Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 12
Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
The extreme paranoia/obsession with an internal or external enemy had caused the destruction of many lives in Cambodia. These enemies included fascists, imperialists, dissenters, and even the members of the Khmer Rouge party that displayed any form of disloyalty at any time. The surge and intensification of anti-intellectualism, which is also seen in fascist regimes, had taken many lives, as those who were educated with ideas that did not come from the Khmer Rouge party were dangerous and therefore must be eliminated. Other ethnic groups were also seen as enemies, like the Chinese or Vietnamese. The Khmer Rouge had also implemented brutal but seemingly equal working conditions for all as well as the inadequate food distribution which led to mass starvation and health problems. This policy however, was not extended towards those in power, as they had access to more resources, implying that the form of “communism” displayed in Cambodia during this time was not “true communism”, contradicting those who may cite this situation as a reason why communism is inherently substandard and ineffective. Although communism does not require people to go to such extremes, society will always carry those who want more than what they have. Power-hungry individuals will always exist, therefore communism cannot work in any circumstance that involves people or equality for all. This is not to go against those arguing for the appeal of communism, as the idea of equal distribution of wealth for all is attractive, especially for those who lack wealth and notice the socio-economic inequity afflicting society. However, in practice, unless greed and ambitious desire is completely eliminated from human beings, communism is not operable.
To differentiate what is ethical change versus what is unethical, one must consider the harm being done and whether or not people are being denied their basic human rights. The Khmer Rouge figured that suffering was necessary to bring about a better society, however, the society had only gotten worse due to their actions causing mass starvation and death as well as mental and physical trauma. No suffering is tolerable for an improvement in society. One should not be able to diminish the value of individual life for the greater good and for the lives of others. It becomes unethical when you are comparing the life of one to another. When it is clear that a struggle for change is not effective, one should stop. The Khmer Rouge had done the opposite of this, further drawing away from a “better” society. It is likely that the Khmer Rouge had noticed the lack of improvement, yet to avoid facing consequences or increased opposition, they continued further. It is unclear whether or not the cultivation of this movement had intentions for an equal society from the beginning or if it was a strategy to keep themselves (the leaders) in a position above the rest of society. It may be that after observing the lack of efficacy in their actions and policies as leaders, they were content with complicity as they had access to resources and were in a position of power.
Boston, Massachusetts , US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
Communism is a great idea, but for the world that we live in not achievable. Many people have tried it with little success.
For the Khmer Rouge one main flaw in their ideology that led to the destruction of many lives and Cambodia was the creation of a “classless” society and extreme reconstruction of society in the Year Zero. They forced thousands of Cambodians to work as laboros, reeducated and indoctrinated young children, and isolated the country from the international community. Independence was stripped from the Cambodian people and unity under Brother One was considered the most important aspect of life. Scholars or any type of intellectuals, whether that be academic or religious, were sent to agricultural camps. All forms of technology, watches, televisions, music, etc were confiscated and banned. The only acceptable lifestyle was that of a poor agricultural farmer. People who violated any kind of KR ruling were tortured, executed, raped, or put into prison. I think this demonstrates an ineffective and callous approach to communism by the Khmer Rouge, as they restricted peoples independence and freedom in the name of a greater community. I do not think any kind of suffering is tolerable to bring about a better society. A better society would not have any suffering when it is brought about, but this in many cases, is not possible for society. One of the most controversial questions raised by the Cambodian genocide is whether and when national sovereignty should be ignored to prevent massive suffering. I think that if there is a clear sign of suffering because of change then people should step in and do anything they can to prevent more pain. We can’t let horrible things like what happened in Cambodia continue to happen now. The best thing we can do is to step in when signs of regimes such as this one show. The international norm of non-intervention clashed with the moral responsibility to act in the face of atrocity. I believe that when a state commits genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity intervention by the international community is justified. The case of Cambodia clearly fits this framework, but global powers at the time lacked the political will to act. This highlights the tragic consequences of prioritizing state sovereignty and geopolitical interests over human lives (excerpt 1 chapter 6). The question of how such atrocities could have occurred in Cambodia is a mix of historical, ideological, and geopolitical factors. Years of war, American bombings, and the collapse of the Cambodian monarchy destabilized the country. The rise of communism indoctrination as well as the destabilized Cambodia was a place where communism could easily take root. Paranoia and violent purges intensified the regime’s brutality. While Vietnam eventually intervened and stopped the Khmer Rouge in 1979, there was no global response. The Cambodian genocide stands as a reminder of the cost of inaction and the dangers of valuing political stratgey over humanitarian rights.
Genocide in Cambodia
The ideology of the Khmer Rouge was flawed in that they were very hypocritical and didn’t follow their own values that they forced onto the citizens of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge believed that Cambodians had been plagued and corrupted by Western influences, such as having glasses, watches, having access to western technology and medicine, etc. However, the KR did not follow this ideals because higher-ups and officials had access to these western items while they let everyone else die and struggle. These principles alongside communism were problems within the KR because if they believed that all Cambodians were corrupted by western influence, this would include themselves as well. Despite this, the need for an authority figure to “reinforce” these principles allowed the officials to get away with being above them, which defeats the purpose of what communism is ideally supposed to be. Additionally, another contradiction to communism within the Khmer Rouge is placing the people into new “classes.” By having the “city people” be placed as “new people” and “country people” as “base people” while having the officials running the killing fields be the new upper class, it defeats the whole purpose of forcing the idea of “western corruption” and that everyone should go back to the way of the “pure peasant” into the throats of the people. This demonstrates that something is inherently wrong with communism because it would be extremely difficult to enforce its ideology of equality onto the people without the one enforcing it having to technically be equal to the others as well, because they wouldn’t have the authority to do so. This, more often than not, creates a path to corruption and abuse of power, as the authority figure could get away with many things in the name of it being “necessary” in order for communism to work. In the case of the KR, it moreso further exemplified the inherent problem with corruption in communism. In the third reading from A Problem from Hell… Chapter 6: Cambodia, a child soldier killed a pregnant woman with the back of an ax. If the KR believed that Cambodia was corrupt due to Western influence, then killing the pregnant woman has no correlation to what they preached unless she had been educated prior to KR reign. Additionally, using tools like axes could, in a sense, be hypocritical because depending on how much of a “pure peasant” the citizens had to revert back to, then even modern agricultural tools could be seen as something of Western influence. In part of the international community, more certainly could have been done in Cambodia, especially the United States. Although it is understandable that they were exhausted from what happened in Vietnam, to back away from an issue that they indirectly caused and not wanting to deal with it because it was inconvenient shows the lack of accountability the U.S. had and would lower their reliability as a powerful country. Although they didn’t have to be directly involved, they didn’t even attempt to address the plight in Cambodia or send some form of humanitarian aid to the people.
Hyde Park, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 14
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
2. With armed struggle and war a reality of life for people all over the world both past and present, how does one draw the line as to which means are ethical and unethical for bringing about change? How much suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society”? What should happen when it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse, as it was in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge?
Questions regarding war ethics and morals have been present throughout history. Ethics is defined as the respecting of human rights and overall avoiding uncessary harm. Morals are defined as the judgment of human behavior. Both ideas are considered heavily during war because human lives are involved and people question how far you can push ethics and morals. The ethics of war are constantly being challenged by varying regions and their beliefs regarding these topics. In order to actually make a change in a place that holds a lot of power such as any nation across the world a big event needs to happen and leave a big impact. Unfortunately, this usually involves unsafe measures such as bombings, killings, and great destruction of certain regions. But all of these leave great impacts and the change ends up being made. It is a challenging idea because are the lives of people now worth the change for the lives of people in a future advanced society? Wouldn't this mean sacrificing and going against morals and ethics if we have to take these current human lives? But if these lives are taken aren't the ethics and morals still being protected and upheld because the future lives are being kept safe? These are the kinds of questions that are brought to the forefront of war discussions and need to continue to be brought to the forefront. Ethics are always going to be challenged when a great change needs to be made. Unfortunately, human lives will most likely end up being the collateral damage of that and usually do make the change possible. However, I am not sure what else is as valuable and worthy as a human life to make as big an impact when it is gone or taken away. The questions above touch on this kind of uncertainty of war. I think that it's up to a certain nation as to how far they will go in order to make a change and in order to do what they think is best for their own country. Whatever the nation decides to do, ethical or not, they are most likely more worried about the current state of power of their region and its overall stability. Although it may seem vicious and violent, suffering is necessary in some sense to create change. One has to hit rock bottom in order to know how bad it really is and how to get out of it. Countries can apply this same kind of thinking to their decision-making, in political choices, for their civilians. They may make changes that cause the civilians suffering or pain but the overall change needing to be made most likely always gets completed. While in other cases, it may not because of how far the nation took in causing its people certain suffering and pain. If the people are starving to death, being worked to death, and driven to their death in other ways then the country will never see the change it wanted. The people will become furious and will rebel eventually. Whereas if the changes are gradual and cause slight hurting the civilians may not even notice that these things are being implemented into their society. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse and the current government in power does not do anything to counteract this change then otherworldly powers need to step in. If the country's nation doesn't see the issue in all of the suffering it has caused its people then that is where the issue lies and where other people in power need to step in to protect those whose voices are being silenced. Organizations such as the United Nations and those like it work for the people who are being silenced and help them in almost all areas of their lives. It is important though, that a nation never gets this out of hand because it can lead to the deaths of many and its overall own destruction.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
Time and time again, history has been down to repeat its chain of ideologies, often marking its end in a horrifying manner. The Khmer rouge was no different to this idea. They used communism as the basis of their society, in which they would destroy old world views to restart the human race. Essentially, their goal was to create a completely classless, agrarian society, but the way they went about it was extreme and unrealistic. They, naturally, forced any ideas that they deemed unworthy of Khmer Rouge out and exiled. This typically involved: forcing people out of cities, banning religion, education, and money, and killing anyone they saw as “impure” or “too Western”. This led to mass death, starvation, and decline in self preservation. All Cambodians were literally tied to the land, coerced into serving only one body of authority. According to the Association of Asian Studies, “While rice was exported abroad in exchange for military weapons, people were left with virtually nothing to eat and had to work the whole day but had only watery rice porridge to eat. 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.” Not only were they struggling with displacement, but those who were lucky enough to seek shelter also experienced horrific torture and unrealistic conditions. The modern world has currently grown from this genocide, as many Asian Americans have created organzation to shed light on these horrific events in history. In my opinion, violence and war have often been used to fight for change, but that doesn't mean every struggle is justified. Ethical means of change should aim to reduce suffering, not increase it. If the methods being used cause more harm than the problem they're trying to fix, then that's a huge red flag. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge claimed they were building a better society, but they ended up destroying millions of lives. At some point, people have to recognize when a movement is no longer helping anyone and is only making things worse. Suffering shouldn't be seen as necessary or acceptable if it's based on fear, control, and cruelty, like it was under the Khmer Rouge. There should always be a line where leaders or revolutionaries are held accountable if the harm outweighs the goal.The international community could have done more to help Cambodia while the Khmer Rouge was in power. A lot of countries knew what was going on but didn’t do much, probably because they were more focused on Cold War politics than on helping people. Some even kept recognizing the Khmer Rouge as the official government, even though they were clearly hurting their own people. I think when things get really extreme national sovereignty shouldn’t stop other countries or the UN from stepping in. In cases like that, saving lives should matter more than respecting borders. In Cambodia, maybe the UN or nearby countries like Vietnam or Thailand could have done something earlier, whether that was helping refugees, speaking out, or putting pressure on governing officials.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 12
Communist ideology centers around the equal distribution of all goods, power, and services, so true communism has never been able to exist because of extreme power inequalities that come with the implementation of supposed communism. The Khmer Rouge followed the simplistic ideas of communism with the redistribution of wealth, but within the so-called communist society, there were leaders, which goes against the foundation of communism, which has no social hierarchy. The Khmer Rouge’s abrupt transformation of Cambodian society was only possible because of the sheer amount of violent force that was used. One journalist detailed the violence that the Khmer Rouge used to push people out of their homes and take their possessions, “killing those who disobeyed and creating an irrevocable living arrangement” (Power 96). An institutional and widespread implementation of communism is impossible without hurting at least a portion of the population severely. In order for an idealistic communist state to exist, every party participating must have autonomy over that decision.
The Khmer Rouge’s implementation of what they interpreted as communism demonstrates the inability to implement communism humanely on a large scale. Citizens were watched extremely closely and killed for any sign of slight disruption against the regime. In an attempt to create an equal state, an extremely large and unstable power inequality was created. In some extremely high-stakes tattle tale sessions executions of Khmer Rouge military officials were ordered and many Cambodian people were killed as well (108). Mirroring past genocides, the events in Cambodia were ignored by United States reports, with the published reports “blurr[ing] clarity and temper[ing] conviction,” an elongated excuse for the United States to stay out of Southeast Asia after the disastrous events in Vietnam. However, the United States was not the only nation ignoring the genocide in Cambodia. Other nations avoided intervention because it was so unclear what ethical lines were being crossed and if intervention would disrupt foreign sovereignty. If mass murders occur for acts that are considered less than rebellious, international intervention should be taken in order to stop further atrocities from happening. The hypotheticals of intervention are infinitely varied and change depending on the action taken in response to hypothetical intervention.
Cambodian citizens changed their entire lives in an attempt to try to survive the Khmer Rouge regime. Some people were so changed by the Khmer Rouge that they fell into line with the Khmer Rouge’s warfare against the Vietnamese. In First They Killed My Father, Luong learns to fashion many weapons that eventually end up backfiring on her own people. The psychological damages caused by her own actions are irreparable and cause her extreme mental distress which in physical harm’s way. The reality of the lack of intervention by other nations is that many Cambodian citizens were unable to endure the horrors of a communist regime, and died or came out of the time period extremely damaged. The hope to avoid war is not worth the extreme deaths and torture of so many innocent people. If people are being forced to do unethical labor and will be tortured or killed if they do not comply, an ethical line has been crossed and there should be some sort of intervention to prevent the continuation of these actions.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
The Khmer Rouge decidedly represents a failure of Communism as it resulted in genocide and mass death and destruction rather than a reorientation of society towards the elimination of capitalistic self-interested gain. The biggest structural problem that led to these outcomes was the radical idea that the entirety of society ought to be overhauled and that not only was Western capitalist influence contrary to the mission of Kampuchea but actively destructive towards it. This was the epicenter from which stemmed the genocidal practices of murdering any persons who were not ethnically Cambodian, persons loyal to the previous government, or those exhibiting any signs of being educated. As described in an article by the Association for Asian Studies, Pol Pot wanted to start Cambodia over from Year Zero, representing the degree to which anything associated with the past was repudiated as a danger to society. Furthermore, the article describes S-21 the repurposed school that was used as a place of torture and execution of enemies and that had acquired a reputation for being a place from which none returned. This is the biggest problem in the way that Khmer Rouge Communism was organized: the regime was based on a brand of oppression that required there to be a class in absolute power over another to prevent any revolution from ending the new state. In fact, many Communist regimes to this point have ended because the people find a manner of internal resistance against the atrocious living conditions within the state. Because governments exist under constant fear of such a rebellion, there must always be a power dynamic that makes true Communism and living for the benefit of the community impossible.
Although some officials of the new order may have believed truly that they were creating a better society for the people of Cambodia, the creation of a better state can never entail the mass violations of basic rights of a group, regardless of whether they are the majority group within the new society or not. The fact that Khmer Rouge ideals of society required mass executions and separation of families, as shown in the film First They Killed My Father when Luong’s mother was forced to send her remaining children away as orphans in a desperate bid for their survival, should serve as a clear indication that this new and improved vision of society was only meant to truly benefit one group: those who had designed the regime and had power over its implementation. The ‘classless’ society the regime created may not have been divided into the traditional capitalist bourgeoisie and proletariat, but there was clear evidence of better treatment of those working directly for the regime, as when Luong is able to save enough food from the military training camp to hope to take back to her starving sister in the work camp. This demonstrates clear privileging of those working for the regime.
Ultimately, this shows that the system in Kampuchea was not truly Communism, but the same can be said for every single government that has to this day called itself Communist. We have never truly executed these ideals, and the more we try and fail atrociously, the higher the likelihood that this is simply proof that human nature hard-wires in a desire to amass as many resources as possible for oneself, even at the expense of others, perhaps in a primitive survival instinct that dictates having an excess is the greatest assurance of survival. Whatever the reason, such a descent into atrocity and violation of rights should never be justified regardless of any claim of creating a better society.
Dorchester Center, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
As Cambodia had been a French colony throughout the nineteenth century, the whole of the population had developed a strong resentment towards the elite (those who benefited from colonialism) and specifically western powers. After Cambodia gained independence in November of 1953, much of the population was left in detrimental states of poverty and exclusion. With the rise of communism in China, this new ideology offered by the Khmer Rouge promised many Cambodians a future during which they would be able to demolish social class and live in harmony by their own utopia. In Education About Asia: “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea,” Sok Udom Deth writes: “Many people initially greeted Khmer Rouge soldiers with joy, believing that peace had finally arrived. Before long, they would find themselves walking into a living hell. Pol Pot had envisioned a totally new, classless, and self-independent society, in which the peasants were regarded as the backbone of the society. He reputedly claimed that if the Khmers could build Angkor, they could do anything. Cambodia was to be started anew, at Year Zero.” The hope of a complete restart led many Cambodians to believe the promises presented by the Khmer Rouge; however, their hopeful beginning was only temporary as the Khmer Rouge revealed their dark undertones to create a nation by which no individual mattered. Through the radically extreme interpretation and implementation of a communist empire, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge formed a destructive and oppressive regime focused on the diminishment of intellectualism and individuality, ultimately resulting in the death of over 2 million Cambodians. As “Year Zero” began, Cambodians were stripped of their homes, belongings, and families in order to pursue a life of unbreaking agricultural labor. The Khmer Rouge had completely reconstructed their idea of communism and focused their attention on the importance of labor, and working for the “better of the population.” Despite the labor completed by citizens and those alike, their living conditions remained uninhabitable; due to the hatred of intellectualism and western influences alike, many were denied medicines and remedies for their illnesses, causing the deaths of many. Pregnant women were even denied healthcare when needed to deliver their children, resulting in fatalities for the mothers and newborns alike. Those who were able to survive the labor and sicknesses were faced with starvation and thirst as the Khmer Rouge leaders gave each person the same, minimal portions. Many innocent people were constantly faced with the threat of death as they could be viewed as an “enemy” at any moment; the Khmer Rouge identified enemies through their own biases and superstitions, putting anyone who offered resistance or intellectualism in danger. These executions were carried out daily, as the leaders of the regime pushed the idea of “better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person go free.” During this oppressive rule, children were not even protected, as many were used as students to teach them of the Khmer Rouge’s way, and reveal any enemies, including their parents; many of the soldiers on the front lines and in control of the camps were child soldiers. The Khmer Rouge was incredibly flawed in their concept of communism and their overall execution of their beliefs; through the strict dehumanization and pure removal of individual thought, the Khmer Rouge strayed away from traditional communism and instead pursued an extreme empire that lacked the value of humanity. The Cambodian Genocide was not solely an issue of communism but rather a deeply-rooted concern in the values of the Khmer Rouge, as well as their inability to practice and institute their beliefs in a nation that seeked growth and trust when it was needed most.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge-Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
What is ethical and unethical to bring about a change? Let’s start with violence: there are certainly times throughout history in which violence and executions are justified in order to overthrow a corrupt system, and this is generally agreed to be justified, the questions are how much violence, violence towards whom, and how long the violence/uprising lasts? For the amount of violence, I am of the opinion that it should be proportional to the violence of the system. If overthrowing the president of a club, no violence can be used because it does not match the precedent set by that system. However, if talking about, say, slavery, one of the most brutal systems of oppression to ever exist, violence of a pretty big scale is justified. As for violence towards whom, I would say those directly involved in harming others or perpetuating that system. It is difficult to separate the “innocent” from the “guilty” during a revolution but I think that it is incredibly beneficial to try. I think they should have committed these acts as a willing adult, and that the violence against them specifically should correspond to their actions against others. I also do not believe in targeting someone in any way besides what would directly impact them. Now comes the trickiest question: violence for how long? On one hand, violence, if following these rules, is justified to engender change right? But if it drags on, at what point does it in and of itself become the new system of violence? I think that, as long as it is following the rules above, the conflict can go on as long as needed. In a violent system, only those directly involved in the system are, with all hope, punished and in a non-violent system, it is just an extended non-violent protest. The thing is, while this is all great in theory, I very much doubt it would actually hold up in practice. There are a couple of issues with it. For one, there is no practical way to control all of those in a mass movement, and despite what those in authority in it may try to do, there will be strayers under the movement who cause more damage than intended. There is no way to actually police who is hurt and to the degree in which they are hurt; things can incredibly easily spread out of control. According to Sok Udom Deth, Pol Pot started off wanting independence from France. The Khmer Rouge were, originally, celebrated. But things spiral and change. Change is independent of morality. What started off as a hope became a hell. There is also the fact that, especially nowadays, many people have varying degrees of complicity in a system that, while they did not set up, they may benefit from. In reality, it is super difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. The Khmer Rouge tried: look where it got them. Also, suffering comes from more than just violence. Take, for instance, starvation. What if an uprising causes the economy to deteriorate and then a depression? My answer can’t account for that, but I think in that case it is dependent on whether or not though suffering from such a depression still support the movement. As long as it has the consent of the suffering, the movement goes on.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
Peer Feedback: The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
Originally posted by
mouse0 on April 12, 2025 18:18
The extreme paranoia/obsession with an internal or external enemy had caused the destruction of many lives in Cambodia. These enemies included fascists, imperialists, dissenters, and even the members of the Khmer Rouge party that displayed any form of disloyalty at any time. The surge and intensification of anti-intellectualism, which is also seen in fascist regimes, had taken many lives, as those who were educated with ideas that did not come from the Khmer Rouge party were dangerous and therefore must be eliminated. Other ethnic groups were also seen as enemies, like the Chinese or Vietnamese. The Khmer Rouge had also implemented brutal but seemingly equal working conditions for all as well as the inadequate food distribution which led to mass starvation and health problems. This policy however, was not extended towards those in power, as they had access to more resources, implying that the form of “communism” displayed in Cambodia during this time was not “true communism”, contradicting those who may cite this situation as a reason why communism is inherently substandard and ineffective. Although communism does not require people to go to such extremes, society will always carry those who want more than what they have. Power-hungry individuals will always exist, therefore communism cannot work in any circumstance that involves people or equality for all. This is not to go against those arguing for the appeal of communism, as the idea of equal distribution of wealth for all is attractive, especially for those who lack wealth and notice the socio-economic inequity afflicting society. However, in practice, unless greed and ambitious desire is completely eliminated from human beings, communism is not operable.
To differentiate what is ethical change versus what is unethical, one must consider the harm being done and whether or not people are being denied their basic human rights. The Khmer Rouge figured that suffering was necessary to bring about a better society, however, the society had only gotten worse due to their actions causing mass starvation and death as well as mental and physical trauma. No suffering is tolerable for an improvement in society. One should not be able to diminish the value of individual life for the greater good and for the lives of others. It becomes unethical when you are comparing the life of one to another. When it is clear that a struggle for change is not effective, one should stop. The Khmer Rouge had done the opposite of this, further drawing away from a “better” society. It is likely that the Khmer Rouge had noticed the lack of improvement, yet to avoid facing consequences or increased opposition, they continued further. It is unclear whether or not the cultivation of this movement had intentions for an equal society from the beginning or if it was a strategy to keep themselves (the leaders) in a position above the rest of society. It may be that after observing the lack of efficacy in their actions and policies as leaders, they were content with complicity as they had access to resources and were in a position of power.
Hi mouse0!
Amazing response! I agree with your points about how Communism may simply be impossible in the context of human nature. I also think it's very strong to contrast the reality of how centered around power our society has become with the fact that Communism is a very appealing ideology on paper, especially in a world that has so much power imbalance and economic inequality. I believe that we need to collectively reckon with this when addressing Communist regimes that spun into atrocity because it helps us see the broader problems that society must address to prevent the rise of such regimes.
I think it would be very interesting to analyze the line between just social change for the creation of a new society and unjust and abusive reform movements in the same light of examining whether it can actually be achieved in light of the flaws of human nature. Does the fact that humans are power-hungry and generally self-interested preclude a genuinely ethical revolution movement, and is it possible to not compare one life with another? I think you are completely right that when the value of people’s humanity is placed on a scale, it is immoral and will very likely lead to atrocity. Our inability to genuinely recognize that we are all equal is one of the biggest flaws of society that both gives rise to and destroys revolution movements.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community
The biggest problem was with how the Khmer Rouge executed their ideology. While communism in theory is a great idea. With no social classes there would be no more class discrimination and everyone would be able to live the same and get the same and not be forced to work on the behalf of others. While in theory this is a great idea, in reality it can never happen because humans will always crave power over others and would not want to work if they do not have to. This was kind of shown in the film and readings we have done in class. While the soldiers and higher ups of the Khmer Rouge stripped cities and people from their vehicles, weapons, and their homes and forced them to live off simple agriculture; they did not do the same for themselves. They kept their guns and weapons and used that to exert power over the people of Cambodia. They needed the power of guns because they knew no one would listen to the other side. This was a big problem with the Khmer Rouge. They forced anyone and everyone into believing their cause which led to resentment and fighting back and leaving as soon as possible. This is also the downfall of communism in many places and times. People are forced into the ideology without a second thought and if they were allowed to join and leave as they please it is not far-fetched to say that the idea might hold out better and for longer. Change is a difficult thing to bring about especially within a whole already functioning society. Bringing in change could hurt a lot of people and their well being for the better or for the worse. However, change is necessary sometimes and some people suffering is expected but should not exactly be tolerated. For example, if you bring change to a company such as a new CEO who has new rules so everyday life is now different, this could have been a necessary change that had lots of benefits for the company. However, one must look at the people and see how they are affected as well. With these new rules, someone might need to start doing something in a way they haven’t done before or completely leave and join somewhere else. Regardless of these things being expected outcomes, we must be ready to help that person learn their new ways or find a new path if we are going to take the burden of bringing about change you must also carry that burden as well. If innocent people are suffering for an extended amount of time with no help due to a change, that change could not have been good in the first place and ought to simply be stopped. National Sovereignty should be stopped when it is clear that it is not the best for the people anymore. It is clear that while Cambodia might have national sovereignty, if all of its people are dying due to a group of people you must step up eventually or else there will be no people to be a sovereign of. The best for the people should be the goal of every international argument and if it is clear that something will be of benefit for hundreds of thousands of people or anyone at all, it should be looked at as something that should be done.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13
Peer Review
Originally posted by
SharkBait on April 15, 2025 11:37
As Cambodia had been a French colony throughout the nineteenth century, the whole of the population had developed a strong resentment towards the elite (those who benefited from colonialism) and specifically western powers. After Cambodia gained independence in November of 1953, much of the population was left in detrimental states of poverty and exclusion. With the rise of communism in China, this new ideology offered by the Khmer Rouge promised many Cambodians a future during which they would be able to demolish social class and live in harmony by their own utopia. In Education About Asia: “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea,” Sok Udom Deth writes: “Many people initially greeted Khmer Rouge soldiers with joy, believing that peace had finally arrived. Before long, they would find themselves walking into a living hell. Pol Pot had envisioned a totally new, classless, and self-independent society, in which the peasants were regarded as the backbone of the society. He reputedly claimed that if the Khmers could build Angkor, they could do anything. Cambodia was to be started anew, at Year Zero.” The hope of a complete restart led many Cambodians to believe the promises presented by the Khmer Rouge; however, their hopeful beginning was only temporary as the Khmer Rouge revealed their dark undertones to create a nation by which no individual mattered. Through the radically extreme interpretation and implementation of a communist empire, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge formed a destructive and oppressive regime focused on the diminishment of intellectualism and individuality, ultimately resulting in the death of over 2 million Cambodians. As “Year Zero” began, Cambodians were stripped of their homes, belongings, and families in order to pursue a life of unbreaking agricultural labor. The Khmer Rouge had completely reconstructed their idea of communism and focused their attention on the importance of labor, and working for the “better of the population.” Despite the labor completed by citizens and those alike, their living conditions remained uninhabitable; due to the hatred of intellectualism and western influences alike, many were denied medicines and remedies for their illnesses, causing the deaths of many. Pregnant women were even denied healthcare when needed to deliver their children, resulting in fatalities for the mothers and newborns alike. Those who were able to survive the labor and sicknesses were faced with starvation and thirst as the Khmer Rouge leaders gave each person the same, minimal portions. Many innocent people were constantly faced with the threat of death as they could be viewed as an “enemy” at any moment; the Khmer Rouge identified enemies through their own biases and superstitions, putting anyone who offered resistance or intellectualism in danger. These executions were carried out daily, as the leaders of the regime pushed the idea of “better to kill a hundred innocent people than let one truly guilty person go free.” During this oppressive rule, children were not even protected, as many were used as students to teach them of the Khmer Rouge’s way, and reveal any enemies, including their parents; many of the soldiers on the front lines and in control of the camps were child soldiers. The Khmer Rouge was incredibly flawed in their concept of communism and their overall execution of their beliefs; through the strict dehumanization and pure removal of individual thought, the Khmer Rouge strayed away from traditional communism and instead pursued an extreme empire that lacked the value of humanity. The Cambodian Genocide was not solely an issue of communism but rather a deeply-rooted concern in the values of the Khmer Rouge, as well as their inability to practice and institute their beliefs in a nation that seeked growth and trust when it was needed most.
Hello @SharkBait !! I would like to point out that I really liked reading your piece on the Khmer Rouge, because I believe that our main ideas point to similar ideologies, which makes me glad that others see the importance of speaking on these issues. First, I would like to start by saying that it was smart to consider the feelings of victim’s in your piece, specifically in this quote, “the whole of the population had developed a strong resentment towards the elite (those who benefited from colonialism) and specifically western powers. After Cambodia gained independence in November of 1953, much of the population was left in detrimental states of poverty and exclusion. ”The Khmer Rouge didn't seem like a threat to the livelihoods of Cambodians because it was true that they all lived lives that weren’t necessarily desirable. I think that this piece allowed me to see a double perspective on the situation, and helped me assess my own opinion in my writing! Your mention of children being forced to become informants or soldiers is chilling but important. It highlights the totalitarian control the Khmer Rouge had, and it makes the horror of the genocide even more real. You also effectively criticized the Khmer Rouge for their flawed and extreme version of communism, pointing out how they strayed so far from its true ideals, which is a crucial aspect to understanding the roots of this tragedy. In general, I really like how you bring different points from different perspectives that creates a well rounded writing!! Good job!!!
