Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Khmer Rouge in power
Main article: Democratic Kampuchea
The Khmer Rouge, the communist party led by Pol Pot, came to power in 1975 during the Cambodian Civil War, which was linked to the Vietnam War. They defeated the Khmer Republic, who were heavily supported by the U.S., including a massive bombing campaign against the Khmer Rouge until 1973. North Vietnam, who had many soldiers in Cambodia, and China were the primary backers of the Khmer Rouge during the civil war. Between 1975 and 1979, the Khmer Rouge perpetrated the Cambodian genocide, which killed between 1.5 and 2 million people, nearly 25% of Cambodia's population. During the genocide, China was the main international patron of the Khmer Rouge, supplying "more than 15,000 military advisers" and most of its external aid.
"ASEAN wanted elections but the U.S. supported the return of a genocidal regime. Did any of you imagine that the U.S. once had in effect supported genocide?" Kausikan described the disagreement between the U.S. and ASEAN over the Khmer Rouge as reaching the threshold that the U.S. threatened Singapore with "blood on the floor".
Fasces wrote:Traits of Khmer Rouge that aren't fascist:
Egalitarian, especially with regard to gender roles, communal living, and anti-materialism
Primitivist, focused on peasant class as supreme
China has used Cambodia as a counterweight to the dominating influence of Vietnam. In the mid-20th century, Communist China supported the Maoist Khmer Rouge against Lon Nol's regime, who Nationalist China had ties with, during the Cambodian Civil War and then its takeover of Cambodia in 1975. Also, Mao Zedong had fostered good relations with Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who also fought against Lon Nol and backed the Khmer Rouge. When Vietnamese military invaded Cambodia in 1978, China provided extensive political and military support for the Khmer Rouge. In 1979, the Chinese People's Liberation Army waged a brief border war against Vietnam, partly to threaten it into pulling out of Cambodia.
Much of the left around the world had enthused at the Cultural Revolution. In many countries opponents of the US war in Vietnam carried portraits of Mao Zedong as well as the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh. The trite sayings in the Little Red Book of ‘Mao’s thoughts’ were presented as a guide to socialist activity. Yet in 1972, as more US bombers hit targets in Vietnam than ever before, Mao greeted US president Nixon in Beijing, and by 1977, under Deng, China was beginning to embrace the market more furiously than Russia under Stalin’s successors.
The Western media saw such twists and turns as a result of wild irrationality. By the late 1970s many of those on the left who had identified with Maoism in the 1960s agreed, and turned their backs on socialism. A whole school of ex-Maoist ‘New Philosophers’ emerged in France, who taught that revolution automatically leads to tyranny and that the revolutionary left are as bad as the fascist right. Yet there is a simple, rational explanation for the apparently irrational course of Chinese history over a quarter of a century. China simply did not have the internal resources to pursue the Stalinist path of forced industrialisation successfully, however much its rulers starved the peasants and squeezed the workers. But there were no other easy options after a century of imperialist plundering. Unable to find rational solutions, the country’s rulers were tempted by irrational ones.
Harman, _People's History of the World_, p. 576
Agent Steel wrote:
So, recently I've been getting into some discussions with a gentleman on a different forum about the meaning of fascism. He is a marxist who describes fascism as a uniquely "right-wing phenomenon". I'm not sure if I agree. I could be mistaken, but I think that left wingers can be fascists too. And when it comes to a marxist like Pol Pot, he tried to create a mythological idea that agrarian societies from the past were superior to intellectual societies of today, and his goal was to take his country back to the way things used to be. When you combine his philosophy with his role as a totalitarian dictator, doesn't that make him a fascist?
The genocide in Cambodia was the outcome of a complex historical development in which the pernicious ideological influence of Stalinism came together with the military bloodbath carried out by American imperialism against the people of Indochina. Little of this history can be gleaned from the commentaries in the corporate-controlled media, which used the occasion to rehash old anticommunist myths and whitewash the US role in the Cambodian tragedy.
Classical Marxism envisioned a new society, democratically controlled by the working class, which would take as its point of departure the highest level of the productive forces developed under capitalism. This presupposed the widest possible scope for the development of industry, science and technique, all of them bound up with the growth of cities, the urban proletariat and the cultural life of the population as a whole.
No more grotesque distortion can be imagined than to categorize as 'Marxist' the ideas of Pol Pot and his cohorts. As early as the 1950s Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot's closest aide, had outlined a perspective of creating a primitive peasant-based society in which money, culture and all other facets of urban life would be abolished.
Like the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge appealed not to the working class but to the peasantry, and especially to the most backward and impoverished layers of the peasantry, who became the backbone of its guerrilla army units. In its parochialism and nationalism, its anti-intellectualism, and its hostility to urban life, the Khmer Rouge reflected the outlook of this social stratum.
Agent Steel wrote:So, recently I've been getting into some discussions with a gentleman on a different forum about the meaning of fascism. He is a marxist who describes fascism as a uniquely "right-wing phenomenon". I'm not sure if I agree. I could be mistaken, but I think that left wingers can be fascists too. And when it comes to a marxist like Pol Pot, he tried to create a mythological idea that agrarian societies from the past were superior to intellectual societies of today, and his goal was to take his country back to the way things used to be. When you combine his philosophy with his role as a totalitarian dictator, doesn't that make him a fascist?
I am pretty sure they were the more eviler communists that ever existed.
Like the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge appealed not to the working class but to the peasantry,
ckaihatsu wrote:It was *this* part -- turning to the peasantry only *exacerbated* the backwardness of whichever undeveloped economy.
Vast majority of communists are evil, just Khmer rogue appear to have been on the really eviler side of already evil.
Local Localist wrote:you could define the Khmer Rouge as fascist, but you'd still have to explain what makes it 'left-wing'. Even if, as Pol Pot did, we define it as a communist organisation, historical communist movements didn't necessarily identify themselves as leftist. By the 1970s, of course, it was commonplace to associate communism with leftist politics, but with an organisation as strange as the Khmer Rouge, I don't think anything like that can be taken for granted.
When you board the dictatorship train, the colour of the flag they're flying, red, black, green, whatever is no guarantee of your destination. Right can become left and left can become right. Because in the ideal absolute dictatorship, which can never be completely actualised, there would no longer be any internal left and right, and left and right could only be measured in relation to external societies.
rehash old anticommunist myths
ckaihatsu wrote:Boarding-the-train-to-*Crazy-Town*, right, Rich -- ?
When you have a revolution, @ckaihatsu, you are always and necessarily boarding the train to Crazy Town. After all, a revolution is an attempt to overturn the long-held and hallowed traditional values and virtues of one’s society, values and virtues such as hereditary monarchy, slavery, class inequality, exploitation, religion, politeness, decency and the like. It all gets “thrown overboard from the ship of Modernity”, as the Russian poet Mayakovsky put it. Yet most people have no moral values except the traditional ones society tells them to believe in. Take away those traditional values, and all limits on their personal behaviour will vanish…. So where does all this lead? Nobody knows. That’s the whole point. We don’t like the course we’re on, yet we have no charts to guide us onto a better one. So let’s spin the ship of Modernity’s wheel and hope for the best….
Axial Age (also Axis Age, from German: Achsenzeit) is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers. It refers to broad changes in religious and philosophical thought that occurred in a variety of locations from about the 8th to the 3rd century BC.
According to Jaspers, during this period, universalizing modes of thought appeared in Persia, India, China, the Levant, and the Greco-Roman world, in a striking parallel development, without any obvious admixture between these disparate cultures. Jaspers identified key thinkers from this age who had a profound influence on future philosophies and religions, and identified characteristics common to each area from which those thinkers emerged.
Rich wrote:Votes for women was part of the fascist party's programme.
Rich wrote:The Kings were necessary in bringing both Mussolini and Pol Pot to power. Monarchism was a dead issue in Weimar Germany, so it doesn't really say much that Hitler didn't attempt to restore the Prussian, Bavarian or Austrian monarchies.
Rich wrote:Himmler considered that farmers made far superior soldiers to urban people.
Rich wrote:Mussolini was an atheist, so probably was Hitler. just to note Churchill was also an atheist and FDR, although more religious than Hitler or Mussolini was probably an atheist as well and showed little signs of actually believing in Episcopalian theology.
Rich wrote:Votes for women was part of the fascist party's programme.
Fasces wrote:1) No, it wasn't. Women did not receive full suffrage in Italy until 1945.
Manifesto dei Fasci italiani di combattimento, pubblicato su "Il Popolo d'Italia" del 6 giugno 1919 wrote:Per il problema politico
a) — Suffragio universale a scrutinio di Lista regionale, con rappresentanza proporzionale, voto ed eleggibilità per le donne.
Rich wrote:a) — Suffragio universale a scrutinio di Lista regionale, con rappresentanza proporzionale, voto ed eleggibilità per le donne.
I think there *does* need to be some discussion ar[…]
To paraphrase Bertolt Brecht, America needs to o[…]
December 7, Wednesday Federal military authori[…]
No it was because I understood those scientists[…]