learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by pinkpenguin on April 14, 2025 21:54

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.

I think this is a very compelling and very strong response, and I agree with a lot of points. Communism, ideally, doesn’t sound bad at all, however, there are natural power imbalances in society. I mean this in the sense that there have always been cases of corruption whenever leaders tried to implement communism in society, much like you said. Additionally, I agree with your point that communism implemented only through peaceful means is impossible because in a world where power is constantly desired, whether consciously or not, it is inevitable that people would disagree with a system where all is shared equally. It is only through sheer and violent force that would get people to adhere to communist ideology.

I also agree that the Khmer Rouge’s implementation of communism further shows and strengthens the idea that communism cannot work due to the violence and disaster it causes since a fear of disloyalty and “backstabbing” resulted in the deaths of many, including those who were actually loyal to the regime. I think the point you made about the psychological damage that being in the killing fields did to Cambodians is very interesting insight. Loung’s involvement in the deaths of her fellow Cambodians through the landmines must have been extremely traumatizing as being the indirect cause of so many people’s deaths would be detrimental and guilt-riddling, especially at such a young age.

Originally posted by VelveteenRabbit on April 15, 2025 12:56

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.

Hi VelveteenRabbit,

This is a great response, I loved reading it. Your perspective on how any violence should be proportional to the violence of the system is really interesting, and I actually agree with your view. I never thought of it this way. I also agree with the fact that those directly involved in the crime should be the ones harmed. What do you think of people who were indirectly involved in crime? Should they be punished? How should they be punished? I like how in your response you included many important questions that should be asked when analyzing situations such as this. For example you included your opinion to the question for how long violence should continue when punishing someone and at what point will this become the new system of violence. These are really practical questions that everyone should think about when answering these prompts and I agree with your opinion that there is no practical way to control all of those in a mass movement. Looking to control such a large group of people is very difficult. There will always be different levels of complicity between people. You also make this comparison in your LTQ and relate it to the Khmer Rouge, and how this kind of thinking led to flaws in their government.

Originally posted by Introspection84 on April 15, 2025 08:39

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.

I thought this student's response was really well thought out and showed really good understanding of the case study. I really enjoyed how they not only talked about the rapid changes and the extremist ideology but also about the power imbalance. The way they connected the power imbalance with the oppression and showed how these things are interlinked I thought was incredibly insightful. Furthermore, this student’s use of other articles in their response really supported their argument and showed that they went further than the handouts we had to annotate. I also thought the description of some of the events in the movie as evidence was really well integrated and very strong to support the claim because the film was based on true events. I thought the conclusion was very strong and it was a good point that communism goes against human nature and we have seen this cycle of people attempting to make communism work and failing time and time again. This is not a negative comment but I would really like to see this students thoughts on the other questions as well just because personally I think thinking in depth about one question is good but it can also be beneficial to touch on multiple questions so you can explore the topic from multiple perspectives.

Originally posted by crunchybiscuits on April 13, 2025 22:12

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.

Hey crunchybiscuits, I thought your response was really good, you emphasized the struggle of Cambodian genocide victims and I can tell that you researched this topic a lot. I liked the amount of new information that I don’t think we learned about in class, specifically the information regarding the food crisis because even though that was known, I assumed it was a byproduct of communism. I think we have similar opinions about the ethics of change. I also think that if the change is doing more harm than good, then it is ethically a red flag for other countries. You did mention that there should be a line for leaders to be held accountable, and I was wondering if such a thing is possible. I thought a lot about the same idea, but it seems impossible to justify suffering in order for the greater good in the eyes of a country’s subjects. Most people would be against the idea of their current life becoming worse even if they’re told that it will get better in the future because it’s not necessarily a guarantee and they’re already struggling as is. Also there is a lot of stigma around governments nowadays, at least in the US but I’m sure in other places as well, which makes trusting their word more difficult.

Originally posted by starfruit_24 on April 15, 2025 13:31

Some of the fundamental issues with the Khmer Rouge ideology were hypocrisy, poor execution and publicity. Hypocrisy is not necessarily a problem with the ideology, but more so in the way the Khmer Rouge operated. People were stripped of anything remotely modern – watches, cars, factories, hospitals — and murdered those associated with academia or foreign influence. This included government employees, those educated abroad, those who were multilingual and even those who wore glasses. All while the Khmer Rouge ruthlessly targeted anyone they deemed an opposition to their ideology, their leaders were educated abroad, the leaders and many soldiers were multilingual, modern weapons were used in mass murders. Furthermore, Prince Sihanouk, an early KR supporter “believed that communists in the region would win the war. He collaborated with China, and had a secret alliance with North Viêt Nam, with the intention of keeping Cambodia out of war and keeping himself in power” (The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea). Even outside of direct KR leadership, those trying to sell the regime to the public went against everything the regime stood for. Secondly, the publicity associated with mass executions definitely took a toll on those around. The KR promoted a society where people would have everything they needed, but it was publicly shown that this simply was not and could not be true. A regime that claimed to give so much not only took the lives of many, but also tarnished the memory and innocence of countless survivors. I think it’s also kind of interesting that while the Khmer Rouge was considered a communist regime, a lot of their actions reflect the recurring characteristics of fascist regimes we reviewed earlier in the year. Firstly the KR placed a huge emphasis on youth. Youth made the majority of KR forces and were trained to be the perpetrators of many of the murders and crimes committed under the regime. Furthermore, children were taught to spy on the adults around them, similar to how children in the Nazi youth were trained to report on their families private conversations. Secondly, the KR glorified the past. Part of the KR ideology was that the western world, other foreign influence and modernization had fundamentally corrupted the people of Cambodia. In a way, this does glorify or uplift the lifestyle of Cambodia pre-colonization. However, even pre-colonization, the Khmer Empire which was situated in Cambodia from the 9th to 15th centuries engaged in foreign interactions with nearby China, Srivijaya and more. This part is what is inherently related to fascism; as no time in recent history had Cambodia even been free from foreign influence, the KR uplifted the mythic past associated with fascism.

I think a good place to look for help on where lines should be drawn would be Jus in Bello. The document brings up the principles of proportionality, discusses who can be considered a legitimate target and outlines when the use of excessive force is acceptable. Even with the outlines of this document, everything is still a little subjective. I think it may be best to take things on a case by case basis. Every conflict is at least a little different from the others, so I don’t believe it would be right to simply draw a line in the sand. Different circumstances deserve different approaches. The instance where I think there is a hard line to be drawn is when legal violations (breaching Geneva convention, crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, etc.) occur. Based on everything we’ve covered this year, most nations and international bodies seem to agree that in most cases, this is a line not to be crossed. I think that in order to better a society, struggle may be appropriate, but suffering is probably less appropriate. I think the important difference between these is that struggle can be self-inflicted, but in a lot of cases suffering comes from an external source. Furthermore, struggle refers to the effort and resistance to difficulty while suffering refers to distress and pain. While both suffering and struggle can be part of mass social change, in my opinion, suffering of the masses could be an early warning sign that change may not be for the better. The distinction between suffering and struggle can definitely be hazy at times, but either way, I would argue that the sheer amount of suffering that occurred under the Khmer Rouge was in no way ethical, no matter the motive.

Rather than pulling away and leaving Cambodia in the dark due to their own plight, the international community could have at least tried to keep eyes on the issue, and also relied less on political relationships to determine whether caring was with it. Samantha Powers argues that “the United States and its allies might have responded if the same crimes had been committed in a different place” (A Problem From Hell). The only reason many nations got involved in Vietnam was because they wanted to curb the spread of communism, in their own interest. Once Vietnam and Cambodia became ‘too hostile’ to be in the best interest of western nations, everyone left. I think throughout history, nations placing an emphasis on their own political agendas have consistently and problematically overshadowed their willingness to place value on human lives outside their borders. Even though foreign influence would not have been received well, and may not have prevented a total KR takeover, it may have at least decreased the speed with which the KR were able to ‘revolutionize’ the lives of Cambodian people.

Hi starfruit_24!

First off, I’d like to say I really enjoyed your response! I thought it was quite thoughtful and you brought in a lot of interesting concepts from our class and many different outside sources, so well done!

I agree with your point about the issue with hypocrisy in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology; they had hated the ideology of western nations and hoped to diminish all intellectualism and social class yet they quickly established an order of power. I thought it was really interesting how you brought up the idea that the KR shifted to become more of a fascist regime, as they moved further away from their original ideology of utopian communism. The connections you made between the KR and the Nazis during WWII were really well thought-of, and it’s certainly quite disheartening and terrifying to think about! The emphasis and power of youth was not because they cared about the children but rather they hoped to use them to continue their influence. I never even considered the idea that they glorified the past, and I think you dove really deep in your response! Their “Year Zero” was them attempting to return to tradition and completely start anew.

The difference you established between suffering and struggling is a really strong point, and I entirely agree. To create a difference, there can be some struggling as it requires change and uncertainty but struggling is a sign that there is harm that may or may not be able to be undone. I thought your final point about other nations refusing to interfere was very interesting, and a really powerful idea to bring in. They wanted to destroy communism, not the genocide itself, and frankly it is all for geopolitical influence.

Overall, your response was really thought-provoking and I really enjoyed reading it, great job!

Originally posted by abcd on April 15, 2025 13:23

While the idea that everyone should be relatively equal is a good one, it should be about individual people having enough resources and minimizing power/resource hoarding. I believe that where the Khmer Rouge’s extreme communism ideology became dangerous is when their philosophy about equality went beyond the individual and prioritized the group over all. In the section “Official U.S. Intelligence, Unofficial Skepticism” in the book A Problem From Hell, Samantha Powers reports how the KR would say over the radio that “what is infected must be cut out,” how it is better to kill innocent people then let the guilty walk free, and that it is of no importance to Angkar whether a person is dead or alive. Equality should not and does not come at the expense of an individual's life for the putative betterment of a party/group, and this was a grave mistake of the Khmer Rouge.

Completely radical communism has flaws, that regardless of the group implementing it, will always prevail. This is because 100% equality is impossible: besides the fact that humans are biased, in order to achieve total equality, someone has to implement the policy shift. This someone inherently has more power than the rest, which is henceforth why total equity for a large group of people is not possible. While most of the Cambodian population slaved away in the countryside under inhumane conditions, dying of starvation, disease, and abuse, Pol Pot, other Khmer Rouge leaders, and military elites were benefiting from secret food aid from China and allowed to keep and use modern technology and medicine. However, I do think that some small scale versions of communism (but not the extremely radical type) or at least some communist policies can be successful. But, at this point it becomes hard for me to distinguish between communism and socialism.

On a different topic: while national sovereignty is important, I believe that a dedication to upholding human rights takes precedence. After all, we are all humans, and therefore our primary responsibility is to other humans, not systems of government. Therefore, when there is substantial human rights violation, I believe it is appropriate to override national sovereignty to stop the immense suffering. It is important to note, however, this is a slippery slope. For example, many Europeans in the late 19th and early 20th century believed they were helping people in Africa and Asia, when in reality they were implementing a violent colonial project. It is important to consider when foreign aid and involvement crosses the line between helpfulness and imperialism. In order to ensure this line isn’t crossed, it is important that countries getting involved in foreign affairs work hand in hand with the people (especially the everyday person if the government is corrupt) of the country they are working with, in order to do what the people want and need. In regards to the Cambodian genocide, many Western powers had the knowledge and resources to intervene and give aid to the Cambodian people. However, Western aid was not significantly provided until Vietnam invaded Cambodia and defeated the Khmer Rouge. Powers attributes this partially to “Southeast Asia fatigue,” which is how the U.S. was tired of hearing news about Southeast Asia after the Vietnamese war. America’s inaction was unacceptable, especially since U.S. bombing had a large role in destabilizing Cambodia.

I agree with your thought that the flaw with the Khmer Rouge lies in how they executed their ideology. However, I did not think of how you did so reading your post brought a new perspective which was very interesting to me. I recognized the issue as them saying they want the whole group to be equal while giving power to their higher ups rather than them focusing on the group as a whole rather than the individual. Your comment on why equality was impossible was also extremely interesting. While I’ve thought that it was impossible I’ve never thought about it as a fundamental problem where someone needs power to change things but if one person has power then there is no inequality. I like to think that democracy, in theory, might be the closest thing we could get to equality as the power as within the people; however, it is obvious in reality that just is not the case. I agreed with the idea that while national sovereignty is important human rights are even more important. There is no reason that a country should get punished for stopping the Khmer Rouge simply because they went over the nation's sovereignty. If we could not protect people from very problems there is no point in having a nation to sovereign. I really liked your post and how you supposed and introduced ideas; it was very interesting and I feel like I’ve learned very important and new perspectives.

Originally posted by historymaster321 on April 13, 2025 18:38

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.

Hi historymaster321,

I just read your thoughts and I have some opinions.

You said that if you killed those in the present to guard those in the future then you would not be betraying your morals, but how can you justify pain, death and suffering for the lives of people who don’t currently exist yet if those future people would also suffer. Would it not be a betrayal of those who died for their happiness? Could you justify killing those people for their future generation? When does it end? You say that it is unfortunate that human lives are being the catalyst for change, but is it worth it? What exactly is your stance? But leaving it up to a nation, aren’t you leaving the people vulnerable to violations of their human rights or even genocide in the name of state sovereignty. You say they may need to hit rock bottom, but wouldn’t that eureka moment only actually affect those who experience that low, or those on the lowest rung of society? Wouldn’t that group have the least power to change their new desolate situation? And also, when is it clear that “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”? At what point does that change? Just some questions to think about. Overall, I really enjoyed reading your work, even though I didn’t agree with it.

The question on how to determine the ethical means of bringing change when there are armed conflicts and war involved is more complex than a simple answer. There's a moral and philosophical part of the answer. Drawing the line between ethical and unethical means using Jus War theory and finding the morally justifiable reason for war, finding the right intentions for war, and making sure that war is the last resort. Many would argue that peaceful means are all exhausted and after many suffer through a brutal regime, armed resistance becomes not only justified but necessary. Nevertheless, even in causes that are just, the tactics used must still remain proportionate and respect the inherent dignity of human life. Bombardment of civilians, using child soldiers, torture, and indiscriminate destruction breach the ethical wall — even if committed in the name of liberation. When the tactics utilized become analogous to those of the oppressor or cause harm that outweighs any good obtained, the moral support of the struggle begins to crumble. This is starkly evident in instances where armed struggle devolves into vendetta cycles, ethnic cleansing, or dictatorship. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge is a tragic example of revolution gone grotesquely wrong. Initially, the Khmer Rouge rose to power on promises to create a classless, rural utopia free from foreign influence and inequality. But their tactics — mass forced evictions, mass shootings, forced labor camps, and state-run purges — soon transformed the nation into a dystopian hell. Almost two million people were killed in a mere three years and nine months. The agonies caused under the guise of creating a better world far exceeded any supposed benefits, leaving a fundamental question: What can be done when revolution turns into disaster? When a movement towards change begins to cause more harm than good, moral obligation requires reassessment. Further support for such a movement becomes morally unacceptable. The international community, internal resistance groups, and even the initial advocates must step in to expose the regime, oppose it, and, if necessary, dismantle it. Accountability and justice must follow, not only to reclaim the nation but also to make sure that a clear message is sent that atrocities cannot be justified by utopian ends. Finally, while the motive to build a better world is commendable, the means taken to achieve this end must be in line with moral principles. Armed struggle sometimes can be a necessary choice, but it needs to be checked by humanity, guided by justice, and constantly re-evaluated by its effect. If the drive towards a better society is going to lead to widespread suffering and oppression, as in the example of the Khmer Rouge, then it is not a revolution but a tragedy — one that must be fought against rather than glorified. At the heart of the issue is the inquiry of whether violence is ever justified within the struggle for a more desirable world. According to many, when all nonviolent options have been tried and human beings are suffering under the hand of an oppressive government, then armed rebellion is not merely comprehensible but mandatory. Historical examples such as the anti-colonial struggles in India, Algeria, and South Africa, or resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II, are typically cited as cases where armed resistance was morally grounded. These struggles aimed to free occupied nations and were typically rooted in popular support and clear goals of justice and equality.