so defining what you actually mean by “socialist” is kinda important today.

This is absolutely true, and making sure that everyone is on common ground and agrees on what definitions you are using is essential to any effective communication.

But defining what you mean by socialism is different than defining socialism. The first is a generally good practice for communicating clearly and avoiding misunderstandings. The second is a Sisyphean task that will never have a satisfying resolution, because that’s the nature of language.

The best we can hope to do is use communication strategies that are less prone to misinterpretation, and to be willing to clarify when misunderstandings do come up. And the problem with explaining what you mean by socialism is that you can only do that if you’re already in a conversation with someone who is willing to ask for clarification, or if you catch them using a different definition and take that as an opportunity to clarify what you mean. But there are many contexts where you simply won’t have an opportunity for clarification.

Trying to clarify what you mean is a reactive communication strategy. If possible, it’s better to use preemptive communication strategies to avoid misunderstandings in the first place. Which is why I suggested using word choices that leave less room for ambiguity. It can also mean adapting your communication strategy based on the context that your audience is familiar with and trying to meet them where they are.

Of course, we’re never going to eliminate misunderstandings and misinterpretation simply because language is too imprecise to be able to convey the full complexity of human thought. Any successful communication or discussion requires an audience who is obeying the cooperative principle and is making a good faith attempt to understand your intent as much as it requires a speaker to make a good faith attempt at communicating as clearly as possible.

So why do Americans decide what socialism is?

Why do capitalist nations decide what socialism is?

If people want to know what socialism is, they should research what socialist theorists say and what major countries self-identifying as socialists say

Scientific socialism isn’t a dogma and has no dogmatic definition. That’s the whole point. It’s really defined by what it negates, ie capitalism. All of the Lemmy folks saying AES doesn’t exist are totally incorrect. It is not necessary to achieve utopian communism to be considered socialist. All that matters is that a state takes definite steps to negating capitalism, ie ownership of private property, following the material conditions unique to that state. This nonsense about “socialism is when the workers own the means of production, and nothing less” (sadly encouraged by some armchair socialist named “Communism” in that thread) is utopian and anti-Marxist.