1. Discussions
  2. Facing History 2024-2025
  3. 24-25 Facing History Forum 4
posts 16 - 30 of 35
Login to Reply
star fire
Roslindale, MA, US
Posts: 11

The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community

According to Karl Max, communism advocates for class war which leads to a society where property is publicly owned and each person is paid according to their abilities and needs. Even though the Khmer Rouge used communism as a guise for their ideology that is not what they actually did. They tried to eliminate all social classes but their definition of social classes and the way they went about it was morally wrong. Anybody that had anything “western” was considered a traitor, even if it was something that they needed to live, like glasses. In the film First They Killed My Father, the Khmer Rouge killed someone who gave Western medicine to his child in order to save their life. If they found out that someone was part of the working class before they took over, they were also sentenced to their death. In the same film, they would make the Buddhist monks slaves simply because of their religion. They made everybody dye their clothes so that they would be seen as “the same” and fed them small amounts of food to keep them under control. They took children and trained them as soldiers because they were the most impressionable. There is nothing inherently wrong with on its own, it simply advocates for the equality of all people. But when it’s put into the hands of people like the Khmer Rouge who aren’t actually looking for the bettering of their people and simply to keep themselves in control, then communism becomes corrupt.

I don’t think any suffering is tolerable to bring about a “better society”, in fact if people are trying to bring about a “better society” there shouldn’t be any pain involved. A father should not have to be taken away from his family. A mother shouldn’t have to watch her children be shipped off to war and watch them slowly die one by one. She shouldn’t be forced to split apart her family in order for them to survive. If it is clear that a struggle for change is making a society worse and results in the death of a quarter of the population then the international community should get involved. That’s why the UN was established. They shouldn’t sit back and watch as it goes down, they need to intervene, it’s basic human decency. If they need to draw the line as to what means are ethical and which ones are unethical, then they should take a look at the quality of life for the people. People were starved to death. Getting sick because they weren’t allowed to take medicine. Children were indoctrinated and planted landmines and as a result many died. There was no privacy. That is no way for anybody to live and when the international community saw that that was going on, they should’ve done something before it became too late.

historymaster321
Hyde Park, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 14

The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community (Peer Response)

Originally posted by fishgirlbahamas on April 14, 2025 21:00

The Khmer Rouge had some serious flaws that eventually led to their downfall, for example, trying to wipe out class, education, family connections, and even basic human life. They wanted to build a completely classless society by getting rid of money, markets, and private property. Everyone was stripped of their identity and ruled by one controlling authority, all in the name of something they called Angkar. But this kind of system was never going to work. The idea of getting rid of class sounds equal on the surface, but it’s just not realistic. People are different—some have skills, others don’t, and trying to force everyone into the same mold just creates a whole new kind of inequality. When they switched everything to a barter system, if you didn’t have something useful to trade, you were left with nothing. That led to poverty, starvation, and total economic collapse. The whole country fell apart because of it. In addition, the Khmer Rouge wanted to ban all forms of intellect to start a completely blank and moldable society with no room for different opinions. Without educated people, there are no doctors, engineers, teachers, and more, but these are people who can fix problems to save people, and without them, a society can't function. Intellectualism kills curiosity so people don’t question authoritarian rule or think for themselves. However, in the long run, it creates a weaker society because while everyone around them is advancing, they are slowly getting weaker and more vulnerable to colonialism and attacks. Millions of people were forced to work in camps doing draining tasks with little food and rest, this led to starvation, disease, and death on a massive scale. Even though the Khmer Rouge said they were communists, what they did didn’t match up and was more of a dystopian agrarian situation. They wanted to get rid of all class and money, but real communism still believed people should get paid for working. It's more about sharing things fairly, not getting rid of everything. Another fundamental problem was the use of Angkar which was almost like a big brother from 1984. I think Angkar was kind of like Big Brother from 1984 which is this mysterious, all-powerful force that controlled everything but didn’t have a real face. People were terrified of it because they were told they could see and know everything, so no one dared to speak out. The Khmer Rouge told the Cambodian people that Angkar was like a pineapple, it had eyes everywhere which caused people to self-monitor everything they did. It made people feel totally alone and scared since even family and friends could turn on them to please Angkar. In the end, it just created a society full of fear and silence, not unity or strength. I think the real issue wasn’t communism itself (because there are current successful communist countries) but more so how the Khmer Rouge twisted and forced it in such an extreme and violent way. They tried to erase everything that made people human like individuality, education, family, and choice, and that kind of control will always lead to suffering. Their version of communism wasn’t about fairness or equality because they still had Angkar as an ultimate power, it was about power and fear and that’s what truly destroyed the country.

One of the most compelling ideas in my peers' response is the failure of the extreme communism tactics that the Khmer Rouge implemented during their rule. My peer highlights the extent of these tactics when discussing the fact that people with jobs that could advance and better others were prohibited and not allowed to have these jobs anymore. Money was not allowed and everyone was forced to work and provide for the soldiers on the frontlines, the ones doing all of the “actual” life saving work. Although in a more typical form of communism there is no class system, people are still allowed to work and have these jobs. In my peers' response they continue to touch on the ideas of how the Khmer Rouge's rain was eventually going to fail because of its lack of stability. The overworking of people followed by malnourishment was a system bound to fail eventually due to its slow killing of all of these people. In the response my peer focuses on ideas of weakness in the society and how this was the Rogues ultimate plan in taking over. By weakening the minds of the society the Khmer Rouge was able to take more complete control over the civilians through aggressive tactics such as manipulation and overall mind control. Ultimately my peers' response discussed the ideas of the destructive, brutal, and overall unsuccessful reign of the Khmer Rouge empire.

Vonnegut123
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

Response #8 on the Khmer Rouge

Wealth inequality and the suppression in colonial Cambodia were definitely issues that were going to be addressed one way or another. Communism and the geopolitical reach of the Soviet Union or China would have upturned French Indochina with an agreeable rebel group. The lack of logistical planning and understanding of modern necessities caused the insanity of the Khmer Rouge. Sometimes when people suggest what the ideal lifestyle is they are very romantic and suggest some blissful farmer lifestyle. That sounds nice to many people. However, a farmer in the modern world requires electricity, steel tools, the fertilizer industry, livestock, people to trade with, water infrastructure, and many things which I do not know of. If everyone leaves the cities, then who will be the manufacturer making the tools, the dockman in charge of coordinating international trade, the educated engineer who can run the power plant, the person who taught the engineer, the doctors? In modern society coexistence is necessary to create a well functioning society. The rural farmer produces for the city worker who in turn creates technology and infrastructure to help the other. The Khmer Rouge, even if the agrarian societies miraculously fed everyone, would eventually come to the conclusion that they need factories, technology, and cities to compete with the rest of the world. There was no short term planning for the well being of the citizens, there was no long term plan for the success of Cambodia, but there was a little bit of power for the Khmer Rouge leaders.


Communism has in practice never worked since its creation for the industrial worker back in 1848. A much more tame ideology or philosophy to follow would be Epicureanism. This is when people, on their own accord in a capitalist system, try to live happily with friends while doing tasks that help maintain the commune and benefit others. In fact this very ideology inspired Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles when he thought up Communism and Socialism. Epicureanism is not a policy though. Communism is the attempt to force an individual practice upon a style of government. This step has always cost millions of lives and has not led to dramatic improvements.


I have talked to some people in the United States who believe more action should be taken either inside the government or externally. In history people have struggled with this forever with varying success. From what I have read the coup, change in government, or end result should try to be as bloodless as possible. However, certain figures occasionally are too far, such as a monarch, and must be either exiled or killed. Also, leaders of a movement must have concrete steps they want to take, a plan for leadership, and outstanding morals in order to ensure a calm transition. If a society is exhibiting the worst possible outcome, civil war and violence, then other countries have a responsibility to weigh in on the correct response. Internal strife doesn’t occur for no reason so someone should have just cause.
Kvara77goat
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

LTQ 8- Khmer Rouge

Cambodia was a country which had been mistreated and neglected by the West for decades. Tensions seemed to boil over in the early 1970s when Cambodians were frequently caught in the crossfire of the Vietnam war. The United States relentlessly bombed Cambodian land which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians, as well as the destruction of Cambodian societal institutions which led to further impoverishment and suffering in a country which was largely under-resourced and neglected in the postcolonial era. Thus, it was clear that changes needed to be made in Cambodia, both in government and in society. In 1970, general Lon Nol attempted a successful coup which resulted in him gaining power as the country’s leader. However, with war still raging in Vietnam, he did little to stop the suffering of Cambodian people.

By the mid 1970s, it was clear that something needed to change and a sense of resentment towards the government had built up amongst many Cambodians. A group which had been waiting in the shadows was the Khmer Rouge, a radical communist guerrilla group. In Samantha Power’s A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide she notes that in many historical genocides, before the guilty power gains power there are clear signs that they want to harm a certain group–for example, the Nazis built a lot of support on their ideas of a dominant Aryan race and their propaganda against the Jews, saying that they were the source of all evil. In addition, ethnic tensions between Serbs and Bosnians had boiled over. However, Cambodia was different. Initially, many Cambodians–some who would later be killed–were inspired by the Khmer Rouge’s desire to revive Cambodia and bring prosperity and equality to the Cambodian people. Thus, they were not unpopular in the majority of the country, with the majority of the resistance coming from educated city elite or previous government workers.

At this point, the movement I have described does not sound so problematic. After all, Cambodia was a war-torn country brutalized by the West, so their rejection of Western ideas and turn to communism was very understandable. However, this movement immediately took a drastic and radical turn. All foreign embassies were closed and the borders to Cambodia were shut off to the world. To me, this is a clear sign of the negative intentions of the Khmer Rouge. By closing yourself off to the world, one allows near absolute power to the people in charge and denies the possibility of any outside influence. Although not all outside influence is good (and it certainly hadn’t been in Cambodia) I still believe that it is never the right idea to completely shut yourself off from the world. Yesterday, I attended a lecture from economics and public health professor Christopher Baum, who teaches at Boston College. He said that trade wars were never good, and it is best for countries to actively engage with each other. However, that is not to say that all communism reflects the Khmer Rouge’s ideology. China and Vietnam, two largely communist countries, make up two of the largest exporting markets in the world and the US has successful trade with them (up to this point).

Thus, I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong with communism. Is it the best answer? Probably not. Has it ever truly been effective? No. Will it work in every country? No. But my main takeaway is this: the Khmer Rouge had clear negative intentions toward its own people separate from political ideology. They tried to radicalize their population by taking them away from cities and education, closing embassies, spreading false bomb threats, and immediately killing thousands of civilians, often off of unproven tips, who were assumed to be threats. The strong desire for an agrarian people with a hatred of education is not a feature of communist societies--it is a vision which a tyrannical government seeks to implant to control their people. Although I am by no means an advocate for communism, I will say this: there are many countries where communism has not completely destroyed a country the way the Khmer Rouge did. I think the genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge is not a result of their communist ideology--it is a result of their truly evil intentions.

fishgirlbahamas
boston, ma, US
Posts: 13

Originally posted by historymaster321 on April 15, 2025 09:07

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?


Questions regarding war ethics and morals have been present throughout history. Ethics is defined as the respecting of human rights and overall avoiding uncessary harm. Morals are defined as the judgment of human behavior. Both ideas are considered heavily during war because human lives are involved and people question how far you can push ethics and morals. The ethics of war are constantly being challenged by varying regions and their beliefs regarding these topics. In order to actually make a change in a place that holds a lot of power such as any nation across the world a big event needs to happen and leave a big impact. Unfortunately, this usually involves unsafe measures such as bombings, killings, and great destruction of certain regions. But all of these leave great impacts and the change ends up being made. It is a challenging idea because are the lives of people now worth the change for the lives of people in a future advanced society? Wouldn't this mean sacrificing and going against morals and ethics if we have to take these current human lives? But if these lives are taken aren't the ethics and morals still being protected and upheld because the future lives are being kept safe? These are the kinds of questions that are brought to the forefront of war discussions and need to continue to be brought to the forefront. Ethics are always going to be challenged when a great change needs to be made. Unfortunately, human lives will most likely end up being the collateral damage of that and usually do make the change possible. However, I am not sure what else is as valuable and worthy as a human life to make as big an impact when it is gone or taken away. The questions above touch on this kind of uncertainty of war. I think that it's up to a certain nation as to how far they will go in order to make a change and in order to do what they think is best for their own country. Whatever the nation decides to do, ethical or not, they are most likely more worried about the current state of power of their region and its overall stability. Although it may seem vicious and violent, suffering is necessary in some sense to create change. One has to hit rock bottom in order to know how bad it really is and how to get out of it. Countries can apply this same kind of thinking to their decision-making, in political choices, for their civilians. They may make changes that cause the civilians suffering or pain but the overall change needing to be made most likely always gets completed. While in other cases, it may not because of how far the nation took in causing its people certain suffering and pain. If the people are starving to death, being worked to death, and driven to their death in other ways then the country will never see the change it wanted. The people will become furious and will rebel eventually. Whereas if the changes are gradual and cause slight hurting the civilians may not even notice that these things are being implemented into their society. When it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse and the current government in power does not do anything to counteract this change then otherworldly powers need to step in. If the country's nation doesn't see the issue in all of the suffering it has caused its people then that is where the issue lies and where other people in power need to step in to protect those whose voices are being silenced. Organizations such as the United Nations and those like it work for the people who are being silenced and help them in almost all areas of their lives. It is important though, that a nation never gets this out of hand because it can lead to the deaths of many and its overall own destruction.

I agree with everything you have stated, specifically how ethics can be extremely subjective and the question; is it worth it? The Khmer Rouge wanted to have a completely united society, but as you said, if everyone is being worked to death, beaten to death, and starved to death, who will even be a part of this “united and evolved” Cambodia? To what extent is sacrificing current lives a good thing for future peace and safety? It really challenges us to think about long-term good vs. short-term harm. I don't necessarily think that harm is always needed to create some kind of change, but unfortunately, it is the most effective method when wanting to get things done. You brought a really good point about how leaders care more about power and control rather than the people themselves. The Khmer Rouge claimed to be “for the people” but what were they doing for them besides killing? It shows how they just valued being at the top rather than actually fighting for the people. Overall, your response was really powerful in terms of understanding war ethics and thinking about the actions people take to create change. There is no obvious one answer because things like this change based on the circumstance.

EX0
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

The Khmer Rouge-Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community

The issue with Khmer Rouge ideology that led to the deaths of so many people wasn’t necessarily communism but the belief in the state over the individual: the belief that “to keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.” This issue has plagued many other communist states too. The ideology that it is necessary to sacrifice for the greater good, for a utopian future, has the natural progression of extreme violence and manipulation of human life. I don’t believe this is a problem that is inherent with communist ideology, but the tendency of communist regimes to be autocratic lends itself to this outcome. This issue with communism is that true communism only works in small scale communities or if the whole world was communist. It is impossible for a communist state to succeed in a capitalist world because no nation has the resources to be fully self-sufficient with the populations they have. It is also impossible to keep total social equality and maintain a decent standard of living for everyone. In order to create this social equality, “they were separating children from parents, defrocking monks, killing those who disobeyed and creating an irrevocable living arrangement.” (Quinn) In other words, they bring everyone to the lowest level instead of raising everyone to the highest, or even the middle. Another issue with the spin on communism that the Khmer Rouge was the creation of a surveillance state. This is an aspect of authoritarianism, not communism. Creating the culture of denouncement increases innocent deaths significantly and sows mistrust among individuals, thereby fracturing bonds instead of forming them.

The fundamental issue with communism is that it is a modern idea trying to be applied in a post-modern setting. The world is not as simple as communist doctrine suggests. This is why the ‘communist’ states that succeeded to this day are not truly communist. They had to incorporate capitalistic and democratic aspects in order to gain power and stability. I believe that communist teachings are important to consider and pull aspects from to incorporate into the systems around us, however, true communism is a utopian fantasy. This is true for both political poles. When a single ideology is employed, whether conservative fascism or liberal communism, it is destined to end in immense suffering for the people that live under it. Political dissonance is essential for the wellbeing of the people.

While it is easy to say that the international community, especially the United States, were complacent in the face of Khmer Rouge brutality, it is much harder to say what they should or could have done. The international community didn’t know what was going on for a long time. The Khmer Rouge did an incredibly effective job at shrouding the country in secrecy. International interest was also a factor in the lack of action. The Vietnam war was disastrous for American and international interest in foreign involvement, particularly in the region. The US could have leveled sanctions on the Khmer Rouge, but that would have been largely ineffective. The Khmer Rouge already had cut virtually all ties with the international community. The only effect sanctions would have would be to worsen the conditions for the Cambodian people who already were suffering. The best thing the United States could have done would have been to continue to raise awareness and get the UN to force a presence in the country. If the international community had intervened the issue of national sovereignty would have been less pressing. Overall though, it is tough for America to intervene given its history. While the choices that America made in response to the Khmer Rouge were obviously very damaging, it is hard to say the best course of action for them to have taken.

WoahWoah
Hyde Park, MA, US
Posts: 15

LTQ 8: The Khmer Rouge-Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community

The fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology was that they took away all individualism from the citizens and they cut them off from the rest of society. They did this so that they could have a complete take over and that they wouldn’t face any other forms of resistance. This caused so much destruction within Cambodia because the people that they targeted was based on criteria that was so broad that thousands of people met the criteria. They murdered innocent people simply because they were deemed unfit for their future society. This was completely insane since their criteria wasn’t based on bad traits or traits they seemed unworthy, but they seen them as a threat that’s why they got rid of them. I don’t think that the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and time in Cambodia can be used to say that communism is inherently wrong or ineffective because this was a drastic case where it was forced upon and imposed on the citizens. I believe that if it was easily accepted and not forced upon others in a situation where democracy is there would’ve been much better results. There was no building towards this society that they wanted they forcefully changed everything which is why it was such a negative impact. Instead of promoting positive change that shows why the society they building is good, they put these citizens in poor conditions where they were mistreated and lived in fear everyday like we saw in the film First They Killed My Father. A communist regime is supposed to be a place of equality, but clearly what the Khmer Rouge was doing in Cambodia was the farthest thing from equality. Their actions are nothing more than a callous interpretation of communism, and a government that wanted to gain territory and take advantage of a population of people.


When in conflict such as war people tend to pretend as if the line that separates ethical and unethical change isn’t clear but this isn’t the case. There are clearly international laws and customs that the entire world has been notified of. There is a clear rubric for what is acceptable and ethical in war, therefore when a nation goes outside of lines it’s certainly unethical on the scale that has been established globally. Throughout war, typically everyone on both sides is guaranteed to suffer. I believe that citizens going through terrible conditions and a tank in resources and the economy is normal. Change doesn’t come immediately and there is a time period before the change where the society as a whole goes down. However what’s unacceptable when there’s a large amount of citizen casualties. I believe that if you are really trying to create change for the better it wouldn’t require thousands of innocent citizens to perish. Situations like the Khmer Rouge were clear that they were not creating any positive change and that there regime in Cambodia was only ruining the people’s lives. In cases like Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where a population is clearly unable to save themselves there should be outside help from other nations that should step in to stop the massacre of innocent humans.

bostonlatin1635
Charlestown, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 10

When we talk about radical societal change, there is definitely some good and some bad. However, I would argue that most radical changes are very long term and cause significant social change. This is because while the change is happening, the people in society will never get to experience the full effects of said change, so it can be really hard for them to participate in that change. On top of that, the citizens need to have a say in whether to change or not. For example, the Khmer Rouge. They definitely needed some serious change, but the citizens were helpless, taken advantage of, and killed in the masses for literally no reason. That in itself was extremely unethical, as they tried to implement an entirely new form of government, being communism. They would strip people of all possessions and personal property, as well as the individual from the person, priming all citizens of Phnom Penh for absolute takeover and certain death. They also told all Phnom Penh citizens to evacuate and walk into the countryside due to a “bombing” from the US army of Phnom Penh. However, there was no bombing, and the KR soldiers decided to seize all property from the capital.



To be specific, the Khmer Rouge’s plan was complete communism, and also extreme exclusion of all western values and the individual. As we know, this radical change was not for the better, but some form of change was definitely needed. They caught hundreds of thousands of civilians by surprise by forcefully evacuating them from their homes, for what? Sure, their pathetic excuse for a reason which was that the Americans were bombing was plausible, until we know that there wasn't any bombing. They then decided to indoctrinate thousands of children into this extreme communism. Although I still do believe that communism will never work at a national level, this was not a good example of that, as the government was extremely corrupt, and they killed many in the process, most of wh9ich were unrelated to communism. However, what can be taken from the Khmer Rouge is how easy it is to take over vulnerable groups of people ,and how we need more and more countries/allies to step in when needed. These oppressive governments have ideologies that spread like wildfire because they seem to appeal to the masses, when, inreality, they only benefit a very small number of higher up people, yet require the masses to be on board with the radical ideology in order for them to benefit. Thus, this can be done by force, as seen in the Khmer Rouge, but also by propaganda, as seen in the nazi party. Either way, there ought to be some serious repercussions for the people who partook in those horrific events, as well as a necessity to inform the rest of the world of such events, so that we as people finally learn to avoid such oppressive people and governments. The world works best when interconnected and constantly in talking with each other, so in order to limit atrocities like this happening, we need to put the weapons down and open our mouths.
transcending.deer_777
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 9

The Failure of the UN and United States while handling the Cambodian Genocide

The failure of the international community in times of genocide—such as the one in Cambodia—should be a flashing red light that the current enforcement mechanisms are not enough. Throughout the Cambodian genocide, it was clear that horrific acts, including the torture of civilians, were taking place. Meanwhile, the UN did nothing to prevent the human rights abuses and war crimes that were rampant in the region. The failure of these bureaucratic systems during this time highlights how geopolitical interests, national struggles, and sovereignty should not take precedence over international crises.

Although eyewitness accounts were rare during the genocide—due to the regime cutting off outside connections and the limited number of escapees—journalists still reported on the appalling conditions that many found hard to believe. Twining, a foreign service officer, stated that “every time he took the four-hour car journey to the border, he found it harder to deny the reality of the atrocities. The Cambodians had heard the howls of their starving infants. They had watched KR cadres use plastic bags to suffocate Buddhist monks. They had seen their loved ones murdered by teenage warriors who mechanically delivered the blow of a hoe to the back of the neck” (Excerpt 3). Still, the United States did nothing to stop the brutal conditions, burdened by the lasting trauma of the Vietnam War, which remained fresh in the public’s memory. In this scenario, national concerns took precedence over the international will to ensure freedom and safety for all people.

The geopolitical context of these events also contributed to the under-reporting and lack of political will to bring them to an end. During the Cambodian civil war, The New York Times and The Washington Post collectively published around 700 articles each year. However, after the war ended, a vicious cycle of under-reporting and public disengagement unfolded, leaving people largely unaware of the humanitarian crisis. “Most of the stories in this period were short, appeared in the back of the international news section, and focused on the geopolitical ramifications of Cambodia's Communist rule rather than on the suffering of Cambodians” (Excerpt 2). The geopolitical concerns about Communism overshadowed the international responsibility to ensure fair treatment for the people of Cambodia.

The United Nations' efforts to bring peace to Cambodia fell far short of what could have been done. The UN didn’t even offer peacekeepers to ensure the safety of civilians. And even if peacekeepers had been offered, they likely would have been denied entry by the Cambodian government.

These failures in the bureaucratic systems that govern international response highlight how much importance is placed on nation-state sovereignty during international crises. Why must the imaginary borders between countries prevent us from standing up for basic human rights? While it is understandable that, in most cases, sovereignty should be respected, when the suffering of a population reaches an international scale, the forces working to restore peace should not be obstructed by borders. The international community must come before national interests.

riversky127
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 12

LTQ 8

One fundamental flaw within the Khmer Rouge was their attempt at completely eliminating all the intellectuals and intelligent people in the population, something that would in general be impossible to do, and only led to widespread distrust and the murder of countless innocent people. The targeting of education is an obvious red flag in any government system, because even if framed as an attempt to preserve the collective over the individual, it is always just an attempt at stopping those who will think and be able to get past the blatant insanity and cruelty of the situation. They also went against their own ideology, as authoritarian regimes with that level of control cannot remain in control without some people having all the power, which means that there never really was the goal of making everyone equal, but rather keeping everyone silent. Their mantra, “It is better to arrest ten people by mistake than to let one guilty person go free” perpetuated this distrust, as those who were viewed as enemies of the Khmer Rouge could come from anywhere, even those who had sworn loyalty to the regime (reading 3). At its core, the Khmer Rouge was just an unbelievably strict caste system, where millions were killed or starved to keep a small number of individuals in power. This points out a massive problem with communism, because there will always be individuality as an inherent aspect of humanity, and no amount of murder and repression can really stop that without wiping out the society entirely. That said, the Khmer Rouge doesn’t necessarily embody what communism is, and much of their issues emerged from the regime's interpretation of what can in theory be a relatively peaceful and cooperative societal structure. The Khmer Rouge harnessed a common tool in the rise of authoritarian power, using people’s fear against them. For example, the forced evacuation from Phnom Penh was facilitated by propaganda to make citizens believe the city was about to be bombed by the Americans. Another issue in this conflict that led to so much unnecessary brutality and violence was the obvious avoidance from other global powers, as with US journalists fleeing the scene as soon as they realized how bad things were going to get. This avoidance from the US was also furthered by their underlying desire to stay away from events in Southeast Asia, and their misinterpretation of the conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia, as they saw little distinction between the different forms of communism. Inaction from the rest of the world was also facilitated by the widespread disbelief that what was occurring under the Khmer Rouge was humanly possible. Everything happening seemed so inhumane and dystopian, that people were even reluctant to believe first-hand survivors who managed to make it out. The Khmer Rouge was a prime example of what happens when repressive regimes try to create their own idea of a “perfect society” through fear and violence rather than cooperation and unity as a society.

EX0
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

Peer Response

Originally posted by fishgirlbahamas on April 14, 2025 21:00

The Khmer Rouge had some serious flaws that eventually led to their downfall, for example, trying to wipe out class, education, family connections, and even basic human life. They wanted to build a completely classless society by getting rid of money, markets, and private property. Everyone was stripped of their identity and ruled by one controlling authority, all in the name of something they called Angkar. But this kind of system was never going to work. The idea of getting rid of class sounds equal on the surface, but it’s just not realistic. People are different—some have skills, others don’t, and trying to force everyone into the same mold just creates a whole new kind of inequality. When they switched everything to a barter system, if you didn’t have something useful to trade, you were left with nothing. That led to poverty, starvation, and total economic collapse. The whole country fell apart because of it. In addition, the Khmer Rouge wanted to ban all forms of intellect to start a completely blank and moldable society with no room for different opinions. Without educated people, there are no doctors, engineers, teachers, and more, but these are people who can fix problems to save people, and without them, a society can't function. Intellectualism kills curiosity so people don’t question authoritarian rule or think for themselves. However, in the long run, it creates a weaker society because while everyone around them is advancing, they are slowly getting weaker and more vulnerable to colonialism and attacks. Millions of people were forced to work in camps doing draining tasks with little food and rest, this led to starvation, disease, and death on a massive scale. Even though the Khmer Rouge said they were communists, what they did didn’t match up and was more of a dystopian agrarian situation. They wanted to get rid of all class and money, but real communism still believed people should get paid for working. It's more about sharing things fairly, not getting rid of everything. Another fundamental problem was the use of Angkar which was almost like a big brother from 1984. I think Angkar was kind of like Big Brother from 1984 which is this mysterious, all-powerful force that controlled everything but didn’t have a real face. People were terrified of it because they were told they could see and know everything, so no one dared to speak out. The Khmer Rouge told the Cambodian people that Angkar was like a pineapple, it had eyes everywhere which caused people to self-monitor everything they did. It made people feel totally alone and scared since even family and friends could turn on them to please Angkar. In the end, it just created a society full of fear and silence, not unity or strength. I think the real issue wasn’t communism itself (because there are current successful communist countries) but more so how the Khmer Rouge twisted and forced it in such an extreme and violent way. They tried to erase everything that made people human like individuality, education, family, and choice, and that kind of control will always lead to suffering. Their version of communism wasn’t about fairness or equality because they still had Angkar as an ultimate power, it was about power and fear and that’s what truly destroyed the country.

I think that fishgirlbahamas's post makes interesting points about the reason classless society doesn't work. I agree with the sentiment that the root cause of that is the fact that people are unique and by ignoring that, everyone suffers. I also like the comparison that fishgirlbahamas made between the Khmer Rouge’s regime and George Orwell’s dystopian world of 1984. I also thought of this comparison, and how shockingly similar they are. I suspect that this is not a coincidence, however. Pol Pot’s hero was Joseph Stalin. He took Stalin’s writings and used them to create his regime, effectively carrying Stalinist communism to its logical extreme. Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning of the dangers of Staninist communism, also carrying the ideology to its extreme conclusion. I didn’t really understand the student’s argument that ‘intellectualism kills curiosity.’ I personally don’t agree with this sentiment necessarily, and I don’t see how it fits into their overall analysis. It seems to me that Pol Pot destroyed a culture of intellectualism not because it killed curiosity, but because it inspired it. The biggest danger to authoritarianism is the intelligentsia if they do not cooperate with the leader. By targeting the intelligentsia, Pol Pot was able to suppress his opposition. Overall I thought that fishgirlbahamas's post was interesting and raised many good points. .

make_art_not_war
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community

The sudden and total change of society within only a few weeks is one of the most fundamental problems that existed in the Khemer Rouge’s methods of “revolution.” An act of sudden change will obviously lead to a state of severe shock in any society. In this case in particular the displacement and complete change of regime led to unrest and an inability among the general population to accept that the KR had completely altered their way of living. Additionally the seemingly impulsive actions of this regime led to great turmoil among Cambodians as the communist government was still very new and the ideology was clearly flawed.

The dehumanization of certain ethnic groups as well as the devaluing of education and intellectuals is another fundamental problem that existed within the KR’s ideology. The systematic discrimination by some minorities such as Vietnamese and Muslim Cham clearly created even more unrest as the KR murdered so many innocent civilians who were a part of these groups. The lack of educational opportunities due to the idea that education reflected Western ideals caused even more turmoil as Cambodians were limited to the little opportunities they had to become farmers like everyone else and there was no chance for upward mobility in society, essentially creating a guarantee of poverty for everyone not connected to the KR leadership. There was also effectively a “brain drain.” However, this drain was not occurring because those who were educated or wanted to be were leaving the country, it was occurring because officials leading the country were unable to understand their worth and murdered these intellectuals.

The creation of an agrarian society in search for a utopian (and practically impossible) lifestyle isolated from the “corrupt” Western world is another flaw. While the general population was sent to rural areas to form completely new villages, as Samatha Powers states, “the KR leaders simply wanted their pick of housing in the capital.” While everyone was equally suffering in the villages, those who had the influence and power to live outside of the villages were able to live a better life, ultimately crushing this vision of total equality that the KR had for Cambodia. The combined suffering/constant work for others with the lack of resources, information, and healthcare created a horrible and desperate environment for most Cambodians.

Finally the elimination of religion and certain cultural traditions was another flaw that significantly damaged Cambodian society. As shown in the film “First They Killed My Father” religious figures such as monks were removed from their positions and tortured and sent to work in agricultural fields. The inability for Cambodians to practice their religion or keep their traditions alive distanced them from their culture and created a society without hope or optimism.

Ultimately these flaws in the KR regime demonstrate the ineffectiveness of their interpretation of communism. Although I do not believe that communism is inherently wrong I do believe that it is such an idealistic view of humanity that it is practically impossible to implement and execute in a proper way.

WoahWoah
Hyde Park, MA, US
Posts: 15

Originally posted by EX0 on April 15, 2025 11:16

The issue with Khmer Rouge ideology that led to the deaths of so many people wasn’t necessarily communism but the belief in the state over the individual: the belief that “to keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.” This issue has plagued many other communist states too. The ideology that it is necessary to sacrifice for the greater good, for a utopian future, has the natural progression of extreme violence and manipulation of human life. I don’t believe this is a problem that is inherent with communist ideology, but the tendency of communist regimes to be autocratic lends itself to this outcome. This issue with communism is that true communism only works in small scale communities or if the whole world was communist. It is impossible for a communist state to succeed in a capitalist world because no nation has the resources to be fully self-sufficient with the populations they have. It is also impossible to keep total social equality and maintain a decent standard of living for everyone. In order to create this social equality, “they were separating children from parents, defrocking monks, killing those who disobeyed and creating an irrevocable living arrangement.” (Quinn) In other words, they bring everyone to the lowest level instead of raising everyone to the highest, or even the middle. Another issue with the spin on communism that the Khmer Rouge was the creation of a surveillance state. This is an aspect of authoritarianism, not communism. Creating the culture of denouncement increases innocent deaths significantly and sows mistrust among individuals, thereby fracturing bonds instead of forming them.

The fundamental issue with communism is that it is a modern idea trying to be applied in a post-modern setting. The world is not as simple as communist doctrine suggests. This is why the ‘communist’ states that succeeded to this day are not truly communist. They had to incorporate capitalistic and democratic aspects in order to gain power and stability. I believe that communist teachings are important to consider and pull aspects from to incorporate into the systems around us, however, true communism is a utopian fantasy. This is true for both political poles. When a single ideology is employed, whether conservative fascism or liberal communism, it is destined to end in immense suffering for the people that live under it. Political dissonance is essential for the wellbeing of the people.

While it is easy to say that the international community, especially the United States, were complacent in the face of Khmer Rouge brutality, it is much harder to say what they should or could have done. The international community didn’t know what was going on for a long time. The Khmer Rouge did an incredibly effective job at shrouding the country in secrecy. International interest was also a factor in the lack of action. The Vietnam war was disastrous for American and international interest in foreign involvement, particularly in the region. The US could have leveled sanctions on the Khmer Rouge, but that would have been largely ineffective. The Khmer Rouge already had cut virtually all ties with the international community. The only effect sanctions would have would be to worsen the conditions for the Cambodian people who already were suffering. The best thing the United States could have done would have been to continue to raise awareness and get the UN to force a presence in the country. If the international community had intervened the issue of national sovereignty would have been less pressing. Overall though, it is tough for America to intervene given its history. While the choices that America made in response to the Khmer Rouge were obviously very damaging, it is hard to say the best course of action for them to have taken.


I agree that the Khmer Rouge ideology that led to the destruction of many lives wasn’t because of communism, the Khmer Rouge criteria for who needed to be eliminated for their society to work was very loose. Many innocent people who were simply living their lives became a target, because the Khmer Rouge had decided that they were a threat to the state. The point that the “belief in the state over the individual: the belief that ‘to keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss’” is a fixed mindset that will have negative impacts on a community.


The most compelling part of your argument is the way that you breakdown how communism can’t flourish into a successful world. The possibility that a nation is able to follow the communist beliefs down to a tee and still be successful is virtually impossible. Some of the most powerful nations like the United States, China, and Russia are still reliant on other countries for resources. Communist states are typically smaller, when viewing it through this lens it seems very unlikely that they would be able to provide for themselves without aid from the rest of the world.


Their concept of social equality is problematic, everyone should be held accountable the same way under the law that’s true. However making everyone totally equal destroys the individualism of a society and bring everyone down, when society should be trying to uplift everyone. The way that they go about achieving equality is all wrong.

watershipdown
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

Peer Feedback LTQ 8: The Khmer Rouge: Failure of Ideology and Failure of the International Community

Originally posted by shirleytemple on April 15, 2025 09:11

Fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge were the constant fear of enemies watching them, the idea that no guilty man should go free, the idea that no one is their own individual, and they couldn’t make a rural agricultural lifestyle work. A major destruction of lives was from being killed because they were accused or suspected of being an enemy. The Khmer Rouge ideal “it is better to kill 10 innocent men than leave one guilty one (3.6. A Problem from Hell)” was a major flaw. This caused the end of thousands of innocent lives. Indcotrinated children were told to spy against their parents, creating deep rooted mistrust and even the fragmentation of families. People would accuse others of spying just because they could, resulting in even more innocent losses. The idea of betrayal was looked up upon because it would potentially save someone from being killed, and when your life or someone you love is at stake, you will do whatever it takes to keep yourself or others safe. It is the brutal influence of the Khmer Rouge that turned humans against each other and almost into an animal form to stay alive. The Khmer Rouge's idea that no one has an identity was another fault because they took away people's meaning of life and fulfillment. Consequently, it takes away people's hope. Not being able to be a person removes someone's purpose. They tried to eradicate the idea of family and love, which is not possible. It will always persist. This was seen in the movie, where the children still identified their father and mother as Ma and Pa and not comrades. The other major flaw was that the Khmer Rouge wanted an agricultural society to work, with farmers who had never touched a plow, who had been highly educated people. They were forced into work they weren’t familiar with, and as a result, the output of food was low. As well, moving everyone out of cities and into rural areas caused famine as well, because people had no money (it was banned) and there was not enough food to support the massive influx of people. The problems within the Khmer Rouge were both an example of communism's inability to work and the harsh interpretations of communism through Kmer leaders. It proved communism, while nice in theory, isn’t attainable. This is because the person in power almost always turns into a dictator and ends up having wealth and life conditions better than their people. It is also hard to give everyone equal lifestyles and also make sure those lives are well taken care of. It didn’t work because of the Khmer Rouge and their harsh practices. They wanted to have an agricultural society with communism, but stole all the food that was harvested and gave it to Khmer Rouge soldiers. This caused a lot of people to starve. The mixture of communism itself and the harsh rules and treatment from the Khmer Rouge was a deadly mix that resulted in millions of innocent lives lost.

I love how your post provides such a thoughtful explanation of all the issues that played a role in making the Khmer Rouge regime what it was. In particular, I found your emphasis on the ultimately devastating impact of paranoia, fear, and the lack of any and all individualism to be extremely thought provoking and deep. Another one of your ideas that caught my attention was how you brought up the concept of betrayal and suspicion that was then weaponized to control the people of Cambodia, it even went as far as indoctrinating children to betray their families and pick up arms for the Angkor. I found your points fascinating because of how they framed the Khmer Rouge as a weapon that didn’t just destroy the lives of Cambodian people physically, but also emotionally and psychologically to eventually destroy the fabric of tradition and society.

I also really liked how you connected the failures of the Khmer Rouge to an ever wider and broader range of critiques against communism. Your argument especially emphasized the idea that the communist beliefs and system, while it might be idealistic in theory, often fails in its practice because of corruption and authoritarianism. Your argument that the Khmer Rogue regime’s attempt to force educated city people and the wealthy into the countryside for labor roles and as soldiers and how that contributed to mass famine is very well said and shows your clear understanding of both the economic and human right consequences of their actions.

Kvara77goat
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

Originally posted by transcending.deer_777 on April 15, 2025 14:05

The failure of the international community in times of genocide—such as the one in Cambodia—should be a flashing red light that the current enforcement mechanisms are not enough. Throughout the Cambodian genocide, it was clear that horrific acts, including the torture of civilians, were taking place. Meanwhile, the UN did nothing to prevent the human rights abuses and war crimes that were rampant in the region. The failure of these bureaucratic systems during this time highlights how geopolitical interests, national struggles, and sovereignty should not take precedence over international crises.

Although eyewitness accounts were rare during the genocide—due to the regime cutting off outside connections and the limited number of escapees—journalists still reported on the appalling conditions that many found hard to believe. Twining, a foreign service officer, stated that “every time he took the four-hour car journey to the border, he found it harder to deny the reality of the atrocities. The Cambodians had heard the howls of their starving infants. They had watched KR cadres use plastic bags to suffocate Buddhist monks. They had seen their loved ones murdered by teenage warriors who mechanically delivered the blow of a hoe to the back of the neck” (Excerpt 3). Still, the United States did nothing to stop the brutal conditions, burdened by the lasting trauma of the Vietnam War, which remained fresh in the public’s memory. In this scenario, national concerns took precedence over the international will to ensure freedom and safety for all people.

The geopolitical context of these events also contributed to the under-reporting and lack of political will to bring them to an end. During the Cambodian civil war, The New York Times and The Washington Post collectively published around 700 articles each year. However, after the war ended, a vicious cycle of under-reporting and public disengagement unfolded, leaving people largely unaware of the humanitarian crisis. “Most of the stories in this period were short, appeared in the back of the international news section, and focused on the geopolitical ramifications of Cambodia's Communist rule rather than on the suffering of Cambodians” (Excerpt 2). The geopolitical concerns about Communism overshadowed the international responsibility to ensure fair treatment for the people of Cambodia.

The United Nations' efforts to bring peace to Cambodia fell far short of what could have been done. The UN didn’t even offer peacekeepers to ensure the safety of civilians. And even if peacekeepers had been offered, they likely would have been denied entry by the Cambodian government.

These failures in the bureaucratic systems that govern international response highlight how much importance is placed on nation-state sovereignty during international crises. Why must the imaginary borders between countries prevent us from standing up for basic human rights? While it is understandable that, in most cases, sovereignty should be respected, when the suffering of a population reaches an international scale, the forces working to restore peace should not be obstructed by borders. The international community must come before national interests.

A piece of this response I really liked was the open discussion about human rights and the strong idea that we must do any thing we can to stop human rights violations. "Why must the imaginary borders between countries prevent us from standing up for basic human rights? While it is understandable that, in most cases, sovereignty should be respected, when the suffering of a population reaches an international scale, the forces working to restore peace should not be obstructed by borders." I particularly agree with this point and find it very relevant when discussing the Cambodian genocide. I believe it raises this question: does the UN's strong enforcement of sovereignty end up hurting the victims of civil rights abuses? I would have liked to see this person answer or discuss this question, although I understand that there is not space to write everything. However, I do feel as though this is an important question to consider. In situations like Bosnia, where the United Nations was largely ineffective, and in a situation like Cambodia, where the UN had no role to play, would the victims be better off if there was not such a strong focus on sovereignty? I do believe that in Cambodia it got to such a point where there was no outside influence allowed and that is very dangerous, as we saw, and I do feel like that is a bit of a byproduct of the UN's laws. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this response and the ideas that it raised. It was also very well written.

posts 16 - 30 of 35
Login to Reply