I was going by a more modern interpretation of the term, rather than a contemporary one. While at the time at least the German Social Democrats would call themselves socialist, in factuality they are, well, social democrats.
As for similarities between socialism and Longism, while the ideology behind it is different (with Longism being just a specific brand of populism) the methods they employ are fundamentally the same.
Which was supposed to be the point. That you can't keep taking away the property and wealth of certain groups of people and redistribute it, because eventually there won't be anything left to seize.
What will maintain Longism in the short to medium term is a number of factors. Among them, control of the mouth of the Mississippi is allowing him to extract a great deal in terms of portage fees and is part of his broader strategy of double dealing where he can. In that same vein, as long as the Natcorps and the Republic are deadlocked in an existential conflict and no one has turned their ire on the South, many of the businesses in that region are stuck there, allowing him to pillage or even outright nationalize them. As Angry pointed out, he is also doing everything he can to keep the South’s white populace happy, regardless of the long-term implications for the region’s economy. He’s undertaking vanity projects that create jobs and artificially inflate the Southern economy to expand and maintain a middle class. For an IRL example of exactly this practice, look at China’s ghost cities.
On paper, the Kingfish has revolutionized the South. In reality, he has borrowed
heavily against its future, and is keeping himself and his pretend government aloft with an extremely delicate balancing act amongst groups with not just competing, but diametrically opposed interests. The juggling can only continue for so long, and soon enough, the music will stop.
