Because the Soviet state eventually strayed far from Marx's idea of socialism towards Lenin's totalitarian communism, socialism is now often used to mean everything from "fascism" to "progressivism." But in its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class. In the U.S. today, though, it's often used as shorthand for "the services that government provides and which are paid for by taxes." Depending on who's talking, that idea is either a goal or a target.
(for 'U.S' you could equally read 'UK')
This is a better definition in that it doesn't equate socialism and communism and the note that it's used as 'shorthand' for 'any' sort of state control conveys the way that most people use the term. It's a far more nuanced way of distinguishing between the two.
History tells us that most 'communist' states have only come into being by means of revolution and violent suppression of opposition. I think it's absurd to equate the two in the way they are being equated in this discussion. Unless, of course, you visualise a Labour government leading a bloody revolution and throwing its opponents into prison (or worse). The army would never stand for it for a start... Our democracy does encompass freedom to oppose; I really cannot see it altering radically.