Pol Pot...Hero or Menace?

[Tucker Case]

It's great that you can talk about violent revolution having it's place because of freedom of speech in AMERICA.

rof Freedom of speech in the US can be cited as proof that violent revolution has its place.

 

[Hoplite]

Mao wasn't anti-intellectual. Mao was fully supportive of the development of Chinese industry.

Pol Pot was a staunch agricultural primitivist and against anything that had to do with industrial progress.

The two simply aren't comparable.

Mao ran down the intellectual crowd in China and put most of them to the sword. That sounds fairly anti-intellectual.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Mao ran down the intellectual crowd in China and put most of them to the sword. That sounds fairly anti-intellectual.

The intelligentsia in China was only persecuted generally following the Hundred Flowers Campaign. Moreover, the persecutions were solely based on threats (both real and perceived) to the contemporary order, which is why the Campaign was viewed ultimately as a failure by Mao and other higher-ups. This was never based on an anti-intellectual political ideology.

Finally, as I said before, Mao and the CPC were fully supportive of the development of Chinese industry.

Simply because Mao and the CPC had the intelligentsia persecuted does not mean that they are against them in principle. Quite the contrary, they are bureaucrats, and bureaucrats hardly if ever have principle.

 

[Awesome!]

You seem to be confusing Guevara's actions with Fidel's.

When you get your ideas straight, come back and talk.

No, not really, Che would have been more extreme than Fidel. If you are not able to understand that based on Che's quotes, his actions then I think you need to get your ideas straight. Oh, and Che didn't have any responsibility at all or hand in Cuba???

 

[Awesome!]

rof Freedom of speech in the US can be cited as proof that violent revolution has its place.

I guess so, but I don't recall millions starving or put in re-education camps during America's revolution, but then in the socialist movement there have been plenty of morons the past 80 years or so that make our revolution look like a tupperware party.

 

[Hoplite]

The intelligentsia in China was only persecuted generally following the Hundred Flowers Campaign. Moreover, the persecutions were solely based on threats (both real and perceived) to the contemporary order, which is why the Campaign was viewed ultimately as a failure by Mao and other higher-ups. This was never based on an anti-intellectual political ideology.

I'll buy that. I must admit my knowledge of Maoism is cursory at best so I'm happy to yield to someone with better understanding than I.

However I do think it's fair to say that Guevara and Pol Pot did not share ideologies.

No, not really, Che would have been more extreme than Fidel.

I'm sorry, how do you know this?

If you are not able to understand that based on Che's quotes, his actions then I think you need to get your ideas straight.

Maybe that's your problem, you're focusing on out-of-context quotes rather than actually reading his writings. I have a fairly complete collection of them if you'd care to point me to anything specific.

Oh, and Che didn't have any responsibility at all or hand in Cuba???

I never said that.

 

[Awesome!]

I'll buy that. I must admit my knowledge of Maoism is cursory at best so I'm happy to yield to someone with better understanding than I.

However I do think it's fair to say that Guevara and Pol Pot did not share ideologies.

I'm sorry, how do you know this?

Maybe that's your problem, you're focusing on out-of-context quotes rather than actually reading his writings. I have a fairly complete collection of them if you'd care to point me to anything specific.

I never said that.

I know it based on what all leaders do with unlimited power. I could see Che making the same mistakes as Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler etc.

Out of context? That just seems very ignorant. Che developed into a blood thirsty idiot. Any support to the contrary is very asinine.

O.k. well then what is Che responsible for in Cuba? And can you make the assumption with a straight face that Cuba would be any better under Che than under Fidel? If so, I would like to hear the reasons why?

I knew that the moment the great governing spirit strikes the blow to divide all humanity into just two opposing factions, I would be on the side of the common people.
As quoted in Becoming Che : Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America (2005) by Carlos "Calica" Ferrer, as translated by Sarah L. Smith (2006), p. 170
Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
Letter to his aunt Beatriz describing what he had seen while traveling through Guatemala (1953); as quoted in Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (1997) by Jon Lee Anderson ISBN 0802116000

I knew that the moment the great governing spirit strikes the blow to divide all humanity into just two opposing factions, I would be on the side of the common people.
As quoted in Becoming Che : Guevara's Second and Final Trip through Latin America (2005) by Carlos "Calica" Ferrer, as translated by Sarah L. Smith (2006), p. 170
Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.
Letter to his aunt Beatriz describing what he had seen while traveling through Guatemala (1953); as quoted in Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (1997) by Jon Lee Anderson ISBN 0802116000

 

[Tucker Case]

I guess so, but I don't recall millions starving or put in re-education camps during America's revolution

It's good that there is no need to recall those things because they are irrelevent to my point. :mrgreen:

The point is that violent revolution does, indeed, have it's place. To say otherwise is to reject the USA's legitimacy.

 

[Hoplite]

I know it based on what all leaders do with unlimited power. I could see Che making the same mistakes as Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler etc.

Considering Che never had unlimited power, you are talking out your ass and making generalizations that you cant support.

O.k. well then what is Che responsible for in Cuba?

Guevara was a column leader under Castro. As such he carried out the actions similar to what a company commander in today's military would.

And can you make the assumption with a straight face that Cuba would be any better under Che than under Fidel? If so, I would like to hear the reasons why?

I dont see why this speculation is relevant.


BTW, quote mining is not a valid tactic.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

No leader has unlimited power.

Oh, and Lenin never made any mistakes. He was perfect.

 

[Awesome!]

It's good that there is no need to recall those things because they are irrelevent to my point. :mrgreen:

The point is that violent revolution does, indeed, have it's place. To say otherwise is to reject the USA's legitimacy.

Your on a thread about Marxist idiots. What happens after the revolution is the main point, which our Marxist losers have done a terrible job with.

 

[Awesome!]

Considering Che never had unlimited power, you are talking out your ass and making generalizations that you cant support.


Guevara was a column leader under Castro. As such he carried out the actions similar to what a company commander in today's military would.

I dont see why this speculation is relevant.


BTW, quote mining is not a valid tactic.

No, we are talking about IF Che did. By his quotes, hasty decisions/failures, it's an easy assumption, and of course you don't see why this speculation is important. I have a lot of time because I know common sense usually prevails.

You can easily see what Che's intentions are by the historical data and quote mining is valid because they are Che's quotes which you should address since you are an expert on Che's words apparently???

 

[Khayembii Communique]

I don't think the poster that compares Che Guevara to Pol Pot should really be talking about either assumptions or about what is valid and what is not.

 

[Awesome!]

It's obvious that Che and Pol Pot were comparable with their Marxist influences, land reforms and the desire to stamp out capitalism, just like our 10 million club loser: Lenin.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

How about this for a comparison: both the US and the Khmer Rouge practiced waterboarding. That means that Bush/Obama and Pol Pot are similar, right? Right?!

I'm guessing you're one of those super conservative anti-commie types that doesn't really know anything at all about either Guevara or Pol Pot, so that wouldn't surprise me. You're a dying breed.

 

[Tucker Case]

Your on a thread about Marxist idiots. What happens after the revolution is the main point, which our Marxist losers have done a terrible job with.

Perhaps, but you made a general comment about talking about violent revolution having it's place. I felt it necessary to point out that not believing that violent revolution has it's place is a downright unAmerican position to have.

 

[Hoplite]

No, we are talking about IF Che did.

Except that he didn't, so this kind of speculation is completely irrelevant and pointless.

By his quotes

You mean the quotes that you selectively mined?

hasty decisions/failures

I'd hardly call his part in the Cuban revolution a failure.

it's an easy assumption, and of course you don't see why this speculation is important. I have a lot of time because I know common sense usually prevails.

Im sorry but for someone who relies on quote mining and speculation has no right to be talking about common sense.

You can easily see what Che's intentions are by the historical data

Such as?

and quote mining is valid

No, no it really isnt. It's the sign of a weak argument from someone who doesnt fully understand their own position.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

because they are Che's quotes which you should address since you are an expert on Che's words apparently???

What's to address? You're quote mining.

It's obvious that Che and Pol Pot were comparable with their Marxist influences, land reforms and the desire to stamp out capitalism, just like our 10 million club loser: Lenin.

Im sorry but that has to be the worst argument I've seen from you yet.

Can you demonstrate that the land reform policies that Guevara was charged with enacting on behalf of Castro (Guevara had his own ideas about land reform but the policies he enacted in Cuba were Castro's brainchild) were the same as Pol Pot's?

And if a desire to stamp out Capitalism qualifies someone for "being like Pol Pot", you'd have to put me and several million other Americans in that category as well.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

And if a desire to stamp out Capitalism qualifies someone for "being like Pol Pot", you'd have to put me and several million other Americans in that category as well.

You're never going to "stamp out capitalism."
Even if you eliminated all private businesses of voluntary exchange, you'd just create a humongous black market.

 

[Jetboogieman]

You're never going to "stamp out capitalism."
Even if you eliminated all private businesses of voluntary exchange, you'd just create a humongous black market.

Aye

123456

 

[Awesome!]

Except that he didn't, so this kind of speculation is completely irrelevant and pointless.


You mean the quotes that you selectively mined?


I'd hardly call his part in the Cuban revolution a failure.


Im sorry but for someone who relies on quote mining and speculation has no right to be talking about common sense.

Such as?


No, no it really isnt. It's the sign of a weak argument from someone who doesnt fully understand their own position.
Fallacy of quoting out of context - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What's to address? You're quote mining.

Im sorry but that has to be the worst argument I've seen from you yet.

Can you demonstrate that the land reform policies that Guevara was charged with enacting on behalf of Castro (Guevara had his own ideas about land reform but the policies he enacted in Cuba were Castro's brainchild) were the same as Pol Pot's?

And if a desire to stamp out Capitalism qualifies someone for "being like Pol Pot", you'd have to put me and several million other Americans in that category as well.

Yes, you and other Americans that want to stamp out capitalism are in the same category as Pol. Why not murder to acheive a collective utopia? That's what history has shown: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Pol. It hasn't been acheived any other way in a free society, so why skirt around your intentions on this forum. It's obvious a murderous revolution, sustained brutality and oppression are necessary components, or are you saying you are more intelligent than your heroes? Honesty, come on now...

 

[Awesome!]

Perhaps, but you made a general comment about talking about violent revolution having it's place. I felt it necessary to point out that not believing that violent revolution has it's place is a downright unAmerican position to have.

Violent revolution to acheive Marxist ends doesn't have it's place. It would be Un-American to support Marxist revolution unless you are an idealist.

 

[Awesome!]

How about this for a comparison: both the US and the Khmer Rouge practiced waterboarding. That means that Bush/Obama and Pol Pot are similar, right? Right?!

I'm guessing you're one of those super conservative anti-commie types that doesn't really know anything at all about either Guevara or Pol Pot, so that wouldn't surprise me. You're a dying breed.

Yes, super anti-commie type that is guessing that your one of those Marxist idealists that will never change always believing in your collective pipe dream no matter what history or present day collectives continue to say otherwise.

Pol used waterboarding to oppress his people. Bush used it to fight terrorists that threaten to oppress with their radical Islam. Method is very similar but ideology is completely different. Please advise this forum how well you would fair in Laos, N. Korea and Cuba criticizing their government if you were in those countries? Or if you were in Cambodia during Pol's regime or in Cuba criticizing Che's land reforms. Would you be applauded for your right to free speech or? You see, they are very similar in how they oppress people to support their similar collective ideology.

 

[Tucker Case]

Violent revolution to acheive Marxist ends doesn't have it's place.

I guess it depends on the person's point of view regarding Marxist ends.

Violent revolution has it's place. The debate then comes down to determining it's place. You claim that if Marxism is the end goal, there can be no place for violent revolution.

Many disagree. Let's discuss the reasons why you feel there is no place for it, and let's see where that discussion goes.

For the sake of argument, let's say I reject your opinion as unfounded. Not because I support Marxism, but instead because I do not think you are qualified to make such a decree. Perhaps you can present a logical argument in favor of the conclusion that can change my rejection to an acceptance.

It would be Un-American to support Marxist revolution unless you are an idealist.

You realize that the structure of this sentence is such that you are saying it is American to support Marxist revolution as long as you are an idealist, right?

The "unless" sets up an exception to the statement: "It would be Un-American to support Marxist revolution".

If there is an exception to that statement, the following statement would become true about the exception, "It would not be un-American to support Marxist revolution"

I think for one to be in favor of a Marxist revolution, they must also be in favor of the creation of a Stateless society, ultimately, and thus I would say that they would, by necessity, be opposed to the existence of the USA, but that this opposition would not be unique to the USA.

Thus, I would say that it is an un-American principle to have, but I don't think that it being un-American is contradictory in any way.

 

[Hoplite]

Yes, you and other Americans that want to stamp out capitalism are in the same category as Pol.

Im sorry but human speech lacks the words to describe how asinine this statement is.

Why not murder to acheive a collective utopia?

NO ONE here (to my knowledge) has advocated this. I certainly have not ever advocated it in my support of a Socialist society.

Dont slander

That's what history has shown: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Pol. It hasn't been acheived any other way in a free society, so why skirt around your intentions on this forum. It's obvious a murderous revolution, sustained brutality and oppression are necessary components, or are you saying you are more intelligent than your heroes? Honesty, come on now...

Over 90% of all rapists are men, should I call you a rapist? Because, hey, 90% of rapists are men?

I shouldnt have to explain to you why this is bad logic.

Violent revolution to acheive Marxist ends doesn't have it's place. It would be Un-American to support Marxist revolution unless you are an idealist.

Violent revolution DOES have it's place. Would you have asked the British colonists to try and settle things with Britain peacefully?

 

[Awesome!]

I guess it depends on the person's point of view regarding Marxist ends.

Violent revolution has it's place. The debate then comes down to determining it's place. You claim that if Marxism is the end goal, there can be no place for violent revolution.

Many disagree. Let's discuss the reasons why you feel there is no place for it, and let's see where that discussion goes.

For the sake of argument, let's say I reject your opinion as unfounded. Not because I support Marxism, but instead because I do not think you are qualified to make such a decree. Perhaps you can present a logical argument in favor of the conclusion that can change my rejection to an acceptance.





You realize that the structure of this sentence is such that you are saying it is American to support Marxist revolution as long as you are an idealist, right?

The "unless" sets up an exception to the statement: "It would be Un-American to support Marxist revolution".

If there is an exception to that statement, the following statement would become true about the exception, "It would not be un-American to support Marxist revolution"

I think for one to be in favor of a Marxist revolution, they must also be in favor of the creation of a Stateless society, ultimately, and thus I would say that they would, by necessity, be opposed to the existence of the USA, but that this opposition would not be unique to the USA.

Thus, I would say that it is an un-American principle to have, but I don't think that it being un-American is contradictory in any way.

Again, you have brought in a component to this debate that is comparing Marxist idiots, stating "it's an Un-American position to believe violent revolution doesn't have it's place"...It's a miniscule point or maybe even a strawman, with the major point being that the legacy of violent revolution with Marxist ends always fails.

So, yes. You can be an idealist in America blogging, holding signs on the street corner wearing Che shirts and espouse your Marxist beliefs, but to practice violent revolution in America with Marxist ends would essentially be Un-American.

I just want more honesty from Hop. and K.C. and why not because in America we can say what is on our mind because we have free speech. How many Americans would you need to kill to acheive your Marxist ends in America? Or could you do it without violent revolution? That should be what this debate should be about. When do you pick up your AK, or do you always have to pick up your AK to acheive Marxist ends? I would contend that you always have to point a gun to do it and would appreciate some candor from our Marxists on this forum???