Pol Pot...Hero or Menace?

[Khayembii Communique]

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.

Ah, so now you see the problem, then, with your ridiculous comparison.

Please advise this forum how well you would fair in Laos, N. Korea and Cuba criticizing their government if you were in those countries?

Considering that I'm not a citizen of any of those countries, I would probably get deported, which is pretty much the same as any other country, except North Korea of course at which point I'd get a visit from Bill.

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.

All states suppress dissent that is perceived as a threat to the current order.

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.

There is a huge difference between state and nationalism. Something being "American" or "unAmerican" is based on nationalism; being an internationalist is the antithesis of nationalism, and that is why it would be "unAmerican".

I just want more honesty from Hop. and K.C.

About what?

How many Americans would you need to kill to acheive your Marxist ends in America?

Who knows

Or could you do it without violent revolution?

Hopefully.

When do you pick up your AK

I wish I had an AK that would rock

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???

I would contend that all states require a monopoly on violence in order to maintain the conditions of their rule, and so to say that this is something exclusive to "Marxists" is just silly.

EDIT: Here's what Marx/Engels had to say on the issue of revolutionary violence:

Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words.

 

[Hoplite]

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.

Which is a rather irrelevant because no one can actually define what "unAmerican" is.

I just want more honesty from Hop. and K.C.

Trust me, you REALLY dont want to hear what I honestly think right now.

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???

You just said that the idea of a violent revolution was an irrelevant point.

Not that I think you're interested in hearing what I have to say, but I'm not a Marxist nor am I interested in a Marxist revolution in the US. I dont see a second revolution as necessary in an already democratic environment.

 

[Awesome!]

Which is a rather irrelevant because no one can actually define what "unAmerican" is.


Trust me, you REALLY dont want to hear what I honestly think right now.

You just said that the idea of a violent revolution was an irrelevant point.

Not that I think you're interested in hearing what I have to say, but I'm not a Marxist nor am I interested in a Marxist revolution in the US. I dont see a second revolution as necessary in an already democratic environment.

Wow, been away for awhile working in this unfair, brutal and unjust American society controlled by evil corporations. Have to brave traffic with these rich fat cats in their German engineered machinery and deal with this insulting sham, this sham wow capitalism day in and day out whether on the television with gecko's trying to sell me car insurance, or some other yahoo trying to insult my superior socialist mind. It's madness, pure madness and I don't wish this society on anyone. This unfair, unjust and brutal culture that can only be fixed by socialist reforms. Whew! O.k. got that off my chest.

Responding to your post, I think it's really clear what un-American is: Cuba (aka Un-American) What is unclear or maybe harder to define is why anyone would support a moron like Che. Or maybe I'm just being too harsh. We all like to have fantasies. Fine! Idealist Unite! Revolution in your minds!

And of course I'm interested in what you have to say. Some of your posts have some interesting points, but supporting Che is asinine.

 

[Awesome!]

Ah, so now you see the problem, then, with your ridiculous comparison.



Considering that I'm not a citizen of any of those countries, I would probably get deported, which is pretty much the same as any other country, except North Korea of course at which point I'd get a visit from Bill.



All states suppress dissent that is perceived as a threat to the current order.



There is a huge difference between state and nationalism. Something being "American" or "unAmerican" is based on nationalism; being an internationalist is the antithesis of nationalism, and that is why it would be "unAmerican".



About what?



Who knows



Hopefully.



I wish I had an AK that would rock



I would contend that all states require a monopoly on violence in order to maintain the conditions of their rule, and so to say that this is something exclusive to "Marxists" is just silly.

EDIT: Here's what Marx/Engels had to say on the issue of revolutionary violence:

No, same methods but different goals in mind. I guess you fail to see the difference of a gun used for terror and to stop terror?

All the more power to you to be a smart ass in America. Invite you to be one in Cuba. Probably the same results, I know. There couldn't possibly be anything different in Cuba or any other part in the world. It's all the same in your idealist mind...

Did Marx and Engels say that. Oh Giddy! Did those two pant****ters really say that! I'll tell you what, let me mooch off of my rich friends just like Marx, and I'll come up with some **** better than that about private property. I'll make Marx look like a no brain loser, or do I really need to do that?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Did you really just necro a two month old thread to respond with that worthless post?

 

[Hoplite]

Responding to your post, I think it's really clear what un-American is: Cuba (aka Un-American)

That's....actually about as clear as brick.

What is unclear or maybe harder to define is why anyone would support a moron like Che.

When you are able to lead a revolution against an oppressive dictatorship and WIN, I'll be more inclined to listen to your character assessments about him.

 

[Ned Racine]

According to one very recent biography of Mao - in late 1975 after Pol Pot took over Cambodia (and Mao was one year from death) Pol Pot went to Beijing/Peking to meet his presumed hero. Mao enthusiastically complimented him on establishing in only a few years of struggle an "absolute Slave society"

What Mao wanted but was unachievable due to China's immense size was a Worker ant system BUT with Modern technology . This of course is an impossibility , but he did try. The 1960's Cultural Revolution as he tried to leap backwards and turned on many of his Revolutinary fellows was such an effort. He feared the revisionism that occured in Russia after Stalin died.

It was the late 60's fear(and some level head talk from Chou En Lai) of a Soviet Nuclear First strike that made Mao at least consider an opening to the West. 3 years prior to this the Red Guards an wild and they WERE the Law.

 

[Awesome!]

Did you really just necro a two month old thread to respond with that worthless post?

Private property is the hammer that crushes collective harmony

 

[Awesome!]

That's....actually about as clear as brick.

When you are able to lead a revolution against an oppressive dictatorship and WIN, I'll be more inclined to listen to your character assessments about him.

When you are able to realize that winning against an oppressive dictatorship and creating an even more oppressive dictatorship and almost starting WW3 is nothing special, I will be more willing to discuss Che in a serious and constructive manner...

 

[Khayembii Communique]

And once you are able to realize how to construct an argument, I will be more willing to respond.