The nature of Left Wing Hypocrisy Part 1
The Left, the Right and the 'Centre' all have their double standards. During the Cold War the Soviets were quick to support 'wars of liberation' against 'imperial oppression' whilst acquiring the odd naval base and raw materials after Independence. The Western power were quick to condemn human rights abuses in communist countries but could turn a blind eye to the same thing in right wing dictatorships. Those who view themselves as 'small l liberals' are quick to muzzle any views that threaten their cozy view of the world.
What I have always found particularly galling is the stridency of left wing sanctimony and double standards. During the Vietnam War the Left was quick to condemn American actions but completely ignored atrocities committed by the Viet Cong. It was also either completely quiet about the purges and concentration camps that followed 'liberation' or excused them as a temporary measure to prevent counter revolution by 'reactionaries'. The Left was also unable to explain the flotillas of boat people that spewed out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Noam Chomsky, American left wing intellectual was among those who welcomed the 'liberation' of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - the latter by Pol Pot. Members of Australia's then Labor government under Gough Whitlam also welcomed it, including the likes of Jim Cairns and Gough Whitlam himself. They were not alone. Similarities could be made to the opinions of many western intellectuals in regard to communism in Russia under first Lenin and then Stalin.
John Pilger, the journalist pin up boy of the Left would have to be the most sanctimonious and hypocritical of the lot. He is known with hatred by many for his dismissal of the American reaction to 9/11 as an excuse for imperialism, rather than an act of defence against a surprise attack on America's civilian poplation. Throughout the Vietnam war he reported events purely from the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong point of view. Lord Haw Haw anyone? Pilger never made any reference to the slaughter of South Vietnamese villagers by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. Never did he mention, for example, the Tay Lou massacre of South Vietnamese villagers. Nor did he mention the thousands killed at Hue. They were civilians killed by the communists and buried in a large pit, many of them still alive. Pilger has likened the invasion by North Vietnam of South Vietnam to 'the allied invasion of Nazi Germany'. Pilger was thus one of those left wing journalists who welcomed communist 'liberation.'
Although an admirer of communist liberation even Pilger eventually recognized the obscenity of Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge. Pilger is fond of blaming the emergence and duration of Pol Pot on the United States. First there was the bombing and invasion of Cambodia by US troops. He says this weakened the country to enable Pol Pot's rise. Perhaps it did but given the fact that Cambodia/Kampuchea was used as a safe haven for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese the American actions were logical. What he does not mention is that one of the main targets of the bombing was Khymer Rouge forces already in existence.
Pilger makes the point that after the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea the US, ironically along with China, influenced the UN to direct food relief through Kymer Rouge channels thus perpetuating their influence. 'My enemy's enemy..' US actions are understandable from a strategic point of view to counter communist Vietnam, but damning considering the nature of Pol Pot's regime and here Pilger has made a valid critique. However, he has also claimed that Vietnam was the major source of food relief to Kampuchea when in fact almost all of it went to its 200,000 member invasion force. He has also failed to mention that the Vietnamese government placed exorbitant taxes on any food from relief agencies. What is interesting is that while Pilger is quick to point to hypocrisy elsewhere he is, by omission or design, one of the worst practitioners.
Whatever the reasons for Pol Pot's rise the Cambodian experience has its roots in a twisted ideology.
What is worse than a class system? Answer: the attempt to destroy it! We have seen this attempt over and over. In countries like the Soviet Union this led to gulags, torture, confiscations of property, executions and indoctrination. It was not enough to change the present; they also changed history by deleting any inconvenient references in history books. They also deleted witnesses to inconvenient events; the extermination of the Polish officer corps during WW2 and blaming it on the Germans comes to mind here.
Ironically new class systems based on membership of the Communist Party emerged to take the place of the old system. I know that many communists say communism was never monolithic and that Stalinism was an aberration. However, the basic premise that people must be equal, with abolition of private property is one root of evil. This differs from capitalist democratic societies where economic inequality is innate but the rule of law prevails and equality of opportunity, whilst never fully achievable, is an ideal which is worked towards but not at the expense of individual liberty.
The rule of law is lacking in communist countries. In China the acquisition of property without adequate compensation and often without explanation is the norm. Jailing for expressing a dissident view is normal. Once it was much worse. During the Cultural Revolution the attempt to make everyone equal not only ruined the economy and caused starvation but ruined individuals, frequently terminally. Valuable skills were wasted as professionals were forced to work next to peasants. Collective farming stifled production. Children informed on parents and many people were beaten to death by zealous Mao groupies.The similarity to Nazi Germany is evident, except there was probably more security in Nazi Germany than Communist China, provided you did not fall in to certain ethnic/racial or political categories.
Cambodia or Kampuchea, as it was then called, experienced the logical extension of communist ideology; inequality is wrong so we must make everyone equal, no matter what. It was for this ideology that the cities were depopulated to make everyone work the land. It was also for this ideal that doctors, lawyers, teachers and other professionals had their heads staved in with sledge hammers. People with glasses and people with smooth hands also were candidates for this grizzly end. Even babies, deemed inconvenient or of the wrong parentage had their brains dashed against trees. Such is the nature of 'liberation'.
What I have always found particularly galling is the stridency of left wing sanctimony and double standards. During the Vietnam War the Left was quick to condemn American actions but completely ignored atrocities committed by the Viet Cong. It was also either completely quiet about the purges and concentration camps that followed 'liberation' or excused them as a temporary measure to prevent counter revolution by 'reactionaries'. The Left was also unable to explain the flotillas of boat people that spewed out of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Noam Chomsky, American left wing intellectual was among those who welcomed the 'liberation' of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - the latter by Pol Pot. Members of Australia's then Labor government under Gough Whitlam also welcomed it, including the likes of Jim Cairns and Gough Whitlam himself. They were not alone. Similarities could be made to the opinions of many western intellectuals in regard to communism in Russia under first Lenin and then Stalin.
John Pilger, the journalist pin up boy of the Left would have to be the most sanctimonious and hypocritical of the lot. He is known with hatred by many for his dismissal of the American reaction to 9/11 as an excuse for imperialism, rather than an act of defence against a surprise attack on America's civilian poplation. Throughout the Vietnam war he reported events purely from the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong point of view. Lord Haw Haw anyone? Pilger never made any reference to the slaughter of South Vietnamese villagers by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops. Never did he mention, for example, the Tay Lou massacre of South Vietnamese villagers. Nor did he mention the thousands killed at Hue. They were civilians killed by the communists and buried in a large pit, many of them still alive. Pilger has likened the invasion by North Vietnam of South Vietnam to 'the allied invasion of Nazi Germany'. Pilger was thus one of those left wing journalists who welcomed communist 'liberation.'
Although an admirer of communist liberation even Pilger eventually recognized the obscenity of Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge. Pilger is fond of blaming the emergence and duration of Pol Pot on the United States. First there was the bombing and invasion of Cambodia by US troops. He says this weakened the country to enable Pol Pot's rise. Perhaps it did but given the fact that Cambodia/Kampuchea was used as a safe haven for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese the American actions were logical. What he does not mention is that one of the main targets of the bombing was Khymer Rouge forces already in existence.
Pilger makes the point that after the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea the US, ironically along with China, influenced the UN to direct food relief through Kymer Rouge channels thus perpetuating their influence. 'My enemy's enemy..' US actions are understandable from a strategic point of view to counter communist Vietnam, but damning considering the nature of Pol Pot's regime and here Pilger has made a valid critique. However, he has also claimed that Vietnam was the major source of food relief to Kampuchea when in fact almost all of it went to its 200,000 member invasion force. He has also failed to mention that the Vietnamese government placed exorbitant taxes on any food from relief agencies. What is interesting is that while Pilger is quick to point to hypocrisy elsewhere he is, by omission or design, one of the worst practitioners.
Whatever the reasons for Pol Pot's rise the Cambodian experience has its roots in a twisted ideology.
What is worse than a class system? Answer: the attempt to destroy it! We have seen this attempt over and over. In countries like the Soviet Union this led to gulags, torture, confiscations of property, executions and indoctrination. It was not enough to change the present; they also changed history by deleting any inconvenient references in history books. They also deleted witnesses to inconvenient events; the extermination of the Polish officer corps during WW2 and blaming it on the Germans comes to mind here.
Ironically new class systems based on membership of the Communist Party emerged to take the place of the old system. I know that many communists say communism was never monolithic and that Stalinism was an aberration. However, the basic premise that people must be equal, with abolition of private property is one root of evil. This differs from capitalist democratic societies where economic inequality is innate but the rule of law prevails and equality of opportunity, whilst never fully achievable, is an ideal which is worked towards but not at the expense of individual liberty.
The rule of law is lacking in communist countries. In China the acquisition of property without adequate compensation and often without explanation is the norm. Jailing for expressing a dissident view is normal. Once it was much worse. During the Cultural Revolution the attempt to make everyone equal not only ruined the economy and caused starvation but ruined individuals, frequently terminally. Valuable skills were wasted as professionals were forced to work next to peasants. Collective farming stifled production. Children informed on parents and many people were beaten to death by zealous Mao groupies.The similarity to Nazi Germany is evident, except there was probably more security in Nazi Germany than Communist China, provided you did not fall in to certain ethnic/racial or political categories.
Cambodia or Kampuchea, as it was then called, experienced the logical extension of communist ideology; inequality is wrong so we must make everyone equal, no matter what. It was for this ideology that the cities were depopulated to make everyone work the land. It was also for this ideal that doctors, lawyers, teachers and other professionals had their heads staved in with sledge hammers. People with glasses and people with smooth hands also were candidates for this grizzly end. Even babies, deemed inconvenient or of the wrong parentage had their brains dashed against trees. Such is the nature of 'liberation'.
Comments
Post a Comment