I've always seen communism as a subclass of socialism, where socialism is the goal of classless, stateless society in which the public owns the means of production and distribute based on needs. Whereas communism is a way of attaining this goal, characterized by its materialistic focus and being revolutionary.
I know this differs from a lot of other uses for the terminology, but is there really a single definition of socialism that rules over the others (or communism for that matter, and does it even matter since they describe different important things)?
You literally have it backwards. Communism in the context of a definition of society is the classless state. Socialism is the transitory stage (also known as a dictatorship of the proletariat).
Reminder that this is specifically when talking about state/society. If you are mentioning ideology then a communist person or a socialist might have significant diversion of views/goals. Yes, it can be confusing.
Its modern usage is almost always traced back to Karl Marx's usage of the term where he introduced the concept of [scientific socialism](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism "Scientific socialism") alongside [Friedrich Engels](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels "Friedrich Engels"). The theory of scientific socialism described communism not as an idealistic, perfect society but rather as a stage of development taking place after a long, political process of [class struggle](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Class_struggle "Class struggle"). Marx, however, used the terms [socialism](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Socialism "Socialism") and communism interchangeably and he drew no distinction between the two.
[Lenin](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin "Vladimir Lenin") was the first person to give distinct meanings to the terms socialism and communism. The socialism/communism of Marx was now known simply as communism, and Marx's "transitional phase" was to be known as socialism.
I knew about this. I just do not really think anyone claiming superiority based on "define socialism and communism" as someone to be taken seriously, given that terminology is dependant on context and definitions on a base level are arbitrary if taking an axiomatic approach to theory.
I've always seen communism as a subclass of socialism, where socialism is the goal of classless, stateless society in which the public owns the means of production and distribute based on needs. Whereas communism is a way of attaining this goal, characterized by its materialistic focus and being revolutionary.
I know this differs from a lot of other uses for the terminology, but is there really a single definition of socialism that rules over the others (or communism for that matter, and does it even matter since they describe different important things)?
You literally have it backwards. Communism in the context of a definition of society is the classless state. Socialism is the transitory stage (also known as a dictatorship of the proletariat).
Reminder that this is specifically when talking about state/society. If you are mentioning ideology then a communist person or a socialist might have significant diversion of views/goals. Yes, it can be confusing.
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
Excerpt from ProleWiki:
I knew about this. I just do not really think anyone claiming superiority based on "define socialism and communism" as someone to be taken seriously, given that terminology is dependant on context and definitions on a base level are arbitrary if taking an axiomatic approach to theory.
Ah yes, that’s perfectly valid, the terms will be different on context (which is why I specified the state context).
Are you American?
No, why do you ask?