Khmer Rouge is weird because they literally went against the very most foundational Marxist concepts. They were merely utopian socialists, at the very best. Atleast, from my knowledge.
I read a source about Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge might not even be the right name but I do not remember) on Marxists.org, and it basically said that it was a agricultural-primitivist movement or something like that, so I do not think the socialist label would fit them at all.
He wanted to bring back feudalism and the Khmer Empire. Every socialist state urbanized and build infrastructure, he did the opposite.
A good thing to remember that during the cold war many states used the label of socialism to grift support. Somalia and Tanzania are good examples of that.
Well, I just remember reading that he wanted a return to this idealized Cambodian society set entriely within an agarian format(?). Intellectuals, factories, even the Proletarians were an obstruction to this. We as MLs know why this is stupid frankly. He reminded me of Utopian Socialists during Lenin’s time who wanted to prevent or ‘skip’ Capitalism… including continuing peasant-style relations and modes of production. That’s why I described him as such, but maybe Reactionary is a better label.
Yeah like they supported the USA, but called themselves socialist and got like soviet prospectors to scout out natural resources. Tbf Tanzania ideology was closer to Mussolini’s anyway.
Khmer Rouge followed by Shining Path
Khmer Rouge is weird because they literally went against the very most foundational Marxist concepts. They were merely utopian socialists, at the very best. Atleast, from my knowledge.
Pol Pot was just an ultranationalist using a Marxist coat of paint to garner additional support. He said so himself multiple times.
I read a source about Kampuchea (Khmer Rouge might not even be the right name but I do not remember) on Marxists.org, and it basically said that it was a agricultural-primitivist movement or something like that, so I do not think the socialist label would fit them at all.
He wanted to bring back feudalism and the Khmer Empire. Every socialist state urbanized and build infrastructure, he did the opposite.
A good thing to remember that during the cold war many states used the label of socialism to grift support. Somalia and Tanzania are good examples of that.
Well, I just remember reading that he wanted a return to this idealized Cambodian society set entriely within an agarian format(?). Intellectuals, factories, even the Proletarians were an obstruction to this. We as MLs know why this is stupid frankly. He reminded me of Utopian Socialists during Lenin’s time who wanted to prevent or ‘skip’ Capitalism… including continuing peasant-style relations and modes of production. That’s why I described him as such, but maybe Reactionary is a better label.
this was awhile ago, I remember reading about it.
Reminds me of national-socialism using “socialism” (it even fools some libservantives).
Could you explain how those two countries specifically used socialism to grift?
The soviet union used to financially support socialist countries with development aid. Arms sales and research contribution as well.
Oh I see …
Yeah like they supported the USA, but called themselves socialist and got like soviet prospectors to scout out natural resources. Tbf Tanzania ideology was closer to Mussolini’s anyway.
Khmer Rogue was literally just Nazi Germany with a bit more of a strasserite bend.