Let $R$ and $S$ be $\mathbb{C}$-algebras. Show that $X$ is a simple $R \otimes S$-module if and only if it is isomorphic to a $R \otimes S$-module of the form $V \otimes W$ with $V$ simple $R$-module and $W$ simple $S$-module.
Starting with the backwards direction, I know that if we assume the semisimplicity of $R$ and $S$, I can show that the endomorphism ring of $V \otimes W$ is a division ring (it is isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}$), since we can also show $R \otimes S$ is finite dimensional and semisimple, that would imply that $V \otimes W$ is simple.
But now I would like to show both directions $without$ assuming the semisimplicty of $R$ and $S$, and I'm lost.
(I assume all tensor products are taken over $\mathbb{C}$ here. Also, this is not a complete answer.)
This is false if $R$ and $S$ can be infinite-dimensional. Take $R = S = \mathbb{C}(t)$; then the only tensor product of simple modules available is the free module $R \otimes S$ of rank $1$, but $R \otimes S$ is not a field (e.g. it admits a natural surjective map to $\mathbb{C}(t)$ given by multiplication which has nontrivial kernel, so it has a nonzero proper ideal) so it is not simple as a module over itself.
For a more complicated counterexample involving the Weyl algebra see this math.SE answer. According to that question it should be true if we assume that $X$ is finite-dimensional but I'm not sure how to prove that.
If $R$ and $S$ are finite-dimensional, then a simple $R \otimes S$-module is a module over the quotient $(R \otimes S)/J(R \otimes S)$ by the Jacobson radical, and the tensor product $V \otimes W$ of a simple $R$-module and a simple $S$-module is a module over the tensor product $R/J(R) \otimes S/J(S)$. There's a natural map
$$R/J(R) \otimes S/J(S) \to (R \otimes S)/J(R \otimes S)$$
and it would suffice to prove that this is an isomorphism, because then we'd be reduced to the semisimple case. I think this is true (we will need to use the fact that $\mathbb{C}$ is algebraically closed, or at least that it's perfect; this is false over a non-perfect field) but I also don't know how to prove this off the top of my head.