EuropeBoard

I have answered your questions, they're rooted in ignorance on the topic and I can not debate with you when you don't even know the fundamentals of what is debated.
You have also failed to answer my questions: What specific policies failed? What Socialist/Communist theory failed? What are the inherent flaws of Leftism?

You seem to also still fail to distinguish between the various forms of Socialism and Communism, this not only impacting your historical lenses but also your modern political one. How can one understand Leftism when one seriously thinks modern Leftists want Khmer Rouge-Esque states to rule the world's countries.

Now, you bring up several Asian countries with a Socialist or Communist history, most notably, the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot has a notorious history with Nationalism, something that Leftism almost universally argues is a bad thing, in fact, looking into the Khmer Rogue we can see a combination of Marxism and extreme xenophobic Nationalism became the dominating ideology of the Khmer Rouge Communists with strong tendencies to take Maoist elements to the extreme. However, historian Ben Kiernan has said "(This is) neither a communist proletarian revolution that privileged the working class, nor a peasant revolution that favored all farmers." Why is that? Well, we can see the Khmer Communists based themselves partly on Marxism, but what exactly is Marxism? Marxism is a philosophical look at the world and the history around us, how various concepts that Marx introduced each interact with one another and, ultimately, why Capitalism is not a sustainable economic system. This philosophy was carried out in a political form through the Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei, where we find a few policies such as a progressive income tax, abolition of inheritances, abolition of private property, abolition of child labour, free public education, nationalisation of the means of transport and communication, centralisation of credit via a national bank and expansion of publicly-owned land.
The idea was such implementations would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society, which is the end goal of Communism. Sound familiar? That is because Marxism laid the foundation for all Leftist politics and has severely boosted the standard of living in countries that have successfully implemented several of these policies.

The Khmer Rouge did not achieve this goal, nor did it want to achieve this goal through traditional Marxist defined policies or means, it actually almost completely ignored the traditional Marxist view. The Khmer Rouge particularly was on a quest of ethnic and intellectual cleansing, if not also eugenics. This is an inherent element that Ultranationalism, and by extension of that, far-right ideologies, see as a means of achieving their end goal. This is consistent with what I've established earlier, Pol Pot's notorious history with Nationalism and his rather delusional ideals of a grand destiny for 'his people.' We know Pol Pot attempted to establish collective owned farms in pursuit of a strong agrarian society but they were not collectively owned by the farmers, they were brutally run by statist elements. Which again is in deep contradiction with Marxism, and did not privilege the working class as Ben Kiernan commented. Another central core belief of the Khmer Rouge ideology is that human willpower could overcome material and historical conditions, something that is deeply contradicting the Marxist defined view of historical materialism. Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that Pol Pot renounced Communism and has purged several pro-Vietnam and other Marxists from the Cambodian Communist party, very likely because Pol Pot deviated so much from Leftism as a whole. Another important thing to look at is the end of the Khmer Rouge, which was defeated and dismantled by the Vietnamese Socialists which marks the end of the grotesque policies and ideology of the Khmer Rouge. Isn't it bizarre how a fellow Marxist nation prevented the Cambodian genocide and lacked an internal genocide of its own? The Cambodian-Vietnamese war sparked another conflict between Vietnam and the Maoist Chinese which is also interesting to look at because it gives us a hint of Maoism's own differences from traditional Marxism and subsequent geopolitics of the time that, believe it or not, defined a lot of policies.

You then mention freedom from government oppression, which is not an inherent element of Capitalism. If we look at the industrial revolution of England we can see the state implemented laws like the Inclosure Acts that robbed people of their land and impoverished them to force them into factories, where the salary of the working class was racing itself to the bottom. We can look at Mercantilism and the colonial age of the European monarchies when one's skin colour alone decided if one were to be considered subhuman. Still today we have nations operating in a Capitalist economic system but lack critical freedoms and the so-called prosperity that is supposed to follow Capitalism, such as Iran, Russia, Belorussia etc. And that's ignoring the whole mess Reaganomics caused.

So we have scratched the very surface of Marx's philosophy and the very foundation of all Leftist politics; Marxism, how little Marxism meant to the Khmer-Rouge, briefly mentioned Maoism, very briefly seen that Maoism, Khmer Rouge's Ultranationalism and Vietnmanese Socialism is not a monolith and we have also rather underwhelmingly established that Capitalism isn't inherently free. This is not even close to what you've done or even attempted to do throughout our discussion and I'm rather disappointed by your stubbornness which is cementing my perception of you as willfully ignorant. I am gonna stop responding to you from now on until you learn more and can actually address, pinpoint and attempt to solve the flaws of Leftism.