What does Zig Forums think of Kampuchea under the rule of Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot in general...

What does Zig Forums think of Kampuchea under the rule of Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot in general? All I've heard is that they were really bad, but I'm curious as to what you guys think and why

Attached: i am in the alt-right.jpg (255x251, 16.19K)

Pol Pot did nothing wrong, Urbanites deserved worse.

Heard it was that period's ISIS.
CIA backed fake ML sort of thing.

Fuck you, Pol Pot was literally backed by the US, and was finally removed when Vietnam's M-L government invaded Kampuchea and liberated the people.

Now… Why Pol Pot thought it was a good idea to fuck with the people who had literally just finished beating the US (and France before them) I have no idea.

They were terrible, but you have to understand context they arose from. A good start is look at a map of where bombs were dropped by the US, you'll see it covers literally close to half the country. People were starving because half the fucking country had been bombed to hell. All of that probably killed more people than Pol Pot, as fucked up as he was.

Urbanite spotted.

Aren't you guys basically luddites? Get off the fucking computer.

If you hate Capitalism so much then stop using a computer.

Labor made this computer, not capitalism. I don't hate technology. You do. Aren't you afraid the screen is going to give you cancer or something? What did a refrigerator ever do to you?

Atrocity propaganda, as always.

Hows the summer going

Can you people stop spewing this horseshit? This is as moronic as saying Tito's regime was US backed just because it was independent from the Soviet Union.

Yes, the revisionist Soviet puppets LIBERATED them through socialist flavored imperialism and socialist flavored national chauvinism.

Kampuchea faggots are anti-Marxist as shit. You can believe that Pol-Pot did nothing wrong if you want (which he did but that's another argument than my point) but his idea of returning society to primitive communism is antithetical to scientific socialism by definition. Marx and Engels (and every socialist country succeeding them) wanted to further the material and productive capacities of the modern world and seize the means wrought through liberal modernization and re-organize them along collective lines. Marx and Engels only referenced primitive communism to exemplify that capitalism wasn't "muh human nashure" not to try and claim we should "return to it" or that modernity and capitalism were inseparable.

Attached: vomiting-emoticon-design-33108867.jpg (1300x1182, 152.47K)

ftfy

He was pretty interesting from a occult perspective, fit the title of "Kalki" like a glove, though if you unironically wish to implement similar ideas you may be a tad insane which isn't a bad thing of course

Attached: JimProfitanime7.jpg (1200x828, 734.2K)

But there are literally multiple declassfied CIA documents and subsequent news articles proving that Pol Pot, was in fact literally backed by the US.

LMAO come on now

If it wasn't thy would be throwing that to our face all the time, but they don't. the right wing will talk about Stalin and other stuff, but they never talk about Pol Pot because it's general knowledge he was proped up by the CIA and Henry Kissinger

Without even talking into acoount his crimes, as well as collusion with the US, Pol-Pot was not a Marxist, he basically rejected industrialization and the development of productive forces in favour of something he called "agrarian socialism"

Why would the CIA intentionally make themselves look worse and socialists look better?

Every. Time.

Attached: 97818bd136bc7b0b084c76cb1fccc16f6af634c263e2672c9d695eceb8a93b99.jpg (1320x885 372.08 KB, 76.42K)

OP here. I understand Pol Pot better now, thanks (aside from all the argument)

It wasn't Pol Pot fault if democratic Kampuchea failed, it's humanity that is too rotten to work properly.

muh human nature