learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Marcus Aurelius on April 13, 2025 12:10

While I don't agree with communism at all and I can recognize a lot of inherent issues with it, I don't necessarily think it's fair to compare it to what the Khmer Rouge implemented. The biggest issue with the Khmer Rouge is that they didn't value the lives of their own people in any way and treated them horribly. While communism at its fundamental principle is about the collective rather than the individual, you still have to value the life of the individual because if you don't the entire community will suffer. It also wasn't just a disregard for human life that was the issue, it was the way they specifically treated people as a result of this idea. Literally everyone was displaced and had no access to sufficient food or any access to medicine and they were all forced to do work they had no idea how to do. Even the way they initiated their plan was wrong (not that I believe their plan would have worked, because I don't). According to Excerpt 2 from Chapter 6 of A Problem from Hell, "All of Cambodia's major towns had already been emptied of their inhabitants. The rice paddies, too, were deserted....Saffron-robed monks had been put to work in the fields. Decomposed bodies lay by the side of the road, shot or beaten to death." This mass movement that was forced and happened also created an environment that promoted death and suffering. The majority of these people were fundamentally city dwellers and had been for their entire lives and had no experience or will to live in an agrarian society. None of this even covers the fact the the Khmer Rouge officials were relentless in their killing and torture of their own people and others too. They didn't trust anyone and even trained children to carry out their bidding. They were brutal and strict and their society didn't model communism, but rather one of the strictest forms of authoritarianism. People didn't have rights, couldn't do anything, and were punished or killed for virtually anything. They committed genocide. This is not what communism is. As I said, there are still many issues with communism, but I don't think I can argue that this is it. I don't think there have been any communist societies that have been successful, however I think if countries looked to places like Sweden, which is a socialist monarchy (different from communism, but also plenty of similarities too), they could begin to make something that works while displaying similarities to communism if not actually implementing it. I also think that they can do it without causing people to suffer too much. Obviously there are going to be circumstances where there is going to be war and hardship to bring about a better life, but there are also plenty of ways to mitigate it. That being said, war and the act of fighting off oppressors or enemies is different from causing people harm for no apparent reason other than saying that you are trying to make a better life. Based on my knowledge (which to be fair is not that extensive), no group who has tried to justify bringing about a better life has actually brought about a better life, only further suffering and death. The Khmer Rouge did not create a better life for people in any way. In a perfect world, the pursuit of making lives better really shouldn't involve any suffering, but realistically I know that is not possible, but we can try to make it as little as possible.

To me, many of these points made are both compelling and ones that I agree with - I do think that this is a movement that is different from communism because of its lack of acceptance of any difference of any person whatsoever, and its complete refusal to allow for any individuality, although where I disagree personally is that I feel this represents communist extremism more than anything else. I also agree with the fact that the regime created an environment of death and suffering - it truly could not possibly be more than anything else when so much pain is the only thing it really brought for the sole purpose of controlling and harming others. Another point that I found to be very interesting is the point that “no group who has tried to justify bringing about a better life has actually brought about a better life, only further suffering and death” – this is very compelling and allows one to think about what a claim for a better future means. I do find it true that when a group claims they are causing suffering for a better life it is typically not the case and acknowledging this allows one to fight against the potential for future pain and oppression by knowing what this claim of a better life is.

Originally posted by snr25 on April 15, 2025 08:55

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.

Post your response here.

I agree with your response in that you believe the devastation caused by the Khmer Rouge was not due to communism itself, but how violent and extreme its application was. The extremist figure of Pol Pot sought to purify Cambodia to fit his belief in communist ideology. I agree with your point and think its important to see that the figures behind the genocide had a greater responsibility for the deaths than communism. We can lose sight over the deaths and write them off as being a cause of political ideology, while they are caused by extremists and power-hungry people. The response also shows how the Khmer Rouge prioritized total control over the state, killing religion and education and vacating cities and buildings in place of large agricultural collectives. This shows that the communism found in Cambodia was strongly authoritarian. I think you also rightly show that social progress should not come at the ost of innocent lives and societal collapse. You show that the US inaction during the genocide proves it has a moral responsibility to aid other nations and shows its failure at global governance that we talk about in class.

Originally posted by snr25 on April 15, 2025 08:55

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.

I think your most compelling idea is how you point out that the Khmer Rouge’s actions were more about power and control than actual communism. I completely agree with that. The way they used ideology as a justification for violence shows that it was less about building a better society and more about forcing fear and obedience. Like you said, their obsession with eliminating anyone who seemed like a threat, even if they were innocent, just shows a complete lack of humanity. I also liked how you explained that communism itself isn’t necessarily evil, but the way it was applied here made it super destructive. That really connects with what I said in my own response too.

Your section on the international community was also strong. The fact that the U.S. and other nations had the power to intervene but didn’t is really frustrating. It's sad that political agendas took priority over real people suffering. I think maybe one suggestion I have is to clean up some of your points a little, for example it might be slightly wordy and could be more direct. But overall, your post was really powerful and yu made many great points. You did a great job showing how ideology can be twisted, and how ignoring suffering has real consequences.

Originally posted by human_rights on April 15, 2025 19:40

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.

I think that the most compelling argument here is that life under the Khmer Rouge was definitely not communism because it fundamentally oppressed people and because of their lack of value for human life. This is something I completely agree with and I think human_rights explained it much more eloquently than I ever could. They do a really good job explaining specifics and making a clear argument. Communism is a flawed system, but what the Khmer Rouge implemented was not that. There is no situation where communism would ever call for the deaths of over 1.7 million people especially not if they want to make society genuinely better. I also really like their comparison to the witch trials because I think it is a very valid comparison to how the Khmer Rouge chose to kill people: there was no reason other than what they wanted there to be. One thing that human_rights touches upon that I never understood is why people chose to ignore what was going on and call it inconceivable. They saw firsthand the terror that the Khmer Rouge inflicted, but did nothing and it wasn't just the US either, but the UN and surrounding nations as well. I agree with them that there needs to be some kind of legislation for how the UN should act in situations like these because they clearly don't seem to be able to judge situations for themselves. There shouldn't have to be, but there have now been multiple instances where they should have intervened and they didn't. This event is one such example; there is no question that the UN and probably the US and other nations on their own should have done something. Overall, human_rights did a really good job with these ideas and their argument is strong.

Originally posted by MakeArtNotWar on April 15, 2025 08:14

Can humans truly achieve collectivism? Historically, no—at least not on a large scale. While some small communities have achieved the idealistic equal and mutually-supportive society praised by many socialists and communists, historians need only to look at case studies such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia to observe the almost inevitable corruption of these seemingly noble ideas.

The fault of large-scale communism is its naïvety. At its core, it relies on the belief that all humans are inherently good and selfless, and have only been corrupted by other social systems like capitalism to become self-serving and greedy. It assures us that with an all-powerful—but benevolent—government, it is possible to change our beliefs and settle into a human utopia without differences or inequality. This sounds wonderful on paper; indeed, the capitalist system of the modern world literally relies on inequality—for money to flow into the pockets of the “successful,” it must flow out of the pockets of the less-fortunate bulk of the population.

For example, in the case study of Cambodia in the late twentieth century, it, as well as many Southeast Asian countries, were still attempting to recover from the legacy of colonialism and oppression from Western powers. This festering resentment among the people led a widespread movement of anti-Westernism in Southeast Asia, which, in many cases, included a move away from the Western idea of capitalism that had forced so many citizens to slave away under the boot of ex-colonial turned economic imperialist states (Deth).

To the Cambodians, this shift away from capitalism seemed perfectly reasonable—and honestly, one that I am inclined to agree with—if it weren’t for the flawed system that replaced it. As the Cambodians soon found out, their revolutionary party turned against them, hypocritical in all of its communist preachings.

For one, while communism gained popularity within Southeast Asia as a revolt against Western influence, the communist party of the Khmer Rouge was not in power because of the support of the public. After the exile of a beloved monarch—whose sympathies to Communist China were of his own volition, not the people’s vote—a brutal leader named Lon Nol took power, against communism but corrupt in his own government. A civil war soon ensued, with the Khmer Rouge taking power by force, not popular vote, and therefore needing to enforce their ideas through violence (Power 2002). This violence, while an effective fear tactic for many, did little to appeal to Cambodian citizens, so the system was not internalized, which then required more violence to control. From there resulted the cycle of violence, fear, and betrayal that tormented the people of Cambodia.

Additionally, the government itself, while strictly dictating the anti-individual and anti-Western lives of its citizens, was in itself hypocritical and corrupt. With high-up government officials enjoying luxuries such as cars and Western medicine, it made it all the more difficult for the idea of communism to integrate into society. It became power—not collectivism—that drove the government, who would rather “kill an innocent citizen” than let enemies (or threats to power) walk free (Power 2002).

Without popular support, constant violence was required to keep everyone in check. Without integrity, communism became merely the mode through which power was exerted. In this way, Communism failed—if it had ever functioned to begin with.

This response was very insightful and made some really good points about why communism so often fails in large scale implementation and why--more specifically--communism failed in Cambodia. With that being said I disagree with the assessment that communism, in its most idealized form, has to include a benevolent totalitarian government. While, theoretically, a strong government is required in the beginning of the movement to tear down the old structures of capitalist society, in the most idealized form of communism the state eventually withers away and the people are able to live their lives communally without government intervention. The withering away of the state is one of the most important steps towards an idealized communist society--with that being said one of the main reasons why communism does not work in large scale implementation is because a government cannot simply “wither away” without massive suffering and chaos. One of the most compelling ideas from this response was how they pointed out the inherently corrupt nature of the Khmer Rouge government and how those in power were able to indulge in luxuries that their subjects would be killed for even possessing. This relates to a point I made in my own post that communism so often fails because in many examples of large scale communism, the bourgeois are merely replaced by the political elite who take control over the means of production away from the workers.

Originally posted by redpanda on April 15, 2025 14:11

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.

Overall, I agree with the majority of your points, and I feel your argument was well rounded and carefully thought out. Also, you chose one of the least picked topics, so congratulations on giving this one a shot, as in my opinion it is one of the hardest to answer without entering a morally grey territory. For almost all revolutions in human history, or even mass societal changes, death often has to come about, and that is simply an unfortunate reality. No matter how you think, there will likely always be someone who will disagree with you, and even worse, someone who may hate you for it. The way humans have evolved has always split us because we are usually unwilling to admit our own faults, and change our own beliefs, which will always lead to a resistance when any change comes about. However, I completely agree on the ground that if a group is willing to undertake a widespread societal change, then its principal values of keeping the change positive must be upheld, and flexibility is needed to make room for discourse. Rarely in history have we been able to resolve our issues without the loss of some lives, but it is possible, and it has happened. In my opinion, if you can't force someone to agree with your ideology, then you shouldn't forcefully try to change their mind, even if one side is right or wrong, as it will only lead to disagreements.

Originally posted by bookshelf on April 15, 2025 08:45

The fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge's ideology were forced assimilation and anti-intellectualism. The Khmer Rouge, given that they wanted everyone to be in a state of openness for re-education had little choice but to kill those who have already been educated. The selection process for those who were considered “too far gone” to be converted was unscientific and barbaric, with the Khmer Rouge going as far as to kill people with glasses, citing that it was a sign of intellect. In addition to this, the communist society in question was remarkably unequal. The peasants, who were the followers, suffered and starved greatly, while their leaders lived lives of luxury.

This does demonstrate something inherently wrong with communism, as it is human nature to want to be at the top. While one could argue that it is more deeply rooted in human nature to want to be within a part of a group, I feel like these coexist in a way that makes communism impossible to organize on a large scale. There will always be people at the top, in a group of nobility or at least a higher power, and there will always be those at the bottom too. Communism on a small scale, in my opinion, can work well because there allows for real human connection, which will bring forth empathy. This is seen in communes and Native American communities, where all people know each other and would not betray the other by having more. This is the issue with large-scale communism, as they just can’t know everyone enough to treat them with empathy and equality.

The international community should have had a larger motivation to assist. It is hard to say that they should have had a better understanding of what is going on, because they had lots of people telling them exactly what was happening. For example, in June 1973, long before the Khmer Rouge took over (1975), A US foreign service officer Kenneth Quinn had seen the villages in Cambodia “clustered in circles,” and then “every one of these clusters in flames” soon after (A Problem From Hell). While he alerted the US consular headquarters immediately, and then sent a 45 page classified report soon after, the US still viewed the KR as an extension of the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Thus meaning it was not misinformation, but inaction and ignorance that caused the US and other powers not to step in. Sovereignty in the case of Cambodia was already surrendered in a sense to the KR, meaning further invasion and disturbance would have been warranted. Sovereignty should not have been the reason to not invade, because it is not as valuable as the lives of citizens. If it had been overridden in an organized was and immediately given back once the war was over, it would have been ok.

I agree that communism, as an ideology, is not inherently flawed, and can operate on a small scale because of human connection and mutual understanding. The Khmer Rouge did have fundamental issues of forced assimilation and anti-intellectualism. Still, I think the main issues with their system were their hypocrisy and violent takeover. To your point, communism needs true collectivism to operate--if some people aren't on board, the entire system collapses. First, the high ranking Khmer officers, like you said, enjoyed the luxuries of Western medicine and inventions, defying their own preached values. This made it so communism, to the government, wasn't fully established. The government knew they were on top, and wanted to keep it that way, which led them to slaughter and abuse their citizens. Also, the government took power through civil war and murder, not by popular vote, so the populous didn't necessarily agree with their communist philosophy. As a result, the Khmer Rouge had to keep everyone in line through the only alternate way: violence. Ultimately, not only was the population not convinced with the ideology of communism, but then had an aversion to the government because of the resulting abuse. They were kept in line through fear, not belief, and the system was thoroughly corrupted.

Originally posted by Big Lenny on April 14, 2025 17:02

I believe that the destruction and terror caused by the Khmer Rouge is not an inevitable aspect of communism, but is still common in many communist uprisings. I initially believed that communism was not inherently “wrong” and that the real fault lies in authoritarianism. The starvation, executions, family separation, targeting of ethnic or ideological groups, etc. were not part of communist ideology, but they were part of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology. I don’t know much about communist ideology, however, so I did wonder what communist ideology actually is, and how it differs from Khmer Rouge ideology.

A communist society is one in which there is no private property, no social classes, and no money, but there are a variety of interpretations on the way that a communist society is governed. Because there are two major classes (the working class and the owning class) and the owning class profits off of the work of the lower class through private means of production, a communist society would eliminate this privatization and put the working class in power. Most communist governments have been characterized by one-party rule, elimination of private property and capitalism, control and restrictions on the economy, media, religion, and the suppression of opposition figures. This in and of itself seems totalitarian, and I believe it would only benefit a society that welcomes social change rather than being forced upon people.

The Khmer Rouge had a similar ideology: they planned to return Cambodia to its original “golden age” where the country was ruled by peasants. Everyone would be rural agricultural workers and intellectuals/people living in the city would be eliminated. All political and civil rights were abolished, factories, hospitals, schools, and universities were shut down, and children were separated from their families at age 8 to work in labour camps where some were conditioned as soldiers and to kill enemies. Religion, music, radios, technology, and money were banned.

My first issue with these ideologies is that everyone must be poor. How is the solution to class inequality to make everyone live in squalor as constant laborers without education or access to hospitals? If that is the goal of communism, I was way off the mark before learning about Cambodia. I genuinely cannot understand how creating societies that lack joy, family, love, safety, freedom, and innocence is a better alternative to capitalism. My second issue is the Khmer Rouge’s focus on military and violence. In the movie First They Killed My Father, one of the statements repeated over speakers on the farms was “It is better to make a mistake and kill an innocent person than leave an enemy alive”—a direct reversal of the western belief according to A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002). Literal children were taught and conditioned to kill enemies with guns and farm tools. A quarter of the Cambodian population died during the uprising due to executions, starvation, violence, and sickness. Speaking of starvation, the people forced to labor on farms every moment of the day were not even allowed to feed themselves with their own harvest; the crops were sent away while mothers watched their children starve to death. The hell created by the Khmer Rouge cannot be justified by communist ideals of equality, regardless of if capitalism is worse or not.

I agree that communism itself is not inherently wrong, and that unfortunately, destruction and suffering are so common in communist uprisings. I also wonder what Karl Marx would think about the Khmer Rouge’s version of communism. Oftentimes, the reason why communist revolutions are so violent is because the ruling or owning class doesn’t want to give up power, so the working class must take it for themselves. Once the working class has power, though, most of the totalitarianism mentioned in your response comes into play, including strict regulation of activities and harsh laws. I definitely agree with your point about why everyone in a communist society must be poor. After the working class’ leaders come into power, it seems like they abandon all of what they said they would do to help the poor, and instead make everyone poor. However, I don’t think everyone would be able to be rich because if the country is poor, there isn’t enough money for everyone to be wealthy. It’s extremely contradictory for communist leaders like Pol Pot to claim to be leading a revolution for a better place where everyone’s equal, but for them to actually be an authoritarian leader where most people don’t even have basic human rights, while the elites have all the power.

Originally posted by fulton on April 15, 2025 12:45

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.

Personally, I disliked Fulton’s first chunk of the paragraph, as it was just a recap of the genocide, and with no real emotional depth, it lacked anything very moving. However, I did find it compelling how you painted the picture of the genocide and ended it off with “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.” That’s a very eye-catching and accurate depiction of the Khmer Rouge, and I wouldn’t be able to put it better. Fulton’s idea resembled mine, and I'm sure many other posts, quite well, as I also talked about the unwilling aspect of the Khmer Rouge’s idea of change, and that everything was on the whim and ideals of the higher-ups, as opposed to what would benefit the people the most. Overall, I think Fulton captured the events and the core essence of hopelessness and the overwhelming control via dictatorship that was the Khmer Rouge through their writing. I think you also made your ideas and points very clear, and you swiftly followed through with examples of the ideas you mentioned, which made for concise and easy-to-follow writing for me.

Originally posted by Big Lenny on April 14, 2025 17:02

I believe that the destruction and terror caused by the Khmer Rouge is not an inevitable aspect of communism, but is still common in many communist uprisings. I initially believed that communism was not inherently “wrong” and that the real fault lies in authoritarianism. The starvation, executions, family separation, targeting of ethnic or ideological groups, etc. were not part of communist ideology, but they were part of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology. I don’t know much about communist ideology, however, so I did wonder what communist ideology actually is, and how it differs from Khmer Rouge ideology.

A communist society is one in which there is no private property, no social classes, and no money, but there are a variety of interpretations on the way that a communist society is governed. Because there are two major classes (the working class and the owning class) and the owning class profits off of the work of the lower class through private means of production, a communist society would eliminate this privatization and put the working class in power. Most communist governments have been characterized by one-party rule, elimination of private property and capitalism, control and restrictions on the economy, media, religion, and the suppression of opposition figures. This in and of itself seems totalitarian, and I believe it would only benefit a society that welcomes social change rather than being forced upon people.

The Khmer Rouge had a similar ideology: they planned to return Cambodia to its original “golden age” where the country was ruled by peasants. Everyone would be rural agricultural workers and intellectuals/people living in the city would be eliminated. All political and civil rights were abolished, factories, hospitals, schools, and universities were shut down, and children were separated from their families at age 8 to work in labour camps where some were conditioned as soldiers and to kill enemies. Religion, music, radios, technology, and money were banned.

My first issue with these ideologies is that everyone must be poor. How is the solution to class inequality to make everyone live in squalor as constant laborers without education or access to hospitals? If that is the goal of communism, I was way off the mark before learning about Cambodia. I genuinely cannot understand how creating societies that lack joy, family, love, safety, freedom, and innocence is a better alternative to capitalism. My second issue is the Khmer Rouge’s focus on military and violence. In the movie First They Killed My Father, one of the statements repeated over speakers on the farms was “It is better to make a mistake and kill an innocent person than leave an enemy alive”—a direct reversal of the western belief according to A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide (Power, 2002). Literal children were taught and conditioned to kill enemies with guns and farm tools. A quarter of the Cambodian population died during the uprising due to executions, starvation, violence, and sickness. Speaking of starvation, the people forced to labor on farms every moment of the day were not even allowed to feed themselves with their own harvest; the crops were sent away while mothers watched their children starve to death. The hell created by the Khmer Rouge cannot be justified by communist ideals of equality, regardless of if capitalism is worse or not.

The most compelling part of my peer’s post is the idea that there is nothing wrong with the actual ideology and ideals of communism but the problem instead rests in the ways it is commonly implemented. For example, in all the times Communism has been attempted in the world it has been corrupted by authoritarianism which creates more harm. They pointed out that under the Khmer Rouge who wanted to make this ideal communist society the rights and well-being of the people were completely forgotten since there was a sole ruling party that created an Authoritarian government. This is important because it shows that when a one-party government controls all parts of the people’s lives it causes harm to them. Furthermore, since this is no longer communism where everything, including political power, is collectivized, it proves that it wasn’t communism that caused harm. I also think you can take this argument even further. For instance, since the goal of the Khmer Rouge was to dismantle capitalism and the upper wealthy class to create a place where everything is collectivized they in reality achieved the opposite. Although there was not free trade there still was a ruling upper class in the Khmer Rouge leadership that exploited the rest of the people for their own advantage similar to what they hoped to destroy.

Originally posted by Norse_history on April 12, 2025 12:07

Although communism might sound appealing in theory, it is well known that it is often a failure in practice. The Khmer Rouge are a prime example of this, as their plan to enforce strict communitarian equality in Cambodia stood out to many within the nation, but in the end, the deaths of 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, killings, and more proved many hopeful about the situation wrong. In order to better understand this example of a communist movement’s failure, one has to understand the core issues that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s plan and ideology. The main problem, which becomes abundantly clear when observing the events that occurred, was the severity and rapidity in how the Khmer Rouge went about their transformation of the country. While I don’t think that the end product would have ever been good, due to inherent problems with communism I will address later, I think many deaths could have been avoided and living conditions could have been improved if the Khmer Rouge slowly transitioned Cambodia into an agrarian communist society. By forcing everyone out of cities at once, with many lacking experience or strength, the government facilitated disease and starvation. The problems that the Khmer Rouge may not have anticipated were all compounded because they happened all at once, each with drastic effects. For example, the extreme lack of food could have been identified as people were slowly moved from the city, and the government could have chosen to exchange other goods for weapons, rather than allowing “ rice [to be] exported abroad in exchange for military weapons” (Sok Udom Deth). This idea, however, relies on the leaders of the Khmer Rouge being decent people who genuinely want communism to better their country, something that every communist movement required but very few have.

With communism, any person of power with corrupt or selfish morals could bring down the entire system, as then one person, family, or group of people might be treated better than others, ruining the communist ideal. In Cambodia, the people in power favored those who had previously supported them in their efforts, leading to inequality and abuse of power. Another inherent issue with communism is that being equal is, to put it simply, depressing. If everyone is the same, then each individual has less value. It is a similar idea to if everyone could be constantly happy all the time. If there is only happiness, that happiness becomes the norm and loses its appeal. While pure capitalism may not be the solution to this, as it often results in exploitation and corruption, some form of comparison is required for anything to have value. Therefore, communism cannot work. A society or country can have equality in many important things, be it access to healthcare, education, or something else, but if everyone lives the exact same way, issues will emerge as people try to break out of a system that makes their lives feel pointless. So while the way communism was carried out in Cambodia was ineffective and brutal, that does not mean that communism could ever work. Communism defies human nature, and will eventually fail in every instance. In Cambodia, communism was implemented in a way that directly contradicted human life, and therefore it failed quickly and terribly.

I totally agree. I think the issue in communism is that people want individuality and personal freedom of choice. For this reason, communism can work on a small scale where they are granted personal choice, but in the case of the Khmer Rouge it was both too big and too rigid. The issue is however that the "personal choice" is almost completely dictated by the amount of money someone has. In the US, parents have the personal choices of sending their child to a Montessori school where they would have more freedom, or a public school where they would have more structure. The presence of this personal choice keeps everyone happy, and the crime of truancy and child neglect keeps everyone moderately in check with education. In the case of the Khmer Rouge, they had no choice but to ONLY go to schooling within their villages, which would cause more equality but also potentially less free will. This is just one small example, but it can be applied to all other aspects for sure.
On a small scale, I think communism is a great idea, because only those interested can partake in it, and the people can be more empathetic. The Khmer Rouge got so out of hand partly because it was such a vast amount of people that individual needs could not be considered in a way that made anyone happy. I feel like communism on such a large scale calls for more suffering. This caused so many people to be brutalized and starved, because their leaders could not truly help so many people. I feel like communism only truly fulfills its intention of everyone having the same amount if everyone has nothing. Even then, its not everyone who has nothing but just the vast majority.

Originally posted by iris_crane on April 15, 2025 21:21

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.

When you say "the actions of the Khmer Rouge's ideology do not speak or demonstrate the wrongs of communism," are you suggesting that what they practiced was not a form of communism at all? Because I do think it's important to recognize that, while their actions were extreme and horrifying, they were still deeply rooted in communist principles—especially the push for a classless, agrarian society. I do agree with you that they absolutely showed the dangers and ultimate failure of trying to create a completely homogeneous nation, but at the same time, their ideology and methods were completely infused with communism, even if it was a warped or radicalized version of it. What is your opinion on the irony of soldiers and higher people of power using the ban Western products? Personally, I think it’s extremely mind-boggling, but at the same time, it’s really not surprising at all. It just goes to show how often there’s a huge disconnect between what leaders preach and what they actually do. You constantly see politicians and people in power around the world saying one thing and then doing the complete opposite when it suits them. It’s almost like they set rules for everyone else but don’t feel the need to follow them themselves. The fact that they banned Western products for the people yet secretly used them anyway just shows the hypocrisy and double standards that exist in so many governments.

Originally posted by Norse_history on April 12, 2025 12:07

Although communism might sound appealing in theory, it is well known that it is often a failure in practice. The Khmer Rouge are a prime example of this, as their plan to enforce strict communitarian equality in Cambodia stood out to many within the nation, but in the end, the deaths of 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, killings, and more proved many hopeful about the situation wrong. In order to better understand this example of a communist movement’s failure, one has to understand the core issues that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s plan and ideology. The main problem, which becomes abundantly clear when observing the events that occurred, was the severity and rapidity in how the Khmer Rouge went about their transformation of the country. While I don’t think that the end product would have ever been good, due to inherent problems with communism I will address later, I think many deaths could have been avoided and living conditions could have been improved if the Khmer Rouge slowly transitioned Cambodia into an agrarian communist society. By forcing everyone out of cities at once, with many lacking experience or strength, the government facilitated disease and starvation. The problems that the Khmer Rouge may not have anticipated were all compounded because they happened all at once, each with drastic effects. For example, the extreme lack of food could have been identified as people were slowly moved from the city, and the government could have chosen to exchange other goods for weapons, rather than allowing “ rice [to be] exported abroad in exchange for military weapons” (Sok Udom Deth). This idea, however, relies on the leaders of the Khmer Rouge being decent people who genuinely want communism to better their country, something that every communist movement required but very few have.

With communism, any person of power with corrupt or selfish morals could bring down the entire system, as then one person, family, or group of people might be treated better than others, ruining the communist ideal. In Cambodia, the people in power favored those who had previously supported them in their efforts, leading to inequality and abuse of power. Another inherent issue with communism is that being equal is, to put it simply, depressing. If everyone is the same, then each individual has less value. It is a similar idea to if everyone could be constantly happy all the time. If there is only happiness, that happiness becomes the norm and loses its appeal. While pure capitalism may not be the solution to this, as it often results in exploitation and corruption, some form of comparison is required for anything to have value. Therefore, communism cannot work. A society or country can have equality in many important things, be it access to healthcare, education, or something else, but if everyone lives the exact same way, issues will emerge as people try to break out of a system that makes their lives feel pointless. So while the way communism was carried out in Cambodia was ineffective and brutal, that does not mean that communism could ever work. Communism defies human nature, and will eventually fail in every instance. In Cambodia, communism was implemented in a way that directly contradicted human life, and therefore it failed quickly and terribly.

This argument was really compelling and I certainly saw parallels with it and my own writing. One point that stood out to me was that one corrupt person can bring down the whole system and this is so clearly the issue with the Khmer Rouge adoption of communism. Additionally, I agree that communism goes against human nature, because we are inevitably self-interested as humans and seek personal benefits to some degree. To make everyone equal in a communist society would never be possible on a large scale because a governing body would always lead to an imbalance in power. This aspect of the Khmer Rouge was particularly important because while they sought to make society equal in all aspects, a higher government balance created a power imbalance. However, I also believe that a governing body is absolutely necessary and therefore communist could never exist beyond a small community. I agree with your point that many deaths could have been avoided with a less abrupt takeover and evacuation, however the Khmer Rouge leadership and their interpretation of communist ideology makes that possibility seem unlikely. Another point that was compelling was your point that if all humans are valued the same then they will all be valued less. I’m not sure whether I actually agree with this point, however, I think it’s a really interesting philosophical question and just goes to show that no matter if communism had worked or not in Khmer Rouge, it would have led to a terrible outcome.

Originally posted by 1984_lordoftheflies on April 15, 2025 18:35

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.

I similarly agree that the argument that the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge were not inherently tied to communism itself, but rather stemmed from an extreme and distorted interpretation of the ideology. Where that political ideology alone does not determine the outcomes of a regime; rather, it is more related to the way in which power is wielded that ultimately shapes a society. I feel as though this distinction can be seen as both convincing and significant. I really liked how you used the comparison of how other communist regimes—such as those in Cuba, the Soviet Union, and China—prioritized education and healthcare. And in stark contrast to the Khmer Rouge’s deliberate destruction of both through the murder of those who were intellects or who were deemed smart to go against their regime. I feel like you really effectively demonstrate that communist governance has manifested in dramatically different ways across different historical and cultural contexts. This idea is particularly interesting especially, because it challenges a common binary narrative that all communist regimes are monolithic and inherently repressive. Instead, it invites the more nuanced understanding and idea of how ideology can be manipulated by those in power to justify actions that deviate from the supposed principles of that ideology.