Moderator Warning
davida03801, given that I’ve already issued a note for this exact type of comment, I’m going to make this one a warning. Political jabs are against the rules in this forum. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
There was total inattention paid by the rest of the world in terms of actually doing anything about it, but the outside world was perfectly aware of what was going on when it was happening and before the Vietnamese invasion which didn’t happen unitl four years later. Noam Chomsky infamously tried to deny what was happening (or claim to not be able to know despite the clear evidence) in the article Distortions at Fourth Hand which was largely an attempt at character assassination of Jean Lacouture who had reviewed François Ponchaud’s then recently published Cambodia: Year Zero. Ponchaud was a French Catholic priest and missionary and was there when Phnom Penh was emptied. Lacouture was a leftist journalist and historian who had initially been pro Khmer Rouge before they took power but was horrified at what they were doing when they took power.
The widespread condemnation of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia came from a number of quarters and causes. China and Vietnam have historically been antagonistic towards each other, and the cooperation between the two quickly faded after the US left and South Vietnam fell. The Khmer Rouge was supported by China against Vietnam, and the US had its own axe to grind about Vietnam.
That is not appropriate for this thread. But it does fit my vision of the right. I’d best stop here.
Moderator Warning
Hari Seldon, you should have stopped before posting. While I regret having to do this, you don’t leave me much choice. This is an official warning for political jabs. Don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I’ve always felt that much ideology is merely an excuse. If your twisted mind wants to kill people or force something on them, It’s harder to accomplish without a reason. But almost any reason will do as long as you can make it believable to enough followers. Are you doing Christ’s work? Advancing a society Marx said was inevitable? Following the orders of an all-powerful god? Answering a supernatural vision?
Justifying the means to achieve the ends allows for too much leeway if handled just right.
One thing to mention about the Khmer Rouge is that Year 0 wasn’t just a nifty catchphrase. it was the embodiment of their ideology: a complete sweep of all history into the dustbin of (err…) history. Everything up to that point wasn’t supposed to matter ever again. Cambodia would just start over. Hence all the killing: anything which might not be a part of the vision (even if said vision was inherently empty and nihilistic, had to go. The future couldn’t be born until the past had been utterly erased. However, fundamentally the people in charge of said vision weren’t actually all that bright - the idea they had of the future basically didn’t have any content beyond, “The future will be perfect. Somehow.”
(I’m pretty surprised to see three mod interventions in a thread that hasn’t completed its first page yet. You’d don’t see that very often.)
Pretty much an artifact of the General Questions forum. Our rules are somewhat stricter in regards to political comments, when all we want are factual answers on topic. Political comments are simply hijacks of the OP.
I’ll also add that the Khmer Rough were a perfect example of what happens when a radical, dogma inspired group takes over. First they kill their enemies. Then they kill people they suspect might be their enemies for whatever reason. Innocents die and the paranoia really takes hold. So then, they start to kill each other.
That doesn’t make sense at all. You need wealth to buy weapons and bribe people. That means you need wealthy people on your side - or you need to subvert the armed forces, which in most states are the ultimate expression of status quo.
I think in this case, a lot of it had nothing to do with ideology. As Spalding Grey pointed out in Swimming to Cambodia (1987):
“So five years of bombing, a diet of bark, bugs, lizards and leaves up in the Cambodian jungles, an education in Paris environs in strict Maoist doctrine with a touch of Rousseau, and other things that we will probably never know about in our lifetimes – including perhaps an invisible cloud of evil that circles the Earth and lands at random in places like Iran, Beirut, Germany, Cambodia, America – set the Khmer Rouge up to commit the worst auto-homeo genocide in modern history.”
That was the role the Chinese played in this conflict.
You can claim that about Pol Pot, but was anti-intellectualism rampant in communism outside of Cambodia? Were purges of the intellectuals common in all the other nations that became communist? I don’t know enough of the history.
True. Also labor unions, dictators hate labor unions as well as the family unit, religious unit, independent judiciary, effective congress, independent media, etc. Anything that provides an independent tool for people to organize and develop power and goals which cannot be controlled by the state is opposed.
I believe this is Bernard Lewis’s view on the issue of Islamic terrorism. They can either admit they are a third rate power (not only are they behind the heathen and decadent west, they are behind latin america, eastern europe and pretty much the whole world except sub saharan africa). Pan Arabism was a failure, so they adopted Islamic fundamentalism. Now that that is failing, I wonder what new radical ideology will come up to avoid the shame of admitting they have been outpaced and outgunned by people they consider inferior.
What do you mean by slave morality? Slave morality values kindness and empathy, traits that radical rebellions tend to lack. Unless you aren’t talking about that and are just addressing the rejection of the values of the master’s morality via the dominant west. I guess the concepts of egalitarianism and comradeship which communism gave lip service to could be considered versions of kindness and empathy in slave morality. However that could also just be efforts to appeal to the disaffected who were at the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole (minorities, the poor, the uneducated, etc).
Well, anti-intellectualism is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, simply because back in the day, intellectuals used to often lead revolutionary or counter-revolutionary activity. The Nazis practiced wide-spread elimination of intellectuals in some of the countries they invaded (particularly Poland). And we do have numerous examples from history where universities played critical roles in revolutions (see, e.g., the 1971 Bangladesh Revolution or the 1979 Iranian Revolution). It doesn’t surprise me that a number of communist regimes would try to eliminate intellectuals, although I’m not well-versed on the history of particular communist regimes specifically.
Well, this is not exactly isolated to communist authoritarian regimes. Look at the Spain under Franco and Chile under US-backed Pinochet – both of these right-wing dictators practiced horrific suppresion of leftist intellectuals.
Historically, though, I think it’s safe to say that most authoritarian regimes have recognized the need for a technological and professional class and maintained the educational infrastructure necessary for that. Any action against intellectuals has usually been directed only at those identified as potentially dangerous to the regime, or as belonging to narrowly defined groups as per government policy.
The Khmer Rouge seem to have been unusual in this respect. Curiously, though, even they never actually destroyed their cities AFAIK; a very small number of “trusted people” continued to live in them, performing jobs in factories and similar occupations.
Nobody said it had to make sense. The people we’re dealing with weren’t exactly rational actors. They annihilated their entire urban elite. You can say it doesn’t make sense, but that’s exactly what happened anyway. And Cambodia wasn’t unique in this regard. “Kill the landowner and take their land!” was the battle cry of the proletariat.
Also, we’re talking about countries where vast numbers of people died when their new leadership tried to force dumbshit policies on them, such as radically new (and utterly counterproductive) farming methods, or forcing farmers to labor in steel mills without bothering to work out where their food was going to come from.
[QUOTE=Wesley Clark]
You can claim that about Pol Pot, but was anti-intellectualism rampant in communism outside of Cambodia? Were purges of the intellectuals common in all the other nations that became communist? I don’t know enough of the history.
[/QUOTE]
As I pointed out, it was a very big trend in Communist China. Anybody who was wealthy and educated got whacked. This led to the absurd situation where the leadership was ignorant and often illiterate. They had to keep a certain number of literate “intellectuals” around just to accomplish the daily business of running a country… under close supervision and heavy suspicion.
[QUOTE=Wesley Clark]
What do you mean by slave morality? Slave morality values kindness and empathy, traits that radical rebellions tend to lack. Unless you aren’t talking about that and are just addressing the rejection of the values of the master’s morality via the dominant west.
[/QUOTE]
The latter. They were trying to create an alternative value system that emphasized themselves as being more noble and pure, whereas the things the ‘Masters’ thought were valuable (and had in abundance) were in fact wicked and decadent. It inverts the Master’s moral system in a way that villainizes the Master.
Yay, simplistic dualism!
You know who drove the Khmer Rouge out of power? An invasion by the USSR-backed Vietnamese.
And where was the great right-wing power, the USA, during all this? Well, we sort of cooperated with the remnants of the Khmer Rouge and considered them a legitimate government in exile, as part of our cooperation with Red China.
Politics isn’t really only about “left” and “right.”
ETA: And for the record, if we define “left” as resembling Marx, then the Khmer Rouge were about as non-left as could be. Marx believed in urban workers gaining power, Pol Pot and Ieng Sary removed people’s power to make them agrarian peasants.
I have to admit, I’ve sometimes mused over how the differing (at least nominal) political ideologies of violent extremists-cum-dictators might influence the motive, method and rationale behind their actions, even if the ultimate end results are the same—kind of like the difference between a “rampage/spree killer” and a “serial killer.”
Back to Pol Pot. As I recall, he wasn’t just striving for some kind of Uber-Maoist Agrarian Proletariat Paradise*, but one strongly influenced by a view of a sort of mythologized Cambodia—particularly, one that the ancient Angkor region/metropolitan area functioned as a gargantuan super-productive rice farm. It’s not hard to see parallels to the Nazi “Blood and Soil” and Volk-fetish bents.
Nice guy…literally, really. From what I’ve heard, Pol Pot actually was a friendly and pleasant person to be around, in person. And Hitler loved dogs and chocolate, too. :eek:
*Band name!
I really think anyone who tries to jury-rig any sort of logic to the Khmer Rouge is just banging his head against a brick wall.
Don’t forget that there was also an ethnic cleansing element to the Cambodian genocide - Ethnic Vietnamese and Chinese, Cambodian Muslims etc were automatically considered enemies. And its my understanding that these were disproportionally urban ethnicities, as well.