> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.
> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.
> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
> The state is to care for the elevating national health…
> We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
> We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
Fascism, like communism, is a negative reaction to industrialization. There is serious disagreement between the two, socially and culturally. But economically they are both skeptical of markets and desire the state to balance out injustice in the market.
Nazis never nationalised any industry and rather used corporatism to take hold of them while those were still private entities, same in Italy, industry and fascist regimes walked hand-in-hand.
Saying those are equivalent to socialism just due to populist rhetoric is misleading and historically wrong...
This complaint is also like saying communists weren’t authentic because the government withheld power from the Soviet’s and used the Soviet narrative to gain popular support.
We compare ideologies on a political spectrum. It’s harder to compare implementations because they all look like corruption. Hitler is one person in a political movement. He did write the platform I linked to though.
They did actually implement many of these things, such as universal healthcare (for their race).
On Hitler about the Socialist moniker, I posted this earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43101676
If you have some specialized definition of socialism that this doesn’t meet. That’s fine. But this is nothing like the libertarianism or small government conservatism.
Sturmabteilung occupied all trade unions, arrested union leaders and threw them into concentration/labour camps.
Go read about the Nazi creation of the German Labour Front a little before spewing this absolute bullshit.
Why are you trying to rewrite history?
Seriously, why would you believe the stated goals instead of their actions? Do you trust Nazis?
I don't know that “when the working class democratically (either via democratic control of the state, through democratic control at the level of individual firms or industries, or otherwise) control the means of production” is actually a “specialized” definition of socialism.
Socialism is not centrally about the state providing goods, Its about who controls the means of production. Provision of public goods by the state is an expected outcome of the kind of socialism where a democratic state is the vehicle of proletarian control of the means of production, but it is not the production and delivery of those goods, independent of the nature of the state and who is empowered to control the means of production through it, that makes the system “socialist”
Führerprinzip is about as opposed to socialism as any element of any real or hypothetical system can be.