Again, it seems necessary to comment on what socialism is and what it is not. To say "collectivism" is socialism, is like saying that production of goods is capitalism. Socialism may involve collectivism, and capitalism may involve production of goods, but every economic system from feudalism to capitalism and socialism all involve both of them. Socialism is, in the first analysis AND the final analysis, a national economic system that is intended to free the worker of exploitation. It is intended to end capitalism, therefore. If those two rather tightly related conditions are not present as an expressed purpose and goal of a proposed economic system, it is not socialism being described. And, as well, if those two conditions are not present in an actual, existing economic system, that system is not socialism. Socialism is a socio-economic system, whether it is a proposed national system, or an actual national system. An assortment of social programs in capitalist economies has been found to be beneficial to the continuance of the capitalist system. They serve to diminish public opposition to the system because they diminish social problems created by capitalism. So their inclusion in a capitalist economy is a tool of capitalism and not an indication of the existence of "socialism" since they do not in any way convert, or threaten to convert, the capitalist economy to a system that ends private ownership of the MoP or the private profit it generates. They do not end worker exploitation under capitalism. Yes, there has in every case been a mix of seeming economic systems in any country, but one is just about always dominant as the main one that is sanctioned. In fact, we could probably say one is always dominant, just out of logic, although I haven't researched the subject. And so the appearance of there being a "mix of economic systems" in play is merely a myopic and unsophisticated view of the situation. And such a view of economics does far more to confuse and perpetuate confusion about economics than to resolve any confusion. So the existence of social programs in capitalist systems does not negate the dominant system of capitalism in such cases. The trend is still that workers are exploited and private profits are being generated by the system. The USA does not have a socialist system. Our economy is not socialism. It is fundamentally capitalism, with a diminishing number of social programs in place. And the diminution of those programs is paving the way to an increase in the negative effects capitalism has on the population. It is this worsening condition that 57 democrats are resisting as indicated in the OP. But when any politician says they view socialism positively, they actually mean they advocate social programs to "take the edge off" worsening conditions of capitalism. They are not calling for an end to capitalism. They prefer to avoid being specific about it in order to stand under a larger tent.