Socialism and Communism

Just out of curiosity, why was the USSR the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? I though that socialism differed entirely to communism, so why would they use the term in their name?

This is just out of curiosity and I don't do any courses directly related to politics I was just interested. please do not demean me if I have asked something stupid, just instead correct me.

Many Thanks in advance.

Communism is a form of socialism, state socialism more precisely. However many object to the USSR falling under the labels of either.

I dont understand though, I thought communism was the idea of a classless society where everyone was equal and socialism was the handing of resources to those most in need?

Surely they are different concepts altogether so how can communism be a form of socialism?

Im not interrogating you btw lol I am genuinely confused

Socialism isn't a narrow creed, schools of thought differ greatly, although core tenets of socialism would probably be considered; common ownership of the means of production, abolition of wage labour, and equal remuneration of resources - egalitarianism.

Pure communism envisages many of these things, although the products of Marxism-Leninism - of which most communist states have applied - are often contrary.

Communism is a form of socialism, state socialism more precisely. However many object to the USSR falling under the labels of either.

Even though communism advocates a stateless, classless society?

Communism and socialism are totally different.

But you are right on the second sentence...

Names of states really mean nothing.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
Last time I checked it wasn't a shining example of democracy,and the USSR was nothing remotely like Communism or Socialism.

The USSR never called itself a communist state, because it never was. There was the Communist Party, because that was their ideology, but the actual state was socialist. Socialism refers to fiscal policy of the left wing, broadly speaking, and is not necessarily a step towards communism. The Labour party called themselves socialist for a long time, but they were not communists. National Socialism (Nazism), is actually socialism. Everybody thinks that Nationalism is inherently right-wing, but it's really not. Nick Griffin is a socialist, as he believes in nationalisation, and some kind of a workers' state. The difference is that Stalin, Hitler, Griffin and co are/were all extremely authoritarian. Lenin, and Trotsky even more so, were libertarians who thought that it was the economy that needed regulating, not the people. Basically, classless/stateless/supremely equal collectives are a libertarian socialist ideal, whereas strong state control with a planned economy, a la Kim Jong Il, Stalin etc. is an authoritarian socialist ideal. Many, myself included, would argue that communism in the Marxist sense has to be stateless and whatnot, and that communism is inherently libertarian, almost anarchistic. Nice friendly anarchism.