The reproduction of a system from generation to generation can be durable without getting rid of the human element. In fact, the attempt of getting rid of the human element itself is idealistic. Socialism will always be a movement (not system) composed of humans. And it is certainly the case that socialism is not simply a system, but rather the movement of those who aim to abolish the present state of affairs. There will necessarily be many types of systems produced by socialists, and many disagreements in the socialist camp, and even reactionary brain-worms stuck in the minds of socialists young or old. Thus a “durable” socialism of the type you seek cannot really exist, because just as “scientific racism” evolved, waned, and waxed over time, so will socialism. The durably socialist system you create today could also simply become obsolete tomorrow.
This is not a Marxist viewpoint. Marxism is a modernist philosophy based on the dialectic of historical materialism. That means that Marxism states that the development of communism is inevitable and represents an ultimate state of human social organization that is classless and stateless. IMO a durable socialism is ultimately required for the modernist communist apotheosis because modernist communism would need to be systemic as well. The inherent nature of the transition between socialism and communism requires socialism to become durable so the state can wither away. A socialist state’s main goal under such an ideology is to replace itself with a social organization that supplants the need for itself.
Because conditions in China were different at the time.
This is a hindsight apologetic argument that doesn’t explain it’s own claims. Plenty of critics inside and outside China noted that China made the choice to develop cities at the expense of the country-side. We’ve seen similar choices in the prioritization of distribution play out in other socialist countries to worse effect such as the USSR. This doesn’t actually answer the question of what made it work or if it was necessary or if it could be improved by future states.
I’m not asking you to answer this question in full mind you. I’m merely saying that this answer is defensive and reflexive rather than explanatory. “The conditions were different at the time and we had no other choice” is always used to explain away and shut down criticism even in good faith. Yet that same argument isn’t made when someone seriously proposes to follow a historical example – which is quite literally entirely appropriate because the successes of those examples were based in historical material conditions that do not match our current reality.
In context the whole point is that OP’s post feels simplistic and incomplete and obviously favors their favorite flavor of leftism and even Marxism.
Through educating the future generations and continuing development and reforms. Through adapting the existing system to changing geopolitical and technological conditions.
This is a similar kind of thing where we can talk about these kind of “no duh” vagaries, but the moment we look at what this practically means everyone gets knives out sectarian.
That means that Marxism states that the development of communism is inevitable
This is a fatalistic argument and borders on a prophecy. The annihilation of humanity from nuclear war or climate collapse is also a possibility. At best, a few scattered survivors might practice a type of primitive communism in such a scenario.
And yes, while under “normal” conditions a communist society is what present day capitalist societies will be forced towards, the details of what such a society look like cannot be predicted so far in advance. Nor can such a society be proclaimed as the “ultimate” form of society unless one is to proclaim that communist societies are to simply stay frozen in time. A period of what we call communism lasting, say 10,000 years in the future would, from the perspective of these communists, most likely be split into countless epochs, likely distinguished by factors and processes and systems that are simply alien to us.
IMO a durable socialism is ultimately required for the modernist communist apotheosis because modernist communism would need to be systemic as well.
Something can be a systemic phenomena without being durable. Capitalist-imperialism for instance is world-systemic and yet it has a chronological progression that takes it inevitably to the next stage of history.
This doesn’t actually answer the question of what made it work or if it was necessary or if it could be improved by future states.
As far as I can answer the question, there were many things going on at the time
The collapse of the socialist bloc meant that the Chinese feared being encircled by the west, in terms of military, geo-politics, economics and technology. The survival of the revolution was given a high priority.
Chinese economic development during the planned economy period was a mixed bag. It kept getting hit from periodic recessions and chaos.
Chinese industry and agriculture were too underdeveloped to maintain the material living standards for everybody that the socialists were aiming for. So there was an upper limit to how many people could truly be lifted out of poverty in China until relatively recently. The Chinese country side especially is vast and difficult to physically access. The number of people, thus the requirement of energy for a modern lifestyle is massive. There is also the need to earn money from the west so you can gain access to oil markets and crucial technology.
It took herculean effort for the Chinese state to build its world famous HSR and solar power industry. And even then, China is still not energy independent and I believe it still has to import significant amounts of food, although the latter might be the result of too much animal agriculture and neglecting the countryside until the poverty alleviation campaign.
When you talk about durable socialism, that quote from Marx comes to mind
Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse
In so far as China is building “durable” socialism, they really are following this theory from Marx that they need to develop new technologies of the future that can surpass the capitalist countries.
This is a similar kind of thing where we can talk about these kind of “no duh” vagaries, but the moment we look at what this practically means everyone gets knives out sectarian.
This is a fatalistic argument and borders on a prophecy. The annihilation of humanity from nuclear war or climate collapse is also a possibility. At best, a few scattered survivors might practice a type of primitive communism in such a scenario.
Yeah but it’s quite literally the ideology.
Marx
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Engels
The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.
Engels
The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away.
And also you’re quite right as to what this means in the grand scheme of things. We might make our own Marxism, but not as we please. If I know anything about prophecy from reading the classics is that if it’s right, it’s ironically not right in the way you think it is.
Chinese industry and agriculture were too underdeveloped to maintain the material living standards for everybody that the socialists were aiming for. So there was an upper limit to how many people could truly be lifted out of poverty in China until relatively recently. The Chinese country side especially is vast and difficult to physically access. The number of people, thus the requirement of energy for a modern lifestyle is massive. There is also the need to earn money from the west so you can gain access to oil markets and crucial technology.
Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse
In so far as China is building “durable” socialism, they really are following this theory from Marx that they need to develop new technologies of the future that can surpass the capitalist countries.
There’s often an irony in seeing this line of reasoning together that’s a core irony in Marxist thought. You can sum it up as socialism or barbarism if you wish. But Marx is absolutely right that liberation is a historical act, however in your own evaluation liberation (in various material forms) was denied to one group and not the other an active political choice by an entity whose goal was total liberation. And again this isn’t something I’m expecting you to “answer”, but what I do not see a lot of people doing is sitting with that irony, evaluating it and it’s consequences.
Liberation as a historical act comes in material stages, and as a factor of the economy making the deeper question is “Did China do everything it could for the people whose liberation they deferred?”. If the answer is no that doesn’t mean they’re secretly evil or not socialists or whatever. Thinking out the answer to such questions merely gives movements that come later more data about possibilities which prevents them from over-indexing on security based concerns which has consistently been a defensive meme.
Historically speaking both the USSR and China over-indexed on security in these decisions. While China was making these decisions, the West was too busy carving up the USSR during a critical moment for Chinese development – IMO they could have done both. I don’t blame them for their decisions, but I’d personally rather accept the risks of more liberation.
In practice, despite Marxism being an ideology that understands exploitation and vulnerability, it’s very peculiar that often liberation is often denied to the most vulnerable and exploited.
This is not a Marxist viewpoint. Marxism is a modernist philosophy based on the dialectic of historical materialism. That means that Marxism states that the development of communism is inevitable and represents an ultimate state of human social organization that is classless and stateless. IMO a durable socialism is ultimately required for the modernist communist apotheosis because modernist communism would need to be systemic as well. The inherent nature of the transition between socialism and communism requires socialism to become durable so the state can wither away. A socialist state’s main goal under such an ideology is to replace itself with a social organization that supplants the need for itself.
This is a hindsight apologetic argument that doesn’t explain it’s own claims. Plenty of critics inside and outside China noted that China made the choice to develop cities at the expense of the country-side. We’ve seen similar choices in the prioritization of distribution play out in other socialist countries to worse effect such as the USSR. This doesn’t actually answer the question of what made it work or if it was necessary or if it could be improved by future states.
I’m not asking you to answer this question in full mind you. I’m merely saying that this answer is defensive and reflexive rather than explanatory. “The conditions were different at the time and we had no other choice” is always used to explain away and shut down criticism even in good faith. Yet that same argument isn’t made when someone seriously proposes to follow a historical example – which is quite literally entirely appropriate because the successes of those examples were based in historical material conditions that do not match our current reality.
In context the whole point is that OP’s post feels simplistic and incomplete and obviously favors their favorite flavor of leftism and even Marxism.
This is a similar kind of thing where we can talk about these kind of “no duh” vagaries, but the moment we look at what this practically means everyone gets knives out sectarian.
This is a fatalistic argument and borders on a prophecy. The annihilation of humanity from nuclear war or climate collapse is also a possibility. At best, a few scattered survivors might practice a type of primitive communism in such a scenario.
And yes, while under “normal” conditions a communist society is what present day capitalist societies will be forced towards, the details of what such a society look like cannot be predicted so far in advance. Nor can such a society be proclaimed as the “ultimate” form of society unless one is to proclaim that communist societies are to simply stay frozen in time. A period of what we call communism lasting, say 10,000 years in the future would, from the perspective of these communists, most likely be split into countless epochs, likely distinguished by factors and processes and systems that are simply alien to us.
Something can be a systemic phenomena without being durable. Capitalist-imperialism for instance is world-systemic and yet it has a chronological progression that takes it inevitably to the next stage of history.
As far as I can answer the question, there were many things going on at the time
It took herculean effort for the Chinese state to build its world famous HSR and solar power industry. And even then, China is still not energy independent and I believe it still has to import significant amounts of food, although the latter might be the result of too much animal agriculture and neglecting the countryside until the poverty alleviation campaign.
When you talk about durable socialism, that quote from Marx comes to mind
In so far as China is building “durable” socialism, they really are following this theory from Marx that they need to develop new technologies of the future that can surpass the capitalist countries.
Yeah cause that’s the hard part 😅
Yeah but it’s quite literally the ideology.
Marx
Engels
Engels
And also you’re quite right as to what this means in the grand scheme of things. We might make our own Marxism, but not as we please. If I know anything about prophecy from reading the classics is that if it’s right, it’s ironically not right in the way you think it is.
There’s often an irony in seeing this line of reasoning together that’s a core irony in Marxist thought. You can sum it up as socialism or barbarism if you wish. But Marx is absolutely right that liberation is a historical act, however in your own evaluation liberation (in various material forms) was denied to one group and not the other an active political choice by an entity whose goal was total liberation. And again this isn’t something I’m expecting you to “answer”, but what I do not see a lot of people doing is sitting with that irony, evaluating it and it’s consequences.
Liberation as a historical act comes in material stages, and as a factor of the economy making the deeper question is “Did China do everything it could for the people whose liberation they deferred?”. If the answer is no that doesn’t mean they’re secretly evil or not socialists or whatever. Thinking out the answer to such questions merely gives movements that come later more data about possibilities which prevents them from over-indexing on security based concerns which has consistently been a defensive meme.
Historically speaking both the USSR and China over-indexed on security in these decisions. While China was making these decisions, the West was too busy carving up the USSR during a critical moment for Chinese development – IMO they could have done both. I don’t blame them for their decisions, but I’d personally rather accept the risks of more liberation.
In practice, despite Marxism being an ideology that understands exploitation and vulnerability, it’s very peculiar that often liberation is often denied to the most vulnerable and exploited.