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 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
[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 33 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Which flavor of socialism are refrigeration-cycle based air source heat pumps?

[–] Cowbee@hexbear.net 19 points 4 days ago

That's the Juche Idea.