I’m sorry, but I still don’t get what you define as real socialism. Asking others if they know how to define it begs the question. Capitalism with government rules to prevent monopoly abuse and to enforce minimum standards of fairness to workers and consumers is what we have. We also have a social safety net and extensive welfare benefits. You can debate the level of benefits, but does your argument define socialism based on the minimum wage? Socialism often connotes some degree of government ownership or control of industry. It also has historically involved some aspect of price controls or central planning. However, avowedly non-socialist governments often impose price controls to bolster popular support, so that alone is not socialism. I grant your point that the meaning of socialism may be evolving. But if the term has become an amorphous grab-bag, you can’t really lecture the rest of us on proper usage. A key point is that Nordic countries are arguably as Capitalist as America in how they run their economies, but they maintain a more extensive welfare state. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/
You never say whether you hold up Venezuela, Cuba, China under Mao, the UK under Labour governments, or others as examples of the type of socialism you are talking about. Would an America with a $20 minimum wage, single payer Healthcare for all, and a ban on airplanes travel and fracking be Socialist or would it just be a capitalist country with a much lower standard of living, impoverished by pigs- in-the-sky economic nostrums and unaffordable welfare benefits? That is really where you’re coming from. It is not hard to see the fallacy that government decrees can create and distribute goods percolating under many of the welfare state proposals. Some are workable, but many of them have seeds of fundamental economic contradiction. For example, is it sustainable for a developed country to allow unlimited immigration and provide Cadillac welfare benefits? Finally, it could be argued the hidden agenda of Climate Change treaties is to impose state controls on a host of activities, in other words to impose socialism. It’s possibly better to talk about the evolution of alternate meanings of Socialism than to chide others for not accepting your novel definition. No, I don’t think you understand what socialism means.