[hagbard_c]

You could, just as long as you keep it at that. The term actually does describe a valid political ideology: socialism combined with nationalism instead of the more common socialism combined with globalism, i.e. internationalist socialism ('workers of the world, unite' etc.). The association with Nazism makes it close to impossible to use the term in a 'neutral' way but in itself it just describes a nationalist movement which espouses socialist ideas.

[dodslaser]

Yeah, and their leader just happens to be a man disgruntled with the inefficiency and bureaucracy of democracy, mostly famous for his intense emotional political speeches, who blames most if not all of society's problems on his political opponents and/or ethnic minorities.

[hagbard_c]

You're talking about the leader of the NSDAP while I was talking about a political ideology which aims to implement socialism at a national scale. These are not the same things and the concept I describe does not have 'a leader' just like e.g. market capitalism does not have 'a leader'.

[dodslaser]

I'm talking about the leader of the Örebro party.

[hagbard_c]

You're talking about him like he is comparable to the leader of the NSDAP, something known as Reductio at Hitlerum. I understand you don't like Allard for some reason but that doesn't make him a Hitlerian figure.

[dodslaser]

No, I'm saying he walks and quacks like a right-wing populist. In fact, you were the one who brought up Hitler. There are several others you could compare him to; It's always the same playbook.

[hagbard_c]

I'm the one who pointed out you were comparing him to Hitler without using the name so you could claim it was me who brought up Hitler. Indeed, it is always the same playbook.

Your nick (for those who don't speak Swedish: 'dödslaser' is Swedish for 'death laser') seems to point at you being Swedish or at least having some tie to the country. If so, in what way does Allard seem to be such a threat to you that you portray him in this light?

[int_19h]

It's impossible to use in a neutral way because all such parties are inevitably authoritarian brand of socialist, and any time you have authoritarian nationalism, crimes against humanity follow.

The point you're trying to make here is the difference between Hitler and the Strasser brothers, which is valid, but irrelevant in this context - if the latter had won, the pile of bodies they'd produce would still be immense.

[hagbard_c]

Socialism and authoritarianism go hand in glove so that is not the difficulty here. It is also not the combination of authoritarianism and nationalism which leads to crimes against humanity, for that any form of authoritarianism - nationalist, internationalist, religious, secular - is sufficient. Nor am I in any way relating to Hitler or Strasser, what I am referring to is an ideology which aims at implementing socialism at a national level, within the context of a nation state, without the aim of implementing socialism outside of the national borders. For that you do not need to refer to Hitler or Strasser or anyone related to the German party which ended up under the control of Hitler.

This is what I meant when I said it is close to impossible to use the term in a 'neutral' way, the nearly inevitable association with what happened in and around Germany when the NSDAP came into power.

[int_19h]

> Socialism and authoritarianism go hand in glove so that is not the difficulty here

FYI early socialists invented the word libertarian to describe themselves.

Authoritarian socialism is definitely a thing, but no, they don't automatically go hand in glove.