5 ms·

What is your own overall view of the Khmer Rouge, and ditto Mao? And have your views changed over time? Let me say where I am coming from here. The Khemer Roug

What is your own overall view of the Khmer Rouge, and ditto Mao? And have your views changed over time? Let me say where I am coming from here. The Khemer Rouge and Mao had in common certain ideas. They were for socialism, and they were for achieving it through violent revolution. They believed in the Leninist ideas of vanguardism and party centralization. And they believed that it was possible to take a preindustrial country directly to industrialization and then anarchistic socialism without first having to go through a liberal, capitalist phase. I think these ideas are mistaken, and whenever they have been tried the result has been a horror. And it is for that reason the Pol Pot and Maoist regimes were so brutal. So my question to you is, what do you think of these ideas?

boomboomsubban 6y ago
Broadly, that they are both military dictators whose actions were more influenced by fighting off external and internal enemies than any ideals.
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  Yes, they were. What I am saying is they were that because they were Marxist-Leninists. Pol Pot and Mao started out as Marxist-Leninists and that lead them to establish military dictatorships. That set of prior ideological ideas leads inevitably to that sort of situation. One reason I think it is important to stress this is that defenders of Marxism-Leninism say that regimes like this went bad because they fell away from Marxist-Leninist values, which implies it could have gone better, but I say the ideology always leads to that result. So let me ask you, do you disagree? Do you think it is possible for a Marxist-Leninist regime to turn out good?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    It's not clear. It may be a problem with Democratic centralism, but basically every example of it being attempted is immediately countered with extreme hostility from most of the world. Like in China, within two years of the end of the civil war the US had marched an army to the Chinese border with the ability to drop nukes on them. That kind of threat leads to a military dictatorship, no matter what economic policy you hope to try.
    - woodandsteel 6y ago
      Thank you for giving an answer. But you know, the original idea of Marxism was that the revolution would take place in the advanced industrial states, which have the greatest military power and so would not face this sort of threat. But when that failed to happen Lenin switched to the idea of revolution in preindustrial nations, which would lack that military strength. He predicted this would be safe for Russia because imperialism had run out of options and would collapse in the great war, and then revolution in the advanced nations would take place and protect Russia. And then when that failed to happen he was stuck with socialism in one country, but decided to go ahead anyway, with the predictable result that it came under military threat first from the fascists and then the capitalist countries. In the case of China and Cambodia, military threat was predictable from the beginning. So what is your scenario? Is it to wait around for the revolution to finally takes place in the advanced nations? And what about Trotsky's argument that Democratic centralism inevitably leads to dictatorship? Also, since you defended Chomsky, does he ever directly discuss Marxism-Leninism? My impression is that he is not one, and if that is the case why did he think that M-L regimes might turn out good?
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >And then when that failed to happen he was stuck with socialism in one country, but decided to go ahead anyway, with the predictable result that it came under military threat first from the fascists and then the capitalist countries With Russia, within roughly a year every major player involved in WWI had declared war on the Reds. Threats from the facists came much later, when I'd argue the entire revolution was over. In general though, Lenin's personal ambition had seemed to be his driving force for most of his revolutionary career, which is why I'm skeptical of it's ideal outcome as well. >In the case of China and Cambodia, military threat was predictable from the beginning I agree, but I think the hostility from capitalist countries has an overbearing influence on the kind of atrocity filled resulting states. >Is it to wait around for the revolution to finally takes place in the advanced nations? I don't really support a violent revolution anywhere, and have moved into the "slow change" side of revolution. As for the rest, I also suspect that Democratic centralism is a flawed premise, and view Lenin's disbanding of the soviets as proof he was aiming for a dictatorship. As for Chomsky, I don't think he is one. This discussion was how he doesn't think the revolution was wholly bad, as the propaganda makes it out to be, but he was hardly praising it either. I'm not really sure why you started this conversation about Marxism-Leninism if I'm honest.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Broadly, that they are both military dictators whose actions were more influenced by fighting off external and internal enemies than any ideals.

woodandsteel 6y ago
Yes, they were. What I am saying is they were that because they were Marxist-Leninists. Pol Pot and Mao started out as Marxist-Leninists and that lead them to establish military dictatorships. That set of prior ideological ideas leads inevitably to that sort of situation. One reason I think it is important to stress this is that defenders of Marxism-Leninism say that regimes like this went bad because they fell away from Marxist-Leninist values, which implies it could have gone better, but I say the ideology always leads to that result. So let me ask you, do you disagree? Do you think it is possible for a Marxist-Leninist regime to turn out good?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  It's not clear. It may be a problem with Democratic centralism, but basically every example of it being attempted is immediately countered with extreme hostility from most of the world. Like in China, within two years of the end of the civil war the US had marched an army to the Chinese border with the ability to drop nukes on them. That kind of threat leads to a military dictatorship, no matter what economic policy you hope to try.
  - woodandsteel 6y ago
    Thank you for giving an answer. But you know, the original idea of Marxism was that the revolution would take place in the advanced industrial states, which have the greatest military power and so would not face this sort of threat. But when that failed to happen Lenin switched to the idea of revolution in preindustrial nations, which would lack that military strength. He predicted this would be safe for Russia because imperialism had run out of options and would collapse in the great war, and then revolution in the advanced nations would take place and protect Russia. And then when that failed to happen he was stuck with socialism in one country, but decided to go ahead anyway, with the predictable result that it came under military threat first from the fascists and then the capitalist countries. In the case of China and Cambodia, military threat was predictable from the beginning. So what is your scenario? Is it to wait around for the revolution to finally takes place in the advanced nations? And what about Trotsky's argument that Democratic centralism inevitably leads to dictatorship? Also, since you defended Chomsky, does he ever directly discuss Marxism-Leninism? My impression is that he is not one, and if that is the case why did he think that M-L regimes might turn out good?
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >And then when that failed to happen he was stuck with socialism in one country, but decided to go ahead anyway, with the predictable result that it came under military threat first from the fascists and then the capitalist countries With Russia, within roughly a year every major player involved in WWI had declared war on the Reds. Threats from the facists came much later, when I'd argue the entire revolution was over. In general though, Lenin's personal ambition had seemed to be his driving force for most of his revolutionary career, which is why I'm skeptical of it's ideal outcome as well. >In the case of China and Cambodia, military threat was predictable from the beginning I agree, but I think the hostility from capitalist countries has an overbearing influence on the kind of atrocity filled resulting states. >Is it to wait around for the revolution to finally takes place in the advanced nations? I don't really support a violent revolution anywhere, and have moved into the "slow change" side of revolution. As for the rest, I also suspect that Democratic centralism is a flawed premise, and view Lenin's disbanding of the soviets as proof he was aiming for a dictatorship. As for Chomsky, I don't think he is one. This discussion was how he doesn't think the revolution was wholly bad, as the propaganda makes it out to be, but he was hardly praising it either. I'm not really sure why you started this conversation about Marxism-Leninism if I'm honest.