You don't think what?

@WilyRickWiles I don't think all those people, if any, would have called themselves democratic socialists

@rway MLK Jr.:
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.”

“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.”

@rway Einstein in his own words: [monthlyreview.org]

@rway Helen Keller in her own words: [marxists.org]

@rway John Dewey was on the spectrum: [jacobinmag.com]

Whitman: “I’m a good deal more socialist than I thought I was. Maybe not technically, politically so, but intrinsically, in my meanings.” "I am with them in the result--that's all I can say." The result was "putting the crown on man--taking it off things. Ain't we all socialists, after all?"

Katharine Lee Bates was a social reformer, often considered a Christian socialist, many of whose close associates were socialists.

Also W.E.B. DuBois, Eugene Debs, Daniel De Leon, Mother Jones, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Bill Haywood, Lucy Parsons, Jack London, Sinclair Lewis, Upton Sinclair, and Kurt Vonnegut. Mark Twain and Jane Addams were on the spectrum. Not an American, but worth noting George Orwell.

@WilyRickWiles wow, that's a lot of homework.
First, I'll respond with my original assertion: Regardless, "democratic" Socialists can go ahead and write all the songs & poems they want... just keep them away from public policy decisions.

Einstein's conclusion:
"The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?"

Summary: it doesn't work, it's never gonna work, in fact it can't work; and it doesn't matter anyway because the "collective" doesn't have the right to impose the misguided attempt on the Individual.

@rway The previous paragraph: "I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

@WilyRickWiles MLK Jr.:
"...maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."

Yeah... and maybe not. Not exactly a thoroughly developed position, let alone an endorsement of tyranny. He's just ruminating about the uneven distribution of wealth... as do we all.
The persistent and inevitable existence of inequity does not establish the mob's right to "rearrange" things to their satisfaction, a satisfaction that can never be realized anyway.
As a seemingly conservative individual by-and-large, with an interest in people's rights, I think he might have ended up at that same conclusion upon deeper consideration.

@WilyRickWiles yes, and he also stated that a planned economy is not-yet socialism; besides the fact that even that stepping stone itself is a pipe dream. The combinatorics of a centrally planned economy is mathematically intractable... impossible. And even if it could work, it could never even approach the self-optimizing efficiency of the nearly-free market. As someone who used math with some success, I'm sure Einstein would have conceded that reality when confronted with it.

@WilyRickWiles I'm afraid the point of celebrity-endorsement is still lost on me. I'm sure there are many famous socialists. I'm also sure that if you sat them down and talked through the implications, many of them would say "oh... no, not that. I just mean the good stuff; free-everything and sharing and stuff... you know; equity."
Like Whitman, "...aren't we all socialists?"

There are many brilliant people with elaborate ideas about how the collective should manage your economic activities, through its agents in government.
Every single one of them ignores the definitive and immutable implication of recognizing the sovereignty of the Individual: that the collective doesn't have that right in the first place.
And good thing too, since a centrally-planned economy is literally an intractable mathematical problem; i.e., impossible to manage with anything resembling functionality, let alone the self-optimizing efficiency of the nearly free market.
I'm sure most of these seemingly intelligent standard-bearers could still be brought to that irrefutable realization if they weren't dead, and simply being used postmortem as poster children by control freaks with good intentions.