There is little on this website properly debunking all lies about Pol Pot. I try and pull bits and pieces from different corners of the internet to hit a lot...
I think a common aspect of the Pol Pot defense is baby leftists learning that the west lies constantly about AES, so they look at Cambodia and assume the same, they assume everything horrible the Khmer Rouge are accused of is just a lie and don’t look further.
Then there’s the darker level of it, where some hardcore ultras practically froth at the mouth at the thought of getting to purge all those they deem impure if they ever take power.
EDIT: though the video doesn’t seem to be out yet. I’m…doubtful it will be anything useful, but it is still important to debunk myths and misconceptions, even about movements that clearly didn’t understand socialist theory. (I don’t think it will be doing that though.)
Even after years of on and off reading, I still can’t make heads or tails of Pol Pot or the full situation surrounding him. I’m usually a pretty decisive person, but I always find myself coming back to this issue and even though I hate this phrase, I can see “both sides”
On one hand, I feel that many communists do seem way more willing to “buy into” and believe atrocity propaganda surrounding Democratic Kampuchea, and on the surface it appears to be just because it’s accusations directed at Pol Pot. If these same accusations were (and many are) directed at Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong-Un, Hoxha, Allende, we would disbelieve, or denounce neoliberal’s claims or at least take them with a mountain of salt and criticism.
Whether or not Pol Pot and his followers were socialist or not, they did collectivize agriculture, especially after many years of U.S. bombing and interference, which the country had to rebuild from after it was fucking leveled and demolished on an industrial scale comparable to Korea and Vietnam. And despite resistance from the upper bourgeoisie and kulak-equivalents, the government had little choice but to force much of the population back to farms to prevent further starvation, and I read that many of the communists in Kampuchea did base alot of their theory and practice off of Mao’s writings, even if it’s up in the air of if Pol Pot read Marx or not. And China unfortunately used Pol Pot’s forces as a reactionary weapon against the USSR and Vietnam, the Sino-Soviet Split and it’s consequences and all.
On the other hand, the CIA did arm Pol Pot and his forces and used them as sick, twisted proxies against China, and they committed racist attacks, oppression and massacres against ethnic Chinese people, and there are accusations that Pol Pot had alot of machinery and industry destroyed, whether to consolidate power or encourage a faster return to agriculture. I’ve read that Pol Pot did nothing about starvation, and I’ve read other claims that since the country went to hell in a handbasket, he and the party had to do with what limited resources they had.
I’m also unsure about whether or not the claims of Pol Pot telling his forces to shoot those wearing glasses were explicit and real, fabricated from hysterics and mass violence, or something in-between.
There are also claims that Pol Pot had people tortured, even civilians, but again those same claims are made against communists all the time.
I do notice that many committed communists, especially some of them who lived in, near or had family members that lived through Pol Pot’s Cambodia, really do say that this is the one and only time that the accusations of genocide, war crimes, starvation and corruption levied against Pol Pot and his government by the neoliberals, to actually be true this time, or at least they have mountains of more evidence and proof of intent than anything compared to such as muh “Hold-my-door-more” or the exaggerated starvations of the Great Leap Forward, and I’ve read that looking at the skeletons of those killed by Pol Pot’s regime in museums to be a very haunting and depressing experience.
I don’t mean to evoke sympathy or justify or downplay anything, and I could very well be wrong or ignorant, just curious as to your thoughts.
I think a part of the reason why these accusations hold more weight than others is that they were levied at the Khmer rouge by Vietnam, another communist state. A lot of the accusations against Pol Pot and Khmer rogue weren’t talked about in the west until after the fall of the USSR (and the US abandoned their support of the Khmer rouge as Cambodia’s government in exile).
Considering that ultras tend to take the western viewpoint on socialist states and just twist it around, replacing “evil commies” with “evil revisionists” I don’t think their analysis of Pol Pot is too unexpected. The ultra position on Pol Pot was the CIA line on him until the 90s, so I’m not surprised that ultras follow it. I know I’m being very openly “biased” here, but I’ve tried to understand their position as much as possible in the past, and more and more it just seems to be “we believe everything the CIA wants us to believe to sow discord and wreck socialist spaces.”
I think an important part of material analysis is examining the chronology of ideas and events. Not just as they happened, but as they were talked about afterwards. During Stalin’s time he wasn’t referred to as a “dictator” by the west, because “dictator” didn’t have the same negative connotations at the time, and various fascist dictators were praised for “cutting through red tape” by the western press, it wasn’t until the mythology around ww2 coalesced (the west defeated the nazis and saved the world etc.) that we start to see “dictator” used in the sense we see it today, and Stalin was reframed from a complex, flawed but ultimately very successful leader into a cartoon villain.
This is an excellent point, and even though the U.S. had been gunning for Stalin and the USSR for decades, it’s almost alien trying to imagine the time period where that wasn’t publicly the case. Kind of like how even most of the ardent anti-communists thought that blaming Stalin and the USSR and communism for the alleged Holodomor was massively backwards, disgusting, wrong and victim-blaming, up until around the 80’s-ish.
I find it is incredibly useful as an educational tool. Liberalism kind of positions itself as “eternal” and the ideas liberalism presents about socialism are treated as divine truths known since time immemorial, so by showing how anti-communism has been constantly reframed over time, and how communist leaders have been increasingly vilified over time, it helps break that programming.
I think a common aspect of the Pol Pot defense is baby leftists learning that the west lies constantly about AES, so they look at Cambodia and assume the same, they assume everything horrible the Khmer Rouge are accused of is just a lie and don’t look further.
Then there’s the darker level of it, where some hardcore ultras practically froth at the mouth at the thought of getting to purge all those they deem impure if they ever take power.
EDIT: though the video doesn’t seem to be out yet. I’m…doubtful it will be anything useful, but it is still important to debunk myths and misconceptions, even about movements that clearly didn’t understand socialist theory. (I don’t think it will be doing that though.)
Even after years of on and off reading, I still can’t make heads or tails of Pol Pot or the full situation surrounding him. I’m usually a pretty decisive person, but I always find myself coming back to this issue and even though I hate this phrase, I can see “both sides”
On one hand, I feel that many communists do seem way more willing to “buy into” and believe atrocity propaganda surrounding Democratic Kampuchea, and on the surface it appears to be just because it’s accusations directed at Pol Pot. If these same accusations were (and many are) directed at Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong-Un, Hoxha, Allende, we would disbelieve, or denounce neoliberal’s claims or at least take them with a mountain of salt and criticism.
Whether or not Pol Pot and his followers were socialist or not, they did collectivize agriculture, especially after many years of U.S. bombing and interference, which the country had to rebuild from after it was fucking leveled and demolished on an industrial scale comparable to Korea and Vietnam. And despite resistance from the upper bourgeoisie and kulak-equivalents, the government had little choice but to force much of the population back to farms to prevent further starvation, and I read that many of the communists in Kampuchea did base alot of their theory and practice off of Mao’s writings, even if it’s up in the air of if Pol Pot read Marx or not. And China unfortunately used Pol Pot’s forces as a reactionary weapon against the USSR and Vietnam, the Sino-Soviet Split and it’s consequences and all.
On the other hand, the CIA did arm Pol Pot and his forces and used them as sick, twisted proxies against China, and they committed racist attacks, oppression and massacres against ethnic Chinese people, and there are accusations that Pol Pot had alot of machinery and industry destroyed, whether to consolidate power or encourage a faster return to agriculture. I’ve read that Pol Pot did nothing about starvation, and I’ve read other claims that since the country went to hell in a handbasket, he and the party had to do with what limited resources they had.
I’m also unsure about whether or not the claims of Pol Pot telling his forces to shoot those wearing glasses were explicit and real, fabricated from hysterics and mass violence, or something in-between.
There are also claims that Pol Pot had people tortured, even civilians, but again those same claims are made against communists all the time.
I do notice that many committed communists, especially some of them who lived in, near or had family members that lived through Pol Pot’s Cambodia, really do say that this is the one and only time that the accusations of genocide, war crimes, starvation and corruption levied against Pol Pot and his government by the neoliberals, to actually be true this time, or at least they have mountains of more evidence and proof of intent than anything compared to such as muh “Hold-my-door-more” or the exaggerated starvations of the Great Leap Forward, and I’ve read that looking at the skeletons of those killed by Pol Pot’s regime in museums to be a very haunting and depressing experience.
I don’t mean to evoke sympathy or justify or downplay anything, and I could very well be wrong or ignorant, just curious as to your thoughts.
I think a part of the reason why these accusations hold more weight than others is that they were levied at the Khmer rouge by Vietnam, another communist state. A lot of the accusations against Pol Pot and Khmer rogue weren’t talked about in the west until after the fall of the USSR (and the US abandoned their support of the Khmer rouge as Cambodia’s government in exile).
Considering that ultras tend to take the western viewpoint on socialist states and just twist it around, replacing “evil commies” with “evil revisionists” I don’t think their analysis of Pol Pot is too unexpected. The ultra position on Pol Pot was the CIA line on him until the 90s, so I’m not surprised that ultras follow it. I know I’m being very openly “biased” here, but I’ve tried to understand their position as much as possible in the past, and more and more it just seems to be “we believe everything the CIA wants us to believe to sow discord and wreck socialist spaces.”
This is intriguing food for thought. Thank you.
I think an important part of material analysis is examining the chronology of ideas and events. Not just as they happened, but as they were talked about afterwards. During Stalin’s time he wasn’t referred to as a “dictator” by the west, because “dictator” didn’t have the same negative connotations at the time, and various fascist dictators were praised for “cutting through red tape” by the western press, it wasn’t until the mythology around ww2 coalesced (the west defeated the nazis and saved the world etc.) that we start to see “dictator” used in the sense we see it today, and Stalin was reframed from a complex, flawed but ultimately very successful leader into a cartoon villain.
This is an excellent point, and even though the U.S. had been gunning for Stalin and the USSR for decades, it’s almost alien trying to imagine the time period where that wasn’t publicly the case. Kind of like how even most of the ardent anti-communists thought that blaming Stalin and the USSR and communism for the alleged Holodomor was massively backwards, disgusting, wrong and victim-blaming, up until around the 80’s-ish.
I find it is incredibly useful as an educational tool. Liberalism kind of positions itself as “eternal” and the ideas liberalism presents about socialism are treated as divine truths known since time immemorial, so by showing how anti-communism has been constantly reframed over time, and how communist leaders have been increasingly vilified over time, it helps break that programming.
Removed by mod
I don’t have anything on hand, sorry. I’m sure Damarcus does though.
It’s also self-proclaimed “MAGA communists.” They defend the Khmer Rouge for some reason.
They’re the latter group. They dream of getting to brutally massacre everyone they feel has ever wronged them in the name of “ideological purity.”