No nationalization here, just edicts to be issued on the assumption that a small number of people can gather the necessary information and make the decisions necessary to use existing resources, wherever they may be, to stop a threat.
It's the same kind of thing when there's a war. Edicts are issued, and others use the crisis to get implemented things that they wanted (the answer to a multitude of problems, however weakly linked).
Although I agree, typically socialism leads to dictatorship so it's really hard to see the difference between canonical theoretical socialism and Trump's claiming the ability to command and control the economy.
What's scary is that there are those who look seem to appreciate totalitarianism. Then again, there were those before. They really assumed that once there was a dictatorship, it would be their views that mattered and they'd have their values enforced and their interests paramount. (Sadly, most of them in the USSR had one of three fates: emigration, suicide, or GULags, which sounds bad--let's call them "state correctional camps". Those in China didn't really have that many choices.)
That degree of centralization is not compatible with socialism. The leaders get pissed off when the citizenry doesn't voluntarily comply with right teaching, when the economy doesn't come to heel, then the leaders get frustrated and start taking steps to enforce compliance. At that point either dear leader comes to a timely end or democracy has had a bullet to its head.
= new reply since forum marked as read
