Impala,

I was trying to make the point that saying Communism is a form of socialism shows that Communism does in fact equal socialism even though in your post you said it did not.

I think you two guys are in agreeance for the most part. The semantics are just different.

I dunno what else to say bud, but that's not what I said. I'll try and paste in your example and see if it makes more sense to you.

"The Baptist church is Christianity" can be taken two ways.

Someone would say that this statement means the Baptist church exemplifies some or all of the core Christian values.


Someone else might see it that you're saying Baptists are the be all end all of Christianity. And of course we can't say that because there are many many different FORMS of Christianity.





SO


Communism is a form of socialism.


And no one country can be purely classified one way. Socialism still involves capitalism. Communism is a higher level of socialism where there is no economic class system. Like Spivey mentioned, Russia evolved differently because they had always been under some kind of dictator rule. There was more oppression/exploitation than distribution.

In America, services that pertain to the human need should be socialized. The problem is that we've created a society where profit can be made off of human need (and can be exploited).

but not after giving the square/rectangle example in the same post. it's very clear in context what he was saying when both of those examples were given.