Results 21 to 40 of 94
The Khmer Rouge were not really intelligent enough to have an ideology as such in my opinion and the comment about their being primtivists was not meant "literally" but rather in the sense of their bizarre back to the beginning or tabula rasa strategy.
Don't form apologetics for them though- we are all aware of the US bombing and the dreadful state of Cambodia at Year Zero, at the same time that is no justification for turning an entire nation into a slave labour camp, allowing around 15%-25% of the population to be killed, beaten to death or starved, commit ethnic genocide and then go cosying up to the imperialists when you get your asses kicked by the Vietnamese.
Last edited by ComradeMan; 1st August 2011 at 10:16.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
National Bolshevism is a weird ideology and even stranger that it has been picked up in Russia of all places. I mean National Bolshevism was coined by German Nationalists who wanted to incorporate Socialist Policies in hopes of placating the USSR and Communists within Germany in order to keep the Junkers still on top of the heap. That such an ideology has been imported into Russia of all places is just bizarre to me since it was such a Germancentric Ideology in the first place. Even then I wouldn't consider it a real threat as the party is mostly full of students who just want to cause trouble without being bothered with ideology.
Other than that I really can't think of any real posturing of Leftist "fascists" I find most of the posturing here in the USA at least to be over libertarian and Randian Objectivisim. I do enjoy the Red Alert Communists though that is mostly because they remind me of Bond villains.
They were never primitivists, no. As for their politics, it was pretty much a pre-fabricated, Stalinised 'Marxism-Leninism' that they had learned from the Vietnamese, with some influence from Maoist China and then inappropriately and hubristically applied.
The actual overall outcome was undesired and unintended by them, but the CPK and its leaders are responsible for Democratic Kampuchea's horrific failure to establish socialism.
Supporting an aggressive, imperialist foreign policy = USSR, DPRK, PRC
Strong nationalism = USSR, DPRK, PRC,
Idea of a supreme race or nation = PRC (Juche counts)
Nominal disdain for capitalism and support of the working class (see above) = USSR, PRC, DPRK, RC
Authoritarian style of leadership, ruthless suppression of dissent = USSR, PRC, DPRK
Presence of a "great leader" = USSR, PRC, DPRK, RC
Use of socialist symbols = USSR, PRC, DPRK
Romantic ideals of a return to innocent, often pre-industrial times = ?
Call for a revolution, but one that is more a national revoultion than a class one - basically a bourgeois revolution = USSR, PRC, DPRK
You know, I'd hate to start a tendency war, but it seems to me that half of the Left would support Fascism.
Also, those organizations seem to be attracting war game fans (CoD, CaC, etc.) a la Soviet Empire.
And not also the French Communist Party of which Pol Pot and Ieng Sary were members during their stay in France?
The continuous use by the Khmer Rouge of "new people" versus the desirable "old people" and the fact that through their actions they dragged an entire nation into some kind of failed primitive agrarian dystopia does lead to the allegation of being "primitivists" although of course no one would argue they were anarcho-primitivists.
Or was it? Do you have any statements of regret from them? I am curious seeing as a lot of the leading cadres, especially those brought to trial- seem pretty damn unrepetent and/or deny their responsibility. Very little regret seems to be forthcoming other than perhaps from Kaing Guek Eav. Pol Pot admitted responsibility in a sense but denied guilt as such in 1981 and it does make me wonder how much were crocodile tears.
In general the only thing groups like these regret in machiavellian terms was that the means did not produce the ends and then came back to haunt them.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Substitute the word "organize" for "mobilize" and it becomes clearer. There is a reason why Marx supported Bismark's efforts to create a German nation-state.
It has to be understood the objective of socialism is authoritarianism; its not merely a means to an end. The justification for the proleteriat to rule is simply numbers; they have the most. Clearer headed socialists understand that this means people will have to be told what to do.
Or could mean an expression of a genuine opinion as to their socialist beliefs.
Remember kids, it is only "authoritarianism" when "the unwashed mob" and "its ringleaders" rule, demanding such ridiculous things as living standards increases or participation in choosing the fate of one's own society. And when the investment bankers and their political cronies rule, duping the masses with senseless political sloganeering, it is called "democracy".
[FONT="Fixedsys"]History is not like some individual person which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends. - Karl Marx.
Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. - Friedrich Engels.
I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever. - Albert Einstein.[/FONT]
It's easy for tendency to have a clean record when it is just a mere footnote on Big Book of Class Struggle and Working Class Movement.
Although I agree with you on your second point, tu quoque arguments are not a solid basis on which to build a socio-economic policy nor do they justify the actions of those who claim to be in the right.Remember kids, it is only "authoritarianism" when "the unwashed mob" and "its ringleaders" rule, demanding such ridiculous things as living standards increases or participation in choosing the fate of one's own society. And when the investment bankers and their political cronies rule, duping the masses with senseless political sloganeering, it is called "democracy"
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Of course, the majority might be ignorant and/or naive in its decisions, but in order to cease being such it needs the experience of political participation, which the self-proclaimed 'elite' invariably denies to it.
[FONT="Fixedsys"]History is not like some individual person which uses men to achieve its ends. History is nothing but the actions of men in pursuit of their ends. - Karl Marx.
Only sound common sense, respectable fellow that he is in the homely realm of his own four walls, has very wonderful adventures directly he ventures out into the wide world of research. - Friedrich Engels.
I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever. - Albert Einstein.[/FONT]
Fascism as a force to counter grassroots socialist and anarchist organizing is successful in attracting people when people are not convinced that socialism is really possible at the same time that capitalism is also seen as failing or harmful. I think part of the reason that fascism is gaining ground in eastern Europe is because capitalism is crushing people but the "socialist/communist" movement is still too connected to the USSR for a lot of people. Similarly in Western Europe, the democratic-socialist parties have aided neoliberalism and discredited themselves as capitalism is flailing. That kind of situation creates an audience for people who don't like what capitalism is doing but don't like the worker's movement or its aims (or at least doesn't think they are achievable or desirable). So instead they are channeled into blaming scapegoats and the left for the situation created by capitalism... if only workers didn't strike, if only immigrants weren't taking all the jobs, if only all these parties and their "special interests" weren't constantly fighting and not getting things done... then we'd be prosperous and have a good life again!
And as organizations created to counter worker movements on the ground-level, it's not surprising that they'd take on some of the imagery and even some of the reforms of these movements. They already take on some of the tactical features of independent worker's movements by taking their politics to the street - except they are opposed to our aims and beat up strikers and try and terrorize other groups of workers - particularly oppressed workers.
yet the justification for the capitalist to rule is wealth, which is way more authoritarian.
By whom? A self-appointed elite?
The USSR is a unique case, since its economic and political organization underwent numerous changes. I'd agree it was authoritarian and ruthless in suppressing dissent, but the other characteristics were not that prominent at least until Stalin took control. Lenin did not introduce self-glorifying statues and anthems (and neither did Khruschev or Gorby), and nationalism - though it existed - was considerably weaker than in just about every other contemporary state.
Overall I'd not go so far as to call it "fascist".
I don't know enoguh about China to comment, but I agree with you on the DPRK and Khmer Rouge.
Their membership of the ICP was more significant in forming their politics than brief peripheral membership of the PCF. And I've already owned you on this very subject. You have little understanding of what the 'old' and 'new' designations meant in DK. It certainly doesn't 'lead' to the allegation that they were primitivists. And why would I need statements of regret? That's irrelevant. It's more than clear from primary and secondary source evidence that their infrastructural programme was never about creating a 'primitive agrarian dystopia.' People can be responsible for an outcome, even if that outcome was never originally intended. Abundance was aimed for, not scarcity and starvation. It doesn't make you supportive of them by saying that, and we would also need to determine just what caused that horrific failure, instead of meaningless word-grubbing.
If the Khmer Rouge didn't understand that closing schools, hospitals and factories, burning books, separating families, forcibly removing people from cities and forcing them to work 12 hours a day on farms (despite having absolutely no relevant knowledge or experience) will lead to an utter disaster... well then I can only assume they were morons.
Personally I don't care what their intentions were: no rulers ever aimed to ruin their own country. Even if their final goal was not primitivism, I don't understand how anyone could think their actions would not lead to what they did. And that's not even touching their racism, desire for an empire, anti-intellectualism and hypocrisy (notice that quite a few of the Khmer leaders were members of the minorites they prosecuted, or intellectuals etc.).
According to whom? All I noted was that you failed to mention it at all. Are you saying that leading cadres' involvement with the French Communist Pary was insignificant?
According to.... let me guess... ah, it was you.
So please enlighten us then with your wisdom. The allegation that they were "primitivists" in a sense is through their very actions that speak for themselves. Like I said, no one was saying they were anarcho-primitivists.
You said that the overall outcome was uninteded and undesired by them- can you back this up? Other than with KR propaganda and rhetoric that is.
So that just about nulifies criminal negligence, does it?
Who said you were supportive of them? I don't understand why you are on the defensive here and why you have to take such a shitty attitude to people who dare tackle this subject. People here are leftists, not mere historians, and perhaps they also care about what happened to the 15-25% of the Cambodian PEOPLE who died.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
Is primitivism necessarily fascist in nature?
On the contrary, primitivism can NEVER be fascist unless we radically redefine both words. As most people here already use both quite wrongly, however, I wouldn't be surprised if the masses now argue the opposite position...yet this will be through ignorance more than malice...
1/6
+ YouTube Video
In English/French
+ YouTube Video
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
That's why I can never understand left wing nazis who identify with socialism economically, both are socially conservative and worship Hitler, who in fact killed the Leftist wing of the NSDAP (mainly Rohm, the Strasser Brothers, etc.)
For instance the National Front in the UK, some of the NSM in the US, and others worship Hitler but have Strasserite policies but both worship Hitler.
