learntoquestion ltq discussions

For bringing about change, the purpose and drive of the change should be for the sake of the greater good. If the entire motive behind the change is not for the benefit of the people whose lives are affected, then the change is unjust and due to the whim and greed of an individual, most likely. With this idea in mind, if the end goal is to revolutionize the lives of those affected for the better, then if those people are, in turn, hurt or even worse, killed, is that not in itself counterintuitive? Of course, there is the argument that some fundamental changes may hurt the current generation but benefit the newer generations greatly for the foreseeable future. When great changes are to happen, people are bound to struggle and get hurt, however, those pains and sacrifices should happen at the will of the people being hurt themselves. A nation cannot change truly if the people themselves do not wish to be changed or have changed. A sacrifice is supposed to be the loss of something precious willingly by an individual, for a greater benefit, but a sacrifice without the willingness of the sacrificer, especially from a higher power, is really extortion of the people and their rights. I believe that there is no line per se, for what is reasonable to sacrifice for bringing about change, even death is necessary for most changes throughout history, however, those lines of what is ethical and unethical should be determined by the will of the people. If the people deem a sacrifice too great, yet a higher power still goes through with said sacrifice, then that is unethical. Of course, this ideology is skewed in a democratic view and as such is extremely dependent on the faith of the large populace’s intelligence and willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, which oftentimes humans will not do. As comes with democracy, disagreements will happen, and some will believe change should be made, while others believe the opposite. As such, the greater power of the government must arise and decide on the best course of action; however, either way, one group will suffer unwillingly, either suffer by sacrificing unwillingly, or suffer by the lack of change. By this, suffering is inevitable, however, the amount of suffering that is tolerable is subjective. Excerpt 3 from Chapter 6 of “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide” describes and lists out the hell that had become of Cambodia, based on accounts from refugees. Of the things listed, a few they described were how they could no longer travel, feed, learn, flirt, and pray of their own accord. Citizens essentially became zombies who obeyed the orders of the higher authorities with no consideration for their own well-being. Once the people become unable to control the course of their own lives and the future of their society, that is likely when the suffering has become too severe. In scenarios in which this has become a reality, what should happen is the UN and influential states such as the US should step in to maintain order, even at the sacrifice at state sovereignty as state sovereignty’s purpose is for independence of the state for the benefit of the people however, if the individuals themselves do not have independence to even a tiny degree, the state shouldn’t deserve it either.

The Khmer Rouge was ruthless, their infamous mentality of preferring to kill innocent men than risk keeping a guilty one alive exposes a fundamental flaw, the complete lack of empathy or morality. Many innocent lives were lost and these losses could have been preventable. This demonstrates the ineffective and callous interpretation and execution of the ideology of the Khmer Rouge leaders because the devastation caused by the KHmer Rouge in Cambodia stems not from communism itself, but its violent and extreme application. They sought to enforce total control instead building an equitable society under communism. The regime was obsessed with power and was willing to destroy its own people to maintain, forced evacuations, forced labor, and executions were their methods of embodying communism for ideals. Erasing intellectuals and eliminating enemies of the state are because of paranoia and a weak sense of self, not communism. Leaders manipulated political ideology to justify violence and dehumanization, it was a severe misuse of power not the ideology itself.

Bringing about change can occur in many ways, however, it should only be ethical under the assumption that innocent lives shouldnt be taken and life shouldn't be disrupted. The line must be drawn at indiscriminate destruction of human life and the dismantling of societal structures. This is because regardless, true process cannot be achieved through means that further divide and inflict harm in excess. While some level of suffering is an inevitable part of transformation, families should never be ripped apart and the government should never become corrupt as a result. When the cost of change exceeds the potential benefit, it ceases to be justifiable. A society is better staying as if the supposed change is making society worse. Under the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia was suffering socially and economically. The regime's pursuit of a radically remaining society led to economic collapse, fear and loss of life. When social and moral ideals were being destroyed in the name of revolution, there was a clear indication that a better society was not underway. Change must stop and be evaluated when ethical transformations fail to prioritize humanity, dignity and the preservation of life.

The international community, in particular powerful Western nations, had both the means and influence to intervene. They could've provided military and humanitarian aid for the people of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge as well as through diplomatic pressure. In Excerpt 2 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002), President Clinton downplayed public expectation that the US vould do anything to help the people of Cambodia. America's long history of never once intervening to help stop genocide and its incapability to even acknowledge that it took place failed millions of people globally. This passive stance allowed atrocities to continue. National sovereignty must be overridden when innocent lives are being systematically destroyed to favor human rights as a moral responsibility.

The Khmer Rouge’s ideology was steeped in Communist ideology, however their society differed from many other Communist societies that had been industrialized. Cambodia was different in that it had been suffering for years due to the civil war, Lon Nol’s rule, and the subsequent bombings by the United States. This prolonged state of suffering may be the explanation for why communism was so appealing to the Khmer Rouge, however, their approach to communism was so radical and unforgiving that it largely contradicted the needs of the people. Furthermore, the Khmer Rouge believed that sacrificing the lives of innocent people was better than letting an enemy escape punishment, emphasizing their disregard for the Cambodian people. This type of thinking led to the deaths of thousands of Cambodians who were forced to work in labor camps with little food and poor living conditions which was seen as service for the collective faceless Angkar. The Khmer Rouge emphasized brotherhood and that everyone was equal and served a greater good or the collective good that they called the “Angkar”. The problem with this was that by having every “equal” it was deemed unfair for some people to have material goods over others, thus leading to confiscation of personal property. This ensured that if everyone didn’t own the same wealth, then everyone should have nothing at all. Their brotherhood was built on a faceless regime that the Cambodian people didn’t know and made it hard to have a larger tangible perpetrator. This brotherhood was also a front about collectivism, but influenced children and followers into complying. By making their regime this brotherhood, it made the many orphaned children vulnerable to Khmer Rouge influence that led to the fostering of young Khmer Rouge soldiers. Additionally, the Khmer Rouge’s belief in an old Cambodia in an agricultural golden age without the Western influences. Their concept of Year Zero was an extreme way to convert and completely shift the lives of ordinary Cambodias and prohibit all Western inventions and associations; the Khmer Rouge killed thousands more with city-dwellers and education as the main targets. While Communism has almost always failed in other societies, it was especially unsuccessful in Cambodia and largely deviated away from the main Marxist and communist practices. Communism in Cambodia was unlike that of any other country during the time. The Khmer Rouge regime also saw “enemies in all eight directions” resulting in targeting of the educated population, monks, “class enemies”, and even their own Khmer Rouge officials. This practice emphasized the idea that it was better to kill innocents than to let even one enemy escape, resulting in the millions of deaths in the Cambodian Genocide (Power, 2002). The resulting communist regime of the Khmer Rouge stemmed from a lack of care for the actual ideology but the tools that allowed their their genocide to be successful such as collectivization of farming and class elimination. Though the Khmer Rouge’s callous interpretation of communism was a large factor in the brutality that resulted, communism lacks the ability to be successful in any real world scenario.

From 1975 to 1979, Cambodia fell under the control of the brutal regime of the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot. On paper, they claimed they wanted to build a perfect society, one without rich or poor, where everyone was equal. But the way they tried to make that happen was terrifyingly extreme. Their vision was based on harsh, unrealistic beliefs, and their actions ended up costing the lives of nearly two million innocent people. The Khmer Rouge first targeted the highly populated cities. They believed that city life, education, money, technology, and any form of Western ideology were evil and corrupt. People who lived in cities, like teachers, doctors, artists, and business owners, were suddenly seen as enemies of the regime. Families were forced to pack up and leave without any warning. Elderly people, pregnant women, and children were made to walk for miles to the countryside with no idea where they were going. Homes were abandoned. The hospitals all had to be evacuated leading to muny being pushed to the countryside still in their hospital beds. Once they arrived in the countryside, people were sent to harsh labor camps where they had to work endlessly in the fields, planting rice or digging ditches, usually with barely enough food to survive. Starvation, sickness, and exhaustion took countless lives. The Khmer Rouge didn’t just want to change the system, they wanted to control people completely. They believed that only uneducated, obedient peasants could be trusted. If someone wore glasses, spoke a second language, or had an education, they were in danger. Simply looking like you might think for yourself could get you killed. Young children were favored due to their blind trust in the soldiers. Thousands of people were taken to secret prisons like Tuol Sleng, where they were tortured into confessing to crimes they hadn’t committed. Most never came out alive. It was a time of fear and silence, where neighbors couldn’t trust each other and even children were trained to spy on their parents. The regime's version of equality wasn’t about lifting people up, but it was about bringing everyone down. Religion was banned. Books were destroyed. Personal belongings were taken away. No one had the right to speak freely, practice their faith, or live with dignity. People became tools for the state, not individuals with lives and dreams. Anytime someone was told to do something by the soldier it would be followed with something along the lines of it being for Kamhar. Simply, communism is about bringing justice, distributing resources, eradicating poverty, and supporting the working class. But how those ideas are carried out depends on who’s in power. In the case of the Khmer Rouge, they didn’t just misinterpret communism, they weaponized it. They used it as an excuse to gain control and destroy anyone who didn’t fit into their vision. They replaced compassion with cruelty and reason with fear. This tragedy demonstrates how any theory, no matter how good it seems, may turn deadly when taken to the extremes and followed mindlessly under the direction of those more concerned in power than in people. What happened in Cambodia wasn’t just the failure of a political idea. It was the result of heartless leadership, fear-driven decisions, and the total loss of humanity.

The plan the Khmer Rouge executed in Cambodia was highly flawed, which is why it cost so many lives and caused so much destruction. However, communism as a concept is not inherently bad: it is the way in which the KR implemented it that was. To start, the Khmer Rouge didn’t truly believe in communism, as evidenced by the fact that, while their officials stole all of their citizens’ wealth, they kept their own and even added to it with the things they took. They didn’t believe in the message they were spreading, only using communism as an excuse to become powerful and all-controlling. Further, the KR forced the people of Cambodia to turn to communism, not giving them a chance to choose for themselves. Cambodians were unwilling to change, which is why the KR faced so much pushback and, in the end, killed so many people. They were determined to make communism work for a population that was determined to maintain their capitalist society. In addition, the Khmer Rouge didn’t give anyone the opportunity to learn. Instead, they killed any elites or educated people that would be the most likely to lead a revolt against them and forced the uneducated to work and be brainwashed. If they had truly believed in communism and had explained to the people why they wanted to implement it, there is a chance some people might have been more open to it, but because they didn’t believe in their claims and didn’t explain them to the people, the latter neither understood it nor wanted to understand.

The KR did communism wrong. The whole point of communism is that the elites’ wealth is redistributed so that people with less have drastically better qualities of life and the wealthy, while some of their wealth is taken, still have good, stable lives. The point of communism is that people with less are lifted up and their suffering is minimized. The reality of KR communism is that they didn’t redistribute wealth: they made everyone poor and miserable instead of using the capital of the elites to improve their society. They used the façade of communism to steal, kill, and ruin lives.

There is something else that I also find very important: this first question in and of itself—more specifically, the fact that it is being asked in the first place. If, for example, the KR was capitalist, I don’t think we would be sitting here discussing whether or not the ideology they expelled was inherently flawed or if they were the flawed ones. If they were capitalist, we would point them out as one of the few bad eggs of a “good” ideology and not another example of the ideology functioning as it is meant to. I don’t think we would have talked about the indoctrination of the masses by capitalism as much because we ourselves have been indoctrinated. For us, and for much of the rest of the world because of imperialism, capitalism is the norm—the status quo. It is so ingrained in our society that we don’t even notice it’s there. We don’t even consider that our society could be set up any differently. Labor is exploited and people are killed under capitalism every day and yet we don’t seem to care as much until the same happens under communism.

None of this analysis of the nature of communism is me being an apologist for or trying to detract from the massive harm caused by the Khmer Rouge. As shown in First They Killed My Father and as described in A Problem From Hell, what they did to the people of Cambodia is horrific and the international community should have done so much more to help them: even something as simple as sending humanitarian aid could have saved countless lives. I am simply trying to deconstruct our own preconceptions and how they impact our view of these terrible events. Communism—or, at least, the KR’s version of it—is not the answer. But that doesn’t mean capitalism is, either. In the end, even while the ideal of communism might seem good, the reality of both capitalism and communism lead to exploitation and suffering.

I think it’s hard to determine a clear line as to which means are ethical and unethical for bringing about change, however I do believe that in part, some amount of suffering must occur in order to triumph and bring about “a better society”. The only way to justify the suffering really depends on one’s intentions and the outcome. Violence as we’ve seen obviously can have extremely devastating consequences and irreversible results, and this can happen when goals become lost or even corrupted much like the Khmer Rouge. Real change is difficult for the reason that it’s different, a lot of people don’t like change because it challenges systems and things that have been deeply established or ingrained. Those in power also will do anything to maintain their power. Ethical means of resistance should prioritize the protection of innocent lives and the pursuit of justice without dehumanization. It is moral for leaders to strive to preserve human dignity, and this includes times of way or unrest. It is wrong for a movement to justify any and all forms of violence because that poses the risk of undermining the same ideals it claims to fight for. The Khmer Rouge was an example of this because they had the goal of national independence and equality, but this eventually became brutality and mass suffering. As a result roughly 2 million people died from trying to create an agrarian society where intellects, those in the city, and even children were seen as threats. The struggle for change led to the loss of more freedom, more oppression, and even more death compared to that society they aimed to replace, and this only shows that their methods were unethical. Accountability must be present when changes from a movement that are aimed to improve society is actually making the society worse. It is important to acknowledge that the original plans and goals have been compromised and things must shift before things get worse. These movements can’t go with the notion that they are the only correct way, they must be willing to shift gears and they must be open to criticism in order to evolve and change for the better. Sometimes external intervention may harm a group, but I think some outside help would be good to keep a society grounded and to stop destruction in the event that something goes wrong. Overall, the amount of suffering that may happen must be carefully weighed out even though it is an unfortunate reality and a scary part of change. Ethical change is meant to uplift, not destroy, and if movements really do have the goal of improving and can avoid corruption, then I believe that it’ll strive and prosper in ways that aren’t destructive. The importance of unity is also essential for a movement to prosper because it’ll push forward a common purpose and the united strength and resilience will allow the movement to thrive. The Khmer Rouge wasn’t entirely united because it was built on fear, secrecy, and absolute obedience. In one of the articles it touched upon how the members of the KR didn’t even trust each other, and the movie also touches on how if you saw a person disobeying the rules, you are expected to rat them out. That entire idea of fear and secrecy shows how important unity is because a movement can’t be built upon those concepts of fear or else it won’t prosper.

Originally posted by Ms. Bowles on April 09, 2025 16:23

Questions to Consider:

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

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

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

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Sources to Reference:

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

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

(Cambodia: The Unknowable Unknown and Wishful Thinking)

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

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

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

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

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

Rubric to Review: LTQ Rubric

Response to question 1.

The Khmer Rouge’s ideology had many problems. Their goal was to regress society and eliminate any progress that had been made, returning to a ‘Year Zero.’ As we saw in the film First They Killed My Father, they evacuated the modern city of Phnom Penh, forcing people to go back to the countryside and live with peasants. Teachers, doctors, and any educated people were punished or outright killed, because they were seen as being corrupted by western ways of thinking. “Libraries were ravaged” (Power). Many people starved to death because there wasn’t enough food, and much of the food was taken from the peasants and sent to soldiers who were fighting the Vietnamese. They focused on regressing society and eliminating progress that had been made instead of improving society in any way.

Does all of this represent an issue with communism? I’d argue that it doesn’t. The Khmer Rouge were far different than any other communist party, organization, or country that existed at the time or exists today. Among these differences is views on education. In the Khmer Rouge, any education was seen as western corruption, and children in labor collectives weren’t educated, because they spent so much time working. We saw in the film that the only education they seemed to get was military training and repeating slogans about the party. All other communist countries and organizations emphasize education. The Bolshevik revolution and the birth of the Soviet Union gave many people who previously didn’t have education access to it, raising literacy rates from 56% in 1926 to 75% just ten years later. In Cuba, a country governed by a communist party, literacy rates are at 100%, and the state funds education for all people. This is very different from the Khmer Rouge, who killed teachers and got rid of any formal education system. Another difference is the views on healthcare. The Khmer Rouge got rid of medicine, because it was seen as western corruption of the country. Doctors were killed and nobody was allowed to have western medicine. Within other communist groups and countries, healthcare is given a high priority. In China, another country governed by a communist party, healthcare is state-run and free, and although there are inequalities in the system, because people who live in the countryside often have more limited care than those who live in urban areas, the vast majority (95%) of people have at least basic healthcare coverage. The Black Panther Party, a communist revolutionary party in the United States started by African-Americans, opened free healthcare clinics to provide services for Black people who were denied care from racist American hospitals. In Burkina Faso, communist leader Thomas Sankara launched a massive vaccination program to stop the spread of disease, and he vaccinated 2 million people and reduced infant mortality from 20.8% to 14.5%. I’m not trying to argue that these places are paradises, they are far from it. It is apparent, though, that other communist groups and countries have different priorities and run differently than the Khmer Rouge.

The most defining feature of the Khmer Rouge, to me, is their willingness, even excitement, to kill. To me, it feels more like some kind of extremist death cult than a real communist group. The reforms that they took didn’t really even help the working class peasants that they claimed to revere so dearly, as all other communist groups would. They just wanted to kill people. This kind of bloodthirsty attitude can be observed in all kinds of countries; liberal democracies, one-party communist states, whatever. We studied this same bloodthirst when we talked about the Nazis and fascism. The Nazis aren’t the only others who have shown this attitude. For example, The War on Terror, a war we Americans waged in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other middle eastern countries, is estimated to have killed up to a million people (while others estimate that due to destruction of infrastructure, we actually killed millions more). The war also included brutal and horrific torture. Undoubtably, the death toll and victims of this torture includes countless civilians. All of this was happening while many Americans at home were cheering it on, foaming at the mouth for revenge or ‘justice’ in the wake of 9/11. Enthusiasm for murder is a problem that exists no matter what the economic system is. The Khmer Rouge used communism as a framework so that they could kill over a million people; they didn’t earnestly try to implement a socialist society, and then accidentally stumble upon millions of deaths.

While the idea of communism has its merits, it also has its flaws; the events that took place in Khmer Rouge was not an example of communism, rather it was an authoritarian regime that oppressed its people under the guise of greatness and development as a country. This poor interpretation and enactment of the ideology led to the deaths of at least 1.7 million people whether it be by execution, starvation, or exhaustion. The population within the city was excited for the Khmer Rouge to take power, they were tired of the Lon Nol corruption, but the subsequent forced removal of everyone from the city, the murder of government workers and the educated population, the extreme conditions in the labor camps are all examples of the atrocities that occurred and the horror people endured. One of the inherent flaws of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and process was the tenet that it was better to mistakenly kill an innocent than let the possibility of a traitor exist in society. This allowed for the murders of innocents without proof or reasoning, creating a society of fear where people thought they could get killed for something they didn’t do or without knowing why. The idea that “to keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss,” furthers this notion, removing all worth from the individual. This fear of death and being alienated, led to denunciations of innocent people in a witch trial-esque manner, making a distrustful and alienating society that is inherently dysfunctional. The line between ethical and unethical is a blurry one, with caveats and subjective aspects. In this case, however, the proposition that suffering was needed for change, especially to this extent, is wrong. In no instance should 1.7 million people have to die for the “betterment” of a society. If an attempt for change is only hurting the society, it should be stopped at all costs because when something brings about more harm than good, it is unethical to allow it to continue affecting society. In terms of international response, any action would have been better than no action. While national sovereignty is vital to protect a country’s rights, when it costs millions of lives it may have to be overridden to prevent more death. There should be meetings to create legislation describing how the U.N. or other countries decide when to take away national sovereignty to protect the people. In an excerpt from chapter six of A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, the author describes how difficult the situation in Cambodia was to grasp, calling it inconceivable, that the time period was the 70s, people knew better. Eventually the American public started to understand the depths of what was happening in the Khmer Rouge, however, people felt as if they had no obligation to act. They did not want a “second Vietnam.” This lack of motivation by the citizens and media is a key role in why the U.S. government did not intervene. All in all, these appalling events should be remembered to prevent things like this from reoccurring.

The Khmer Rouge’s ideology, led by Pol Pot, was rooted in a radical interpretation of communism. The regime’s goal was to create an agrarian, classless society by abolishing urban life and everything seen as connected to modernity, including intellectualism. The regime believed that by eradicating city life and forcing people to work on collective farms, Cambodia could return to an idealized version of its past. However, this vision was deeply flawed. The Khmer Rouge’s extreme anti-intellectual stance led to the execution of anyone deemed educated or even mildly intellectual. Doctors, teachers, and even people who wore glasses were labeled enemies of the state and executed. This mass killing of educated people destroyed Cambodia’s ability to rebuild after the regime fell. The regime’s forced collectivization also caused mass famine and starvation. People were made to work on farms without adequate food or rest, leading to widespread malnutrition and death. The Khmer Rouge also executed and tortured anyone they saw as a threat, creating a reign of terror throughout the country. The destruction of families and the social fabric left lasting emotional scars on the Cambodian people. These issues weren’t inherent in communism itself, but in the violent and authoritarian way the Khmer Rouge applied it. They twisted communist ideas and pushed them to an extreme, resulting in unnecessary suffering and loss of life. The Khmer Rouge’s ideology was flawed because they valued ideological purity above human life, and their brutal methods were a direct cause of the destruction of so many lives.

When it comes to armed struggle and the ethics of war, there is a fine line between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable. The Khmer Rouge’s methods of mass murder, forced labor, and starvation show how a pursuit for change can go horribly wrong. The regime justified its violent actions as a necessary step toward creating a better society, but in reality, it caused unimaginable suffering. The question becomes: how much suffering is tolerable in the name of a better society? The Khmer Rouge’s actions show that there’s a point where the cost of pursuing a vision of change outweighs any potential benefits. When the struggle for change is clearly worsening society, as it did in Cambodia, it’s important to take action. The Cambodian people endured extreme suffering, and the international community should have intervened long before the situation reached the point it did. In such cases, it’s essential to ask whether the leaders in charge are acting in the best interest of the people or are too blinded by ideology to see the harm they’re causing. If the latter is the case, intervention becomes necessary. The international community failed to step in to stop the Khmer Rouge’s actions, and as a result, millions of lives were lost. In hindsight, the sovereignty of Cambodia should have been overridden to prevent the atrocities. The Cambodian people had the right to live in peace without the fear of being executed or worked to death, and the global community should have taken steps to protect them.

The international community had a responsibility to prevent the harm caused by the Khmer Rouge, but unfortunately, they largely failed to do so. After the Khmer Rouge took control in 1975, there were signs of brutality and abuse, yet the world remained silent. If the international community had acted earlier, whether through providing humanitarian aid, condemning the regime, or calling for international intervention, many lives could have been saved. The failure to stop the Khmer Rouge was partly due to the geopolitical context of the Cold War, where some countries, like China and the United States, either supported or remained neutral toward the regime. This political situation made it difficult for the United Nations and other international organizations to take decisive action. However, the world’s failure to intervene shows a major flaw in how national sovereignty is prioritized over human rights. National sovereignty is important, but when a government is engaging in genocide or widespread human rights abuses, the international community has a moral duty to intervene. The Khmer Rouge’s actions clearly met this threshold, and an international response could have saved lives. If the international community had taken action earlier, whether through military intervention or diplomatic pressure, the tragedy of the Khmer Rouge’s reign might have been prevented, or at least minimized. In cases of gross human rights violations, the sovereignty of a nation should not stand in the way of protecting its citizens from mass suffering.

Much of the fundamental problems that had existed in regards to the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan was the fact that its own version of communism was of the most radical sense. The idea and enticing part of a communist ideology—one extremely well taken by those who were poorer especially—was the idea that it offers the promise of equality, resource distribution, and social stability. The establishment of communism was in order to go against capitalism and create a society where everyone no matter their state of being was able to be treated as equal to another. I believe that the actions of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology do not speak or demonstrate the wrongs of communism, however I do believe that it does demonstrate the failure of reaching a homogeneous nation whose goal was to be “free” of western influences.

In the eyes of Khmer Rouge, taking on a radical Khmer nationalism, wanted to go back to the time before colonialism, before western influences. Yet because of this straightforward ideology, they ignored the most prominent problem in turning those who lived their lives in an urban population to a self producing, self relying, self sustaining rural lifestyle basically overnight. Khmer Rouge’s plan was the idea that society could be remade entirely from scratch—what they called "Year Zero." This ambition to rebuild society from scratch ignored the social, cultural, and economic complexity of the nation. It led to mass forced relocations from cities to the countryside, where people were expected to immediately adopt rural lifestyles, regardless of their backgrounds or skills. Urban dwellers, intellectuals, professionals, and even those who simply wore glasses regardless of for medical or other reasons were labeled as enemies of the state. The regime’s distrust of education and expertise created a climate of fear, where survival often depended not on merit or contribution, but on total submission and luck.

This is shown extensively through the film First They Killed my Father, with much of the city population forced to migrate to these farm lands without any prior knowledge of what was going to happen to them nor what was left of their lives. The movie itself does demonstrate the ineffective and callous interpretations of the Khmer Rouge leaders ideology. Despite preaching for a nation without imperial influences, the Khmer Rouge’s methods ultimately replicated the very oppression and violence they claimed to stand against. Their obsession with purity, nationalism, and a return to an idealized agrarian past became a vehicle for authoritarian control, mass surveillance, and brutal punishment. Rather than building a classless utopia, they instituted a regime rooted in paranoia and dehumanization, where ideological purity mattered more than human life. And throughout this all, there seemed to be this kind of irony of some sorts, with those higher up preaching for this new “golden” way of life and reverting all of Cambodia back to peasantry, they still uphold and use western influences yet dissuade others from using it. Murdering anyone who is seemingly intellectual while their leader had received foreign education through Western forces.

Originally posted by littleprincess26 on April 15, 2025 01:48

The Khmer Rouge transformed Cambodia under Pol Pot from 1975-1979 in a very extreme way, resulting in nearly 2 million deaths. They wanted to create a communist world but there were many issues such as genocide, starvation, forced labor, and murders. Their ideology had issues to begin with since they were against education and thought that violence was necessary for a revolution. I think those two aspects of their ideology were troublesome to begin with. However, this doesn't make communism itself inherently evil. Communism has the potential of doing well but it wasn't done correctly and this shows how important it is to properly interpret different ideologies. In the film, Loung Ung's story shows the trauma many people faced as a result of the Khmer Rouge's power being unchecked. Families were torn apart, they were forced to work long hours in camps, kids were forced into military training, and humans were treated inhumanely. We can see how she changes from an innocent child into a traumatized one by the end of the way, really showing the damaging effects the Khmer Rouge left on millions. They had a goal of being in the year zero. This meant that they wanted Cambodia to start brand new by erasing old things such as knowledge and even culture. Cities were evacuated, schools and hospitals shut down, and intellects were executed. They strongly believed that peasants or those who did labor work were intellectually superior. In this case, I believe that there was way too much suffering that should've been tolerated to bring about a "better society". Violence has always been part of revolutions but when humanity is suffering this greatly, the line has to be drawn. The people were being used as disposable tools for their regime. The people were forced to sacrifice so many things through fear, starvation, and execution. They should have the choice to make those sacrificed but because they didn't, it seems highly unethical. The international response to this was sad as they were silent. In A Problem from Hell, Samantha explains how the U.S. and other nations were well aware of what was happening and the atrocities being committed but yet they chose not to act. Officials chose to believe that the killings were being exaggerated as well. The U.S. was much more focused on the Cold War politics over what was happening in Cambodia. The international community has the resources to help save lives but they chose not to and there is no excuse for that. In summary, I believe that the Khmer Rouge's ideology has flaws to begin with but that doesn't make communism inherently evil.

I fully agree with the idea that the Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of communism was entirely skewed, creating an entirely new definition of the ideology to fit the goals of the political party and to promote new ideals that would support the Khmer Rouge. The stress on anti-intellectualism and restart on chronology, beginning year zero, go hand in hand in an ultimate mission to remove history and create a subjugated state that has no recollection of its past. This would have empowered the Khmer Rouge to rewrite history in a way that supported total control by them. Stressing violence as a means to prosperity and change is fundamentally unethical and gives the Khmer Rouge justification in control without contradiction. The killing of millions for the justification that it is for the betterment of the country and political party is horrific and should have forced international reaction and intervention. I do not necessarily agree with the belief that peasants and laborers were perceived as “intellectually superior” within the Khmer Rouge regime, rather they were more deserving of and entitled to power and better treatment because of their historical oppression and the fact that they were not considered “soft.” I agree with the perspective that communism has its flaws, historically being performed to varying levels of success, but this was an execution of a distorted idea for control.

Originally posted by Fahrenheit on April 14, 2025 19:28

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

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

Post your response here.

One of the most compelling ideas in your post is the contrast between theoretical communism and how it is implemented in reality, especially the insight that the government often replaces the bourgeoisie as the ruling class. I strongly agree with this point—many regimes that claimed to be communist ended up concentrating power in the hands of a few, creating inequality rather than eliminating it. Your analysis of the Khmer Rouge highlights this perfectly. The quote you included about harvests being taken from workers and not redistributed was especially powerful in showing how far removed the regime was from actual communist ideals.

I also found your comparison between large-scale communist states and smaller communities like the Zapatistas insightful. It adds an interesting layer to the argument by showing how communal, egalitarian principles can function in smaller, more culturally cohesive settings. That said, the comparison to the Khmer Rouge could be expanded a bit—while both emphasized agrarian living, the Zapatistas operate through democratic community structures, while the KR relied on violence and totalitarian control.

One area I’d like to learn more about is Jacobo Arbenz and how his policies fit into the broader conversation around communism and socialism. Your mention of his land reform efforts in Guatemala and how they were mischaracterized by U.S. propaganda is intersting, especially considering the impact of foreign intervention on socialist-leaning governments. I’m curious about how his leadership compares to other reformers and whether his policies truly reflected communist ideals or simply aimed for more economic justice. Introducing Jaxobo Arbenz into the discussion greatly helps to understand how socialist reforms can exist outside of authoritarian models, and how they’re often misunderstood or undermined. Overall, this post brought up a lot of compelling and thought-provoking points.

Originally posted by Nonchalant Dreadhead on April 15, 2025 07:59

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

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

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

I find the idea that communism was used by the Khmer Rouge to excuse their illegitimate rise to power very compelling. I agree with this student's point that although communism aims for equality, the Khmer Rouge distorted it into something oppressive. Instead of creating a balanced society, they created one full of fear and uncertainty. The hypocrisy of the Khmer Rouge also stood out, this student mentioned that the poor and less powerful suffered under the comfort of the powerful elite when communism is all about equality. Their actions were never truly for the people but it was to maintain dominance. Other posts, like this one, also mentioned that a greater effort in understanding and helping Cambodia was necessary to decrease the harm. I agree that not only were Americans uneducated about the horrific circumstances, either out of a lack of regard or because they were recovering from war, but they were selfish and lacked empathy. It was severely downplayed in the media and more effort should have been made to understand and respond to the Cambodian crisis. This student states that everyone was made to be an enemy and although not everyone was, the large majority was and it was very impractical and unjust.

Originally posted by Pistachio on April 15, 2025 08:47

For bringing about change, the purpose and drive of the change should be for the sake of the greater good. If the entire motive behind the change is not for the benefit of the people whose lives are affected, then the change is unjust and due to the whim and greed of an individual, most likely. With this idea in mind, if the end goal is to revolutionize the lives of those affected for the better, then if those people are, in turn, hurt or even worse, killed, is that not in itself counterintuitive? Of course, there is the argument that some fundamental changes may hurt the current generation but benefit the newer generations greatly for the foreseeable future. When great changes are to happen, people are bound to struggle and get hurt, however, those pains and sacrifices should happen at the will of the people being hurt themselves. A nation cannot change truly if the people themselves do not wish to be changed or have changed. A sacrifice is supposed to be the loss of something precious willingly by an individual, for a greater benefit, but a sacrifice without the willingness of the sacrificer, especially from a higher power, is really extortion of the people and their rights. I believe that there is no line per se, for what is reasonable to sacrifice for bringing about change, even death is necessary for most changes throughout history, however, those lines of what is ethical and unethical should be determined by the will of the people. If the people deem a sacrifice too great, yet a higher power still goes through with said sacrifice, then that is unethical. Of course, this ideology is skewed in a democratic view and as such is extremely dependent on the faith of the large populace’s intelligence and willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, which oftentimes humans will not do. As comes with democracy, disagreements will happen, and some will believe change should be made, while others believe the opposite. As such, the greater power of the government must arise and decide on the best course of action; however, either way, one group will suffer unwillingly, either suffer by sacrificing unwillingly, or suffer by the lack of change. By this, suffering is inevitable, however, the amount of suffering that is tolerable is subjective. Excerpt 3 from Chapter 6 of “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide” describes and lists out the hell that had become of Cambodia, based on accounts from refugees. Of the things listed, a few they described were how they could no longer travel, feed, learn, flirt, and pray of their own accord. Citizens essentially became zombies who obeyed the orders of the higher authorities with no consideration for their own well-being. Once the people become unable to control the course of their own lives and the future of their society, that is likely when the suffering has become too severe. In scenarios in which this has become a reality, what should happen is the UN and influential states such as the US should step in to maintain order, even at the sacrifice at state sovereignty as state sovereignty’s purpose is for independence of the state for the benefit of the people however, if the individuals themselves do not have independence to even a tiny degree, the state shouldn’t deserve it either.

Your post definitely brings up a lot of good points. The point at the beginning is really interesting, how revolution/change which harms the people it is supposed to uplift is counterintuitive. I definitely agree with this. I also liked the perspective you brought about how there's no 'line' because what is moral depends on if the people sacrificing agree to do so. Although I understand why you’re saying this, I disagree with it, because if people are oppressing and subjugating another group, and the only way to get them to stop doing so is by killing them/with violence, I wouldn’t consider that immoral. The classic example of this would be the Haitian revolution. I think in general, the premise that the people “being hurt” need to consent to that doesn’t make sense, because the violence wouldn’t be necessary in the first place if oppressors agreed to stop. Your point at the end about how the international community should only step in if people have lost control over their lives is interesting. I think it brings up a larger question about what free will really is. Where do you draw the line between people having control over their lives and not? In our penitentiary system, where many people (especially black and latino men) are forced into it by systemic poverty and brutalization, many people are without any kind of free will. Should the international community step in to stop this?

Originally posted by JaneDoe25 on April 15, 2025 20:34

The Khmer Rouge’s ideology, led by Pol Pot, was rooted in a radical interpretation of communism. The regime’s goal was to create an agrarian, classless society by abolishing urban life and everything seen as connected to modernity, including intellectualism. The regime believed that by eradicating city life and forcing people to work on collective farms, Cambodia could return to an idealized version of its past. However, this vision was deeply flawed. The Khmer Rouge’s extreme anti-intellectual stance led to the execution of anyone deemed educated or even mildly intellectual. Doctors, teachers, and even people who wore glasses were labeled enemies of the state and executed. This mass killing of educated people destroyed Cambodia’s ability to rebuild after the regime fell. The regime’s forced collectivization also caused mass famine and starvation. People were made to work on farms without adequate food or rest, leading to widespread malnutrition and death. The Khmer Rouge also executed and tortured anyone they saw as a threat, creating a reign of terror throughout the country. The destruction of families and the social fabric left lasting emotional scars on the Cambodian people. These issues weren’t inherent in communism itself, but in the violent and authoritarian way the Khmer Rouge applied it. They twisted communist ideas and pushed them to an extreme, resulting in unnecessary suffering and loss of life. The Khmer Rouge’s ideology was flawed because they valued ideological purity above human life, and their brutal methods were a direct cause of the destruction of so many lives.

When it comes to armed struggle and the ethics of war, there is a fine line between what is considered acceptable and unacceptable. The Khmer Rouge’s methods of mass murder, forced labor, and starvation show how a pursuit for change can go horribly wrong. The regime justified its violent actions as a necessary step toward creating a better society, but in reality, it caused unimaginable suffering. The question becomes: how much suffering is tolerable in the name of a better society? The Khmer Rouge’s actions show that there’s a point where the cost of pursuing a vision of change outweighs any potential benefits. When the struggle for change is clearly worsening society, as it did in Cambodia, it’s important to take action. The Cambodian people endured extreme suffering, and the international community should have intervened long before the situation reached the point it did. In such cases, it’s essential to ask whether the leaders in charge are acting in the best interest of the people or are too blinded by ideology to see the harm they’re causing. If the latter is the case, intervention becomes necessary. The international community failed to step in to stop the Khmer Rouge’s actions, and as a result, millions of lives were lost. In hindsight, the sovereignty of Cambodia should have been overridden to prevent the atrocities. The Cambodian people had the right to live in peace without the fear of being executed or worked to death, and the global community should have taken steps to protect them.

The international community had a responsibility to prevent the harm caused by the Khmer Rouge, but unfortunately, they largely failed to do so. After the Khmer Rouge took control in 1975, there were signs of brutality and abuse, yet the world remained silent. If the international community had acted earlier, whether through providing humanitarian aid, condemning the regime, or calling for international intervention, many lives could have been saved. The failure to stop the Khmer Rouge was partly due to the geopolitical context of the Cold War, where some countries, like China and the United States, either supported or remained neutral toward the regime. This political situation made it difficult for the United Nations and other international organizations to take decisive action. However, the world’s failure to intervene shows a major flaw in how national sovereignty is prioritized over human rights. National sovereignty is important, but when a government is engaging in genocide or widespread human rights abuses, the international community has a moral duty to intervene. The Khmer Rouge’s actions clearly met this threshold, and an international response could have saved lives. If the international community had taken action earlier, whether through military intervention or diplomatic pressure, the tragedy of the Khmer Rouge’s reign might have been prevented, or at least minimized. In cases of gross human rights violations, the sovereignty of a nation should not stand in the way of protecting its citizens from mass suffering.

You had several interesting points in your post, including many that made me think about questions that I had myself. One thing that you said—and that I agreed with—is that communism isn’t inherently flawed, but that the manner in which the Khmer Rouge implemented it was. As you said, “they valued ideological purity above human life.” That isn’t something that I had initially found a way to put into words, and I think you summed up their actions very well, explaining why they killed so many they deemed educated. They would rather have a whole, much smaller population that fit their standards of “purity” than maintain a larger population they deemed impure.

You also talked a lot about when the international community should intervene and violate state sovereignty. I completely agree with you that the world should have stepped in to help Cambodia much sooner than it did as what the KR was doing was obviously wrong, but where do we draw the line between obviously wrong and something that some would consider reasonable? There are several instances I can imagine where one group of people, because of some cultural or societal differences, would consider some amount of violence acceptable, while for another group, it would cross the line into unacceptability. In instances like these, who decides what is right and wrong? I think it would have to vary on a case-to-case basis—there can’t be one uniform answer—but in these cases, who would be the decision makers? Who gets a say?