learntoquestion ltq discussions

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!

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.

Originally posted by Kvara77goat on April 15, 2025 09:43

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.

Hi Kvara77goat! I found your response very insightful, specifically your argument as to how communist ideology is not inherently destructive, yet is often corrupted by the cruel intentions of those in power. In my response, I took an alternative position where I argued that communism may not be inherently evil, but we as a society may be incapable of truly developing it without unethical intentions. In this way, I lean away from the possibility of a successful communist society since we really have no historical baseline of a successful communist regime to build off of. I also agree with your understanding of why the Cambodian people may have supported the revolution, as it offered an alternative to Western capitalism which they only knew from war and bombing—though no one could really have been able to predict the extent of death and destruction that the Khmer Rouge had planned in order to create their so-called “agrarian, classless society.” In all, I tend to take a more pessimistic view of our capabilities to create a successful communist society because of our consistent failures throughout history; however, I also don’t believe that anyone has even tried to develop true communism, but more often rather totalitarian regimes that merely promote false hope for the public.

Originally posted by riversky127 on April 15, 2025 16:14

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.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by riversky127 on April 15, 2025 16:14

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.

The most compelling argument made in my peers response was that distrust is the downfall of society. I agree with this idea because of what we see in the American government today. For the last few presidential terms the approval ratings have been god awfully low and the general public doesn’t have faith that the government is acting for them. Adding onto that the government believes it is above the people at the moment and is acting at will, rather than at the will of the people. This is interesting because it poses the question: Should democratic governments rely more on their populations rather than representatives? Or do representatives always accurately represent their constituencies? My views are very similar to my peers in that I believe that not only does the government need to work with the general population, the general population needs to trust the government, and that trust has to be earned through good governance and acting on the behalf of the people. I also agree that governments often abuse public fear when centralizing power, as seen in the USA today with the push to fear and discriminate against immigrants and minorities so that “true Americans” feel safer.

Originally posted by WoahWoah on April 15, 2025 12:05

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.

I agree with the point that the Khmer Rouge’s approach was messed up in its rejection of individualism and then trying to erase all societal structures. Doing this by isolating people and causing them to be in an environment where they are constantly scared forced them to believe what was put on them. I think it is important to show the difference between the Khmer Rouge’s actions from communism, and the Khmer Rouge did this through authoritarianism. I think this was an important material covered in the post, as they did not care about the people’s dignity or what they wanted or needed. I agree with the comment that if things were happening in a more gradual, democratic and consensual way, it would have better results. I think it was also compelling about the idea of ethical problems which were in wartime. These laws and conventions are supposed to help the state. The fact that so many people were slaughtered and killed shows that there were no laws or norms followed. I definitely agree with the idea that international intervention should happen in violations. I think this was well written and I agree with your post as it makes important points on the importance of international agreement.

Originally posted by star fire on April 15, 2025 09:31

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.

The most compelling point that stood out to me was starfire’s claim that communism was a sort of “guise” for the Khmer Rouge’s ideology, which wasn’t truly trying to better the Cambodian people or fight for equality. I agree that their version of communism was extremely corrupt and distorted, and clearly on the extremist end of the spectrum. Starfire raises a great point that communist ideology becomes corrupt when put into the wrong hands. I’m still on the fence of whether or not communism can be truly successfully carried out, but I do agree that it can go south very quickly, when put into the hands of people whose main interests are their own. Taking away basic things like medicine or glasses was in no way helping to better Cambodian society, which only further makes the Khmer Rouge’s motives obvious. Another great point that you raised that I wholeheartedly agree with is that the international community should’ve done something before it became too late. More often than not, we see this exact thing happen-there is clear evidence of a genocide or widespread sufferring occuring but the international doesn’t step in until after the damage has already been done. Little steps are even taken in the midst of the crisis, unfortunately, because they simply don’t care enough. It’s even more disheartening when victims themselves are begging for aid or for some action to be taken, and the general public thinks they are exaggerating or lying. Cambodia is unfortunately another example where too little was done too late. Starfire’s post is very thorough and well thought out. Great job!

Originally posted by Vonnegut123 on April 15, 2025 09:41

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.

Your argument is very compelling, and I agree with you on this one. Communism sounds great in theory, however, as you have mentioned, it has not been executed in a way that has benefited the people. I thought it was interesting how you brought up the idea of Epicureanism- this is something I've never heard of, but it seems quite complex! Focusing on mental wellbeing is of vital importance, and I wonder what would be the best way to have a government truly embody this idea. Another thing I am curious to see about this is the way that capitalism would function in this society. In my opinion, capitalism often seems to be the center of greed, as it is pushed by a human desire to want more. If we were to focus more on the pleasures of life, rather than materialistic goods, how would our societies be different? I think in theory this is a great practice, but I am skeptical to see how it would function.

I had said something quite similar in my post, and wanted to do a deeper reflection on the full scale of this atrocity. As you said, millions of people were killed, all with the intent of being wiped out. A good leader should not have to sacrifice life in that manner, and I think it demonstrates the failings of this authoritarian way of ruling.

The Khmer Rouge's vision for Cambodia was rooted in a pursuit of a classless, agrarian society unaffected by foreign influence and capitalism. But their ideology disintegrated under the strain of its own contradictions, revealing flaws in conception as well as implementation. By forced placement of millions in labor camps, tearing apart families, and emphasizing militarism, the Pol Pot leadership established a regime where hunger, exhaustion, and suspicion were instruments of coercion. The regime's obsession with agrarian collectivization was the culmination of this detachment. As Sok Udom Deth stated, the target was to harvest "three tons of rice per hectare, three times a year." Cities were evacuated, intellectuals and professionals murdered, and families split up in order to achieve this unattainable goal. The destruction of markets, religion, and family ties further exposed the regime's inconsistency. In First They Killed My Father, Loung's siblings are sent off to labor camps and their mother striving to get food was met with violence. The human cost, as shown in First They Killed My Father, reveals the regime's morality. Loung's growth, from a child playing in Phnom Penh to a laborer crunching on beetles illustrates the nation's descent into primitive survival. Scenes of families cowering in terror, bodies piled in ditches, and children brainwashed to kill "enemies of the state" reveal a society that was broken by terror. The Khmer Rouge not only did not build a utopia, but militarized agony to consolidate power. Malnutrition and forced labor killed hundreds of thousands, but the response of the leadership was to expand border conflicts with Vietnam, diverting resources to war while their citizens were starving. This tragedy shows the dangers of ideological absolutism, not communism. Their definition of "socialism" was a justification for erasing history and culture. Communist governments have grappled with totalitarianism, but none were more lethal than the Khmer Rouge. The Killing Fields' skeletons serve as a reminder that such utopias that are built on fear and slave labor will inevitably come tumbling down.

Originally posted by EastCoast11 on April 13, 2025 22:22

Taking place during the mid 1900s, after WWII, Southeast Asian countries who were vulnerable had fallen victims to communism. This resulted in the creation of a highly communist group with members called ‘The Khmer Rouge’ who ruled Cambodia. The leaders Saloth Sar (Pol Pot) and Ieng Sary crafted these intense beliefs that ‘Cambodians were corrupted by outside influences’ and ‘people needed re-education through agricultural collectivism’. Though, at the time, Cambodia was under authoritarian Norodom Sihanouk, who held a close tie to communists while the United States was declaring war with Vietnam due to fear. This civil war was just the beginning of much chaos that resulted in thousands of casualties in Cambodia. For instance, the KR had forcefully pushed more than 2 million people to leave the city of Phnom Penh. As well as targeting minorities in order to erase those who were seen as infected, trying to physically remove the history and its people. The overall treatment of the people was inhuman and completely stripped the people of their basic human rights.

The international response to the multiple harmful takeovers by the KR consisted of disbelief and hope for change. A service officer, Charles Twining, would be a very reliable source of information regarding the refugees from Cambodia who were fleeing to Thailand for safety. Listening to them, “The refugees were telling tales that you could only describe as unbelievable” though each time that he kept coming back, “he [Charles] found it harder to deny the reality of the atrocities” ( Power 115 ). These journalists who were able to first hand experience the living conditions are our best shot of hearing the true story. Despite the many documented cases of 26 reporters going missing, or often being dismissed by the US government, they still continued to press for the truth. New York Times reporter, Sydney Schanberg, responds with ‘she [Sydney] could not ignore the horror stories simply because she could not see for herself… ‘We have to publish what we can find out’” ( Power 99 ). I believe that this situation that's so complex can be harder to reason with what the international community could’ve done better to prevent harm. Though, I think the pacing of their response to intervene could have been quicker. As identifying the Khmer rouge as a threat to society's human rights and stability earlier on could have prevented more casualties. As well as nearby countries opening borders to refugees ( Ex: Thailand ) could have helped in providing protection and basic needs resources for those fleeing the Khmer Rouge. When large numbers of people are at risk, that's when I believe national sovereignty should be overridden to stop the immense suffering of people. When witnessing history repeat itself, genocide after genocide where millions of innocent civilians losing their life, I don’t ever think there should be ‘a point’ that is tolerable for suffrage in order to ‘better society’. With the published set of aspects that is declared as genocide, once the clear signs of genocide to come appear, intervention should be decided. For instance, “The KR were deporting people from their ancestral homes to new communes and were burning the old villages to enforce the policy” which only gave them more power by removing the culture of ethnic groups just because they were the minority ( Power 96). The signs were so clear yet the United States continued to look the other way, constantly dismissing their points. At some point, connections were cut off, and journalists/reporters were no longer able to tell their stories, in hopes of hiding the atrocities occurring.

Your post highlights how the rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was shaped by Cold War dynamics and a failure by the international community to respond in time. I completely agree that earlier recognition of the Khmer Rouge as a threat, and quicker international action, could have prevented countless deaths. Your point that national sovereignty should not take precedence over basic human rights when mass suffering is clearly underway is especially important. It ties into wider debates about humanitarian intervention, especially in the context of Southeast Asia, where fear of communism often outweighed concern for human lives. You do a nice job incorporating firsthand accounts from journalists like Sydney Schanberg and officials like Charles Twining to show how the world slowly came to accept the truth. The idea that atrocities were dismissed because they seemed "unbelievable" is both chilling and revealing. I also agree that refugee support, such as opening borders in nearby countries like Thailand, should have been a stronger priority. To strengthen your post, you can consider adding more about Cambodia's internal political dynamics and how regional powers like Vietnam and China influenced the situation. These layers help show how Cold War tensions both fueled the Khmer Rouge’s rise and complicated international responses.