So you're just going to side-step the question?

I guess I'll continue to soap-box for those who are still reading and not hostile (none, by the looks of the votes) then:

I used to think "communism" was not the same as "socialism" until I was told by a communist (I think on lemmy.ml? Maybe it was Twitch?) that Karl Marx and other communist or socialist academics technically never made an academic distinction between the two.

My perception before that date was that "socialism" is kinda like a direction on a continuum (the opposite direction from "capitalism," more or less, but more strictly speaking the opposite of "individualism" or "selfishness"), while "communism" was the destination, typically explained as an anarchist/stateless society resembling ancient societies who had literally no form of measuring trade discrepancies (e.g. currency), and would just give what extra goods they produced freely to those they believed needed it and vice versa, i.e. the Marxian mantra of "from those based on their ability, to those based on their need."

That's just paraphrasing off the cuff of my former understanding until I was told otherwise by someone who very much seemed to be much more educated on the topic, and you're free to correct me/them at any point.

... or you could just dodge the discussion again.