learntoquestion ltq discussions

Change becomes unethical when it begins to harm ordinary and innocent citizens. One of the major problems of the way the Khmer Rouge implemented communists beliefs was their approach. They pushed citizens out of their homes, took their belongings, and killed anyone who even slightly opposed their beliefs. This can be seen through the film First They Killed My Father, where the main character, Loung, is pushed out of her city home and becomes a soldier. His father worked for the government, and throughout the film it can be seen that anyone that may have opposed their beliefs in the slightest way was punished. Once being found of his role, he was taken away and killed. This was the unfortunate end for many individuals and their loved ones. Loung and her family experience constant suffering. They are fed rations of rice and forced to perform hard labors. They are extremely malnourished. Only so much suffering can be tolerated, but even when these events reach a breaking point, that does not mean that they are no longer being enacted. The genocide waged on past this. The violence in this situation was universal, not only to Cambodians but also to Monks and Vietnamese citizens. Minimal suffering should be tolerated, especially in this case it is completely avoidable. Violence is not necessary to push this ideology, and in fact it pushes people further away from communist beliefs.

In this specific case, there were many means of manipulation and unethical actions that were pre planned, meaning that they were not things that were bound to happen. Towards the beginning of the film, an evacuation from the city to the countryside is placed in order to avoid U.S Bombs. In reality, “leadership had been planning Phnom Penh’s evacuation since the early 1970s as part of their ideological scheme of a total communist revolution” (Sok Udom Deth). They were under the belief that forcing people to leave their homes, commit harsh labors, and live in fear was what would push for a communist revolution. None of these sufferings were bound to happen--they were pushed onto people for the means of suffering.

The simplest solution to overcome a struggle for change is people bonding together and rising up against these changes. However, it was extremely difficult for people in this situation to. Any acknowledgement of outside beliefs would result in punishment. Coming together would be difficult in this situation because everyone is at risk. There was also an immense amount of fear that made people hesitate in interfering with them. Throughout First They Killed My Father, the parents are constantly telling their children to just follow orders and do what the Khmer Rouge say. People would rather comply and be alive than risk speaking out and getting killed. Coming together in this way is of course possible, but is extremely difficult. They would have to be very cautious on what they are saying, where they are saying, and who they are speaking to. There is no knowing who will go against them, and who actually is against the regime. When taking these precautions, it is also important to make sure the people banded together have some sort of power. Speaking out without any tactics will result in more harm than good. It could be over within a day with they have nothing they can use to fight back. They must be very strategic in speaking out together, but if a greater majority comes, there is a higher chance of igniting change.

Originally posted by facinghistorystudent on April 15, 2025 10:51

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.

The most compelling idea of this post is that the fundamental flaw in Khmer Rouge ideology is that Cambodians were corrupted by capitalism and are greedy. They give examples from the movie First They Killed My Father, where the Cambodian citizens were forced to let go of selfish desires. I agree that this is a fundamental flaw because this idea can clearly be seen in the movie. In my post, I mentioned something similar, that the Cambodians were not seen as individual people, but as a whole. This was a major flaw because this disregarded the individual desires of the people and just assumed that they were all “corrupted” by capitalism. Additionally, this post mentions that communism inherently is bad, and it is not the Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of it. I disagree with this statement because I think society has just never fully created a rightful communist society that agrees with the overall definition of communism. This post gives many examples of societies that have failed due to communism, which I agree did not work out because they were communist. However, I just believe that society has yet to create a communist society that actually creates equality for everyone. The idea of communism is that everyone will share everything and private property will not exist. I think this could work if there isn’t a specific group in power, and the shared resources are plentiful. Overall I don’t believe that communism can work in the way it is defined, but the actual idea of it is not bad.

Originally posted by verose on April 15, 2025 11:02

Just one fundamental problem within the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was the eradication of self and the inflation of state sovereignty. The agency and autonomy that people were deprived of was extreme on all counts, forced to work and even simply live for the sake of progressing the efforts, whims, and desires of their leader and the Khmer Rouge as a whole. This control was such a demanding system, both for the victims and the perpetrators, and the countless moving parts -- from the effectiveness of soldiers to the subjugation of the people -- that it contributed to an air of precarious balance. By amplifying the degree of control he could exert over the people under the Khmer Rouge regime to such an extent, Pol Pot also subjected himself to a great risk: fear. His greatest weakness was the paranoia that loyalty was faked, or that enemies were pressing in on all sides. With the establishment of a state that was centered on this ownership of a people’s bodies and minds -- on the countless losses of many for the supposed benefit of many more -- the Khmer Rouge relied on their victims to not only exert their beliefs but uphold their regime. The overhanging concern of maintaining this obedience while also preventing any suspicions of mutiny or outlander interference was at the heart of the regime, its instatement not only contributing to an even more depraved and inhumane system in which its people were trapped, but also chipping away at the might the Khmer Rouge had attempted at. In correlation to the ideology of communism, I believe there is a very similar “downfall” within the beliefs. There is a stark difference between equity and equality, but the latter is what it often acted on; it would be important to have the same opportunities and base needs met and acknowledged, but not limiting a population to be reflections of what the society might need -- as in “too many” of one profession or “not enough” of another. This idea of equality hinders the role a person can play within society, in which they lose their core and are simply fit in as a slot of a machine; in this way we lose the vibrant, ever-evolving nature of humanity. It’s necessary to offer avenues of both specialized skills or individuality, and the makings of communism have the capacity of this, but have simply not been utilized as such. A great part of this is the economic aspect ingrained in communism, as one can’t “make” a people believe they are equal, and it is really only through economic restriction that we can make it possible, but that in itself is a core failure. This was similarly evident within the movie, First They Killed My Father, in which equality became equivalent to all people exerting physical labor and surviving on meager rations and dismal conditions. The camps in which Cambodians were forced to live under the regime were horrific -- but, in theory, they were “equal.” But the idealized hope for equal status and equal means does not suddenly justify what those might actually manifest as; though one might be considered the same as one’s neighbors, there is no power or validity or unification in that if one’s life is only the reflection of what the regime designs it to be -- and that, at the heart of the Khmer Rouge, was its greater flaw, a commonality within the explorations of communism in the past.

The most compelling idea in Verose’s post is that the Khmer Rouge’s downfall was based on the lack of individualism they forced onto society and their constant paranoia of the regime falling. I completely agree with this, the Khmer Rouge so deeply integrated the idea that individualism only hindered development and tried so hard to get society to believe this. In First They Killed My Father, this is extremely evident in the clothes and changes to appearances that the children got. Each child had to cut their hair short and wear dark blue clothes with a red scarf. The goal of the Khmer Rouge was to make everyone equal, and this was first done by making everyone look the same, then making everyone do the same labour. In Verose's post, they connect this to the movie as well, which I found really interesting and thoughtful. I like how they mentioned that it was small factors that led to the fall of the Khmer Rouge, but it was the core belief that the Khmer Rouge held that led to its eventual demise. The Khmer Rouge prided itself on the supposed ‘equality’ it gave to Cambodians, however the regime that was created only caused death and suffering for all. A notable part of the movie that speaks to this is the man who was caught with French medicine. The man was killed for trying to break free of the norms set in the regime, but this serves as apparent evidence of the poor conditions that people had to go through. It’s obvious that medicine and aid was available, but in order to keep everyone equal, it was administered. Overall, I really enjoyed Verose’s post and feel that they managed to answer the question of the regime’s downfall very well.

The fundamental problems that existed in Khmer Rouge ideology and plan that resulted in the destruction and loss of so many lives in Cambodia are the extreme uses of violence, forceful removal of citizens , along with the removal of classes and intellectual individuals. The Khmer rouge insisted that everyone in Cambodia had to align with their views and could not associate with western imperialism, although their harsh nature resulted in the slaughters of many they considered who were not loyal without any evidence to prove so. This impulsivity seen within the Khmer Rouge to slaughter those as “ killing by mistake is better than keeping an enemy alive was their methodology. Additionally many of those who were forcefully removed from their homes , like those who lived in phnom penh , were told that the Us was going to bomb the city “ In fact, potential bombings by the US and food shortages were not the whole story. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge leadership had been planning Phnom Penh’s evacuation since the early 1970s as part of their ideological scheme of a total communist revolution. Foreigners were ordered out of the country. Soldiers and officials of the Khmer Republic were immediately executed. Everybody, young and old, sick or not, was ordered to leave the city immediately to engage in agricultural activities.”“The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea” by Sok Udom Deth () suffered greatly as they had to lose all their belongings and live in camps. These worker camps were a major cause of death as the conditions were extremely harsh and everyone was eventually subjected to brutality. As seen in the movie First they Killed my Father, the family of the little girl has suffered greatly after losing all their personal belongings, property, and individualism resulting in the placement of the worker camp and the inevitable loss of the parents lives, amongst many others. Lastly a majority of the intellectuals , those who were government officials, teachers, monks, doctors, and etc were targeted, greatly losing their lives and risking the lives of their families. Additionally the girl was treated like “ all children from the age of eight were separated from their parents and placed in labour camps, which taught them that the state was their ‘true’ parents. For the Khmer Rouge, children were central to the revolution as they believed they could be easily moulded, conditioned and indoctrinated. They could be taught to obey orders, become soldiers and kill enemies. Children were taught to believe that anyone not conforming to the Khmer laws were corrupt enemies.” ( “Khmer Rouge Ideology.” Holocaust Memorial Day Trust”) Many people like the girl's father had to lie about his profession in order to survive as long as possible however when they discovered his identity shortly after he was killed. When regarding whether the qualities of the Khmer Rouge leaders displayed a callous interpretation of communism or what is wrong I think it addresses both. As communism in an ideology of having everything equal amongst citizens and a society without classes and additionally individualism, the Khmer Rouge used these principles while making it quite extreme with the extreme amount of force they had used.

Drawing the line between what is ethical and unethical for the goal of creating change is a difficult process. Creating change will obviously affect people, whether they like it or not, but ultimately forcing people to do things they do not want to do is unethical. Straying away from that is the way to ethically bring about change, which is something the Khmer Rouge did not do. The Khmer Rouge acted in extremely unethical ways, because they wanted to reach their goal by all means necessary. Another issue involved was the fact that they wanted to create such an extreme change, one that completely switched people's lives, making it almost impossible to live. When creating change, one must switch things slowly, in order for people to slowly get used to the change, and it wont impact their lives in horrible, disruptive ways. As seen in The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea, “Once in power, the leaders of Democratic Kampuchea (DK) embarked on a bloody revolution that resulted in the deaths of at least 1.7 out of seven million people from starvation, inhumane working conditions, disease, and execution”(Deth 2009). They went through drastic deployments all to bring about these changes to the country. Suffering individually is not okay when trying to create change, but small obstacles as a society are okay. For instance, killing and torturing people is an immediate problem because individually, you are placing harm onto this person who did not do anything wrong. However, if a society has to suffer a little bit, with economic disruption or political changes while the revolution is happening, that is okay if it comes to a simmer eventually. The Khmer Rouge went about their “revolution” in extremely wrong ways. They brought so much suffering to individuals while disrupting their entire lives, disregarding the fact that they lived before this. They were in so much comfort, not knowing that anything would eventually happen. They had less than a day to pack, having to leave their homes and families without a minute's notice. In the movie, First They Killed My Father, we can see how quickly the family had to leave their homes, the children didn't even know what was happening, and were led to walk for days, without any warning. This is the drastic shift that the Khmer Rouge brought, but in such an unethical way. In the movie we could also see the extreme shifts that they had to deal with, going into this militant community, cutting their hair, dying their clothes, always looking the same, and made to work. This “revolution” was truly just a torture chamber and a creation of human and child labor. They had to work all day, whether picking fruit, or digging holes for food to grow, and if they did not do that they would either get beaten or killed. This torture continued as they barely go any food to eat, and had to survive on the little servings they got, we could see them all getting worn down and skinnier as they continued in this life. The Khmer Rouge forced people to do horrendous things, all to make the change they wanted, but they were willing to do anything to get there, which was an extremely unethical mindset and way of getting there.

The Khmer Rouge are no doubt viewed as one of the most evil regimes to have ever ruled, even if it was for that short period of time. The systematic destruction of the Cambodian people, the killing of monks, the murder of innocents because the individual had no value in society, the murder of intellectuals because you shouldn’t have time to think under the new Cambodian rule, the lack of medical aid and technology in order to get rid of Westernization. But was decimating Cambodia for years to come the ultimate goal of Pol Pot? Definitely not. He did believe in the eradication of Western culture, eventually providing benefit to the masses of Cambodia, and that in order to succeed, first they had to suffer. The reality is, that even with all that intent of bettering in the world, nearly all the Khmer Rouge leaders were hypocrites, and the system was never meant to work. They all preached for total equality- that an eye should always be ready to expose someone for the betterment of the agricultural combine, no matter how small the sin. No technology, no books, ect. However, almost none of the Khmer Rouge leaders abided by these rules, they had cars, French medicine, real food, houses, and books, could watch TV, etc.It does demonstrate what is completely inherently wrong with Communism- rules for everyone except for yourself- the innate human greediness- our inability for the most part to be fully without desires for ourselves or our family. It’s why almost every communist dictatorship has the top 0.1% of people ruling the country incredibly, and then that bottom 99.9% living in significantly worse conditions. Communism never works ata beneficial level because the only way to keep it in place is through means of violence. People don’t want to give up everything they own, especially when government officials do what they please with the people’s money. So what do you do to protect your own interests as a high-ranking, powerful man? You kill those who oppose the regime in any way- you begin to rig elections, you dismantle the education system so people can’t think and revolt- it’s a cycle of violence until one regime gets toppled by another which implements same use of violence. Just look at Russia- even with the Soviet Union gone, and Russia a full blown “Democracy” - it’s recovery from Communism is barely apparent. The oligarchy and ruling class still control everything- the media is controlled by the state, intellectualism, although not banned, isn’t a huge point in Russia, and theres a history of violence and lies to the people. Like problem from hell states, people think wishfully about what will happen under a communist regime, maybe the violence will end, we are all the same people anyways. But it’s never true, and especially not true when the Khmer Rouge came around- because the only way to stay in power is to keep the populace terrified when you run an authoritarian, communist regime. So, does the idea of a perfectly equal society, where we can all work to better society together sound great? Yes it does. But is it ever going to happen- no, because we as humans are inherently greedy, and maybe even bad.

The Khmer Rouge are no doubt viewed as one of the most evil regimes to have ever ruled, even if it was for that short period of time. The systematic destruction of the Cambodian people, the killing of monks, the murder of innocents because the individual had no value in society, the murder of intellectuals because you shouldn’t have time to think under the new Cambodian rule, the lack of medical aid and technology in order to get rid of Westernization. But was decimating Cambodia for years to come the ultimate goal of Pol Pot? Definitely not. He did believe in the eradication of Western culture, eventually providing benefit to the masses of Cambodia, and that in order to succeed, first they had to suffer. The reality is, that even with all that intent of bettering in the world, nearly all the Khmer Rouge leaders were hypocrites, and the system was never meant to work. They all preached for total equality- that an eye should always be ready to expose someone for the betterment of the agricultural combine, no matter how small the sin. No technology, no books, ect. However, almost none of the Khmer Rouge leaders abided by these rules, they had cars, French medicine, real food, houses, and books, could watch TV, etc.It does demonstrate what is completely inherently wrong with Communism- rules for everyone except for yourself- the innate human greediness- our inability for the most part to be fully without desires for ourselves or our family. It’s why almost every communist dictatorship has the top 0.1% of people ruling the country incredibly, and then that bottom 99.9% living in significantly worse conditions. Communism never works ata beneficial level because the only way to keep it in place is through means of violence. People don’t want to give up everything they own, especially when government officials do what they please with the people’s money. So what do you do to protect your own interests as a high-ranking, powerful man? You kill those who oppose the regime in any way- you begin to rig elections, you dismantle the education system so people can’t think and revolt- it’s a cycle of violence until one regime gets toppled by another which implements same use of violence. Just look at Russia- even with the Soviet Union gone, and Russia a full blown “Democracy” - it’s recovery from Communism is barely apparent. The oligarchy and ruling class still control everything- the media is controlled by the state, intellectualism, although not banned, isn’t a huge point in Russia, and theres a history of violence and lies to the people. Like problem from hell states, people think wishfully about what will happen under a communist regime, maybe the violence will end, we are all the same people anyways. But it’s never true, and especially not true when the Khmer Rouge came around- because the only way to stay in power is to keep the populace terrified when you run an authoritarian, communist regime. So, does the idea of a perfectly equal society, where we can all work to better society together sound great? Yes it does. But is it ever going to happen- no, because we as humans are inherently greedy, and maybe even bad.

With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world, one draws the line as to which means are ethical and unethical depending on the effect and rate of the change. If the suffering will ultimately quickly lead to peace and freedom, then I do believe that it is worth the fight. However, if not much were to change then I’d consider all of the suffering meaningless and unnecessary. I believe that a “better society” is so important and certainly worth fighting for. However, the fight is truly not worth it if it requires the sacrifice of millions of people. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, desperate efforts to end the suffering for good and preserve the society are necessary. On the part of the international community, many actions could have been taken to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge between 1975-79. For instance, American advisers living in Vietnam, such as Kenneth Quinn, should have reported and documented the numerous accounts of victims describing the horrors they witnessed. These accounts should have been taken with great consideration due to the frequency of similar reports and the grand atrocities they describe. Had the victims’ accounts been taken seriously, the international community may have been made aware of the situation sooner and therefore would have taken action sooner. Additionally, the government of the international community should have made the issue more known to the public. For instance, the government of the United States should have shared their knowledge, despite limited, with the nation, as citizens hold tremendous amounts of power. Rather than do this, the US government hid valuable information and downplayed the severity of the situation. This led to many Americans not being well educated and an overall lost interest in the crisis, making the US less willing to aid the people of Cambodia. Additionally, the international community should have acted by any means necessary to ameliorate the harm done to the people of Cambodia, especially having witnessed the Holocaust and Vietnam crisis. The United States held back from aiding, which was partly due to their alliance with NATO. Despite their alliance, they should have still acted, as sometimes violence is a valid force if used to end suffering and reach peace. National sovereignty should be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people, especially in cases of genocide, in which the perpetrators aim to murder an entire population of innocent people. The national sovereignty could have been overridden by greater military interventions made by the United States, which would have served as a warning to the Khmer Rouge to cease their course of action. Furthermore, the United States could have aimed to override national sovereignty by threatening the Khmer Rouge more harshly, having extreme global power. Not just the United States, but other nations as well could have attempted negotiations and applied greater pressure on the Khmer Rouge.

The Khmer Rouge’s ideologies were far too unrealistic, violent, and extremist. Their policies against technology, medicine, and capitalism were far too extreme and their punishments for those acting against them was death or torture. Cambodia, being a former colony of France, will always retain some of the western influences put onto it. To eliminate western ideologies in any country let alone Cambodia would be nearly impossible as the world had experienced several global wars and were participating in global trade. Pol Pot’s transformation of Cambodia to an agrarian socialist society was too drastic. I believe that this was not just communism’s wrongs but rather Pol Pot’s ineffectiveness in implementing his plans. He moved people from cities into the jungle and forced them to farm for his army while also starving, beating, and murdering them. His implementation of his plans were ineffective as he planned the killings of his own people who were creating food for the military. His unnecessary cruelty was also highlighted in an excerpt from Chapter 6 of A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide which states a Cambodian saying, “to keep you is no gain, to kill you is no loss”. Pol Pot turned his nation into one with no individuality and where people felt oppressed by the government. This is a similar feature in many communist governments but Pol Pot’s systematic murder, torture, and oppression of his own people was a major part in why his people rebelled and he failed.

Change in society should be to bring better things and innovation for the people. These changes should better everyone’s lives and can include economic, social, or technological advancements. Change in society should not be accomplished through excessive violence, torture, and the harm of civilians. Some societies do require violence for change in the case of dictators, tyrants, and rulers who only bring suffering. However, civilians and those unaffiliated with the leader should be spared as they are also victims. In Pol Pot’s case, it was evident that his changes brought great suffering to Cambodians as millions were displaced, killed, tortured, or died from circumstances revolving around his policies. Disease spread in Cambodia and it wasn’t treated because of Pol Pot’s policies of not using western medicine. When it becomes clear that a struggle for change makes society worse, the leader’s power should be stripped or the leader should be taken out of power. Violence was necessary in Cambodia and it took the Vietnamese army to end Pol Pot’s reign.

The international community could have sent humanitarian aid, imposed sanctions, placed embargoes, or stepped in to stop the genocide from occurring. After the Vietnam War, the United States was reluctant to send forces in as the people were outraged at the results of the war. However, the United States and United Nations could have helped the victims by granting them food, shelter, and other basic necessities. Even if these nations didn’t step in directly, they could’ve also threatened or warned the Khmer Rouge against this. In the Bosnian genocide, the United States threatened to send airstrikes, bombs, or troops to stop the massacres but in the Cambodian genocide, nothing was done.

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.

I agree with what you said about how the primary problem with the KR's ideology was with how they constructed their communist regime. Communism is supposed to mean that everyone is equal and there are no classes. Although the KR did eradicate social classes and other things that would distinguish people from one another there were still ranks and people of authority. I agree with glitterseasshell1234 that it goes against Marx's ideas for communism. In the movie for example, the workers were beaten or killed if they went against the authority figures which further exemplifies how the society was not equal. I also like their point about how the KR wrongfully used resources and starved many people as a result of misallocation of resources. If society was meant to be equal then everyone should have the same amount of food and water to survive. Finally, I think that communism as an idea is not inherently wrong but, it would never work in our society because there are power hungry people and different social and political factors that would enable it to work. I think that everyone should get enough resources to survive and that is an important part of a communist society but, when it is implemented into a society it doesn’t end up working out.

The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia sought to create a classless, agrarian utopia rooted in radical communist principles. Even though it was made in order to improve and create a better Cambodia, those principles led to the deaths of nearly two million Cambodians through starvation, forced labor, torture, and execution. Their methods and goals had deep fundamental flaws both in their understanding of communism and in the way they implemented it into their society. The devastation in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge showed how their flawed misinterpretation of Communism and abuse of power led to a worse state of being and created the complete opposite of what was intended. The Khmer Rouge’s version of communism was not rooted in Marxist analysis or a gradual transformation of society but a desire to completely erase the past and start from “Year Zero.”One of the fundamental problems in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was its rejection of urbanization, education, and intellectualism. The regime viewed cities, clothes, and even glasses as symbols of capitalism and corruption, and this led to the targeting of educated people(teachers, doctors, professionals, and even individuals who wore glasses as enemies/traitors of the regime), They believed that by abandoning the cities and forcing everyone into intensive agricultural labor in the rural and farmlands, that they would have a self-sufficient society and wouldn't need the West or any other major power. In First They Killed My Father, this is made clear when Loung is evacuated from her home and forced to hide her identity as the daughter of a former government official. As she and her family are stationed in the countryside, it shows the complete removal of individual identity and the transformation of people into state tools as they are overworked and starved to provide for the soldiers and those above them. The children were taken from their families and indoctrinated into becoming soldiers and into torturing those who were accused of treason and disloyalty. People were starved and worked to death, not because there was no food, but because the state controlled distribution and punished those it suspected of disloyalty. (re-education as shown in the film) Although the principle of removing class and power from the state, the power imbalance that occurred because of this is what caused deep resentment, on top of removing their lives from them, from those enslaved to the soldiers because they reaped all the benefits that the slaves worked. The regime also thought that in order to create a perfect society, they had to eliminate any potential threat to them. This led to mass executions, torture, and the establishment of detention centers like Tuol Sleng (S-21), where thousands were imprisoned and killed. There was also deep paranoia and distrust within the regime, particularly Pol Pot, which spiraled into chaos, leading to internal purges that destroyed many members. This cycle of fear and violence prevented any stability or development and turned Cambodia into a prison state fueled by terror. People would lie and give others up in order to receive any benefit from their seeming "loyalty," further holding down the regime. The Khmer Rouge’s failure was one of its leadership, governance over the people, and morals because its actions were not guided by reason or some sort of political democracy but by total control, selfishness, and paranoia. They weaponized an interpretation of communism that justified mass murder and total state control. The Khmer Rouge’s brutality was unique in its intensity and its rejection of even the basic needs and rights of its people.

Some aspects of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology seemed good in theory, but their execution proved to be harmful to the people of Cambodia. They wanted to create a uniform society where everyone would be equal under the government. However, in their ideology this meant getting rid of everyone who they felt stood in the way of this. They killed former Lon Nol soldiers, Buddhist monks, intellectuals, and government workers. Even people who were somewhat privileged were at risk of death. Having any sign of wealth or knowledge puts them in danger. In First They killed my Father a Khmer Rouge soldier tried to gauge if Luong's father could speak French because he seemed privileged. They noticed things like his watch and nice clothes. Her father clearly knew this and instructed his family to act clueless and he himself did as well. Although the KR brand of communism was quite ruthless, the situation still demonstrates an inherent problem with communism. It never really works in practice even though it sounds nice. It isn't possible for nations to really function in a complete communist society. There is always some sort of hierarchy and everyone isn't actually equal. Communist societies also need an insane amount of community and tend to heavily rebuke individualism, which is expressed as trying to make everyone the same. It never really works well, but Khmer Rouge communism was especially callous and ineffective. They turned the lives of the Cambodian people upside down and put all the pressure on them to assimilate to their new situation. I believe that some war and struggle can be necessary for the overall benefit of a society. If the struggle isn't too drawn out and has a net positive, then I think it's worth it. If it's clear that a change doesn't result in a net positive, I believe that it should be abandoned and that new plans need to be made. In the case of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, it was clear that they were not benefitting the people as much as they claimed they were. It's obvious that the citizens of Cambodia couldn't do much to save themselves as they were at a disadvantage when it came to opposing the KR. Really responsibility lied with the international community as something could have been done for the citizens of Cambodia. The international community could have taken all the reports and victim accounts more seriously from the start. Although it's understandable to question the validity of the claims initially, it doesn't make sense for 20 different people to all have the same story unless that story is true. Once word got out of what the KR was doing to Cambodians, international forces should have done something. National sovereignty should be overridden when a government is targeting their own people because by then they aren't working with the country in mind. If a government's legislation and government actively hinders the ability for citizens to live, something should be done, or questions should at least be raised by the situation. In “A problem from hell”, Twining describes the situation within Cambodia and likens it to the camps Jews were placed in during the Holocaust. Even though the world has learned from past genocides such as the holocaust, that the behavior of the Khmer Rouge was concerning, nothing was done to address it. Their secretive nature and tales of the abuse people faced within was met with wishful thinking instead of meaningful intervention. Although there were many factors that contributed to the lack of international involvement, that doesn’t excuse the lack of support that Cambodians faced in their dilemma.

Throughout all of history, from world wars to civil conflicts, violence has been a means to bring about change. This change often comes with sacrifice and violence, which can often end with ethical ambiguities in the fight for change. However, before there is a violent demonstration for change, there must be a cause. For violence to be present, it should be a last resort with all other avenues having been thoroughly exhausted. However, even in seemingly justified struggles, ethical lines can become blurred. The moment a movement begins to value its ideological purity or goals more than human life, it risks crossing into unethical territory. That’s why an ethical struggle requires not only a just cause but also just means. Just War Theory not only calls for legitimate reasoning behind war like violence, but also requires the practices and violence to be humane and necessary.

Unfortunately, when attempting to make change for a larger population, ideas of a “greater good” become more prevalent, and smaller crimes become increasingly acceptable. The danger in thinking like this is that it often leads to a utilitarian mindset: that the ends justify the means. But history has shown the danger of such logic. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, committed atrocities and war crimes with the mindset that in the end, everything would make up for it. Instead of making up for it, they orchestrated a genocide that killed nearly two million people. In cases like this, where a struggle causes more harm than the oppression it claimed to fight, it becomes clear that the ethical foundation has crumbled. In excerpt 1 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002), we see how the Khmer Rouge began preaching a better future and looking for change for Cambodians, then became worse than what they were advocating against. This led them to commit crimes worse than the ones they used to embed Cambodians with fear of Americans to control them.

Looking from a modern lens with all the facts present, it’s much easier to deem something unethical, but during a struggle for change, it may be much harder to have a set point of how much suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society.” For something to be done, there needs to be a combined understanding and support to stop the suffering, and only once this is reached by the international community can something be done. The international community can intervene through diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, humanitarian aid, and possibly military aid, while domestically, people must be given space to question and challenge authority without fear of repression. Although change is natural and necessary in many cases, a true and impactful revolution is not in how effectively it can destroy the old system, but how compassionately and justly it can build something better in its place. If ethics are not factored in when bringing change, they have the threat of becoming what they once tried to replace.

Originally posted by charsiu on April 12, 2025 16:39

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.

Something I found very interesting in Charsiu’s post was how they referenced the historical connotations of capitalism within Cambodia, and how it in turn made them more willing to accept the promises of communism that the Khmer Rouge presented. I hadn’t even considered this aspect for my own post, and thought that this reference really built up their following points about how it isn’t necessarily the fault of communism itself that doomed the Cambodian people, so much as how the Khmer Rouge twisted it into something better befitting its goals. I of course agree with what they suggested was the root issue within Khmer Rouge ideology, in that the destruction of individuality only heightened internal struggles within the regime, rather than absolve all concerns as had been promised. What followed was an intelligent take on how the structure of a government isn’t necessarily a guarantee of success or failure, and that it is instead the actions of a leader or a people that can warp or foster the lives of their people within it. All in all I quite enjoyed this read, and thought the slightly different perspective and examples from my own train of thought were enlightening and important to ultimately consider.

Originally posted by cactus on April 13, 2025 21:11

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.

I strongly agree with cactus’s analysis about how the KR manipulated the systems and practices of communism as a way to reach their desired outcome. I also agree with cactus’s opinion that communism is not inherently wrong, but that the way it was enacted and reinforced in Cambodia led to the devastation and execution of many innocent people. However, I disagree with cactus on their analysis of foreign policy. In the last line of their learn to question post, they write “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”(cactus 1). I disagree with this argument because I think that history has taught us that more people get hurt when people get involved than when they do not. Since countries, such as America, had “not a lot of coverage” I think it is better that they did not get involved in order so they do not act in an ignorant or ill-informed way(cactus 1). When conflicts such as this genocide occur, there are so many complexities that make it difficult to determine how and when a country should become involved. The lack of information on the Cambodian genocide was a universal problem throughout the entirety of the world, but it should not be blamed on one individual country.