Was Pol Pot right in killing scientists and intellectuals?

no scientist or intellectual was ever involved with communism
only retards and/or scumbags

>dum dums are incurable
>nothing should be ever done to make things better
>lets just kill and torture people who envision a different future, its their fault anyways
Damn, this reads like a post from Any Forums.

I didn't say anything about more or less working class. but the third worlder who owns and works at a corner store still inputs a large part of his own labor into his business. I would say this still classifies him as working class, until his business is big enough that he doesn't have to work himself and can have workers do pretty much everything for him.
Also, workers in the first world, including the athletes and actors, are part of the labor aristocracy. They are still working class in the sense that they sell their own labor for a living, but they benefit from the exploitation of the third world by the first world, which allows for their higher wages and more comfortable standards of living.

If you work for a living: working class
If you don’t work for a living: not working class

Simple as

>which allows for their higher wages and more comfortable standards of living.
Thousands of years ago in pre capitalist there was already vast disrepencaies in standards of living for some obvious reasons, but in today's economy people in these under developed countries can cope using ideology instead of looking at basic facts of reality, including the fact that the world is not uniformly egalitarian.

You completely side stepped the assertion made in the OP, which is that spending dozens or hundreds of hours researching philosophy is not a think that ordinary people do even if they have the leisure time. Only privileged academics do this, gain ideas and then attempt to impose them unilaterally on the world at large.

The first discrepancies in standard of living came with increased social order/increased technology. Agriculture allowed the storage and distribution of food. Those who controlled the distribution of food were the first to wield a form of power. As that social order increased, so too did inequality.

Take, for example, the irrigation systems of Mesopotamia. Someone needed to organize people to design, plan, build, maintain, and protect these structures. Those who filled that need for social organization necessarily wielded great power over others, and thus lived (and even died) in wealth. Just look at the royal tombs of Ur.

Obviously? During hunter gather eras resources were too scarce to generate differences of standard of living as their simply wasn't enough production of goods.

see for discrepancies in standards of living before capitalism. Even then, the discrepancy between what we now consider as first world and third world was not that different back then. It was only after the industrial revolution and thus capitalism that the first world (europe) achieved a much higher standard of living than the colonized third world.
In today's global capitalist society, it is a fact that businesses from the first world set up their factories in the third world where wages are much lower. This is what allows for the great first world standards of living. Would you be able to live as comfortably if a pair of shoes cost 5 times as much because they have to be manufactured in the first world with first world wages?
Why do you think that is? Because the working class are too overworked under the capitalist system to be able to spend time to improve themselves or pursue their interests. If they don't work themselves to the bone for their bosses, they might be fired and lose their source of income.
And then again, what's wrong with academics spreading their ideas to other people? I mean, the communist manifesto was written relatively simply for the purpose of radicalizing workers. Just because academics came up with these ideas doesn't mean they're inherently bad for factory laborers or farmers or any other stereotypical working class occupation. Why aren't academics allowed to work for the betterment of society? If they think the current system is not good, why are they not allowed to argue against it?

>In today's global capitalist society, it is a fact that businesses from the first world set up their factories in the third world where wages are much lower. This is what allows for the great first world standards of living. Would you be able to live as comfortably if a pair of shoes cost 5 times as much because they have to be manufactured in the first world with first world wages?
Is China better when it was agarian 45 years ago or now when it accepted those factories and western capital?
And then again, what's wrong with academics spreading their ideas to other people? I mean, the communist manifesto was written relatively simply for the purpose of radicalizing workers. Just because academics came up with these ideas doesn't mean they're inherently bad for factory laborers or farmers or any other stereotypical working class occupation. Why aren't academics allowed to work for the betterment of society? If they think the current system is not good, why are they not allowed to argue against it?

Because the values that urban elites have is not the same of the everyday blue collar working man. And when people say things like work against your interests, it is inherently patronizing.

>Why do you think that is? Because the working class are too overworked under the capitalist system to be able to spend time to improve themselves or pursue their interests. If they don't work themselves to the bone for their bosses, they might be fired and lose their source of income.
In the Soviet Union, which declared itself a workers' state, every adult able-bodied person was expected to work until official retirement. Thus unemployment was officially and theoretically eliminated. Those who refused to work, study or serve in another way risked being criminally charged with social parasitism

The connection between this economic system you mention and lesser working hours or whatever is not tangible. Everybody has to work otherwise things won't be produce. This is an obvious fact.