learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by igtvycrgfghyjjjh on March 09, 2026 23:04

Although communism as an ideology is a well-meaning and optimistic idea, there has never been a case in which a fully communist government has demonstrated success and uplifted its people, and the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia was no exception. Pol Pot took control of a previous dictatorship, in which the Cambodian people were oppressed and suffering at the hands of rich governmental figures. The Cambodian people hoped that the Khmer Rouge would provide them with a much-needed change in the power dynamic between government and the rest of society. Just as the people of China and Vietnam nearby had been intrigued by the idea of a fully equal society - communism, the Cambodian people began to support the Khmer Rouge and welcomed the change in power. However, Pol Pot’s idea of a communist society was far more extreme than any communist leader before him. He wanted to return to square one and establish a peasant society in which intellectualism, learning, and technology were banned.

This peasant society was the main difference between the Khmer Rouge and other forms of communism, and was also the most flawed aspect of the new government. The government had shifted from a dictatorship where the people already suffered to an extremist and totalitarian regime that ruled with fear and killing. Although the idea of returning to a peasant society was flawed in itself, because it involved the complete isolation of the Cambodian people from technology in nations nearby them, the brutality with which Pol Pot and his governmental figures ruled was furthermore detrimental to the Cambodian people.

I think that there was something inherently wrong with the way the Khmer ruled the Cambodian people, but I do not think this is because it embodies the theoretical idea of Communism as a whole. Communism is meant to be a society where there is no power inequality, and all people are supported and cared for. The Khmer Rouge was a brutal regime which oppressed all people through the banning of progression in all of Cambodia. Even the peasants who already lived in rural areas were impacted, as no new technology could have helped them improve their way of life. In addition, this violence led to conflict with Vietnam and cost the lives of even more innocent people.

According to A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, many American reporters and journalists knew of the atrocities that were happening in Cambodia during the time of the Khmer rouge (Power 2002). Its lack of publicity was not necessarily a result of no news coverage, as articles were published about the horrors happening during the Khmer Rouge. Instead it was more of a mass ignorance and unwillingness to step in to help the innocent people that were dying. America had just fled Vietnam, and the government was already under fire for deploying troops there in the first place, so a sort of cognitive dissonance fell over the government. No one wanted to acknowledge what was happening in the Khmer Rouge or exhaust more resources on trying to help the people of Cambodia. Similar can be said for other European countries who would have had the power to help by stepping in to overthrow the regime. The Khmer Rouge neglected the original values of Communism and its ideals to create an oppressive and violent regime which Cambodia could not shake free from, and they did not have any help.

I liked your analysis a lot, especially the part about how communism and its ideologies, is/are not necessarily wrong, but instead Pol Pot and his way of enforcing communism was what was wrong. In a way I do believe that most communist nations, like Cambodia, have good intentions, at least those who choose to join the fight, mostly because it seems like the best possible choice. In a lot of these scenarios, those who join a communist regime, whether it be the individual or the group, have in some way been wronged by their government or are unluckily in a bad place in society. Communism, in its figurative sense, sounds like an amazing idea, and a kind of ideal that you would want to live in, but in reality, and with the kind of violence that ensues when turning a country to communism, it never turns out the way it was intended to. Additionally, I agree with what you said about the lack of communication with the outside world, and how it leads the way to an even worse society. Even when there was information and resources to help, other nations chose not to step in. Overall, I think your analysis was great and I agreed with both of your points.

Originally posted by mwah_thequeen on March 06, 2026 10:43

The Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia shows how a political ideology can become extremely dangerous when it is enforced with absolutely no limits. Their goal in Democratic Kampuchea was to create a completely classless, agrarian society by restarting the country at “Year Zero.” In theory, communism promotes equality, but the Khmer Rouge tried to force equality by eliminating anyone they saw as a threat. They emptied cities, banned religion, separated families, and forced millions into labor camps. The fundamental problem was their belief that violence and total control were acceptable tools for building what they thought was the perfect society. When human lives become secondary to ideology, this type of destruction seems to become almost inevitable.

I do not think Cambodia proves that communism itself automatically leads to genocide. Instead, it demonstrates how extreme interpretation and unchecked power can turn any ideology into something so brutal and cruel. The Khmer Rouge leadership treated their ideas as the absolute truth and labeled disagreement as betrayal. Their paranoia and secrecy created a system where fear controlled everything. The issue was not just the theory, but the way it was applied with cruelty and zero accountability, once or ever.

In A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, Samantha Power explains that U.S. officials had information that suggested mass atrocities were happening, but often responded with doubt or hesitation. Reports were questioned or minimized because acknowledging genocide meant they had to take action. This shows that the failure was not only internal within Cambodia, but also international. Governments prioritized political concerns over human lives.

When thinking about ethnic limits in armed struggle, violence that deliberately targets civilians crosses the line. No better society can justify starvation, forced labor of even children, and mass executions. Once it became clear that Cambodian society began collapsing under the Khmer Rouge, stronger international pressure, sanctions, and humanitarian action should have happened sooner. National sovereignty is important, but it should not protect a government committing mass atrocities against its own people. When immense suffering is clear, the global community has a responsibility to respond, once they admit it was a genocide.

The tragedy in Cambodia reflects both the dangers of extreme ideological enforcement and the consequences of international inaction. It is a reminder that protecting human life must come before protecting political systems.

Another major issue was the Khmer Rouge’s complete rejection of outside influence and expertise. By isolating Cambodia from the rest of the world, they eliminated any possibility of accountability or correction. Foreign journalists were expelled, borders were sealed all up, and information was being tightly controlled, meaning no information would come in or out. This secrecy allowed atrocities to continue to be unseen. It also made it easier for other nations to claim uncertainty about what was happening. If there had been more transparency and a stronger international investigation early on, global pressure might have built faster. The Cambodian genocide proves that silence, whether intentional or just passive, will only enable injustice to grow unchecked.

After reading, you made some great points about the Khmer Rouge and their leadership. When power goes unchecked, it leads to chaos and brutality. Their paranoia and secrecy created a system where fear controlled everything, which kind of reminds me of the Nazis and their system, where they ruled by intimidation and fear. Yes, governments and nations absolutely overlooked the situation and paid no mind towards it which is very upsetting because they prioritized political concerns over human lives, but can that be compared to US intervention in Iran and Venezuela, because as we know they have an extremist government but when the US intervened they received major backlash, so can we look at that same situation and compare it to Cambodia if the US intervened? Yes, no society can ever justify starvation, forced labor, and mass executions.

I'm gonna have to disagree with your point that “communism doesn’t lead to genocide”,

I believe it does, and if it hasn’t happened yet, it will inevitably happen. When you oppress a large number of people, they will resent the leader and eventually rebel, leading to genocides. I believe every communist government is paranoid because they know what they’re doing is morally wrong, which will always lead back to genocides.

Originally posted by BlueMermaid on March 12, 2026 01:13

The Khmer Rouge believed that in order to fix Cambodia after Sihanouk’s mishandling of the nation, U.S. bombings, and other internal and external factors, they had to revert the nation to “Year Zero.” They believed that the nation had been corrupted by foreign influences and capitalism. Their ideas were overtly extreme and radical, believing everyone should become either a rural farmer or a soldier. This idea was likely due to their emphasis on self-sufficiency. Communism never translates very well on paper, despite the idea seeming utopian. Whether or not somebody believes that communism done right could be something positive, the reality is that properly carrying out communism without suppression of individual freedoms has historically been extremely difficult. It seemed especially impossible for the Khmer Rouge, whose attempt into turning Cambodia into a communist nation was done with extreme violence and government control. Is it even really possible to carry out communism without encroaching on individual freedoms? It’s incredibly difficult to wrap ones head around the Khmer Rouge’s implementation of their ideologies. It’s easy enough to understand their suspicions towards anything connected to the “old society” like government workers and intellectuals, but their belie that they could instantly turn Cambodia into a farming society by forcing people into labor camps completely ignores logic. It makes one wonder what the Khmer Rouge’s plans were for the future. Were they planning on keeping people in labor camps forever? The Khmer Rouge did take communist ideas to an extreme, but the application of those ideas was the problem.

The question as to what means are ethical and unethical to bring about change is almost impossible to answer in a way that properly encompasses all of the different complexities and variables in different situations. Nonetheless, the Khmer Rouge in particular carried out their “change” in such an extreme unpardonable way that it feels like a poor example of a nation teetering moral lines to bring about change. For example, in revolutions, it is typical for their to be a multitude of civilian casualties but, if successful, most would agree that the freedom the nation receives afterwards is worth it. A more specific example of this case would be the Haitian Revolution against France led by Toussaint Louverture, where Haiti’s win ended slavery in the colony and paved the road for many other nations to follow suit. Returning to the Khmer Rouge, where it was clear that their struggle for change was only expeditiously worsening the country, nations with the ability to help should have stepped in to prevent its self-destruction. It would be unfair to claim that Cambodian civilians should have resisted when their lives were at the most immediate threat. In reality, many people did things they were not proud of in order to preserve their own lives, like selling out targeted family members to the Khmer Rouge in order to not put themselves in any danger. In many situations, it can be argued that continuing to support a destructive system only allows more harm, and that is correct, but it is important to realize that during war moral responsibility usually conflicts with survival.

The United States’ decision to stay out of the Khmer Rouge’s massacre of its own people was in simple terms a decision led by the guilt of past errors in the region. Many people argued that getting involved was not worth putting American Soldiers lives at risk, but I’m gonna slip in a personal opinion: I were a soldier, I would much rather fight a war aimed at protecting civilians than one fought for conquest and ambition. This doesn’t only apply to America either, if a nation has the military power to give aid to a struggling nation then there shouldn’t be a question as to whether ot not they should provide it. The issue with all nations is the lack of concern placed on things happening outside their borders, hence why there should be national sovereignty to step in, when possible, to stop the immense suffering of people.

Post your response here:

one of the most compelling ideas in this post is the argument that the Khmer’s Problem wasn't just their communist ideology about the extreme and violent way. They tried to apply it. The writer says that communism might be utopian, but actually has been very difficult to implement in history without restricting individual freedoms.. I agree with this idea because they attempt to transform Cambodia into the communist. Utopia proved itself to be very corrupt and unfair.Forcing people out of cities and into labor camps shows how communism when practically planning can lead to devastation. This idea is interesting because it questions the other ideologies that work through violence in total control.

It also relates to the ideas and other posts that discussed how communism leads to horrible consequences. Some people said that it was Khmer’s fault Rather than communism and other people thought that no matter who is doing communism, it will always be unsuccessful.

My view is pretty similar with my peers because I think the Khmer’sSociety was unrealistic and dangerous, proving my point with the 1/4 of the population had to kill. But also, their ideology contributed to the violence.

To improve this post maybe you can Discuss if communism can exist without resisting freedoms. And maybe some more clarifying details in some sentences so that is easier to follow. But overall, it is very interesting to read, and I agree with almost everything you said.

Originally posted by StevenAdrianCharles93 on March 11, 2026 00:21

The rule of the Khmer Rouge was doomed from the start. The idea of getting rid of any and all technological advancements was an idea that never should have happened. They were rooter in the base of communism, but they had a higher class leadership group, showing that it was clearly not communism being practiced. The Khmer Rouge shutting themselves off from the rest of the world and getting rid of all technologies created so many problems that led to their downward spiral. I think the inherent ideas of communism are not exactly the problem, I think it is the way the Khmer Rouge did it, because they weren’t really acting in a communist way at all. As we saw in First They Killed my Father, the way the KR did things let to lots of torture and brainwash and suffering and killing. The parents of the kids were killed by the KR quickly, and the kids were put in intense brainwashing. I think the idea that these people are told to accept any suffering that is to come in order to create a better society is ridiculous. It is such an excuse that is used in order to enact torturing and suffering on groups of people, and people are either brainwashed into believing it, or they are forced into dealign with it. If the situation becomes worse under a new regime then it was before, no amount of possible success in the future should be an excuse for that change. It almost always is just an excuse for power and control from the leaders. I think if it is super clear that struggle for change is making things much worse, like what was happening in Cambodia, than other countries need to step in no matter what. There is too much worrying from other countries about their own policies or politics and everything, and too little worrying about human rights and the condition of these people suffering in these countries where change is being made for the worst. I think the international community had to step in at some point, especially considering if they knew about the atrocities early on. When it is a matter that is affecting so many people in such a terrible way, it is no doubt that that should be stopped immediately by major powers. I think that the Vietnamese interfering with national sovereignty should not have been punished like it was. I think the fact that they ended the suffering of the Cambodian people is a good thing, and in a case like the cambodian genocide the sovereignty of a country should be overridden in order to secure the safety of the people and ensure the human rights are being protected. The US had a lot of chances and possibilities of doing something about what was going on in Cambodia, but they sat back and didn't want to do anything more in the region. Despite knowing what was happening, they still sat back and let it happen.

My peer mentions how the horrors committed in Cambodia were necessarily a result of communist ideology but rather the extreme and malicious interpretation of such ideologies which resulted in the atrocities. Personally I agree with this belief and I said something similar in my response as well. However, the concept of debating where blame lies is what is so interesting to me. While the Khmer Rouge were inspired by communist beliefs, the ideology they followed wasn't necessarily communism in itself. I believe that the Khmer Rouge used the concept of communism to attain their own goals of more power and control over the region. Many other posts mention something similar. The Khmer Rouge elite did not follow the ways that they preached. Rather than abandoning all technology and private property like everyone else, they lived their lives in luxury and were not equal with everyone else. This is something my peer mentions as well. Communism was used in order to make an excuse for why everyone had to relinquish their possessions, which made it far easier for Khmer Rouge elites to then claim those discarded possessions. This is why me and my peers believe that it wasn't exactly communism that caused the horrors in Cambodia but rather the possibilities that extreme communism can provide for people in power. All together my peer’s response was very good. It was free of all grammatical errors and it had a very nice flow to it. The content and ideas were very engaging and it was fun to read.

Originally posted by 1000 on March 10, 2026 13:21

It is important to acknowledge the unfortunate reality that the United States can’t or won’t always help other countries. There is always tragedy happening somewhere in the world and the United States or any other powerful nation can’t always rush into the rescue as some would want them to. This all being said, there is a line where interference makes sense. It was clear before the Khmer Rouge took power in Phnom Penh that there was tragedy that would follow. It was convenient, politically and financially, to ignore the warnings but “the omens of imminent mass violence were omnipresent but largely dismissed”. I think that if there is evidence prior to the event that there will be mass tragedy then action should be taken to prevent it. This of course is the ideal situation, where interference doesn’t do more harm than good. With the situation in Cambodia it is unknown exactly what the effects would have been if the United States stepped in. Ultimately if interference can limit the damage even if not perfect, I think it should be done. The amount of suffering a country faces shouldn’t be put on a scale or comparison to determine how important it is or how bad it is. I think that to step in there should be a way to successfully end suffering or even just lessen it. If there is a possibility of making it worse instead of better than that is when I’d say to stay out of it.

As I stated above a prevention of power to the Khmer Rouge would’ve been the ideal situation but even though that is unrealistic there are other measures that other nations can take to provide help. As the United Nations did, helping to provide medical attention and more food can save many people. Usually in tragedies like the one in Cambodia, survivors are in poor physical condition and often famished. The best thing anyone can provide to help survivors is physical help. Justice is obviously a good gesture but when millions of dollars are put to a small amount of justice that could’ve gone to bettering the lives of victims, it can feel like a waste. So although I am all for getting justice for victims and appropriately punishing the perpetrators of the violence, I would say that the first priority is for money to go to better the lives of survivors in the aftermath of losing all their belongings and the life that they once knew. This money could come from the United Nations, the United States or any country with the means to. The unfortunate thing is that most nations will only invest money into a problem if there is a benefit somewhere for them. Nothing is ever done without political intentions and so I think as long as the benefits that helping bring to a country don’t in turn have negative effects on the same country that they go into help then personal gain is not such a bad inevitable truth.

The most compelling idea that my partner had and one that I had not considered was the idea about Cambodia’s investment in the trials. I really liked that they considered the fact that Cambodia invested in holding people accountable years later, and a trial is expensive. Maybe they could have invested in relief or further support for the country as it recovered from the lasting effects of the Khmer Rouge and the mass casualties. However, I do slightly disagree that the trials would do more harm than good because it is possible that the trials gave some of the perpetrators a punishment, even if delayed, and maybe this did bring peace to some of the nation’s people who suffered from the Khmer Rouge and the instigators of the mass killings. It is still possible that some people were brought at least a little peace by these persecutions. I wonder what their opinion would be on the nation’s ability to remain sovereign during these trials. Should other nations have stepped in and suggested or forced the trials to happen before? Should nations have held the trails in a different location where the death penalty is possible? Should the death penalty have been used or would the maximum Cambodian punishment be enough to make the Cambodian people feel like some justice was accomplished?

Originally posted by NLE CHOPPA on March 09, 2026 21:33

The Khmer rise power in Cambodia Was a radical interpretation of communism. Well, communism and theory six equality and eliminating classes, the commander had an extreme and distorted version that caused unimaginable suffering, and some could even argue Genocide.I think the ideology of the leaders in charge had to have been corrupt, and self centered. Even though the idea of communism is generally progressive, the Khmer did a variation of communism that was brutal and unfair. The reason it was selfish was because of the treatment of the citizens.

The thing that struck me the most was the treatment of children. They had the idea that no one has private property, and that included the children as well. The children would get taken away from their families and raised by the Khmer. The children would be trained as soldiers, not having a childhood, having to train for the military. We also found out that people had to leave their home, and couldn’t have their own possessions. The goal was to have everyone loyal to the revolution and eliminate influence that could change your mind. They used human beings and children as tools for their revolution rather than considering them a part of society.

Adults also had harsh policies getting rid of their freedoms. Civilians had to leave their homes and live in work camps in terrible conditions. The Khmer Disregarded human needs and turn their vision of quality into math murder.

Now the reason communism doesn't work is because of corruption and scarcity. In communism, if everyone is equal, then everyone will have very little. As we learned, people would only have a tiny portion of rice (as seen in “The Rise and Fall of Democratic Kampuchea”), which would have to last them the whole day. The Khmer realized this, and was forced to kill ¼ of their population. This is both systemically a communism problem, but morally a Khmer problem.

The tragedy of the Khmer Shows both misapplied ideology in Moreau correction of those empower. They were more of an Authoritarian leadership that wanted ideological purity rather than valued life.

Communism is bad, but what the Khmer did took it to an extent, and proves communism can’t actually work.

In A Problem from Hell, Samantha Power explains how the world ignored the warning signs of the Khmer Rouge’s actions in Cambodia. This shows how the Khmer Rouge’s extreme policies making people leave their homes, taking children from their families, and forcing everyone to work caused so much suffering. Power points out that these actions were clearly dangerous and deadly, but no one stepped in. This supports the idea that the problem wasn’t just communism as an idea, but the cruel and selfish way the Khmer Rouge leaders carried out their plans, harming millions of innocent people.

In conclusion, the Khmer’s Brutal rain in Cambodia was because of the principles of communism and the corrupt, selfish and violent interpretation of those principles. So many people suffered, including children and shows how communism can be manipulated to justify cruelty.

This peer discusses the treatment of children under the Khmer Rouge and what the children had to go through such as military training and no childhood. They describe how any influence that could change the children’s minds was eliminated. Furthermore they go onto say that children were used for revolution rather than part of society. Adults are also discussed in this post discussing how they had to work in terrible conditions. Communism is another big piece of this post as they discuss how the Khmer Rouge had a distorted and radical approach to communism with a brutal and unfair system. In my post I discussed the cruelty of the regime and while this peer went deeper into what children experienced we still both discussed the painful deaths. In addition, we also both discussed the regime, however I focused on how things need to change while this post focused on the communist ideology that was extreme and caused suffering. I really liked how this peer highlighted the warped nature of the communism the Khmer Rouge sought to implement because it highlights how a government system can have a label and then perform actions that are still technically classifying under that regime but also not aligned.

Your analysis offers a compelling distinction between theoretical Marxism and the "radical agrarianism" that was actually implemented by the Khmer Rouge. The most compelling part of your analysis is the discussion of the dichotomy between "base people" and "city people." Your analysis is successful in pointing out the irony of a movement dedicated to the creation of a classless society actually creating a new class system based on violence. I agree that the particular brand of Maoism was so unconnected to traditional Marxist ideas of labor that it became a unique catalyst for destruction rather than a typical implementation of Communism.

The implementation of First They Killed My Father and A Problem from Hell serves to ground your theoretical analysis in the grim realities of historical events. The specific analysis of starvation not lining up with a "work-based society" is a brilliant analysis of the mechanical failures of the regime. Your analysis demonstrates that not only was the regime cruel but also ultimately illogical within their own economic system. By demonstrating that the regime only provided less than a "tin of rice" to their people, you successfully argue that the Khmer Rouge was ultimately unable to even achieve the ideals.

To further add depth to your "something entirely different" component of your argument, you might want to touch upon the topic of extreme nationalism. While your focus is upon the failure of the communist ideologies that were in place, many historians contend that the genocide was fueled by an intense xenophobia towards ethnic Vietnamese and Cham people. Furthermore, while your use of American history is an intriguing one, it could be taken a step further by more specifically outlining what the "Lon Nol" period was. While discussing the failure that the Khmer Rouge brought upon Cambodia in relation to the political failure that preceded them, your conclusion that a "better society" exists would be all the more compelling. Overall, this is an insightful critique that seeks to get past the labels and examine the mechanical failure of an extremist regime.

Originally posted by josh allen on March 06, 2026 10:45

Was communism the cause of the Cambodian genocide? Or was it something entirely different? Both can certainly be argued, but I believe that the Khmer Rouge’s extreme interpretation of communism and their torturous methods of implementing them led to massive human suffering and horrors that made up the Cambodian genocide. The Khmer Rouge’s main ideology was radical agrarianism. They rejected anything capitalist or industrialized, and forced Cambodians to leave their homes in the city and move onto rural complexes, as well as carry out extreme labor. Communism focuses on a classless society in general, and does not necessarily have to be agrarian. Marxism, for instance, focuses on the public controlling the means of industrial production, which usually occurs in a developed urban area. It can also be argued that the Khmer Rouge’s reign was not in fact classless at all. As seen in First They Killed my Father, members of the Khmer Rouge had exceedingly more privilege and resources available to them than the Cambodians they exploited. They also practiced violent classism by preferring “base people” to “city people”, giving them preferential treatment based on their original class. This contradicts the core tenet of communism, leading me to believe that the communist ideology was not the reason for the immense destruction in Cambodia. Additionally, in a communist society, goods and fruits of labor are ideally distributed equally among workers according to the amount of work they did. While food was mostly distributed equally among laborers in Khmer Rouge camps, A Problem From Hell’s excerpt 3 notes that “in most areas the state supplied less than a tin or less of rice each day”. No matter the amount of labor these Cambodians did, and that was often exceedingly high every day for every single age, they were fed a meager amount of food that didn’t allow them to work to the fullest extent possible. Starvation of workers inherently contradicts the idea of a work-based society.

Additionally, I believe that a society created on the basis of suffering has no business describing itself as a “better society” than the one before. I do concede that there certainly are many elements of the society that could be “better”, or improved, the society stems from hatred and death. Why would anyone want to live in a place like this? Let’s take America. America has been built on the backs of slaves and Native Americans who have been forcibly ripped from their homes and forced to work at the hands of colonists. Has our society improved from how it was hundreds of years ago? Arguably. Is our society good? Doubtful. I do not believe that Democratic Kampuchea would end up being a “better society” than Cambodia was under Lon Nol. It’s also interesting to note that Cambodians before the genocide were hopefull. Excerpt 1 emphasizes this fact repeatedly—that Cambodians didn’t even think there was a level of atrocity that could occur as much as the Khmer Rouge could inflict. So if the level of suffering a group inflicts is not even believable or conceivable to a society, the society that group will end up creating is not “better”.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by CapeCod2343 on March 09, 2026 23:24

Based on the Khmer Rouge’s ideology, everyone was equal, yet they neglectfully failed to factor into their ideology that children, the ill, and elderly adults are not equal to healthy adults. People in the camps were forced to grow food that they themselves couldn't eat; food was sent to work and training camps, thus contradicting their ideology. The differentiation of the amounts of food that the Cambodian people were given led to the starvation of many. Instances like these are examples of the fundamental problems that existed in the Khmer Rouge’s ideology, which caused the deaths of many Cambodians. This demonstrates something inherently wrong with Communism because in most stances with Communism they introduce the idea that everyone is equal but certain people always end up having an unfair advantage like in the case of the Khmer Rouge that I stated before were the soldiers and the people in the work camps had a wider variety of food and also the locations where they were established they ate from the food carts that the people from Loung’s camp where she was with her family. Their Communist ideology of being equal will never work due to the fact that the people at the top and their soldiers will never voluntarily choose to live the same as citizens. The international community should have shown any type of sympathy towards Cambodia; they saw and heard thousands of people who were being starved and murdered, and they decided that they were not interested in saving thousands of women, men, and children. National sovereignty when the lives of thousands of innocent people are being threatened, because when that happens, it is not a question of whether a country is neutral or not; it's a question of whether one has compassion for the lives of others. No suffering is tolerable to bring a “better society” because, in order to bring a “better society,” suffering would not be part of it. What should happen when it is clear that a struggle for change is making society worse is intervention from a country that has the resources to help, because that means that they have the resources to make sure that the country is taken care of.

This person has some great ideas surrounding the genocide and one the the main points that they make very early is that communism is built on everyone being equal but in the Khmer Rouge it is failed to see how problematic this is for different groups of people who need different help. This includes children, the sick, and the elderly who are all in need of more care and better treatment which was not given resulting in a massive amount of deaths mainly from sickness and starvation. Another thing that this person highlighted that I found very interesting was the way they identified the core issues of communism. They said that communism has inherent problems with it and one of those especially was exemplified in the Khmer Rouge. That is the fact that communism claims to view all people as equal but some people are clearly lifted up to a higher status and do receive different treatment than the rest. That is very important I think and it can be definitely identified as a key flaw in communism as we have seen it prominently not just in the Khmer Rouge but in other regimes as well.

Originally posted by dudeman18 on March 10, 2026 23:33

The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot had many major flaws in their regime and plans for the future of cambodia. They wanted Cambodia to immediately become a classless agricultural society that was completely rural unlike what it was before. In order to put the poor plan into action they displaced millions from their homes, eliminated education completely, and killed political enemies to the regime. The ideology around this was that the transformation could happen pretty much overnight and reset society completely which was obviously a terrible look on the situation which turned out to be a huge mess. These ideas resulted in mass starvation and the whole Cambodian genocide with the regime clearly valuing ideological purity over true human lives resulting in the death of nearly two million.This in my eyes does not prove that communism is inherently a dangerous ideology however it is one that when taken to the absolute extreme can hurt people. Through history armed struggle has been utilized sometimes to enact political changes. Ethical limits need to be added on to this however because the slaughtering of civilians and mass human rights violations. Destroying basic human rights to reach a political end goal is never justified no matter how noble the political cause may be which is why there needs to be ethical limits on what can be done. These limits must aim to protect the innocent people who are harmed in these instances. The Khmer Rouge did not pay attention to these ethical limits and their policies promoted violence and the killing of innocent people which completely ignores the rules around the ethics. The goal of a better society does not pass these ethical boundaries and that is exactly what the Khmer Rouge was trying to do, bypass the rules in place in order to build this better society they were dreaming of. During the Khmer Rouge it is definitely true that the international community could have done way more sooner. At the beginning they did not have as much information but even with what they had they could have for sure stepped in to help the Cambodians who were being genocided. Countless organizations mainly the United Nations could have applied a lot more pressure to the situation and also set up more humanitarian aid and help for the people injuried and displaced. Overriding national soverignty becomes very difficult in this situation though. Many however think that invading the national sovereignty becomes crucial when handling a genocide situation like the one in Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge so it is seen as something the should have been done by the United Nations to prevent deaths of innocent people. International forces can definetly intervene when things like the Khmer Rouge come to power and begin genocide but not enough was done fast enough in this instance. Also many of those put on trial did not truly serve the right amount of time for their crimes which adds another layer to what more could have been done.

I think this person did a very good job bringing up the fact that the Khmer Rouge government didn't just go against political and legal morals, but it also completely goes against Ethical limits. There is an expected standard of ethical limits that is supposed to be held by everyone, and the Khmer Rouge blew right by that based on what they did, and this person did a good job talking about that. I agree with their point about the international community, and I think they definitely could have done more. I think what they said about doing more as they gained more information makes a lot of sense. It almost seemed like international countries got less involved the more they knew, which goes against what you would think would be done in a scenario like this. I do agree however that overriding national sovereignty gets very difficult, and there is a lot at play in situations like this. I think I have a lot of similar views on this subject to this person, and I think that these types of ideologies often fall into things like this. This is clearly not how communism is supposed to play out.