Are we defining "socialism" here as any government activity? The "If you drive on roads, you're a socialist" argument gets made a lot, to the point of achieving cliche status. Or the popular "If you complain about government overreach while collecting Social Security, you're a hypocrite". The implication is that even the slightest brush with government invalidates any argument against government intervention. Personally, I think that's a rather silly reduction ad absurdum argument only suitable for use against Randian anarcho-capitalist strawmen.

You'd be just as foolish arguing that having $5 in your pocket that you can spend freely marks you as a laissez faire capitalist with no right to criticize Goldman Sachs.

There is a spectrum of the level of government intervention you can consider tolerable. Wanting potholes filled is not the same thing as wishing you lived in Caracas. Putting a few bucks in a Roth doesn't make you a robber baron.