What if the Sino-Soviet split had not occurred?

[Unclebananahead]

In 1950, The USSR and PRC signed the 'Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance' in which the Soviet Union gave the PRC a low interest loan of approximately $300 million, and a 30 year military alliance was formed between the two countries. By 1960, Sino-Soviet relations had deteriorated severely, and the leadership of each country felt increased hostility and suspicion towards one another.

Supposing this split had not occurred, what could have been accomplished? Could Marxists regard this event as one of the most tragic to befall our movement in the 20th century? In considering this event, I would like to know thoughts and opinions on why the split occurred, whether or not it could've been averted, and what might have been accomplished if it had.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The USSR was steeped in revisionism by the 60's. Had the PRC not split, it would have been in the context of not calling out this revisionism.

What would have happened? Good question. Maybe the PRC would have followed suit and went revisionist earlier. The critique of the USSR included a theory about the establishment of a new bourgeoisie, one that was later heavyly utilized during the cultural revolution. Perhaps had not the Sino Soviet Split occured, the GPCR would not have happen and China would have slid into revisionism without much mass struggle.

Another possibility was advanced by Lin Piao, which was a alliance with the USSR revisionists towards the end of overthrowing U.S. hegemony and advancing revolution in the Third World. While this would have left many conflicts unresolved amongst the nominally socialist camp, it seems to be the best plausible alternative.

It would definitely have been better than what did develop: the Three Worlds Theory. This latter international line was put forward at the beginning of the 70's and stated that the U.S. and USSR were both part of the imperialist camp and sought to unite Europe and the Third World against both. It was a de facto alliance with the U.S. and objectively marked the end of China's support for foreign revolutions. It began an era of chinese statesmanship and ended that of revolutionary internationalism.

[Unclebananahead]

Another possibility was advanced by Lin Piao, which was a alliance with the USSR revisionists towards the end of overthrowing U.S. hegemony and advancing revolution in the Third World. While this would have left many conflicts unresolved amongst the nominally socialist camp, it seems to be the best plausible alternative

This tends to be my own opinion. It would have seemed obvious to me, had I been in either government at the time, to prioritize the struggle against US imperialism over other considerations, which could have theoretically been resolved at a later, though undetermined time. Imagine if throughout the 50's, 60's, and 70's, both countries were united in aiding third world revolutionary movements. Would US imperialism have been able to withstand such as that? I don't think it would have.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not being an "Anti-Revisionist" here, I must say that the Chinese split was woefully opportunistic.

The rhetoric behind "Soviet revisionism" was in actual fact an indirect polemic aimed at the "roader" Liu Shaoqi (since Deng was a nobody at that time). Meanwhile, in spite of some policy blunders by Khrushchev (most noticeably the "communism by 1980" crap and the missile crisis), he thought of himself as a "Marxist-Leninist" while entertaining the Liberman vs. Kantorovich debate over markets vs. cybernetic planning.

Without the split:

1) Bulgaria may have actually become a Soviet republic;
2) Yugoslavia may have entered into the Soviet sphere of influence;
3) The more liberal Eastern European states would have less wiggle room for economic deviationism (such as Poland's utter lack of collectivization);
4) Mongolia would have dissolved into either the PRC or (more likely) the USSR; and
5) The tinpot rulers Enver Hoxha and Kim Il-Sung would be deprived of any carrots to maintain Albanian autarky and Juche, respectively.

[Unclebananahead]

Jacob: Don't you suppose that a 'united front against imperialism' could have led to several more successful revolutions throughout Asia and Africa? There were many revolutionary struggles throughout the 60's and 70's that could have benefited from this immensely, like in Indonesia for instance. Indonesia's military junta government had to drown the several thousand strong communist movement in blood in order to defeat revolution there, and so it goes without saying that a Marxist-Leninist govt. would definitely have been established there had the Indonesian comrades had more assistance. This is of course just one example however.

[Die Neue Zeit]

True. Also consider the very real but pointless fights between the post-colonial states affiliated with the Soviets vs. those with the Chinese, like Ethiopia and Eritrea.

[Josef Balin]

Being someone uneducated on the subject, Jacob would you mind explaining why you think your points would have happened?

[AvanteRedGarde]

The Sino Soviet relations deteriorated almost a decade before the GPCR. Unless you are suggesting that the Sino-Soviet split was merely preparation for attacks on Liu, which is highly improbable, then what you are saying doesn't really make sense.

Khrushchev was distrurbed by Mao's international militance, and bowing to U.S. pressure, refused to help China develop nukes. This, combined with real examples of practises non-conductive to the further advancement of socialism, was why the USSR was singled out as revisionist.

Your 1 through 5 points have some problems also. For instance, the Yugoslavian CP, from its incepetion had problems and misgivings with the CPSU. Bulgaria was liberated during WW2, established itself as a PR in 46 and allied with the USSR. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Being someone uneducated on the subject, Jacob would you mind explaining why you think your points would have happened?


The Sino Soviet relations deteriorated almost a decade before the GPCR. Unless you are suggesting that the Sino-Soviet split was merely preparation for attacks on Liu, which is highly improbable, then what you are saying doesn't really make sense.

Khrushchev was distrurbed by Mao's international militance, and bowing to U.S. pressure, refused to help China develop nukes. This, combined with real examples of practises non-conductive to the further advancement of socialism, was why the USSR was singled out as revisionist.

Your 1 through 5 points have some problems also. For instance, the Yugoslavian CP, from its inception had problems and misgivings with the CPSU. Bulgaria was liberated during WW2, established itself as a PR in 46 and allied with the USSR. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.

1) Bulgaria had a suck-up puppet leader under Brezhnev (or earlier, if the same leader led Bulgaria under Khrushchev). This puppet leader wanted Bulgaria to become an actual Soviet republic.
2) Soviet-Yugoslavian relations thawed during the Khrushchev years.
3) The point is especially important. The Sino-Soviet split led to divisions within the Eastern bloc, with East Germany being the most "orthodox Marxist-Leninist" of the bunch and with Poland next door being a deviationist. A show of unity would've given Mao an opportunity to attack Liu Shaoqi indirectly through the Polish deviationists instead of Khrushchev himself.
4) Mongolia was quite pro-Soviet, so a show of unity would've pushed this further.
5) If Hoxha and Sung maintained their crap, they would've looked like a bunch of laughing stock.

[Josef Balin]

1) Bulgaria had a suck-up puppet leader under Brezhnev (or earlier, if the same leader led Bulgaria under Khrushchev). This puppet leader wanted Bulgaria to become an actual Soviet republic.
2) Soviet-Yugoslavian relations thawed during the Khrushchev years.
3) The point is especially important. The Sino-Soviet split led to divisions within the Eastern bloc, with East Germany being the most "orthodox Marxist-Leninist" of the bunch and with Poland next door being a deviationist. A show of unity would've given Mao an opportunity to attack Liu Shaoqi indirectly through the Polish deviationists instead of Khrushchev himself.
4) Mongolia was quite pro-Soviet, so a show of unity would've pushed this further.
5) If Hoxha and Sung maintained their crap, they would've looked like a bunch of laughing stock.
I understood that much, I don't understand why you think 1, 2, or 4 were any more likely to happen with China's position on the Soviet Union changing.

[Das war einmal]

With all do respect, I know that 'what if' is a nice way of thinking, but it is completely pointless. If the bullet in 1923 did hit Hitler and not the man protesting next to him, who knows what would have happened? Does it have any practical use to discuss such a matter?

[Unclebananahead]

With all do respect, I know that 'what if' is a nice way of thinking, but it is completely pointless. If the bullet in 1923 did hit Hitler and not the man protesting next to him, who knows what would have happened? Does it have any practical use to discuss such a matter?

In case you may not have noticed, this is the history forum. A place specifically designated for discussing historical matters, and I think pondering 'what ifs' isn't entirely out of the question. In practical terms, yes it doesn't exactly get us anywhere, but does everything necessarily need to? Besides, there may be some benefit to considering what may have came out of increased Sino-Soviet collaboration. We may be reminded of that timeless lesson of, 'united we stand, divided we fall.' Were the Soviet Union and PRC to have acted more in concert, and put aside their differences to form a united front against US imperialism, it is very likely we would have a drastically different world today, in which the imperialists do not hold the power and influence that they regrettably do. The PRC probably wouldn't have come under the control of the capitalist roaders in the late 70's (e.g. Deng Xiaoping and co.), and the Soviet Union would probably not have been forcibly dismantled by counter-revolutionary capitalist conspirators within the party itself (e.g. Gorbachev and Yeltsin).

[Cumannach]

Of course the Sino-Soviet split was a result of the assumption to power of revisionists, opportunists and capitalist restorationists in the Soviet Union. So the only way it could have not happened were if the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Russia had been strong enough to hold on to power in the first place. If only that had been the case, my guess is capitalism would be history by now.

I think personally it's mistaken to believe that a revisionist government like the post-Stalin Soviets and had any interest in combating US imperialism for the sake of it. In my opinion Khruschev had thought he could dissolve the antagonism between the US and the Soviet Union and that they could peacefully coexist while the revisionists continued their long task of hacking away at socialism bit by bit and Khruschev was then suprised and upset to learn that the US had no interest in curbing it's aggression towards even a revisionist Soviet Union. And this would then cause him to overreact, like in the Cuban Missile crisis. I would look on the post-Stalin opposition to US imperialism neither as intentionally aiding the world revolution for the sake of it nor of spreading some kind of 'Soviet Imperialism', but of reluctantly fighting back against an aggressive US imperialism that wouldn't answer any conciliatory overtures the revisionist Soviets might make so long as there was even a hint of Communism left in the country. But I'm open to contradiction on all of that ...