If you believe that, then the video proves it's point.

If Socialism means Communism, then why have Socialism as a word?

It does to you, but to the next person it means something else.

Look at @cyberriggers definition of it.

Hence why the word is meaningless.

Another definition that links back to communism. So then this just proves the point that Socialism is just a word, and that we should just call it Communism.

I didn't agree with that part as well. Obama was not a patriot to you Americans, he was a sellout and in it for himself/his puppet masters

However, even if you don;t agree on that point I urge you to at least finish the rest of the video. This board I thought was all about listening to differentiating opinions and talking about them.

Significant differences challenge the idea that this was “perfected communism.” The reductions were not driven by a secular ideology of class struggle or economic equality, as modern communism is, but by a religious mission to convert and “civilize” the Guaraní within a colonial context. The Jesuits maintained strict hierarchical control, and the system depended on their authority rather than egalitarian self-governance. Moreover, the reductions were not a prototype for Marxist communism—Karl Marx’s ideas emerged much later, in the 19th century, influenced by European industrial conditions and philosophical traditions, not Jesuit experiments in South America.

The claim may also originate from fringe theories suggesting Jesuits directly inspired modern communism, sometimes tied to conspiracy narratives about their influence on figures like Marx. No credible historical evidence supports this; Marx’s intellectual roots are well-documented in German philosophy, British economics, and French socialism, not Jesuit writings from Paraguay.

Historically, the reductions achieved remarkable economic success and protected the Guaraní from enslavement by Spanish and Portuguese colonists, peaking with a population of over 140,000 across 30 missions by 1732. Yet, they ended abruptly in 1767 when the Jesuits were expelled from Spanish territories, and the communities largely dissolved, suggesting the system’s reliance on Jesuit oversight rather than an inherent, replicable model.

In short, while the Jesuit reductions shared some features with communal living—collective labor, shared resources—they were a unique product of their religious and colonial context, not a perfected form of communism. The assertion oversimplifies both the reductions and communism, conflating a 17th-century missionary project with a 19th-century political ideology. Historians generally view the comparison as an anachronistic stretch rather than a substantiated fact.

Well why not? Just call it out, and let the chips fall where they may.