@ Orion, Phed:
Before 1917 the words « communist » and « socialist » were more or less synonymous, but now they are not.
There was actually a big split in the generally « left-wing » movement after the Russian revolution of 1917. One part of the left followed Lenin (and later most of them followed Stalin) in believing that having a « red » state had precedence over establishing democracy. The other part believed that change had to come while maintaining democracy all along. (The trouble is, Russia had never had a true democracy at that time). For example in France this split happened in 1920 at the Tours congress of the SFIO (French section of the Worker's International). See also the KPD/SPD hate in Germany in the 1920s.
The first group are what people generally call « communists ». They can sometimes be described as big meanies with a knife between their teeth (but then again, this probably applies more precisely to the stalinists only...*). The second group are the socialists, aka social-democrats (in Germany) or labour party (in pre-Blair UK, also in Scandinavia).
The socialists always stood on the side of democracy (for example, the SFIO in France was the only party who was consistently against collaboration - despite what the communists later claimed, during the Germano-Sovietic pact they had been very happy...). Even in the DDR (East Germany) the SPD was banned (and coerced by Stalin into a merger with the KPD). But then the word « socialist » has been abused by the communists to blur the distinction and confuse the minds.
So to sum this up, in calling Pol Pot and Stalin « socialists », the fundies are really only repeating communist propaganda. :-)
*[actually, much could be said about the change in Soviet propaganda during Stalin's era, especially during the war, from communism to mere Russian nationalism]
