Devils slander Pol Pot
Pol Pot believed in eliminating money. Anyone who believes in eliminating money is slandered
and crucified. Noam Chomsky, a linguist and anarchist wrote a book about the lies about Pol
Pot entitled,
After the Cataclysm written in 1979. He has followed up with these two articles
from Zmag and a chapter in the
Chomsky Reader, 1983. The etymology of "Devil" is slander!
Noam Chomsky on Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.

The original claim that the Khmer Rouge had "boasted" of having killed 2 million people was by
Jean Lacouture in the New York Review, quickly taken up by Anthony Lewis and others.
Lacouture was reviewing a French book by Francois Ponchaud, a priest who had lived in
Cambodia. I was curious, obtained Ponchaud's book from a friend in France, and read it (it was
being widely quoted all over the place on the basis of L's review; I wouldn't be surprised if I
were the only person in the country who had actually seen it -- it had just appeared).

What Ponchaud actually wrote was that the US war had killed 800,000 people (which seems to
be a considerable exaggeration) and that according to the US Embassy, 1.2 million had died
since (that would be from April 75 through 1976 -- the statement was flatly denied by the
Embassy). Adding these two (incorrect) figures, we get two million. The boast comes free. A
few weeks later, in "corrections" (which I brought to his attention, privately), L. says that maybe
there were only thousands killed, but asks whether it really matters -- a position for which he
has won great acclaim. When Ed Herman and I responded to his challenge to me by saying
that we thought that a factor of 1000 did matter, that aroused huge outrage, which still
continues ("nit-picking," it's called on the left). Oddly, no one has taken the same view when we
said we thought it also mattered whether the US killed thousands or millions in, say, Operation
Speedy Express. In dealing with US atrocities, facts matter. For official enemies, anything goes.

Since that time figures of all sorts have been bandied about. In January 1979, the
Far Eastern
Economic Review
(the main business journal covering Asia, now part of the Dow Jones
system) claimed that the population of Cambodia had risen to 8.2 million under the Khmer
Rouge (that would be an increase of about 1 million). The next year they said it had fallen to 4
million. The actual figure, by census count, was about 6.7 million.

The CIA, in its demographic study in 1980, claims that Pol Pot killed 50-100,000 people and
attributes most deaths to the Vietnamese invasion, also denying flatly the atrocities of 1978,
which were by far the worst (that's the source of the famous piles of skulls, etc.; these became
known after the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, and were certainly known to the CIA).

Michael Vickery has written about the CIA study, suggesting that it was tailored to fit the fact
that the US was tacitly supporting Pol Pot in '78 and later.There's a careful analysis in Vickery's
"Cambodia." He's a very serious Cambodia scholar, and his analysis is taken seriously by other
reputable scholars (e.g., Australian scholar Robert Cribb, in his standard scholarly work on the
Indonesian massacres with comparative evidence). Vickery estimates about 700,000 deaths
"above the normal" in the Pol Pot years -- which, if accurate, would be about the same as
deaths during the US war (the first phase of the "Decade of Genocide," as 1969-79 is called by
the one independent government analysis, Finland). For that period, the CIA estimates 600,000

The Yale Genocide project (Ben Kiernan and others) gives higher estimates, about 1.5
million.In fact, no one knows. No one ever knows in such cases, within quite a broad range.
When numbers are put forth with any confidence, and without a big plus-or-minus, you can be
sure that there is an ideological agenda, in any such case. Demographic analyses are very
weak. If we wanted to be serious, we would also ask how many of the post-1975 deaths are
the result of the US war.

The predictions by US officials, doctors in Phnom Penh, and others were that there would be a
huge toll in the coming years; people were dying in Phnom Penh alone at 100,000 a year when
the KR took over (no one has a clue as to what was happening in the heavily bombed
countryside). The figure of 1 million potential deaths was reported by the highly respected
correspondent of the FEER, Nayan Chanda, attributed to a high US official.

But these are ideological footballs. Only a few of those who write about the topic are interested
in such boring things as truth -- as the original 2 million figure indicates.Incidentally, these
numbers are from memory. I've quoted them exactly in print, and could check if you like -- or
you could check originals. I think they are accurate, or close to.

Noam Chomsky: more on Atrocities in Cambodia

I didn't quite understand the first comment, which reads: "Quick response: Kiernan cites a
figure of 1.5 million. He criticizes Vickery's population figures as too low by about
700,000--which explains the difference between the two estimates."

Remember that the relation is reciprocal. Vickery criticizes Kiernan's figures as too high. And
there are various other differences in (highly uncertain) estimates. As I think I may have
mentioned, leading specialists go both ways: thus Robert Cribb, in the standard scholarly study
of Indonesian and comparative genocide, takes Vickery's figures.

It's true that the KR (not just Pol Pot, I believe) were rabidly racist, and had support for that.
There was an element of what Vickery calls "poor peasant chauvinism." How large an element
it was is another point of dispute. Vickery thinks a lot; Kiernan thinks less. Not easy to
determine. We can't answer questions like that easily even for far more familiar and intensively
studied societies: our own, for example.

On "casualities resulting directly and indirectly from the bombing of Cambodia," estimates are
even more uncertain than for the Pol Pot period. The topic isn't studied, for the obvious reason
(just ask who will be blamed). The Finnish government study "Decade of Genocide:
1969-1979," the only independent governmental study, recognizes that the "genocide" had two
phases, but devotes only a few pages to the first phase, because there is so little information.

US reporters on the scene (like Sydney Schanberg, called "the conscience of the press"
because of his dedication to exposing Pol Pot terror) literally refused to interview refugees
fleeing into Phnom Penh. That didn't require trekking into the jungle (which reporters were
happy to do to interview refugees who could expose Pol Pot terror): just crossing the street
from their hotel. Ed Herman and I documented this in detail in "Manufacturing Consent." It's
standard. I saw it myself, first-hand, in Laos in 1970. I happened to be there just when the CIA
mercenary army had drive a flood of refugees from the Plain of Jars to encampments about 20
miles out of the capital city, which was then hosting leading journalists from all over the world,
who flew in because of fraudulent US claims of a North Vietnamese invasion (everyone knew it
was a fraud, and there was much ridicule in the hotel bar where the journalists hung out, but
they reported it soberly). The Plain of Jars had been subjected to the most intense bombing in
history (later exceeded by US bombing in Cambodia); in fact, thousands of people are still
dying every year from unexploded "bomblets," mostly children and farmers, while the US
refuses to do anything about it and it isn't reported here though it is known -- another horror

To get back to the point, I spent maybe 20 hours during the few days I was in Vientiane
interviewing refugees to learn something about what had been going on in the Plain of Jars (I
was taken by a Lao-speaking US volunteer, Fred Branfman, who had been trying desperately
to get Western reporters to have a look at the facts, with no luck). Virtually no US reporters
wanted to find out; they preferred the 5PM handouts at the US Embassy, which all knew were
absurd. The story gets much worse. I wrote about it in "At War with Asia" (1970); Fred has a
much more detailed account in his "Voices from the Plain of Jars." There's more in my "For
Reasons of State" and later.

Same in Vietnam. Millions of people were fleeing into the slums of Saigon from US saturation
bombing of the densely-populated Meking Delta. How many interviews can you find?

Americans estimate the deaths in Indochina at about 100,000; journalists sometimes report that
figure too; official figures are over 3 million. If we discovered that ordinary Germans estimated
Holocaust deaths at a few hundred thousand, there would (properly) be an outcry. Have you
heard one here?

It's easy to continue. US crimes are off the agenda.

To get to your question (finally), the little evidence is something like this. The CIA (in its
postwar demographic study) estimates deaths in the first phase of the "decade of genocide" at
600,000 (of course, they don't regard the US as responsible). In 1975, just before the Khmer
Rouge takeover, Western doctors in Phnom Penh were estimating deaths at 8000 a month --
what was going on in the countryside, where the bombing was in progress, no one tried to

They also predicted that there would be a "lost generation," as a result of the horrendous
attack on the countryside. The only extensive study of this that I know is Gary Porter and
George Hildebrand's book, but since it is a heavily documented study of US atrocities, it is
undiscussable here. Progressives, like "Progressive" editor Matthew Rothschild, regard it as
outrageous even to say that the book is well-documented (though it transparently is); written in
1976, it is mostly devoted to US crimes, therefore even to cite it is criminal. We have to agree
that before the KR takeover, Cambodia was a "gentle land" of happy people: to question that is
another outrage, according to standard doctrine, going as far to the dissident side as
Rothschild and "In These Times."

To continue, high US officials cited by the highly-respected Asia correspondent of the
(eminently respectable) Far Eastern Economic Review predicted that 1 million would die as a
consequence of the US bombings. US aid officials leaving Phnom Penh when the KR took over
predicted that two years of "slave labor" would be necessary to overcome the effects of the

Whether these estimates are right or wrong, no one knows, and no one cares. There is a
doctrine to be established: we must focus solely on the (horrendous) crimes of Pol Pot, thus
providing a retrospective justification for (mostly unstudied) US crimes, and an ideological
basis for further "humanitarian intervention" in the future -- the Pol Pot atrocities were explicitly
used to justify US intervention in Central America in the '80s, leaving hundreds of thousands of
corpses and endless destruction.

In the interests of ideological reconstruction and laying the basis for future crimes, facts are
simply irrelevant, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is targeted by a virulent stream of
abuse. That runs pretty much across the spectrum, an instructive phenomenon. But one
consequence is that no one can give a serious answer to the question you raise, because it is
about US crimes.

Noam Chomsky
Pol Pot 'brother' denies genocide
6.23PM, Wed Jun 15 2005
In an exclusive interview with ITV News, a senior Khmer Rouge figure - Pol Pot's second in
command - has astonishingly denied Cambodia's killing fields ever happened.

Nuon Chea, the man the Khmer Rouge called "Brother Number Two", said of Cambodia's
notorious killing fields: "It didn't happen when we were in power. It could have just been made

And when asked if he accepted many Cambodians died as a result of Khmer Rouge policies,
he replied: "No."

Nuon Chea may deny any wrongdoing, but he is likely to be charged with crimes against
humanity when trials begin late this year or early next.

He said: "I want to go to court. I want to be allowed to speak for two or three days to explain the
policy, strategy and matters of the party."

The Khmer Rouge ruled Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. Even though they were only in
power for four years, Pol Pot's evil regime killed an estimated 1.7 million people.
Bruce Sharp Replies to Raquel Baranow
Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:55:57 -0800 (PST)
From: "Raquel at"
Subject: Re: Your Article About Chomsky
To: Cambodia at

Dear Bruce Sharp, (Sharp lives in Cambodia and hates Pol Pot.)

On "Dateline NBC" this evening there was a segment on child prostitution in Cambodia -- I
thought of you again.

Do you still believe Cambodia is better off today than they were under Pol Pot on December
24, 1978?

Peace & Love,

Raquel at wrote: (This is a response to a prior message I sent Bruce,
which I lost)

Dear Bruce,

Excuse me, but there are many people in America, judges, lawyers, professors, politicians that
would probably be killed in a revolution/civil war. I wouldn't do it but I have been fucked over by
arrogant crooked judges and lied to by all the others. I have no idea who your relatives are.
Did they deserve to die? I'm not sure anyone "deserves" to die. But it happens.

Apparently you're a westerner. My understanding of eastern warfare is "take no prisoners", this
includes the warrior's family. War is ugly, witness atrocities committed by US troops in Vietnam.

I know how governments lie and slander the truth: they did it to Libya's populist leader,
Muammar Gadhafi and Cuba's Fidel Castro, who believe in eliminating money.

I've seen "survivors"/refugees from Cambodia being interviewed on TV and read their atrocity
stories and quite frankly don't believe them. One documentary I saw showed people
worshipping at Pol Pot's grave. The same documentary interviewed one of the alleged
murderers and I could see he was as innocent as my high school buddies who went to
Vietnam. When I was in Thailand, the Bangkok Post had a color photo of a military burial for
Pol Pot's wife. If Pol Pot was so bad, why do they honor his wife, why did his wife honor him,
why are people honoring his grave, why are Pol Pot's henchmen still living in the communities?!

God will judge the slanderers and murderers.

If Pol Pot was so evil: how did he win the revolution? How he find so many followers? I never
believed the lies about Hitler either and I've confronted Holocaust "survivors" face-to-face and
there's no denying they suffered in concentration camps but the 6,000,000 and gas chambers
is atrocity propaganda:

It was a war. People die in war. Did Pol Pot make mistakes? Yes. I read he could have
accepted outside aid and saved lives. He had a vision of eliminating money, which I believe in
and he never had a chance to show it to the world: Vietnam conveniently invaded. Had that not
happened maybe tourists and the journalists could have documented the truth. I'm not a
forensic anthropologist but like any murder -- 20 years after the fact -- it may be hard to prove
the facts.
All I read about Cambodia today is prostitution, drugs, corruption, children begging etc. It's hard
to believe the vast majority of Cambodians are better off now than they would have been if
Vietnam did not invade.

It sounds like you're the kind of irrational, obstinate, emotional person who would kill me
because of my beliefs.

Best wishes, Peace & Love,

Cambodia at wrote:


Generally I try to be diplomatic when people make uniformed comments about Cambodian

To be very blunt, I cannot do that right now. I live with a woman whose family was destroyed
by the Khmer Rouge: more than 20 of her relatives died during Pol Pot's reign. Her father and
brother were both murdered by the communists.

You obviously know nothing about Cambodia, and apparently have no particular interest in
learning. Have you ever met even one Khmer person? Have you ever had one, single, solitary
conversation with a survivor of that regime?

There is no excuse for the ignorance you are displaying. If you want to believe that money is
the primary source of evil in the world, I couldn't care less. I have no interest in debating such a
question. Let's assume for a moment that money is bad. Does it follow that someone who
wants to abolish money must, therefore, be good? Think of it this way: if red cars are bad,
does it follow that black cars are good? Human beings do horrible things to each other for
many different reasons: sometimes it is because of greed, sometimes it is because of lust for
power, sometimes it is because of sheer and simple sadism.

Go ahead and make whatever arguments you want to make about money. Do not, however,
make the argument that Pol Pot was good. It is disgraceful. If you feel you simply must argue
that Pol Pot was good, have the decency to limit your conversations to people who've never
set foot in Cambodia. At this very moment, I am looking at a photo of my wife's father, a man
who died at the hands of the murderers you are defending, and I cannot begin to tell you how
angry I feel.

(NOTE: This was formerly at . It's not there any
longer. If it is replaced, I'll be glad to delete this page. - GF 04.11)

Who Is and Was Really Responsible for Genocide in Cambodia?

Pol Pot Was Not and Is Not A Communist

(originally published in Challenge-Desafio, PL Magazine Supplement, February 19, 1986)

Apologists for capitalism are always inventing lies to "prove" how terrible communism is. In
recent years one of their favorite tales concerns the mass killings in Cambodia by the
supposedly "communist" Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot. Lots of articles, a couple of books and at
least one major movie, "The Killing Fields," have focused on the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Pol
Pot has almost replaced Joseph Stalin as number one on the capitalists' all-time hate list.

But there's a big difference. Comrade Stalin was a great communist. Pol Pot, however, never
was one. Some recent books, written by Western experts on Cambodia and using evidence
obtained after the fall of Pol Pot, show this clearly. These books must be used with care; the
authors are either pro-Vietnamese revisionists (Vickery, Chandler, Thion) or liberal imperialists
(Shawcross). It's the facts they have uncovered that are valuable, not their own opinions and
analyses of these facts, which are ruined by their anti-Communist values.

"Khmer Rouge" (KR), or "Red Khmers" (Khmer is the major ethnic group of Cambodia) was the
name given to the peasant rebels under the leadership of the Communist Party of Kampuchea
(native name of Cambodia), or CPK. In order to see how the CPK turned into a bunch of anti-
Communist murderers, a little history is essential.

History of the Cambodian Left

In 1951 the old Indochina Communist Party (ICP), dominated by Ho Chi Minh and the
Vietnamese, split into Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian groups. Like the world-wide
communist movement as a whole by that time, these groups were rotten with nationalism and
eager to compromise with "progressive" (anti-colonialist) capitalists.

In the mid-50s, the old ICPers were joined by a number of militant nationalist students returning
from France, including the future KR rulers Pol Pot (real name: Saloth Sar), Ieng Sary, and
Khieu Samphan. A party, the CPK, was formed by these two groups in 1960, but its existence
was kept secret until 1977, long after it seized power. Apparently this was an unprincipled
concession to the anti-communism of the nationalist ex-students. When anti-communism is not
fought it grows, as we shall see.

Repression by the monarchist government under Prince Sihanouk soon forced the party
underground. Most of the communists of the former ICP abandoned the struggle, returning to
North Vietnam. Only the nationalist Pol Pot group remained.

When a peasant revolt began in 1967 in the Samlaut region near the border with Thailand, the
Pol Pot group joined it. Never communists in anything but name, they assumed a line they
thought they could easily win some peasants to - that the cities (home of the absentee landlords
and exploitative state which taxed the peasants) and everyone in them were the enemy,
including professionals, teachers and workers.

Romantic attachments to the peasantry as a class have long been characteristic of bourgeois
radicals. In Russia, Lenin's earliest polemic (1895) was directed against the Narodniki, or
"Friends of the People." The petty-bourgeois Narodniki too preached a peasant communalism in
words, but practiced bloody terrorism. Vickery finds another close similarity between the KR and
the 'Antonov' and Tambov peasant rebels in Western Russia during the Civil War, who fought
communists and monarchists with equal vigor and with hair-raising atrocities.

To this peasant dislike of the cities Pol Pot's faction added a fierce hatred, amounting to racism,
for anything Vietnamese. Hatred of Vietnam is a nationalist view developed by the Cambodian
elite, who remembered the conflicts in past centuries between Vietnamese and Cambodian
kings, and how the Vietnamese rulers had driven the Cambodians out of what is now the
Mekong delta region of Vietnam.

In 1970 the military under Lon Nol, backed by the United States, overthrew Sihanouk. U.S.
rulers began huge bomb strikes against North Vietnamese troops and supply lines in Northeast
Cambodia. The bombing killed many thousands of peasants and virtually destroyed village life.

As hatred of the U.S. and the Lon Nol government grew, peasants flooded to join the KR army.
But on returning from North Vietnam to join the movement, the old ICPers found themselves
under suspicion, sometimes even killed by the Pol Pot group. Thus the CPK, which took power
in April, 1975, was a tense alliance of two distinct groups. The pro-Vietnamese ICPers and the
Pol Pot faction had distinct areas of influence, the former being more influential in the East (near
Vietnam). Their soldiers even wore different uniforms.

The Mass Killings Begin

Although anti-Communist hacks portray the evacuation of the cities in April 1975 as an atrocity,
even capitalist scholars tacitly admit it was necessary (e.g. Zasloff and Brown, in Problems of
Communism, Jan.-Feb. 1979, p. 34 -- a journal published by the U.S. State Department and
devoted to anti-Communist propaganda with a "scholarly" slant). For example, the capital,
Phnom Penh, had grown to 2 million from about 600,000 from peasants fleeing the U.S.
bombings. As in South Vietnam, the U.S. had completely destroyed the peasant economy in
order to wipe out the village society in which the KR flourished. Phnom Penh was provisioned
only by massive imports of U.S. food, which stopped abruptly when Lon Nol fell. If the city
population hadn't been evacuated, they'd have simply starved to death!

Between 1975 and early 1977 neither group within the CPK really dominated. Anti-Communist
"experts" like John Barron and Anthony Paul (authors of Murder of a Gentle Land - this pair are
full-time anti-Communist propagandists for the Reader's Digest) and Francois Ponchaud
(Cambodia Year Zero) give the impression that massacres took place throughout the whole
1975-79 period. From surviving records and from hundreds of interviews of refugees and of
those who remained in the country, Michael Vickery reveals a different pattern. Though there
were occasional instances of brutality against former city-dwellers in areas held by Pol Pot
supporters, mass executions didn't begin until 1977, when the Pol Pot group consolidated its

A blood purge of all those suspected of being pro-Vietnamese or insufficiently "pro-peasant"
began. In 1978 the remaining pro-Vietnamese forces in the CPK led a revolt, which was brutally
crushed. The Pol Pot government then slaughtered anyone who had supported this group, plus
the many ethnic Vietnamese in Eastern Cambodia. This led to the Vietnamese invasion of 1979.

The KR had no support except its army, and the Vietnamese easily set up a puppet regime of
the defeated ICP faction, which rules Kampuchea today.

U.S. Rulers Murdered More Cambodians than did Khmer Rouge

How many people were killed during these mass murders? The U.S. media, following Dith Pran
of The New York Times (on whom the movie "The Killing Fields" was based), claim about three
million. When talking about "communists," no figure under the million mark will satisfy capitalist
writers. Vickery shows that 300,000 -- still an appalling figure -- is about the upper possible limit.

In contrast, Zasloff and Brown write of the "heavy toll in lives" which "the enormous U.S.
bombing and the intensity of the fighting" caused before 1975, and imply that the KR claims of
600,000 to "more than 1 million" dead from US bombing are credible [Problems of Communism
Jan-Feb 1979, p. 40 col. 2 & note 35]. When it comes to genocide, Pol Pot & Co. were amateurs
compared to the U.S. imperialists.

The Anti-Communism of the Pol Pot Regime

Whatever the number, though, these killings were not the work of "communists" of any kind,
even of Soviet or Chinese-style revisionists but of anti-Communists.

Not every group which calls itself "communist" is so. For example, the Vietnamese, Soviet,
Chinese and other relics of the old communist movement are capitalists in a thin disguise. They
give only lip service to Marxism-Leninism, the working class, proletarian internationalism, and
the need to build a classless society.

In contrast, Pol Pot, the KR, and the CPK openly rejected the idea of communism itself! A few
quotations from Vickery and Chandler illustrate this:

    On communism: "We are not communists ... we are revolutionaries" who do not 'belong to
    the commonly accepted grouping of communist Indochina." (Ieng Sary, 1977, quoted by
    Vickery, p. 288).

On Marxism-Leninism: "The first public admission that the 'revolutionary organization' was
Marxist-Leninist in its orientation came in the memorial services for Mao Zedong held in Phnom
Penh on 18 Sept., 1976" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 55, note 28).:

    "They [Kampuchean spokesmen] claim that the CPK is a Marxist-Leninist Party, but say
    nothing about the writings of these two men." (Chandler, p. 45)

On the need for a revolutionary party: "The most striking feature of the idea of revolution
entertained by the Khmer Communists... was that it was unexpressed. In the 1960s, opposition
to government policies and calls for an anti-imperialist stand, made up the platform of the left
wing ... In fact, revolution and the existence of a revolutionary party were not only played down
in propaganda, they were completely hidden truths, revealed only to the enlightened few who
could achieve senior positions in the apparatus [i.e. mainly the ex-student radicals]. (Thion, in
Chandler ed., p. 16, emphasis added).

It was not until September 27, 1977 that the existence of a "communist party" was even publicly
revealed, in a Pol Pot speech (Chandler, p. 37).

On the working class: "Though tiny, it [the Cambodian working class] existed, scattered in the
towns. But instead of cultivating it, the Khmer Communists proceeded to liquidate it as if it were
a decadent legacy of the past...(Thion, p. 27-8).

From all this we can conclude the following:

  • Pol Pot & Co. were not communists. In this sense they are no different from the Soviets,
    Vietnamese, Chinese, or Ronald Reagan, or any capitalist.
  • Unlike the Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese and other revisionist, phony communists, Pol Pot
    & Co. boasted that they were not communists.
  • The influence of a pro-Vietnamese faction meant that some Marxist terminology was used,
    at least up to 1977. After that time the KR abandoned any talk of communism.

The Pol Pot group also sometimes described themselves as communists between 1975 and
1977 in an attempt to get help from China. For example:

...Pol Pot's tribute to the crucial role played by Mao Zedong's thought in the Cambodian
revolution, contained in a speech in Beijing on 29 September 1977, was not re-broadcast over
Phnom Penh radio" (Chandler, in Chandler, ed., p. 45).

Mao and the Chinese Communist party had won millions of peasants to a communist, pro-
working class line, whereas the Pol Pot group had tried to win the peasantry to an anti-working
class, anarchist line. What China -- and, equally important, the U.S. -- like about Pol Pot & Co.
is their genuine hostility to Vietnam, not their phony praises to Mao.

Khmer Rouge Anti-Communists Propped Up By U.S. Today

In order to weaken pro-Soviet Vietnam, the U.S. ruling class now supports a coalition of
Cambodian rebel forces, of which Pol Pot's KR are by far the strongest element. It is only a mild
embarrassment to the U.S. bosses that the group they are now keeping afloat is the very one
they point to as guilty of "communist" genocide! In turn, the KR call for "democratic elections"
and a reformed capitalism.

For the world's workers, the lessons of the Pol Pot experience are clear:

There is no substitute for communism in the fight against imperialism and capitalism. The KR
tried to build a "new kind" of revolution based upon petit-bourgeois radicalism. Instead, they
plunged Kampuchea into a nightmare.

You can't believe anything the U.S. media or ruling class say about communism! The capitalists
care nothing for the hundreds of thousands who were murdered. If they did, why do they
continue to support Pol Pot?

In December 1981, The New York Times Magazine published a story in which the author said
he'd visited KR "freedom fighters" leading the war of independence against the Vietnamese
occupiers. Jones, the author of the story, claimed to have seen Pol Pot directing the struggle,
an heroic figure silhouetted against the sky.

The Times' editors thought it was so good they printed it without the checking-up they usually
give an article from an unknown writer. It turned out that Jones had made it all up while sitting
on a beach in Spain! The Times was so eager to believe a story that made the KR and Pol Pot
-- whom they were already calling a genocidal mass murderer -- into an anti-Communist hero
that they rushed it into print! Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the willingness of the
liberal ruling class to clasp to its bosom any fascist murderer who can help out in the fight
against communism.


David P. Chandler and Ben Kiernan, editors, Revolution and Its Aftermath in Kampuchea: Eight
Essays, New Haven, CT: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies Monograph No. 25, 1983.

Michael Vickery, Cambodia: 1975-1982. Boston: South End Press, 1984.
Found the article below and thought it was good.