What is it with these commie types that they believe communism will leave everyone to become hippies who can do whatever they want and all required resources just magically arrive when they need.
It really is watching children believe in Santa Claus
You're mistaken, the state is a collection of proletariat meaning you are a part of the state. You may not be the whole state but it is your land as it is everyone elses
That's correct, but I'm not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I'm just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn't really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker's paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn't been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I'm not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and "communism" was just catchier to say than "supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly". Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became "communism", which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled "un-american". This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn't moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of "the state will take away the stuff you own" turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I'm very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is... maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask -- it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren't socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.
Socialism means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules
What you're describing is "social democracy" — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. "Socialism" explicitly implies worker control of production. "Nordic socialism" could more accurately be called "Nordic social democracy."
"Communism" refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It's an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.
Comrade, we all know lead poisoning and the need for safety gear are capitalist propaganda! Now, get back in the mines! Production must increase 50% this year, and your state-appointed union representative says it can!
Capital successfully fought to put lead into American's blood and lungs for a century after it was known to be poison. To this day they're still fighting to keep it there.
EDIT: based on another commenter, OP's claim isn't even factual.
And it took the US until 1996 (after fall of USSR)? Not to mention that it was capitalism (General Motors) that spread the hoax about leaded gasoline being safe, under the guise of scientific research in 1921.
Nevertheless, the Soviet Union took
effective action to protect the population from lead exposure; it
banned lead-based (white lead) paint and it banned the sale of
leaded gasoline in some cities and regions.
While leaded gasoline was introduced in the 1920s in the
United States, it was not until the 1940s that leaded gasoline was
introduced in the Soviet Union (5). In the 1950s, the Soviet Un-
ion became the first country to restrict the sale of leaded gaso-
line; in 1956, its sale was banned in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev,
Baku, Odessa, and tourist areas in the Caucasus and Crimea, as
well as in at least one of the “closed cities” of the nuclear weap-
ons complex (6, 7). The motivation for the bans on leaded gaso-
line is not entirely clear, but factors may have included Soviet
research on the effects of low-level lead exposure (8), or sup-
port from Stalin himself (5). In any event, the bans on leaded
gasoline in some areas prevented what could have been signifi-
cant population lead exposure. In the United States and other
OECD countries, leaded gasoline has been identified as one of
the largest sources of lead exposure (9, 10).
Lead-based paint is another potentially significant source of
population lead exposure.
Bonus: a great example of capital at work,
Along with a number of other coun-
tries, in the 1920s the Soviet Union adopted the White Lead
Convention, banning the manufacture and sale of lead-based (white
lead) paint (11). In the United States, however, the National
Paint, Oil and Varnish Association successfully opposed the ban,
and lead-based paint was not banned in the United States until
1971 (12).
