I. That the presence of the state is predicated upon a monopoly on violence. If there's such a thing, there's therefore a state ; if there isn't, there's no state.

II. That depending on how society handles access to that monopoly on violence (also known as the public forceⁱ) it can be either open or closed, to wit : societies where anyone can borrow the state violence machine but it can only be used according to certain rules are open ; societies where only certain portions can so borrow but they can do whatever the fuck with it are closed -- this is what the South was before the Civil War, for example.ⁱⁱ

III. That daily practice flowing over immemorableⁱⁱⁱ millenia has established some particular failure modes of open societies, namely : communism, whereby the rules on use of the monopoly on violence exclude its application towards defense of property ; socialism, where the use is applied towards some kind or manner of "all of us", "no kids left behind", "everyone should have at least this much" sort of nonsense, trying to put a floor under humanity^iv ; and pantsuitism, where the state is applied towards some kind or manner of "defense of rights", a shifting mess of nonsense going circularly nowhere.^v

See ? It ain't that fucking hard, ye buncha aerated bubbleheads!^vi

1. To have a monopoly on fucking you must have a cock, to do the fucking with, and that cock will then be public necessarily. Just like mine.

   The exact same applies throughout. [↩]

2. And it is also why I don't think open societies are worth two shits, and I do not support them in practice : trying to find "the right set of rules" is not only an inescapably and necessarily doomed exercise (this much wouldn't automatically bring about a moral imperative, seeing how there's nothing wrong per se with pursuing doomed courses) but also a very transparent and most self-evident cop-out. Being obviously the trying to get out of the true work of life, which is and forever absolutely will be the sorting of the whos from the whats does immediately give rise to a moral imperative, to not fucking do that. And so... I ain't gonna, you can take your open societies and shove them, they're as good, right and useful as tits on a boar. [↩]
3. Apparently. [↩]
4. Itself a gross misuse that's also (and most amusingly) self-defeated. There will never be any procedure, manner or device through which humanity could be employed to set a floor underneath humanity, for approximately the same reasons ye venerable baron Munchausen never made it to the Moon. [↩]
5. And, obviously enough, the point that was the butt of this whole thing, being also the answer to the question posed (which ran "does this-and-so aspect of socialism conflict with a classification of communism") : since communism is negative in its definition whereas the other two positive, there's necessarily going to be some overlap, that'll likely stay imperfect, because fruits that aren't apples and fruits that are pears do include some common ground, and also aren't ever going to reduce to each other.

   And yes, all societies without exception close up over time, because the point of life stays the point of life irrespective of what idiots blather on all the while. [↩]

6. As you perhaps intuit, some bimbos were severely hurt doing the making of this adventure.

   Serves them right! [↩]