Note that most self-described "socialists" aren't literally suggesting we ban the ownership class, declare the value of all stocks to be $0, and force every corporation to operate as employee-owned collectives. They're usually arguing for things like "expand our old-age health-insurance program to just cover everyone" or "make the city buses not charge a per-ride usage fee."

The hate against "socialism" is precisely because Karl Marx and some 20th century communists used it to mean something different, and then the right wing of United States used that label to try and smear every social program since the ban of slavery. Now we have two entirely different and incompatible meanings, and both a lot of bad-faith actors who intentionally conflate the two and a bunch of good-faith actors who aren't even aware there's a difference.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

But this is Lemmy, where there's lots of communists, so that's how I interpreted OP's question. (Also, the Marx definition came first)

I think most self-described socialists don't have a very specific idea what they want, but more an idea of who they think is good (public servants) and who they think is bad (corporations). Which is like most voters in general.