This is a preposterous “analysis” which aims to “move the goalposts”.
You cannot just re-define what Socialism is. And you cannot switch between Social Democracy and Socialism willy nilly as if one can use them interchangeably and pick and choose when there are the same and when they are different.
There is an entire branch of Political Science which is called Comparative Political Systems. In it people discuss in rigorous and previously well defined terms how political systems are different from each other. You display a vast amount of ignorance of the discipline when breezily switching between what are social programs and what are political systems.
You cannot “define” what Socialism is by a quip that “this is not 1868 folks” any more than you can saying for Nazism “this is not 1933 folks”. Show us some political thinkers and political economy authors who define this Starbucks version of Socialism that you seem to think should be blatantly obvious to all.
“Just as Russia was the last nation to accept capitalism, so America is the last one to accept socialism.” What does that even mean? It is like a line from a standup comic looking for the next laugh. How was Russia the “last nation to accept capitalism”? You mean because it never did? Or it did but at the very tail end of things? And what does “accepting capitalism” even mean? What is the Capitalist Manifesto — I sure would love to read it.