Looks like the discussion has gone one for a long time so I'll just add my two cents in here.
First, any arguments on the line of "Country so-and-so did call themselves communist" is of no validity. Country names, party names, etc. can be changed for reasons of diplomacy so that the real ideologies are hidden. Vice versa, a country that has changed the directions of its policies may still retain the old name for pride, albeit vain pride.
Second, most posters of this thread were not aware, or at least they were not underlining the concept of communism as a state, versus actions towards becoming that state. Whereas Marx describes the state, he spoke much less of the processes by which mankind would obtain it. Where vague words like revolutions, uprisings were used, there was no real game plan to carry this out. He was a political scientist, not a politician.
The punch line of this is that any argument that says that Democratic Kampuchea was the purest form of communism is invalid if it judges the processes of obtaining this state rather the state itself.
Finally, let's talk about the actual differences between the state of existence of DK and the imagined communist Utopia.
Marx spoke of a very basic principle of communism in his manifesto, which is that people give of most of what they can, and receive the least of what they need. "Driving people into the country side"? There was no description of this in any Marx manuscripts, and it definitely violates the above principle to the core. Having a doctor plant crops out in the field is NOT giving the best he can.
Regarding private property, let me explain that their can never be society in which private property is entirely eliminated. This is not a problem with communism and its practices, but a problem of definition and logic. Granted that everything in a communist society is provided by the state, however at some point this public good must enter the private domain of its receivers in order for the system to make sense. One poster pointed out the in the USSR people were allowed to keep little snacks in the house. Well...wouldn't it be stupid if Dith Pran is told to spit out the food he eats and returns it to Angka when he's in the middle of chewing it? I would think so...because at this point the food has become Pran's private property. When and where exactly does this happen varies upon states. I would argue that a country where EVERYBODY is given one car per family, one vacation every 3 months, new house every 10 years, a choice between a free phD program and job security for 20 years, is as communistic as DK.
Regarding classlessness, DK was far from being classless. Judging from what one middle-ranking officer had for a house, a servant and supplies (who was shot at point-blank by another officer, which indicates that he's probably not very high up the ranks anyways), and comparing it to the everyday existence of people like Pran, I cannot be feel saddened for anybody who says DK was the closest we ever got to an egalitarian society.
Danorma
I'm devotion, not obsession.
reply
share
Mars_atax
15 years ago
"A country that has changed the directions of its policies may still retain the old name for pride, albeit vain pride."
True. China's ruling party still calls itself communist, but its actions are a mix of capitalism and fascism.
"Having a doctor plant crops out in the field is NOT giving the best he can."
The "best he can" is determined by the people, through their representative, Angka. The idea that an individual decides for himself what his best constitutes is a relic of individualism, which communists consider a bourgeois idea.
"There can never be society in which private property is entirely eliminated."
Democratic Kampuchea came the closest.
"Well...wouldn't it be stupid if Dith Pran is told to spit out the food he eats and returns it to Angka when he's in the middle of chewing it? I would think so...because at this point the food has become Pran's private property."
It would not be stupid. Angka could do it in order to educate - to demonstrate that there is no private property, and that one must spit out one's food if Angka orders it. Even if someone swallows food, it is still not private property - Angka could rip out the person's stomach.
"I would argue that a country where EVERYBODY is given one car per family, one vacation every 3 months, new house every 10 years, a choice between a free phD program and job security for 20 years, is as communistic as DK."
When you are dealing with commodities like that, your society must have currency, such as the ruble. Democratic Kampuchea had NO money. In fact, they had huge money bonfires.
"Regarding classlessness, DK was far from being classless. Judging from what one middle-ranking officer had for a house, a servant and supplies (who was shot at point-blank by another officer, which indicates that he's probably not very high up the ranks anyways), and comparing it to the everyday existence of people like Pran..."
There was some corruption. But based on the almost continuous purges, we can say that DK was constantly attempting to ideologically purify itself. Even Pol Pot himself did not make himself into a Big-Brother-like figure a la Stalin or Mao, but kept himself humbly anonymous. Most Cambodians didn't even know his name until after his regime fell.
reply
share
metsrus
15 years ago
"There was some corruption. But based on the almost continuous purges, we can say that DK was constantly attempting to ideologically purify itself. Even Pol Pot himself did not make himself into a Big-Brother-like figure a la Stalin or Mao, but kept himself humbly anonymous. Most Cambodians didn't even know his name until after his regime fell."
absolute power corrupts absolutely. the problem with all communist regimes is that once the vanguard party or the head of the revolution are in power, they will not give up that power easily. that smooth transition never occurs and a totalitarian state emerges instead of the final phase of communism. therefore DK was never any closer to pure communism than any oppressive totalitarian regimes that consider themselves communism.
reply
share