It’s not uncommon for fascists to adopt socialist rhetoric to try and gain mass appeal. However that falls away under the lightest scrutiny of their actions and ideology. “National Socialism” is the most obvious example. I’d include Pol Pot in that bucket as well.

The USSR under Stalin and PRC under Mao are a bit different. The government in either case made decisions that led to unnecessary death, but there’s no evidence to suggest any of their missteps were motivated by racial animus.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Mao's Great Leap Forward was him trying to push Communist ideology onto nature. He had one hammer in his tool box and tried using it on everything.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like who?

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pol Pot should be a uncontroversial pick.

[–] OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sure, but then so is Hitler by that standard. They just used leftist iconography on the surface for propaganda purposes, and did not commit their crimes in the name of any sort of left-wing ideology. Pol Pot in particular was supported by the US military and intelligence mechanisms (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_support_for_the_Khmer_Rouge), and is fair to assume that his movement was used as a psy-op to hurt the communist cause in Cambodia and Vietnam.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Another cool pol pot fact: mao took him at face value and said “hey, it’s cool that you’re down but you’re kinda fuckin up, wanna read some of these books and get your shit right?” And pol pot was all “no, I’m fine.”