Communism/Democratic Socialism/Leninist Authoritarianism/Robert Reich Capitalism

[T.A.Frawley]

So I'm pretty sure I understand the difference between Communism and Leninist Authoritarianism.

However, the more I read the less I understand the difference between Communism and Democratic Socialism.

Then for the hell of it I decided to read an Robert Reich, because it mentioned Socialism its found here robertreich.org/post/22542609387. Why won't this work?

Now I'm even more confused and I feel like Ricky Recardo Jr on I Love Lucy "Splain please Lucy?" :confused:

[Subversive]

There is no such thing as "Leninist Authoritarianism".

"Democratic Socialism" is a rather meaningless umbrella term that, in many cases, refers to "Social Democracy", which used to be synonymous with the Communist movement prior to the formation of the USSR, but then became a separate branch of non-revolutionary reformists.

Robert Reich is an idiot. The reason it wouldn't work is because it is a reactionary Capitalist ideology to maintain Capitalism. Capitalism does not work and if you need help understanding that then feel free to read the works of Marx or ask more specific questions. Marx specifically condemned, in detail, why such systems could never work and why they are explicitly just reactionary nonsense by the bourgeois as an attempt to maintain Capitalism.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Communism is the end goal. Although 'communist' is a generic term used by anyone who favors communism, that camp is filled with a bunch of competing factions. 'Leninism' would be one faction, although even that breaks down into a further dozen competing frameworks. 'Democratic Socialists' would be another, but again it's super generic and would encompass a whole bunch of people who don't actually agree with each other about anything.

In the end the terms are actually fairly arbitrary and are intended to show the specific ideological and theoretical building blocks that lead to whatever framework the person is selling. In the context of a non-revolutionary period it really only equates to a bunch of navel-gazing and arguing between people who have read a bunch of books and want to vomit memorized passages at each other in lieu of authentic discourse or critical thinking. I wouldn't get bogged down in it anymore than you can help.

[VivalaCuarta]

Robert Reich was U.S. imperialism's Labor Secretary. Now he is a writer of whiny books on how to make capitalist exploitation nicer. There is no such thing as Robert Reich capitalism because the private owners of capital must maximize their rate of return or be ejected from the market. Even if the capitalist government taxed the capitalists more, it would not do so in the interests of the workers and oppressed.

"Democratic socialism" is a phrase that social democrats use to describe their role as agents of the class enemy within the workers movement. Socialism is a classless, stateless society that requires the revolutionary expropriation of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat and the proletariat's "authoritarian" ("Leninist authoritarianism," if you will) dictatorship during the revolution's international completion. "Democratic" socialists are against revolution, and therefore against socialism, because it denies democracy to the bourgeoisie, i.e. it is "authoritarian."

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Reich pretty much states why we, as communists, don't support reformism: "The last great surge in productivity occurred between 1870 and 1928 [...] That ended abruptly in the Great Crash of 1929 [...] A similar thing happened between 1980 and 2007"

Reich's solution to a system which inevitably collapses again and again in a cycle? More of the same sort of reformism that didn't work to prevent the inevitable future crises in the first place. Reich thinks that if the working class are thrown more scraps from the table then we'll be content every time we get shat upon by capitalism's inherent contradictions. You can't fix what isn't broken, capitalism works exactly as intended: it exploits the vast majority of humanity in order to fuel the drive to accumulate wealth for a small minority and reforming the system won't alter its corrupt core characteristics.

[John Nada]

Bernsteinism for the 21st Century!:lol:

What he's advocated isn't new. It's been what social democrats have been saying for over a hundred years. He's not factoring that a lot of the past growth social democratic stuff was with the help of imperialism(exploiting poor nations, who most certainly did not reaping the benefits and he conveniently leaves out, among others) and that they needed to keep people from dieing in the streets so they wouldn't turn to the communists(with the support of the Soviet bloc). It is a zero-sum game.

Under capitalism, the workers and the capitalist have conflicting interests. Different capitalist have conflicting interests, they compete. The capitalists want to squeeze the worker for as much as they can. Pass concessions get revoked. When they can't do it anymore they more on to another nation to exploit them too. If his idea of how the world should be is the majority of the US scrubbing shit off the rich's toilets, or a "flip each others' burger" economy, all while exploiting workers in other countries(which often results in war), then shit will not change. I'd still be exploited by the capitalist, since contrary to what some third-worldists and self-proclaimed "democratic" socialists think, they cannot bourgeoisfy the whole damn country. If I dig ditches, but get stock options that aren't worth shit, it's still the same. Those recessions and depressions that happen nearly every 10 years won't stop. The perpetual warfare won't stop.

Now I'd be the last to oppose universal healthcare, more social security and welfare. However these social democrats and "democratic" socialists propose things that are like making everyone a lord with serfs and a master with slaves. "Help the small slave-owners, give everyone who works hard the chance to own slaves.":laugh: I'll take that "authoritarian" Leninism any day of the week.

[T.A.Frawley]

Once again you guys blow my mind with your thoughtful replies. Thanks so damn much!