Utopian thinking was another influence. Vickery writes:
DK Cambodia first of all bears unmistakable similarities to a Utopia as, for example, envisaged by Thomas More: the rigidly egalitarian communism, identical clothes and houses, the latter of which are changed regularly; identical fixed working hours, mass lectures, communal farms and communal dining halls, shifting of children out of families, strict rules on sexual morality, no money, and contempt for gold....
In the real world, Utopian features have often been combined with violence; and the particularly violent aspects of the DK revolution manifest echoes of Bakunin’s anarchist program: “universal revolution, simultaneously social, philosophical, economic and political, so that of the present order of things.. .not a stone will be left standing"; “death to rulers, exploiters and guardians of all kinds, we seek to destroy all states and all churches along with their institutions and laws.” Along with that the youth were to abandon universities, academies, schools, “and go among the people,” and were advised to “not bother at this moment with learning,” for “the people know themselves, and better than we do, what they need.” All “means of social existence” were to be concentrated in the hands of “Our Committee” [Angka Loeu] with physical labor proclaimed compulsory for everyone, the alternatives being work or death. As in Utopia all property would be communal and communal eating and sleeping the norm.47
Vickery also points to the examples of certain other revolutions. Yugoslavia too had an indigenous communist movement with indigenous leaders who tried to limit outside influence. The Yugoslav communists too acted violently against former enemies and had ambitions for great, immediate change. Pol Pot visited Yugoslavia in 1950, a seemingly incongruous act for a Stalinist given Yugoslavia’s rejection of Soviet influence. The Great Leap Forward in China in 1958-60 could also serve as a model. In its ideology the peasant masses were the source of true revolution, backwardness was an advantage for the success of revolution, and it was necessary to eliminate differences between town and country, peasant and worker, mental activity and manual labor. The Great Leap Forward also built huge irrigation and water conservation projects, with masses of peasants performing labor under military discipline.48 Others have argued that the Chinese Cultural Revolution also had influence.49
Some early elements of the ideology were also apparent in doctoral dissertations by the Pol Pot group in France. Hou Youn, the intellectual founder of the revolution, argued in his 1955 thesis that peasant masses are the real creators of a nation’s wealth.50 In his later writing he states, “Our purpose is to transform and develop the rural economy based on establishing the peasant as the key to the organization of production.”51 Khieu Samphan’s 1959 thesis held that only by ending its dependency on the outside world could Cambodia develop into an industrial society.52 The nationalism of the Pol Pot (then still Saloth Sar) group was also apparent very early. For example, they denounced the king in an open letter in 1952, complaining (incorrectly) that he had renounced territorial claims to former Cambodian possessions.
From ideas of others and examples of other countries, from their own cultural background and their personal experiences, the Pol Pot group evolved a coherent ideology and believed that by fulfilling it they would create an ideal Cambodian society. This ideology was the primary guide to genocidal practices.
Gaining followers: the tools of revolution and genocide
The turmoil in Cambodia gave rise to many of the motivations that arise under difficult life conditions. Given the economic problems and decline in living standards, the bombing and war that ravaged the country, there had to be strong motivation for defense of the physical self. Political instability and violence, the loss of Sihanouk in 1970, physical dislocation, and social chaos also gave the Khmer peasants a deep need to protect their identity and to find new authority and guidance. With their customary ways of life destroyed, they needed a new world view. The communists threatened their lives for noncompliance and offered rewards for compliance, including the fulfillment of these needs.
Three major influences on the peasants stand out. First, the overthrow of Sihanouk and his call for an uprising in support of the communists. Before 1968 the communists did not have sufficient support to win a war.53 Sihanouk’s call on the peasants to support the Khmer Rouge may have been decisive. The rebels used Sihanouk skillfully. He became head of the government in exile (established May 5, 1970) and thus, in name, the leader of the revolution. He was occasionally presented to the people. In actuality, he spent most of his time in Peking, and all real authority was in the hands of the Khmer Rouge.
Second, the U.S. bombing “destabilized” the peasants and turned them against the Lon Nol government. They believed it was done at the request of the government, which they already regarded as corrupt and indifferent to their welfare. (In actuality, Cambodian officials constantly submitted vigorous protests to the United Nations before 1971.)54 The U.S. bombing also had another effect. There were many communist factions, and initially members of the Pol Pot group were not in the highest leadership positions. Although their cold-blooded determination might have brought them to power anyway, the bombing radicalized the peasants and made it easier for this radical group to gain their support. The bombing also further radicalized Pol Pot and his group. Finally, U.S. bombs helped them in a more direct way. In 1973, in the first major independent offensive by the Khmer Rouge military (without the North Vietnamese army), the battalion of the Pol Pot faction held back while the others were decimated by a terrible pounding from the U.S. Air Force. When U.S. air power was withdrawn in August 15, 1973,
