• @Leninismydad
    link
    19
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Basic is hard, the issue is anything but basic, here is a fantastic breakdown with documents and speeches by both Soviet Union and China, it’s important when developing an opinion on this subject to really dig into the information. As either side will argue they are right so it’s difficult to inform yourself independently of extreme biases without reading the docs yourself.

    https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sino-soviet-split/

  • @Kirbywithwhip1987
    link
    152 years ago

    Nikita being a dick he was and Mao having enough of his shit…

  • @SaddamHussein24
    link
    12
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    After Stalin died in 1953, Khrushchev slowly but surely centralized all power in his hands. He did this by inventing “evil crimes committed by Stalin” and purging anyone who disagreed under the accusation of “having collaborated with stalinist crimes”. For example, Lavrenty Beria suffered this fate. Principled party members like Molotov and Kaganovich tried to depose Khrushchev in a vote but he staged a military coup and had them arrested too. Once all opposition was gone, he continued “destalinization” by proposing his “peaceful coexistence theory”, meaning that capitalist west and socialist east can coexist peacefully forever, so no reason to worry about WW3. This is ludicrous, socialism and capitalism simply cannot coexist, in the end one always wins over the other. He also said that the Communist Party should represent “the entire soviet people”, instead of just the workers and peasants, basically including the bourgeoisie into the party. This contradicts every basic marxist tenet of class struggle. No, you cannot unite bourgeoisie and proletariat under 1 party, its impossible. The workers and peasants only must rule under socialism.

    Mao saw all of this, and initially tolerated it. But after the military coup in 1957 and his “peaceful coexistence” theory, he had enough. He began rightfully criticizing Khrushchev, to which the USSR responded by cutting economic aid. In the end this escalated in 1961 when the USSR cut diplomatic relations with China. From then on, the international communist movement split in 2, proUSSR or proChina. Albanias Enver Hoxha supported Maos criticisms, which ultimately led to the Soviet Albanian Split, in which Albania sided with China against USSR.

    PD: This is obviously a simplification, research more yourself.

  • ☭CommieWolf☆
    link
    92 years ago

    Khrushchev’s revisionism didn’t sit well with the CPC, and they rightfully cut ties.

    • @aworldtowin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      132 years ago

      I think when we are talking about the two largest countries in the world identifying as socialist we should be hesitant to praise the cutting off of the other. We should definitely side ideologically against revisionism, but totally cutting off the SU and then siding with the imperialist camp geopolitically to the point of funding the mujahideen… I’m not sure should be praised.

      • ☭CommieWolf☆
        link
        82 years ago

        With the historical hindsight we have today, its clear to us what the consequences of Khrushchev’s policies have led to. Had the CPC maintained its position with the Soviets, especially at a time when China was far weaker than it is today, who’s to say that it wouldn’t have gone down the same road as the soviet union? We can’t outright say that the split was objectively wrong or objectively right, because we don’t know what would have happened were history different. I believe that Mao was perhaps a bit too idealistic and the level of hostility was too much, but between co-operating with a revisionist state and cutting ties, I think his decision was closer to what was necessary at the time.

        • @aworldtowin@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          12 years ago

          Tell me if I’m missing something, but it comes across as totally bizarre when people will praise Mao for cutting off “the revisionist SU” but then ignore that the alternative is literally the USA. So we can’t work with revisionist socialists but we can work with racist genociders? Or China today being allied with capitalist Russia. If there was no sino Soviet split China very well could have avoided the liberal economic reforms imo. I think we can pretty easily say the split was not a good thing. Of course we can argue whether this thing or that would happen but let’s not ignore splitting up China and Russia is exactly what US goal was and even now with Russia being capitalist the US would love to break their alliance. The two together make the collective west uneasy for a reason.

          • @Leninismydad
            link
            62 years ago

            You also have to consider that the USSR and China being linked heavily could have driven China down with the Soviet Union, because of the split, China was able to withstand the collapse, come out stronger on the other side and move into a position much greater than that of the Soviets. Without knowing exactly the internal thoughts of the leadership of the CPC it is difficult to know what they were thinking, but perhaps they saw the the dramatic shifts coming from the govt after Stalin’s death, and they were not feeling confident that the Soviet Union was indeed a reliable ally. If they were willing to turn on Stalin shortly after ww2 and his death, who was to say they wouldn’t do the same of Mao. Fickle allies are bad news, especially fresh after a Civil War and in the throws of cultural revolution. I think both sides took the split a bit too far though,they could have kept temps low and gone their own ways, but they got very aggressive with each other which sucked a lot.

      • @SaddamHussein24
        link
        52 years ago

        I mostly agree with you, but it was the USSR that cut ties, not China. Mao only rightfully criticized Khrushchevs revisionism, but in response Khrushchev cut economic aid, later on all political ties and tried to stage a coup against Mao. Same with Albania, it was Khrushchev that broke the ties.