The Vietnamese, who were no angels, when it came to in-country human rights, were so appalled by what the Red Khmer were doing, they decided enough was enough and invaded their ideological kin-spirit to rid it of that vile and disgusting regime.

As a general rule, "the people I don't like are just sadists" is usually neither true nor a productive attitude.

What are your thoughts on the commodity -> money -> commodity mode of exchange compared to the money -> commodity > money mode of exchange?

Alternative question, when the English moved to a system of tenant farmers while the French did not, was it necessarily the case that capitalism would need to arise in England and spread across the world?

There's plenty of very interesting economic and social topics that are covered by the likes of Marx, Gramsci, and Melksins Wood. I'd suggest not engaging with the discussion and calling it "perverse" is seeking a position of willful anti intellectualism. You might not agree with all the points, sure, but they are raised in good faith and backed by many many intellectual discussions over decades and decades.

> Chomsky passionately defending the Khmer Rouge

The US began arming the Khmer Rouge in 1979 into the 1980s because the US wanted the Khmer Rouge to take over Cambodia again (well they didn't take over in 1975, the prince who the CIA ousted took over again technically).