1. Discussions
  2. Facing History 2024-2025
  3. 24-25 Facing History Forum 4
posts 31 - 35 of 35
Login to Reply
Vonnegut123
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

LTQ 6 Response to Fishgirlbahamas

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.

Hello Fishgirlbahamas, thank you for your post! I think your assessment of the Khmer Rogue is very accurate but the topic of Intellectualism is very interesting. Intellectualism is the analysis or discussion of a subject without involving one's own emotions. As you pointed out intellectualism breaking down emotions can harm society and lead to justifying immoral actions. However, I believe that intellectualism can fold in emotions. Philosophers try to do this all the time for individual people so expanding that to a large scale seems like something that could be done. Authoritarians try to suppress all forms of journalism, expression and public intellectualism. Oppressors do this to reduce the voices speaking out against them. Similarly, artists also do not get a voice to express their emotions to a larger group. Intellectualism and emotions go hand in hand when coming to conclusions in a public space; it is mean to be a forum of public curiosity. I agree that the Angkar was not practicing true communism. Communism believed that people should have the same which is the payment I think you were referencing. The current successful example is China. However, China, despite still being run by the Chinese Communist Party and suppressing its citizens, is closer to a middle economy-- a combination of capitalism and socialism. The concepts of democratic inclusion and democratic capitalism have so far been proven to be the best model so far. Thank you again for the response I really enjoyed reading it!

RW1107
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 8

Khmer Rouge Communism

The fundamental problem that existed in the ideology was that they took communism in its most pure form and tried to implement it. On its own, communism includes many different economic and governing systems that almost never match Marx’s original ideas. If anything, the ideologies of the modern age have been based on more socialist ideas than communist one’s. Take China for example, they have a system of government that matches up with common communist ideals, one leader and one party control. Meanwhile, they have an economy that embraces free trade and capitalism with places like Shanghai and Hong Kong. Instead of implementing parts of communism like in China and other places, the Khmer Rouge instead tried to put the whole ideology in practice in a couple of weeks. Doing this was guaranteed to cause mass death and confusion that would hinder the transformation to a functioning society. Because at its core, communism is impossible to implement as humans will never be able to agree to share everything that they have with society.

The basis of communism is from the hunter-gatherer societies of the early ages, where everyone in those communities would share what they have with each other. But we are not in the early ages, we are in the modern ages, and times have changed. For one, people have been trained from an early age that money is one of the most important things in life, and that the pursuit of happiness can only be achieved through money. Though this may be a flawed argument, the prosperity of rich capitalist societies have shown that a society based on individuals can be very successful. In addition, modern technologies such as the internet and the rise of non--agricultural jobs have made it all but impossible to have group societies. Too many people are reliant on the system of governance that has been built up through the ages that when the system collapses, such as what happened in Cambodia, people are not able to adjust fast enough to change. Instead of modifying the system to incorporate modern ideals, the Khmer Rouge instead insisted on a fantasy of a happy society where everyone helps each other. Humans have been ingrained for centuries that this type of society is dead, that the individualistic way of life is the most important part of society, so the idea that humans would go back with all the advances from the past is nonsensical.

Is communism inherently built to fail? Yes and no. Communism in its pure form can never exist in the modern world, we have had too many changes from the past to create a society that is totally equal. But communism incorporated into society can succeed, even if at that point it is no longer communism. Ideas like Medicare for All here in the United States have some communist-based ideals, and yet that is more geared toward socialism than communism. People will never share everything they have or view themselves as equal to everyone else, and yet, parts of the system can be put in place that attempt to at least even the playing field of society.

KWR26
Boston, Massachusetts, UM
Posts: 12

Failure of Khmer Rouge implementation and ideology

The fundamental flaw in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology and plan for Cambodia was the systematic destruction of native villages and traditional ways of life. By forcibly removing people from their ancestral homes and relocating them into unfamiliar communes, the regime not only disrupted individual lives but also fractured the social and cultural fabric of Cambodian society. This made cooperation within a command-style state extremely difficult. When people are forcibly uprooted from their familiar environments, it breeds resentment, confusion, and resistance, factors that undermine any centralized power structure. “He concluded that although the Khmer Rouge may have been well-behaved ‘boy scout revolutionaries’ when they began their military campaign in 1970, in June 1973 they had launched a far more radical program designed to communalize the entire Cambodian society overnight. The KR were deporting people from their ancestral homes to new communes and were burning the old villages to enforce the policy.” This drastic shift was not only logistically disastrous, but morally reprehensible, as it disregarded the value of individual lives and cultural heritage in favor of an unrealistic and forcibly imposed vision of progress.

While I personally have disagreements with communism as a political ideology, I don’t believe that what happened in Cambodia necessarily proves something inherently evil about communism itself. Rather, I would argue that the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge were less about ideology and more about terrible, reckless execution and a blatant disregard for human life. Communism, like any ideology, depends entirely on how it is implemented. In the case of the Khmer Rouge, their interpretation and application of communist ideals became unrecognizable and violent. The pursuit of a classless, agrarian utopia turned into a nightmare because the leadership prioritized power, purity, and control over societal well-being.

To evaluate whether a change in society is ethical or not, you must consider cause and effect. If a policy, revolution, or reform causes more harm than good, especially to the most vulnerable members of society, then it crosses a line. Leaders, however, often ignore this logic. Instead, they may do whatever it takes to stay in power, regardless of the human cost. This is a dangerous mindset, as it leads to the justification of suffering in the name of progress.

I believe that the bar for how much suffering a nation should endure in the name of building a “better” society should be extremely high. There are times when a country must resists through struggles, but if the struggle itself causes widespread misery and degrades the quality of life for a long period of time that changes. When change makes society worse, it becomes the responsibility of both the people and the government to find a way to redirect that change. If this doesn’t happen, the downward spiral only continues.

In the case of the Khmer Rouge, the people didn’t have the means to resist or speak out against the regime. Still, I believe that wherever possible, citizens should make an effort, no matter how small, to resist oppressive regimes. Change often starts with the courage of a few individuals, even under harsh conditions.
star.lol
Boston, MAQ, US
Posts: 12

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

The Khmer Rouge’s ideology and the plan which caused the destruction of so many lives in Cambodia because it led to a lot of violence and genocides. They were so heavily influenced with nationalism which led to many deaths in Cambodian society. The Khermer Rouge wanted to remove a lot of its population. The Khmer Rouge were simply only thinking about themselves and everything. They had strong beliefs on communism which was also mixed with nationalism which led to a lot of laws and problems which brought down Cambodian society. They made it seem as if they were on top of a hierarchy and seen as something to worship. When watching the movie, First They Killed My Father, I saw that they were praising and saying Angkor as some type of higher power in which they worshiped and believed in. It wanted to remove forms of capitalism in which there was no individualism, no religion, education, family structures which made people have to work in farms and do labor camps. This caused so many people to have to leave their homes and what they are used to, and caused them to have to move to the countryside as well, believing that these people had to work in these conditions with so little to eat, leading to starvation and so much death. The Khmer’s insecurities and paranoia in general led to so much death, as anyone who was suspicious of not being “pure” or going against what they say would be targeted and would cause them to be executed and enforced with a lot of brutalism. I think that armed resistance is sometimes needed so that you can deal with injustice. Them leading to change happens because of the suffering in which they go through. I think the line between ethical and unethical methods lies in how much violence there is. The violence can often be dehumanizing or extremism since it was under the Khmer Rouge. The suffering in which the Khmer Rouge tried to create a better society through forced labor, execution and totalitarian control did not help them in the long run but overpowered what their intended goal was. I don't think this was acceptable suffering as it included mass killings of people from their own country, and don’t think this was needed or necessary to show their goal. Especially during these times, there was not enough early and accurate information, as many governments did not know what was going on and did not want to intervene on what was happening. What happened to Cambodia was really sad and it was them failing to protect innocent people.

make_art_not_war
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

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 the most compelling idea in this post is the concept of Angkar and how it serves almost as a “Big Brother,” instilling a sense of fear and self surveillance within the Cambodian population. I also completely agree with the idea that it did not promote unity and strength but rather silence and fear. I thought that this was interesting as the KR used Angkar as a way to control the population claiming that this setup for society would ultimately be very beneficial however in the end we can see that this kind of lifestyle was in fact very detrimental.

I also agree with the fact that getting rid of intellectuals and education was very damaging to society. I have also seen this idea in other posts and I believe that the way it was expressed here is very accurate. While in the eyes of the KR the murder or devaluing of intellectuals would have been beneficial as a way to significantly mold society, when looking at the bigger picture we can tell that this in fact damaged society as it hindered any development.

Overall I agree with most of the ideas that are in this post however I also think that this post could have expanded on some concepts such as if they believe communism is to blame or just its implementation in Cambodia.

posts 31 - 35 of 35
Login to Reply