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.
What are "underlying politics"? Words, you mean? I'm talking about what a government actually does, in practice.
That's precisely the point, Socialism is supposed to benefit the whole population, not just one group.
That seems to be the rhetoric, yes. Somehow it never works out that way, though. This was not only true of Hitler, but of all other socialists as well. What's your point? That socialism doesn't live up to its lofty rhetoric? Tell me something I don't know.
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?
Sure they would; he was viewed as the lesser of two evils, and less extreme. The "capitalists" had a point. If I were a greedy "capitalist" I just might wanna partner with a sell-out "socialist" myself. He will order the workers around and all that.
This doesn't mean Hitler was on the opposite side of the spectrum from socialists, just that his flavor of socialism had more appeal to bigwigs who wanted to keep control of their businesses (as opposed to handing it over to Party members at gunpoint). Yeah, so?
Yes, the thing they had in common was totalitarianism, not Socialism.
Again, you speak as if these things are mutually exclusive. In fact it could be argued that the latter requires the former.