Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world, there is a very distinct yet blurry line that can be drawn between what is ethical and unethical for bringing about change. In the Khmer Rouge and other cases of genocide, it’s painfully obvious that the line was crossed and there was excessive killing that occurred. While death will occur as a result of war, the amount of killing and death that happened in genocides severely went over what is usually seen in war. The Khmer Rouge along with other regimes that participated in genocide went beyond the ‘normal’ amount of killing that is associated with war. I don’t think that there is an amount of suffering that is tolerable to bring about a “better society” because suffering of people really shouldn’t be tolerated in a way. However, I do think that some suffering is necessary to bring about change in order to give people a better life. Often, in situations like the one presented, the amount of lives lost because of war is compared with the lives that will be saved or bettered to justify the death that incurred. However, in genocides it’s clear that the people who are being killed are seen as something to get rid of that lives being lost. In these genocides, the deaths that occur cannot be justified in any way since it’s clear that they didn’t happen due to war, but rather due to an ulterior goal that, in a way, started the war. I think that when it’s clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, like Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the international community should take action to try to alleviate any death and save more lives. However, it’s been very evident with other genocides that the international community fails to intervene until towards the very end, when the damage has already been done and the extent of the damage is extremely severe. A lot of countries are hesitant to intervene because more often than not, the country is legally obligated to go send troops and aid to that country. An example of this is the lack of U.S involvement in the genocide in Cambodia. While the U.S has no involvement in the war and the American people strongly opposed sending troops to Cambodia because they recently finished the Vietnam war, the Cambodian people looked toward the West for help. When the U.S. did start helping, the stories that were published were immense and hard to believe. However, “as soon as U.S. troops returned home, the American public's news from the region shrank,” according to “Cambodia: From Behind A Blindfold and Official US Intelligence.” Much of the international community hesitated to help, so in order to ameliorate the harm being done, the international community should’ve strived to bring the genocide to light so other countries could be influenced to take action. It’s very clear that the international community could have done much more than they had done, this was in part due to countries not feeling legally obligated to help and other countries who didn’t want to lose troops or get involved in wars.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
The fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology were the elimination of individuality, paranoia and blatant disregard for human rights, and excessively authoritarian form of governance. The Khmer Rouge actively worked towards eradicating all forms of intellectualism, expression, and freedom by exerting systematic brutality and control over Cambodia’s population. This does not demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism; rather, the goals of Khmer Rouge are an ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of the ideology. Due to the history of exploitation by foreign imperialism in Cambodia, communism was appealing to solve issues like poverty, inequality, and civil war, rather than an inherent evil that must be contained and eradicated. Cambodians associated capitalism with the nations that had once oppressed them rather than an ideology that should be followed. It’s true that communism originated as a critique of capitalism and called for a classless society, but the Khmer Rouge created an extremely harmful situation. It eradicted differences in societal hierarchy by forcing everyone into agricultural collectives to produce unrealistic quantities of rice and glorified the “base people.” This authoritarian regime still comprised of an upper class, however, who had exclusive access to luxuries. Communism emphasizes the strength and importance of proletarians and noted the unequal distribution of wealth in capitalist societies. But the leaders of the Khmer Rouge maintained gaps in power and wealth that continued to permeate Cambodia. Ordinary civilians themselves had no say in their lifestyles, such as choosing their occupation, relationships, movement, or communication, among other aspects. The inherent selfish behavior of humans, especially the Khmer Rouge leaders, made it unlikely for communism in this scenario to succeed. Moreover, human life was not valued in the Khmer Rouge. As A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide states, “The key ideological premise that lay behind the KR revolution was that ‘to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss.’” The Khmer Rouge was terrifying and violent because of its oppression of human beings and its erasure of self. The article notes, “in the new Cambodia freedom had become undesirable, dissent intolerable, and joy invisible. All facets of life had been mandated by Angkar, which made the rules.” Not only did the Khmer Rouge neglect essential living necessities like food and medicine, they also imposed social, financial, political, and educational restrictions on its people and subjected them to violence if they did not comply. They demanded complete submission to their laws and expectations and had extreme fear for external and internal enemies like imperialists, fascists, and disloyal citizens which resulted in the mass murder of thousands. Indeed, there must be periods of instability and upheaval during times of political and social transition, but the extent to which the Khmer Rouge inflicted suffering far exceeded that necessary to facilitate beneficial changes. Violence seen throughout the rule of the Khmer Rouge was often unwarranted and was used as a means of forcing civilians to obey rather than a necessary act for advancement. Initially, Khmer Rouge leaders set out to eliminate proponents of the old regime, yet soon that included ordinary civilians on a mass scale. Children, for instance, were manipulated into spying and executioner roles. Civilians feared the chap teuv, or “disappearing”, that evaporated individuals even suspected of momentary disloyalty. There were prisons like Tuol Sleng that killed and tortured thousands. It would be impossible for entire populations to be fully committed to the old regime, and thus the persistent persecution of ordinary people was unethical even if top leaders of the Khmer Rouge had their own justifications about its necessity. The marginalization of civilians was not the original intent of communism, either, and neither was intentional brutality of workers; yet top leaders of the Khmer Rouges’ desire to accumulate and maintain power by eliminating competition overpowers the necessity to provide comfort and social mobility. The Khmer Rouge was a twisted rendition of the possibilities that governments can evolve with additions of their own accord, not a reflection of the ideology of a certain type of governance itself. Although the government was fundamentally communist, it completely missed the point in regards to providing an improved life to workers.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
LTQ Post 8: The Khmer Rouge-Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
The fundamental problems that immediately existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology began with how they constructed communism in society. The first example of miss-established communism occurred with the creation of an upper class in society. This outwardly goes against what communism stood for when Karl Marx first thought it up, equality and proper allocation of resources. The Khmer Rouge established the officials of the Khmer Rouge as the upper class in society. With the establishment of an upper class, automatically there will be a lower class and inequality. This lower class was the victim of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and they severely suffered the consequences of these divisions. The second example of miss-established communism is the wrongful allocation of resources. In the Khmer Rouge’s society, many were led to starvation as food and other necessities were mis-distributed. In a communist society, resources should be equally distributed among everyone, including those in leadership positions. The third example of miss-established communism is the belief that all must live in poverty in order to experience equality. The Khmer Rouge stripped everyone in Cambodia of their own identities and forced them into agricultural lifestyles. Instead of prioritizing the working class, the Khmer Rouge prioritized the universal suffering of their people. The last example of miss-established communism, although their were many others, was the use of the state to torture and execute millions of people. This event directly challenges the ideals of communism because the mere existence of the event shows that people were not equal in society and were not taken care of by the government. According to “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by the Association of American Studies, “In theory, the Cambodian and Vietnamese communist movements were supposed to be on equal terms. In practice, every decision was made by the Vietnamese communists, who viewed their Cambodian counterparts as incompetent. This arrangement worked well to remind the Cambodians of Vietnamese control over Cambodia in the past, which Cambodians resented”( AAS 2). The deal between Cambodia and Vietnam was inherently anti-communist due to the rising nationalism between the two countries. The deal between Cambodia and Vietnam appeared communist on paper because the countries would be treating one another as equals in their ability to rule, however, they both marginalized one another which led to the tragedy in the area.
Overall, I do not believe that communist in itself is inherently wrong. I think that several aspects of communism would be very beneficial to society, but when you place all of the aspects of communism on a society, I believe that the outcome might not be the best. For example, the use of the government to allocate resources and treat people as equals could be very beneficial to society. But, the combination of economic and political communist factors with the reduction of individual identities is wrongful. In the Khmer Rouge, they removed the ability of individuals to differentiate each other through the removal of things such as religion, private property, and the ability to choose romantic partners. Removing citizens' ability to have identities does not improve the equality of a regime. In order for the ideals of communism to be successful enough to be long term, communism should only extend to the economic and political aspects of a government. This means that a government should only control the status of citizens in a government, not who they are or how they manage themselves. Thus, communism is not inherently bad or wrong and was only wrongfully misused by the Khmer Rouge.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
Under Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge tried to reshape Cambodian society to be a fully communist regime. The process of this caused much suffering through starvation, forced labor, and execution. By looking at the problems of the KR’s ideology and the missed opportunities for intervention we can see how this genocide might have come about. One of the problems existing in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was its disregard for human life. In The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, Sok Udom Deth explains how “the DK also aimed to create a classless society” by abolishing things like money, religion, and education. This resulted in the murder of monks, intellectuals, and people who weren’t poor Cambodian farmers. I think that the KR was more driven by a need for control and a vision of complete communism and this is not an inherent flaw with communism. The KR took the idea of creating a society with collective equality to a whole new level and manipulated its principles in order to justify the atrocities they were inflicting upon Cambodians. I don’t think that the idea of communism is inherently wrong. When you think about it, it seems nice to have a society where everything is split equally and no one is undergoing much more suffering than the next person. Although this seems nice, I don't think it is achievable in our world. There are many people who are power-hungry and people who value social, political, and economic hierarchies. Under the KR there was also a hierarchy because innocent people were treated horribly, killed, and starved.
More should have been done by the international community to aid in the harm inflicted on the Cambodian people. Americans were slow to acknowledge the genocide because they didn’t believe that such atrocities were being committed. Even when hearing refugee stories reporters still thought that it was too brutal to actually be true and they might be exaggerating it. In an excerpt from A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Samantha Power writes about how the American public had limited information on what was happening “from Cambodian radio, which was propaganda; from refugee accounts, which were doubted; and from Western intelligence sources, which were scarce and suspect”. When the United States did send troops and they came back, there was not a lot of coverage on these stories and there were only a couple news articles published a year about the atrocities in Cambodia. I think in order to ameliorate the harm being done under the Khmer Rouge, outside powers could have brought more awareness to what was going on. Also, America didn’t want to get involved because they had just gone through a similar thing with Vietnam, they were tired and didn’t want to send any more soldiers to die. Despite this I think it is important that the international community take part in helping the victims of a genocide like this one otherwise it can become a bigger problem and cause more deaths than it would if people stayed out of the conflict.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
Fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology is that they used people who clearly could not reason for themselves to advance in their ideologies. The Khmer Rouge taught children to report anything their parents did that was not in line with the Khmer Rouge’s ideologies. According to Excerpt 3 from Chapter 6 of A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, “Before her stood a little boy who was about six years old and holding an ax” (Power 116). They taught children that young how to use an ax to basically kill others. The Khmer Rouge can only be blamed for this because children this young do not know that what they are doing is extremely wrong. Additionally, the Khmer Rouge killed anyone that had above a seventh grade level of education or seemed to be educated and “corrupt” with capitalist ideologies. This was likely so that the people that were left in Cambodia wouldn’t be knowledgeable enough to fight back or to know when to escape. Intentionally killing off the educated people significantly lessens the chance of any resistance. Also, the Khmer Rouge did not care about the individual person and was willing to kill any individual. According to the same reading, “to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss” and “It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free” (Power 119-120). This shows that the individual person really did not matter to the Khmer Rouge as long as no one opposed them. Although communism did not work for the Khmer Rouge, I don’t believe that communism is necessarily a bad thing. The idea of being able to live together as a society and share things is great, as long as there isn’t one greedy person that exploits this ideology for their own benefit. I don’t think it is possible to execute communism in a good way because there will always be that one person or group that will ruin things. For example, the Khmer Rouge leaders took advantage of its citizens, which resulted in the killing of many. If the leaders of the Khmer Rouge were able to treat everyone equally well, then there probably wouldn’t have been a threat of people opposing them.
The line between ethical and unethical change can be determined when at least one group of people is harmed because of this change. Change that was displayed in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge is definitely unethical because of the mass killings of basically anyone. They targeted children to inherently brainwash them into thinking that their parents are bad people and even killed anyone that was even slightly educated. However, if the change brought up is beneficial to everyone, then it can be ethical. For example, if the people in charge decide that they want to change things around, the people actually have to agree with it and benefit from it because they are the ones that will be affected. If the struggle for change is clearly making society worse, then those who are able to should oppose whoever is in power. The international community should also play a role in this because the people that the change is affecting may not be capable of bringing about a rebellion. Since the international community is strong, they should be able to do something about the people in power and bring about change that will benefit the people.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 14
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
The fundamental problems in Khmer Rouge’s ideology are highly prominent. It begins with the hierarchy that they created within the Khmer Rouge. Those who were seen as “empty vessels”, or easily malleable in terms of personality and following orders were seen as the highest in society. Those who could obediently and submissively follow their rules, such as children and country peasants were given more authority compared to the rest. In the film ”The Killing Fields”, The main character Dith Pran explains how he has to sit in silence in order to survive in the society Khmer Rouge built, illustrating that only those who don’t have any outward personality, or have any ‘thoughts’ were considered the best. Another fundamental issue with the KR ideology is that anyone with knowledge or had some remote form of intelligence were killed. In the film “The Killing Fields” and “First They Killed My Father”, we can see clear examples of this. In “The Killing Fields”, Dith witnesses the soldier call for all people who had been a ‘doctor, journalist, or student’ to stand up and they would supposedly be forgiven by Angkar. We know that this isn’t true, and they’d later get taken away and killed. The same thing happens in “First They Killed My Father”, where Luong overhears her parents talking about how the father’s job could get the entire family killed. We can also see that because one man had used french medicine for their child, he was tied to a tree and beaten and left to die. The idea that intelligence or Western ideology was seen as a shameful thing was their downfall because these are key factors to a working society. If nobody knows how to do anything other than work, then they simply cannot survive.
It’s hard to draw a line for what’s ethical and unethical to bring change. But there are some rational and fair reasons that we can create based on the failure of Khmer Rouge’ Kampuchea. Violence, torture, and any physical harm to others should never be allowed to bring change. Putting people through the thinnest and worst possible conditions will not only hurt their output of labor and work in the long run, but it will also cause them to be psychologically weary and tired. Especially because the Khmer Rouge had made them constantly listen to their propaganda and beliefs, Cambodians were coerced to immoral opinions. Although one can argue that suffering can teach big lessons, there should be an extent to how much suffering one undergoes to understand what they did wrong or how to do better. In the film, Luong’s sister and brother get beaten by soldiers simply for eating food, which is a basic right all people should have. Furthermore, if the movement or society bringing change is causing people to fear speaking to others about it because they fear getting killed, that is a large sign which points to the tyranny of the supposed change. As historically seen, “because the KR were so secretive, America's warnings were by definition speculative, based mainly on rumors and secondhand accounts” (102 Power). The only reason they were able to keep things undercover was because the victims were too afraid to speak up, knowing full well that they’d get killed if they had said anything. In another excerpt, it talks about how the Cambodians who did tell their accounts in the camps referred to what they were saying as “information” but not fact, because they did not want soldiers to find out that they had told the outside world of their atrocities and suffering. Overall, we should learn from the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge and not make any person go through what the Cambodians did.
West Roxbury, MA, US
Posts: 12
Some fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology were that they believed that Cambodians were selfish and corrupted by capitalism, making them greedy. This could be seen in the movie First They Killed My Father when the soldiers would scream at the civilians that they had to renounce private property and let go of their selfish desires. Additionally, they wanted to restructure society, promoting agricultural work which could also be seen in the movie. I do not believe that these ideologies were simply a failure in the KR leaders’ interpretation and execution of communism. Instead, I believe that these ideologies and their outcomes highlight the inherent flaws within communism. There are various other situations throughout history where communism has led to an authoritarian government similar to the one in Cambodia, such as the Soviet Union and China. Additionally, the restructured society that KR leaders forced upon Cambodian citizens is not uncommon for communist nations to go through. In order to go from a society with class distinctions to a classless society, going through some form of restructuring as a nation is unavoidable. The end result of the restructured society that the KR leaders forced onto Cambodian citizens might have been unique, but the actual action highlights an inherent flaw with communism ideology. In order to become a classless society in the way that communist ideology promotes, it is necessary to go through some form of restructuring as a nation. Another inherent flaw with communist ideology that was demonstrated by the lack of individual rights for Cambodian citizens. Due to communism’s promotion of a classless society, individuals are pressured to let go of individual wants and needs in favor of the wants and needs of society as a whole. This resulted in extremely harmful effects for Cambodian citizens, as many were forced to work in fields in terrible conditions, and were separated from their families. According to “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth, “Many people secretly tried to supplement their diets by eating roots, leaves, and insects. Hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation, overwork, and/or disease.” As we saw in the movie, they were expected to view everyone as equal, so one person could not have more benefits than another person. Also, as we saw in the movie, anyone who went against their communist ideology in any way, such as the man who gave his son medicine from a foreign country to save his life, they would be tortured and executed. This is a flaw within communist ideology as a whole, as it was believed that these executions were necessary and excusable because they were done so that the revolution could move forward. While the situation in Cambodia might have been a more extreme case, as it led to genocide, the fundamentals of their communist ideology are the same as those in many other communist nations throughout history, demonstrating that it was not an issue with the interpretation and execution of communist ideology in Cambodia specifically, but that the issue lies within communist ideology itself.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community: Peer Feedback
Originally posted by
glitterseashell1234 on April 13, 2025 14:22
The fundamental problems that immediately existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology began with how they constructed communism in society. The first example of miss-established communism occurred with the creation of an upper class in society. This outwardly goes against what communism stood for when Karl Marx first thought it up, equality and proper allocation of resources. The Khmer Rouge established the officials of the Khmer Rouge as the upper class in society. With the establishment of an upper class, automatically there will be a lower class and inequality. This lower class was the victim of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and they severely suffered the consequences of these divisions. The second example of miss-established communism is the wrongful allocation of resources. In the Khmer Rouge’s society, many were led to starvation as food and other necessities were mis-distributed. In a communist society, resources should be equally distributed among everyone, including those in leadership positions. The third example of miss-established communism is the belief that all must live in poverty in order to experience equality. The Khmer Rouge stripped everyone in Cambodia of their own identities and forced them into agricultural lifestyles. Instead of prioritizing the working class, the Khmer Rouge prioritized the universal suffering of their people. The last example of miss-established communism, although their were many others, was the use of the state to torture and execute millions of people. This event directly challenges the ideals of communism because the mere existence of the event shows that people were not equal in society and were not taken care of by the government. According to “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by the Association of American Studies, “In theory, the Cambodian and Vietnamese communist movements were supposed to be on equal terms. In practice, every decision was made by the Vietnamese communists, who viewed their Cambodian counterparts as incompetent. This arrangement worked well to remind the Cambodians of Vietnamese control over Cambodia in the past, which Cambodians resented”( AAS 2). The deal between Cambodia and Vietnam was inherently anti-communist due to the rising nationalism between the two countries. The deal between Cambodia and Vietnam appeared communist on paper because the countries would be treating one another as equals in their ability to rule, however, they both marginalized one another which led to the tragedy in the area.
Overall, I do not believe that communist in itself is inherently wrong. I think that several aspects of communism would be very beneficial to society, but when you place all of the aspects of communism on a society, I believe that the outcome might not be the best. For example, the use of the government to allocate resources and treat people as equals could be very beneficial to society. But, the combination of economic and political communist factors with the reduction of individual identities is wrongful. In the Khmer Rouge, they removed the ability of individuals to differentiate each other through the removal of things such as religion, private property, and the ability to choose romantic partners. Removing citizens' ability to have identities does not improve the equality of a regime. In order for the ideals of communism to be successful enough to be long term, communism should only extend to the economic and political aspects of a government. This means that a government should only control the status of citizens in a government, not who they are or how they manage themselves. Thus, communism is not inherently bad or wrong and was only wrongfully misused by the Khmer Rouge.
The most compelling idea in this post is the explanation of the misestablishment and interpretation of communism. Often, people are quick to blame communism as a wholly unfeasible and harmful ideology and overlook the beneficial aspects of it such as usage of the government to allocate resources and treat people as equals. The post elaborates well on why communism failed in the Khmer Rouge, and the ideas such as establishment of an upper class and wrongful allocation of resources. Particularly, the argument that communism was misestablished in Cambodia because of the belief that all people must live in poverty to be equal is interesting because it most clearly exemplifies the wrongful interpretation of communism by the Khmer Rouge. In creating a new state, the government would be able to establish any form of social hierarchy they pleased, yet they deliberately chose to strip individuals of their rights and luxuries and impose mass suffering rather than providing comfort. That is not the original intent of communism. Additionally, the mention of the strained relationship between Vietnam and Cambodia is also interesting because it shows how the two nations inherently perpetuated anticommunist deals, therefore displaying how the Khmer Rouge interpreted communism incorrectly on many different aspects. The writer made very thoughtful and clear arguments. I would be interested to hear about the writer's interpretation of how communism should work if they feel that the Khmer Rouge wrongfully interpreted it.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 14
Peer Feedback on The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
Originally posted by
questions on April 14, 2025 17:37
Fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology is that they used people who clearly could not reason for themselves to advance in their ideologies. The Khmer Rouge taught children to report anything their parents did that was not in line with the Khmer Rouge’s ideologies. According to Excerpt 3 from Chapter 6 of A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, “Before her stood a little boy who was about six years old and holding an ax” (Power 116). They taught children that young how to use an ax to basically kill others. The Khmer Rouge can only be blamed for this because children this young do not know that what they are doing is extremely wrong. Additionally, the Khmer Rouge killed anyone that had above a seventh grade level of education or seemed to be educated and “corrupt” with capitalist ideologies. This was likely so that the people that were left in Cambodia wouldn’t be knowledgeable enough to fight back or to know when to escape. Intentionally killing off the educated people significantly lessens the chance of any resistance. Also, the Khmer Rouge did not care about the individual person and was willing to kill any individual. According to the same reading, “to keep you is no gain; to kill you is no loss” and “It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free” (Power 119-120). This shows that the individual person really did not matter to the Khmer Rouge as long as no one opposed them. Although communism did not work for the Khmer Rouge, I don’t believe that communism is necessarily a bad thing. The idea of being able to live together as a society and share things is great, as long as there isn’t one greedy person that exploits this ideology for their own benefit. I don’t think it is possible to execute communism in a good way because there will always be that one person or group that will ruin things. For example, the Khmer Rouge leaders took advantage of its citizens, which resulted in the killing of many. If the leaders of the Khmer Rouge were able to treat everyone equally well, then there probably wouldn’t have been a threat of people opposing them.
The line between ethical and unethical change can be determined when at least one group of people is harmed because of this change. Change that was displayed in Cambodia when the Khmer Rouge is definitely unethical because of the mass killings of basically anyone. They targeted children to inherently brainwash them into thinking that their parents are bad people and even killed anyone that was even slightly educated. However, if the change brought up is beneficial to everyone, then it can be ethical. For example, if the people in charge decide that they want to change things around, the people actually have to agree with it and benefit from it because they are the ones that will be affected. If the struggle for change is clearly making society worse, then those who are able to should oppose whoever is in power. The international community should also play a role in this because the people that the change is affecting may not be capable of bringing about a rebellion. Since the international community is strong, they should be able to do something about the people in power and bring about change that will benefit the people.
The most compelling idea in your post is your line for ethical and unethical change. I agree with this idea that the change shouldn’t harm a society as a whole, and the people in power shouldn’t be tyrannical or able to take away freedoms. However, it is too intrinsic to believe that we can build a society that will benefit every single person. Even in our society today, it’s imperfect, and there are going to be those who get more benefits than others, some not at all. Though it is valid to say that we should never repeat what happened in the Khmer Rouge again.
I also like how you mentioned in your post how those who were not advanced or sensible enough were being put on a pedestal of authority, and were being used to advance the Khmer Rouge’s ideology. I also talked about how it's ironic because they want the ‘least intelligent’ to have power so they can easily control them and feed them irrefutable information because they don’t know any better.
If I had to suggest something to improve the post, I think you could’ve talked more about this line between ethical and unethical change, possibly using examples in the film or accounts from “A Problem from Hell” to further add on your idea that the KR were brainwashing and taking advantage of the vulnerable and weak for their own gain. Overall, it was very thorough and had many interesting points on KR’s lack of morals.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
LTQ 8: The Khmer Rouge-Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
As war and violence are inevitable around the world, the struggle for change must be evaluated for justification by its goals and by the means employed, so suffering inflicted upon innocent people cannot be justified by the ideological ways of society. The Cambodian Genocide exemplifies the Khmer Rouge's view of superiorizing ideological society over the greater good of individual citizens. The communist group crossed ethical boundaries when targeting and killing innocent civilians. As highlighted in The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, the Khmer Rouge emptied cities, forced labor onto, and killed anyone with ties to the former government or who spoke a foreign language because they were seen as a threat. In this case, ideology trumped humanity. The means by which the KR attempted to create an ideological society targeted innocent people, and therefore, their goals are not justifiable because of the mass harm it caused. No matter the true goodness of the goal, it is never justifiable when mass suffering has to occur to achieve it.
Contrary to the Machiavellian idea, the end cannot always justify the means, especially in cases where the suffering is greater than the benefits of the outcome. Again, the article The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, details the suffering of children and how starvation, disease, and work resulted in mass deaths. These experiences were deliberate and permitted by the KR. They approved this because they believed suffering to be necessary to achieve a classless communist country. However, the deaths of two million people is a disproportionate means of achieving a “better society”. The large number of fatalities proves the unjustifiable means the KR utilizes. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge serves to control the people rather than liberate them. In doing so, they are forcing extremely unhealthy circumstances and often death onto the lives of innocent people. This cannot be allowed or justified. The suffering is widespread, and although it is claimed to be a necessity, it serves no true purpose in bringing about the idealistic society. The Cambodian suffering is not tolerable, and in the future, the suffering should end when it affects the lives of innocent people to the extent that their future cannot outweigh the current suffering. A better society is not worth being constructed if its foundation is on the deaths of millions of innocent lives.
When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as in Cambodia, an international response is necessary to intervene, especially in a case in which the suffering to make a change is greater than the outcome, and society becomes worse. Intervention from foreign powers is needed to break the cycle of suffering in other countries to ensure a restorative state where lives are not being spared. The Cambodian Genocide serves as a perfect example of the need for other countries to intervene, as Vietnam invaded and was able to break up the cycle. There should have been earlier international involvement from other countries when the KR was first seen making moves. Larger powers such as the US should have intervened more as they had the resources to do so, and innocent, powerless people were being oppressed. Without the Vietnamese invasion of the KR-controlled Cambodia, even more people would have lost their lives, following the millions who already were killed.
South Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 12
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
One main fundamental problem would be how the leaders, and soldiers of the Khmer Rouge followed a hypocritical ideology. Communism as its most basic state that everyone is on equal footing with everyone else, whether that be class or money. However, oftentimes prominent figures of the Khmer Rouge themselves indulge themselves in better luxuries than those who they forced to work in labor camps. If everyone was truly equal, then they would also be down in the field working on crops as well, instead of yelling orders with the threat of violence. Additionally, the people in the Khmer Rouge were better fed, while the unwilling workers were only given small rations in comparison. These reasons are definitely some of the fundamental problems that led to the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia. On paper, communism seems like a fine and dandy idea, however it would never work in real life. Not only does it not work for all the many real life examples of terrible communist regimes, but also because you simply cannot trust everyone. If you give everyone in the world the same amount of money there would still be those who run themselves into the ground since many people are not financially responsible. I feel like the international community could have done an extremely better job at contraining and putting a stop to the Khmer Rouge by nipping it in the bud. There were very early signs of the Khmer Rouge, and this genocide went on for years. Instead of focusing on geopolitics, the international community would have focused on the amount of lives currently being lost. Also, the international community almost punishing Vietnam financially for ending this ongoing genocide, almost helps to strengthen the resolve of those of want genocide to happen. If countries are being punished for doing the right thing, why would anyone else step forwards if that is how they would potentially be treated. The international community could’ve intervened a lot early, however, there is no way the American people would go for sending troops there especially after Vietnam just ended. I feel like national sovereignty should be overridden with the purpose to stop the immense suffering of people. In Cambodia, there was mass suffering of millions of people under the Khmer Rouge, and even if it didn’t reach the millions, that is still far too many dying to justify letting the situation “work itself out”. Vietnam clearly did not care for the sovereignty of Cambodia when the sovereignty was overshadowed itself by the mass atrocities going on in Cambodia. The way the Khmer Rouge treated children was pretty similar to the Hitler Youth. As shown in the video they were meant to do a salute when a certain phrase was said, children as young as 7 were taught how to use machine guns, and had propaganda force fed down their throat instead of being fed hearty meals that a child needs. Overall, I’d say that the Cambodian genocide should not have taken as long as it should have to end. This is due to the destabilization caused by the international community, and their lack of need to acknowledge the fact that they need to pick up after themselves.
