The US Democratic Party or the Communist Party of Greece

[Deus Naturae]

You mean like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Kampuchea

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

Except that state did in fact abolish money, as well as private ownership of the "means of production". It might not have been done the way you wanted it but it's silly to argue they weren't doing it at all, which is perfectly valid in modern day China for example.

The Democratic Party, obviously. Nearly every Communist Party in the world is hardly Communist, but rather some type of weird Stalinist, Leninist, Maoist or other authoritarian party. Give me a Pure Communist party and I'll be on board.

Doesn't everyone consider their version of Communism to be the pure one?

There is only one correct definition of pure Communism. It's like interpretations of Islam. Just because ISIS has a view of what Islam is doesn't mean it's the correct one.

Why does an ideology have to have any single "correct" version, and who decides which version it is?  It's true though that Communists tend to agree there is only one correct definition of Communism, and that theirs is the correct one.   Saying you believe in "pure Communism" doesn't tell us anything about which version of Communism you believe is the pure one.

Pure Communism is the ideal of a stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production, preferably without a system of paper or metal-based currency.

How do you get to that point without having the state socialize production or forcibly ban the use currency? Even if communism could work, if the only way to achieve it is to is to first implement certain state policies, than criticism of those policies is a valid criticism of communism.

Also R2, you don't consider Lenin to be a true communist?

Anyway, when we're on the subject of communism, would any of the Atlas commies explain how "common ownership" is supposed to work? Would their be periodic referenda in which the electorate would vote on how much of x to produce (how would that work without a state anyway)? Would the employees of firms (would there be more than one of these for the production of each given commodity) vote on how much they want to produce, and ban anyone from trying to produce more of that thing, even if their was consumer demand for more? 

And, without a state, how would you stop people from exchanging stuff anyway? If you can't stop free exchange, you can't get rid of money, which is a natural result of people freely exchanging goods/services with one another.

[Deus Naturae]

Anything can be currency. The state can ban the use of a paper or metal currency and create one in which apples are currency. Currency doesn't have to be banned (although many communists will say it should) but if you're like me, you do see a flaw in a society with no form of currency. I would much rather have an apple currency, because apples can't be hoarded the way paper can be.

So...is this communism or just your personal beliefs? Or are you just defining communism to be whatever you believe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's like saying that Barack Obama isn't a real Democrat because he hasn't been able to implement every single Democratic policy. If someone's end-goal is to establish communism, you can't really claim they aren't a communist, even if they don't able to perfectly execute all of their ideas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself, but I'll try to address...this.

So...everyone would only be allowed to eat and use what they grew and would be banned (at the threat of tribal violence) from trading their crops?  Or, all of the crops people grew would just be taken by the "tribe" (which sounds a lot like a state), divided by the number of people in the tribe, and distributed equally by the tribe (which totally isn't a state) to every person?

Aside from the fact that people would have practically no incentive to produce under this system (as opposed to capitalism where people have an incentive to produce things that people want so they can sell them), you realize this would basically revert society to a primitive agrarian state? "Free medicine" wouldn't even exist because modern pharmaceuticals would be impossible to produce. It would be impossible to combine and change natural resources to make new things if everyone could only use what they grew directly from the earth...or would the state (sorry, tribe) take natural resources that tribe-members grew/extracted from the earth and then use them to make new things? If so, how would it determine which things to produce using natural resources?