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

WhoaSlowDownMaurice@hexbear.net

thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net

RiotDoll@hexbear.net

Is it generally understood that Mao was right in the Sino-Soviet split? (feddit.nl)

submitted 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by fort_burp@feddit.nl to c/history@hexbear.net

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

You guys are all much more well-read on communism than me, so I ask based on this quote:

As a reminder, the Sino-Soviet split occurred due to an ideological fracture in the Communist bloc whereby Mao accused the Soviets of being “revisionists” after Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization and his embrace of “peaceful coexistence” with the West.

Now that the ex-Soviet countries are pretty much all capitalist oligarchies and China is, well whatever it is but hugely successful and prosperous, is there a consensus about the Sino-Soviet split? I mean yea it sucks that it had to go down like that but can we say in general that Mao was right about that?

I know it's just an arbitrary point in time (as now) and that there were and are loads of factors at play so this is perhaps a simplistic way of framing it, but I'd love to get your thoughts on the matter. Every time I ask something of the dope-ass bear I'm blown away not just by how little I know but also that I wasn't even looking in the right direction, so if this is a stupid question I'm sure you'll let me know, lol.

EDIT: Thank you very much for your answers! Very informative.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 21 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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).

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 23 points 4 days ago

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.