thank you

Also, there should be no host to the party. A place to hold the party should be rented based on what is in the best interests of the partygoers. The decision of what is the best interests of the partygoers will be made by a committee made up of a randomly selected group of said partygoers. The cost of renting the location of the party will be split evenly amongst all partygoers.
Anyone who does not agree to these terms will not be invited to the party and will be given the official title "party pooper"

no in political terms,

Strange. I though it'd be the party of the communists. Supporting the communist idea. Didn't know it's about how room and board are settled :)

i do have to say a very good twisting of my words

"In California, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, The Party can always find you!"

A political party which acts as the guiding force of the working class, directing the struggle of the working class with the aim of overthrowing capitalism and building socialism. It is comprised of people professionally engaged in revolutionary struggle, and is guided by the principles of Marxism-Leninism.

The Leninism is optional. Mostly for Russians. Sure you're an American and not a Russian? :)

Lenin and Stalin are bad guys now, haven't you heard?

Leninism is not optional by definition of Communist Party that I know of. He invented the thing.

Lenin was a teetotaler and a prohibitionist. So no "parties" for him.

The Marxism-Leninism bit is extraneous. In itself, it means different things depending on who is using the designation. Also, there are other flavours that also qualify. And rather than "acting as the guiding force", you might more accurately say "attempts to act as the guiding force", especially to describe the condition of the Communist Party in system's in which the Communist Party is not the only party. I certainly know a few workers who do not identify their political interests with any Communist Party. Better to stick with Ivo's more general (and less exclusive) definition. It's a political party composed of people who advocate communism, but in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the corruption of communist China, there is less and less agreement about what communism means in terms of practical implementation. What would happen, for example, if the Communist Party were to win elections in Spain for example? The nationalization of all means of production would be an ambitions program for a four-year term. In any case, Putin33 may well be describing one particular communist party.

@mcbry: you're missing something, everyone contributes to the cost of the party based on their ability and those able to serve drinks serve partiers according to the partiers' needs.

So even though no-one contributed any vodka (not being able to contribute it as they don't have any supply/manufacturing ability) those who need vodka will have it served to them according to their NEED,

it's kinda magic and against the laws of physics... but that's a minor reason practical implementations have been so fraught with difficulty. (not that the Soviet Union ever came acros a serious lack of vodka... at least until the early 90s)

"t's a political party composed of people who advocate communism, but in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the corruption of communist China, there is less and less agreement about what communism means in terms of practical implementation."

Practical implementation depends on the conditions. For example, Lenin in the early 1900s said the goal of the Russian Social Democratic Party (precursor to the CPSU) had the goal of dismantling the Tsarist regime, not necessarily going "straight to socialism". He would have accepted a bourgeois democracy. That different countries have different conditions in no way contradicts the point that the end goal of Communist Parties is to build socialism. Communist Parties which are *not* guided by Marxism-Leninism tend to be little more than social democratic parties who want nothing more than a kinder, gentler capitalism.

Fair point on the "attempts".

@Orathaic: yeah, you've taken the metaphor too far. Like Putin, you're obsessing on a historical implementation that failed. It's true that Soviet Russia had serious problems in the supply chains. On the other hand, the Capitalist countries just now (too late) are waking up to the fact that they no longer control the supply chains either, and that production has been exported to guess who: communist China.

@ mcbry: "communist China"

/fail.

China is not a communist country.

@mcbry: I wasn't paying mind to any specific historic implementation, becuase i haven't studied history in detail.

My point was just 'From those according to their ability, to those according to need' - you suggests people 'serve their drink according to their own needs' which to me reads as closer to anarchy, everyone gets their own drink according to what they need...

At Jamiet: really? And I rate a fail no less. Don't tell the Communist Party that runs it, then. I guess that's the point I was making wasn't it? That communism can have different implementations. But whatever, you stick to your simple semantic distinctions, the world will always be a much easier place for you to understand.

@Orathaic: yes, hence the designation anarcho-communist, yet another flavor with a supposedly different implementation, in this case everyone serving themselves (theoretically in Communism there is no class distinction and therefore no servants or served) from the resources of the collective.

A bunch of dissociated fellows who have a common belief that what has already been proven repeatedly to be Utopian, ineffective, dangerous and self-destructive can actually be good for society. Or simply a bunch of power-mongering fellows who believe they can control the masses through an Utopian idea that only ignorant or naive people find convincind. Whichever meaning serves you best...

Funny, guak, your definition of Communism is my definition of Capitalism.

No country is "communist". Communism is an end point, where capitalism worldwide is destroyed, where economic conditions of overabundance prevail, and where class distinctions no longer exist. China is certainly led by a Communist Party and the wealthiest and most productive industries are controlled by the party-state, and thus owned by the working class, not capitalists. China has decided that market reforms are necessary to build up its forces of production before more developed forms of socialism to take place. It makes sense since China has been a poor, underdeveloped country. The USSR did the same thing with the NEP.

yea putins got it right, communism is an idea on paper, it cant relate to the language of humanity, and sure capitalism is built off of greed and false hope, greed and false hope are more human than the KGB

I have always felt communism is an "ideal" system of society where there is no leader, no class differences in terms of public services, and general equality for everyone in the society. The reason it hasn't worked in practice so far is because too many people are greedy and/or want power. Communism be definition excludes greed and power.
Despite the fact that it's doomed to failure, I would rather that than capitalism, in which greed is considered a positive attribute and where the overall assumption is that what is best for the market is best for the people, despite overwhelming evidence that the individual members of the market act solely in their own best interests and almost never consider what is best for society as a whole.

KGB is necessary when you've been under constant attack since 1917. Enemies don't just lay down their weapons, you have to defend what you've built. How come people understand this when it comes to US security, but not anybody else? It wasn't greed or power hungry men who caused the socialist countries to become unraveled. They were building something the world had never seen before, which the leading capitalist powers of the world wanted destroyed. Mistakes were made in an effort to preserve the system, because they left the socialist countries vulnerable to the markets and they happened too quickly.

If the socialist leaders had been power hungry the protesters who helped bring about the restoration of capitalism would have been killed or arrested or both. But the leaders stepped down peacefully in virtually all cases.

the reason why capitalism persists still today is because it allows for greed without breaking the system, a free market system (however morally corupt it may be) is flexible and encourages innovation and competition in the marketplace. Communism is brittle, leaves no room for the ego, and once the nationalism that fueled the communist state fades, all thats left is greed with no where to go but towards the state.

To answer the question, one where all the beer is owned by the state.

LOL im sure there was plenty of moonshiners around to pickup the slack

@Putin
"But the leaders stepped down peacefully in virtually all cases."

That’s an interesting but myopic viewpoint. Shouldn't the credit for being peaceful go to the pro-democracy demonstrators who ousted their communist dictators? I mean at this point there was little the communists could do, even their own militaries had turned on them. Sure they stepped down peacefully; what choice did they have? The only one who refused was tried and executed.

But in claiming that these communists were interested in sharing power or were somehow interested in the welfare of their fellow man so they stepped down peacefully is misleading if not an outright falsehood. You are conveniently overlooking the 1953 German Uprising, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, and the 1968 Invasion of Czechoslovakia.
-When East Germans decided they'd had enough of communism and went on strike the Soviets responded by bringing in 16 Soviet divisions killing 21 people and then arresting 20,000 40 of whom were executed.
-When the Hungarians had had enough of Communism in 1956 and actually overthrew their government through protests. It was the AVH who fired upon the Hungarian protesters and ignited a violent revolution in which 2,500 Hungarians and 772 Soviet troops were killed (Soviet troops, not Hungarian troops, it was the Soviets not the Hungarians who largely want communism in Hungary).
-Then when the Czechs wanted a little more liberalism in the form of increased freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of movement; the Soviets invoked the Brezhnev doctrine to invade them, with the help of four other Eastern Bloc countries. The Brezhnev doctrine asserted the right of the USSR to intervene if any of its satellite states appeared to be moving toward capitalism.

Soviet style communism was a failure. It was so unpopular that it doesn't exist anymore. They didn't need the capitalist west to bring them down. It was their citizens who did brought them down. The Eastern Bloc was kept in line as long as the Soviets were strong enough to keep them in line. The people embraced freedom at the first opportunity to do so. They had tried it earlier in 1953 just after Stalin’s death and were summarily put down. As soon as the USSR showed that it was no longer strong enough to exert power over them, they abandoned Communism.

**citizens who brought**