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.
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.
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.
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.