[ADRIANFR]

The difference between socialism and communism was all in the "communist" propaganda. All east-european countries were "socialist" with the almost utopian goal of becoming "communist". It's a label that could be changed at anytime by the leaders. Technically, according to the doctrine, socialism was "everybody contributes based on ability, and receives based on the contribution", while communism was: "everybody contributes based on ability, and receives based on their needs", which was utopian. Western countries did not (want to) grasp the difference, so they just called the eastern block "communist".

[msandford]

Under those definitions, isn't most of "socialist Europe" not really socialist? I mean a lot of countries have got a safety net and welfare programs and all that which seemingly are standardized, not indexed to your previous income. So you pay in with taxes that are based on what you make (and thus you contribute based on ability).

Or is the idea that you keep a portion of your pay after taxes the "receives based on contribution" portion?

[ADRIANFR]

You have to understand that those were just slogans, with almost no practical equivalent. Corruption was rife, and taxes were almost unheard of. You get a salary (cash) and pay for goods with cash. No taxes on either end or annual tax return. Unemployment was officially inexistent, (you could go to jail if you had no job), therefore no welfare programs existed. Socialist parties in Western Europe had no clue about what they were wishing for.

[goodcanadian]

I'll throw in the response that the "socialist" countries of Europe are socialist to varying degrees, and I don't think most of them actually consider themselves socialist. Unlike the US, most western countries think things like a social safety net and universal health care are good ideas in and of themselves, and do not necessarily ascribe any particular political ideologies to the ideas.