Not exactly the same the same but close enough that most Americans want nothing to do with it. That's why one party works so hard to suppress it's own socialist wing... while extremists in the base love it, it will lose most national elections.

Varies by degree, and mechanism of establishment.

Communism requires violent revolution, so you typically need a lot of the population to be severely oppressed so they have nothing to lose.

But socialism ultimately requires the government to take from some and give to others. Net effect is to dampen enthusiasm for work and innovation. Nobody falls through the cracks, and almost nobody really thrives either.

Side effect is of course when a government gets more power, it's a slippery slope. The UK government is currently arresting people for saying things on SM that go against official government position. They don't have a 1st amnd., but they did have similar traditions for a long time. Fun while it lasted I suppose.

Maybe worth noting that the euro brand of socialism does still allow the *very* old aristocratic dynasties to thrive as they always have... the effect of all the government regulations is to set high barriers of entry to random people who want to create and grow businesses.

I tend to think that both "democratic" socialism and communism (where it survives) will tend to evolve into a middle ground between the two. Example: China. More autocratic than the ideal of "democratic" socialism, less so than doctrinal Marxism.

Communism that doesn't evolve will fail (USSR). Not counting a few extreme autocratic enclaves like Cuba and DPRK.