I know that "socialized systems" is a meaningless term and has nothing to do with socialism either.
Check a dictionary. Socialism is defined as a system of economics where the workers own the means of production.
That's the ENTIRE definition, within Marxist philosophy it gets a rider attached - which basically comes down to "not good enough".
But that, broad, definition is all of it.
Please note that NOWHERE in the definition of socialism does the word "state" or "government" occur, it has nothing to do with them. And thus you get, for example, anarchist forms of socialism which has no government - yet make perfect logical sense (and, unlike libertarianism, an anarcho-socialist industrialized society HAS in fact existed, Andalusia in the early 20th century was exactly that).
So the following things which are commonly called "Socialist" in the USA are clearly NOT in fact socialist: public libraries, welfare states and entitlements, government services, the civil service and beaurocracies, taxation, universal healthcare -even Canadian style, big government or authoritarianism.
None of those things bear any resemblance to the definition of socialism -and neither does any significant European country today.
Now here are some things which *are* in fact socialist - and which no American would ever call that: cab drivers who own their cabs, that worker-owned, democratically managed robotics factory in Texas (coincidentally - the largest robotics factory in the USA). Co-ops, Mutual Funds, Fair Deal coffee suppliers, lawyers and doctors with their own practice, most plumbers, most electricians - in fact absolutely every one-man-business, and every partnership too (at least, until they hire staff - but if they make the staff partners then they are back to being socialist).
It rather affects your perspective on things, when you use words to mean what they ACTUALLY mean don't you ?
This is also why I say that, as much as I respect Sanders he is decidedly NOT a socialist, his policies are not in any way intended to make more businesses be owned by workers and no other policies except ONLY such policies can fairly be called "socialist" policies. And I know the man is smart enough to know that, so I presume that in calling himself a socialist he is, in fact, actively trolling the American people and their inability to open dictionaries and swallow propaganda even when that propaganda completely redefines words.
To quote Sir Terry Pratchett: If you want to find snakes, look for them behind the words that have changed their meanings.
Allowing politicians to define your terms for you is basically ASKING to get deceived.