No, that's quite far from what I'm saying. I've already made my point repeatedly but you seem more interested in calling me names than responding to it.
Many people who call themselves socialists are slammed by conservatives, who say banal stuff, such as: "Soviet Russia was socialist and look how that turned out!"
In response, they say, "well, no, I don't think of socialism in those terms. I don't want a controlled economy, for example, and I certainly don't want gulags. When I use the word 'socialism', I have in mind something like the nordic model of socialism."
So they effectively have in mind higher taxes and a more robust healthcare system. That is, they effectively want to roll the Democratic party to the period before the Reagan revolution aligned both parties with big business, and the Democratic party increasingly distanced itself from organized labor.
But that's not a very radical view. Even though socialism has been a term that has been stigmatized in American politics for decades, its important for some of these self-identified socialists to own the terminology, even though, say, in the 1960s or 1970s, no one would've used the word "socialist" to describe a single-payer healthcare system -- now a hallmark of "socialism". Using the term is an act of defiance, and an unnecessary one at that. Identifying as a socialist, for many, is nothing more than an affectation that's part of a larger identity, one that goes with Chapo Trap House-style sarcasm.
Obviously I don't mean you here, Jon.