learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

1. What fundamental problems existed in the Khmer Rouge's ideology and plan and that caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia? Does this demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism or does it demonstrate the ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of the ideology by the Khmer Rouge leaders?

2. With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world both past and present, how does one draw the line as to which means are ethical and unethical for bringing about change? How much suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society”? What should happen when it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge?

3. What could have been done, on the part of the international community, to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge between 1975-79? When, if ever, should national sovereignty be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people? How could this have happened in Cambodia and by whom?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Sources to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a description, quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the sources in your response and please respond in some way to at least one of the question sets. You can also refer to the film, First They Killed My Father after we watch it as a class on Monday.

Excerpt 1 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: The Unknowable Unknown and Wishful Thinking)

Excerpt 2 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: From Behind a Blindfold and Official US Intelligence, Unofficial Skepticism)

Excerpt 3 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002)

(Cambodia: This Is Not 1942 and and Options Ignored; Futility, Perversity, Jeopardy)

“The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth (2009)

Rubric to Review: LTQ Rubric

Although communism might sound appealing in theory, it is well known that it is often a failure in practice. The Khmer Rouge are a prime example of this, as their plan to enforce strict communitarian equality in Cambodia stood out to many within the nation, but in the end, the deaths of 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, killings, and more proved many hopeful about the situation wrong. In order to better understand this example of a communist movement’s failure, one has to understand the core issues that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s plan and ideology. The main problem, which becomes abundantly clear when observing the events that occurred, was the severity and rapidity in how the Khmer Rouge went about their transformation of the country. While I don’t think that the end product would have ever been good, due to inherent problems with communism I will address later, I think many deaths could have been avoided and living conditions could have been improved if the Khmer Rouge slowly transitioned Cambodia into an agrarian communist society. By forcing everyone out of cities at once, with many lacking experience or strength, the government facilitated disease and starvation. The problems that the Khmer Rouge may not have anticipated were all compounded because they happened all at once, each with drastic effects. For example, the extreme lack of food could have been identified as people were slowly moved from the city, and the government could have chosen to exchange other goods for weapons, rather than allowing “ rice [to be] exported abroad in exchange for military weapons” (Sok Udom Deth). This idea, however, relies on the leaders of the Khmer Rouge being decent people who genuinely want communism to better their country, something that every communist movement required but very few have.

With communism, any person of power with corrupt or selfish morals could bring down the entire system, as then one person, family, or group of people might be treated better than others, ruining the communist ideal. In Cambodia, the people in power favored those who had previously supported them in their efforts, leading to inequality and abuse of power. Another inherent issue with communism is that being equal is, to put it simply, depressing. If everyone is the same, then each individual has less value. It is a similar idea to if everyone could be constantly happy all the time. If there is only happiness, that happiness becomes the norm and loses its appeal. While pure capitalism may not be the solution to this, as it often results in exploitation and corruption, some form of comparison is required for anything to have value. Therefore, communism cannot work. A society or country can have equality in many important things, be it access to healthcare, education, or something else, but if everyone lives the exact same way, issues will emerge as people try to break out of a system that makes their lives feel pointless. So while the way communism was carried out in Cambodia was ineffective and brutal, that does not mean that communism could ever work. Communism defies human nature, and will eventually fail in every instance. In Cambodia, communism was implemented in a way that directly contradicted human life, and therefore it failed quickly and terribly.

I believe that the destruction and terror caused by the Khmer Rouge is not an inevitable aspect of communism, but is still common in many communist uprisings. I initially believed that communism was not inherently “wrong” and that the real fault lies in authoritarianism. The starvation, executions, family separation, targeting of ethnic or ideological groups, etc. were not part of communist ideology, but they were part of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology. I don’t know much about communist ideology, however, so I did wonder what communist ideology actually is, and how it differs from Khmer Rouge ideology.

A communist society is one in which there is no private property, no social classes, and no money, but there are a variety of interpretations on the way that a communist society is governed. Because there are two major classes (the working class and the owning class) and the owning class profits off of the work of the lower class through private means of production, a communist society would eliminate this privatization and put the working class in power. Most communist governments have been characterized by one-party rule, elimination of private property and capitalism, control and restrictions on the economy, media, religion, and the suppression of opposition figures. This in and of itself seems totalitarian, and I believe it would only benefit a society that welcomes social change rather than being forced upon people.

The Khmer Rouge had a similar ideology: they planned to return Cambodia to its original “golden age” where the country was ruled by peasants. Everyone would be rural agricultural workers and intellectuals/people living in the city would be eliminated. All political and civil rights were abolished, factories, hospitals, schools, and universities were shut down, and children were separated from their families at age 8 to work in labour camps where some were conditioned as soldiers and to kill enemies. Religion, music, radios, technology, and money were banned.

While in theory communism is a fascinating and intriguing idea, the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia shows how in many instances, trying to implement a system of communism over a large population often fails. The largest contradiction and pitfall in how many previous states have tried to implement communism is in the role of the government. The most basic definition of communism is a system in which the means of production—the land, equipment, etc. needed for the production of goods—is in the hands of the people and all people are equal because everything in their society is shared. This is often not the case in many real world examples of communism as often the bourgeoisie or ruling economic class are replaced entirely by the government—putting the means of production not in the masses, but instead in the hands of a political ruling class. In the extreme system of forced labor under the Khmer Rouge the people were not in control of the means of production and were forced to work and were ruled over by KR higher ups. The people working the fields were not even able to reap the benefits of their labor as “communist cadres transported annual harvests to central storage sites but refused to distribute the fruits of the harvest to those who had done the reaping.” This shows the main problem in many large scale communist societies—that the workers are still impoverished and cannot enjoy the fruits of their labor as the government acts as the exploitative class instead of the bourgeoisie.

While, for the reasons above, communism is often not able to be implemented effectively in many large scale societies, that doesn’t mean communism as a theory cannot work, at least in smaller instances. In a large society the implementation of communism requires a strong government that can redistribute wealth, land, and labor—easily leading to the domination of the government over the workers seen in the KR rule of Cambodia. However, especially seen in smaller indigenous communities of the Americas, communism can work in small societies. One example of this is the success of the Zapatista community in southern Mexico which is a small agrarian community of native peoples who have built their society on ideals of community rather than a strong government to make sure strong social services are provided to all in the society. In a way, this society represents many of the ideals of KR philosophy. The Khmer Rouge wanted to build an agricultural society disconnected from western influence and based on principles of community—however they failed in this mission because the government abused their power and forced people into this lifestyle without any real pre-existing structure. Furthermore, while communism as a whole often fails in large scale societies, policies influenced by ideas of communism or socialism can be very effective in creating a more equitable and prosperous society. One great example of this is the presidency of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. Although he was not a communist—even though US propaganda stated otherwise—his land reform bill, decree 900, purchasing all land from the United Fruit Company and redistributing it to the people significantly improved the lives of many farmers in Guatemala. Many of these smaller instances of communist or socialist reform throughout history, especially those that stood up to large foreign owned corporations were halted by western intervention and sponsored coups, one of which did target and remove Jacobo Arbenz. Communism, as a system, in any context is very difficult to implement and is fraught with pitfalls and often met with foreign meddling, leading to many communist societies falling into authoritarianism.

The Khmer Rogue’s regime in Cambodia lasted between 1975 to 1979 and killled nearly two million people while starvation, forced labor, torture and execution were commonplace to uphold the regime’s ideals of communism. The regime was created in the shadows of a hurt Cambodia who had been experiencing oppression from the United States' secret bombing campaign which the US justified by claiming that Cambodia was complicit in smuggling weapons to Vietnam. The leader of the Rogue, Pol Pot, was an extremist figure who prioritized his supposed communist purity and control over the well-being of citizens. Pol Pot attempted to create a farming society of “pure peasants” with no private property rights or civil liberties. This society was completely isolated and meant to erase capitalism which became vilified after seeing what the US did to the nation. Pot attacked religion and education and no citizen was able to be above a 7th grade education level. The quick and violent enforcement of the communist ideology led to atrocities across the regime. The Rogue also sought to eliminate class and forced all city citizens to the countryside to work on massive agricultural collectives. Intellectuals, professionals and religious leaders were considered enemies of the state and the society sought to root out all enemies and wipe out any memory of the old regime to start at the “Year Zero” leading to widespread suffering and death. In one of our readings, A Problem from Hell, author Samantha Power explains that the international community was aware of atrocities occurring in Cambodia but failed to respond in a meaningful way. I think that the US and others were not quick to provide aid to Cambodia over fear of the South East Asia region. After the disaster that was the Vietnam war, US officials felt that getting involved in a conflict in Southeast Asia was not the best decision and would not have the support of the American people. The hesitance to intervene led the US to turn a blind eye to the genocide. Furthermore, intelligence agencies reported the massive atrocities occurring in the Khmer Rouge however US officials and the media downplayed the events and questioned the accuracy of the sources of the stories. The international community could have done more to stop the suffering in Cambodia such as creating more widespread recognition and support for Cambodian refugees. Providing greater humanitarian aid would not have stopped the KR but it may have lessened the suffering of many. When a regime turns against its people with genocide, as the Khmer Rogue did, the international community such as the UN must intervene.

In First They Killed my Father the impact and suffering of the Khmer Rouge is shown by the eyes of a child who we follow as she is separated from her family and they are eventually lost or killed. Under the Khmer Rouge and the leadership of Pol Pot the extremist interpretation of a communist society accompanied with the inactivity of the international community led to the prolonged suffering of many innocent Cambodia citizens.

The Khmer Rouge’s rise to power in Cambodia in 1975 marked one of the most horrific genocides of the 20th century. Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the regime sought to create a communist utopia by erasing all traces of capitalism, modernity, and individuality. However, this radical vision quickly turned into a nightmare that claimed the lives of nearly two million Cambodians. The fundamental problems in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and execution stemmed not necessarily from communism itself, but from a ruthless and distorted application of its principles. Their version of agrarian communism abandoned reason, compassion, and practicality—key factors that must guide any form of governance if it hopes to benefit its people. One of the most dangerous aspects of the Khmer Rouge ideology I believe, was its obsession with creating a classless, purely agrarian society. Inspired by Maoist ideas, Pol Pot believed that rural peasants were the purest form of society, and that cities and educated people were corrupted by capitalism and Western influence. As a result, the regime forcibly evacuated cities, abolished money, shut down schools and hospitals, and targeted anyone associated with education, religion, or foreign influence. The film First They Killed My Father powerfully captures the personal and emotional impact of these policies. Told from the perspective of Loung Ung, a young girl who survived the genocide, the film shows how the Khmer Rouge tore apart families, forced children into labor camps, and turned neighbors into spies. One particularly haunting scene shows Loung being trained to use weapons as a child soldier—demonstrating how the regime manipulated even the youngest minds to serve its violent goals. The movie makes it clear that the Khmer Rouge did not just fail to build a better society; they destroyed the very fabric of human life in Cambodia. The international community’s response to the Cambodian genocide was tragically delayed and largely ineffective. Many nations, especially in the West, were hesitant to intervene, partly due to Cold War politics and a lack of clear information. Shockingly, even after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by Vietnamese forces in 1979, the United Nations continued to recognize Pol Pot’s government as the legitimate representative of Cambodia for several years. The Cambodian genocide was a missed opportunity for the world to act decisively in the face of evil. In conclusion, the devastation in Cambodia was not caused by communism alone, but by an extreme and violent misuse of its ideals by the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot’s regime stripped people of their identities and lives in the name of a radical vision. The world should learn from this tragedy: ideology without humanity is a path to destruction, and silence in the face of suffering is complicity. The story of First They Killed My Father reminds us that behind every policy are real people, and their suffering can not be ignored.

There were many flaws in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan to place their version of communism in Cambodia, but the two main flaws were making everyone an enemy, and failing to make everyone equal. Throughout the KR’s reign, they first started to make anyone that worked for the government in the past an enemy, and killed most of them. They also targeted all Buddhist Monks, as well as anyone with an education higher than a seventh grader. Making this many enemies is already a very large percentage of the population, and a very wrong approach to achieve the good ideas of communism. In all three of the excerpts, they emphasized the amount of people the KR saw as enemies, and it also went out to anyone on the outside, which prevented them from receiving aid from anyone, as well as people apart from the KR. I personally see this as a big reason as to why the KR didn't work because making this much enemies leads to no one trusting each other, and communism (or the idea) is so that everyone is on an equal terms and everyone is accountable, and to do that you need trust, so if everyone is an enemy, achieving that is impossible.

Also their methods of making everyone equal and having no money and class did not work at all. Instead of making everyone somewhat comfortable, they made everyone extremely poor, while officers and higher ups of the KR were living comfortably. Preaching about a society being equal, yet the elites are still richer than the rest also is a big reason why communism as a whole cant work on such a large scale. When trying to make such a large part of everyone equal, no matter what, someone will be benefiting from that more than others. Also since there are so many, not everyone will feel personally obligated to help the other. I also feel that the KR used ideas of communism as an excuse to take over and be the ones on the top and benefit from everyone else's suffering, since they were benefiting from the work of the innocent Cambodians. Maybe if the KR made an effort to make everyone live a little more comfortable and not always in need of food and sickness, it would have worked better.

For outside help, I understand why it took so long, especially for the U.S since their very recent past with Vietnam, but regardless of what went down during that time, Cambodia is a different region and that does not mean they do not need the country's help. Many American citizens and people of government were hesitant to even talk about what was going on, as well as sending people there because most people were already recovering from the war, and wanted nothing to do with Southeast Asia. But at the same time, many Amercains don't really know what was going on during that period of time because the media was sugar coding it, and did not believe eyewitnesses and refugees of what was going on. I still think however, that there should have been a bigger effort in trying to understand Cambodia’s struggle, and not playing ignorant so that they do not get the blame for what was going on.

Can humans truly achieve collectivism? Historically, no—at least not on a large scale. While some small communities have achieved the idealistic equal and mutually-supportive society praised by many socialists and communists, historians need only to look at case studies such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to observe the almost inevitable corruption of these seemingly noble ideas.

The fault of large-scale communism is its naïvety. At its core, it relies on the belief that all humans are inherently good and selfless, and have only been corrupted by other social systems like capitalism to become self-serving and greedy. It assures us that with an all-powerful—but benevolent—government, it is possible to change our beliefs and settle into a human utopia without differences or inequality. This sounds wonderful on paper; indeed, the capitalist system of the modern world literally relies on inequality—for money to flow into the pockets of the “successful,” it must flow out of the pockets of the less-fortunate bulk of the population.

For example, in the case study of Cambodia in the late twentieth century, it, as well as many Southeast Asian countries, were still attempting to recover from the legacy of colonialism and oppression from Western powers. This festering resentment among the people led a widespread movement of anti-Westernism in Southeast Asia, which, in many cases, included a move away from the Western idea of capitalism that had forced so many citizens to slave away under the boot of ex-colonial turned economic imperialist states (Deth).

To the Cambodians, this shift away from capitalism seemed perfectly reasonable—and honestly, one that I am inclined to agree with—if it weren’t for the flawed system that replaced it. As the Cambodians soon found out, their revolutionary party turned against them, hypocritical in all of its communist preachings.

For one, while communism gained popularity within Southeast Asia as a revolt against Western influence, the communist party of the Khmer Rouge was not in power because of the support of the public. After the exile of a beloved monarch—whose sympathies to Communist China were of his own volition, not the people’s vote—a brutal leader named Lon Nol took power, against communism but corrupt in his own government. A civil war soon ensued, with the Khmer Rouge taking power by force, not popular vote, and therefore needing to enforce their ideas through violence (Power 2002). This violence, while an effective fear tactic for many, did little to appeal to Cambodian citizens, so the system was not internalized, which then required more violence to control. From there resulted the cycle of violence, fear, and betrayal that tormented the people of Cambodia.

Additionally, the government itself, while strictly dictating the anti-individual and anti-Western lives of its citizens, was in itself hypocritical and corrupt. With high-up government officials enjoying luxuries such as cars and Western medicine, it made it all the more difficult for the idea of communism to integrate into society. It became power—not collectivism—that drove the government, who would rather “kill an innocent citizen” than let enemies (or threats to power) walk free (Power 2002).

Without popular support, constant violence was required to keep everyone in check. Without integrity, communism became merely the mode through which power was exerted. In this way, Communism failed—if it had ever functioned to begin with.

The fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge's ideology were forced assimilation and anti-intellectualism. The Khmer Rouge, given that they wanted everyone to be in a state of openness for re-education had little choice but to kill those who have already been educated. The selection process for those who were considered “too far gone” to be converted was unscientific and barbaric, with the Khmer Rouge going as far as to kill people with glasses, citing that it was a sign of intellect. In addition to this, the communist society in question was remarkably unequal. The peasants, who were the followers, suffered and starved greatly, while their leaders lived lives of luxury.

This does demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism, as it is human nature to want to be at the top. While one could argue that it is more deeply rooted in human nature to want to be within a part of a group, I feel like these coexist in a way that makes communism impossible to organize on a large scale. There will always be people at the top, in a group of nobility or at least a higher power, and there will always be those at the bottom too. Communism on a small scale, in my opinion, can work well because there allows for real human connection, which will bring forth empathy. This is seen in communes and Native American communities, where all people know each other and would not betray the other by having more. This is the issue with large-scale communism, as they just can’t know everyone enough to treat them with empathy and equality.

The international community should have had a larger motivation to assist. It is hard to say that they should have had a better understanding of what is going on, because they had lots of people telling them exactly what was happening. For example, in June 1973, long before the Khmer Rouge took over (1975), A US foreign service officer Kenneth Quinn had seen the villages in Cambodia “clustered in circles,” and then “every one of these clusters in flames” soon after (A Problem From Hell). While he alerted the US consular headquarters immediately, and then sent a 45 page classified report soon after, the US still viewed the KR as an extension of the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Thus meaning it was not misinformation, but inaction and ignorance that caused the US and other powers not to step in. Sovereignty in the case of Cambodia was already surrendered in a sense to the KR, meaning further invasion and disturbance would have been warranted. Sovereignty should not have been the reason to not invade, because it is not as valuable as the lives of citizens. If it had been overridden in an organized was and immediately given back once the war was over, it would have been ok.