- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Everyone says Pol Pot was one of the worst dictators of all time and points to him as an example of why communism is bad, but was Pol Pot actually that bad? There is much evidence the death toll of Pol Pot's rule is overstated and exaggerated given the people who overthrew him. Many deaths alleged to be the result of Pol Pot's regime can be attributed to the American bombing of Cambodia and its aftermath (i.e. famine) and the Vietnamese invasion. Counts relying on Cambodia's population cannot be relied on because of the large refugee population that existed from the Vietnam War. War crimes committed by the Khmer Rouge certainly happened, but they were not unusual considering his opponents did the exact same.
The historiography of Democratic Kampuchea was written by Western communist intellectuals (who often live in cities) who believe Pol Pot made them look bad using sources of the pro-Vietnamese regime that replaced them. Said regime derives its entire legitimacy from overthrowing Pol Pot and "saving" Cambodia. It's like relying on Wikipedia as your only source about Kiwifarms.
Pol Pot fought against foreign influences (many of which were damaging to the Khmer national spirit), preserved traditional Khmer culture and morality, aided the peasant classes in developing infrastructure (i.e. irrigation), and dealt with the corrupting influence on the human spirit. He preserved the environment and historic sites like Angkor. This is in stark contrast to today's Cambodia, which is looted by the Chinese more than ever before as Cambodians are forced into sweatshops and human trafficking for the sake of their corrupt leadership.
Now I'm not saying Pol Pot was a great guy or was about to make a utopia, but I think there's some good arguments to be made that Pol Pot's been unfairly villified and had some very good ideas (especially regarding cities and urban intellectuals).
Anyone else agree?
Further reading:
The historiography of Democratic Kampuchea was written by Western communist intellectuals (who often live in cities) who believe Pol Pot made them look bad using sources of the pro-Vietnamese regime that replaced them. Said regime derives its entire legitimacy from overthrowing Pol Pot and "saving" Cambodia. It's like relying on Wikipedia as your only source about Kiwifarms.
Pol Pot fought against foreign influences (many of which were damaging to the Khmer national spirit), preserved traditional Khmer culture and morality, aided the peasant classes in developing infrastructure (i.e. irrigation), and dealt with the corrupting influence on the human spirit. He preserved the environment and historic sites like Angkor. This is in stark contrast to today's Cambodia, which is looted by the Chinese more than ever before as Cambodians are forced into sweatshops and human trafficking for the sake of their corrupt leadership.
Now I'm not saying Pol Pot was a great guy or was about to make a utopia, but I think there's some good arguments to be made that Pol Pot's been unfairly villified and had some very good ideas (especially regarding cities and urban intellectuals).
Anyone else agree?
Further reading:
Pol Pot Revisited
Peace in the Middle East by ending Racism, Aparthied & Ethnic Cleansing: The Writings of Israel Shamir
www.israelshamir.net
