If the Nazis hated socialism, and had no desire to tap into the socialist base, they would have called themselves something else, like “National Democrats” or maybe “Republicans.” [Note that "democracy" carries a lot more propaganda value than "socialism," hence the plethora of non-democratic political organizations with "democratic" in their name, vs. the dearth of non-socialist ones calling themselves "socialist."]

I don’t know of another example. My point was that political parties’ names tend to be rather propagandistic, but I think you are right in that there is a good deal of truth in advertising here. Still, I think calling the Nazis socialist is totally incorrect, and here’s why:

The National Socialists called themselves that for a reason: to form a broad coalition appealing to nationalists and socialists alike, while really, really, really appealing to those who were both nationalists and socialists.

No, not at all. Hitler hated the leftists in Germany more than anything and hunted them down like dogs. Anti-communism was one of the Nazi party planks. Hitler’s plan for lebensraum was always to the east, at the expense of the Soviets. Of course, this had to do with Hitler’s violent anti-Slav racism, but don’t tell me the leftists and the Nazis got along. They were the ones beating the crap out of each other in the streets in the 20’s and early 30’s.

-SPQR

I agree, I just think you’re lending insufficient weight to the significance of the distinction between the two.

“As for it being “stupid” to link Democratic politicians, the admiration that FDR’s advisors had for Fascism serves admirably to rebute that snark.”

- SPQR

OK, fine. MODERN Democratic politicians. I didn’t figure you’d quote a pre-1964 Democrat (since many pre-1964 “Democrats” are what you’d “Republicans” nowadays), but there you go…

Xrlq: Yeah, the “National Socialists” (better known as “Nazis” to those not grasping at semantic straws) were fascists. But, as Russell said, just because the Nazis called themselves socialists doesn’t mean they were socialists.

As Russell also said, history’s myriad socialist failures don’t get a pass just because they weren’t fascist; socialist regimes are responsible for more deaths this century than anything else I can think of. That said, trying to equate fascism with socialism so that you can equate fascism with Obama/HRC/The Left (by proxy) is disingenuous and annoying.

Are party names always a reliable indicator of their agenda? No, not always, but more often than not. Even in the case of the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” the ruling party is called Workers’ Party of Korea, which leaves little doubt as to its socialist leanings. Even more so the case with the German “Democratic” Republic, whose ruling party had “socialist” built right into its name, and only got around to adding a reference to democracy after democracy overtook them. In a bizarre coincidence, I hear that that German Communist Party, the Communist Party of Germany, the French Communist Party, the Communist Party of the United States of America and the Communist Party of Russia are all … you’ll never guess this one … communist.

I could go on, but you get the point. Now why don’t you provide a single example (other than this one disputed example you are trying to prove) of a political party that called itself socialist but wasn’t.

Second, the Nazis weren’t socialist. Economically, they had some shared characteristics, but their policy would more accurately be called corporatist. They did have extensive government intervention in the economy, but it was mostly for the purposes of massive armament production, and there was such a thing as private property under fascist regimes.

Political structure is where the main difference is. Whereas socialist countries like the USSR and Maoist China (with ordinary paranoid authoritarian bureaucracies) kept their populations in check, fascist countries relied on violent nationalism and massive popular participation (thus requiring a charismatic figure like Mussolini). This is the key factor in any definition of fascism, the whole point of Paxton’s book, and one that The Execrable Goldberg totally misses. This is not to say that USSR-style authoritarian socialism is somehow better than fascism. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, and Mao around 50 million, some through repression but many through bloody-minded stupidity. At least Hitler burned out after a dozen years.

If we’re going to have fascism as a term, it can’t just be a synonym of authoritarianism, or it’s totally useless except as a slur (which seems to be the point of The Execrable Goldberg’s book–taking back fascism to cudgel the left with).

Of course they were fascists. What’s your point? That because they called themselves “socialists” they were so? Not true.

I’ll be merciful and grant that Fascism is something of an ideological anomaly, and is accordingly difficult to categorize. That said, I think it’s pretty stupid to try to couch Democratic politicians as “Fascists” when the words of the Head Fascist contradict you.

Leviticus, I’ll ask you the same question Russell couldn’t or wouldn’t answer: were the National Socialists “fascists?” Why or why not?