There are a couple of ways of considering the issue. Stryker isn't necessarily wrong. He's using the dictionary definition of socialism and noting Nazi Germany refrained from much nationalization.
On the other hand it is very fair, accurate and practical to call the Nazis and, by default, Hitler socialists.
They called themselves socialists, after all, and advocated nationalization in their platform for parts of the German economy. By word and deed, they showed they considered the private ownership of property to be a conditional circumstance and subject to the whims of the state -- what this thread might end up being is a debate on the meaning of the word "ownership."
It is practical to insist upon the Nazis being considered socialists because the enemies of freedom have vocally considered socialism to an advancement for humanity, while often accusing the defenders of individual liberty of being Nazis.
It very effective to point out -- accurately -- that they are the ones with whom Hitler identified with, and with whom he was allied with, and whose economic positions he advocated.
Hitler hated American political and economic freedom.
Perhaps the genus should not be Socialism.Perhaps Collectivism should be the genus and that Socialism,Communism,Facism and Nazism are the species.The other contrast would be Individualism as the genus with Libertarianism,Classic Liberalism etc as the species.
I think you've nailed it here. The genus/species device is great. It captures with a bit more elegance the point I was trying to make in my #167 -- which is that there are two variables to consider, but that they are not of equal importance and their rank must be considered.
The first variable is whether or not the government is going to force some kind of social/economic idealogy down the throats of its citizens.
The second variable is which ideology that's going to be.
And the first is clearly ranked higher since the importance of the second is predicated upon the condition of the first. The first variable is primary; the second is a modifier.
So with regards to socialists and fascists, they could be quantified like this (forgive my ham-fisted latinizations here):
collectivus socialistus and collectivus fascistus
socialistus progressivus and socialistus nationalistus
With regard to the original article, it appears Piekoff would lean towards the second grouping, with "socialist" as the genus designation.
LOL, zoology and politics...