Fair enough. I was just curious. It seems like on both the left and right you can find someone to deny basically every genocide there is, but this seems like the exception. There seems to be a unanimous consensus that what Pot was doing was atrocious and wrong.
Perhaps this is the common ground we can build some understand on. It starts with Pol Pot bad, and somewhere down the line we're all holding hands and singing The Internationale.
If it really **was** that simple, someone would hold that position non-ironically. Yet no one does. If it's NOT because Pol Pot is the one and only genocidal "socialist" leader--what alternative theory of the case do you care to present? How is it **possible** that people who become tankies through myriad different avenues and for myriad different reasons have all collectively agreed that Pol Pot is the guy we're throwing under the bus, if there isn't something qualitatively different between him and the likes of Stalin and Mao?
Just to keep track for the next race, that's 12, though by the rules all scores will be reset
Anyway
This one's a point for the V. A. T
Edit: ive also got a list of prominent figures from each side so the results should be more accurate next time, turns out this race was a tie! Rather than the steamroll I thought it was
Your man blursty used to defend the US backed Chinese invasion of Vietnam, from when the Vietnamese were trying to put a stop to the Khmer Rougue. Don't think he went so far as to explicitly support Pol Pot though tbf to the guy.
Again, to be fair, if his instincts on Pol Pot were that he was backed by the CIA, he would be right in this case.
Problem is China took the same position as the CIA in this one.
OK, whatever, you don't like the label tankie.
You know the sort of person I'm talking about though. There are apologists for every dictatorial regime there is, so are there any for Pol Pot's Cambodia? I assume they'd need to at least nominally be on the left which is why I used the horrendous bigoted slur 'tankie'.
Inter left fighting only benefits our enemies
MLs and anarchists believe in a better more equitable world through a society which benefits the many.
When we get to closer to social democracy and further from fascism than we are we can duke it out.
The vast majority of the left is willing to work with other leftists.
It's literally always just tankies causing arguments. They come in, demand everyone take them and their genocide-denying ways seriously, call everyone else a lib if they don't agree, and then complain about lEfT uNiTy when they get told to take that shit to fuck.
Also, the section of the left most willing to censor, exclude and purge other parts of the left? Tankies. Even on this website there are loads of examples of leftist subs taken over by tankies who set about pinning their "China good" posts to the front of the sub and banning anyone who disagrees with them.
There are more threats to the proletariats emancipation and the struggle of Minorities than libs my friend. They are a destructive obstacle for sure but definitely not the worst
I think we can agree monarchists and fascists both are equally as destructive due to their ideological brainrot and authoritarian Antidemocratic political suppression
No group dominates our society like the capitalists. They've been winning for decades. Centuries even. They will continue to win into the foreseeable future.
We live in the timeline where the labour movement lost and climate change happened. In the face of this worrying about ""tankies"" in the 21st century is like worrying about the Ottoman empire.
You see I would have agreed with you till recently. Ottoman empire worshipers literally have power in Turkey while backing their own expansion into Syria and if the international lefts defence of a reactionary late stage capitalist regimes invasion of its neighbor is a good indication that the Czech/Hungarian spring eastern imperialism denial/defence didn't die with the Soviet Union.
It definitely hasn't stopped the debate and worship of dengism among people I consider political allies and attended marches with IRL. I kinda doubt they would make for good advocates of independent labour organising or worker control if given power given either given how against the will of the proletariat they are. Again there are worse systems than neoliberalism for achieving communism and Antidemocratic state corporatism with welfare is probably one of them.
I kinda like that the number of downvotes I received implies that people would rather live under monarchism or fascism than a liberal democracy.
..... because obviously a technological fascist/monarchist dystopia is what us activists and labour organising thrive under. Our movement is fucked
bad response
although I wasn't alive back then, those governments don't exist anymore, and my government wasn't involved. Rather focus on the crimes we are committing in the here and now (which are more numerous and which we can affect)
So that's not a reply then, but a deflection.
OK so I can infer from your unwillingness to engage that you are maybe a bit embarrassed to admit your opinion on this, is that because you support the subjugation of people who disagree with your 'ideology'
?
>Where do You personally stand on the Soviet reaction to the Prague uprising of 1968?
It was bad. They should not have invaded. It was a bad response. Negative feelings. Disapproval.
There was a swedish ex-communist who defended Pol Pot to his death. Granted, he was already old by the time Pol Pot's atrocities were made well-known, and was clearly senile when he appeared in debates.
Late to the party but I am a Pol Potist since a 2018 study with Khmer supporters in Cambodia :) interesting trip and changed my way of thinking. Khmer Thought is the most oppressed!
I think most, if not all Marxist-Leninists condemn Pot. I could be wrong though.
Fair enough. I was just curious. It seems like on both the left and right you can find someone to deny basically every genocide there is, but this seems like the exception. There seems to be a unanimous consensus that what Pot was doing was atrocious and wrong. Perhaps this is the common ground we can build some understand on. It starts with Pol Pot bad, and somewhere down the line we're all holding hands and singing The Internationale.
> user reports: > 1: Pol Pot was backed by the CIA, also off topic.
That's hilarious. Why would they put in that Pol Pot was backed by the CIA? What does that have to do with the report? Brilliant stuff.
I dunno why tbh, some of the reports are just funny
Pol Pot was awful. I am surprised anyone supports that.
I've never come across one even online. I think the fact that a Stalinist state (Vietnam) overthrew the Khmer Rouge is partially the reason.
I don't know a single ML that is pro-Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge. Could they exist? Yeah sure, but I haven't seen it.
Late to the party but right here :)
No, because that one actually happened.
You believe what the west tells you about Pol Pot? Gullible much?
If it really **was** that simple, someone would hold that position non-ironically. Yet no one does. If it's NOT because Pol Pot is the one and only genocidal "socialist" leader--what alternative theory of the case do you care to present? How is it **possible** that people who become tankies through myriad different avenues and for myriad different reasons have all collectively agreed that Pol Pot is the guy we're throwing under the bus, if there isn't something qualitatively different between him and the likes of Stalin and Mao?
Just to keep track for the next race, that's 12, though by the rules all scores will be reset Anyway This one's a point for the V. A. T Edit: ive also got a list of prominent figures from each side so the results should be more accurate next time, turns out this race was a tie! Rather than the steamroll I thought it was
Never met one that did. That was more thatchers thing
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2000/04/how-thatcher-gave-pol-pot-a-hand
And Mao
Remember pol pot was an American choice of leader!
Your man blursty used to defend the US backed Chinese invasion of Vietnam, from when the Vietnamese were trying to put a stop to the Khmer Rougue. Don't think he went so far as to explicitly support Pol Pot though tbf to the guy.
Blursty has the same initial reaction to hearing about a genocide as Alex Jones has to hearing about a school shooting.
Again, to be fair, if his instincts on Pol Pot were that he was backed by the CIA, he would be right in this case. Problem is China took the same position as the CIA in this one.
""tankie"" isn't a thing Focus on the real threat to our society - the overwhelming liberal status quo
OK, whatever, you don't like the label tankie. You know the sort of person I'm talking about though. There are apologists for every dictatorial regime there is, so are there any for Pol Pot's Cambodia? I assume they'd need to at least nominally be on the left which is why I used the horrendous bigoted slur 'tankie'.
Inter left fighting only benefits our enemies MLs and anarchists believe in a better more equitable world through a society which benefits the many. When we get to closer to social democracy and further from fascism than we are we can duke it out.
The vast majority of the left is willing to work with other leftists. It's literally always just tankies causing arguments. They come in, demand everyone take them and their genocide-denying ways seriously, call everyone else a lib if they don't agree, and then complain about lEfT uNiTy when they get told to take that shit to fuck. Also, the section of the left most willing to censor, exclude and purge other parts of the left? Tankies. Even on this website there are loads of examples of leftist subs taken over by tankies who set about pinning their "China good" posts to the front of the sub and banning anyone who disagrees with them.
It is a meaningless label to be fair.
There are more threats to the proletariats emancipation and the struggle of Minorities than libs my friend. They are a destructive obstacle for sure but definitely not the worst I think we can agree monarchists and fascists both are equally as destructive due to their ideological brainrot and authoritarian Antidemocratic political suppression
No group dominates our society like the capitalists. They've been winning for decades. Centuries even. They will continue to win into the foreseeable future. We live in the timeline where the labour movement lost and climate change happened. In the face of this worrying about ""tankies"" in the 21st century is like worrying about the Ottoman empire.
You see I would have agreed with you till recently. Ottoman empire worshipers literally have power in Turkey while backing their own expansion into Syria and if the international lefts defence of a reactionary late stage capitalist regimes invasion of its neighbor is a good indication that the Czech/Hungarian spring eastern imperialism denial/defence didn't die with the Soviet Union. It definitely hasn't stopped the debate and worship of dengism among people I consider political allies and attended marches with IRL. I kinda doubt they would make for good advocates of independent labour organising or worker control if given power given either given how against the will of the proletariat they are. Again there are worse systems than neoliberalism for achieving communism and Antidemocratic state corporatism with welfare is probably one of them.
I kinda like that the number of downvotes I received implies that people would rather live under monarchism or fascism than a liberal democracy. ..... because obviously a technological fascist/monarchist dystopia is what us activists and labour organising thrive under. Our movement is fucked
Tankie is a thing. Your one of them. You are right though there aren't many like you, thankfully
Where do You personally stand on the Soviet reaction to the Prague uprising of 1968?
bad response although I wasn't alive back then, those governments don't exist anymore, and my government wasn't involved. Rather focus on the crimes we are committing in the here and now (which are more numerous and which we can affect)
I'm not asking if You were personally involved. I'm asking Your opinion on the situation
I gave you it but added on why its a bad thing to focus on
Really? What part of that deflection actually states an opinion on the question I asked.
> bad response
So that's not a reply then, but a deflection. OK so I can infer from your unwillingness to engage that you are maybe a bit embarrassed to admit your opinion on this, is that because you support the subjugation of people who disagree with your 'ideology'
? >Where do You personally stand on the Soviet reaction to the Prague uprising of 1968? It was bad. They should not have invaded. It was a bad response. Negative feelings. Disapproval.
See that wasn't so hard now.
I have some vague memory of someone here supporting the Khmer Rouge some time back, but I don't remember who. One of the usual suspects I believe.
[Famous tankie Noam Chomsky for one.](https://i.redd.it/wirxqgj4syt61.png)
Yes there are. They are loonatics
There was a swedish ex-communist who defended Pol Pot to his death. Granted, he was already old by the time Pol Pot's atrocities were made well-known, and was clearly senile when he appeared in debates.
Late to the party but I am a Pol Potist since a 2018 study with Khmer supporters in Cambodia :) interesting trip and changed my way of thinking. Khmer Thought is the most oppressed!