge sources etc whilst on another thread using and defending Richard Pipes as a source in a discussion connected to Russia. Double-standards? Furthermore anything, sometimes from the authors you cite too, that doesn't fit in with your argumentation or perhaps you just don't like for whatever reason you dismiss out of hand.

Now, we all know you are incredibly well-read on the subject but that doesn't mean that your argumentation is clear nor that you personally answer questions or present your opinion. If someone asks you a clear question and in response you post a wall of text with various (selected) references that obfuscate your position then it is not really answering the question is it? This circular argumentation working on the premise of "I don't have to answer that because I already have done" reminds me, unfortunately of another former RevLeft user... :rolleyes:

Now, all I am asking you here in straight and simple terms is to explain why in your enormously-well-read-on-the-matter opinion you don't believe we can speak of genocide in Cambodian terms- as you state on your website whose links you include here.

You must understand that reading through your posts and bloggs etc one does get the impression that you view the KR etc as being communists who failed whereas a lot of people here, given that this is afterall RevLeft, do not share the view that the KR were remotely communists other than in name (and that only to serve cynical political ends). The fact that anti-leftists/communists constantly invoke the name of Pol Pot as a way of attacking leftism/communism which is usually repudiated by most sane on the left other than extremists Maoists makes your portraying them as communists rather irritating. On your website you state that your are not a leftist in an ML sense and so, and I believe it's a fair question to ask on a politically based forum, I would like to ask you here- in what way are you a leftist- if at all?

Two simple questions....

One would have to be completely blind not to make the startlingly obvious connection that Kim Jong IL and his father are/were horrid dictators just like hitler was with absolutely no interest in the common people. That or they have been taught by North kore- Oh. Nevermind. Carry on.