pol pot

?

Not a materialist
Not an Internationalist
Not a Socialist

- The Khmer Rouge banned members of Cambodia’s working class from entering their party sometime in the ‘60’s. Obviously they either did not think that the emancipation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class themselves OR they did not aim to liberate the working class at all.
- They empted the cities (and the leaders themselves cannot even maintain a consistent explanation as to why).
- They set production quotas impossibly high, considering that they were not using chemical fertilisers or any kind of advanced techniques.
- They had several features in common with the Nazi regime in Germany. A major one being that they were socially conservative, homosexuals were exterminated in both countries etc.
- Could be best described as 'barracks communism', and interestingly it had features that were envisioned by the anarchist Bakunin during the time of his association with Nechaev. this article notes it best (it was known as Angar (sp?) in cambodia IIRC)

Quote :

In these pamphlets, Nechaev and Bakunin advocate a new social order, to be erected "by concentrating all the means of social existence in the hands of Our Committee, and the proclamation of compulsory physical labour for everyone," compulsory residence in communal dormitories, rules for hours of work, feeding of children, and other minutae. As the "authoritarian" Marx put it: "What a beautiful model of barrack-room communism! Here you have it all: communal eating, communal sleeping, assessors and offices regulating education, production, consumption, in a word, all social activity, and to crown all, Our Committee, anonymous and unknown to anyone, as the supreme dictator. This indeed is the purest anti-authoritarianism..."

- They eliminated formal education, and with the exception of very few people, were murderously anti-intellectual
- I believe they exported rice to china, leading to shortages.


Here’s an interesting bit from John Pilger, which demonstrates how the Cambodian people were affected by the regime (specifically refering to camps outside of the capital):

Quote :

...Middle class people, professional people and skilled workers are rare; 48 doctors remain out of 550. At the last census there were 11,000 university students; there are now 450. Out of 106,000 secondary school children, 5,300 have been found. The killing appears to be most widespread among children of primary school age. Out of 991,000 children, 322,379 survive.
Of course, the number of survivors will grow as people lose their fear of 'coming forward' ...

Basically thats what you get when you decide you can make up shit as you go along, and associate with the most backward section of the peasantry.

was he worse of better then Hitler?

Maybe he was.
You should add a poll to this thread.

BolshevikClock wrote:

?

You're not seriously questioning whether or not he shuold be in the gulag?

kahnsguard wrote:

BolshevikClock wrote:

?

You're not seriously questioning whether or not he shuold be in the gulag?

no i am asking others

I've heard that he wanted to kill half of the population, so other would live in socialism By the way, the non-materialist thing doesn't speak of anything. Che, for exemple, was a christian.

Riddler wrote:

I've heard that he wanted to kill half of the population, so other would live in socialism By the way, the non-materialist thing doesn't speak of anything. Che, for exemple, was a christian.

No, Che was not really a christian, he just had christian tendencies.

Pol Pot was out of order.
Just as well the Vietnamese sorted him out after they where finished with the Americans.

To the Gulag with him!

Riddler wrote:

By the way, the non-materialist thing doesn't speak of anything. Che, for exemple, was a christian.

Alone that is quite true, however, according to the book "Pol Pot: History of a Nightmare" by Philip Short, he replaced materialism with a sort buddhist mysticism concerned with the elimination of 'self' (if I remember correctly), so a lot of Kampuchea's worst practices resulted from this (the extreme "criticism and self-criticism" etc.)

The Khmer Rouge were not as bad as the Nazi's for two reason's:
1. the National Socialist regime carried out a deliberate and (i suppose you could say) 'industrialised' extermination, the khmer rouge did not.
2. Many of the death's due to starvation in Cambodia were due to the impossibly high quotas. When these were not met local officials would not admit to it.

Steel wrote:

Riddler wrote:

By the way, the non-materialist thing doesn't speak of anything. Che, for exemple, was a christian.

Alone that is quite true, however, according to the book "Pol Pot: History of a Nightmare" by Philip Short, he replaced materialism with a sort buddhist mysticism concerned with the elimination of 'self' (if I remember correctly), so a lot of Kampuchea's worst practices resulted from this (the extreme "criticism and self-criticism" etc.)

The Khmer Rouge were not as bad as the Nazi's for two reason's:
1. the National Socialist regime carried out a deliberate and (i suppose you could say) 'industrialised' extermination, the khmer rouge did not.
2. Many of the death's due to starvation in Cambodia were due to the impossibly high quotas. When these were not met local officials would not admit to it.

What about Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng?

You seem to be defending The Khmer Rouge.

kahnsguard wrote:

What about Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng?

You seem to be defending The Khmer Rouge.

In my view he's just saying Khmer Rogue was not worse than Nazi Germany.

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

To the Gulag with him!

Aye

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

To the Gulag with him!

agreed. When will dictators learn that Genocide is bad mmkay

Diogritor wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

To the Gulag with him!

agreed. When will dictators learn that Genocide is bad mmkay

very bad but I think it was just a trendmstarted by stalin.

mattabesta wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

To the Gulag with him!

agreed. When will dictators learn that Genocide is bad mmkay

very bad but I think it was just a trendmstarted by stalin.

Cesar?

Comrade Pollett wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

To the Gulag with him!

agreed. When will dictators learn that Genocide is bad mmkay

very bad but I think it was just a trendmstarted by stalin.

Cesar?

ceasar was a general not an emperor he didn't ake the disicion to kill the gauls.

kahnsguard wrote:

What about Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng?

You seem to be defending The Khmer Rouge.

Certainly not, I was just pointing out how they cannot be considered worse than Hitler (although in proportion of the population killed they were certainly worse), but I apologise if it came across as defending them.

But compare Auschwitz with Tuol Sleng, thats anything over a million against (although I admit I may be wrong about this) 20,000. I personally feel that claiming the Khmer Rouge were worse than the Nazi's would discredit otherwise thoughtful arguments, although it'll be a rare occassion that you have the misfortune to meet one of their supporters.

I suppose though that I should offer a bit more explaination:

Quote :

the National Socialist regime carried out a deliberate and (i suppose you could say) 'industrialised' extermination, the khmer rouge did not.

The Nazi's carried out a systematic extermination of Jews and others with the ultimate aim of killing/working them all to death. The aim of the Khmer Rouge was (IIRC) not to kill all of the so called 'new people' but for them to be 'reborn' as old people through hard work. This inevitably let to the crimes of the Khmer Rouge regime, which though as real as those of the Nazi's were quite different, and the Khmer Rouge leaders (as well as the individuals who carried them out) no less reponsible.

Quote :

Many of the death's due to starvation in Cambodia were due to the impossibly high quotas. When these were not met local officials would not admit to it.

Here the Khmer Rouge officials are not responsible in that they deliberately starved the population, but in that they carried out policies which inevitably lead to this, and refused to make concessions. In my opinion this difference, whilst subtle, is important.

I'd also like to say that were I going to defend them at any point (as opposed to the truth of what really happened) I would not have provided a quote, as I did earlier, which notes that they killed over 600,000 children of primary school age .

Steel wrote:

kahnsguard wrote:

What about Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng?

You seem to be defending The Khmer Rouge.

Certainly not, I was just pointing out how they cannot be considered worse than Hitler (although in proportion of the population killed they were certainly worse), but I apologise if it came across as defending them.

But compare Auschwitz with Tuol Sleng, thats anything over a million against (although I admit I may be wrong about this) 20,000. I personally feel that claiming the Khmer Rouge were worse than the Nazi's would discredit otherwise thoughtful arguments, although it'll be a rare occassion that you have the misfortune to meet one of their supporters.

I suppose though that I should offer a bit more explaination:

Quote :

the National Socialist regime carried out a deliberate and (i suppose you could say) 'industrialised' extermination, the khmer rouge did not.

The Nazi's carried out a systematic extermination of Jews and others with the ultimate aim of killing/working them all to death. The aim of the Khmer Rouge was (IIRC) not to kill all of the so called 'new people' but for them to be 'reborn' as old people through hard work. This inevitably let to the crimes of the Khmer Rouge regime, which though as real as those of the Nazi's were quite different, and the Khmer Rouge leaders (as well as the individuals who carried them out) no less reponsible.

Quote :

Many of the death's due to starvation in Cambodia were due to the impossibly high quotas. When these were not met local officials would not admit to it.

Here the Khmer Rouge officials are not responsible in that they deliberately starved the population, but in that they carried out policies which inevitably lead to this, and refused to make concessions. In my opinion this difference, whilst subtle, is important.

I'd also like to say that were I going to defend them at any point (as opposed to the truth of what really happened) I would not have provided a quote, as I did earlier, which notes that they killed over 600,000 children of primary school age .

why did they kill them all??

mattabesta wrote:

Steel wrote:

kahnsguard wrote:

What about Choeung Ek and Tuol Sleng?

You seem to be defending The Khmer Rouge.

Certainly not, I was just pointing out how they cannot be considered worse than Hitler (although in proportion of the population killed they were certainly worse), but I apologise if it came across as defending them.

But compare Auschwitz with Tuol Sleng, thats anything over a million against (although I admit I may be wrong about this) 20,000. I personally feel that claiming the Khmer Rouge were worse than the Nazi's would discredit otherwise thoughtful arguments, although it'll be a rare occassion that you have the misfortune to meet one of their supporters.

I suppose though that I should offer a bit more explaination:

Quote :

the National Socialist regime carried out a deliberate and (i suppose you could say) 'industrialised' extermination, the khmer rouge did not.

The Nazi's carried out a systematic extermination of Jews and others with the ultimate aim of killing/working them all to death. The aim of the Khmer Rouge was (IIRC) not to kill all of the so called 'new people' but for them to be 'reborn' as old people through hard work. This inevitably let to the crimes of the Khmer Rouge regime, which though as real as those of the Nazi's were quite different, and the Khmer Rouge leaders (as well as the individuals who carried them out) no less reponsible.

Quote :

Many of the death's due to starvation in Cambodia were due to the impossibly high quotas. When these were not met local officials would not admit to it.

Here the Khmer Rouge officials are not responsible in that they deliberately starved the population, but in that they carried out policies which inevitably lead to this, and refused to make concessions. In my opinion this difference, whilst subtle, is important.

I'd also like to say that were I going to defend them at any point (as opposed to the truth of what really happened) I would not have provided a quote, as I did earlier, which notes that they killed over 600,000 children of primary school age .

why did they kill them all??

they were jerks

mattabesta wrote:

Comrade Pollett wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

Renegade_Kautsky wrote:

To the Gulag with him!

agreed. When will dictators learn that Genocide is bad mmkay

very bad but I think it was just a trendmstarted by stalin.

Cesar?

ceasar was a general not an emperor he didn't ake the disicion to kill the gauls.

ceasar nero

A regime is not worse when it kills more people, but it is worse when it kills a greater proportion of people.

I think Pol Pot killed roughly one third. Therefore he was worse than hitler.

I would avoid getting into a 'league of evil' approach. Both Hitler and Pol Pot followed a rationale of their own class positions. While Pol Pot started out as a national liberation leader Hitler was from the beginning, 'the razor in the hands', of the enemies of the working class. Also, I think we have to take note of the fact that large amounts of Khmer Rouge documents were destroyed and so proper analysis of their regime is highly problematic. They were however demonised in the west in a way that far out-weighed the damage that they did as the victims of the US bombing campaign (more bombs dropped than in both WWII and the Korean War) and the famine that largely resulted from it were in retrospect attributed to them. It's classic mis-direction, the bourgeois media, in response to the US genocide tell us, "don't look at the enlightened west, look at what the Khmer Rouge did to their own people". The reality however, is that the Pol Potists didn't have the 'killing capacity' of Hitler or the US war machine.

People were certainly slaughtered in Cambodia (I've been to both Tuol Sleng and Cheung EK), and to my knowledge, no organisation today supports the Pol Potist ideology. It is however, necessary to keep a cold eye when analysing history.

pol pot, he was crazy, he got communism all wrong