and I've ranted about it elsewhere on DU. Somebody should remind him that the countries he cites as examples of successful socialism are actually monarchies.

He’s not one and should know the word “socialist“ is poisonous in this country.

When I've offered explanations to others my words usually go in one ear and out the other. (Not that I can speak for Sanders, but I have some acquaintance with the intellectual history of socialism.) If you're honestly interested, I'll tell ya...

...provided that you're willing to accept that a disagreement doesn't mean ignoring your argument.

I don't think it's a matter of agreement or disagreement, though. It's a matter of historical facts.

There are a number of different schools of thought that fall under the general heading of "socialism," which you probably already know. But the general idea behind most all of them is handling questions of production and distribution democratically. Karl Polanyi wrote that "Socialism is, essentially, the tendency inherent in an industrial civilization to transcend the self-regulating market by consciously subordinating it to a democratic society." Reform-minded socialists (as opposed to revolutionary socialists) were, for the most part, the first people to propose the kinds of legislation we think of as representing a safety net. Norman Thomas (the leader of the Socialist Party of America during the early to mid 20th century) said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program." He was wrong about that (things only went so far), but in fact the Democratic party did adopt and pass a number of the reforms pushed by socialists - it's part of what made the New Deal what it was. In other countries (e.g. some of the Nordic countries) explicitly socialist parties pursued the same reforms - we call the result "social democracy." No countries following this path every became entirely socialist (they are mixed economies everywhere), but in all of them democratic politics do have an influence on questions of production and distribution, to varying degrees. It appears to me as though Sanders fits with this tradition, as he is pushing for incremental steps towards greater democratization of economic issues.

We don't need socialism, just a well-regulated capitalist system, with adequate highly-progressive taxation, that doesn't allocate half of its annual discretionary budget to military spending.

But most other politicians are also able to bring others into the fold.

He clearly didn't learn that he needs to expand his base.

need to hear the term over and over, to the end that it loses its threat and becomes something people will actually discuss in a more practical way.

Glad to clear that up for you.

More shock value with the socialist label and makes it look like he is proposing something totally different from the other candidates. If BS didn't say something outrageous, the angry followers won't like it. This is why an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety election for everyone became a "revolution."

I was once buying pants in GAP and because of the lighting, I asked the salesperson if they were black. (As opposed to dark navy - it was hard to tell)

The salesperson looked at me with disdain and said, "They are not black. They are licorice."