this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
67 points (100.0% liked)
History
23902 readers
124 users here now
Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.
c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting
Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).
When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.
Historical Disinformation will be removed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mao was correct in that Khrushchev's actions severely undermined the socialist system, the now confirmed lies of the infamous "secret speech" resulted in a form of historical nihilism that led to a sort of internal doomerism about the socialist project among the populace. That being said, the split itself was in my opinion unquestionably negative, and resulted in some of China's worst foreign policy mistakes, such as siding with Cambodia against Vietnam, and the US against the USSR.
We cannot be certain, but it's likely that if the split never happened, that the USSR would still be around, in which case this was one of China's greatest strategic blunders in history, rejecting an impure ally and forcing all sorts of new contradictions. Regardless of Khrushchev's ghoulish power grab, this in no way justifies abandoning the largest other socialist power at the time, especially while soviet foreign policy remained comparatively great.
TL;DR Mao was right about Khrushchev, but the response partially contributed to the dissolution of the USSR along with some of the worst foreign policy from China. The soviets kept pretty great foreign policy all the way through the end of its existence by comparison.
As a side note, you should also ask Grad.
Edit: Deng Xiaoping Theory and Reform and Opening Up are qualitatively different from Khrushchev's reforms, hence the dramatic difference in results in both systems. This is important to understand as you research the Sino-Soviet split.
Regardless of the damage of the split, the manner of Khrushchev's reforms undermined socialist construction and the socialist project in general, while Deng's reforms built upon the industrialization started by Mao and managed to make the economic growth more stable, facilitate technological transfer to China, and undermine the US Empire's industrial base. Therein lies the modern success of socialidm with Chinese characteristics, but also why those who only uphold Deng and reject Mao in recognizing this are making a dramatic error.
100% Mao was right
But also China did really dumbass shit because of the split. I'm not really convinced that China only did that shit because of the split though, I think they might've had serious analytical errors as well.
Agreed, siding with Cambodia, the US over the USSR, all of these contributed to a dramatic undermining of socialism globally in a time that should have had unity.
the cool thing about socialism is learning from your mistakes. in the US we just repeat the same mistakes over and over again repeatedly and never admit they were mistakes.
That seems like a good take, Krushchev was throwing out the baby with the bathwater with his de-Stalinization, but Mao overreacted to it. While acknowledging that alternative history what-ifs are subject to a million pitfalls, I am curious what you think would’ve played out differently in a non-sino-soviet situation that would’ve avoided a collapse of the USSR (not asking as some back door critique, genuinely curious).
I really don't want to claim this as developed analysis, but had the soviets and PRC remained on good terms throughout, it's quite possible that various times they were antagonistic towards each other, such as Vietnam vs Cambodia, they would have been aligned, increasing the stability of the socialist bloc and creating a larger pool of productive forces to share.
Part of why China went to the US for investment for Reform and Opening Up was necessity for making growth stable, growth was already positive under Mao but uneven and fluctuated greatly. This is currently backfiring against the US as they hollowed out their industrial power, and the shared technology with the PRC is why they are where they are today, but I believe that a larger, more stable socialist bloc would have perhaps avoided some of the concessions made in order to go this path.
I don't disagree, but I'd love it if you went into some depth about those differences.
The ultra/maoist position is that both reforms effectively meant immediate capitalist restoration, and I'm interested to hear a more nuanced take
In the shortest and most simplistic terms, Khrushchev's point was that the soviet union had advanced so far that class struggle was effectively over, and that the state did not need to represent a particular class. This enabled liberalization and carelessness down the road.
The Gang of Four took the opposite stance, effectively heightening class struggle over the development of the productive forces and eradication of poverty. The basis of communism is in large industry, not small cooperatives, and thus this led to errors.
Deng's position is that class struggle continues, and that the state needs to remain a working class dictatorship, but that building up the productive forces is also critically important, and that introducing foreign capital to help is a safe way to do so as long as the commanding heights of industry, the large firms and key industries, finance, etc, remained dominated by the state. Where Khrushchev took a more blind approach, not to mention destalinization, Deng's reforms were more calculated and measured.
To put it in an analogy, Khrushchev thought that since they had pretty good electric heating, there was no risk of fire. China had some small level of electric heating, and was governed by people insistent on not using traditional fire for warmth in the midst of winter. Deng maintained electric heating as dominant while adding controlled fireplaces, as Khrushchev's refusal to protect against fire led to their house burning down.
This is all extremely oversimplified and is my opinion alone, not the Hexbear line.
Which flavor of socialism are refrigeration-cycle based air source heat pumps?
That's the Juche Idea.