learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by JudasPriest on April 15, 2025 20:25

The rule of the Khmer Rouge over Cambodia was undoubtedly a disaster of great proportions, with millions killed and even more separated from their families or traumatized for the rest of their lives. What proved most detrimental to both the people of Cambodia and the members of the Khmer Rouge who assumed “control” over the country was a mixture of hypocrisy and Luddism that provided the Khmer leaders with an excuse to kill so many of their own citizens. The Luddism (outright refusal to use any kind of new technology or way of working) that was innate to the doctrine of the Khmer Rouge was insanely dangerous for a country that relied so much on constantly adapting farming techniques, global trade, and medical supplies that had been produced in order to counteract the diseases that were prominent in a climate like Cambodia’s. This government also deprived its population of any modern education or religion, with the eventual goal of returning Cambodia to a more primitive state, and in doing so, condemned teachers and other educated people, as well as any religious figures, or even those who remained loyal to their faith. Because this complete reversal of technological advancement was bound to result in the deaths of much of the country’s population by itself, the governing body of the Khmer Rouge used this as an excuse to choose those who they wanted most to die from starvation or disease, and rid themselves of those who were able to provide any kind of opposition to their government. In contrast to this, members of the Khmer Rouge also took advantage of their people’s situation in order to benefit themselves; they took that which they did not allow their citizens to have, like excess food or medicine, and used it to solidify their power. Overall, this demonstrates a completely ignorant and self-obsessed interpretation of the communist ideology, if it could even be called that; the distance that the Khmer Rouge leaders put between themselves and their citizens allowed for even more discrimination against them. If a society is to effectively and safely make use of a communist ideology, the leaders of that society must put themselves on the same level as their workers, allowing them to better understand and advocate for the rights of their people. In addition to this, the society must make use of all new technologies and education available to them, as well as expand upon them, so as to best provide for a consistently growing and equal population. If such a society had existed in Cambodia, instead of the totalitarian regime of the Khmer Rouge, it is possible that millions of lives could have been saved.

I think your analysis of the Khmer Rouge regime is very informative, and I think you did a great job with highlighting the effects of their rule. Especially when it came to the deadly combination of technological rejection and ideology. Your paragraph provides an insight on how factors contributed to the widespread suffering in Cambodia. I believe your critical perspective on how the regime distorted communist principles are well argued. I think another strength of your paragraph was your ability to communicate the consequences of the Khmer Rouge's actions and the targeting of intellectuals and religious figures. The technological progress and shared leadership is very compelling and engaging to the political theory. I think overall your paragraph was powerful and insightful to critiquing the Khmer Rouge and offered a thoughtful alternative vision of what society might have looked like in Cambodia.

Originally posted by bnw88 on April 13, 2025 15:33

Communism is a great idea, but for the world that we live in not achievable. Many people have tried it with little success.

For the Khmer Rouge one main flaw in their ideology that led to the destruction of many lives and Cambodia was the creation of a “classless” society and extreme reconstruction of society in the Year Zero. They forced thousands of Cambodians to work as laboros, reeducated and indoctrinated young children, and isolated the country from the international community. Independence was stripped from the Cambodian people and unity under Brother One was considered the most important aspect of life. Scholars or any type of intellectuals, whether that be academic or religious, were sent to agricultural camps. All forms of technology, watches, televisions, music, etc were confiscated and banned. The only acceptable lifestyle was that of a poor agricultural farmer. People who violated any kind of KR ruling were tortured, executed, raped, or put into prison. I think this demonstrates an ineffective and callous approach to communism by the Khmer Rouge, as they restricted peoples independence and freedom in the name of a greater community. I do not think any kind of suffering is tolerable to bring about a better society. A better society would not have any suffering when it is brought about, but this in many cases, is not possible for society. One of the most controversial questions raised by the Cambodian genocide is whether and when national sovereignty should be ignored to prevent massive suffering. I think that if there is a clear sign of suffering because of change then people should step in and do anything they can to prevent more pain. We can’t let horrible things like what happened in Cambodia continue to happen now. The best thing we can do is to step in when signs of regimes such as this one show. The international norm of non-intervention clashed with the moral responsibility to act in the face of atrocity. I believe that when a state commits genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity intervention by the international community is justified. The case of Cambodia clearly fits this framework, but global powers at the time lacked the political will to act. This highlights the tragic consequences of prioritizing state sovereignty and geopolitical interests over human lives (excerpt 1 chapter 6). The question of how such atrocities could have occurred in Cambodia is a mix of historical, ideological, and geopolitical factors. Years of war, American bombings, and the collapse of the Cambodian monarchy destabilized the country. The rise of communism indoctrination as well as the destabilized Cambodia was a place where communism could easily take root. Paranoia and violent purges intensified the regime’s brutality. While Vietnam eventually intervened and stopped the Khmer Rouge in 1979, there was no global response. The Cambodian genocide stands as a reminder of the cost of inaction and the dangers of valuing political stratgey over humanitarian rights.

Hi bnw88,

I think my favorite point that you made was the last sentence in your response. I completely agree that valuing political strategy over humanitarian rights is very dangerous, and the Cambodian genocide is a really strong example of the horrible consequence of putting political strategy first. Additionally, you made a good point about how there is often an international norm of non intervention. The U.S. did not have strategic interest in Cambodia, in fact they had strategic interest in ignoring the whole of Southeast Asia as to not create more commotion in the U.S., and so the U.S. did not act. As a result, over a million deaths are partially in the U.S’s hands for destabilizing the region and then turning its back on Cambodia while people were being systematically murdered.

You said that you “do not think any kind of suffering is tolerable to bring about a better society,” which is a bold claim and I do wish you provided some more reasoning or insight into that claim. Also, I did notice a few mechanical errors and was a bit confused about whether you were quoting or paraphrasing Power’s book. But, overall it was a great response and I enjoyed reading it!