Um no. Communism and Socialism are different ideologies. Saying they are the same is like saying that modern "conservatism" and libertarianism are the same. There are distinct differences such as the willingness of many Socialists to impose a strict bill of rights on the democratic process to protect dissenting voices. One Socialist I know is an ardent supporter of federalism. He said that "every single federal mandate is tyranny." He said that he believes that Socialism should be implemented primarily at the local level and not even the state level. The DSA is a very diverse political organization. That is its greatest weakness. It has no true political cohesion. YDS is its college campus wing. I've listened to Socialists argue and they have a VERY hard time about agreeing about most things. Some are militarists, some are pacifists. Some are agnostics, some are atheists, some are born again Christians. They don't have an underlying principle other than there are 2 classes, one oppressor and other oppressed. That is why historically they get their asses kicked by liberals and libertarians. But you already knew that....
You don't tear their arguments apart by screaming "COMMUNIST!!!!" at them. That is like yelling Jesus Freak at a proud born again. You tear their arguments apart by systematically showing how they cannot practically manage the means of production for a large economy. You show the logical falacy of relying on the will of the people for what is right. You point out how capitalism is hated by the elite and you make them ask how only 2 capitalist nations, the US and Japan with a population of less than 400,000,000 can out produce all of Europe combined which has a total population IIRC of almost 600,000,000 and is almost entirely Socialist. How is it that capitalism is able to exploit socialist nations if Socialism is really for the people? Shouldn't Socialism systematically defeat capitalism?
- 1/5 of all Americans own stock; Top 20% of income earners starts at only $80,000. $80,000 in silicon valley is a lower class salary (poverty line is $55,000).
- Uneducated workers are bad for production, they increase the odds that products will be defective. Such workers may cause accidents that can destroy the entire means of production. Even worse for business
- Most businesses lose money as a result of war, not make it. Tax increases for war time production go to a minority of companies. Consumers spend less, bottom lines drop for the majority of corporations. Most corporations have a business interest in preventing war because a war time economy can cripple or destroy them, not build them up. Most military suppliers are specialized corporations or part of aerospace industry and thus most manufacturers cannot even take part in the production of war materials. Again, no money to be made, only lost.
- Finally, the most damning of all arguments from a scientific perspective: there is no consistantly accurate and workable algorithm for managing even an industrial economy. All hell breaks loose when trying to create a consistant algorithm for managing a post-industrial economy such as the US or Japanese economies. Without said algorithm, it is impossible to write simulation software for determining what the production levels need to be for optimal economic performance. Thus government will always have to act in a rationing mode in a Socialist state. The economy cannot be dynamically changed in such a model. It is doomed to failure as a result.