cars posted:i should continue with the book i was writing about here but i felt i had nothing to add to it except bad jokes..
Do it dude, even just a small review. I feel like my massive blockquotes are disuading people from posting whatever petty shit they like in here.
http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13849/
on the other hand, i've sometimes avoided putting a {sic} down if the phrasing is awkward or it appears there may have been a mis-translation or something. for example this sentence is probably the most confusing so far:
"On the afternoon of September 23, the Saigon people staged a general strike and opposed total non-cooperation to the French."
here it appears giap means that the Saigon people staged a general strike and supported total non-cooperation towards the French. luckily the larger context of the paragraph makes it very clear what's happening:
"On the afternoon of September 23, the Saigon people staged a general strike and opposed total non-cooperation to the French. All offices, business firms and factories were closed. Markets were deserted. Traffic in the streets came to a standstill. Barricades went up everywhere."
so i didnt even bother putting a {sic} in. i think the reader can work things out for themselves here and I don't want to get into the murky territory of editing sentences to correct what i think giap meant.
Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()
https://libcom.org/files/IN%20THE%20CROSSFIRE.pdf
Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()
Having a baby from a husband is banal, to have no husband and yet produce a baby, now that is really clever
He talks a bit about the pre-colonial education structure in vietnam and how it was one of the most advanced in the world with one of the highest literacy rates and that the french literally imported illiteracy when they colonialised, i guess that's not really supprising but its interesting to read about the elaborate university structure of vietnam that existed since the year 1000ad
Also he mentions the women led resistence to chinese occupation by Lady Trieu and the Trung sisters, both of which led successful liberation struggles against chinese occupation thousands of years ago. Lady Trieu raised a peasant army and drove the chinese occupation out of the whole of vietnam at the age of 22, so pretty cool
she is reported to have said "I'd like to ride storms, kill sharks in the open sea, drive out the aggressors, reconquer the country, undo the ties of serfdom, and never bend my back to be the concubine of whatever man." which is also pretty cool
You state that if France has sinned in colonial matters it is rather from an excess of generous sentiment than anything else. Will you tell us, M. Archimbaud, whether it is out of these generous sentiments that the natives are deprived of all rights to write, speak and travel, etc? Is it out of these same sentiments that the ignoble condition of 'native' is imposed on them, that they are robbed of their land only to see it given to the conquerors, and forced thereafter to work as slaves? You yourselves have said that the Tahitian race has been decimated by alcoholism and is disappearing. Is it also from an excess of generosity that you are doing all you can to intoxicate the Annamese with your alcohol and stupefy them with your opium?
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1923/01/15.htm
e: its really the enforced buying that made me go oooo, because they used this forced pruchase as a means of ensuring a stable and predictable profit
I was looking at how the opium production of afganistan had increesed so much since the US invasion and people are all like "isn't this all a tragedy of mistaken intentions, we really didn't try hard enough, whoops" and I just think back to all the historical examples of imperialist countries controlling the drug trade
Edited by tears ()
from "The Struggle For Indochina" by Ellen Joy Hammer, pages 68-69
Edited by Chthonic_Goat_666 ()
tears posted:Im reading Wilfred Burchett's Catapult to Freedom. He was an aussie communist journalist in SE asia, who wrote a lot about vietnam, meeting with Ho Chi Minh, Giap, etc during the war
here's an excerpt of an interview with Uncle Ho/Burchett i have from "Against U.S. Aggression For National Salvation"
INTERVIEW GRANTED TO WILFRED BURCHETT, CORRESPONDENT OF THE AMERICAN NATIONAL GUARDIAN AND THE ALGERIAN REVOLUTION AFRICAINE
August 13, 1964
(Excerpt)
Question: What is the present situation in South Vietnam as you see it?
Answer: A savage war is being waged against our compatriots in South Vietnam by the Diem regime and U.S. interventionists. An army many hundreds of thousands strong has been turned loose against the South Vietnamese people. Over 12,000 U.S. officers and men are taking part in this war, hundreds of U.S. planes and helicopters with U.S. pilots at the control are daily bombing and burning peaceful villages, destroying food crops and orchards with noxious chemicals sprayed from the air. Overall command of this war against the people is in the hands of a U.S. General Staff in Saigon. Operational plans are drawn up by U.S. generals, combat operations are directed by U.S. officers. U.S. officers and troops take an active part in these operations. The camouflage that they are there as "advisers" deceives no one. It is American pilots who choose the targets and release the bombs and rockets, American soldiers who aim the artillery pieces and fire the guns and who often at gun-point force Diemist troops to massacre their compatriots.
The U.S. directed military-political aims at present are to herd the entire population in the countryside of South Vietnam into concentration camps - fortified villages surrounded with barbed wire entanglements and moats - from which the peasants may leave only in daylight hours under the guns of the U.S.-Diemist troops. The main military operations are designed to sweep the peasants up into the so-called "strategic hamlets", the concentration camp villages. The people of South Vietnam resist this, they refuse to live like slaves. With primitive arms made by themselves and those they can capture from their oppressors they fight back. In order to increase the pressure on them, U.S. planes have of late greatly stepped up their barbaric campaign of destroying rice and other food crops by air-sprayed chemicals and thus starve the peasants into submission.
The people have been forced to take up armed resistance. Representatives from all sections of the populace have rallied in a National Force for Liberation which now coordinates and directs the resistance activities. Most of the countryside has now been liberated from the U.S.-Diemist puppet regime and is administered by elected Committees of the National Front for Liberation. U.S.-Diemist control is now essentially limited to the towns and some of the strategic highways.
Question: What are the principal reasons for the present situation in South Vietnam?
Answer: The reason for the resent situation is clear to anyone who examines the facts objectively. The Diem regime is an artificial creation of the U.S. Government. It has no popular support for the South Vietnamese people and never has had. It is a feudal, despotic family regime in which all political power and the economic resources of the country rest in the hands of the Ngo family. It exists only because it is propped up by U.S. guns and dollars.
Under the 1954 Geneva Agreements, democratic rights were guaranteed to the people of South Vietnam, there were to be no reprisals against patriots who had fought to liberate the country from French colonialism; there were to be general, democratic elections within two years to bring about the peaceful unification of the country. These provision of the Geneva Agreements, and many more, have been crudely trampled on by the Diem regime at the direct instigation and with the financial, political and military support of the U.S. Government. From 1955 onwards a campaign of extermination was directed against all those patriots who had taken part in the Resistance War. Our compatriots at first tried to defend themselves peacefully by demanding their legal rights as guaranteed by the Geneva Agreements. The International Commission for Supervision and Control verified by on-the-spot investigations wholesale massacres and the bestial torture of thousands of innocents whose only "crime" was to have aided with the Resistance War against the French colonialists. But the I.C. proved powerless to halt the massacres, as it proved powerless to ensure the provisions for the general elections to reunify the country, intended for 1956.
It was only after tens of thousands had been massacres in cold blood and hundreds of thousands more herded into the slow death of Diemist prisons and concentration camps, that our compatriots in the South saw there was no other way but to fight back to defend their own lives and those of their families. Their cruel choice was to take to arms or be exterminated in cold blood.
Direct U.S. military intervention since the end of 1961 has greatly added to the sufferings of our people south of the 17th Parallel. It has also fortified their resolve to fight if necessary a long-term war of resistance to throw out the U.S. interventionists and end the feudal-fascist regime of Ngo Dinh Diem.
wish there was more than just the excerpt 
Chthonic_Goat_666 posted:*bump* anyone watching the Ken Burns vietnam thing?
i watched that and it's cold war mythology but from a liberal perspective ("mistakes were made but it was a complicated civil war so u can't say the US was the bad guy/foreign occupier") as to be expected. i plan on watching the rest of it for the archival footage
toutvabien posted:
This is perverse
the only thing i could find was this:
Who Is and Was Really Responsible for Genocide in Cambodia?
Pol Pot Was Not and Is Not A Communist
(originally published in Challenge-Desafio, PL Magazine Supplement, February 19, 1986)
Apologists for capitalism are always inventing lies to "prove" how terrible communism is. In recent years one of their favorite tales concerns the mass killings in Cambodia by the supposedly "communist" Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot. Lots of articles, a couple of books and at least one major movie, "The Killing Fields," have focused on the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Pol Pot has almost replaced Joseph Stalin as number one on the capitalists' all-time hate list.
But there's a big difference. Comrade Stalin was a great communist. Pol Pot, however, never was one. Some recent books, written by Western experts on Cambodia and using evidence obtained after the fall of Pol Pot, show this clearly. These books must be used with care; the authors are either pro-Vietnamese revisionists (Vickery, Chandler, Thion) or liberal imperialists (Shawcross). It's the facts they have uncovered that are valuable, not their own opinions and analyses of these facts, which are ruined by their anti-Communist values.
"Khmer Rouge" (KR), or "Red Khmers" (Khmer is the major ethnic group of Cambodia) was the name given to the peasant rebels under the leadership of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (native name of Cambodia), or CPK. In order to see how the CPK turned into a bunch of anti-Communist murderers, a little history is essential.
History of the Cambodian Left
In 1951 the old Indochina Communist Party (ICP), dominated by Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese, split into Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian groups. Like the world-wide communist movement as a whole by that time, these groups were rotten with nationalism and eager to compromise with "progressive" (anti-colonialist) capitalists.
In the mid-50s, the old ICPers were joined by a number of militant nationalist students returning from France, including the future KR rulers Pol Pot (real name: Saloth Sar), Ieng Sary, and Khieu Samphan. A party, the CPK, was formed by these two groups in 1960, but its existence was kept secret until 1977, long after it seized power. Apparently this was an unprincipled concession to the anti-communism of the nationalist ex-students. When anti-communism is not fought it grows, as we shall see.
Repression by the monarchist government under Prince Sihanouk soon forced the party underground. Most of the communists of the former ICP abandoned the struggle, returning to North Vietnam. Only the nationalist Pol Pot group remained.
When a peasant revolt began in 1967 in the Samlaut region near the border with Thailand, the Pol Pot group joined it. Never communists in anything but name, they assumed a line they thought they could easily win some peasants to - that the cities (home of the absentee landlords and exploitative state which taxed the peasants) and everyone in them were the enemy, including professionals, teachers and workers.
Romantic attachments to the peasantry as a class have long been characteristic of bourgeois radicals. In Russia, Lenin's earliest polemic (1895) was directed against the Narodniki, or "Friends of the People." The petty-bourgeois Narodniki too preached a peasant communalism in words, but practiced bloody terrorism. Vickery finds another close similarity between the KR and the 'Antonov' and Tambov peasant rebels in Western Russia during the Civil War, who fought communists and monarchists with equal vigor and with hair-raising atrocities.
To this peasant dislike of the cities Pol Pot's faction added a fierce hatred, amounting to racism, for anything Vietnamese. Hatred of Vietnam is a nationalist view developed by the Cambodian elite, who remembered the conflicts in past centuries between Vietnamese and Cambodian kings, and how the Vietnamese rulers had driven the Cambodians out of what is now the Mekong delta region of Vietnam.
In 1970 the military under Lon Nol, backed by the United States, overthrew Sihanouk. U.S. rulers began huge bomb strikes against North Vietnamese troops and supply lines in Northeast Cambodia. The bombing killed many thousands of peasants and virtually destroyed village life.
As hatred of the U.S. and the Lon Nol government grew, peasants flooded to join the KR army. But on returning from North Vietnam to join the movement, the old ICPers found themselves under suspicion, sometimes even killed by the Pol Pot group. Thus the CPK, which took power in April, 1975, was a tense alliance of two distinct groups. The pro-Vietnamese ICPers and the Pol Pot faction had distinct areas of influence, the former being more influential in the East (near Vietnam). Their soldiers even wore different uniforms.
The Mass Killings Begin
Although anti-Communist hacks portray the evacuation of the cities in April 1975 as an atrocity, even capitalist scholars tacitly admit it was necessary (e.g. Zasloff and Brown, in Problems of Communism, Jan.-Feb. 1979, p. 34 -- a journal published by the U.S. State Department and devoted to anti-Communist propaganda with a "scholarly" slant). For example, the capital, Phnom Penh, had grown to 2 million from about 600,000 from peasants fleeing the U.S. bombings. As in South Vietnam, the U.S. had completely destroyed the peasant economy in order to wipe out the village society in which the KR flourished. Phnom Penh was provisioned only by massive imports of U.S. food, which stopped abruptly when Lon Nol fell. If the city population hadn't been evacuated, they'd have simply starved to death!
Between 1975 and early 1977 neither group within the CPK really dominated. Anti-Communist "experts" like John Barron and Anthony Paul (authors of Murder of a Gentle Land - this pair are full-time anti-Communist propagandists for the Reader's Digest) and Francois Ponchaud (Cambodia Year Zero) give the impression that massacres took place throughout the whole 1975-79 period. From surviving records and from hundreds of interviews of refugees and of those who remained in the country, Michael Vickery reveals a different pattern. Though there were occasional instances of brutality against former city-dwellers in areas held by Pol Pot supporters, mass executions didn't begin until 1977, when the Pol Pot group consolidated its power.
A blood purge of all those suspected of being pro-Vietnamese or insufficiently "pro-peasant" began. In 1978 the remaining pro-Vietnamese forces in the CPK led a revolt, which was brutally crushed. The Pol Pot government then slaughtered anyone who had supported this group, plus the many ethnic Vietnamese in Eastern Cambodia. This led to the Vietnamese invasion of 1979. The KR had no support except its army, and the Vietnamese easily set up a puppet regime of the defeated ICP faction, which rules Kampuchea today.
U.S. Rulers Murdered More Cambodians than did Khmer Rouge
How many people were killed during these mass murders? The U.S. media, following Dith Pran of The New York Times (on whom the movie "The Killing Fields" was based), claim about three million. When talking about "communists," no figure under the million mark will satisfy capitalist writers. Vickery shows that 300,000 -- still an appalling figure -- is about the upper possible limit. In contrast, Zasloff and Brown write of the "heavy toll in lives" which "the enormous U.S. bombing and the intensity of the fighting" caused before 1975, and imply that the KR claims of 600,000 to "more than 1 million" dead from US bombing are credible . When it comes to genocide, Pol Pot & Co. were amateurs compared to the U.S. imperialists.
The Anti-Communism of the Pol Pot Regime
Whatever the number, though, these killings were not the work of "communists" of any kind, even of Soviet or Chinese-style revisionists but of anti-Communists.
Not every group which calls itself "communist" is so. For example, the Vietnamese, Soviet, Chinese and other relics of the old communist movement are capitalists in a thin disguise. They give only lip service to Marxism-Leninism, the working class, proletarian internationalism, and the need to build a classless society.
In contrast, Pol Pot, the KR, and the CPK openly rejected the idea of communism itself! A few quotations from Vickery and Chandler illustrate this:
On communism: "We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." (Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by Vickery, p. 288).
On Marxism-Leninism: "The first public admission that the 'revolutionary organization' was Marxist-Leninist in its orientation came in the memorial services for Mao Zedong held in Phnom Penh on 18 Sept., 1976" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 55, note 28).:
"They claim that the CPK is a Marxist-Leninist Party, but say nothing about the writings of these two men." (Chandler, p. 45)
On the need for a revolutionary party: "The most striking feature of the idea of revolution entertained by the Khmer Communists... was that it was unexpressed. In the 1960s, opposition to government policies and calls for an anti-imperialist stand, made up the platform of the left wing ... In fact, revolution and the existence of a revolutionary party were not only played down in propaganda, they were completely hidden truths, revealed only to the enlightened few who could achieve senior positions in the apparatus . (Thion, in Chandler ed., p. 16, emphasis added).
It was not until September 27, 1977 that the existence of a "communist party" was even publicly revealed, in a Pol Pot speech (Chandler, p. 37).
On the working class: "Though tiny, it existed, scattered in the towns. But instead of cultivating it, the Khmer Communists proceeded to liquidate it as if it were a decadent legacy of the past...(Thion, p. 27-8).
From all this we can conclude the following:
Pol Pot & Co. were not communists. In this sense they are no different from the Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Ronald Reagan, or any capitalist.
Unlike the Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese and other revisionist, phony communists, Pol Pot & Co. boasted that they were not communists.
The influence of a pro-Vietnamese faction meant that some Marxist terminology was used, at least up to 1977. After that time the KR abandoned any talk of communism.
The Pol Pot group also sometimes described themselves as communists between 1975 and 1977 in an attempt to get help from China. For example:
...Pol Pot's tribute to the crucial role played by Mao Zedong's thought in the Cambodian revolution, contained in a speech in Beijing on 29 September 1977, was not re-broadcast over Phnom Penh radio" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 45).
Mao and the Chinese Communist party had won millions of peasants to a communist, pro-working class line, whereas the Pol Pot group had tried to win the peasantry to an anti-working class, anarchist line. What China -- and, equally important, the U.S. -- like about Pol Pot & Co. is their genuine hostility to Vietnam, not their phony praises to Mao.
Khmer Rouge Anti-Communists Propped Up By U.S. Today
In order to weaken pro-Soviet Vietnam, the U.S. ruling class now supports a coalition of Cambodian rebel forces, of which Pol Pot's KR are by far the strongest element. It is only a mild embarrassment to the U.S. bosses that the group they are now keeping afloat is the very one they point to as guilty of "communist" genocide! In turn, the KR call for "democratic elections" and a reformed capitalism.
For the world's workers, the lessons of the Pol Pot experience are clear:
There is no substitute for communism in the fight against imperialism and capitalism. The KR tried to build a "new kind" of revolution based upon petit-bourgeois radicalism. Instead, they plunged Kampuchea into a nightmare.
You can't believe anything the U.S. media or ruling class say about communism! The capitalists care nothing for the hundreds of thousands who were murdered. If they did, why do they continue to support Pol Pot?
In December 1981, The New York Times Magazine published a story in which the author said he'd visited KR "freedom fighters" leading the war of independence against the Vietnamese occupiers. Jones, the author of the story, claimed to have seen Pol Pot directing the struggle, an heroic figure silhouetted against the sky.
The Times' editors thought it was so good they printed it without the checking-up they usually give an article from an unknown writer. It turned out that Jones had made it all up while sitting on a beach in Spain! The Times was so eager to believe a story that made the KR and Pol Pot -- whom they were already calling a genocidal mass murderer -- into an anti-Communist hero that they rushed it into print! Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the willingness of the liberal ruling class to clasp to its bosom any fascist murderer who can help out in the fight against communism.
Bibliography
David P. Chandler and Ben Kiernan, editors, Revolution and Its Aftermath in Kampuchea: Eight Essays, New Haven, CT: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies Monograph No. 25, 1983.
Michael Vickery, Cambodia: 1975-1982. Boston: South End Press, 1984.
https://espressostalinist.com/2011/10/27/pol-pot-was-not-and-is-not-a-communist/
this line was pretty savage:
Not every group which calls itself "communist" is so. For example, the Vietnamese, Soviet, Chinese and other relics of the old communist movement are capitalists in a thin disguise.
These books must be used with care; the authors are either pro-Vietnamese revisionists
In 1951 the old Indochina Communist Party (ICP), dominated by Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese, split into Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian groups. Like the world-wide communist movement as a whole by that time, these groups were rotten with nationalism and eager to compromise with "progressive" (anti-colonialist) capitalists.
i don't think i'd trust people who write things like this. i also wonder if there were any real "mass killings" under the CPK or if it was just famine aggravated by the genocidal policy of the US military in south-east asia and the need to mass-relocate people to restore agricultural productivity.
Synergy posted:in relation to Vietnam i've been attempting to dive into Pol Pot/Cambodia history, are there any good articles on this?
the only thing i could find was this:
Who Is and Was Really Responsible for Genocide in Cambodia?
Pol Pot Was Not and Is Not A Communist
(originally published in Challenge-Desafio, PL Magazine Supplement, February 19, 1986)
Apologists for capitalism are always inventing lies to "prove" how terrible communism is. In recent years one of their favorite tales concerns the mass killings in Cambodia by the supposedly "communist" Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot. Lots of articles, a couple of books and at least one major movie, "The Killing Fields," have focused on the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Pol Pot has almost replaced Joseph Stalin as number one on the capitalists' all-time hate list.
But there's a big difference. Comrade Stalin was a great communist. Pol Pot, however, never was one. Some recent books, written by Western experts on Cambodia and using evidence obtained after the fall of Pol Pot, show this clearly. These books must be used with care; the authors are either pro-Vietnamese revisionists (Vickery, Chandler, Thion) or liberal imperialists (Shawcross). It's the facts they have uncovered that are valuable, not their own opinions and analyses of these facts, which are ruined by their anti-Communist values.
"Khmer Rouge" (KR), or "Red Khmers" (Khmer is the major ethnic group of Cambodia) was the name given to the peasant rebels under the leadership of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (native name of Cambodia), or CPK. In order to see how the CPK turned into a bunch of anti-Communist murderers, a little history is essential.
History of the Cambodian Left
In 1951 the old Indochina Communist Party (ICP), dominated by Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese, split into Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian groups. Like the world-wide communist movement as a whole by that time, these groups were rotten with nationalism and eager to compromise with "progressive" (anti-colonialist) capitalists.
In the mid-50s, the old ICPers were joined by a number of militant nationalist students returning from France, including the future KR rulers Pol Pot (real name: Saloth Sar), Ieng Sary, and Khieu Samphan. A party, the CPK, was formed by these two groups in 1960, but its existence was kept secret until 1977, long after it seized power. Apparently this was an unprincipled concession to the anti-communism of the nationalist ex-students. When anti-communism is not fought it grows, as we shall see.
Repression by the monarchist government under Prince Sihanouk soon forced the party underground. Most of the communists of the former ICP abandoned the struggle, returning to North Vietnam. Only the nationalist Pol Pot group remained.
When a peasant revolt began in 1967 in the Samlaut region near the border with Thailand, the Pol Pot group joined it. Never communists in anything but name, they assumed a line they thought they could easily win some peasants to - that the cities (home of the absentee landlords and exploitative state which taxed the peasants) and everyone in them were the enemy, including professionals, teachers and workers.
Romantic attachments to the peasantry as a class have long been characteristic of bourgeois radicals. In Russia, Lenin's earliest polemic (1895) was directed against the Narodniki, or "Friends of the People." The petty-bourgeois Narodniki too preached a peasant communalism in words, but practiced bloody terrorism. Vickery finds another close similarity between the KR and the 'Antonov' and Tambov peasant rebels in Western Russia during the Civil War, who fought communists and monarchists with equal vigor and with hair-raising atrocities.
To this peasant dislike of the cities Pol Pot's faction added a fierce hatred, amounting to racism, for anything Vietnamese. Hatred of Vietnam is a nationalist view developed by the Cambodian elite, who remembered the conflicts in past centuries between Vietnamese and Cambodian kings, and how the Vietnamese rulers had driven the Cambodians out of what is now the Mekong delta region of Vietnam.
In 1970 the military under Lon Nol, backed by the United States, overthrew Sihanouk. U.S. rulers began huge bomb strikes against North Vietnamese troops and supply lines in Northeast Cambodia. The bombing killed many thousands of peasants and virtually destroyed village life.
As hatred of the U.S. and the Lon Nol government grew, peasants flooded to join the KR army. But on returning from North Vietnam to join the movement, the old ICPers found themselves under suspicion, sometimes even killed by the Pol Pot group. Thus the CPK, which took power in April, 1975, was a tense alliance of two distinct groups. The pro-Vietnamese ICPers and the Pol Pot faction had distinct areas of influence, the former being more influential in the East (near Vietnam). Their soldiers even wore different uniforms.
The Mass Killings Begin
Although anti-Communist hacks portray the evacuation of the cities in April 1975 as an atrocity, even capitalist scholars tacitly admit it was necessary (e.g. Zasloff and Brown, in Problems of Communism, Jan.-Feb. 1979, p. 34 -- a journal published by the U.S. State Department and devoted to anti-Communist propaganda with a "scholarly" slant). For example, the capital, Phnom Penh, had grown to 2 million from about 600,000 from peasants fleeing the U.S. bombings. As in South Vietnam, the U.S. had completely destroyed the peasant economy in order to wipe out the village society in which the KR flourished. Phnom Penh was provisioned only by massive imports of U.S. food, which stopped abruptly when Lon Nol fell. If the city population hadn't been evacuated, they'd have simply starved to death!
Between 1975 and early 1977 neither group within the CPK really dominated. Anti-Communist "experts" like John Barron and Anthony Paul (authors of Murder of a Gentle Land - this pair are full-time anti-Communist propagandists for the Reader's Digest) and Francois Ponchaud (Cambodia Year Zero) give the impression that massacres took place throughout the whole 1975-79 period. From surviving records and from hundreds of interviews of refugees and of those who remained in the country, Michael Vickery reveals a different pattern. Though there were occasional instances of brutality against former city-dwellers in areas held by Pol Pot supporters, mass executions didn't begin until 1977, when the Pol Pot group consolidated its power.
A blood purge of all those suspected of being pro-Vietnamese or insufficiently "pro-peasant" began. In 1978 the remaining pro-Vietnamese forces in the CPK led a revolt, which was brutally crushed. The Pol Pot government then slaughtered anyone who had supported this group, plus the many ethnic Vietnamese in Eastern Cambodia. This led to the Vietnamese invasion of 1979. The KR had no support except its army, and the Vietnamese easily set up a puppet regime of the defeated ICP faction, which rules Kampuchea today.
U.S. Rulers Murdered More Cambodians than did Khmer Rouge
How many people were killed during these mass murders? The U.S. media, following Dith Pran of The New York Times (on whom the movie "The Killing Fields" was based), claim about three million. When talking about "communists," no figure under the million mark will satisfy capitalist writers. Vickery shows that 300,000 -- still an appalling figure -- is about the upper possible limit. In contrast, Zasloff and Brown write of the "heavy toll in lives" which "the enormous U.S. bombing and the intensity of the fighting" caused before 1975, and imply that the KR claims of 600,000 to "more than 1 million" dead from US bombing are credible . When it comes to genocide, Pol Pot & Co. were amateurs compared to the U.S. imperialists.
The Anti-Communism of the Pol Pot Regime
Whatever the number, though, these killings were not the work of "communists" of any kind, even of Soviet or Chinese-style revisionists but of anti-Communists.
Not every group which calls itself "communist" is so. For example, the Vietnamese, Soviet, Chinese and other relics of the old communist movement are capitalists in a thin disguise. They give only lip service to Marxism-Leninism, the working class, proletarian internationalism, and the need to build a classless society.
In contrast, Pol Pot, the KR, and the CPK openly rejected the idea of communism itself! A few quotations from Vickery and Chandler illustrate this:
On communism: "We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." (Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by Vickery, p. 288).
On Marxism-Leninism: "The first public admission that the 'revolutionary organization' was Marxist-Leninist in its orientation came in the memorial services for Mao Zedong held in Phnom Penh on 18 Sept., 1976" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 55, note 28).:
"They claim that the CPK is a Marxist-Leninist Party, but say nothing about the writings of these two men." (Chandler, p. 45)
On the need for a revolutionary party: "The most striking feature of the idea of revolution entertained by the Khmer Communists... was that it was unexpressed. In the 1960s, opposition to government policies and calls for an anti-imperialist stand, made up the platform of the left wing ... In fact, revolution and the existence of a revolutionary party were not only played down in propaganda, they were completely hidden truths, revealed only to the enlightened few who could achieve senior positions in the apparatus . (Thion, in Chandler ed., p. 16, emphasis added).
It was not until September 27, 1977 that the existence of a "communist party" was even publicly revealed, in a Pol Pot speech (Chandler, p. 37).
On the working class: "Though tiny, it existed, scattered in the towns. But instead of cultivating it, the Khmer Communists proceeded to liquidate it as if it were a decadent legacy of the past...(Thion, p. 27-8).
From all this we can conclude the following:
Pol Pot & Co. were not communists. In this sense they are no different from the Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese, or Ronald Reagan, or any capitalist.
Unlike the Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese and other revisionist, phony communists, Pol Pot & Co. boasted that they were not communists.
The influence of a pro-Vietnamese faction meant that some Marxist terminology was used, at least up to 1977. After that time the KR abandoned any talk of communism.
The Pol Pot group also sometimes described themselves as communists between 1975 and 1977 in an attempt to get help from China. For example:
...Pol Pot's tribute to the crucial role played by Mao Zedong's thought in the Cambodian revolution, contained in a speech in Beijing on 29 September 1977, was not re-broadcast over Phnom Penh radio" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 45).
Mao and the Chinese Communist party had won millions of peasants to a communist, pro-working class line, whereas the Pol Pot group had tried to win the peasantry to an anti-working class, anarchist line. What China -- and, equally important, the U.S. -- like about Pol Pot & Co. is their genuine hostility to Vietnam, not their phony praises to Mao.
Khmer Rouge Anti-Communists Propped Up By U.S. Today
In order to weaken pro-Soviet Vietnam, the U.S. ruling class now supports a coalition of Cambodian rebel forces, of which Pol Pot's KR are by far the strongest element. It is only a mild embarrassment to the U.S. bosses that the group they are now keeping afloat is the very one they point to as guilty of "communist" genocide! In turn, the KR call for "democratic elections" and a reformed capitalism.
For the world's workers, the lessons of the Pol Pot experience are clear:
There is no substitute for communism in the fight against imperialism and capitalism. The KR tried to build a "new kind" of revolution based upon petit-bourgeois radicalism. Instead, they plunged Kampuchea into a nightmare.
You can't believe anything the U.S. media or ruling class say about communism! The capitalists care nothing for the hundreds of thousands who were murdered. If they did, why do they continue to support Pol Pot?
In December 1981, The New York Times Magazine published a story in which the author said he'd visited KR "freedom fighters" leading the war of independence against the Vietnamese occupiers. Jones, the author of the story, claimed to have seen Pol Pot directing the struggle, an heroic figure silhouetted against the sky.
The Times' editors thought it was so good they printed it without the checking-up they usually give an article from an unknown writer. It turned out that Jones had made it all up while sitting on a beach in Spain! The Times was so eager to believe a story that made the KR and Pol Pot -- whom they were already calling a genocidal mass murderer -- into an anti-Communist hero that they rushed it into print! Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the willingness of the liberal ruling class to clasp to its bosom any fascist murderer who can help out in the fight against communism.
Bibliography
David P. Chandler and Ben Kiernan, editors, Revolution and Its Aftermath in Kampuchea: Eight Essays, New Haven, CT: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies Monograph No. 25, 1983.
Michael Vickery, Cambodia: 1975-1982. Boston: South End Press, 1984.
https://espressostalinist.com/2011/10/27/pol-pot-was-not-and-is-not-a-communist/
this line was pretty savage:
Not every group which calls itself "communist" is so. For example, the Vietnamese, Soviet, Chinese and other relics of the old communist movement are capitalists in a thin disguise.
i've taken a bit of an interest in pol pot and DK and have read a bit about it. this guy isn't totally wrong but hes saying some weird stuff here. the characteristsations he makes of some of these writers are odd. vickery, from what i've read, isn't really 'pro vietnamese' so much as anti imperialist. he wrote quite a bit of stuff about the demonisation of the PRK as being a vietnamese puppet state(which it probably wasn't, there were cambodians in charge of most of it from quite an early stage), as well as attempts by US friendly media to smear it as 'worse' than DK, or downplay the things that did happen under DK. he doesn't really parrot the vietnamese line though - he rejects the idea that the pol pot group were 'fascists', which was the vietnamese and PRK line, and he also notes in his book that in many places in the countryside under the PRK there seems to have been a partial reversion to capitalism, which i don't think the prk would have wanted to admit. chandler from what i've read isn't pro vietnamese at all, vickery in particular criticised much of his later work as having an anti vietnamese bias, basically following the cia line at times. my understanding also is that he regards DK as being communist like the soviet union or mao's china, but even more extreme, so he's basically just a standard anticommunist.
c_man posted:its valuable to distinguish pol pot from liberatory communist movements like the parties in china, vietnam, ussr but thats a really bad way of doing it. a better way might involve an analysis of the US support for the khmer rouge, orientation towards the development of productive forces, and relation to other nations under assault by imperialism.
vickery does analyse the development of productive forces in chapter 5 of his book(kind of odd that guy doesn't mention that part at all), and he also compares DK with other countries and movements, socialist or otherwise. he basically concludes that this wasn't a marxist revolution at all - he compares it to utopian peasant movements like some of the early spanish anarchists or the peasant movements in russia during the civil war. all of vickery's publications including the book referenced are online over here. he does have a second book which i see cited much less that might be good also, but i haven't read it yet. i've not been able to find anyone else of an even vaguely marxist bent that looked at cambodia at all, although i wouldn't be suprised if there's something in french that isn't translated, so vickery might be the best bet for reading more about this stuff.
lo posted:i've not been able to find anyone else of an even vaguely marxist bent that looked at cambodia at all, although i wouldn't be suprised if there's something in french that isn't translated, so vickery might be the best bet for reading more about this stuff.
i haven't read it but there's a book on the prk by margaret slocomb which looks to be a marxist perspective in support of the vietnamese line
Last two podcasts (Oct 4 and Oct 11 2017) are about Vietnam and have Douglas Valentine. The rest of the programs also seem pretty cool.
edit: maybe its more about the CIA but there's still good stuff
Edited by Themselves ()
the book is mainly focused on the international situation but they do need to focus a bit on the domestic situation of some of the countries as well and some of what they say is interesting.
im most interested in cambodia so i was particularly curious to see what they had to say about it. their interpretation of the situation in cambodia is that this revolution wasn't the result of ideology gone mad, as a lot of anticommunists portrayed it, but the opposite - almost entirely based on pragmatism and the situation in the country. this is quite an early book so there wasn't much academic work about DK yet, but their take on it is imo quite compatible with some of the more interesting later stuff written by people like michael vickery.
The Khmer Rouges, then, came to power in much the same fashion as the Vietnamese Communists, as a group of radical middle class intellectuals at the head of a peasant army. But they rose to power from a position of almost complete isolation in little more than five years, against the background of massive disruption of caused by the impact of modern warfare on an archaic social and political structure. Unlike the Vietnamese, the Khmer Communists were not able to draw extensively on the intelligentsia and the middle class as well as the peasants for their cadres - the intelligentsia and the middle class were small, and largely rallied to the Lon Nol regime.
Instead, they were obliged to rely almost exclusively on poorly educated peasant soldiers. A sprinkling were veterans of the Issarak struggles of the 1950s, but the great majority were disorientated village youths who had been plunged in a matter of months, or even weeks, from a traditional village society into a savage modern war. In other revolutions, cadres from such a background have often been noted for their crudeness and brutality, unless guided and restrained by more sophisticated leaders. In Cambodia, such leaders were few and far between, and the suddenness and destructiveness of the war amplified the problem. Furthermore, among the Khmer Rouge leaders were some who sought to exploit this reservoir of potential brutality to the hilt for their own ends rather than restrain it. The outcome was that the Cambodian revolution climaxed in the most complete triumph of the peasant-warrior over the modernising bureaucrat in the history of communism
...
We explain the terror in Cambodia in 1976-6 primarily in terms of practical circumstances: it was the brutal response of an extremely backward state apparatus to overwhelming political and economic problems. It was, of course, a disastrous response, but that is another matter. But this explanation is contrary to the generally accepted view in the West, which follows that expressed by Francois Ponchaud in his book Cambodia Year Zero, the first serious attempt to document what was happening under Pol Pot. According to Ponchaud, the pruges were 'the translation into action of a particular view of man' - in short, they were the product of communist ideology. In our view, ideology is usually the rationalisation of practical action, and in this case Pol Pot's 'socialism without a model' was a perverted kind of pragmatism.
theres also a bit about laos in the book, which was interested to me because no one ever talks about laos. in addition to being incredibly undeveloped by the french, laos was also really multiethinic(only like 50% of the population was ethnic lao) and many of the remoter areas were only nominally under the control of the central government. this meant that the pathet lao, when building up their movement, couldn't use any kind of ethnic nationalism to appeal - insead they had to develop a communist movement that emphasised mutiethnic cooperation. i dont know if anyone says it anymore but when this book was written the line on laos in the west was usually that they were just vietnamese puppets, but these guys convincingly show that while they were the weaker country in the relationship, the pathet laos entered into a friendship with vietnam for their own purposes and ween't under vietnamese control at any point.
we also hear about china in the book. the chinese really dont come across too well here, and its tempting to suggest that this is mostly deng's fault because of the timescale of much of the book. but they note that chinese policy towards indochina was very consistent from the 60s right through to deng, with only a slight hint of a thaw with vietnam under hua guofeng.
there's more in the book but this post is pretty long and i think my thoughts on it are still a bit muddled so i'll end the post with this funny description of one of the more minor Cambodian guerilla leaders circa 1980
Sarin's camp was joined by Andre Okthol, who had spent the 1970s in France as a political science student but now attracted a following by calling himself Prince Norodom Soriavong and claimed to be a cousin of Sihanouk's. Wearing a neat safari suit, dark glasses and the beginnings of a Zapata style moustache, he held 'press conferences' at which he called on the West to prove him with $800 million needed to liberate Cambodia from the communists. A religious fanatic, he wore Buddhist amulets to ward off evil spirits and bullets, captivated the most despairing of the refugees with his mystic incantations, and terrified the rest with his violent outbursts of temper. His followers wee untrained and and utterly undisciplined, strutting around showing off their shiny new weapons and smoking maijuana. He was quickly nicknamed the 'Mad Prince' by reporters.