Then they should choose not to identify with a word that is defined by "social ownership of the means of production," [0] whose main proponent advocates that there is "only one way, [...] and that way is revolutionary terror." [1]
You can't equivocate terms like this, identifying with the more extreme definition but walking it back when pressed. This is active distortion and manipulation of language, and this is far from the only instance of such in society.
They can't choose it, they didn't (necessarily) identify as it in the first place.
> the people that modern dominant (in the US, at least) political groups condemn for "socialism"
They weren't talking about actual socialists, they're talking about the right's propensity to call anyone else a leftist. For example, if you ask my dad if Biden was a socialist, he'd tell you yes, and then if you asked how, he would list many things that have nothing to do with economic policy.
> They can't choose it, they didn't (necessarily) identify as it in the first place.
On a postmodern basis: if enough people believe in that narrative, it becomes reified as the truth, which is socially constructed. Therefore if the dominant belief is that they are socialist, then it is so.
