>

Although you will be downvoted on this, you're quite correct.
Marx himself said - and he is followed by many other Marxian scholars - that to the extent that any government (before communism, when government "withers away") departs from authentic democracy, it is anti-socialist, against the principles of Marx and wrong.
Harry Truman called the GOP out many years ago. 
October 10, 1952, Harry Truman said this:
 
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power.
Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is "Down with Progress--down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That's all he means. >


I know that you have been hearing a lot of charges lately about Government interference with business, about the undermining of the free enterprise system, and about "creeping socialism." In short, you have been hearing that the Government is doing everything possible to wreck every industry in the country.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The record shows that the Government action in recent years has been the salvation of private enterprise ...
I know there are some people who still don't believe that the policies of the Government have had anything to do with our present prosperity. That reminds me of a story I heard on my recent nonpolitical trip. It seems that there was a rock-ribbed old gentleman of a political persuasion, shall we say, somewhat different from mine. One of his friends asked him what man to vote for for President in 1952.
"Well," he said, "I would like to vote for Dewey."
"Dewey!" said the friend. "Why Dewey?"
"Well," he said, "I voted for him the last two times, in 1944 and in 1948, and business has never been so good as it is today" ...
The funny thing is that this has all been said before. The current campaign is almost exactly like the campaign of the old Liberty League, back in 1935 and 1936. I was in that campaign, too, by the way. It uses the same old slogans, the same old scarewords, and the same old falsehoods. The only difference is that it sounds even more foolish now than it did 14 years ago.

Harry Truman June 6, 1950 >

Passing resolutions to fight a non-existent threat just legitimizes that unlikely threat while simultaneously adding support to the negative stigma of programs that help people (that are preyed on by rich con men who then use their own thievery to call the programs out as rife for abuse)
Nice job D’s /s >

"I vote against this because it's a stalking horse for the Republican attack on Social Security !"
They can deny all they want.  The public knows they lie, knows they deny their actions, and knows they are after Social Security. >

I disagree, the vast majority of Americans think that socialism is a serious threat to this country and some Dems voting against this bill will be used by the Republicans mercilessly in campaigns >

The religion of St. John Birch has a powerful grip on its congregants. >

Tell you what, Republicans.  We will not provide Federal/State health insurance, Social Security, Unemployment benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other "socialist" benefits to anyone registered as a Republican, including members of Congress. This way you can in no way be accused of being a Socialist.  Happy now? >

Don't forget to make them repay their PPP loans. >

It is astounding that that many of them can't see through GOP bullshit at this stage of the game. >

They have been doing this since the 1980s. It would easier to ask Palov’s dog not to salivate. >

They have been doing it since they first saw the opportunity of a possibility weak Democrat with Harry Truman >

That is true .  80s just demarcates where the Democrats truly started to ape Republicans in the post WW 2 era and given up on even the pretense of social democracy ( or a mixed. economy)
edit 
since then you have even in the middle of a global pandemic the unwillingness to temporarily expand Medicare and overpayment into COBRA in fear of “Americans may like Medicare“ >

Fitting that McCarthyism should return while a man with the same cursed name holds power in congress >

The Democratic Party is not socialist. In fact, much of it isn't even left-wing. Not surprisingly its members will denounce socialism when it's something they don't support. Nuances about the definition of socialism make no difference when the party doesn't support it in any way or under any definition. Letting the individual members respond as they wish seems ok here. >

The Republicans are not talking about actual socialism. That’s just a way to attack whatever the Democrats do. So even neoliberalism is “socialism.“ As is  teaching kids that slavery happening. So is a movie like Knock at a cabin. So is a drag queen performance. >

The resolution itself doesn't list neoliberalism though. It lists things like Stalin's massacres and Cuba. If it had mentioned something like Social Security I doubt they'd vote for it then. >

No one is going to hear that, this is about sound bites and cultural politics. See the Democrats also dont like drag shows of the cultural socialists . We in the far right are really the norm >

No one is going to hear that because you all down voted the comment listing the objection. 
Why are you basing what is true and what facts we should know around the fact right wingers just ignore the truth? So what? >

They always do! The corpoDems are too timid to stand up to the most idiotic nonsense that the party of domestic terrorism puts in front of them. Then, they twist themselves into human pretzels explaining it away.
This country needs a strong, assertive and vocal progressive/socialist political party. >

The nightmare of public schooling, health regulation, unions, coops, public healthcare, paid parental leave, pensions, the weekend and of course unemployment benefits. 
Millions dead I tell you! Norway is a country with all their citizens busy on death marches. >

Norway isn't socialist if that's what you're suggesting. Socialism is not the same as having some safety nets or regulation. >

Define socialism without defining things you happen to like outside the scope or resorting to claiming communism is socialism. >

Norway is a mixed economy, just like ours. They don’t offer a single service with government funding that America doesn’t. The only difference is they open government assistance to the middle class. >

Republicans call mixed economy socialism so you are missing the point. They literallly call any one who disagrees with them a socialist or commie. It is bad politics to play into their games.
Edit
this is literally being supported against the back drop of them using the debt ceiling to try to cut spending. One would be a fool to play along with such a game >

When I want to be reminded how nothing is going to change (and probably will just get worse) I read the comments in these types of threads. I find it relaxing being reminded how we are afloat in a sea of chaos and nobody cares or knows how to captain the ship or act while aboard. Once you understand that it is only a matter of adapting to the change. >

Jesus Freaking Christ. 
109 Democrats voted FOR this crapulent red-baiting POS?  
Every one of them ought to be primaried. Get 'em out. >


But it deliberately makes no distinction between those regimes and more contemporary leftist projects with commitments to democracy.

And this is really the issue here. Condemning authoritarian socialist regimes is all fine and good, but that wasn't the point of this resolution.
All this did was drag social democracy and democratic socialism through the mud unjustly and demonstrates a lack of nuance by the Republicans and majority of Democrats. >

There's no such thing as authoritarian socialism. Authoritarianism is an exclusively right wing ideology, as left wing socialism deliberately favors the people over the powerful. You can claim to be socialist as the Nazis and Soviets did, but they were about as socialist as North Korea is a people's republic. 
All your other points are correct though.