[jaakko]

The purpose of "class" is to denote the division of labor, which inherently causes exploitation by the less-laboring (such as mental-laborers) or those that don't labor at all (bourgeoisie).

Division of labour is not the same as class division. The former appeared before the latter.

There cannot be just one class. "Class" presupposes class division. If everyone's property relation to the means of production is basically the same, they're not "one class" but one classless people.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The purpose of "class" is to denote the division of labor, which inherently causes exploitation by the less-laboring (such as mental-laborers) or those that don't labor at all (bourgeoisie).

Division of labour is not the same as class division. The former appeared before the latter.

What is the former and what is the latter? By division of labour, I meant the division of laborers and the division of society into laborers and exploiters of labor, whether it is feudal-lords, slave-masters, guild-masters, or capital-owners (bourgeoisie).

There cannot be just one class. "Class" presupposes class division. If everyone's property relation to the means of production is basically the same, they're not "one class" but one classless people.

So the division of the humans of France prior to the French revolution was not classes? The divisions were into 3 categories: The privileged which formed the first estate (aristorcracy), the priestery which formed the second estate, and the people which formed the third estate (bourgeoisie, journeymen, other employees, peasants, and the self-employed).

How is class and caste different?

[jaakko]

What is the former and what is the latter? By division of labour, I meant the division of laborers and the division of society into laborers and exploiters of labor, whether it is feudal-lords, slave-masters, guild-masters, or capital-owners (bourgeoisie).

The former is the division of labour, the latter the class division. The first significant division of labour (the separation of the first monad tribes from others) appeared before the society's division in classes (slaves and slave-owners).

So the division of the humans of France prior to the French revolution was not classes?

I didn't say that.

How is class and caste different?

Classes are objective social formations. Castes, however, are artificial political constructs (usually aiming at creating unity between those who shouldn't unite and division among those who should unite), which however tend to roughly follow objective class divisions.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

So the division of the humans of France prior to the French revolution was not classes?

I didn't say that.

So can the estates be called classes, or is it improper to term the 3 estates in France prior to the french revolution as classes?

How is class and caste different?

Classes are objective social formations.

What is your explicit implication by "objective social formations"? Please also provide examples to better illustrate.

Castes, however, are artificial political constructs (usually aiming at creating unity between those who shouldn't unite and division among those who should unite), which however tend to roughly follow objective class divisions.

What do you mean by "creating unity between those who shouldn't unite and division between those who should unite, like what do you mean by should and shoudn't in this context?

[jaakko]

So can the estates be called classes, or is it improper to term the 3 estates in France prior to the french revolution as classes?

That division was a political construct, not objective social class division. For example, by your description the '3rd estate' includes people of different classes (bourgeoisie and peasantry).

What is your explicit implication by "objective social formations"?

That they exist irrespective of one's consciousness or opinions. For example, if you live from selling your labour power to the capitalist, you're a proletarian irrespective of what you choose to call yourself or of with who you like to associate yourself with. Ownership divides into classes, therefore their existence is rooted in the very material basis of society, ie. economy.

What do you mean by "creating unity between those who shouldn't unite and division between those who should unite, like what do you mean by should and shoudn't in this context?

"Divide and rule" politics against the exploited, "primitive corporatism" (my metaphor) between the ruling class and the "upper castes" of the ruled. You might be aware of what kind of an obstacle the remnants of the caste system is for the development of labour and peasant movements in India for example.

[Gustav Fluffy]

NationaliDemocratiSociali, your grammar makes little sense, your thoughts none whatsoever.

Why does there need to be the continuation (sustaining development) of the mental-laborers/white-collar workers in the first place?

Education?

Are you suggesting that we educate no-one and make everyone work down mine shafts? I think you need to read some books.

EDIT: also, are these white-collar workers not necessary for society to function. After all, if you ever come to have children, I am sure you will be grateful that those nasty midwives spent all those years exploiting poor innocent workers so they could get such comfortable 'middle class' jobs.

N.B. As you seem to have missed it in the past, I shall point out that the device of SARCASM was use during the making of that sentence.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

NationaliDemocratiSociali, your grammar makes little sense, your thoughts none whatsoever.

Show me what grammar you didn't understand, to make sure that you are not just hallucinating.

Why does there need to be the continuation (sustaining development) of the mental-laborers/white-collar workers in the first place?

Education?

Education is important, but you don't need mental-laborers for eternity, only in the stage of socialism, the physical-laborers will eventually overthrow the mental-laborers once the physical-laborers have been fuly educated enought to not depend on the intellectual tyranny of the mental-laborers.

Are you suggesting that we educate no-one and make everyone work down mine shafts?

Education is not as important as it is currently proposed, the only important education is almost disregarded in most if not all schools, and when education is forced the students naturally will not learn, they will only remember what they are taught in order to pass tests and get through school to please those forcing them to get education.

I think you need to read some books.

Like?

EDIT: also, are these white-collar workers not necessary for society to function.

Society has functioned properly well before white-collar workers came into being.

After all, if you ever come to have children, I am sure you will be grateful that those nasty midwives spent all those years exploiting poor innocent workers so they could get such comfortable 'middle class' jobs.

I have no qualm toward individual midwives, so I frown at your ignorant labeling of midwives as "nasty". And children have been born throughout human history without any money being paid to have the child get out of the vagina, in villages of third world countries people are born without any doctor present, and the among these children some of them grow up to be millionaire socialites in America, like my Father did and is.

N.B. As you seem to have missed it in the past, I shall point out that the device of SARCASM was use during the making of that sentence.

What is "N.B.", and which sentence is "that sentence"?

[Gustav Fluffy]

*holds head in hands and groans*

Show me what grammar you didn't understand, to make sure that you are not just hallucinating.

Try using fewer commas and more full stops. Your sentences ramble on, and on, and on, and on...

Education is important, but you don't need mental-laborers for eternity, only in the stage of socialism, the physical-laborers will eventually overthrow the mental-laborers once the physical-laborers have been fuly educated enought to not depend on the intellectual tyranny of the mental-laborers

Are you suggesting that we reject all the forms of technology and art which make our current lifestyles possible? Are you suggesting that instead of getting one educated man to design a combine harvester we send thousands of starving people into the wheat fields to die of dehydration as they do the work by hand? Are you suggesting that we remove any form of management and therefore direction from industry? In fact, are you suggesting that we remove industry itself?

What you seem to be talking about is social regression. Do you want to go and live in a cave and hunt Woolly Mammoths? If so, be my guest. I shall remain here at my desk in my nice clean white-collar.

Education is not as important as it is currently proposed, the only important education is almost disregarded in most if not all schools, and when education is forced the students naturally will not learn, they will only remember what they are taught in order to pass tests and get through school to please those forcing them to get education.

The importance of education cannot be underestimated. It teaches us about others and ourselves. It gives us choice; the choice to challenge upheld views and beliefs. If it were not for education, you and I would not be conversing.

Society has functioned properly well before white-collar workers came into being.

Communities functioned well; societies did not exist.

I have no qualm toward individual midwives, so I frown at your ignorant labeling of midwives as "nasty".

How can you not detect sarcasm even when I tell you I am using it? I called midwives nasty because you were attacking me for being one!

And children have been born throughout human history without any money being paid to have the child get out of the vagina, in villages of third world countries people are born without any doctor present, and the among these children some of them grow up to be millionaire socialites in America, like my Father did and is.

But we do not live in the third world, and we do not have to! We do not have to starve! We do not have to die of AIDS or malaria! Do you want to?

What is "N.B.", and which sentence is "that sentence"?

Do you have a dictionary?

Your whole concept in this debate is flawed. There cannot only be one tolling class unless we are to devolve society into a pre-industrial/agricultural revolution state. Is that what you want, because I can tell you now that we simply would not be able to sustain population numbers? Millions would die of starvation and disease leaving the remaining few to a life of hard labour.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

*holds head in hands and groans*

This is emotionalism, and it is a tragic folly to do the well-known mistake of engagin in intellectual political debate with a head filled with emotionalism. Emotionalism belongs in defecation, when it comes to political debate using intellect, unless you want to go into informal emotional conversation.

Show me what grammar you didn't understand, to make sure that you are not just hallucinating.

Try using fewer commas and more full stops. Your sentences ramble on, and on, and on, and on...

I agree, though it is not intentional, but still I don't see how it could be irritating, unless you are an english teacher/professor and want the world to be a utopia of such. It seems as if you are just distracting the debate and distracting attention from your weak ability to engage in political discussion with intellectual seriousness, and thus resort to degrading and becoming critical on such petty things as punctuation, this is nonsensical whining on your part unless your goal is to use my argument to write an essay.

Education is important, but you don't need mental-laborers for eternity, only in the stage of socialism, the physical-laborers will eventually overthrow the mental-laborers once the physical-laborers have been fuly educated enought to not depend on the intellectual tyranny of the mental-laborers

Are you suggesting that we reject all the forms of technology and art which make our current lifestyles possible?

How the hell did you come up with that from what you quoted?

Are you suggesting that instead of getting one educated man to design a combine harvester we send thousands of starving people into the wheat fields to die of dehydration as they do the work by hand?

Stop being emotional, it limits your capacity to understand and engage in intellect, such by becoming quickly pessimistic of change, just like any reactionary. Do you seriously think that the proble of dehydration would be neglected? You clearly did not read what I typed, and this shows that there is no way to get something to be understood by you until you drastically change your close-mindedness.

Are you suggesting that we remove any form of management and therefore direction from industry?

What management are you talking about, the manage by the bourgeoisie or by the mental-laborers? By the way I already said that I am in favor of socialism and communism, thus this means I am in favor of industrialism and I favored the replacing of the capitalist ruling class with the mental-laborers.

In fact, are you suggesting that we remove industry itself?

Not in the short-term, but inevitably yes in the long-term, because industry in itself is not good for the environment in the long-term, and the environment gives us food.

What you seem to be talking about is social regression.

"Social regression" is a subjective opinion. What is social regression to the communist is social progress to the capitalist.

Do you want to go and live in a cave and hunt Woolly Mammoths?

What the fuck are you talking about?

If so, be my guest. I shall remain here at my desk in my nice clean white-collar.

This is very arrogant and retarded of you. It is retarded because you fail to understand what I am saying, which is that I favor white-collar workers, but not as existing for eternity, because it would contradict the course of history.

Education is not as important as it is currently proposed, the only important education is almost disregarded in most if not all schools, and when education is forced the students naturally will not learn, they will only remember what they are taught in order to pass tests and get through school to please those forcing them to get education.

The importance of education cannot be underestimated.

Why not?

It teaches us about others and ourselves.

Not necessarily, real life in the work place teaches much more about oneself and others in comparison to the general syllabus of the most "perfect country" in the world: USA

It gives us choice; the choice to challenge upheld views and beliefs. If it were not for education, you and I would not be conversing.

I agree, but not completely, because education was not the sole reason for why people have the right to vote and have freedom of speech, it also had to do with the phenomena of the rise of the bourgeoisie and their socio-economic system which is dependent on education and training.

Society has functioned properly well before white-collar workers came into being.

Communities functioned well; societies did not exist.

Please illustrate this vague statement by offering examples. Thank you.

I have no qualm toward individual midwives, so I frown at your ignorant labeling of midwives as "nasty".

How can you not detect sarcasm even when I tell you I am using it?

I did detect sarcasm, you just failed to see the purpose of my response to the manner of your sarcasm.

I called midwives nasty because you were attacking me for being one!

How was I "attacking" you? You are clearly having delusions for using such strong words to describe my reasoning on the general nature of classes, especially the white-collar class. You just take things too personally, which is a big folly, especially in serious political debate, such as this one.

And children have been born throughout human history without any money being paid to have the child get out of the vagina, in villages of third world countries people are born without any doctor present, and the among these children some of them grow up to be millionaire socialites in America, like my Father did and is.

But we do not live in the third world, and we do not have to! We do not have to starve!

Do you know what "third world" is by definition, if so please type it. And then tell me if you think that "third world" is intrinsically synonomous with starvation. Starvation in third world countries is due to interference from other countries, namely the western industrial imperialist capitalist countries, the same ones that invented the "third world", by colonizing it and then labeling it third world when it gained its late independence and used this as a means of excusing why the third world coutnries remain very poor and underdeveloped.

We do not have to die of AIDS or malaria! Do you want to?

That has nothing to do with third world countries in general. You are very naive if you seriously think this, unless you made a typo.

What is "N.B.", and which sentence is "that sentence"?

Do you have a dictionary?

Yes, from the internet, whats your point? "N.B." is not in the dictionary.

Your whole concept in this debate is flawed.

That is your unjustified and hence baseless, biased opinion.

There cannot only be one tolling class unless we are to devolve society into a pre-industrial/agricultural revolution state.

That is your assumption, I can easily prove it wrong, as long as you don't fustrate my explanation with pessimism, personal attacks, name-calling, and etc. I am not doing these things toward you, so why are you doing this to me, clearly it is because of either ignorance or arrogance or both.

Is that what you want, because I can tell you now that we simply would not be able to sustain population numbers?

I have given this much more thought than you have, but I am sure you will misunderstand my logic. My logic is simple, you can convert "overpopulation" into underpopulation by simply abolishing towns and cities and then distributing the populace over the countryside into collective manual-laboring agrarian communes of economic equality and direct democracy.

Millions would die of starvation and disease leaving the remaining few to a life of hard labour.

This is pure basless pessimistic rhetoric, it is rhetoric because it is just the ordinary argument of any pessimist, which is without any evidence to support its claim besides biased facts, like distortions of truth and actual history.

[Gustav Fluffy]

You constantly attack me for being emotional. Let me remind you that politics means people, and people are emotional. You cannot debate politics by simply comparing statistics.

I have given this much more thought than you have, but I am sure you will misunderstand my logic. My logic is simple, you can convert "overpopulation" into underpopulation by simply abolishing towns and cities and then distributing the populace over the countryside into collective manual-laboring agrarian communes of economic equality and direct democracy.

which is without any evidence to support its claim besides biased facts, like distortions of truth and actual history.

Have you ever heard of Pol Pot? HE KILLED ONE THIRD OF HIS POPULATION DOING WHAT YOU SUGGEST.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You constantly attack me for being emotional. Let me remind you that politics means people, and people are emotional. You cannot debate politics by simply comparing statistics.

Not all people, maybe women but not men, I have yet to see even one woman that shows a substantial lack of emotionalism, I have seen almost all men to have a substantial lack of emotionalism and much more intellectualism. These are my honest observations, so I can't be dismissed as sexist because of this, and it is not my fault if I am exposing the truth even if it hurts.

I have given this much more thought than you have, but I am sure you will misunderstand my logic. My logic is simple, you can convert "overpopulation" into underpopulation by simply abolishing towns and cities and then distributing the populace over the countryside into collective manual-laboring agrarian communes of economic equality and direct democracy.

which is without any evidence to support its claim besides biased facts, like distortions of truth and actual history.

Have you ever heard of Pol Pot? HE KILLED ONE THIRD OF HIS POPULATION DOING WHAT YOU SUGGEST.

And? I don't see anything wrong in that, after reading the reasons for these killings, which completely justify them. And he did not kill anyone, it was the peons. And Pol Pot never witnessed any of the killings, nor was he everr convicted of being found guilty of the killings, even in absentia, and even if he did, he is nothing but a Patriot for his countrymen, because he instituted the "greatest social engineering project that humanity has ever witnessed" in order to liberate his Nation economically, politically, and socially from imperialist foreigners to the East (Vietnam), West (Thailand), North (Laos), and those from overseas (France and America).

[Gustav Fluffy]

And Pol Pot never witnessed any of the killings, nor was he everr convicted of being found guilty of the killings, even in absentia

Only because to this day the Cambodian government remains full of the same corrupt officials who served him.

and even if he did, he is nothing but a Patriot for his countrymen, because he instituted the "greatest social engineering project that humanity has ever witnessed" in order to liberate his Nation economically, politically, and socially from imperialist foreigners to the East (Vietnam), West (Thailand), North (Laos), and those from overseas (France and America).

Do you call killing your fellow countrymen patriotic?

His little 'project' was quite possibly the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since World War II. It was also a complete failure.

And? I don't see anything wrong in that, after reading the reasons for these killings, which completely justify them

Are you serious? Perhaps you should really try and bring some emotion into your debates for there is absolutely nothing which can justify the mindless killing of over 2 million human beings.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

And Pol Pot never witnessed any of the killings, nor was he everr convicted of being found guilty of the killings, even in absentia

Only because to this day the Cambodian government remains full of the same corrupt officials who served him.

Why do you call them corrupt? They did not take any bribes, and even if they did then where is the evidence to prove this?

and even if he did, he is nothing but a Patriot for his countrymen, because he instituted the "greatest social engineering project that humanity has ever witnessed" in order to liberate his Nation economically, politically, and socially from imperialist foreigners to the East (Vietnam), West (Thailand), North (Laos), and those from overseas (France and America).

Do you call killing your fellow countrymen patriotic?

The killing of traitors among fellow countrymen and fellow countrywomen is patriotic, yes.

His little 'project' was quite possibly the greatest humanitarian catastrophe since World War II. It was also a complete failure.

It was not "little", unless you can prove that there were one's bigger than it. And it was not a complete failure, because the immense productive lakes built by the labor of the khmer masses rather than foreign machinery are still in existance and they are still very productive in farming, and the most important thing for sustenance of life is food. And housing and clothing materials also come from agriculuture. Also, the same junior and senior leaders that were among the Khmer rouge (political organization of Pol Pot) were defected and added to the resistance against the Khmer Rouge, and they favored the peaceful disbanding of the Khmer Rouge which did happen, saving thousands of lives, I don't consider these people corrupt, especially also since these same people abolished money, nepotism, and inheritance rights during Democratic Kampuchea era (1975-1979).

And? I don't see anything wrong in that, after reading the reasons for these killings, which completely justify them

Are you serious? Perhaps you should really try and bring some emotion into your debates for there is absolutely nothing which can justify the mindless killing of over 2 million human beings.

It was not mindless, that is the point, why is it hard for you to acknowledge that? As long as you form biases you can never adequately comprehend the perspective of the Khmer Rouge and their reasoning, and their goal was not to kill, but to bring peace, and often peace requires killing of the enemies of peace. There are many forms of peace: Political, Social, and Economic. For the Cambodian masses Political freedom was scaring away Vietnam from any intrusion into Cambodian land - which they often did even after their guerilla war with America ended. Also political freedom was attained through killing capitalist intellectuals and first expelling and then eventually killing all those foreigners that refused to leave Cambodia after explicityly being warned by the government of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979). For all people Social freedom is the freedom of speech, and in Cambodia the greatest enemy of freedom of speech was the Military Dictatorship of Lon Nol, hence many Lon Nol senior officers and their families were killed. Economic freedom through killing the enemies of the working-class and peasantry: the bourgeoisie and land-lords.

By the way intellect is the opposite of emotion, just look up intellect/intellectual in any adequate dictionary.

[Gustav Fluffy]

Why do you call them corrupt? They did not take any bribes, and even if they did then where is the evidence to prove this?

You prove that they did not. Even if they are not corrupt in that sense of the word, they were still responsible for the killing of millions of innocent civilians.

The killing of traitors among fellow countrymen and fellow countrywomen is patriotic, yes.

If that is the case then there must have been almost as many traitors in Columbia as there were innocent people. And anyway, who were they traitors to? Pol Pot's newly formed undemocratic government? You cannot brand over 2 million people as traitors in a single brush stroke.

It was not "little", unless you can prove that there were one's bigger than it

Please note that while debating this rather sad topic I may employ the use of this thing called IRONY.

And it was not a complete failure, because the immense productive lakes built by the labor of the khmer masses rather than foreign machinery are still in existance and they are still very productive in farming, and the most important thing for sustenance of life is food.

So why did millions starve? Why did the regime collapse within a few years? Why was genocide committed? If you call that success, then your definition of success must be a rather perverted one.

the Khmer rouge (political organization of Pol Pot)

Yes, I did happen to know that little gem of information.

It was not mindless, that is the point, why is it hard for you to acknowledge that?

All killing of humans is mindless, especially if those people are educated and able to benefit their country while alive. As a socialist, you of all people should be able to understand that economic advantage.

As long as you form biases you can never adequately comprehend the perspective of the Khmer Rouge and their reasoning, and their goal was not to kill, but to bring peace, and often peace requires killing of the enemies of peace.

That is not true. Violence only brings more violence; oppression more oppression. Even if the Khmer Rouge's original goal was noble, it became twisted and hypocritical over time. Why can you not just admit that they were wrong in ideology and in practice? They completely destroyed a country, socially and economically, in the space of a few years, reducing the standard of living to below that of most African nations.

There are many forms of peace: Political, Social, and Economic.

None of which were achieved by Pol Pot.

Also political freedom was attained through killing capitalist intellectuals and first expelling and then eventually killing all those foreigners that refused to leave Cambodia after explicityly being warned by the government of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979).

There was no "political freedom" under Pol Pot. Democratic Kampuchea was a tyranny.

By the way intellect is the opposite of emotion, just look up intellect/intellectual in any adequate dictionary.

Again, I must simply stress to you that politics are about people, and they are for people. There are no cut and dry reasons why things should or shouldn't happen, and in most cases it is people's emotions that cause political changes. As a nationalist can you really not see the emotional side of politics?

Lastly, I would like to ask whether you have any morals? Do you really believe that it was worth killing millions and lowering the living standard of many more simply so that a few left wing policies could be implemented; policies which many in Cambodia did not even believe in? Do you really believe that ideology is more important than the truth, and that Policies should be followed through regardless of the human cost simply because they are left or right wing?

You should stop and consider what politics is for if this is the case. Politics and policies are for everyone, and it is to raise the standard of living for everyone (not just those you choose not to kill) than we implement policies. Please, stop and use your emotions for once; you might just change your mind.

But that will probably happen anyway when you turn 14

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Why do you call them corrupt? They did not take any bribes, and even if they did then where is the evidence to prove this?

You prove that they did not. Even if they are not corrupt in that sense of the word, they were still responsible for the killing of millions of innocent civilians.

No one is responsible for what someone else did, especially when it comes to such a thing as killing.

The killing of traitors among fellow countrymen and fellow countrywomen is patriotic, yes.

If that is the case then there must have been almost as many traitors in Columbia as there were innocent people.

What do you mean? Please elaborate, because I am not sure about what you specifically mean.

And anyway, who were they traitors to?

Traitors to the National working-class, National culture and the National state.

Pol Pot's newly formed undemocratic government?

It was democratic, much more democratic than any other government that ever existed in history, because the majority (peasantry) did as they pleased and their leaders allowed them to do as they wanted, and did what the peasantry wished and dreamed.

You cannot brand over 2 million people as traitors in a single brush stroke.

Why not? Maybe not traitor in the traditional sense of the word, but traitors nevertheless.

It was not "little", unless you can prove that there were one's bigger than it

Please note that while debating this rather sad topic I may employ the use of this thing called IRONY.

Irony belongs in narration, not in debates and arguments.

And it was not a complete failure, because the immense productive lakes built by the labor of the khmer masses rather than foreign machinery are still in existance and they are still very productive in farming, and the most important thing for sustenance of life is food.

So why did millions starve?

Vietnamese imperialism. The state of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) decided to appropriate the harvest produced by the citizenry/peasantry into trade-commodity for purchasing arms from China, in order to defend the sacred historical lands of the indigenous Khmer masses of Cambodia (Kampuchea) from colonization by the Vietnamese militarist imperialists.

Why did the regime collapse within a few years?

Completion of Vietnamese colonization over the political center of the Nation, Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia and Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979).

Why was genocide committed?

I already mentioned why, and in elaborate detail.

If you call that success, then your definition of success must be a rather perverted one.

Call what success?

the Khmer rouge (political organization of Pol Pot)

Yes, I did happen to know that little gem of information.

It was not mindless, that is the point, why is it hard for you to acknowledge that?

All killing of humans is mindless, especially if those people are educated and able to benefit their country while alive.

I agree that educated people can be useful, but not in a third world country, because the third world countries are severely behind in education in comparison to their hostile enemies (the first world countries). It could only benefit the Nation for it to exterminate all political opposition in the form of educated people, and make the entire Nation into just the State organization (Khmer Rouge) and the citizenry (Peasantry), especially a third world country with an agricultural-based economy. I have seriously changed my view on thinking from thinking that killing is a part of manhood into thinking that killing is the worst thing that a human can do, but then I realized that killing is necessary in killing those that hinder the struggle of existance, such as the lazy intellectuals, the parasitic bourgeoisie, social-fascist land-lords and those cancerous urbanites that rebel against becoming peasants (again).

As a socialist, you of all people should be able to understand that economic advantage.

I do, but honestly I think that even though Democratic Kampuchea did many horrible things, still the good things should be remembered, and ofcourse that is impossible to do if you think life is divine rather than just material. Having said that, I think mental-laborers are very important for Socialism, and that the bourgeoisie should be allowed to convert into mental-laborers rather than be imprisoned, tortured, killed, or expelled. I often give thought to the idea that it is possible to not kill anyone and for politics to become into a pacifist thing, and from a scientific stance every life has its purpose to grow until it dies from old age, sadly millions of people have died throughout history without experiencing old age and the wisdom that comes with its hardship.

As long as you form biases you can never adequately comprehend the perspective of the Khmer Rouge and their reasoning, and their goal was not to kill, but to bring peace, and often peace requires killing of the enemies of peace.

That is not true. Violence only brings more violence; oppression more oppression. Even if the Khmer Rouge's original goal was noble, it became twisted and hypocritical over time. Why can you not just admit that they were wrong in ideology and in practice?

I strongly agree that their ideology was correct, and in practice was just a mere failed experiment, which I think can and should be tried again, but this time with the support of all of the people, so as to focus on the economic prosperity, which has been drastically disrupted for many decades in Cambodia.

They completely destroyed a country, socially and economically, in the space of a few years, reducing the standard of living to below that of most African nations.

Yes, but that country was not "a country" it was their country and they had a material relation to it, not just an abstract one, for their blood has survived off of the resources of that land for thousands if not millions of years. This is the beauty of indigenous Nationalism, and which make it scientific Nationalism and or darwinist Nationalism.

There are many forms of peace: Political, Social, and Economic.

None of which were achieved by Pol Pot.

Ok, but what do you think of your Moammar Qadaffi (the person you choosed as Avatar), did he achieve Political, Social, and or Economic peace? Why do you like him though? If you don't like him, then why do you dislike him?

Also political freedom was attained through killing capitalist intellectuals and first expelling and then eventually killing all those foreigners that refused to leave Cambodia after explicityly being warned by the government of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979).

There was no "political freedom" under Pol Pot. Democratic Kampuchea was a tyranny.

There was political freedom, however for solely the most qualified and occupied in politics and victors in the game of politics in Cambodia: the leadership of Democratic Kampuchea (often affectionately named "angkar" [the organization]).

By the way intellect is the opposite of emotion, just look up intellect/intellectual in any adequate dictionary.

Again, I must simply stress to you that politics are about people, and they are for people. There are no cut and dry reasons why things should or shouldn't happen, and in most cases it is people's emotions that cause political changes. As a nationalist can you really not see the emotional side of politics?

Ofcourse, I agree, but I think certain emotions should be avoided, especially when thinking through an objective mature way of looking at economics and politics from an agnostic and scientific point of view.

Lastly, I would like to ask whether you have any morals?

Honestly, I put science above morality, because the struggle of existance does not pause for correcting "morals", and "morals" never help liberate the masses from their ancient oppressors (the rich/the powerful). However I do think morals amongst society come naturally when everyone is of the same humble origin (working-class) and stock (racial ethnicity). I have seen people easily betray every moral imagineable in a relationship with someone of another class and another racial nationality. So I have experienced this and I believe in what I experienced and witnessed.

Do you really believe that it was worth killing millions and lowering the living standard of many more simply so that a few left wing policies could be implemented; policies which many in Cambodia did not even believe in?

I am still not sure about this, I am still giving it a lot of thought through continously reading different books on different perspectives on what happend in Cambodia from 1975-1979 and the reasons used to justify all this.

Do you really believe that ideology is more important than the truth, and that Policies should be followed through regardless of the human cost simply because they are left or right wing?

I think humans are just matter, and worth nothing, only in the economic sense, and that is the only reason why I am against killing, that is that every master can be reduced to a slave without killing, by first educating them (through Socialist stage of society) that after death there is nothing, only their body left and their consciousness reduced to scraps of sticky stuff without any life (the dead brain), which just makes good fertilizer and is not worth wasting land in decorating with a coffin and tombstone.

You should stop and consider what politics is for if this is the case.

Politics is something different to the capitalist, something different to the feudal-lord, something different to the mental-laborer, something different to the physical-laborer, and something different to the bureaucrat.

Politics and policies are for everyone, and it is to raise the standard of living for everyone (not just those you choose not to kill) than we implement policies. Please, stop and use your emotions for once; you might just change your mind.

Yes, I agree that everyone should have the same standard of living, but the capitalists don't want this, they want increase in wealth of the rich through massive tax cuts and keeping the heavy taxes on the poor masses (the majority of the citizenry), inevitably socialists will win in the battle of democracy, and capitalists will loose. In my opinion Democracy is important in getting rid of the capitalists once and for all, and after-all Democracy is a capitalist game invented for capitalists and by capitalists and socialists can use it to destroy the capitalists.

But that will probably happen anyway when you turn 14

I am 19 years old. You assume that emotions guide people to do certain things, but actually it is intellect or instinct. Emotions are just a means of expression, there is no emotion that helps, either an emotion is over-reactive or depressive, both of these things tarnish accuracy.

[Gustav Fluffy]

No one is responsible for what someone else did, especially when it comes to such a thing as killing

So if it was not government and military officials who were responsible for the genocide, who was? It was organised, and organisation like that takes officials to co-ordinate it. Many people were responsible, but because they and their associates still hold high positions of office in the Cambodian government, they have not been brought to justice.

Traitors to the National working-class, National culture and the National state.

It was democratic, much more democratic than any other government that ever existed in history, because the majority (peasantry) did as they pleased and their leaders allowed them to do as they wanted, and did what the peasantry wished and dreamed.

Surely a traitor is one who disowns his country and people. I am afraid that I do not see how you can be a traitor to you country simply by being educated, or of a certain social class, especially if the regime you are being a traitor to is newly formed and imposing itself upon you against your will.

I also fail to see how a Tyranny can be a democracy. That is almost as ludicrous as Ix's claims that the DPRK is currently democratic.

It was democratic, much more democratic than any other government that ever existed in history, because the majority (peasantry) did as they pleased and their leaders allowed them to do as they wanted, and did what the peasantry wished and dreamed.

Are you are trying to tell me that doing backbreaking work in the fields all day with a gun pointed at your head just so that you could earn half a bowl of rice was doing what you pleased?

They did not do as they 'dreamed'; They died of starvation. How can you fail to see that that was not freedom, but oppression far worse than anything they had ever suffered at the hands of the capitalists.

Vietnamese imperialism. The state of Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) decided to appropriate the harvest produced by the citizenry/peasantry into trade-commodity for purchasing arms from China, in order to defend the sacred historical lands of the indigenous Khmer masses of Cambodia (Kampuchea) from colonization by the Vietnamese militarist imperialists.

Wow, good idea Mr. Pot - lets just defend the historic land even though there's no-one to live in it because they've all starved to death.

Completion of Vietnamese colonization over the political centre of the Nation, Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia and Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979).

No. The regime collapsed because it was shit. It killed a third of its own population and failed to feed the rest.

I agree that educated people can be useful, but not in a third world country, because the third world countries are severely behind in education in comparison to their hostile enemies (the first world countries). It could only benefit the Nation for it to exterminate all political opposition in the form of educated people, and make the entire Nation into just the State organization (Khmer Rouge) and the citizenry (Peasantry), especially a third world country with an agricultural-based economy

No. A country needs industry and education to move from being underdeveloped to developed. Completely destroying the middle classes (the source of investment which is needed for this to happen) is the worst thing that can be done if the state is not to take over their role.

I have seriously changed my view on thinking from thinking that killing is a part of manhood into thinking that killing is the worst thing that a human can do, but then I realized that killing is necessary in killing those that hinder the struggle of existance, such as the lazy intellectuals, the parasitic bourgeoisie, social-fascist land-lords and those cancerous urbanites that rebel against becoming peasants (again).

What do you really believe in? That people should simply be labourers, their only goal in life to boost the statistics of their nation? Do you not believe that there should be any greater aims than this struggle for existence, or any joy for humans to aspire to? Is all you care about statistics showing the progress of the peasant class? Do you not think that there is slightly more to politics than that?

Your problem, NDS, is that you consider politics by itself - you look at in your own ferociously proud intellectual way - and as a consequence forget that sometimes links must be drawn, and relations established between economic theory and the emotions of people. Like it or not, beyond your computer, people are not driven by rational thought and intellectual reasoning. They are guided by morals, instincts and emotions, and occasionally these come into conflict with the perfectly drawn out economic plans which people like you propose.

In the big wide world, people are more important than ideology, and we must remember that ideology is designed to serve the people, not itself.

You cannot write of the deaths of over two million as a blameless mistake -it was cruelly engineered genocide. What's more is that it achieved nothing but to drive yet more people away from Cambodia as refugees, and into the arms of the capitalist nations. For once, just use your emotions, and imagine that you had been in Cambodia in the seventies. Imagine the misery of starvation and hard labour; the humiliation, rape and pillage suffered at the hands of the Khmer Rouge; and above all, the indignation you would feel against those who had destroyed or taken everything that you had ever known.

I do, but honestly I think that even though Democratic Kampuchea did many horrible things, still the good things should be remembered

What good things? The implemented failed ideology at the cost of human lives and dignity.

I strongly agree that their ideology was correct, and in practice was just a mere failed experiment, which I think can and should be tried again, but this time with the support of all of the people, so as to focus on the economic prosperity, which has been drastically disrupted for many decades in Cambodia.

But can you not realise that such a thing will never have the support of the people? People do not want to work the land as peasants in these days of mechanised agriculture when they can bring prosperity to their county and themselves through education and mental-labour.

Yes, but that country was not "a country" it was their country and they had a material relation to it, not just an abstract one, for their blood has survived off of the resources of that land for thousands if not millions of years. This is the beauty of indigenous Nationalism, and which make it scientific Nationalism and or darwinist Nationalism.

Please take your pseudo science elsewhere.

Ok, but what do you think of your Moammar Qadaffi (the person you choosed as Avatar), did he achieve Political, Social, and or Economic peace? Why do you like him though? If you don't like him, then why do you dislike him?

I chose my avatar not because I support Gaddafi, but rather because no other regular posters use it, and because I liked the picture.

There was political freedom, however for solely the most qualified and occupied in politics and victors in the game of politics in Cambodia: the leadership of Democratic Kampuchea (often affectionately named "angkar" [the organization]).

This is an inconsistency in your argument. First you say that all should be of the same class, and now you are telling us that only politicians and party members have the right to freedom. All are equal, but some are more equal than others... sound familiar?

I am still not sure about this, I am still giving it a lot of thought through continously reading different books on different perspectives on what happend in Cambodia from 1975-1979 and the reasons used to justify all this.

So why, while your conscience doubts his actions, do you continue to give your unwavering support to Pol Pot?

I think humans are just matter, and worth nothing, only in the economic sense

So why do you even bother with politics? Why do you care?