= new reply since forum marked as read
Are you insisting the term, "democratic socialism is more appropriately targeted to your single Wikipedia term, "social", which you insist is more properly "nationalization" or, "municipalization"? If so, that doesn't fit the definition of what YOU think to differ with AT ALL.
Sorry to 
you over this one, but when there are programs supported by the tax base (even though in the United States, the tax base has been bastardized by organizations who don't PAY INTO it), this defines, "socialized".
Were it to be labeled as municipalization, or nationalization, as you point out as the more correct term, this requires the same social contract to support those services that are either portioned through national (FICA) payroll, or state, and local taxes, it's undoubtedly socialized through that budgeted agreement under law.
If these are agreed upon, apparently through representative democracy, they become the source for state parks, NIH grants for medical research, and the programs that each state must then decide to apportion in the form of MORE socialized services. How else do you think each state funds in portion for public schools and road maintenance? In my state (PA) the liquid fuel tax at the pump apportions this towards our municipal roadways. The REST must be taken up by ordinances that local governments decide the taxpayers to fund.
It's SOCIALIZED and it is under a democratic form of national, state and local taxes. Therefore, it is the SAME thing Franklin D Roosevelt addressed to the American Public, which enabled old age benefits to assist those who were clearly poverty stricken BECAUSE there was NO socialized net of services. FDR's cousin Teddy assured the American public that it was NO LESS a social commitment to enable a system of public park systems.
This sounds like it irritated you, but that's why I commented. It irritates me when someone tries to remove the explanation I know to BE our system ALREADY in place... and in bad need of leveling on behalf of the other taxed socialized services offered in those countries you pointed out.
Peace out-
MMM
are Nationalization...
Nationalization, or nationalisation, is the process of transforming private assets into public assets by bringing them under the public ownership of a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets or assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
Municipalization...
Municipalization is the transfer of corporations or other assets to municipal ownership. The transfer may be from private ownership (usually by purchase) or from other levels of government. It is the opposite of privatization and is different from nationalization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipalization
or simply government programs.. like any other.
Note this paragraph from the Nationalization entry:
"Nationalization is to be distinguished from "socialization", which refers to the process of restructuring the economic framework, organizational structure, and institutions of an economy on a socialist basis. By contrast, nationalization does not necessarily imply social ownership and the restructuring of the economic system. By itself, nationalization has nothing to do with socialism, having been historically carried out for various different purposes under a wide variety of different political systems and economic systems.
So again, none of the WPA, or libraries or roads, is socialization.
Democratic Socialism isn't socialism either btw.
Socialism as a rule is about social ownership, not about everyone chipping in and then the government deciding how to spend the money, which is where you get libraries, roads, etc., etc. You may PAY for the roads, but you don't OWN them.
Democratic Socialism is - again - this:
The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism[1] or Nordic social democracy)[2][3] refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland and Sweden). This includes a combination of free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.[4][5]
Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a "universalist" welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labor and employers negotiate wages and labor market policy mediated by the government;[6] and a commitment to widespread private ownership, free markets and free trade.[7]
Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.[8] According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, in the context of the Nordic model, "social democracy" refers to a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of capitalism rather than a system to replace capitalism.
Now, you might be confused, because Social Security is paid into, and then people take that money back out... but that's not socialism, any more than a bank is. You don't own social security and you certainly don't control it. At the VERY best you can vote for someone that promises to do something to it, with the help of congress, but we all know how likely those promises are to be kept.
Most often social security is changed AGAINST the will of the people. The people have no means to stop it happening either. That is NOT social ownership. And therefore not socialised.
