Late Stage Capitalism

There is no strict definition of a “socialist state.” DK was led by a communist party which set out concrete plans for developing a self-sufficient “socialist economy” and a “socialist culture” and was able to follow through on some of those in its short time. There is nothing that makes it “non-socialist” in comparison to other projects.

I presume, didn’t actually commit a genocide

You can presume that based on the fact that the allegation of genocide clearly violates the meaning of the word.

How about the Vietnamese-backed state of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea? Was it Socialist?

I don’t see why not.

• Pol Pot did not admit to not being a communist, this is just a lie.

• The CPK had an agrarian focus because the reality was that US bombing had destroyed much of the country’s agricultural capacity and there was a threat of mass starvation (and a need of a massive amt of agricultural labor to prevent this); as mentioned, the CPK had (in 1976) laid out a four-year plan which included the development of (light and) heavy industry (which was actually partially carried out with the restoration and expansion of factories) with the goal of building a fully self-sufficient national economy. After the evacuation of the cities, they were repaired and the process began of repopulating them. The assumption that anything was motivated by some ideological reverence for agrarianism is a very clear instance of “historical idealism.”

• Pol Pot never ordered the targeting of Vietnamese people for their nationality. There is the problematic characterization of border disputes as outbursts of nationalistic hatred (supported by complete acceptance of the Vietnamese narrative of DK as the sole aggressor) and of all actions of cadres as necessarily being ordered/allowed by central leadership. Not even in the ~mainstream is there a broad consensus that Cambodia committed a genocide against ethnic/national minorities. To add, “pro-Vietnamese Cambodians” wouldn’t even be a protected group against which genocide could be committed. There’s another side to this because the KR never got close to the amt of Cambodians killed by Vietnam in its invasion.

• Deng and Mao were both “pro-US” (in opposition to the Soviet Union), to the point of supporting the expansion of US power on the international stage and the formation of united Western bloc, and in the case of Deng, coordinating with the US in support of the Afghan resistance forces against the USSR; I’m sure you would call this a mistake, but the recognition of Mao and Deng as communists and mostly positive remains. If you can point me to support of the US by Pol Pot that goes above and beyond this, then fine, but being pro-US in any regard is clearly not a dealbreaker; Pol Pot (/the CPK) was supported by the US against Vietnam (and Soviet influence in general) as the US had devoted significant support to the USSR (/Stalin) against Germany. And there are contradictions in both of these in terms of the leadup to this; the notion that being supported by the US against another group = ideological betrayal is just “historical idealism” again. I’m not saying you have to support Pol Pot, but it is inconsistent with your stated principles to accept narratives about Pol Pot without any investigation.