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

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 deaths.

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

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 story.

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 estimate.

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 bombing.

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 up."

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 666isMONEY.com"
Subject: Re: Your Article About Chomsky
To: Cambodia at aol.com

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 666isMONEY.com 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

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 aol.com wrote:


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

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 http://www.plp.org/cd_sup/khmerrouge.html . 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

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 Fran�ois 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 power.

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-

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.

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.