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.
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.
But also China did really dumbass shit because of the split.
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.
Deng Xiaoping Theory and Reform and Opening Up are qualitatively different from Khrushchev’s reforms
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.
China was literally just wrong. End of. No rhetorical missteps or doctrinal wrongness could possibly justify reflexively siding with the US and capitalist powers against socialist movements over and over and over again. China helped dig the grave of the Soviet Union.
I think we’re rly talking about three different but interconnected phenomena:
-
Was Mao’s criticism of cornman rejecting stalin correct?
-
Was Mao’s criticism of soviet foreign policy correct?
-
Were China’s geopolitical actions following the split correct?
Imo Mao was only correct on 1.
What little ive read on soviet/warsaw pact foreign policy suggests international socialism would have benefitted more from the soviets keeping a tighter leash on the Pact, and china siding with the west was the worst possible outcome of all this
-
One thing you’ll learn is that nothing is “generally understood” when it comes to Marxist history, or any history for that matter.
China was in the wrong. The Sino Soviet Split did a lot of damage to Socialism.
Should China have also de-Stalinized in the 1950s then?
False dilemma, China did not have to support reactionaries around the globe to defend Marxism-Leninism at home
Are you implying that China didn’t de-stalinize? But even then, you don’t oppose revisionism by turning around and supporting actual anti communism, that’s not even coherent.
Decades later, yeah.
I guess my point is that China’s initial motivation to split is legitimate, regardless of their poor policy later.
It’s still too early to tell what the effects of the Sino-Soviet split will end up being, and I think it’s not wise to simply say “the USSR collapsed and China is winning so Mao was right.” After all, would the USSR have collapsed at all if there had been no Sino-Soviet split?
Regardless, I think the consensus on Hexbear is definitely that Khruschev was a revisionist and his domestic policies were very destructive to communism. He also had solid foreign policy and would do a decent job of supporting revolutions elsewhere in the world, which was always the thing the USSR needed the most, friendly nations. But because of the Sino-Soviet split China itself would become a hostile nation to the Soviets and would often land on the same side as the US to oppose the Soviets. In this aspect of the Sino-Soviet split I think most people here disapprove of China’s actions.
Khruschev was a revisionist
A criticism I cannot take seriously after the one two punch of Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin
multiple people/states can be revisionist simultaneously
And one calling the other revisionism is at best spiderman pointing at spiderman and at worst flagrant hypocrisy to justify an opportunistic switch to the side of imperialism.
True, but spiderman pointing at spiderman doesn’t been they aren’t spiderman
Mao wasn’t exactly fond of Deng either.
After all, would the USSR have collapsed at all if there had been no Sino-Soviet split?
This is very hard to answer, first of all because it prompts the question of “at what point was the fate of the USSR sealed”. I lean heavily away from the deterministic school of thought so I would place that point in the mid to late 80s.
imo Mao was right the Khrushchev’s revisionism was the wrong path to take, but the irony of the split is it ultimately led China into embracing the west sometimes even in opposition to the USSR
China was wrong in how they conducted it, but we couldn’t know whether the USSR would still be alive today or not
Is it possible that the USSR would still exist without the Sino-Soviet split? Maybe? Then no China is in the wrong.
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.
The PRC should not have collaborated with the US, but they would’ve been dragged down with the Soviet Union had the split not occurred. The PRC wasn’t the only country to split with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and Albania are two other examples.
