Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist

So, just a vibe check then?

In what manner? Vibes?

Lol, in the same way as the Khmer Rouge…you never extrapolated how they were feudal to begin with.

Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!

First of all, I don’t think anyone can rightly claim Mao wasn’t a nationalist. He was an ardent anti imperialist and he wasn’t an ethno-nationalist, but still a nationalist at heart. Secondly progress is relative to the revolution, Cambodia prior to the revolution was for the most part dependent on substance farming. Adapting a centralized apparatus to control the economy is still progress.

but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.

They didn’t deindustrialze, they were never industrialized to begin with.

More vibes.

Hilarious considering your arguments have been completely vibe based. Even when I ask you specify your claims… Nope just vibes.

He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism.

When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?

Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.

His “agrarian Communism” was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism

Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.

you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist.

Lol, that’s not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80’s as well.

I think it’s pretty obvious that we’re just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.

don’t believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn’t accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.

I think what’s pertinent to the original argument was that they were communist while the Khmer Rouge were committing their atrocities. Labeling a country that transitioned from communism to fascism as a purely fascist government is misleading and reductive.

Also, being opposed to a communist government does not mean you’re automatically a fascist. As we know communist China attacked communist Vietnam right after the US Vietnam war.

The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment

It’s no more complicated than the history of European geopolitics. As an Asian person, I get told this by western people a lot. I think it’s just a hold over from the western interpretation of the east being based in mystery. Also, the complications of any topic does not validate the type of misleading/reductive comment you made.

my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn’t a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.

I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50’s, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.

Pol Pot didn’t really divert from communism until the 80’s and that was a last ditch effort to get the west to support his failing regime. I don’t particularly believe that “We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way.” constitutes as denouncing Marxism.

China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.

You haven’t supported the argument that the Khmer Rouge were never communist… Now I’m willing to compromise and say they transitioned away from communism as did the Russians, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that they were communist at some point.

How exactly was Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge not communist in the 50s-70’s?

Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.

I think that’s a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.

The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.

Also, PolPot wasn’t criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80’s, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in “deviations from Marxism-Leninism”

The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.

I think they’re both pretty similar. The main difference being that one is being played from a shitty phone speaker and recorded by a camera and the other is coming from studio quality audio.

Which is why some men are becoming “anti-feminist”. It’s not that they’re anti-women, it’s that they are anti-“A movement that tells them they are the source of all problems and offers them no support”.

I think the problem is more inherent in how America interprets liberalism. We don’t include things like class consciousness into liberal ideology, here it’s all about addressing specific systemic inequalities between certain demographics.

When you define liberalism as only fixing these inequalities then of course a large population of men aren’t going to involve themselves, they don’t reap any benefit, they’re not experiencing any systemic abuse.

However, if we accommodate socioeconomic realities of class into the equation, things start making a bit more sense. By protecting the most disadvantaged demographic in your class, you also strengthen your own interests.

I think it’s important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you aren’t participating in misogyny, then they really aren’t talking about you. They just aren’t vocalizing the division in class that separates us all from the reigns of power.