Ok, I was making fun of you earlier, but now I’m genuinely interested.
Explain to me why you think Democratic Kampuchea was a Socialist State, and I presume, didn’t actually commit a genocide.
Because as far as I’ve ever been able to tell, pol pot apologia tends to be fairly flimsy, and be coming more from a place of defending China’s position after the Sino-Soviet split, rather than Cambodia itself.
How about the Vietnamese-backed state of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea? Was it Socialist? Why or why not?
There is no strict definition of a “socialist state.” DK was led by a communist party which set out concrete plans for developing a self-sufficient “socialist economy” and a “socialist culture” and was able to follow through on some of those in its short time. There is nothing that makes it “non-socialist” in comparison to other projects.
I presume, didn’t actually commit a genocide
You can presume that based on the fact that the allegation of genocide clearly violates the meaning of the word.
How about the Vietnamese-backed state of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea? Was it Socialist?
The only way I can imagine you don’t defend Pol Pot, as a communist, in any regard is if you don’t actually hold to the notion of taking back communist history from “bourgeois historiography”™ and not automatically accepting prepared narratives. “Historical idealism” in the sense Losurdo talks about in “Hegel, Marx, and the Ontology of Social Being.”
Pol Pot admitted to not being a communist, had an agrarian focus, committed what I would consider to be genocide against Vietnamese and pro-Vietnamese Cambodians, and was pro-US and supported by them. I can’t support that.
Pol Pot did not admit to not being a communist, this is just a lie.
The CPK had an agrarian focus because the reality was that US bombing had destroyed much of the country’s agricultural capacity and there was a threat of mass starvation (and a need of a massive amt of agricultural labor to prevent this); as mentioned, the CPK had (in 1976) laid out a four-year plan which included the development of (light and) heavy industry (which was actually partially carried out with the restoration and expansion of factories) with the goal of building a fully self-sufficient national economy. After the evacuation of the cities, they were repaired and the process began of repopulating them. The assumption that anything was motivated by some ideological reverence for agrarianism is a very clear instance of “historical idealism.”
Pol Pot never ordered the targeting of Vietnamese people for their nationality. There is the problematic characterization of border disputes as outbursts of nationalistic hatred (supported by complete acceptance of the Vietnamese narrative of DK as the sole aggressor) and of all actions of cadres as necessarily being ordered/allowed by central leadership. Not even in the ~mainstream is there a broad consensus that Cambodia committed a genocide against ethnic/national minorities. To add, “pro-Vietnamese Cambodians” wouldn’t even be a protected group against which genocide could be committed. There’s another side to this because the KR never got close to the amt of Cambodians killed by Vietnam in its invasion.
Deng and Mao were both “pro-US” (in opposition to the Soviet Union), to the point of supporting the expansion of US power on the international stage and the formation of united Western bloc, and in the case of Deng, coordinating with the US in support of the Afghan resistance forces against the USSR; I’m sure you would call this a mistake, but the recognition of Mao and Deng as communists and mostly positive remains. If you can point me to support of the US by Pol Pot that goes above and beyond this, then fine, but being pro-US in any regard is clearly not a dealbreaker; Pol Pot (/the CPK) was supported by the US against Vietnam (and Soviet influence in general) as the US had devoted significant support to the USSR (/Stalin) against Germany. And there are contradictions in both of these in terms of the leadup to this; the notion that being supported by the US against another group = ideological betrayal is just “historical idealism” again. I’m not saying you have to support Pol Pot, but it is inconsistent with your stated principles to accept narratives about Pol Pot without any investigation.
Pol Pot admitted to not being a communist. He attacked the urban proletariat and proletarian intellectuals, and the communists that fled Cambodia for North Vietnam left Cambodia largely with nationalists. This nationalism took on a highly reactionary character when targeting communists and Vietnamese, which led to war with Vietnam.
Pol Pot’s agrarian focus wasn’t just due to being underdeveloped, as were China’s and Vietnam’s economies, but also due to a severe distrust of the proletariat. Pol Pot essentially made a dictatorship of the reactionary peasantry against the proletariat, and against socialism.
Further, I find your comment about Deng and Mao with the US to be misplaced. Deng and Mao made mistakes in allying with the US. Pol Pot’s mistakes far exceeded their mistakes. The fact that someone makes a mistake is not inherently an entire judgement of them, but when understood in the context of their entire character and actions it becomes clear that Pol Pot was used as a tool to extend imperialist interests in the region.
It’s not idealist to note the class nature of what happened under Pol Pot.
This is a non-answer, I don’t see how users on Lemmy.ml nor Hexbear.net are hypocrites. This is a vague jab at users on Marxist-friendly instances without the specificity needed to make an actual claim.
Thought this was hexbear for a moment 🤣
Hexbear sucks because they’re hypocrites, not because they’re wrong about the usa
How are Hexbear hypocrites?
Because they don’t support Pol Pot.
Pol Pot apologia is fucking crazy lmaooo
Knows nothing about Democratic Kampuchea award
Ok, I was making fun of you earlier, but now I’m genuinely interested.
Explain to me why you think Democratic Kampuchea was a Socialist State, and I presume, didn’t actually commit a genocide.
Because as far as I’ve ever been able to tell, pol pot apologia tends to be fairly flimsy, and be coming more from a place of defending China’s position after the Sino-Soviet split, rather than Cambodia itself.
How about the Vietnamese-backed state of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea? Was it Socialist? Why or why not?
There is no strict definition of a “socialist state.” DK was led by a communist party which set out concrete plans for developing a self-sufficient “socialist economy” and a “socialist culture” and was able to follow through on some of those in its short time. There is nothing that makes it “non-socialist” in comparison to other projects.
You can presume that based on the fact that the allegation of genocide clearly violates the meaning of the word.
I don’t see why not.
Yea no, I’m not a Pol Pot defender.
The only way I can imagine you don’t defend Pol Pot, as a communist, in any regard is if you don’t actually hold to the notion of taking back communist history from “bourgeois historiography”™ and not automatically accepting prepared narratives. “Historical idealism” in the sense Losurdo talks about in “Hegel, Marx, and the Ontology of Social Being.”
Pol Pot admitted to not being a communist, had an agrarian focus, committed what I would consider to be genocide against Vietnamese and pro-Vietnamese Cambodians, and was pro-US and supported by them. I can’t support that.
Pol Pot did not admit to not being a communist, this is just a lie.
The CPK had an agrarian focus because the reality was that US bombing had destroyed much of the country’s agricultural capacity and there was a threat of mass starvation (and a need of a massive amt of agricultural labor to prevent this); as mentioned, the CPK had (in 1976) laid out a four-year plan which included the development of (light and) heavy industry (which was actually partially carried out with the restoration and expansion of factories) with the goal of building a fully self-sufficient national economy. After the evacuation of the cities, they were repaired and the process began of repopulating them. The assumption that anything was motivated by some ideological reverence for agrarianism is a very clear instance of “historical idealism.”
Pol Pot never ordered the targeting of Vietnamese people for their nationality. There is the problematic characterization of border disputes as outbursts of nationalistic hatred (supported by complete acceptance of the Vietnamese narrative of DK as the sole aggressor) and of all actions of cadres as necessarily being ordered/allowed by central leadership. Not even in the ~mainstream is there a broad consensus that Cambodia committed a genocide against ethnic/national minorities. To add, “pro-Vietnamese Cambodians” wouldn’t even be a protected group against which genocide could be committed. There’s another side to this because the KR never got close to the amt of Cambodians killed by Vietnam in its invasion.
Deng and Mao were both “pro-US” (in opposition to the Soviet Union), to the point of supporting the expansion of US power on the international stage and the formation of united Western bloc, and in the case of Deng, coordinating with the US in support of the Afghan resistance forces against the USSR; I’m sure you would call this a mistake, but the recognition of Mao and Deng as communists and mostly positive remains. If you can point me to support of the US by Pol Pot that goes above and beyond this, then fine, but being pro-US in any regard is clearly not a dealbreaker; Pol Pot (/the CPK) was supported by the US against Vietnam (and Soviet influence in general) as the US had devoted significant support to the USSR (/Stalin) against Germany. And there are contradictions in both of these in terms of the leadup to this; the notion that being supported by the US against another group = ideological betrayal is just “historical idealism” again. I’m not saying you have to support Pol Pot, but it is inconsistent with your stated principles to accept narratives about Pol Pot without any investigation.
Pol Pot admitted to not being a communist. He attacked the urban proletariat and proletarian intellectuals, and the communists that fled Cambodia for North Vietnam left Cambodia largely with nationalists. This nationalism took on a highly reactionary character when targeting communists and Vietnamese, which led to war with Vietnam.
Pol Pot’s agrarian focus wasn’t just due to being underdeveloped, as were China’s and Vietnam’s economies, but also due to a severe distrust of the proletariat. Pol Pot essentially made a dictatorship of the reactionary peasantry against the proletariat, and against socialism.
Further, I find your comment about Deng and Mao with the US to be misplaced. Deng and Mao made mistakes in allying with the US. Pol Pot’s mistakes far exceeded their mistakes. The fact that someone makes a mistake is not inherently an entire judgement of them, but when understood in the context of their entire character and actions it becomes clear that Pol Pot was used as a tool to extend imperialist interests in the region.
It’s not idealist to note the class nature of what happened under Pol Pot.
The same way .ml is.
Lol. So you can’t actually explain
This is a non-answer, I don’t see how users on Lemmy.ml nor Hexbear.net are hypocrites. This is a vague jab at users on Marxist-friendly instances without the specificity needed to make an actual claim.
👌