Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. Twentieth century experience with socialism was failure. Twenty first century experience has been no different ie Venezuela. I am amazed that so many who espouse socialism have no idea what they are espousing.
Do you think that Bernie Sanders' form of socialism espouses is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. ? Or, could it be that all socialism is not the same? Why is it that you and so many others ignore the complexity of what socialism is or might be in different political contexts? Must you always just dumb it down for mass consumption? Either you do it deliberately or, more likely, it is you who has no idea what you are advocating.
You are trying to make a distinction which really isn't valid.
Socialism does not require ownership.
Herman Rauschning wrote a book called "Hitler Speaks" in which he wrote up discussions he had with the man. In one such, Hitler is to have said "We don't need to take your cow so long as we own you. Who cares about whether we actually own the firm in name? So long as we have complete control over the people running it, that's good enough."
Now some debate the validity of the book, but regardless the point made is 100% accurate.
If government has control..... it doesn't matter if they own it in law, or not.
If I give you $10... it's your $10... you own it $10. But then I dictate who you can give it to, what you can buy, and what you can't buy, and when you can spend it, and when you can't......... you own it... legally it's yours. But practically speaking, I have control. I don't need to own that $10, as long as I control, regulate, mandate, and limit you.
No Sanders does not yet advocate open direct government ownership of companies.
He does advocate control over companies, from how much they pay, to what they spend, to their investments, to who they fire, and who they hire. That is as socialist as it gets.