Fake Leftists or "Red Fascists"

[milk]

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...

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....

Considering the positive rep I've received from more than a couple of people, as well as private messages, I don't think I have to worry about what you think or say about me, particularly.

And what is this, about a 'lot' of people? The lots of people for who it's been a pleasure to help with book recommendations etc?

As for genocide, ask Michael Vickery - I've noticed, and not for the first time I might add, that you have cited him. Or thought you did. And I've never said that people can't talk about it in a Cambodian context. It's a point of view I am familiar with.

[ComradeMan]

Considering the positive rep I've received from more than a couple of people, as well as private messages, I don't think I have to worry about what you think or say about me, particularly.

So getting posts thanked or rep'd and receiving PMs proves you are right. It's nice to get posts thanks but still....

Why do you have to see this as an attack all the time? Seriously, this paranoia is ridiculous. Who's talking about having to be worried about what people say or think? I think you are on the defensive about something, although I am at a loss to say what.

And what is this, about a 'lot' of people? The lots of people for who it's been a pleasure to help with book recommendations etc?

So- the amount of book recommendations you give = people agreeing that the KR were in fact communists? Strange logic here...

As for genocide, ask Michael Vickery - I've noticed, and not for the first time I might add, that you have cited him. Or thought you did.

But I don't want to ask Michael Vickery, I want to ask you. Especially seeing as you are so knowledgeable on the subject what's the problem? You make a statement on your website, that you link here too, saying you don't believe it was genocide in Cambodia, in an article entitled the "G-word" or something and yet you don't want to answer as to why? On your website you said "I", you didn't say Vickery, Kiernan, Pilger, Jackson etc etc... you said "I"- so that's why I am asking "you".

And I've never said that people can't talk about it in a Cambodian context. It's a point of view I am familiar with.

And I never said that did say that people "can't talk about it", I'm asking you why you don't believe it was a genocide.

Not hard really.... Now would it really kill you to answer my simple questions?

[milk]

I don't need to say anything that hasn't already. Enjoy your own company.

[ComradeMan]

I don't need to say anything that hasn't already. Enjoy your own company.

Now you're acting like a spoilt child- trashing the chess board and having a tantrum. Did you stamp your foot too?

If the best argumentation you have is to repeat ad nauseam your own praises, attack others with veiled and not so veiled ad hominems and refuse to answer quite simple and straightforward questions then it doesn't really matter how well-read you are, does it?

Seeing as you refuse to answer the question on why you believe there was not a genocide in Cambodia it can lead us to think only that a) you can't actually explain/defend/argue your own position b) you are reluctant to do so for some (political?) reason.

Now please, chill out, relax and stop acting like this is some kind of fencing match.

[DarkPast]

Considering the positive rep I've received from more than a couple of people, as well as private messages, I don't think I have to worry about what you think or say about me, particularly.

And what is this, about a 'lot' of people? The lots of people for who it's been a pleasure to help with book recommendations etc?

As for genocide, ask Michael Vickery - I've noticed, and not for the first time I might add, that you have cited him. Or thought you did. And I've never said that people can't talk about it in a Cambodian context. It's a point of view I am familiar with.

I don't know what you've discussed with ComradeMan in the past, but I do think he has a point. I can't see how the Khmer Rouge were communist.

Claiming to be "inspired" by French Marxists or by Mao doesn't make someone a communist. The National Bolsheviks also claim to be inspired by Lenin and Stalin, but I think it's obvious they're actually fascists.

From what I can tell, the KR leaders actually read and understood very little about Marxism. In fact, I'd dare say they were just using Marxist symbols - together with ultra-nationalism that bordered on racism - merely as an excuse for their failed plans of building a utopian society.

There is no "Khmer Rouge" or "Pol Pottist" tendency here - there is a group dedicated to studying the KR, but that's hardly the same thing. I think that alone says enough about what most people think of the KR.

The WSWS didn't label them as Maoist or Stalinist - no, they called them fascist:

Certainly once it came to power at the head of a peasant-based army, the Khmer Rouge leaders carried out policies of a profoundly anti-working-class character, which had far more in common with fascism than socialism. Faced with an economy in shambles, unable and unwilling to organize the feeding of the cities, they ordered the evacuation of Pnomh Penh and other towns. The entire urban population--workers, intellectuals, civil servants, small shopkeepers and others--were driven into the countryside to labor under very harsh conditions on irrigation schemes and other grandiose projects aimed at elevating agricultural production to unattainable levels.

-World Socialist Website, 18. April 1998

I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments, but I cannot see how the actions and ideology of the KR have any but the most superficial resemblance to Marxism.

[milk]

I set up that group, and the content there pretty much refutes everything you've said thus far.

That Vietnamese Stalinism had no influence at all on CPK politics is not only counter-factual, it goes against much scholarship. They applied formulaic doctrine regardless of the facts, doctrine that was not only inappropriate to the actual situation they found themselves in, but the outcome they desired was impossible. There were no excuses, or cynicism, no pretending - the DK government was not predicated on an intention to ruin the country, but a sincere attempt to rebuild it. It is worth studying why it degenerated so rapidly.

I've already talked about it all, on previous threads, and have no desire to do it here. Use the search function and respond to my older posts if you wish.

[NewSocialist]

To make it clear, I don't mean nominally socialist bourgeois-capitalist parties such as New Labour, but groups that nominally take socialist or communist labels, but are in fact much closer to fascism or nazism - such as the "National Bolsheviks". Therefore I prefer to use the term "red fascists".

So you're essentially talking about this variety of "red fascists," correct?

+ YouTube Video

I mean, they even call themselves "red fascists"

[ComradeMan]

I set up that group, and the content there pretty much refutes everything you've said thus far.

Circular argument.

That Vietnamese Stalinism had no influence at all on CPK politics is not only counter-factual, it goes against much scholarship. They applied formulaic doctrine regardless of the facts, doctrine that was not only inappropriate to the actual situation they found themselves in, but the outcome they desired was impossible. There were no excuses, or cynicism, no pretending - the DK government was not predicated on an intention to ruin the country, but a sincere attempt to rebuild it. It is worth studying why it degenerated so rapidly.

What was that "influence" if an influence can actually be quantified as such in its being subjective interpretation too?

What doctrines were those and how did they work out in practice?

Was Nazi or fascist government predicated on an inention to ruin the country and not a "sincere" intention to rebuild it/make it stronger?

Words are empty.

[DarkPast]

@Milk: I'm not convinced. Like I said, stated intent is one thing, while actual policies are another - and no government ever wanted to ruin its own country. I simply cannot understand how anyone would consider nationalist supremacy to be Marxist, or how one can be a sincere revolutionaty and work with the CIA. But whatever.

So you're essentially talking about this variety of "red fascists," correct?

+ YouTube Video

I mean, they even call themselves "red fascists"

Yep, and good find, can't believe they even use the term themselves...

[ComradeMan]

@Milk: I'm not convinced. Like I said, stated intent is one thing, while actual policies are another - and no government ever wanted to ruin its own country.

factum lex, non sententiam notat

[Viet Minh]

The Khmer Rouge were NOT primitivists though and the ethnic nationalism within in their movement was a product of their social base among the poor peasantry given its relationship with the urban centres and Vietnam. I think you should look into Vietnamese chauvinism and US Imperialism and their actions before putting all the blame on the Khmer Rouge.

Just saying.

Look into Khmer imperialism and the ba chuc massacre and tell me how Vietnam should have responded?

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...

Isn't primitivism the ultimate form of conservatism? Pure semantics I know but I couldn't resist!

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"

So did Apartheid South Africa. I know I should be defending my N. Korean ally here but you sound like either a crazy troll or a severely brainwashed person.. Speaking of which isn't that the exact same answer you gave in another thread, do you have it all memorised?

?

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.

Yeah thats not helping at all..

[Iron Felix]

We have a large amount of these "Red Fascists" in Russia. They're usually the ultra-nationalists that invoke Soviet imagery. National Bolshevism they call it. It's pure fascism.

[Coach Trotsky]

We have a large amount of these "Red Fascists" in Russia. They're usually the ultra-nationalists that invoke Soviet imagery. National Bolshevism they call it. It's pure fascism.

I don't see anything of "Boshevik" substance in their politics. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but "where's the beef?" besides their eclectic use of certain Soviet symbols?

And what would they say about the actual practice of the Bolsheviks on the national question after the October 1917 Russian revolution but before the Stalinist bureaucracy had consolidated hegemonic power in the 20s?

[Imposter Marxist]

Khmer Rouge?

Let's see, fake leftists most certainly coupled with ethnic nationalism, primitivism and general madness that reached some of the most appalling levels of human tragedy imaginable.

Yet there are those who would seek to justify Pol Pot in some way just like there are the weird Juche fetishists hanging around.

You don't even know what Juche is, do you?

[DinodudeEpic]

'Red fascists' are pretty much either syncretic with right wing tilting or far right. They are more like normal stormfront fascists then reactionary monarchists for obvious reasons. In total, treat them like fascists.

Note, their ideology is the final evolution from Stalinism and Maoism. It goes like this.

Marxism-> Leninism/Trotskyism-> Stalinism/Maoism -> 'Red Fascism'

Any ideology can be ruined to the point of no return. Slow and steady evolution from a revolutionary ideology to a fascistic 'revolutionary' ideology is all too common. The perfect counter to avoid fascistization is liberty.

[Agent Equality]

You don't even know what Juche is, do you?

Lol if you even TRY to defend Juche I'm going to literally ROFL whilst LMAOing.

[Coach Trotsky]

'Red fascists' are pretty much either syncretic with right wing tilting or far right. They are more like normal stormfront fascists then reactionary monarchists for obvious reasons. In total, treat them like fascists.

Note, their ideology is the final evolution from Stalinism and Maoism. It goes like this.

Marxism-> Leninism/Trotskyism-> Stalinism/Maoism -> 'Red Fascism'

Any ideology can be ruined to the point of no return. Slow and steady evolution from a revolutionary ideology to a fascistic 'revolutionary' ideology is all too common. The perfect counter to avoid fascistization is liberty.

You mean to say, the perfect counter is maintaining bourgeois society's status quo, with a few minor tweaks such that you aren't so totally embarrassed by what you're essentially defending?
What is this 'liberty' of which you speak? 'Liberty' for whom? To do what?
And what is verboten?

If you had said that there was a political dynamic where social democracy (yeah, the tendency you identify with) tends to betray the working class and oppressed for bourgeois interests, and in disillusion and despair many of them start turning to fascist opportunists, I'd have agreed with you. Matter of fact, that's exactly what we're seeing happen in Britain now...thanks to the betrayal of the fake-ass 'democratic socialist' 'middle class' British Left.

Next time you see some workers, oppressed people or youth at the bottom of this society, I want you to tell them the truth that it was phony "Left" people like you who betrayed them, and I want you to explain to them why you did it. I want you to tell them what you think of those folks...tell 'em all the EDL-like terms fake-Left scum like you used to describe the rebels. Tell 'em that they have no future and you don;t give a fuck about it. Tell how happy you are that you're fortunate enough to be born white, middle class and a native English speaker. Tell 'em how you wanted the police and the army to come down and forceably smash their resistance and put these folks at the bottom of society 'back in their place'. Tell 'em why you didn't lift a finger to support them, even though you call yourself a 'socialist'. Tell 'em about why you didn't even try to counter the EDL and other fascist vigilante groups mobilizing in the streets against the rebelling youths and minorities. Tell 'em why they shouldn't bury people like you who are obviously a fetter to any pursuit of self-emancipation and a better future on their part. Tell 'em why they should have mercy on you, even though it is clear that folks like you will choose to stand with the ruling class on the other side of the barricades when push comes to shove.

[DinodudeEpic]

The simple answer is that I'm not a Social Democrat. While I do respect the Social Democrats who adhere to their standards and actually reform towards actual Socialism, I am not a social democrat. Democratic socialism is just socialism with more emphasis on democracy and liberty.

Of course, Liberty is two things, to not be coerced or/and to be given the means to achieve their dreams.

The actual Socialism, workers control of the means of production, protects the negative liberties of the socialists via preventing the oligarchical corporations from repressing them. Then there is the Democracy, which gives all the peoples civil rights. I also have mutualism, which warrants a free market revoluntionary socialist society. I also am a syndicalist in that I support Labor Unions, and that they have an important place in socialist society. For the postive liberties, ordoliberalism, welfare, and the benefits of socialism help the workers achieve their goals.

However, this forum doesn't emphasize on personal liberty in the negative sense, giving 'right'-libertarians a reason for their existence and giving them ammunition to call all of us as if we are Stalinists.

Also, you actually think I want the police and military to be shooting and putting down people in the streets. Although, that was exactly the reason why I hate various third-world regimes across the world. In the west, the Left has fought tooth and nail. And when the Social Democrats come into power, they placed A LOT of reforms into the system. But, some of the parties seem to adopt a neo-liberal platform. An actual Social Democrat is a person who wants to reform their way into socialism. (I hate changing the meanings of political terms, just cause someone with a party-name does something.)

(Note the above chart, the big change is mostly from Leninism to Stalinism. Marxism changed slightly into Leninism. But, Leninism's authoritarian tendencies grew into outright authoritarianism in Stalinism.)

[DarkPast]

I don't see anything of "Boshevik" substance in their politics. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but "where's the beef?" besides their eclectic use of certain Soviet symbols?

They're playing into nostalgia for Soviet times. Also, if I'm not sorely mistaken, fascist symbols are banned in Russia, so they can't use those. Besides, you'd imagine they'd want to distance themselves from Nazi Germany considering that the "Great patriotic war" is still very much a part of Russian national identity.

There's really no more to it than that. Of course, they claim to be inspired by Lenin, but it's just opportunism. Just like Hitler promoted "socialism" to draw disaffected workers to his party.

This (from Wikipedia, referring to an interview with one of the NB leaders) speaks volumes about how "socialist they are":

A group of NBP followers disagrees with Limonov's new strategy of seeking political alliances with pro-Western and pro-market liberal-democratic forces. They call themselves NBP bez Limonova (NBP without Limonov) or simply National Bolsheviks, because they regard themselves as the real followers of National Bolshevism, accusing Limonov of betraying party's original ideas in order to gain personal visibility. In August 2006, an anti-Limonovist faction of the NBP that is more right-wing, anti-liberal, anti-left, anti-Kasparov and, aggressively nationalist formed the National Bolshevik Front.

And what would they say about the actual practice of the Bolsheviks on the national question after the October 1917 Russian revolution but before the Stalinist bureaucracy had consolidated hegemonic power in the 20s?

They pretty much ignore this. At first they called for a Euroasian Empire under Russian dominance, but have since largely dropped this line. Now they simply advocate greater-Russian nationalism (you know the sort - "Russia is where there is a Russian minority").

[DarkPast]

Marxism-> Leninism/Trotskyism-> Stalinism/Maoism -> 'Red Fascism'

It's not that simple. The only country where you could claim that happened is North Korea. Stalinism/Maoism has usually led to a restoration of capitalism (in Russia) or "capitalism with big government" (in China). But then there's Cuba...

EDIT: The National Bolsheviks aren't really a continuation of Stalinism (or any sort of communism for that matter) - they're merely using the name to draw more people to their cause.