The US Democratic Party or the Communist Party of Greece

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

Sure, there is the ideal, but the major reason you see these different versions of Communism is that there has been a disagreement over how to achieve it, which leads people in very different directions.

[Lambsbread]

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

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

Sure, there is the ideal, but the major reason you see these different versions of Communism is that there has been a disagreement over how to achieve it, which leads people in very different directions.

Of course. I never said there wasn't a split over how to achieve the goal, I said that said splits are missing the point and muddying the definition of Communism.

[IceSpear]

Democratic Party (normal, not Stalinist)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sure, there is the ideal, but the major reason you see these different versions of Communism is that there has been a disagreement over how to achieve it, which leads people in very different directions.

Of course. I never said there wasn't a split over how to achieve the goal, I said that said splits are missing the point and muddying the definition of Communism.

How can it be missing the point for a political party to have an idea about how it is going to achieve its goals?  Political parties don't exist just so they can daydream about what kind of world they'd like to live in.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Almost all Communist parties fail to recognize the importance of free will and personal preference when it comes to jobs, careers, and livelihood. 

I'll go with the party I'm registered with. 

[citation needed]

It's quite common knowledge that historical "Communist" governments (it's in quotes because in no way was Marx's vision realized) pushed their working class into collectivization and rapid industrial growth.  I strongly believe that social/economic revolution must be willingly entered into.  That is done through education of the masses and destruction of rightist/capitalist propaganda, but "Communist" governments forced the issue, and it lead to totalitarianism and personality cultism.  As such, I reject Communist parties that want to model themselves after the USSR (like the Greeks do with their Marxist-Leninist philosophy) and align myself with Social Democrats on the global scale, and the Democrats in the U.S. as the only viable party that could feasibly move towards Social Democracy. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[SWE]

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.

[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.

[politicus]

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

Lenin certainly wasn't an orthodox Marxist. His "heretical" interpretation of Marxism led to all the horrible regimes which called themselves Communist, but you could argue that both  he and they simply deviated too much from the original idea to be considered genuine Communism.

Still, they took the label and redefined the meaning of the term. But nevertheless Leninist Marxism is easily the worst kind of Marxism.

[Lambsbread]

Sure, there is the ideal, but the major reason you see these different versions of Communism is that there has been a disagreement over how to achieve it, which leads people in very different directions.

Of course. I never said there wasn't a split over how to achieve the goal, I said that said splits are missing the point and muddying the definition of Communism.

How can it be missing the point for a political party to have an idea about how it is going to achieve its goals?  Political parties don't exist just so they can daydream about what kind of world they'd like to live in.

There's a difference between having an idea and executing that idea. If the definition of pure Communism is as I defined it earlier, then any party that seeks (or executes) authoritarian control via the state, retains a system of currency and does not have common ownership of the means of production, then it is not a Communist party. It may support the idea of Communism as I described it, but it is not achieving it--at least as far as they continue to do what I've described. In an alternate world, if I were elected President of the United States, promising to create a socialist economic system, I can't turn around and create or accelerate wealth inequality. Because that's not what socialism is.

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.

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.

Lenin was a Communist in principle, no doubt. The way he executed his beliefs was what stopped him from being a pure Communist. There's a reason terms such as Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc exist, because those individual men had ideas that resembled Communism, but they weren't actually Communists due to the great disparities between idea and execution.

Just because there is no state does not mean there is no room for referenda. If people resort to local tribal mentality (which would be great) then there would be knowledge of just how much of x need be produced in order to satisfy the needs of the "tribe." The idea is that people should not demand more. People can have as much food as they can grow, but they don't need to have several houses, bedrooms, cars, etc. because there needs to be equal ownership. Essentially, people would be employed within the society to help their fellow men and women, and in return, all of their needs would be ensured. Free medical insurance, free education, free everything essentially...the society keeps afloat on the ideal of common ownership and common production for the common good.

There wouldn't be free exchange. There wouldn't be an excess of stuff to give away. Production would be halted at the line of common need, so people wouldn't have more than they need.

[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?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Was Marx a Communist at least? 

[Person Man]

This poll is weird.  I am not a Stalinist.

[© tweed]

the KKE can only function as an opposition party as it's currently constructed.  they have no interest in even trying to share power / joining an electoral coalition.

[Lambsbread]

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?

This is my personal belief.

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.[/quote]

I made it specifically clear that Lenin was a Communist in principle. Lenin was a member of the Communist Party, just as Barack Obama is a member of the Democratic Party. Is Barack Obama really a progressive? Does he align with every single progressive belief? Of course not. He conducts military operations that directly contradict progressive belief on the issue. He also hasn't been very economically progressive, nor has he done much for social equality. His actions resemble progressivism, but he is not a progressive. The same is true of Lenin. He definitely did things that resembled Communism, but because his actual policy went beyond what his goals were, he can't be called a Communist in action. It's why he was given Leninism as opposed to just Communism. I'm not explaining it very well, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying.

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?
[/quote]

Okay I'll try to break it down.

As far as my beliefs go, there can be industry in a purely Communist state. There just can't be any profit. There could still be pharmaceutical companies, supermarkets, gas stations, etc...but none of those companies could make a profit. Instead, they could make trades for their goods and services with others. I misinterpreted what you meant by free exchange. Trading would be fine, but there just couldn't be any profit made. For instance, if I needed to go to the market and get a pound of coffee, I could negotiate with someone who runs the market. Say they need some more apples. I just so happen to have 10 apples on my person. The individual asks for 5 apples, we make a deal. That's what I'm talking about. Again, poorly explained, but it's so much more difficult for me to explain through the internet, I could do it so much better in person. Or maybe not.

Before I go any further, a tribe is not a state. A tribe is like a family. You wouldn't consider your family to be a form of government, would you?

People would have incentive because everything would be guaranteed. There wouldn't need to be a primitive agrarian state, although there would be aspects of one rooted in the economic system. Free medicine could exist for reasons that I explained. The goal is to eliminate materialism. If people feel less compelled to "get ahead" and own more, then the need for "incentive" in the workplace is eliminated.

[tpfkaw]

My dear, sweet Jakey,

If there's no money, what accounting measure are you using to determine that nobody makes a "profit?"

Furthermore, in an abstract sense, where we are going to assume that by "profit" you are referring to the economic concept known as "satisfaction," you are aware that any trade, voluntary or involuntary, is going to be satisfactory for at least one party, unless it is a rather unpleasant one such as "dig a ditch right here so I don't kill you" - and we've found ourselves back amongst that friendly group of Harvard-approved Khmers.  The good Doctor Chomsky was a fan as well.

You may note that from these "debunkings," which use arguments which are strongly reminiscent of those used by Holocaust deniers, all the information that is presently known about the Khmer Rouge genocide was known at the time. And you may also see that the contemporary believers in "real communism," like Crimson and Chomsky, thought that Democratic Kampuchea was just the best thing since sliced bread. (Actual Cambodians might've preferred a little more sliced bread and a little less Democratic Kampuchea). This might be an indication that they saw their ideology as being aligned.