Okay, if we are ever to become united to stand against capitalism, surely we must first all agree on the definitions of what we believe?

Communism :
1.) Liberation of the prolateriat from the bourgeoisie.
2.) A classless system with none holding greater power than anyone else.
3.) Where the means of production are mutually owned by all.
4.) Where all wealth is equally distributed amongst all.
5.) NOT a totalitarian state as suggested by ignorant capitalists.
6.) A system which has never been established in the history of mankind.
7.) A system which places co-operation as all important.
8.) A system which eliminates competition between it's members.
9.) Where the needs of all are provided as they are produced.
10.) Where once production meets the needs of all, wants can be addressed.

Socialism :
1.) The prerequesite phase that precedes communism.
2.) Where the state establishes complete control and ownership of the means of production, and the wealth and possessions of the people.
3.) A temporary phase.
4.) A period where society is re-organized in preparation for capitalism.
5.) A period of time where all wealth is re-distributed equally.

I wrote all this without direct reference to anywhere, so it's just what's in my brain at the moment! Any comments, additions or criticizms?
Is this what people think these things are, or do we have different ideas?

Unification for who? Not for anarchists!

I think to a certain extent most of us would share a common belief in the end product, which seems to be something approaching your definitions. It's just how we get there that divides us. I've yet to settle on a particular ideology in that respect. Whereas history has shown us that the vanguard will lead to authoritarian socialism rather than communism, the idea of the masses comming together to move directly to communism dosen't seem to me to be a realistic possibility to me, at least not in today's world...

Communism as conceived by Marx and Engels is nothing more than a pipedream with no basis in reality ... Socialism is the best that mankind can acheive and by examination of the harsh regimes of so-called Communist countries such as the former USSR no logical human being would actively campaign for communism.

I myself once informed my mother that I was a socialist which she seem to take quite well,however,this incident left me somewhat disappointed in myself in that I detest the idea of labeling,still,if a label had to be attached to my ass it would read 'Socialist'.

Perhaps Che had the right perspective in socio-political matters refusing to give himself to a singular creed,for to my knowledge its never been established that Che himself was a card-carrying communist though he did possess initially a fondness for Stalin and likewise came to admire chairman Mao.

At the end of the day pretentious terms and empty words fall as bricks at the feet of those spittin them out ... action alone carries the day ... all else is nothing more than the egotistical pursuit of vain-glorty.

in Some sense i Mostly Agree with you.

Be wary of those who seek to 'pigeonhole' your ideals... You are a human, and can ponder several ideas concurrently and consecutively... You are not summarised in a one-word 'catch-phrase' - these are usefuly for communication purposes only, for 'identifying' with 'comrades'

It's eliteism, pure and simple. Don't call yourself a communist or a socialist; don't be 'pigeonholed'; take each and every issue as it comes to you, weigh up the scenario and make a choice about what you believe is in the best interests of all concerned.

Just be yourself