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.
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?
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
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.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.
That's a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives....
The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.
The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.
For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years.......no.
"Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers" is what I'm hearing.
I don't think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group's political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement......I'm not sure if that's a productive use of political capital.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to question a group's motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
the protests will only become more radical.
I'd hardly say paying some teens to "vandalize" a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them..... That would be radical.
I mean, it wasn't, at least not according to the actual people who ran those governments. The USSR and the CCP were/are revolutionary governments, real communism happens when/if the revolutionary governments succeeds and transitions the means of control back to the proletariat.
and ur grandparents probably deserved it.
Really working hard to build those bridges of mutual respect and cooperation I see. This is one of the key reasons the USSR imploded in the first place.
The expansion of Soviet influence happened under the influence of Russian chauvinism, a major contradiction with the more successful maoist ideology today. Instead of allowing communism to be shaped by individual ethnicities or nations they did their best to russify or simply purge the base of power in the country, bolshevists or not.
Stalin and Beria did a whole bunch of purging of leftist to secure their control over the party. If you actually think everyone the Soviets killed deserved it, please go read about the Makhnovist, the Mensheviks, the Georgian bolshevist, hell go read what the Soviets did to the original leftist leader in North Korea.
difference is under capitalism it is constant under socialism it is rare.
Unfortunately that's just not true. Revolutions are highly hierarchical due to their inherent need to react to militant reactionaries. As they begin to solidify their revolution and take over the responsibilities of the state, this hierarchy gets transferred from the the state.
Authoritarian governments are highly efficient, but are extremely hard to get away from once established. Often times the militant leader of the revolution is not the guy you want to be in complete control of the state after establishing a revolutionary government.
Mao was decent enough to accept this after the failure of the cultural revolution, Stalin on the other hand......
saying that lower stage communism as marx called it or socialism as we call it today wasnt real communism is meaningless, and at best petty.
The problem is that the Soviet Union couldn't even be correctly defined in Marxist terms to be socialist. Socialism according to Marx was a lower form of communism, one described as a transition from democratic capitalism to communism. The Soviets did not transition from a democratic state to communism, there were no valid democratic election from 38'-89'.
what was said when they said it wasnt real communism was that it wasnt led by communist and that it did not adhere to communist ideals and goals which it did.
I mean I still think there's room for debate depending on who you're talking about. I tend to think that the most simple definitional test whether or not you are adhering to communist ideology is to examine how the means of production is being managed.
Has the state expanded the means of control over the production to the workers in an equitable manor? Is the equity created by the workers being shared to the entire population of workers? By what means do workers negotiate their control over the means of production?
My arguments against Soviet communism is that workers had no meaningful control over the means of production. Groups of workers had no real access to influence the government such as voting as Marx described. The equity created by the workers was not shared equitably throughout the Union, with non ethnic Russians generally acting as a resource to be extracted from.
u would have to be some kind of alien lizard to not understand the context here which is why i know u are arguing in bad faith.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that when Marx was dreaming of a communist nation, he was not thinking it was going to start in Russia. It was an absolute shock when the 1rst country to commit to communism was autocratic Russia instead of Democratic Germany. Meaning a lot of Marxist writing isn't really applicable to the Soviet State, Marx didn't think about revolution occuring in a authoritarian state.
also some idiot lib going around saying that the gdr wasnt real communism because their ancestors had a bad experience with that system (or more likely they were landlords or capitalist and go what they deserved)
Or, they were one of the tens of thousands of leftist that were purged by Beria or Stalin. Pretending that the Soviets only killed landlords is not only academically dishonest, it's harmful to future leftist endeavors. Self criticism is essential to eliminating internal contradictions from arising within the state.
Unfortunately, not really for the majority of tribes. What we so know is that by the time Europeans had made real efforts to expand westward in North America, The Great Dying had already killed 75-90% of the native population.
Basically, North America had already endured around 200 years of civilization and population collapse starting in 1450. So even what the tribes know about themselves has to be viewed in the perspective of a people who had just lost 90% of their population in a few generations.
People forget that from the time Christopher Columbus arrived to when Europeans began expanding past the Appalachia is a span of 300 years. That's longer than we've been in a country.
American expansion would not have been possible without hundreds of years of what is basically a Continent wide apocalypse. Culture just doesn't survive that level of sustained trauma unchanged.
crawl, walk, run, fly Englisch
Nuclear isn't perfect, but it is the best we have right now. ( lemmy.world ) Englisch
Stonehenge sprayed with paint by environmental protesters ( www.dw.com ) Englisch
Know the difference. ( lemmy.ml )
History ( lemmy.ml )