Was Pol Pot anarcho-nihilist?

Was Pol Pot anarcho-nihilist?
His ideology seems to be closest to post-leftist form any analysis that I have read on him.

Other urls found in this thread:

oocities.org/groupstpp/
doorbraak.eu/gebladerte/30003v02.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4DWL3gQLI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I thought it was turbo-Maoist, i.e. "shit, the peasants are so revolutionary we don't even need a proletariat!"

n1x literally has a Pol Pot shrine that he prays to every morning.

All I know is he was right about everything especially murdering all the intellectuals. Fuck intellectuals, you will NEVER be truly apart of the proles and peasants.

I'd say he was sort of a mix of primitivism and turd position with maybe a bit of Mao. Like Mao meets Linkola.

This tbh. The only revolutionary who understood Marx.

Jokes aside, I really don't know enough about whatever ideas Pol Pot contributed to Marxist theory - if he contributed anything at all. I do know that he basically advocated killing off anyone who wasn't part of his youth program because he argued that people who had grown up in capitalist societies were irrevocably structured by bourgeois values and the logic of capital to ever be able to became class conscious.

I actually think there's something to be said about this. If you take consciousness to be an important part of a communist movement (I don't), then it's certainly arguable that there's no possible way for us to overcome our structuring through some sheer force of willpower (le spoogs xDD) or by formulating just the right Marxist or anarchist platform. There are no clear divisions between revolutionary and bourgeois values precisely because we haven't destroyed bourgeois values yet, and because it is the very nature of revolutions to not be conditioned by the past and therefore be lead by wholly original ideas. So in a way I'd say that Pol Pot was actually onto the right idea.

The thing about Pol Pot from what I know about him is that he certainly wasn't an anarchist because he used State violence to try to force negation. This isn't PURE negation though, because it's still preserving parts of the existent (the State) while negating others. Or in other words: I see no reason why Pol Pot would be so enlightened as to be qualified to lead everyone to communism with his programme and kill off anyone that he deemed to be beyond help. Seems to me like more consciousness-raising bullshit at the end of the day, except that he wanted especially loyal followers of his theory.

No jokes, Posadism is the closest that Marxism ever has come to nihilism, though it interestingly covers that up by displacing its nihilist tendencies onto New Age shit like ayylmaos to preserve the progressivism of dialectical materialism. Ironically, to the point that it unintentionally becomes a parody of the religious-like optimism of the Left.

oocities.org/groupstpp/

Brother Number 1, also known as Pol Pot, was born Saloth Sar in 1925.

He was great Khmer leader who developed new theories to bring about best world possible.

As Prime Minister of Kampuchea, he brought Year Zero, which take country on road to be perfect society.

In Year Zero Kampuchea was perfect equal. No more money or landlord. No more city snob. All work in fields so that all eat. No more family as imposed. New families put together by wise Angkor.

Many lies told about Brother Number 1 and Kampuchea. Biggest troubles came from CIA.

Brother Number 1 fought best for Kampuchea. Now is dark age country again with monarchy.

After certain year, barbarian invade and force Brother Number 1 group withdraw. Much had been done, but only begining. More was to be done. We study that now today so we can bring new Year Zero to all of world.

Brother Number 1 lead group to fight fake government. He belong to Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea as fight go. But he have disease (Hodgkin). Later he have stroke.

At one time he have to Son Sen who became traitor. For this other traitor force arrest him to house.

He die after from stroke.

Today he live on in heart of Kampuchea people and all of world people!

Älä puhu paskaa linkolasta.

Well, in fact, just perusing a bit over the concept of Year Zero: It actually sounds, superficially at least, exactly like what anarcho-nihilism advocates.

Like I said though: The means by which Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge sought pure negation of the existent seems to me like it had some contradictions with their theory. If they really wanted to do such a thing, they would have also had to abandon the State, and naturally they would have to view Marxism as a body of theory that belongs too much to its own time to be useful to nihilists other than as a (very excellent and important) analysis of capitalism.

I'll tell you what Pol Pot was.
He was on the CIA's payroll.

/thread

During the civil war in the mid 70's, Pol Pot found that villages and cities that the KR had 'liberated' would quickly set up black markets and conduct other activities that he considered counter-revolutionary. This frustrated him greatly and led to his policy of evacuation of population centers and ultimately to the genocides. It wasn't orthodox Marxism, but then no revolution has been.

No. I guess you don't understand what pol pot was, or anarchism.


Nothing, just like any other opportunist attempting to scavenge something from the remains of the early 20th century workers movement.

And Marx and Lenin were on the bankrolls of porkies. Your point?

hello reddit

The sheer amount of laziness in this bait is staggering.

wew

Hey if you don't want to question your reddit-tier assumptions I ain't gonna force you

Maybe if you tried to work the handful of brain cells you have to max capacity and expressed your thoughts in something other than memes, I might be able to respond with more than contempt for your 4chan Holla Forums-tier shitposting. kys fast m8

Your assumption that Pol Pot was necessarily not an anarchist because he didn't abolish the state is exemplary of the kind of ideology driven reasoning you find on reddit. It makes no difference to me how you respond because you clearly aren't capable of saying anything of value but you might want to think for yourself instead of getting all emotionally defensive.

...

He was the closest to achieving real communism and is a good man who we should learn from as he has shown us all that intellectuals are only good as useful idiots who deserve to be brutally murdered when revolution comes.

This is fucking pathetic. I'm legit annoyed at how stupid you are and I didn't think that, after the amount of time I've spent on imageboards, it was possible for my expectations to somehow be lowered any further.

gg

Why are you so desperate for (you)'s user-san? Are you feeling lonely?

Any examples from his theories or his actions that informed this opinion? A bit more context might be helpful

Tell me about your mother.

The Khmer Rouge ideology was a weird and somewhat paradoxical mix of revised Maoism, agrarian romanticism, anti-modernism, anti-intellectualism, palingenetic Khmer nationalism, technocratic planning and social Darwinism.

In the end, it does feel closer to Nazism than it is to Stalinism, let alone actual Marxism. It probably is the most bizarre incarnation of totalitarianism to ever exist.

1. If Engels is a porky, then top kek.
2. It's not entirely proven that Lenin got money from porkies. But even if, he proved to be independent from them by not paying back Czarist Russia's debts to the Entente, which prompted their intervention in the civil war. No such luck with Pol Pot.

Yes?

Dumb muh privileged bourgeois brat factory owner who misled the proletariat.

If it wasn't for Engels Marx probably would've starved to death. Even if he didn't, Capital would have never been published in any legible format.

So?

You make excuse for one porky and then suddenly you are slave.

Communism existed long before marx and engels did nothing excuse mislead and march the proletariat to their doom as a sick porky amusement.

and still marx died in poverty anyway

he was a fool trusting that porky and he only sold them out to capitalists

The Ankar was literally ethno-nationalists. They where as far away from a leftist movement as you can go: doorbraak.eu/gebladerte/30003v02.htm

he just did what the cia told him to do.

I don't see why you're so insistent on the idea that Marxism and nihilism are contradictory. I think you really mean your special snowflake "nothing really matters so we should do nothing" variant.

What WAS Year Zero, other than a "fresh start" and a genocide? How does this have to do with nihilism or post-left? I don't follow.

Shut your fucking mouth

That's precisely the opposite of my view. Nihilism refers to a specific body of politics that relates strongly to anarchism (and that has recently become more relevant to anarchists, who would then be considered anarcho-nihilists like myself).

The basic idea of political nihilism is that there cannot be any liberation from the totality until pure negation of the existent - bourgeois values and the apparatuses that reinforce them - has taken place. Nihilists refuse to posit what will happen "after the revolution" because they rejec the idea that we could ever possibly know anything about what the world will look like after a wholly original and fucking world-changing event like a revolution.

That's the main idea nihilism brings to the table in this context. It would be thought of in terms of active nihilism, the opposite of passive nihilism, which is what you were talking about.

It has nothing to do with either but can be fruitful to analyze from those perspectives, in my opinion.

The concept of Year Zero seems to me to contain a lot of the same ideas of post-left anarchy, primitivism, and especially nihilism. It carries the same concepts of rejecting the past and the various leftist theories and movements that normally condition future movements, rejecting civilization and returning back to a more primitive state, and ultimately of destroying everything to start over based on the assumption that we cannot escape our being structured by bourgeois values until we destroy them entirely.

But, nevertheless as others have argued, the reality was that Democratic Kampuchea was pretty much controlled by opportunistic authoritarians using Marxism as a rubber stamp of approval for what amounted to an extremely bizarre and brutal regime. I still think it's interesting that it demostrates some of the concepts that the post-left milieu talks about - and how dangerous they are, and how they can lead to horrible atrocities if you try to keep the State but destroy everything else ;^)

Hey there.

I too am interested in Pol Pot. Do you know of any good books on him?

Jan Myrdal has written a good book on the guy but it's yet to be translated.

youtube.com/watch?v=Xc4DWL3gQLI

this
white supremacists and their anarcho-nihilist fantasies
piff!

As you can see based on N1x's behavior: I am completely justified in talking shit about ircfags

So basically it was the ideology of r/anarchism, therefore Pol Pot was an anarchist. Got it.

Excuse me for confusing someone who disapproves of any and all existing attempts to attain communism (ultra leftcoms, usually) with someone who doesn't intend on doing anything at all.
And that's the problem, that position misses that the problems with anarchy go further than inside factors. There's outside factors too. Is this revolution in a country or worldwide? How would such a large endeavor (the latter) be supported? How are people all over the world going to get fed up with capitalism all at once? (That's the thing about capitalism, it regenerates.) If it's the former, how would you not get your ass kicked to the curb by your neighbors? Let's say you do have a worldwide and successful revolution- who's to stop capitalism from developing again? It stands to reason that we won't know what the world will look like, but there's a finite number of situations you will have the day after the revolution and none of them look good, completely apart from sociology and psychology.

Nihilists acknowledge, like you said, that modern humans are going to be a mess in anarchy and long for the gudoldaize. The only solutions to the fact that humans only know how to function in a state (Lord of the Flies, yadda yadda yadda, yet another book cited as why communism no werk) is to either fade the state out over the generations or go full Pol Pot and fucking kill everybody. A safe approach would include the leaders of the revolution.