Tips For Being A Good Communist Leader: or Why isn’t Pol Pot a Rockstar of the Left? (Part 1)Posted by Lloyd Dodd on December 8, 2013
There are many of you out there that are striving to emulate Hugo Chavez and become a Progressive Leader of your own country which you will rule with an iron, but benevolent, fist. We all know that this isn’t easy. There are many pitfalls on the way to being powerful and famous so I have decided to do a study in what factors make a good Progressive Leader to help people learn from the successes and mistakes of others. To accomplish this I have chosen several leaders that are considered successful now and compared them to one whose memory hasn’t withstood the test of time based on some basic criteria.
You see, our intellectual class lavishes praise on communist leaders such as Castro, the Kims, Mao, Che and even Stalin is being reimagined as a hero of the people who just had to make some tough decisions for the greater good of Russia. There is also one Communist leader who seems to be missing from this pantheon of heroes of the people. I mean, of course, Pol Pot. Why isn’t his memory feted by the bein pensant? Why don’t professors of politics, news commentators and White House staffers wax lyrical about his ideas? We have here the greatest Green politician in the 20th century. Al Gore should be erecting a monument to this man and praising Pol Pot for being brave enough to make some hard decisions for the greater good of the planet. So why is it that people fawn over Castro and get choked up over Mao but spurn Pol Pot? Did he kill too many people? Did he kill too few people? Did he just lack the sex appeal of Che and Stalin? To better understand Pol Pot’s lack of success I have broken down each major communist leader’s characteristics into categories for analysis. I have chosen Stalin, Mao, the Kim Triumvirate, Che and Castro for analysis since they seem to be the most beloved by people who just adore such progressive leaders. This comparison should help you in taking steps to become the kind of glorious leader you think the world needs.
This article does need some clarification in anticipation of those who will argue with some of the basic ideas contained within. I have chosen Communist leaders as they are generally more popular and have laid down the architecture for popular despots. All other types of leaders are just fascist bullies who are condemned by those who matter. Remember, Communists care about the people while all other leaders- democratically elected ones as well- are merely manipulating the people in order to push the interests of corporations and/ or the church and thus are very, very bad.
Now as a matter of definition I wish to address the term Communism. There are those who will say that Pol Pot was not a communist, in spite of being a member of the Communist Party of Kampuchea (aka the Khmer Rouge.) These critics point out that he fostered ethnic hatred and fought with other communist countries (we all know about the communist peace theory after all) which no real communist would ever do. However, using this definition would force us to redefine many great communist leaders as common and generally nasty thugs, (and we can’t have that.) Let’s face it, pitting minorities against one another and fighting other communist states happened- would you really say that Stalin wasn’t a communist? You silly intellectual, off course you would, because he corrupted it and created Stalinism, just like every other communist leader has corrupted communism- it’s the very nature of communism to be corrupted by human nature (until the next communist leader gets it right and peace prevails on Earth.) So for simplicity and clarification, anyone who raised the red banner and talked about the exploitation of workers and the evils of capitalism will be labeled a communist. Yes, labeling is bad, but it’s a lot of fun.
We should start with what all these great leaders had in common. They all lead heroic fights against the forces of imperialism and established communist states in order to stop the exploitation of the working class. Not surprisingly this usually included killing off the intellectual and upper classes, because they only get in the way of progress when they realize that they will have to work in the fields or factories like everyone else. Apparently egalitarianism is great until it includes you- a typical bourgeoisie attitude, sorry but they did need to go. The only exception to this are Kims 2&3, but Kim 1 did it so we’ll give them a pass on this. This is a reoccurring problem with Kims 1, 2, & 3, it’s difficult to separate out the results of one from the other. Il-Sung created the cult of personality and the state structure which the son and grandson have continued, but Jong-Un is just so adorable that he can take the credit for the actions of his father and grandfather and we’ll still forgive him.
The next segment will discuss how death tolls and anti-Americanism can help and hurt you.
Latest posts by Lloyd Dodd (see all)
- Prohibition 2.0 - September 8, 2014
- Tips For Being A Good Communist Leader: or Why isn’t Pol Pot a Rockstar of the Left? (Part 4) - December 30, 2013
- Tips For Being A Good Communist Leader: or Why isn’t Pol Pot a Rockstar of the Left? (Part 3) - December 23, 2013
- Two Americas? Really? - December 21, 2013
- A Whole Lot of Quacking Going On - December 19, 2013