/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion.

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(94.37 KB 860x628 pol-pot-smiling.jpg)
... Book Question 01/07/2020 (Tue) 23:38:04 No. 202324
Maybe this doesn't deserve its own thread, but does anyone know of any good nonfiction books (preferably from a Marxist perspective) that deal with Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge in general? Most of the stiff I've seen is pretty boring liberal anti-communism and/or written by an american. Thank you!
Irwin Silber's Kampuchea: The Revolution Rescued. It can be found online
>>202324 Closet thing to Communism
>>202340 thank you anon
>>202348 Utopian retardation like yours have been mocked by Marx himself. >>202324 Most of Michael Vickery’s publications did a pretty good job at covering the DK and the rebuilding period of People’s Republic of Kampuchea.
>>202385 It's not utopian if it worked for several years on end before Vietnamese destroyed the revolution. No money, no classes, no property, distribution according to need, all under the aegis of the Angkar. It was full communism and you're just too stuck to your abstract theories to admit it.
>>202385 Some relevant links. http://michaelvickery.org >>202399 How about you actually educate yourself and not be spooked by nationalist shit? Not everything can be blamed on “le Soviet imperialism” especially when dealing with the DK’s economy. >It's not utopian if it worked for several years on end before Vietnamese destroyed the revolution. >It's not utopian if it worked for several years on end before the USSR destroyed the revolution of da volk. My dude, DK’s rice production collapsed after only 6 months after Pot took power. What are you even on about. Not to mention the fact that, in contradiction with their propaganda, money still exists under the form of US dollars exchange from rice exploitation.
>>202436 >money still exists under the form of US dollars exchange from rice exploitation. are you retarded? how do you think you can exchange with the exterior? >rice exploitation poor little rice plants. wtf are you on?
Here is an article about that from a Maoist perspective: http://www.bannedthought.net/International/RIM/AWTW/1999-25/PolPot_eng25.htm
if you want a defence of Pol Pot Chomsky defends him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3IUU59B6lw You can maybe credit Pol Pot with preventing a really bad famine by forcing a bunch of city people to work the fields but good grief did they pull a lot of crap, including attacking Vietnam.
>>223369 When Vietnam finally invaded they did not declare Vietnam to be "revisionist" or "social imperialist". They just declared a "race war" against the Vietnamese people.
>>223346 >are you retarded? how do you think you can exchange with the exterior? Direct commodity exchange? You know like something socialist states actually do? Even the fucking DPRK and Cuba can do it. >wtf are you on? Rice exploitation doesn’t mean exploiting the plant you utter imbecile. It’s the forced production of rice by the Angkar upon both the new and old people of Kampuchea. Although 1976 was a particularly fertile year, most of the harvest are used for instead of feeding the farming coops exported to Hong Kong and Taiwan in exchange for US dollars. This profits rather than being used to industrialize was used to buy weapons from the PRC for a fucking race war with Vietnam. Economic policies completely based on loans and inward imperialism through slavery of a minority population, sounds familiar?
>>223369 Chomsky being for the is all the evidence you need that it's fucking bad
>>223429 >Pol Pot was NazBol
>>202324 https://espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/cambodian-revisionism/ It shows how Pol Pot wasn't a communist and debunks the lies on KR.
http://vestnikburi.com/pol-pot-krestyanskij-korol/ http://vestnikburi.com/pol-pot-krestyanskij-korol-part-2/ http://vestnikburi.com/pol-pot-krestyanskij-korol-chast-3/ An interesting series of articles about Pol Pot from Russian leftists. Requires google translate if you don't know blyat speak, but it covers the history of the Khmer Rouge at length from a marxist perspective
>>223639 Even worse. He’s a fashprim like the Unabomber.
Besides books by Silber and Vickery mentioned in this thread, here are others online I'd say are worth looking into: * https://archive.org/details/kampucheadecadeofthegenocide * https://archive.org/details/ChinaCambodiaVietnamTriangle * https://b-ok.cc/book/2631900/12869a ("Cambodia, 1975-1978" edited by Karl Jackson, contains a bunch of chapters covering the economy and other subjects) There are tons of books that could also be cited ("Cambodia: Year Zero" by Ponchaud being an account written when the KR was still in power, "The Pol Pot Regime" by Ben Kiernan, biography of Pol Pot by Philip Short, etc.) >>202399 Even if the Khmer Rouge did actually manage to build a communist society (which, of course, is debatable), it would be that which Marx termed "crude communism" and "barracks communism." In other words, a communism built not upon the growth of productive forces, but on the renunciation of worldly goods and living ascetically; a communism based not on the "free development of all" but on an extreme regimentation of just about every aspect of the individual's life. Marx characterized the individual in such a society as one "who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it." In other words, the Khmer Rouge might be "communist" if one's understanding of a communist society comes from Thomas More's "Utopia" and especially Tommaso Campanella's "City of the Sun," but not the scientific communism of Marx and Engels. Coincidentally, I recently got a Soviet booklet in the mail titled "Marxism Versus Crude Communism," which I have now scanned: https://archive.org/details/marxismversuscrudecommunism >>223369 In regard to Chomsky's writings on the Khmer Rouge, there's a good (though liberal) critique here: https://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
>>231568 I would argue the didn’t even reach the point of “barrack communism”. Their economy suffered a major crash in production yields in ‘76 and a complete destruction of any intellectual proletariat made industrialization impossible. That combined with reagional warlordism of The Angkar leadership pretty much made them look like any normal fascist regimes of the mid 20th century of Europe. Also I would contest of the claim of the depiction of society in “Utopia” and “Kingdom of the sun” is only in the understanding of a “perfect society” in the culture of the middle age Europe which were inherently unsustainable and need the inward imperialism to even survive at all. That scan is some great read btw.
>>231584 My take is that Pol Pot was sort of a religious-idealist peasant rebel in the vein of Hong Xiuquan or Thomas Muntzer. Could've been based if he lived a few centuries before his time, but for the 20th century the KR was a solidly reactionary phenomenon - exactly what the Bolsheviks warned against when criticizing the peasantism of Narodniks and SRs.
>>231584 >Also I would contest of the claim of the depiction of society in “Utopia” and “Kingdom of the sun” is only in the understanding of a “perfect society” in the culture of the middle age Europe which were inherently unsustainable and need the inward imperialism to even survive at all. Yeah "Utopia" and "City of the Sun" were something like philosophical exercises, but Marxists have traditionally credited them as being the first works to popularize the idea of a communist society, even though their "communism" was literally utopian and shouldn't be confused with that of Marx and Engels. But yeah I myself don't think it's correct to characterize Cambodia under the KR as any sort of communist society. Just saying, even if one *were* to consider it as such, it clearly isn't the sort of communism Marxists have in mind. You have to go to pre-Marxist thinkers to find any sort of "communism" remotely compatible with KR doctrines and practice.
Can anyone explain why fashprim man abandoned communism in favor of helter-skelter race war shit? In one documentary (Enemies of the People) it's claimed that there never was a clear directive for the ethno-killings, but things just escalated. (Which sound Eichmann tier) Good PDFs btw. Just wish the scans were better
>>238183 That documentary was made by journalists who lived in Kampuchea during the KR’s rule. It’s unfortunately biased due to the full support of the West before and during the Vietnamese occupation combined with their generally favorable views as they only stayed in the cities (which were practically abandoned with only the Angkar living there). Saloth Sâr has always been a traditional khmer supremacist. From his writing and speeches you can clearly see that the guy is not a materialist marxist but more of the utopian communist school of thought, the same bunch that Marx himself claimed were not Marxist. He’s closer to a /pol/tard claiming that genociding other ethnicities will help his “volk” than actual leftists. This infiltration of the Kampuchea communist movement was due to them being fucked over by the 1954 Geneva agreement, therefore not being able to purge out the nationalist elements like the Laos and Viet liberation front did with most committed leftist leaving for DRV. HCM actually initially supported Pot as he was a big proponent of self liberation of each nations on Indochina and not awared of Pot’s paranoid sense of racism.
Pol Pot did nothing wrong – and this should not be that hard to get across to anons if their minds aren’t completely addled by dogmatism and book worship. There are many, many lies surrounding Democratic Kampuchea, just as there are lies surrounding the achievements of all socialist states, but around DK the bourgeoisie have tried their absolute hardest to supress the truth of what happened there. Simply put, there was no genocide and most of the deaths of innocents was actually the fault of the relentless American terror-bombings of the entire country (the real genocide) which killed hundreds of thousands of people. Between 1970-5 alone nearly 1,000,000 people perished from various war related causes, most of them related to America. A “Cambodian Genocide” is not supported by the demographic data either. The numbers saying that 2.5-3 million died at the hands of Pol Pot is bullshit and was used as a legitimization of a decade of illegal Vietnamese occupation. Pol Pot was certainly ruthless and had large numbers of people killed, but we must always think WHO DID HE KILL? . The answer is reactionaries and exploiters of all kinds. After Phnom Penh fell the officials of the anti-communist Lon Nol government were exterminated, as were any former soldiers of that regime. Nothing of value was lost. The religious were also stamped out, especially parasitical monks. Again, nothing of value was lost. Their temples were reutilized for much more utilitarian purposes. Discipline was much stricter when it came to urbanites, as they were soft and often unable to work. The insubordinate were crushed and used as fertilizer in the rice paddies, still serving the revolution even post mortum. These urbanites were exploiters, capitalists, foreigners and other scum of the Earth. They didn’t need outright exterminated (and they weren’t), but harsh treatment was certainly justified. Likewise the Vietnamese were ordered to be expelled from Kampuchea due to their treacherous designs and sporadic fighting between the countries. Some likely died, but again it was justified. Stalin too moved populations. DK was the first country on Earth to establish communism through a revolution. In this revolution 95-97% of the population was resettled in collective farms. Money was abolished along with markets and the artificial distinction between intellectual and manual labor was finally abolished through an integration of the two in collective and fulfilling communistic work. Religion, as mentioned, was uprooted and Kampuchea made great strides towards complete autarky. Most importantly, goods were actually distributed according to need within the collective farms to families. All were provisioned from the cornucopia of the Angkar
>>274307 (((book worship)))
>>274318 Everyone needs to read Mao’s piece of it. 99% of /leftypol/ is full of book-worshipers who never investigate the actual situation. Too much reading truly is harmful.
>>274307 Nice pasta. >>274324 >read Mao on not reading theory bruh See the contradiction there? Also <reading autistic social chauvinist drivel Yeah no.
>>274877 What a dumb post, Mao never said anything along those lines
>>274307 Don't waste your time on those filthy urbinites. They are parasites leeching off countryside, their beloved cities will be their tomb when the day of the harvest comes. The Spectre of Agrarian Communism haunts the urbanite.
>>274877 You’re obviously a brainlet and a book-worshipper if you think Mao advocated for not reading theory. You wish my post was a pasta. >>275071 Glad to see another Agrarian Communist here. I know my words are wasted on them, but spreading the truth to those who aren’t totally lost is necessary sometimes.
>>231594 >You have to go to pre-Marxist thinkers to find any sort of "communism" remotely compatible with KR doctrines and practice. But weren't his greatest influancers the idealist French "communist" philosophers of the mid 20th century?
>>275569 Even if that were the case, I can't see how reading Sartre, Althusser, Garaudy, or any other philosopher associated with the PCF would lead to the sort of economic policies associated with the Khmer Rouge. That Soviet booklet I linked to in an earlier post ("Marxism Versus Crude Communism") gives examples of the erroneous, ultra-egalitarian outlook of many pre-Marxian communists, e.g. >“No one can avoid labour without committing a crime,” proclaimed Babeuf, who demanded capital punishment for evasion of compulsory labour. >The possibilities for professional intellectual activity in their “society of equals” were, as a rule, very limited. Thus, according to Morelly and Babeuf, only a small number of the more endowed young people were to be allowed to specialize in science and the arts under the guidance of a limited and strictly regulated body of tutors. In the name of “complete equality”, Morelly demanded that every intellectual serve a term of agricultural labour. Furthermore he advocated a strict limitation of scientific research. In the “perfect society” of the future only the natural and technical sciences were to be developed (to the extent objectively possible within the narrow limits that were established), while creative activity in the sphere of the social sciences was not permitted. Morelly formulated “laws on scientific pursuits designed to prevent wanderings of the human mind and all transcendent dreams”. >The anti-intellectualist trend found its extreme expression in the calls of Darthe, Debon, Lepelletier, Marechal and other ultra-left Babouvists to destroy sciences and the arts under communism. Invoking the authority of Rousseau, they argued, as he had done, that science and the arts exerted a baneful in fluence an social morality and were incompatible with the principles of equality, and expressed the fear lest people “who have devoted themselves to science should regard actual or supposed knowledge as ground for distinctions, superiority or release from public labour.” Thus, science was counterposed to “public labour.” >The arts, too, “give rise to predilection for over-indulgence and aversion for simplicity of morals”; not everybody understands them, and those who do become conceited and vainglorious, which also “makes for violation of rights of simpler people”. For this reason cultural levelling of society (naturally, at a low level of intellectual development) presents itself as an indisputable social boon. “Let all the arts perish, if necessary; the important thing is that we should preserve genuine equality,” Marechal proclaimed in his Manifesto of Equals. >The nihilistic attitude towards intellectual labour was also evident in Babeuf’s denial of any differences in the process of mental and manual labour. This accorded with the Babouvist general tendency to level all types of activity and write off as nonexistent the economic problem of commensurability of simple and complex labour. “Does not the most uncouth shepherd display, in his work and in upholding liis interests, a mind as refined as that Newton needed to discover the laws of gravitation? Everything depends on the object to which our attention is turned,” Babeuf contended. Of course, the author makes the point that the Babouvists were historically progressive despite the utopian and in some concrete respects even reactionary nature of their communism. But looking at that sort of stuff, and comparing it with scientific socialism/communism (i.e. Marxism), I definitely see more of the former in Pol Pot's policies than the latter.

Delete
Report

no cookies?