Sino-Soviet Split

Which side was right? Was Soviet Union a social-imperialist revisionist traitor to the world revolution? Was China a crazy warmongering Trotskyite national-chauvinist state?
Also post good history books on the subject

Attached: 2000px-Sino-Soviet_split_1980.svg.png (500x343 33.21 KB, 65.87K)

I don't know enough about the history of Russia/Soviet-China relations to really have an opinion, but in ML circles, both online and IRL based on my experience, only the ideological/theoretical aspect of the split is discussed. I think it's very silly to believe two powerful socialist states split solely over ideological concepts like "revisionism", while claiming to uphold a materialist view of history. It's similar to believing the US pushes for regime change in other countries because they care so deeply about democracy and human rights. There must be more to it than that.

who cares

Attached: NLDugGD.jpg (645x729, 27.34K)

Neither, the split was the result of the revolution failing and two capitalist states pursuing diverging interests.

/thread

...

The split was rooted in the idea of socialism in one country, it caused the leaderships to narrowly focus on their own national interests at the expense of helping the socialist movements as a whole.
China felt the USSR didn't care about Chinese interests which was true and vice versa. For example Khrushchev went with the virgin lands policy to boost USSR agriculture rather then simply mechanizing Chinese agriculture in exchange for importing food from China.

In terms of theoretical orthodoxy and adherence to the principles of socialism, China was right. In terms of actual pragmatic policy that the situation called for, the USSR. Kruschev’s peaceful coexistence policy was actually good and rational given the situation. Mao was also a retard for weakening the socialist bloc and movement so severely by splitting it. The split probably did a lot more damage than Kruschev’s moderate revisionism ever did.

I hate Kruschev but Mao was still a nigger nonetheless.

Most mainstream historians on the other hand look only to the geopolitical aspects and completely ignore the ideological differences. Only communists have really ever concerned themselves with the implications of the latter. Sure, to think that two huge countries would split because of differences in theory only is quite silly. But Cornholio and Mao were both convinced communists (with Mao certainly being more revolutionary and Krushchev more of the "slow and steady" type), so it's probably a mixture of both with the ideological differences being slightly more important - Mao's policies and outlook would threaten the emerging bureaucratic strata in the USSR that just got comfortable, so there is your materialist aspect as well.

Also remember that Hoxha completely isolated himself only because of ideological nuances. Admittedly, Albania was probably the most autistic country in the socialist world.

both of these anons are right.
Khruschev naively thought peace with the evil empire was possible and Mao decided that maintaining chinese influence in the sinosphere was more important than international communism.
state-based revolutions will inevitably revert to national interests because no political leader will willingly abolish their own country.

Attached: gadd600span.jpg (600x350, 71.48K)

Clearly the non-white side

None of them were wh*te

The nation state remains to this day the most coherent wide-scale form of organizaton. Conditions for a socialist revolution vary along the lines of nation states. If there is going to be a revolution in Europe, it's more likely to be in Greece than in Germany, if there is going to be a revolution in Asia it's more likely to be in India than in Singapore. Any other concept postulates a prescriptive reality different from our own.

Secondly, it is in the national interest of a socialist state to create another socialist state to gain support. There were no egoistic national interests in the Soviet aid for the Third World. There were no imperialist interests in the relations to the other COMECON states which were a net deficit for the USSR. Even way after the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR continue to give loans to the PRC to conditions in-defecit for the former.
But charismatic "anarchist" leaders like Makhno or Öcalan will? They are not "political" in any sense of the word? Truth is, when it comes to actual practice after a revolution, an anarchist state-not-a-state would not look much different from a Marxist-Leninist one in its fundamental conception.

state-based revolutions will inevitably revert to national interests because no political leader will willingly abolish their own country.
Thats honestly a super generalization but it's correct in 99% of the cases. It hasn't ever happened yet when a government gives the power directly to the proletarian yet.

Ocalan isn't an anarchist, Makhno wasn't a nationalist and neither wanted to establish a country so maybe pick better examples
most anarchists are prison abolitionists, skeptical of central planning, believe in decentralization of power and direct workers control and are anti-bureaucracy so that's just false

What do you define as "country"? It wasn't the point what narrow definitions your society is going to meet or not, answer me this: What interest would a charismatic leader have to give up his leadership?
So utopians. Marxist-Leninists are prison abolitionists in the sense that they abolish the systemic reasons of crime, this is why Marxist-Leninist states only had 10% of the crime rate of the most modern capitalist countries. Ergo, smaller police force, smaller prisons. You still need confinement for those who harm society nonetheless.
While offering no alternative. Again, hippie talking points.
Mao tried it and failed.
What does that mean in practice? Voting on who cleans the pipes tomorrow? Such slogans make no implications for the political economy, how do you seek to abolish capitalism?
Define bureaucrat. The more elected you are the less bureaucratic you are?

Catalonia had labour camps, labour discipline and centralized economic decision making. Are you going to denounce the only real world example of your ideology that wasn't a miserable failure from beginning to end?

All three of these are just useless buzzwords (at least in the way they're used by people like yourself).

man Hoxha was such a retard

>But Cornholio and Mao were both convinced communists (with Mao certainly being more revolutionary and Krushchev more of the "slow and steady" type), so it's probably a mixture of both with the ideological differences being slightly more important - Mao's policies and outlook would threaten the emerging bureaucratic strata in the USSR that just got comfortable, so there is your materialist aspect as well.
Also, this is a good point.

When do I get to crush Zig Forums skulls like yours in though?

ur mean :(

The national interest of the USSR prevented it from relying on other socialist nations. If Khrushchev was thinking internationally there would be no point in his drive to "fix" Soviet agriculture as the USSR was still in a position to export industrial goods for food to the devloping world including China, making the USSR's agriculture "crisis" more a issue of being sub-optimal.
The USSR's drive to be self-sufficient in cotton production alone caused massive environmental degradation and led to the food deficits of the 1980's, even though it could have easily gotten cotton dirt cheap from Africa in exchange of industrializing them, which would have been a far better deal for African as their imperial masters that were getting cotton from Africa in exchange of burdening Africa with western debt. Then again the USSR was far more interested in being respected by the imperial powers then liberating the vassals of said powers.

Hardcore things boo, why don't you fuck yourself

Because you're a nigger leftist of some sort and therefore must die.

The USSR trying to be self-suficent was a good idea though. When you rely on trade you have to build a blue water navy (aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc) to protect said trade. However the USSR had a brown water navy (subs). And the production of a blue water navy would’ve bankrupted the USSR. Because the USSR was unable to produce a blue water navy they couldn’t rely on imports in the event of World War with Burgerland, and if they did rely on Imports the USSR would collapse if they went to war. Which was very likely at the time. As such it makes sense for the USSR, from a military perspective to be self-suficent.

Not really, China was a overland land route same with India and building up both of their navies to regional powers would have allowed the USSR to also trade with Africa easily if the USSR trusted India and China to defend their part of the trade route from the USA.
Basically they just had to use the Imperial German naval doctrine of WWI in focusing on fast warships to outrun the superior navy and try to win naval engagement through manoeuvre rather then firepower.

Attached: you know where this is from dont lie.jpg (800x450, 63.17K)

“China” at this time was legally Taiwan and the KMT’s army was bigger than the PLA, so relying n China was risky. Also Chinese roads were shit. The USSR should’ve given Industrial Aid to China to help them become an Industrial Nation, without doing either Dengism or Great Leap Forward shit. However becoming reliant on Chinese Imports was a bad idea.

India wasn’t even Communist.

The Soviet Navy was very similar to the German fleet from WW1 where most Soviet ships were submarines. However the Germans weren’t able to get as many goods through blockades as they needed. There were food shortages in Germany during the first World War. Running ships thorough blockades was a costly strategy during WW1, in a hypothetical WW3 it would be impossible because of anti-ship missiles.

Why would the USSR care about Taiwan and if it is "legally" China?
By then building railways and roads were not time consuming.
It wouldn't if the USSR and China are on the same page.
They were friendly to the USSR and it wouldn't have taken much to get them into the USSR's camp.
A WWIII scenario is that the fleet just has to skirmish long enough till MAD kicks in and the US backs down or there is a full scale nuclear exchange.

What is New Democracy for 500

Mao > Krushchev, but this is a "if I have to pick" decision.

that has literally nothing to do with prison abolitionism but thanks for trying

Why don't you abolish yourself then? You might as well be gravity abolitionists. How do you deal with crime then?

no gods no masters faggot and that includes penal officers

You didn' answer my question, kid.

every time

Attached: cdb27583f66637964408aad81da8a85358a724796758fd1a3f06cbe10d195506.jpg (645x729, 27.3K)

Underage detected.

The absolute state of tankies

Attached: a642f9c406332eb75b13da9b49d167051cca6cfcdde971f9e97ee1e894024e03.png (340x448, 119.8K)

You know it is easy to go on twitter and find some equally embarrassing trans lesbian disabled sexworker WoC veganarcho-communist so why even bother? Took me less than 5 minutes to find these accounts for example.

Attached: 6.jpg (288x377 35.94 KB, 33.54K)

Also
I don't know if they are the same poster but one reply earlier (
) this exact point was made:

If someone's getting triggered by a tranny on this board, they're going to be ML-adjacent.

The systemic reasons for crime weren't abolished though, in the post you quoted he makes an unsourced claim that crime existed at a lower rate than comparable capitalist states, not that crime had disappeared. This also has little to do with prison abolition, which the presence of prisons(such as the gulags) housing criminals in the previously existing socialist states supports. The reasons to be against such things are that prisons exacerbate social problems rather than remedying them and that in a class society such institutions will be used against any socialist movement. This is obvious within the western states where many historical socialist writers dealt with imprisonment and happens to be where most posters on this board are, if you aren't a prison abolitionist then you're pretty much asking to be fucked over.

Getting triggered by a particular tranny is the very genesis of this board.

Not because that person is a tranny by mod accounts he isn't but because BO started banning for not towing the line in geopolitical matters.

this makes sense, since the particular material conditions of the time that lead to the split were indeed particular to that time. what should perhaps be explored more is the total failure of internationalism that lead to diverging geopolitical interests. the blame here lies with post-Lenin USSR around the latter part of 1920s when SU took the traditional mantle of Russia in international politics


do you consider this 'bureaucratic strata' a class, like Maoists do? if not, why do they seem to have divergent interests compared to the common man?
you're ignoring the albania-yugoslavia conflict and the thaw between Soviets and Yugos, a thaw which only intensified Chinese attacks on Yugoslavian revisionism. The Chinese also covertly criticised the Soviets in their rabid condemnations of Yugoslavia.

Going to read [pic related] next. Reading opinions and common concerns from leftists from back in the day, the Sino-Soviet split was a major issue for the communist movement - a wedge and a huge seed of doubt. The split is something that has to be carefully studied.

Attached: 9780691135908.png (315x480, 234.39K)

In certain respects one section of the working class is very likely to have divergent interests compared to the rest of the working class. Different sectors of the bourgeoisie tend to have divergent interests on some questions. What is the relevance of this question?

it's pretty much at the core of the split between Maoists and other MLs

Got a pdf?

unfortunately not