...
Which side do you choose?
Leo Williams
Cameron Torres
Well, if you are a communist you can't really deny the achievements Pol Pot made for communism in Kampuchea. Abolition of money and commodity production is a thing. If they didn't get invaded, it would have been determined whether or not Kambodian socialism was utopian or scientific. Apperently Pol Pot wanted to built a new Kampuchea from scratch, as he saw the cities as unsalvagable. What most people fail to understand is that the Khmer Rouge failed in terms of their foreign policy, not their internal one. USA didn't actually support them but rather bombed the shit out of them until Vietnam invaded. And the stance of the Soviet-Indochina bloc shouldn't be taken seriously as this was revisionist central. Also, the horror stories about the Khmer Rouge are very likely to be exaggerated. It's a shame the Khmer Rouge gave up socialism after.
Jeremiah Fisher
LMAO DUDE A THIRD OF THE POPULATION JUST DISAPPEARED INTO THIN AIR, THE SKULL PYRAMIDS NEVER HAPPENED.
Dylan Ortiz
...
Isaiah Garcia
By the way, it seems you have read Das Kapital. Don't you know how counter-revolutionary that is ?
Adrian Carter
How what is? Specify.
Brandon Brown
Wew
Josiah Butler
Cambodia was funded by america because the people in charge at the time got it in their head that Vietnam would have annexed the rest of south east Asian and formed their own soviet union.
There is a ethnic compnoet to the "communism" that was practiced in cambodia that was super anti Vietnamese
Jason Hughes
reading. reading is counterrevolutionary.