Go watch some documentsaries about USSR, north korea, khmer rouge, and china then talk. USSR collapsed, Khmer rogue executed 1/4 of its’s population and north korea is a nation of brainwashesd people thinking their leader doesn’t poop (I don’t know enough to talk about China, but they have an economy)
Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
The USSR and China both drastically improved metrics like life expectancy, literacy rates, reduced poverty, eliminated famine, and generally uplifted the poor when compared with Fuedal Russia and Nationalist China. They had numerous issues and tragedies, yes, but overall did very well for its people.
Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
I think that’s a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.
The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.
Also, PolPot wasn’t criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80’s, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in “deviations from Marxism-Leninism”
The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.
I don’t believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn’t accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.
The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment, my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn’t a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.
China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.
don’t believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn’t accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.
I think what’s pertinent to the original argument was that they were communist while the Khmer Rouge were committing their atrocities. Labeling a country that transitioned from communism to fascism as a purely fascist government is misleading and reductive.
Also, being opposed to a communist government does not mean you’re automatically a fascist. As we know communist China attacked communist Vietnam right after the US Vietnam war.
The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment
It’s no more complicated than the history of European geopolitics. As an Asian person, I get told this by western people a lot. I think it’s just a hold over from the western interpretation of the east being based in mystery. Also, the complications of any topic does not validate the type of misleading/reductive comment you made.
my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn’t a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.
I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50’s, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.
Pol Pot didn’t really divert from communism until the 80’s and that was a last ditch effort to get the west to support his failing regime. I don’t particularly believe that “We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way.” constitutes as denouncing Marxism.
China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.
You haven’t supported the argument that the Khmer Rouge were never communist… Now I’m willing to compromise and say they transitioned away from communism as did the Russians, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that they were communist at some point.
How exactly was Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge not communist in the 50s-70’s?
I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50’s, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.
He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism. We do not consider the Nazis to be Socialist either. His “agrarian Communism” was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism.
If you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist. Rather than doing that, Pol Pot stopped pretending and denounced Communism altogether.
He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism.
When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?
Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.
His “agrarian Communism” was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism
Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.
you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist.
Lol, that’s not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80’s as well.
I think it’s pretty obvious that we’re just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.
Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist, thus he denounced them later rather than attempt to continue to claim Marxist influence.
Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.
In what manner? Vibes?
Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.
More vibes, lol. Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!
Lol, that’s not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80’s as well.
I am not. I am aware that Pol Pot distanced himself from Marxism publicly afterwards, but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.
I think it’s pretty obvious that we’re just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.
Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist
So, just a vibe check then?
In what manner? Vibes?
Lol, in the same way as the Khmer Rouge…you never extrapolated how they were feudal to begin with.
Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!
First of all, I don’t think anyone can rightly claim Mao wasn’t a nationalist. He was an ardent anti imperialist and he wasn’t an ethno-nationalist, but still a nationalist at heart. Secondly progress is relative to the revolution, Cambodia prior to the revolution was for the most part dependent on substance farming. Adapting a centralized apparatus to control the economy is still progress.
but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.
They didn’t deindustrialze, they were never industrialized to begin with.
More vibes.
Hilarious considering your arguments have been completely vibe based. Even when I ask you specify your claims… Nope just vibes.
To be fair, those failed because capitalists took charge claiming to be socialists. Not saying there is a surefire way to prevent that from happening every time.
Yes, because the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat tears down the checks and balances that usually exist to avoid people grabbing power, and instead attracts power hungry people.
A democratic gradual implementation of socialism is a much safer was to achieve many of the same outcomes, like what some European countries are doing.
Revolution and the historical application of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat have resulted in more democratic institutions being put in place than what previously existed.
Social Democracies are not Socialist, nor are they trying to be Socialist. They still depend on Capitalism, and exploitation of the Global South. They are also seeing rising disparity and weakening worker protections over time, because reforming a Capitalist state into something better over a gradual process is extremely difficult.
History’s most notable democratically elected Socialist was couped in 2 years, Salvador Allende, with the help of the US.
I need you to shut the fuck up until you investigate just a single fucking thing you say. “Achieve many of the same outcomes” just holy shit. Collaboration and liberation are the same if you really think about it!
That hasn’t happend, historically. Unless you mean the Khmer Rouge, but that was more fascist than anything else, and the leadership explicitly rejected Marx.
Go watch some documentsaries about USSR, north korea, khmer rouge, and china then talk. USSR collapsed, Khmer rogue executed 1/4 of its’s population and north korea is a nation of brainwashesd people thinking their leader doesn’t poop (I don’t know enough to talk about China, but they have an economy)
Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
The USSR and China both drastically improved metrics like life expectancy, literacy rates, reduced poverty, eliminated famine, and generally uplifted the poor when compared with Fuedal Russia and Nationalist China. They had numerous issues and tragedies, yes, but overall did very well for its people.
Please find a genuine source saying that North Koreans don’t think their leader poops. Or, just watch a video of some Aussies going to North Korea to get a haircut. North Korea is certainly no paradise, but it’s also one of the most propagandized against in the western world.
I think that’s a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.
The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.
Also, PolPot wasn’t criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80’s, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in “deviations from Marxism-Leninism”
The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.
I don’t believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn’t accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.
The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment, my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn’t a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.
China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.
I think what’s pertinent to the original argument was that they were communist while the Khmer Rouge were committing their atrocities. Labeling a country that transitioned from communism to fascism as a purely fascist government is misleading and reductive.
Also, being opposed to a communist government does not mean you’re automatically a fascist. As we know communist China attacked communist Vietnam right after the US Vietnam war.
It’s no more complicated than the history of European geopolitics. As an Asian person, I get told this by western people a lot. I think it’s just a hold over from the western interpretation of the east being based in mystery. Also, the complications of any topic does not validate the type of misleading/reductive comment you made.
I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50’s, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.
Pol Pot didn’t really divert from communism until the 80’s and that was a last ditch effort to get the west to support his failing regime. I don’t particularly believe that “We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way.” constitutes as denouncing Marxism.
You haven’t supported the argument that the Khmer Rouge were never communist… Now I’m willing to compromise and say they transitioned away from communism as did the Russians, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that they were communist at some point.
How exactly was Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge not communist in the 50s-70’s?
He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism. We do not consider the Nazis to be Socialist either. His “agrarian Communism” was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism.
If you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist. Rather than doing that, Pol Pot stopped pretending and denounced Communism altogether.
When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?
Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.
Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.
Lol, that’s not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80’s as well.
I think it’s pretty obvious that we’re just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.
Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist, thus he denounced them later rather than attempt to continue to claim Marxist influence.
In what manner? Vibes?
More vibes, lol. Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!
I am not. I am aware that Pol Pot distanced himself from Marxism publicly afterwards, but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.
More vibes.
So, just a vibe check then?
Lol, in the same way as the Khmer Rouge…you never extrapolated how they were feudal to begin with.
First of all, I don’t think anyone can rightly claim Mao wasn’t a nationalist. He was an ardent anti imperialist and he wasn’t an ethno-nationalist, but still a nationalist at heart. Secondly progress is relative to the revolution, Cambodia prior to the revolution was for the most part dependent on substance farming. Adapting a centralized apparatus to control the economy is still progress.
They didn’t deindustrialze, they were never industrialized to begin with.
Hilarious considering your arguments have been completely vibe based. Even when I ask you specify your claims… Nope just vibes.
To be fair, those failed because capitalists took charge claiming to be socialists. Not saying there is a surefire way to prevent that from happening every time.
Yes, because the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat tears down the checks and balances that usually exist to avoid people grabbing power, and instead attracts power hungry people.
A democratic gradual implementation of socialism is a much safer was to achieve many of the same outcomes, like what some European countries are doing.
Revolution and the historical application of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat have resulted in more democratic institutions being put in place than what previously existed.
Social Democracies are not Socialist, nor are they trying to be Socialist. They still depend on Capitalism, and exploitation of the Global South. They are also seeing rising disparity and weakening worker protections over time, because reforming a Capitalist state into something better over a gradual process is extremely difficult.
History’s most notable democratically elected Socialist was couped in 2 years, Salvador Allende, with the help of the US.
I need you to shut the fuck up until you investigate just a single fucking thing you say. “Achieve many of the same outcomes” just holy shit. Collaboration and liberation are the same if you really think about it!
That hasn’t happend, historically. Unless you mean the Khmer Rouge, but that was more fascist than anything else, and the leadership explicitly rejected Marx.