/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Yes

Siahonuk was probably the best choice but he was overthrown with US support and then he ended up allying with the Khmer Rouge anyways. Everyone fucked up.

>>2829825
This. A non-aligned nationalist government was the least shit option.

>>2829822
>Given how reactionary Pol Pot was
YOU ARE SCUM OF THE EARTH FOR INSULTING THE SHINING RED SUN IN OUR HEARTS THAT IS COMRADE POL POT. THE BLINDING RED SUN THAT IS MARXISM-LENINISM-MAOISM WILL FOREVER SWALLOW YOU.

>>2829828
I'm nearly 100% sure you're trolling but I may as well say, regardless, that the Khmer Rouge were more Far-Right than Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in some respects.

>>2829823
>>2829825
>>2829827
Damn. Add this to the rather short list of "Times Libs were right and Marxists were wrong", right beneath WWII (Pre-Barbarossa).

>>2829841
The libs backed the Khmer Rouge after they won the Civil War though. They also overthrew Siahonuk and mercilessly bombed the country which allowed them to come to power in the first place.

>>2829843
I'm not in any way pinning the entire situation on Marxists (Not that the actual entities providing serious support to the Khmer Rouge were even actually "Marxist" LMFAO) but Marxists were undeniably in support of the Khmer Rouge during the Civil War. That obviously changed, but it also changed in WWII and it doesn't make us any less wrong during that span of time. If the US hadn't overthrown Siahonuk in 1970, would the Left even actually support the US-backed former Axis collaborator against a movement that vocally considered itself "Marxist"? Marxists, after all, supported the Khmer Rouge before the coup as well. Libs never supported them, even when the US began to covertly do so. We're right 99% of the time but is it that insane to say, on very rare occasions, the majority of the Marxist movement ends up getting outflanked by Libs?

>>2829862
>We're right 99% of the time but is it that insane to say, on very rare occasions, the majority of the Marxist movement ends up getting outflanked by Libs?
It happens, but only in very, very rare circumstances.

>>2829866
Beyond pre-Barbarossa WWII and the Cambodian Civil War, when else has this happened?

>>2829834
>that the Khmer Rouge were more Far-Right than Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in some respects
This is the same anti-communist lies that liberals paint Stalin and Mao or just communism in general as "communism killed 500,000,000,001 people compared to hitler acktually". Kys.

>>2829868
May 68. De Gaulle was the left wing leader fighting against the forces of the réaction, but we were too naive to see it.

>>2829862
>on very rare occasions
>the majority
???
>>2829926
the PCF was just unfortunately an URSS puppet with only people that didn't want to be responsible for any decision at the top (which is most leaderships in general)

>>2830001
"On rare occations the majority of marxists" So most marxists can make a mistake, but thats a very rare event.

I'm not really blaming the PCF for the mistakes there, but with hindsight, De Gaulle was a progressive leader with a planned dirigist economy and an independant foreign policy, May 68 broke this down and brought foward neoliberalism and alignement with the USA. PCF should have pushed de Gaulle to the left and empowered left wing gaullism.

>>2829890
IN SOME RESPECTS.
The Nazis were overall far worse than the Khmer Rouge and were obviously more Right-Wing than them. However, the Khmer Rouge's belief in deindustrialization placed them, on that specific issue, to the Right of the Nazis.
>>2830001
The majority OF THE MARXIST MOVEMENT.
>>2830006
Correct

>>2830772
>Pol Pot was le heckin primitivist
Another classic from the US propaganda machine.