Also border disputes and resources ownership in central Asia. Stalin signed a massive friendship treaty with Mao after the civil war which gave a large amount of economic aid but in return also gave huge natural resource concessions to the Soviets. Like even the imperial powers of the last century couldn't secure a concession like this, for some years China was delivering 100% of their production of strategic resources like copper, rubber, or tungsten to the Soviets. It wasn't imperialism because they did get the chance to quickly industrialize off all that Soviet aid, but you could understand why China might feel like it was unfair.
There was also an ideological spilt with China calling Khrushchev revisionist and USSR calling China nationalists (both are honestly not so wrong). And issues with Soviet policy in South East Asia, particularly Vietnam.
Tbh even in light of the sino soviet split i havent seen much enemity from Chinese communists in retrospect towards that Stalin era of the USSR sending aid and most importantly technology,knowledge and experts sharing in probably the largest scale in human history in exchange for that natural resource dealing. I feel like the general sentiment was that it was benifitial for both parties more than not and an important part on what allowed the successes of the early years after the revolution
True, but technology sharing is a benefit that's going to diminish over time as you catch up, while giving up resources is a constant kneecap, and there's also the fact that a lot of the material they would need to take advantage of that new technology was being given away as part of the agreement. So they were giving up a constant stream of resources for diminishing benefits that they couldn't take advantage of in proper scale.
There were serious differences in policy arising from the Kruschev thaw, and in the approach to the West (initially this was that the USSR was too friendly with the first world and was not sufficiently supporting of decolonial efforts). There were also geopolitical things going on, mostly over India and Central Asia.
Obviously Maoism is closer to Stalin era ML than late-Soviet ML, and diverged increasingly on a number of theoretical points.
Finally both sides thought the other too cavalier with the nukes (with some justification, especially for China.)
But it was a dumb, horrible thing to do, on the part of both parties. We as leftists really have to have more tolerance of comrades being terribly, annoyingly wrong in our presence.
What was the real break between the soviets and China? Like most of what I hear is just personal beefs between leaders, was it really that simple?
Also border disputes and resources ownership in central Asia. Stalin signed a massive friendship treaty with Mao after the civil war which gave a large amount of economic aid but in return also gave huge natural resource concessions to the Soviets. Like even the imperial powers of the last century couldn't secure a concession like this, for some years China was delivering 100% of their production of strategic resources like copper, rubber, or tungsten to the Soviets. It wasn't imperialism because they did get the chance to quickly industrialize off all that Soviet aid, but you could understand why China might feel like it was unfair.
There was also an ideological spilt with China calling Khrushchev revisionist and USSR calling China nationalists (both are honestly not so wrong). And issues with Soviet policy in South East Asia, particularly Vietnam.
Tbh even in light of the sino soviet split i havent seen much enemity from Chinese communists in retrospect towards that Stalin era of the USSR sending aid and most importantly technology,knowledge and experts sharing in probably the largest scale in human history in exchange for that natural resource dealing. I feel like the general sentiment was that it was benifitial for both parties more than not and an important part on what allowed the successes of the early years after the revolution
deleted by creator
fucking Khrushchev.
correct move
True, but technology sharing is a benefit that's going to diminish over time as you catch up, while giving up resources is a constant kneecap, and there's also the fact that a lot of the material they would need to take advantage of that new technology was being given away as part of the agreement. So they were giving up a constant stream of resources for diminishing benefits that they couldn't take advantage of in proper scale.
Krushchev was a revisionist who denounced Stalin and should have been shot. @toledosequel either loves cornman, is a yankee, or both.
Lol
There were serious differences in policy arising from the Kruschev thaw, and in the approach to the West (initially this was that the USSR was too friendly with the first world and was not sufficiently supporting of decolonial efforts). There were also geopolitical things going on, mostly over India and Central Asia.
Obviously Maoism is closer to Stalin era ML than late-Soviet ML, and diverged increasingly on a number of theoretical points.
Finally both sides thought the other too cavalier with the nukes (with some justification, especially for China.)
But it was a dumb, horrible thing to do, on the part of both parties. We as leftists really have to have more tolerance of comrades being terribly, annoyingly wrong in our presence.
Basically, their national interests came into conflict with each other. Socialism in 1 country ftw :stalin-approval:
this is an ahistorical dogshit take
Communists justifiably being pretty pissed at Krushchev for denouncing stalin and supporting "dictatorship of the whole people"
There's only one right answer. They can't both be right!