can someone redpill me on pol pot, i am adhd as hell can't pay attention when doing my own research at all sorry
so i heard bad things about pol pot, especially from the left, but i'm not sure if i've just been running into a bunch of anarcho-liberals
so what was the deal with this pol pot guy and the khmer rouge?
Other urls found in this thread:
nl.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The only thing that connects the Khmer Rouge regime to socialism proper is the fact that they arguably got their focus on agrarian communes from Maoism. Beyond that it's a full-blown right-wing, quasi-fascist ideology obsessed with ethnonationalist purity and romantic anti-modernism.
"Lord Kalki, the Lord of the universe, will mount His swift white horse Devadatta and, sword in hand, travel over the earth exhibiting His eight mystic opulences and eight special qualities of Godhead. Displaying His unequaled effulgence and riding with great speed, He will kill by the millions those thieves who have dared dress as kings."
is OP
sorry i posted this thread twice
i thought it didn't go through the first time because it just said loading the whole time
Brainlet detected, the khmer rouge was in reality one of the purest and radical implementations of socialism to date. They completely abolished private property and were in constant war with the feudal and capitalist classes. Their patriotism was nothing like that of the right wing, it served purpose in creating their unified country for the purpose of figthing against imperialism.
Pol Pot fought against vietnamese Communists, this guy is a fucking joke. My country's special services supported him through the Netherlands-Kampuchea foundation. You won't find this on google (not even if you look it up in dutch) but it can be found on the following article:
nl.wikipedia.org
On the english page you will flind some information about the fake ML party run by the secret services (also interesting), but the bit about the Netherlands-Kampuchea foundation is missing.
The Vietnamese fake socialist government had an imperialist nature to them, they were the ones invading Kampuchea to install a puppet regime.
Considering they pretty much abolished everything, this isn't a particularly amazing feat.
Abolish your own life faggot
Let's just say destroying the MoP is shit praxis. Pol Pot was a full on opportunist, only using the socialist name to expand their own agenda, just like Hitler or Mugabe.
Under the Khmer Rouge, not being a brainlet could literally get you killed.
Marx would have derided Pol Pot as a barracks communist, a sort of retarded agrarian Nechayev.
They destroyed the means of production — there was nothing to seize anymore.
Then why did they proclaim the purity of the ancient Kampuchean race? Why did they persecute minorities such as the Vietnamese, the Chinese or the Cham? Why did they hold irredentist views regarding Vietnam, Laos and Thailand? Why were they obsessed by the "corrupting influence" of foreign, modern culture?
Marx said in the Manifesto that "[class struggle each time ends] either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes". What happened with the Khmer Rouge is the latter.
CIA plant and like most things America gets its hands on, uniquely horrific in his control of the state
The CIA backed bureaucracy owned plenty of private property and restricted all human movement within designated land areas, which assumes ownership of everything outside those areas.
he is hitler if hitler would have been born in maoist china
Tbh the CIA plant meme isn’t quite true. The CIA didn’t start supporting them until after they were attacked by Vietnam, so it wasn’t like the Americans were helping him in the killing fields.
Pol Pot understood the truth that all city people are just lumpen. In fact anyone who doesn’t produce food for a living is a lumpen. The real proletariat are peasants.
did he do anything right?
Lol
I'm starting to reevaluate him.
Overthrowing the American puppet dictator Lon Nol
JUST
I watched a documentary this morning on Pol Pot and what struck me were the similarities between his thought and praxis and Bakuin(ism) (I acknowledge that a lot of contemporary anarchism owes more to council-communism and syndicalism than it does to Bakuin) in that the whole way that the core of the "organization" remained secret goes almost completely hand in hand with Bakuin's stuff about "Invisible dictatorship", and also would seem to flow out of what he wrote in "catechism of a revolutionist". Then there is seeing the peasants and the lumpens as more "pure" revolutionary material because of their being more "natural" than urban workers. Then there is the cultural nihilism and wanting to sweep everything away that belongs to the past culture as opposed to integrate from it what is truly human. This of course was also the strategy of Blanqui, who hated the working class and believed socialism could only be implemented by a secret intellectual elite via a coup.
I also saw a lot of parallels between Brother Number One and Nestor Makhno for very much the same reason. Like Makhnovtchina the Khmer Rouge wasn't really a "state" in a traditional sense. Makhno also organized the peasants (not the industrial proletariat) into a revolt that was very free-form, decentralized, and not tied down to a single set of moral principles, much like the Angkor. Makhnovtchina also resulted in mass clusterfuck.
So in conclusion it seems to me that rather than an example of the "failure" of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, the Khmer Rouge should be used as an example of the failures of anarchism, blanquism and ultra-leftism.
stop forcing this crappy pasta
It's not wrong though.
Pol Pot = Asian Makhno
Wrong.
You're thinking of Nechayev, not Bakunin.
are you joking mate
every khmer rouge was literally obsessed with going back to year zero
They were both Asian Makhnos then. False dichotomy on your part.
Except Kim didn’t kill 20% of Korea’s population or shill for the CIA.
See:
I made both of those posts. Even if Pot only got CIA backing after he was driven out by the Vietnamese, he still took CIA backing, something that has no equivalent in Kim.
The soviet union got support from Americans, does this make them a "Cia plant" as well?
Why do we still not have a consensus on Pol Pot?
I didn’t say that Pol Pot was a plant. I said he worked for the CIA, which he did.
The actual consensus is that he’s bad and sucks, only a few delusional people think otherwise.
I love the pasta in this thread.
Pol Pot's Kampuchea was a US puppet state that used socialism to appeal to the people.