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.

  • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    27·
    12 days ago

    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.