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.
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.