No, he is an example of a bad socialist.
The man was a racist psychopath.
True. He was also a socialist. You think they are mutually exclusive or something? Why?
Socialists can only be nice wonderful beautiful people, right?
Lenin and Trotsky didn't have his pathological hatred for Jews, or for the other ethnic groups he persecuted.
No, those two psychos had pathological hatred for groups of people based on slightly different criteria.
Hitler wasn't a Socialist. However, he used some of the ideas of Socialism, like collectivism and statism,
He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.
I don't know why this is supposed to be an important distinction.
That's why the NAZI party described itself as 'National Socialist'. It used a perverted form of Socialism, one that only benefited the Aryan Germans
Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.
What's your point?
Don't confuse the NAZI party's slippery use of the term Socialism, with real Socialism.
What is "real Socialism"? Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me? Let me guess... if it's bad, it's not socialism. If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist. But the moment he does something bad he's no longer "really" a socialist. Do I have that about right?
To summarise, Orthodox Socialism is egalitarian and anti-nationalist
Very well. Then no nation has ever been "Orthodox Socialist", which makes it a pretty useless definition for our purposes. Like other arguers, you insist that Hitler "wasn't really a socialist", but apparently the only way you can get away with doing this is by defining "socialism" so narrowly that no human being in any government is or could even conceivably be socialist!
You're right: if socialism is defined so purely that no one's "really" a socialist, then neither was Hitler. But what exactly do you think you're proving? I mean, in a similar way, if you define the word "fruit" narrowly enough then apples aren't "really" fruits, either. But what does this have to do with reality, in particular, the necessary and useful exercise of drawing comparisons between two sets of ideas (in this case "Bolshevism" and "Nazism") and deciding whether they are more similar than different?
Is this anything other than a stubborn word game?
The USSR claimed to accept all four, but actually was also a racist cesspool. The USSR was not a proper Socialist country, nor is the PRC one. I doubt that there will ever be a proper Socialist society.
Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.
So you will understand my posts, and the original article, then, if you globally replace the word "socialist" by the phrase "like the USSR, China, and Cuba". Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was. If those countries were/are "foo-ist", then Hitler was also very close to being a foo-ist, and certainly not an anti-foo-ist and not on the "opposite side of the spectrum" from foo-ism at all, as the self-proclaimed foo-ists often like to claim.
You see, that was the actual point of the article, and of my posts, your (and others') annoyingly purist word games notwithstanding.
He "wasn't a socialist", he just acted like one. Got it.
The problem is that all totalitarian oligarchies use these methods to some degree. Totalitarinism and statism obviously go together, when a government has a war to prepare for then collectivism will surely follow. This allows the government to spend more on the military. Just because NAZI Germany used these methods too doesn't mean that their underlying politics was the same as the USSR's or China's.
Agreed! Whereas, similarly, the Bolsheviks in USSR used their own (also perverted) form of socialism, one that only benefitted... well... them, really.
That's precisely the point, Socialism is supposed to benefit the whole population, not just one group.
Is that the same thing as the utopian imaginary socialism of the other guy arguing with me?
No, actually I am a libertarian Republican! I don't like the way Socialism relies entirely on the government, its fundamentally flawed.
If a guy says he is socialist, advocates socialist things, has socialist supporters, and rises to power, we're allowed to call him a socialist...
Hitler also had powerful capitalist supporters like Henry Ford and he was supported by other large corporations. If he were really a Socialist would these people have backed him? They certainly didn't back the USSR.
Right - you're admitting my above point that your entire argument rests on defining "socialist" so narrowly that it will never actually be found in the real world.
The brand of Socialism I am describing was that which was sought in Britain since the end of WW II. George Orwell was its main advocate. He also wanted it to go hand in hand with a democratic political system.
Whatever kind of "ist" Hitler was, it not much different an "ism" than whatever kind of "ism" you will allow us to say that USSR, China, and Cuba is or was.
Yes, the thing they had in common was totalitarianism, not Socialism. Hitler certainly didn't have leftism in common with the others, as many Republicans want to believe.