Pol Pot and Equality

 True Equality

When arguing with Marxists, typically someone arguing on the side of capitalism will say something to the effect of "If communism worked, why did the Soviet Union collapse?"  Or "If communism worked so well, why have the economies of China and Vietnam improved after the markets were opened up?"    The retort is usually something like "Real communism was never tried."    On the surface, this is similar to the argument that many free market advocates make, that true laissez-faire free markets have never fully existed.   Both claims are true to some degree.  The difference is this; there are examples of very nearly free trade and very nearly "pure" capitalism and the results are places like most of the19th century Britain, the latter half 19th century United States, Hong Kong for the last 60 or so years, Singapore to a degree, and even places like Sweden are not nearly as socialist as one is led to believe.  We can also look at specific industries that are not regulated or  centrally planned as much as others; entertainment, consumer electronics,  software and so forth.  In every case we there are the ingredients for capitalism; private ownership, rule of law and the protection of rights , we see a flourishing of wealth creation.  As Yaron Brook would say, capitalism delivers the goods.    Any objective analysis of the facts will demonstrate this.

But what of communism and the dream of true equality?  Let's set aside China and Vietnam and Cuba and the USSR and all the rest that either failed or were forced to reform by opening their economies.   Is there an example that comes closest to "pure" communism?  That is to say, no classes, no money, all property is communally owned and social equality.  Was there ever such a place?

 Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, Murderous Asshole

The place that comes closest to that definition is Cambodia under Pol Pot.   I won't go over the long history but I will mention a few "highlights".

• Pol Pot and some of his comrades were first seriously introduced to Marxism while studying in France at places like Sorbonne University and  Institut d'études politiques de Paris.   
• Once in power, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge instituted a number of "reforms" which included staunch anti-intellectualism, collectivized farms and the abandonment of most cities and heavy industry. 
• Currency was abolished.
• All "subversive" elements, real or perceived, were purged. 
• All financial records and claims to property were destroyed.
• Religion was suppressed. 
• The language was altered to eliminate words that referred to class or status.

Of course what list would be complete without a mention of the killing fields.  Between 1975 and 1980 (or thereabouts) upwards of 40% of the population was murdered, died from famine,  or preventable disease.   No one knows the exact death toll, but estimates range from the 700,000s to  3,000,000 deaths.   As a percentage of the population killed, the Cambodian Genocide ranks as one of the worst Genocides ever committed.   Luckily, the Vietnamese wiped out most of the Khmer Rouge by 1980.   Say what you will about the Vietnamese, but they have always been excellent warriors and while the Vietnamese had much unjustified blood on their own hands (as does the United States and France for that matter, but that's a whole other subject), they never resorted to the utter barbarity of the Khmer Rouge on such a scale.

But the question is not how the Khmer Rouge ended, the question is how it began; As an attempt to create a true communist society free of individualism, private ownership and economic greed.  Their method for achieving this would have given Stalin and even Mao pause, but somehow, Pol Pot managed to achieve the closest version of true communism ever attempted.    And so the Marxist with whom you are arguing must either, change the subject,  ignore proven facts or engage in a war of semantics to try and deny what is plainly demonstrated by history.