learntoquestion ltq discussions

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.

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.

First off, your post is really thought provoking in the end. I really like your stance on the international response to the genocide as being far from enough, and that has what I have been saying as well, along with many of our classmates. The way that the United States looked the other way to something that, although in a small country, was heinous. We completely had the strength and power to solve the issue but we didn't. This aspect of the question was definitely touched on in your response.

I also liked your use of the evidence from the different sources, as they were very fitting and analysed very well. The quotes didn’t make your stance, but rather your stance was amplified and enhanced by the quotes.

One thing I would say would be to elaborate on your opinion more in the beginning of your response, as the beginning is mostly summary of the events that happened, which would be great to someone who is unfamiliar with the Cambodian genocide, but it sounds a little redundant to our class who already has the knowledge. All in all, you post was great with a good message and strong stance, and the evidence that you used only made the stance better.