She/her. 24

  • 0 Posts
  • 47 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 29th, 2022

help-circle
  • I would say you are probably correct. A lot of it is semantics - I think prior to the eighties you’re just more likely to run into phrases like “adherent to Mao Zedong Thought” rather than “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist”.

    Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's words on the matter

    “Our two Parties, two governments and two peoples have maintained a fundamentally identical, correct, Marxist-Leninist stand.”

    Speaking first, Hua Kuo-feng welcomed the Kampuchean comrades, calling their visit a “major event” in the relations between the two parties and countries. He said, “The Communist Party of Kampuchea, headed by comrade Pol Pot, is a staunch Marxist-Leninist Party.” He called the CPK “the force at the core leading the Kampuchean people in seizing victory in their revolution.”

    In warmly praising Mao Tsetung Thought, Pol Pot said, “Following Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Chairman Mao and his thought have triumphantly stood the test of successive revolutionary storms.” He said that Mao Tsetung Thought today illuminates the path of revolution for people all over the world.

    “More precisely,” Pol Pot said of Mao Tsetung Thought, “It is the most effective and sharp ideological and political weapon which infallibly guides our struggle to victory.”

    emphasis mine


    Undeniably, I would say, they were Maoist, but at the time ‘Maoism’ and ‘Marxism-Leninism’ were considered pretty much one and the same by “anti-revisionists” or those communists who split with the USSR after Khruschev’s coup d’etat. I’d say calling Pol Pot a ‘Maoist’ is a fair enough examination, it’s just that to him “Maoism” and “Marxism-Leninism” were synonymous. I’d maybe go so far as to call him a proto-MLM.

    source: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-3/cpml-pol-pot.htm




















  • Another thing, notice the reaction of Muslim countries to the actual genocide being perpetrated by Israel. They are firmly condemning it through all channels. In contrast, the policies of de-radicalization by the Chinese were unanimously well-received by Muslim countries.

    Very generous of you to assume that many of these folk believe Muslims and Arabs are human beings capable of forming their own opinions and international policy. The opinions of actual Muslims are similarly handwaved akin to any communist’s opinion.

    These states’ international defense of China’s de-radicalization program is stated to merely be because they are money-hungry opportunists, buddying up with China while ignoring a politically and economically inconvenient genocide. 🙄 How… adaptable this narrative is.

    The seemingly unending wave of videos of Uyghurs in China recording themselves in their homes and making it clear they are not undergoing genocide have to be ignored. In fact, they have to be deleted by the platforms hosting them. How utterly immune to facts this narrative is.

    If these countries care about Palestine, oh… I don’t know. Russia is making them care. Iran, maybe? Maybe North Korea or China are forcing these Muslims to hate Israel. Who else are we being directed to hate right now? Afghanistan? Just throw a dart at the “Axis of Evil” board and pick an “uncivilized” nation. It’s their fault. Why not?