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

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago

There was fault on both sides, because the USSR had over-corrected while the PRC had not yet corrected, and there were internal political factors in both countries that influenced things. Stalin and Mao may have been necessary to secure the revolution in both countries, but it's necessary at some point to transition to more civilian leadership. It's a simple fact that if you fight a revolution in order to secure peace, then the generation that grows up in that peace is going to have a different perspective than the generation that experienced the war. Unfortunately, neither side saw it that way. Khrushchev wanted to completely denounce Stalin in a way that just so happened to advance his own career, while Mao did not want to acknowledge that China would need to make that transition because it would mean he would have to step aside, and he feared that his successors would treat him as Khrushchev had treated Stalin.

The Soviet policy of "peaceful coexistence" was one of the points of contention that the Soviets were right about. They deviated from this policy with Afghanistan, and look how that turned out. Mao, on the other hand, got these weird ideas about "permanent revolution" which led to decisions like supporting Pol Pot and kicking off the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. It's pretty much impossible to defend Chinese foreign policy during that era, and Mao's attempts to cling to power and fight the natural course of history with the Cultural Revolution were disastrous (even if there were some positive aspects like the Barefoot Doctors program).

However, the Soviets also screwed over China and acted chauvinistically. From Wikipedia:

Stalin had accepted that the USSR would carry much of the economic burden of the Korean War, but, when Khrushchev came to power, he created a repayment plan under which the PRC would reimburse the Soviet Union within an eight-year period. However, China was experiencing significant food shortages at this time, and, when grain shipments were routed to the Soviet Union instead of feeding the Chinese public, faith in the Soviets plummeted. These policy changes were interpreted as Khrushchev's abandonment of the communist project and the nations' shared identity as Marxist-Leninists.

This is indefensible too. The whole situation was just a mess, it pretty much just devolved into petty drama, and there's plenty of blame to go around.