There is some looseness to the meaning of the term socialist. (Even if it is less loose than conservative, or esp. liberal). Traditionally socialist argued for collective ownership. That might be collective ownership by small groups of workers, but in practice, at least with socialism on any large scale, it meant ownership by the government.
Fascists wanted government to control the economy more as well, if for different reasons ("for the nation", or "national interest", rather than "for the workers", although in practice both meant for the individual or party in charge). But the fascists where not so big on actual government ownership. The business owners could keep their businesses (at least if they where not a member of a group the regime didn't like), as long as they supported the leader or party in charge.
FDR greatly increased federal ownership of productive (and non-productive) assets, so he did increase socialism. But more than that he imposed control without direct ownership.
OTOH in more recent decades, fascist where generally discredited to an even greater extent than socialists where (mainly because we fought and defeated them in WWII). Also with high enough taxes and regulations, the government control can be so extensive that its almost like they own the business. So to a very limited extent very high regulation get seen as socialist, and to a much greater extent very high taxation gets seen as socialist, esp. if the taxes go to social programs and/or expanding government in to new areas.
FDR increased taxes to a very high level, greatly expanded social programs, and government in general, so by the newer, somewhat disputed definition, he was very socialist. By the traditional definition he was a bit socialist as well, but not nearly as much. |
