Behind the political games, a lot of the confusion comes down to the fact there is a split in socialism between 1) revolutionary socialism and 2) social democracy. A short thread:
Revolutionary socialism (Marx, Lenin, etc) says that to achieve equality, fairness, justice etc we should overthrow democracy and the existing political system, while social democrats (e.g. UK Labour party, Beatrice Webb) disagree.
The list of "socialists" the Republicans gave in their resolution are mostly revolutionary socialists that believed overturning democracy and civil liberties was necessary for progress. This doesn't go well.
The list of nice things (medicare, social security) defenders of socialism are talking about in this debate were generally efforts of social democrats (FDR, LBJ etc) to humanise capitalism.
One issue is "socialism" and even "social democrat" has long been a dirty word in America, something made worse by the Cold War. There is no similar stigma in Europe.
Another aspect of the "what is socialism?" debate is the role the government should play in the economy. Should it own the factories and businesses, "the means of production"?
After WW2 this was a popular approach in Europe but was reversed with privatisation in the 80s (e.g. Thatcher). A "third way" socialism (e.g. Blair) accepted this, hoping to use the tax revenue from free(er) market for better public services. I.e. :
However, the benefits of the government owning businesses and intervening in the market are still debated. Some say it's the secret to China's success, others predict disaster. But worth noting many "capitalist" countries such as South Korea and Singapore still do a lot of this.
Originally tweeted by Brendan Miller (@brenkjm) on February 3, 2023.