EAOsiosoas09

Includes Anarcho Schrodinger's Alt Left Nazbol

This counterpunch article prevents a counter punch to the western narrative of the Cambodian genocide and Pol Pot. Also see here

The Viet Cong were American puppets on and off but then the US allowed the Viet Cong to became China puppets (since the US must have thought the Viet Cong and China would be able to stop the USSR together better than the US and Viet Cong could do together to stop the USSR)

I have read about older Vietnamese people claiming that Vietnam are China's puppet and that Vietnam did their intervention in Cambodia to thankfully end the Khmer rouge from offing every red blooded person in sight 

Cambodia was invaded by the US-CIA backed Khmer Rougue and Pol Pot so the US could force their anti-communism onto the EuraAsia area easier.  Another example of evil imperialism by the US

Vietnam was at odds with China a long time, and the state attack China several times in the past to sabotage the invasion blueprint. So I can see the Vietnamese State did that again to both remove the Chinese out of the country and to put an end to the atrocities.

The Khmer were relatively Maoist leaning, in comparison to Vietnam who was Marxist-Leninist. China, (Maoism itself) had a loose allyship with Cambodia even at the worst of times because Maoists are simply wired different. They attempted to make Vietnam be a client state to them, yet Vietnam aligned itself with the USSR to stop that. 

Then Vietnam invaded Cambodia to end the genocide, to put an end to the KR kidnapping people from Vietnam and crossing the border, and to prevent their own country (Vietnam) from being surrounded by resistant, Maoist power chauvinists. Keep in mind, the US assisted Cambodia because they saw in Cambodia the "primary threat" as the USSR and believed making the Maoist bloc firmer over the Marxist Leninist block could foment conflict, which they were proven correct on. Moreover, Vietnam also had a desire to invade Cambodia because they weren't to thrilled at all in having a US ally (Cambodia) right next to their country

How any person can view the Khmer Rogue and Pol Pot as exemplary of socialism and anti-imperialism I cannot fathom. Pol Pot brought his nation to abject poverty since apparently communism is when everyone is equally poor and forced in working camps. And killing intellectuals because he was a cold blooded bolshevik and couldn't tell the difference between elites and intellectuals. 

Pol Pot rationing food is not economic redistribution , and it caused a famine in Cambodia

I am against supporting the Viet Cong just to own the Khmer Rogue and Pol Pot

Put Vietnam sexpat Luna Oi (Vietnam simpg) in a steel cage with KR/Pol Pot simps and see which simp comes out on top

Every single time this question is asked, you all can't help yourselves repeating the most obvious anti-communist propaganda. Pol Pot killed a third of the Cambodian population? US bombing didn't kill anyone, I'm sure.

Or y'all come out with the "he was backed by the United States." The Khmer Rouge came to power by defeating the US-Lon Nol regime. That the US came to support them after their defeat doesn't say much about their class character while they were in power (certainly history has shown that class character is not static!).

Y'all also ignore any of the important line struggles from the time period in the Communist movement. Some criticized Vietnam's role in the region as being an agent for Soviet social-imperialism, and saw an anti-revisionist current in the CPK. Others were wary of China's Three Worlds Theory and how those politics manifested in the Indochinese wars. But flattening all this is useful for a digestible narrative of "CPV good, therefore CPK bad" and then forcing all the facts to fit this narrative, even as clumsy as this narrative is.

That's not to say Pol Pot was or wasn't a Communist, or to say that he was properly anti-revisionist, or that Vietnam was simply an agent of Soviet imperialism in the region. Reality is complex, and a lot of this line of questioning is pretty obsolete: useful from a historical standpoint, but beyond that it isn't necessarily as useful. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, and China doesn't quite play the same role on the world stage, especially without a powerful anti-revisionist pole in the ICM.

We can criticize the Khmer Rouge according to Marxism, as others have done, but we should avoid nonsense like "he starved his people to death," "he just hated cities (?)," "he killed anyone who wore glasses," etc. You all should no better, especially you "tankies" or whatever. Opposing western imperialist narratives is supposed to be your specialty.

Edit: the article shared below is another worthwhile read.

Edit 2: I know I somehow acquired a reputation for being an expert on Pol Pot: I am not, I've simply read enough to smell bullshit and recognize complexity in spite of internet posting incentivizing simple solutions to complex questions.