The problem with this whole conversation is initially with its terminology. It's pretty clear that the two ends are operating under different definitions of "socialism", and for some reason neither seems terribly interested in working from the same definition. Maybe there's some perceived political advantage in avoiding it, but I'm not sure what it is.
.
I'd be interested to hear what you think those definitions are. I think both are using the same definition largely, just one side is realistic about what it is and what it leads to while the other chooses to ignore it's track record and pretend it's some altruistic doctrine because it makes them feel good.
This all lies on a continuum. It's not like we can be "not socialist" one day, and "socialist" the next. We already have elements of "socialism" in America, such as Medicare and Social Security. Does that make us "socialist"?
I think the Left's current definition of "socialism" is the Euro-social democracies of France, England, Germany, Norway & Finland. They're clearly to the Left of us, but their economies are
not based on government owning all methods of production and distribution. Which, at least, used to be the definition.
But the Right is clearly using Venezuela and Cuba as their examples.
When we decay into binary thinking, it's difficult to communicate. The term "socialism" has been watered down as much as the term "racism" has. Neither word really has any meaning at this point.
.