: Socialism and communism sound similar to me. The state gets to own everything, but the obvious difference seems that in communism the stuff is shared by people's votes, and in socialism the stuff is shared by a legislater who decides. Am I right? Or am I just too tired to reason correctly?
It does seem that way. In the idealistic socialists view the two are essentially the same. A collective of people 'own' the property - id they must decide between them upon its use and disposal. In my arguments here (see my posts below) I would suggest that leaving such things to popular vote creates a society where agreement is always very difficult, where there is huge scope for abuse of the system and for simply contributing nothing (because your survival doesnt depend on your work, but the 'collective' work and your vote).
In state socialism it is a legislative body who decides 'for the good of the poeple' which generally means for the good of the state at the expense of the people.
Whilst the first option makes an interesting discussion in something that wont happen, the second makes a chilling cautionary tale in something that did happen.