There is little on this website properly debunking all lies about Pol Pot. I try and pull bits and pieces from different corners of the internet to hit a lot...
I think a part of the reason why these accusations hold more weight than others is that they were levied at the Khmer rouge by Vietnam, another communist state. A lot of the accusations against Pol Pot and Khmer rogue weren’t talked about in the west until after the fall of the USSR (and the US abandoned their support of the Khmer rouge as Cambodia’s government in exile).
Considering that ultras tend to take the western viewpoint on socialist states and just twist it around, replacing “evil commies” with “evil revisionists” I don’t think their analysis of Pol Pot is too unexpected. The ultra position on Pol Pot was the CIA line on him until the 90s, so I’m not surprised that ultras follow it. I know I’m being very openly “biased” here, but I’ve tried to understand their position as much as possible in the past, and more and more it just seems to be “we believe everything the CIA wants us to believe to sow discord and wreck socialist spaces.”
I think an important part of material analysis is examining the chronology of ideas and events. Not just as they happened, but as they were talked about afterwards. During Stalin’s time he wasn’t referred to as a “dictator” by the west, because “dictator” didn’t have the same negative connotations at the time, and various fascist dictators were praised for “cutting through red tape” by the western press, it wasn’t until the mythology around ww2 coalesced (the west defeated the nazis and saved the world etc.) that we start to see “dictator” used in the sense we see it today, and Stalin was reframed from a complex, flawed but ultimately very successful leader into a cartoon villain.
This is an excellent point, and even though the U.S. had been gunning for Stalin and the USSR for decades, it’s almost alien trying to imagine the time period where that wasn’t publicly the case. Kind of like how even most of the ardent anti-communists thought that blaming Stalin and the USSR and communism for the alleged Holodomor was massively backwards, disgusting, wrong and victim-blaming, up until around the 80’s-ish.
I find it is incredibly useful as an educational tool. Liberalism kind of positions itself as “eternal” and the ideas liberalism presents about socialism are treated as divine truths known since time immemorial, so by showing how anti-communism has been constantly reframed over time, and how communist leaders have been increasingly vilified over time, it helps break that programming.
I think a part of the reason why these accusations hold more weight than others is that they were levied at the Khmer rouge by Vietnam, another communist state. A lot of the accusations against Pol Pot and Khmer rogue weren’t talked about in the west until after the fall of the USSR (and the US abandoned their support of the Khmer rouge as Cambodia’s government in exile).
Considering that ultras tend to take the western viewpoint on socialist states and just twist it around, replacing “evil commies” with “evil revisionists” I don’t think their analysis of Pol Pot is too unexpected. The ultra position on Pol Pot was the CIA line on him until the 90s, so I’m not surprised that ultras follow it. I know I’m being very openly “biased” here, but I’ve tried to understand their position as much as possible in the past, and more and more it just seems to be “we believe everything the CIA wants us to believe to sow discord and wreck socialist spaces.”
This is intriguing food for thought. Thank you.
I think an important part of material analysis is examining the chronology of ideas and events. Not just as they happened, but as they were talked about afterwards. During Stalin’s time he wasn’t referred to as a “dictator” by the west, because “dictator” didn’t have the same negative connotations at the time, and various fascist dictators were praised for “cutting through red tape” by the western press, it wasn’t until the mythology around ww2 coalesced (the west defeated the nazis and saved the world etc.) that we start to see “dictator” used in the sense we see it today, and Stalin was reframed from a complex, flawed but ultimately very successful leader into a cartoon villain.
This is an excellent point, and even though the U.S. had been gunning for Stalin and the USSR for decades, it’s almost alien trying to imagine the time period where that wasn’t publicly the case. Kind of like how even most of the ardent anti-communists thought that blaming Stalin and the USSR and communism for the alleged Holodomor was massively backwards, disgusting, wrong and victim-blaming, up until around the 80’s-ish.
I find it is incredibly useful as an educational tool. Liberalism kind of positions itself as “eternal” and the ideas liberalism presents about socialism are treated as divine truths known since time immemorial, so by showing how anti-communism has been constantly reframed over time, and how communist leaders have been increasingly vilified over time, it helps break that programming.
Removed by mod
I don’t have anything on hand, sorry. I’m sure Damarcus does though.