CPUSA (communist party usa) seems to make them seem the same. I've heard others say that they're different. Could someone please explain this?

You've been lied to by the commies. There is no difference. Communism and Socialism both SUCK!!!

It's nice to see imperialist responses to socialism are still altogether unintelligent. "They BOTH suck!" Hoorah for you! It must have taken you ages to think up such a witty insult against a system you most likely do not understand.

As for the original question, look on wikipedia.org. It has a pretty thorough but basic description of them, their principals, their differences and so forth.

Communism:

- State is abolished

- All citizens are equal

Socialism:

- Full public ownership

- Industrial democracy

-Entire nation has taken over the state(be it peacefully or violently)

No offense, but its sort of obvious what the differences are between socialism and communism!

Socialism and Communism both suck on an unrelated note I like to eat my own poo.

Communism didn't 'suck' for the Spaniards in the '30's!

Agreed. I wish people would pay more attention to 1930's Spain and the Paris Commune and places like that, you know, places that were actually communist instead of constantly taking examples from the USSR which is totally irrelevent. When people critisise communism they always go by places that weren't communist. Why won't they use examples that were communist? Are they afraid they'll find too much success?

Probably because there really are no examples of Communism.

Personaly, I think Communism and Socialism often are the same, and often the exact oposite. This is mostly do to the fact that few people ever follow exact terms anymore.

A similar situation occured with the Rep. and Dem. parties, now they are the exact oppposite of what they were beofre, heh.

I don't think the USSR, or any other nation for that matter, should be criticized on the count of heading towards Communism. It's as a scientist would put it "one wrong expieriment simply tells you another way not to do it."

Communism is an end product, not a process. Socialism, as far as my knowledge allows me to understand it, is a process. Marxism, Stalinism, etc, are processes.

Communism hasn't killed anyone at all. Blaming Communism for Stalin and Mao is like blaming Jesus Christ for the inqusition and the crusades. -_-

And you should stop posting such inflamitory threads.

Former General Major of the Committee for State Security; proud veteran of the Red Army!

You're the one who sucks, your own knob while spanking your ass that is.

it is very sad that the anti-communist movement in the united states is so ingrained with popular culture today. it is so obviously the product of cultural hegemony. now the people who communism would benefit the most have become its greatest enemies. rednecks in trailer parks infiltrate communist forums while waiting for their social welfare check to arrive. the irony is very bitter. what most americans do not realize is that so many positive aspects of our society is the result of the communist movement during 1800s, at the turn of the century and during the great depression. social security, welfare, public education, and many more are all communist influenced.
the difference between communism and socialism is significant, but i dont think we should focus on it too much. communists and socialists must unite until we have fundamentally impacted the current system, after which we can split into two parties, but now is not the time for this internal dissention.

My belief isn't exactly standard. I believe Communism, though having great intentions, becomes a dictatership that oppresses the people; while Socialism is a more realistic approach as to how we can make the whole of society have basic needs meet. Communism, is typically enforced and quite unsucessfully at that; while Socialism is bred and nurtured as a united virtue among the society.

Mainly because communism is a one party state. Socialism can be either. The Soviet Union called itself a socialist union but it was more of a Stainist/Marxist state. Socialism can be in a 1 ,2 or 3 party state, but communism is for the dictators. There can be a Capitalist communist state if someone wanted to.

In my opinion, "socialism" is not really an absolute: in the ideal society, all people cannot be equal. In my view of the ideal society, "to all according to their ability".

More naturally talented people should naturally earn more money than untalented, stupid people. The issue is how to bring out that talent from people. A socialist society should produce the optimum opportunity for human creativity. Capitalism survives by killing-out creativity in the majority of the population, discouraging expressive activities in favour of unconstructive, passive consumption. Some people are naturally less talented than others, and will be less prosperous in any society.

The socialist society would be democratically-run (in the economic sphere), with all industry governed by a Grand Syndicate of cooperatives in collaboration with a State that would have strictly limited regulatory powers. I do not believe competition, between groups of workers, is a bad thing, as it fosters initiative.

Same with 'welfare'; in my Socialism, there will be no guarantees for the unemployed or employed: if people don't work, their company fails and they will be destitute. Maybe this isn't classical Socialism: it is not "to all according to their needs". But its a far better social model than Soviet "Communism" (State Socialism, NOT State Capitalism, as that term is an innacurate Trotskyist distortion than seeks to remove blaim from the Leninism that is the source of Stalinism) or all the forms of corporate capitalism.

The New Society must, as part of encouraging individual creativity, be governed in the psychological sphere by a new way of thinking: the New Morality. All forms of counterproductive emotion, mainly sexual passion, must cease to exist. A TOTAL RENGINEERING of the human brain is required in line with the TOTAL ABOLITION of private ownership of the modes of production. Some proponents of "free love" might reject my view as a license to sexual repression. This is not necessarily true. It is basically sexual self-suppression. People must wage war within themselves to conquer their emotions. This struggle cannot be won for the people. They cannot be forced to accept the New Morality. They must voluntarily open their minds and free themselves from the slavery of lust, just as they have freed themselves from the slavery of wage labour.

This is Socialism. Join me in this struggle. You are with is our against us. There is reaction and revolution. THis is the revolution

I understand it as from all according to ability to all according to need.

People are social by nature, they are not the wild animals that the capitalist class says.

We do not need leaders and bosses to control us.

To be human, to care for the world we live in is all.
We need an economic system based on utility and equality,
and not on property and innequality.

We do not exist only to be dominated.

I hope that the brainwashed are reading.