= new reply since forum marked as read
If we define Socialisim as social ownership of the means of production (companies/factories), and if we understand that the Democratic Socialist Scandanavian countries represent the kind of socialism BS is looking to emulate, then on what basis would you say that Scandanavian countries are attempting to arrive at "pure" socialism (i.e. government ownership of the means of production) through democratic means?
BTW, while the Sweden never owned Volvo (and showed no interest in acquiring it when it was for sale), there was a time when the U.S. basically owned GM. That darn socialist Obama! 
you are ruining their narrative!
41% of Democrats poll as unwilling to vote for a socialist.
No, he's not.
Why is it so hard for American's to actually understand the differences between this? Canada , Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, France & Switzerland are NOT the former USSR.
I'm to keep shoving this meme in everybody's face until they finally get it.
Bernie doesn't scream about state ownership of property, sorry.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121680/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-not-just-socialist
So perhaps it's better to consider his policies themselves. Sanders wants a level playing field, where everyone born in America actually has the same opportunity for success, instead of "a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires," as he puts it. He rails against the influence of the Koch brothers and other wealthy political donors and corporations on both Republicans on Democrats, ensuring that the rich stay rich and making sure the working class remain exactly that. While many Democrats claim to be in favor of leveling the playing field, few use the rhetoric Sanders does. He has suggested things like breaking up the largest banks and frequently refers to the United States as an oligarchy.
Writing earlier this year on the "fear-mongering" over Sanders' politics, Penn Spectrum columnist Larry Liu noted the "confusion in America what socialism really is":
For starters, socialists don’t always agree among each other what the content of socialism is, but at the very least it contains the state control of the means of production, such as factories, offices, resources and firms. In the more advanced form of socialism, ownership is transferred to the workers. Bernie Sanders has sympathies for it as part of his 12-point proposal for the country, where he pushed for the opportunity for workers to set up worker-owned cooperatives (Sanders 2014). But it is questionable how far he will push it. When push comes to shove, he is a supporter of a social democratic Scandinavian-style welfare state in the form of better education, healthcare and social service provisions for the general population (Leibovich 2007) rather than the confiscation of companies from the private sector.
there is a difference you know.
I could call you a human, but that can have negative connotations to some. some people view humans as parasites of this planet or cruel or dishonest.
since there are many different types of human, is probably best for my integrity and yours to call you a good person.
so when people say socialist, knowing there's a difference and they're only one word away from clarification by adding "democratic" before it, then I ask, why be so vague? we all know that socialist alone has negative connotations so why not save our own integrity and extend the courtesy to Mr Sanders by being clearer about it?
Simply calling him a socialist, when we should know the difference and not being clear by defining that difference is lackadaisical misinformation. it's better to be clear since we all know better.
and not just bring another "internet poster". you are a good person!
Response to KittyWampus (Original post)
Loving that journalistic impartiality, Steve. 
Anybody who thinks "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88" was dirty, just wait for the "Stalin was a SOCIALIST, too!" stuff to come from both sides of the Plutocrat Party.
Excellent post! 
