Without going into the details of where the term socialism got used first or exhausting ourselves over its many variants seen in the past and today, or anything claiming to be socialist, let's just enjoy that silly picture:
https://brainsyndicate.files.wordpress. ... ism101.jpg
The stupefying weaseling there is to be found in such words!
Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property commonly controlled.
Socialism [their definition] is an economic and political theory based on public ownership or common ownership.
Now that's a huge difference!
In the first, property is commonly controlled. That is, controlled by the common, a group, as large as it could be. It is not specified after all but it could be small and focused, to form a sum of all parts.
In the second, aside from claiming it's a theory and not a structure (perhaps because it only boils down to the idea that the later hasn't been applied yet, as they claim? or perhaps because it's BS and both stem off of a theory), hinges on the rather very different concepts of public ownership or common ownership (common, like in... Com'on-ist).
Swapping words "control" and "ownership" hardly returns a practical difference. If you can't control it as an individual, you don't own it, because it's all pretense. What's the point of owning (A) without controlling same (A)? You may own a land, a house, a farm and crops, but the control is in public hands or a "common" entity.
So now your saying what the hell is the difference?
Go back to school first.
LOL @ the difference too!
Communism is when the state get rid of all classes and owns everything.
Socialism is when everyone owns everything, and everyone is now the same class.
What kind of silly political model is that? If everyone owns everything ("nice" theory, but zero practicality), how do you organize that without public/common structures and proper hierarchy? A super synchronous Borg hivemind perhaps??
Oh but isn't that the other name for state or at least regional entities of power and executive power?
So on one side it's bad because a government does it, but on the other, it's ok because they don't say it's a government when it clearly is one too.
How is one better than the other if we're all ants with no individual property and the only difference resides in how high up the hierarchy goes; i.e., centralized as a "nation" or strong federation, or limited to a region or small state, or a town or city?
I see no mention of private ownership, the most basic thing on this planet every creature craves, if only for living space (especially FOR living space). Owning a piece of land and a piece of arse under the bright sun, what's wrong with that?
Besides, where's the sweet liberty in all that?
A real and thriving society is a fine balance between individual freedom, private ownership and social cohesion with accepted rules and respect. It's an eternal struggle, and when we get close to the perfect equilibrium, we know we're part of a great community ready to defend what it built or acquired at any cost, thus at the core of a rising and fertile civilization!
On both distant ends, you find ridiculous extremes not even worth a word.
Like that nonsense at the end of the link.