coolbeans said:
Fair enough. I can admit the preceding sentences weren't finely tuned. You see: this kind of myopic personification bothers me; as though a guy born to vocal socialist parents, continually utilizing similar rhetoric in his writing, etc. can just flip a switch on his political alignments (the Xbox One of European history conveniently!). That's especially so when you can find quotes from him like this: "Fascism recognizes the real needs that gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or cooperative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State." (Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions [1935]) Wait...if the mere existence of a private industry/privatization disputes the notion of one being 'socialist' then what the hell have I been hearing about Scandinavia's socialist utopias since my early teens, despite them hovering around a similar level of economic freedom as the USA? But now I'm just getting a little facetious. Not totally, no. As I previously acknowledged with some of Hitler's actions that'd make a Middle Ages theocrat envious; however, I still consider such a categorization lacking sophistication. |
He's saying that he can understand why socialism exists and was gaining popularity, but not necessarily that they were socialist.
As for Scandinavia, that's a common misconception too, as they are social democracies, but not socialist states.
