Labels seem to matter in politics. Individuals look to the label associated with a candidate often, it seems, rather than considering the specifics of the candidate’s position on specific issues. Republicans seem to use “socialist” in this way. I don’t really know what would be the equivalent from the Dems perspective so you will have to supply your own.
As I understand the term it implies something about government control. From this perspective, Republicans believe Democrats want to tax at too high a level in order to offer government sponsored programs some of which are argued to be unnecessary and to impose regulations that limit the opportunities of businesses, industry, and individuals. So, it seems being for or against socialism has to do with financial contributions expected from citizens and limitations placed on all. In both cases, the expectations of sacrifices (contributions and limitations) are assumed to provide benefits, but who benefits and who sacrifices seem to be at the core of disagreements.
Once you define things in terms of contributions and limitations, labels to a certain extent disappear and whom is affected become interesting to observe. For example, the present administration has taken on trading partners (China, Canada, Mexico) claiming the U.S. is being taken advantage of. Part of the issue is the amount of money and goods moving in each direction with the complaint that we sent more money for goods out than we take in. China adds the issue of theft of intellectual property with tariffs being used as a punishment rather than a way to control the movements of goods and money. Here is a thought on the desired consequences of these actions. The cost of goods paid by U.S. citizens will increase. The impact will be negative for those of limited means with benefits to those owning the means of U.S. production and those who work in who work in some specific industries. Those in other industries (e.g., agriculture) will be hurt. My point is that local capitalism can also increase the contributions required of citizens within countries that think this way. Those who pay the cost (a tax if you are willing to think of the increased contribution in this way) will be those with limited means.
What about government limitations (regulations)? Regulations tend to impose requirements intended to protect and safeguard. Emission standards would be an example intended to reduce pollution and damage to the environment. Yes, regulations of this type do increase the cost and expectations of production, but a judgment has been made that all benefit from the limited sacrifice in profit that are made by a few. Safety standards in work places would be a similar example. Rules intending to limit the ways in which financial institutions can take advantage of naive or vulnerable population would be another. Who pays – those offering the service because of higher costs or limited opportunities for profits. Who benefits – those protected? Consolidating the costs and benefits, it is again the most vulnerable and most needy would tend to benefit and those in better circumstances expected to sacrifice.