learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by aldoushuxley on April 15, 2025 07:57

The Khmer Rouge’s rise to power in Cambodia in 1975 marked one of the most horrific genocides of the 20th century. Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the regime sought to create a communist utopia by erasing all traces of capitalism, modernity, and individuality. However, this radical vision quickly turned into a nightmare that claimed the lives of nearly two million Cambodians. The fundamental problems in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and execution stemmed not necessarily from communism itself, but from a ruthless and distorted application of its principles. Their version of agrarian communism abandoned reason, compassion, and practicality—key factors that must guide any form of governance if it hopes to benefit its people. One of the most dangerous aspects of the Khmer Rouge ideology I believe, was its obsession with creating a classless, purely agrarian society. Inspired by Maoist ideas, Pol Pot believed that rural peasants were the purest form of society, and that cities and educated people were corrupted by capitalism and Western influence. As a result, the regime forcibly evacuated cities, abolished money, shut down schools and hospitals, and targeted anyone associated with education, religion, or foreign influence. The film First They Killed My Father powerfully captures the personal and emotional impact of these policies. Told from the perspective of Loung Ung, a young girl who survived the genocide, the film shows how the Khmer Rouge tore apart families, forced children into labor camps, and turned neighbors into spies. One particularly haunting scene shows Loung being trained to use weapons as a child soldier—demonstrating how the regime manipulated even the youngest minds to serve its violent goals. The movie makes it clear that the Khmer Rouge did not just fail to build a better society; they destroyed the very fabric of human life in Cambodia. The international community’s response to the Cambodian genocide was tragically delayed and largely ineffective. Many nations, especially in the West, were hesitant to intervene, partly due to Cold War politics and a lack of clear information. Shockingly, even after the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by Vietnamese forces in 1979, the United Nations continued to recognize Pol Pot’s government as the legitimate representative of Cambodia for several years. The Cambodian genocide was a missed opportunity for the world to act decisively in the face of evil. In conclusion, the devastation in Cambodia was not caused by communism alone, but by an extreme and violent misuse of its ideals by the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot’s regime stripped people of their identities and lives in the name of a radical vision. The world should learn from this tragedy: ideology without humanity is a path to destruction, and silence in the face of suffering is complicity. The story of First They Killed My Father reminds us that behind every policy are real people, and their suffering can not be ignored.

Hi aldoushuxley! First of all, your style of writing is so powerful and assertive. You made so many strong claims in this passage and backed them up with sophisticated reasoning and clear explanation. I agree with you that the fundamental problems of the Khmer Rouge’s ideology did not stem directly from communist ideology but rather their “ruthless and distorted application of its principles.” I wrote about this as well, and I really liked how you concisely argued that the Khmer Rouge’s version of communism “abandoned reason, compassion, and practicality” (such strong writing!). I agree that the Khmer Rouge’s concentration of total power in a small group while stripping their people of their rights, even the right to live, is not inherently a communist ideal. Pol Pot, ironically coming from a privileged and affluent background, believed that the purest form of living came from rural peasants as they were uncorrupted by education and capitalism. He didn’t consider that rural peasants were living in much worse conditions than educated city dwellers, however, and instead sought to lower everyone to that poor standard of living. A line from your response that really popped for me was that the Khmer Rouge “destroyed the very fabric of human life in Cambodia.” I completely agree with you. There is no way to argue that the Khmer Rouge’s twisted version of an “equal” agrarian society benefited its people in any way. Lastly, I also loved your line “ideology without humanity is a path to destruction.” I think this is the main point that I took away from both your response as well as this class unit.

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

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

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

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

I agree with how you highlighted the fact that the Khmer Rouge’s ideology failed because they made too many enemies and completely destroyed the trust which is necessary for communities and collective societies to properly function. I find that trust is essential for things like communism or just any form of governance that claims to be “for the people”. Without trust, everyone lives in fear, fear of others turning against them, and it creates this concept of everyone for themselves, ultimately dividing the people even further. I found this very interesting because it relates to a larger truth about movements and governments, it is that no matter how appealing and fair the original goals sound, if its methods destroy human connections, those goals will never be achieved. I like how you pointed out how the KR elites lived comfortably while the rest of the general population suffered. It really hones in on the point that we’ve seen commonly where leaders appeal to the general public of the idea of equality and justice, and they use that to gain power, but once they finally have it, they become another elite class, often becoming worse than the systems they worked to replace. I agree with the point that the Khmer Rouge used communism as a justification to gain power than a real attempt to improve society.

One of the biggest fundamental problems of the Khmer Rouge was that it stripped everyone of individualism and tried to make everyone live “simple and humble” lives, effectively creating a dystopian communist society instead of an “equal”. When we talk about communism on paper and in simple terms, it may not seem as dangerous as it actually is. The “goal” is to create an equal society without class distinctions but it gets lost really easily once the government proceeds to strip people of their human rights. The Khmer Rouge killed people that worked for the former government because they represented what they viewed to be the problem with modern society. They forced everyone to dye their clothes as dark as they could and nobody could own their own property. People were forced to live in villages where they were constantly commanded by Khmer rouge soldiers and forced to work long days doing manual labor. People that had an education level higher than a 7th grader’s were murdered because they were viewed as an impure threat that would threaten their new way of living. The Khmer Rouge even “reset” time to the year 0 in attempts to completely erase the past. These are just a few of the horrific things they did. the lives of everyone were constantly in danger because it didn’t take much to get in trouble. I do think this says something inherently wrong about communism. We’ve seen historically that every time a country tries to make their country communist, it becomes more destructive than beneficial for the people. I think there are multiple things to take into account when you’re drawing the line between ethical and unethical revolution. The Khmer Rouge claimed to be acting for the good of the people, resetting society and teaching the new generation how to be “humble” and a loyal cog of the revolution. This ended up being a disastrous idea, as many children were instead taught to be cruel and heartless, carrying out many of the atrocities committed. Many innocent lives were taken and there was little to no remorse for the tragedy because people were brainwashed into thinking they were doing the right thing. When it is clear that a struggle to change society is only making the situation worse, other nations should step in and stop what’s happening. Over a million people were killed at the hands of the Khmer Rouge and it wasn’t like people outside of Cambodia didn’t know what was happening. They chose to ignore it, making claims that what was happening was “too gruesome to be true” in attempts to make them feel better for their inaction. This still happens today. There are multiple active genocides going on right now and people are ignoring it as though it doesn’t exist because it makes them feel better about being a bystander. This absence of action is exactly what enables the perpetrators to continue because to them, a lack of intervention is a confirmation that what they’re doing is okay.

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

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

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

I really like how you utilized Jacobo Arbenz’s distribution of land from the United Fruit company to the people of Guatemala to justify that communism in theory wouldn’t be completely terrible if it was carried out properly (even though he wasn’t a communist). The ability to be able to redistribute wealth and labor in an ethical way that preserves individuality would have to be carried out by a strong, mindful government. I noticed that you put an emphasis on communism not being a practical option for a large population. Do you think it would work for a smaller population? If it was up to you, how would you ethically incorporate communist ideology into a nation so that it benefited the people? You’ve actually changed my perspective a bit. Before reading this, I had initially felt like there was something inherently wrong with communism just because it has yet to be carried out properly. I now feel like it isn’t a problem with communism, but rather the way it is implemented in societies. The way it has been done historically has stripped people of their individuality and freedom. I wonder if it’s possible for humans to carry out communism in a way that is beneficial for the people? I really enjoyed reading your perspective. Amazing job!

Originally posted by Gatsby on April 15, 2025 09:21

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

This response gives a strong and thoughtful analysis of how the Khmer Rouge twisted communist ideas to justify their brutal rule. I liked how it explained the historical background such as the U.S. bombings and civil war which helps show why such a radical change may have appealed to people at the time. It makes clear that the Khmer Rouge’s version of communism wasn’t about helping people, but about control. The part about Angkar, the faceless power that demanded total loyalty, was especially powerful. It showed how the regime made it hard for people to know who was really in charge, creating fear and confusion. I also appreciated the point about how the Khmer Rouge used children, especially orphans, to build loyalty and grow their ranks. It was a smart way to show how deeply the regime reached into society. The explanation of forced equality where no one could own anything if everyone couldn’t, was clear and effective. Finally, I liked the part tjat compared the Khmer Rouge’s actions to true Marxist ideas, showing how far they had strayed. While the final point about communism always failing could use more support, the overall argument is strong and backed by meaningful examples.