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!

Originally posted by thesismachine on April 15, 2025 13:14

I believe that the fundamental flaw of communism is a human flaw: greed. A communist society functions under the assumption that everyone will accept their place in the society. However, some people, especially those who hold government positions, may want to hold power or wealth over others. For Cambodia, the people’s wealth and food was taken away from them and given to members of the Khmer Rouge.

In addition, the Khmer Rouge tried to eliminate greed among the people by forcing the role of the poor upon the Cambodians. They brutalized those who failed to work hard and beat those who were thought to have been stealing. They prohibited religion, attacked the intelligentsia, and fought against Western beliefs. The constant fear of punishment created an environment of fear and paranoia that was seemingly used to keep the people in check, as the people were constantly monitored and encouraged to tell on others.

Adding onto the confusion was the swift changes brought on by the Khmer Rouge. Among what the book A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide states, people had to leave their homes, belongings, jobs, and even family members in a short amount of time, and many died on the way to the fields. They had to accept the renunciation of money, religion, education, and products from the West, and were killed if they failed to adopt the new ideals.

Ultimately, the Cambodian Genocide demonstrates both a flaw in communism and a flaw in the Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of the ideology. The failure of the Khmer Rouge to establish a stable society was due to an imbalance of power between the government and the people and the brutality of the government towards the people. In addition, the Khmer Rouge took away power from the people instead of allowing the people to govern themselves.

I believe that a communist society can only exist when there is no suffering, since everyone must be content with themselves, must share the same beliefs with others, and must be able to act and think freely. Communism failed in Cambodia because the Khmer Rouge used suffering as an integral part of their society, and people lost much of their rights. I can agree with many that have stated that communism can only exist in a small population, where people are closer to each other and can agree together. However, I also believe that a major problem regarding communism is how a communist society is established. As previously stated, a communist society can only exist when people are content with themselves, so a communist society can only be established and governed by the people. In the case of Cambodia, while the people supported the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer Rouge governed the people and didn’t act in their favor. As a result, a communist society can do more harm than good, especially if the ruling power chooses to do harm or chooses to act on their own behalf instead of on behalf of the working class.

I agree with how you attributed flaws in communism to flaws in humanity. Communism itself is appealing and may yield improvements to society, yet, this is highly unrealistic considering human nature and its greed and dangerous ambition. Many will not be willing to give up their high status in society to be equal with everyone else. I also agree with your added details on how the Khmer Rouge did not simply display greed, but also extreme aggression and paranoia which made communism even more ineffective. I think it’s interesting how you mentioned that a communist society can only exist when there is no suffering. Peoples’ lives and well beings shouldn’t be a sacrifice to yield a “better” society. I like how you also mentioned the abrupt changes the Khmer Rouge imposed, which did not give ample time for society to adjust correctly, leading to more confusion and ineffectiveness of their system. I believe your argument is clear and effective, especially with your given examples. However, in my opinion, I do feel as though there should be caution when classifying the Khmer Rouge’s government system. I believe that although they labeled themselves as communists, their system they created was not true communism especially due to the reasons you described above.

Originally posted by mouse0 on April 12, 2025 18:18

The extreme paranoia/obsession with an internal or external enemy had caused the destruction of many lives in Cambodia. These enemies included fascists, imperialists, dissenters, and even the members of the Khmer Rouge party that displayed any form of disloyalty at any time. The surge and intensification of anti-intellectualism, which is also seen in fascist regimes, had taken many lives, as those who were educated with ideas that did not come from the Khmer Rouge party were dangerous and therefore must be eliminated. Other ethnic groups were also seen as enemies, like the Chinese or Vietnamese. The Khmer Rouge had also implemented brutal but seemingly equal working conditions for all as well as the inadequate food distribution which led to mass starvation and health problems. This policy however, was not extended towards those in power, as they had access to more resources, implying that the form of “communism” displayed in Cambodia during this time was not “true communism”, contradicting those who may cite this situation as a reason why communism is inherently substandard and ineffective. Although communism does not require people to go to such extremes, society will always carry those who want more than what they have. Power-hungry individuals will always exist, therefore communism cannot work in any circumstance that involves people or equality for all. This is not to go against those arguing for the appeal of communism, as the idea of equal distribution of wealth for all is attractive, especially for those who lack wealth and notice the socio-economic inequity afflicting society. However, in practice, unless greed and ambitious desire is completely eliminated from human beings, communism is not operable.

To differentiate what is ethical change versus what is unethical, one must consider the harm being done and whether or not people are being denied their basic human rights. The Khmer Rouge figured that suffering was necessary to bring about a better society, however, the society had only gotten worse due to their actions causing mass starvation and death as well as mental and physical trauma. No suffering is tolerable for an improvement in society. One should not be able to diminish the value of individual life for the greater good and for the lives of others. It becomes unethical when you are comparing the life of one to another. When it is clear that a struggle for change is not effective, one should stop. The Khmer Rouge had done the opposite of this, further drawing away from a “better” society. It is likely that the Khmer Rouge had noticed the lack of improvement, yet to avoid facing consequences or increased opposition, they continued further. It is unclear whether or not the cultivation of this movement had intentions for an equal society from the beginning or if it was a strategy to keep themselves (the leaders) in a position above the rest of society. It may be that after observing the lack of efficacy in their actions and policies as leaders, they were content with complicity as they had access to resources and were in a position of power.

I think your opening statement highly reflects the ideology sweeping Cambodia during this time period. Due to the constant fear of retaliation, leaders, especially Pol Pot, enacted brutal punishments for dissenters and mass banning of western influence to gain absolute control over Cambodia. I liked that you highlighted that other groups were targeted, including Chinese citizens, because people tend to over generalize all Asian communities as one, when in reality they have separate identities. I believe partly with your statement about communism, that it will never work because some people accept communism and its faults, including income equality. While I am not a supporter of communism, I believe that letting people choose is the main take away for deciding if a government is exerting too much control over its citizens. In the Khmer Rouge, they failed not only because they used communism wrong, but because the government enacted totalitarian policies.

I think you recalled the Khmer Rouge’s ethnic policies perfectly, as they surprised human rights. One of the ways they did this was starvation, which you highlighted. I think overall you are a well rounded writer and you know about the history of the Khmer Rouge. I think in the future you should reflect on the broader impact totalitarianism will have on people, not just communist states. Great job!

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.

Hello bnw88! You have many great points in your response and many of them align with points I made in mine! I definitely agree that in the world we live in, communism is not something that can exist, in fact it only causes trouble like we have seen many times in the past. I think your point about the major issue in the Khmer Rouge ideology was the “classless” society is very interesting. I never thought of this as the main issue but now that I read your response on it, I also agree it plays a huge role in what happened in Cambodia. The people in Cambodia who were once the higher classes and had more school and more knowledge were killed because of their “corrupted Western views”. I think this was completely intentional and they knew that by doing this, they would be left with the lower class peasants who were not a threat to their power in any way. I also agree that their usage of toutrue and pain as a weapon is a clear example of why communism can so easily get out of hand and then ebcome innefective and simply turn into a genocide. Lastly, the point of this genocide being a reminder for what happens when there is no action from more powerful countries is extremely interesting and really made me think. There was so many political battles happening in Cambodia that should have been clear signs and warnings for what would happen when the Khmer Rouge interested but instead countries chose to essentially ignore this and not get involved. Overall your response brought up a lot of unique and insightful points that I had not quite considered before

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.

Hi Introspection84!

I like that you question the validity of regimes that call themselves communist and whether they truly fit the ‘definition’ of a communist regime. I agree with your argument that the Khmer Rouge wasn’t the classic communist regime but something a bit different. I would argue that they have some of the backbones of a communist regime, but not the execution. Khmer Rouge had the one-party rule, the government control of the economy, rejection of religion and the abolition of private property, but I think they start to deviate from classic communism in their lack of regard for the well being of their people, emphasis on the proletariat, and intense xenophobia.

I’m not sure I fully understand your argument that “...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.” Firstly I do think this could have been worded a little better, and secondly, I’m not sure if you’re just stating a basic principle of communism in relation to the Khmer Rouge or arguing that they were incredibly good at suppression internal uprisings and that this was somehow bad for their regime.

Lastly, I like the connections you made to the film First They Killed My Father in order to provide an example of corruption within the regime. I think the internal juxtaposition of the KR is quite interesting. They reset time and hated anything foreign,the middle class and the educated, but the KR leaders themselves were highly educated (abroad), multilingual elites.

Originally posted by Estalir on April 15, 2025 13:02

The biggest problem was with how the Khmer Rouge executed their ideology. While communism in theory is a great idea. With no social classes there would be no more class discrimination and everyone would be able to live the same and get the same and not be forced to work on the behalf of others. While in theory this is a great idea, in reality it can never happen because humans will always crave power over others and would not want to work if they do not have to. This was kind of shown in the film and readings we have done in class. While the soldiers and higher ups of the Khmer Rouge stripped cities and people from their vehicles, weapons, and their homes and forced them to live off simple agriculture; they did not do the same for themselves. They kept their guns and weapons and used that to exert power over the people of Cambodia. They needed the power of guns because they knew no one would listen to the other side. This was a big problem with the Khmer Rouge. They forced anyone and everyone into believing their cause which led to resentment and fighting back and leaving as soon as possible. This is also the downfall of communism in many places and times. People are forced into the ideology without a second thought and if they were allowed to join and leave as they please it is not far-fetched to say that the idea might hold out better and for longer. Change is a difficult thing to bring about especially within a whole already functioning society. Bringing in change could hurt a lot of people and their well being for the better or for the worse. However, change is necessary sometimes and some people suffering is expected but should not exactly be tolerated. For example, if you bring change to a company such as a new CEO who has new rules so everyday life is now different, this could have been a necessary change that had lots of benefits for the company. However, one must look at the people and see how they are affected as well. With these new rules, someone might need to start doing something in a way they haven’t done before or completely leave and join somewhere else. Regardless of these things being expected outcomes, we must be ready to help that person learn their new ways or find a new path if we are going to take the burden of bringing about change you must also carry that burden as well. If innocent people are suffering for an extended amount of time with no help due to a change, that change could not have been good in the first place and ought to simply be stopped. National Sovereignty should be stopped when it is clear that it is not the best for the people anymore. It is clear that while Cambodia might have national sovereignty, if all of its people are dying due to a group of people you must step up eventually or else there will be no people to be a sovereign of. The best for the people should be the goal of every international argument and if it is clear that something will be of benefit for hundreds of thousands of people or anyone at all, it should be looked at as something that should be done.

Hi Estalir!

Originally posted by msbowlesfan on April 13, 2025 18:57

1. The fundamental problems in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan are the social hierarchy and the intense paranoia from the leaders. The whole idea of communism is that everyone is equal, but the Khmer Rouge had higher ups that were fed more and given better privileges, while the working class were barely fed and treated like prisoners in the fields that they were forced to work in. On top of that, there was the discrimination of anyone that was not poor peasant Cambodians, which resulted in the murder of intellectuals, the Vietnamese, Buddhist monks, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc. This mostly came from the leaders’ fear about being betrayed by anyone that was smart enough to rebel against them. Keeping the lower class restricted exemplifies one of the issues about communism, because while it is a good idea in theory, human greed prevents it from remaining good in practice. Even though that is the fault of the Khmer Rouge’s execution of communism, it’s also the fault of everyone else that tried communism and the same reason why it hasn’t worked anywhere else. No matter who tries to implement communism in their societies, it always ends with there being a ruling class keeping everyone else poor and hungry - which is ironic considering a large critique of capitalism is the wealth imbalance between the lower class and upper class.

2. I think that the ethical line is crossed when there is a large amount of people being killed in a society trying to bring about a change. Assuming that the change is meant to be for the better, it’s a little crazy if more people are being killed than benefiting from it. Any sort of suffering that arises from a societal change will create unhappiness in a country, which will make the execution of that change much more difficult. However, depending on the situation of the country before the change, a brief period of struggling with a guaranteed better future for everybody could potentially be worth it by looking at things in the grand scheme of things, but even then the government should prioritize minimizing the suffering of its subjects. Although, it’s difficult to determine when the conditions are right to try something like that, if there are ever correct conditions to force suffering onto your subjects. In the case of Cambodia under Khmer Rouge rule, that change was much more negative for the citizens of Cambodia than positive, and in such cases the ruling government should be stopped.

3. The international community could have definitely gotten involved sooner and saved many Cambodian lives under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Especially here in the US, we had reporters that were aware of the situation and trying to get the word out, but the stigma against Southeast Asia provided an easy excuse for the government to not get involved. It wasn’t like the Khmer Rouge had a particularly strong military force that could have resisted any other countries challenging them, so it’s not like the US would have had to undergo another humiliating defeat like Vietnam. However, the Khmer Rouge did a pretty good job in keeping information about what they were doing from getting out, so it’s not completely surprising that there wasn’t much involvement from other countries. For the argument of national sovereignty, it should be the same for personal property laws. There should be things that someone should not be able to do, regardless if it’s their country or not. If human lives are being threatened by the government, other countries should be able to intervene without having to worry about overstepping on national sovereignty.

The most compelling idea contradiction between communist ideology and its real-world implementation. This idea addresses a universal theme of the failure of idealistic systems when confronted with human nature. I also appreciate the call-out of the ironic nature of communism. Some criticism is that some sentences could have a more formal structure and some grammatical errors here and there. Overall, your writing was a great read.