My beloved Parenti quotes

so defining what you actually mean by "socialist" is kinda important today.

This is absolutely true, and making sure that everyone is on common ground and agrees on what definitions you are using is essential to any effective communication.

But defining what you mean by socialism is different than defining socialism. The first is a generally good practice for communicating clearly and avoiding misunderstandings. The second is a Sisyphean task that will never have a satisfying resolution, because that's the nature of language.

The best we can hope to do is use communication strategies that are less prone to misinterpretation, and to be willing to clarify when misunderstandings do come up. And the problem with explaining what you mean by socialism is that you can only do that if you're already in a conversation with someone who is willing to ask for clarification, or if you catch them using a different definition and take that as an opportunity to clarify what you mean. But there are many contexts where you simply won't have an opportunity for clarification.

Trying to clarify what you mean is a reactive communication strategy. If possible, it's better to use preemptive communication strategies to avoid misunderstandings in the first place. Which is why I suggested using word choices that leave less room for ambiguity. It can also mean adapting your communication strategy based on the context that your audience is familiar with and trying to meet them where they are.

Of course, we're never going to eliminate misunderstandings and misinterpretation simply because language is too imprecise to be able to convey the full complexity of human thought. Any successful communication or discussion requires an audience who is obeying the cooperative principle and is making a good faith attempt to understand your intent as much as it requires a speaker to make a good faith attempt at communicating as clearly as possible.

So why do Americans decide what socialism is?

Why do capitalist nations decide what socialism is?

If people want to know what socialism is, they should research what socialist theorists say and what major countries self-identifying as socialists say

Scientific socialism isn’t a dogma and has no dogmatic definition. That’s the whole point. It’s really defined by what it negates, ie capitalism. All of the Lemmy folks saying AES doesn’t exist are totally incorrect. It is not necessary to achieve utopian communism to be considered socialist. All that matters is that a state takes definite steps to negating capitalism, ie ownership of private property, following the material conditions unique to that state. This nonsense about “socialism is when the workers own the means of production, and nothing less” (sadly encouraged by some armchair socialist named “Communism” in that thread) is utopian and anti-Marxist.

ib4 communists officially rename the parties to "Tankie party"

You have this issue with liberals co-opting terms that you pointed out, but in addition to that you also have historical instances where communists would self-identify with softer language and euphemistic phrasing because openly identifying as a communist could get you locked up for sedition/treason.

What I'm trying to say is that both sides are to blame, and horseshoe theory is real /s

So what's the question if you aren't talking about revolutionary socialism which is unpleasant in the transitional stage compared to most Western countries' lifestyles?

There's a little bit of correlation vs causation that you can argue with regards to this point as well. Yes, it's almost certainly true that any revolutionary upheaval in how society is organized is going to result in a bumpy transition. But revolution is often an act of desperation, a step that people are typically only willing to take after every other option has been exhausted and the alternative of being worked into an early grave is too bleak to accept. And even then, revolution is only likely once a critical mass of people find themselves in the same wretched circumstances.

So I would make the argument that causation should actually be reversed. It's not revolutionary transition that leads to poor living conditions, it's poor living conditions that leads to revolution.

China is easily on par with America, but America is one of the worst Western countries. It's a harder sell when comparing to other Western countries because China's labour protections and work culture could still use work.