Sorry who are this "they" you're using?

Again, the only person owning the means of production in Nazi Germany was Hitler, the only person owning the means of production in USSR was Staline.

That's collectivisation for you?

you are wrong capitalism, is subservence and obediance and trust under a ruling capitalist.
muslims are also capitalists in a way, actually all human cooperation turns out being capitalist sooner or later

jews managed america quite well in the last 200 years but its not sustainable jews opened doors for unsustainable hedonism

so you want to run american economy without a state, you must be some kind of a savage anarchist, who is going to provide education, defense and police? who is going to be the capitalist of those people in america currently its a jewish ran banking cartel, but what do you want? you want to work for gold? thats not reliable, for foreign currencies? cryptos?

get ready to feel what capitalism in truth is. its chaos. and competition between individuals for financial sovereignty. no more professional jewish market managment for americans.

ever heard of currency imperialism? every national central bank does that, including the usa.
capitalists need wage slaves. the moment other capitalists rise up and take away parts of their financial sovereignty the older capitalists lose their power

besides that capitalist usa also invaded and annexed regions
capitalism doesnt mean peace and democracy it means seeking to empower a banking cartel, as much as possible also at the expense of other and their freedom, communism/marxism is doing the same btw.

if nazis where socialists, why did they attack other socialists then?

or in other words,

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

people that strive and want power, cant tolerate others that strive and want power next to them.

additonally you have to understand there are also capitalists in communism/socialism

nazis might rather be capitalists, since they tried to capitalise themselves on the territory they seeked to controll.

None, that's more or less the point you know?

What's funny is people making fun of the argument "it's not real socialism" while it's not the argument at all, the argument is "it's a dictatorship, not socialism".

And what's even funnier is to see people like you or TECSHARE giving a definition of socialism, not being able to apply this definition to said country and still wanting to put the word socialism on it xD

That's not difficult science, you have a definition with precise criterias, you apply it to a situation and see if the situation fits the definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Was it the case in USSR? Is it the case in China? Or in Nazi Germany?

No.

So those countries are not socialist countries unless you have another definition of socialism. But contrary to what TECSHARE is lying about, I'm not the one with a bizarre definition of socialism, you were the one giving this definition.

Wahou, a dictator admiring another dictatore, that must mean they are both dictators no?

oh elwar.. i can already see his plan B. he wants to do a edward snowdon style publicity script making out a country wants to kill him..
but elwar main goal is doing public appearances and ride that money train next.
.. nice braces by the way,
im guessing your publicist advised you to correct your teeth before proper public appearances in the near future

i have been watching elwar for years and seen he was always riding the exhaust trails of big money. trying to seek millions in investments with no real big returns.
seeking double figure millions to buy a boat so 15 people can ave meetings on to discuss next campaign
and even with investments coming in he just used like $30k(doesnt look like 150k costs) for a small pod that he only visits for youtube segments just for promoting..

sorry i just dont see elwar as a true figure head for 'freeing' the planet of corrupt government control of citizens. he is a secret capitalist in libertarian sheepskin

Heh.

I'm not one of those people that's going to argue that Venezuela isn't Socialism or anything along those lines. Or to say that the USSR isn't Communism. All of the tries of true socialism in the world have ended in the deaths of millions.

But it's just wrong to say that Nazis are socialist, because they aren't.

Socialists is a vague word. In a broad sense every modern government are socialist.
Socialism differs from communism basically in the matter of ownership and religion.
Nazi party was certainly a socialist party by work, Volkswagen is an example of the government delivering for the welfare of people.

Its almost as if every country is different and no two governments are identical even if they share one word in their name. Bizarre!

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

No, the government was Adolf Hitler and anyone he gave power to. The means of production were not collectively controlled they were controlled by one man.

That's not collective control of means of production hence not socialism.

There is another funny catch in such kind of statements. Any country, including the USA, has a set of special legislations for major disasters, e.g. like being in a state of war with powerful enemy. These laws are usually authorizing the government to expropriate any wortly assets in case if that is required to either achieve advantage over the enemy or save lives.

So, considering his own words, it seems like iluvbitcoins truly believes that US was a socialist country during the civil war and Abraham Lincoln was serving as its Führer. I suppose there is no need to make any extended comment for such a nonsense.

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

But they were nazis at first place. Who cares about all the rest?

Holdings larger than 1,000 Morgen are to be divided into small holdings of 50 to 200 Morgen, after each man of Germannationality who has been an agricultural labourer on the property has been compensated with 2 Morgen. –Generous land consolidation.

For all joint stock companies, ownership of 51 percent of those in group 2.a will be turned over to the general public; 49 percent of those in group 2.b. Ownership willbe transferred to the general public in the following distributions:Group2.a.: Reich 30%, Workforce 10%, Region 6%, District 5%.Group 2.b.: Reich 30%, Workforce 10%, Region 5%, District 4%

Inheritance taxes (excluding direct descendants and antecedents); distribution rates Reich 4/7, Region 2/7, District 1/7

a.)Compulsory combination of the farmers into local cooperatives, and of these cooperatives into district cooperatives under the supervision of the Chamber of Agriculture. b.)Prohibition of free sale of agricultural products, sale only to the cooperative.c.)Combination of members of the finishing trades (butchers, millers, bakers, etc.) in compulsory guilds (see C.1).d.)Conclusion of direct delivery contracts between these producers’ cooperatives and the guilds or large direct consumers’ cooperatives

The employees in each of these industrial enterprises are to be grouped in a works-union [Werksgemeinschaft] which will receive 10 percent of the stock of the company.

.)Those businesses or individuals who employ fewer than 20 are to be grouped by law in compulsory guilds

Present-day properties, up to a size of 1,000 Morgen (productivity level I [Bonität I]), may remainas hereditary holdings as long as there is a male heir in the family who is able and willing to carry on the hereditary obligations

1.)Land and soil are the property of the nation! (Buildings count as assets. Assets remain private property.)

State Domains [i.e. ‘crown land’] are not to be divided, and instead are to be set up as model farms managed by administrators under the control of the Regional Chambers, not leased

The newly-created small holdings can only be leased as entails on behalf of the Reich

they will be bonded to the soil by a lease-free granting of 2 Morgen of good local land

We need to get to a point where we can look past labels. When you only look at one label and make connections based on that, you're stereotyping.  Its how the human brain is wired because our ancestors didn't have education and had to make quick judgements on the fly.  The last angry rhino gored someone so this angry rhino will probably gore someone type decisions.  

I think calling nazis socialists is a stretch  but its at least its debatable so what if we just concede that they are socialists? So what? It would be more precise to simply describe their systems specifically instead of with a generic label.  Why don't you lay out the things they did that you have a problem with and the things they did that you like?

 Do we hate nazis because they were socialists or because they were fascists?
Do we hate nazis because of their economic system of ownership or because of their racist social policies and goal to exterminate jews?

I would say the same about nationalism.  Was their nationalism bad because being proud of your nation and wanting to do well is inherently bad? or was it bad because of the 25 point system? or was it just a few points? or was it because they used violence to attack other nations?

In conclusion, its more clear when you are specific about what you are talking about than hiding behind general terms for which everyone has differing definitions.

well thats a big difference then, you could then also say a kingdom is just a dictatorship with a religion,

Free land, since the cancerous harm afflicting the national economy [Volkswirtschaft] as well as the economies of home, business, and even the individual folk-comrade, derives from rent charges. The indebtedness of the German soil (100 billion before the War) brings all social and economic evils in its wake: tenement buildings, housing distress, infant mortality, national epidemics, poverty, crime, growing mob mentality [Verpöbelung], and national disintegration [Volkszersetzung]. This can be remedied by means of declaring German land as state property beyond private ownership, i.e. that the sale of land and soil from private hands to private hands is in future to be barred. Land is to lose its character as a commodity. A characteristic of commodities is their replaceability. Soil, however, is irreplaceable. Anybody who wants to or has to sell can only do so to the community. The community issues land to interested parties as Zeitpacht or Erbpacht.2 Thereupon land may no longer be used to raise capital in future. It will be declared debt-free [unbelastbar]. Accordingly, a personal loan will be raised as opposed to today’s mortgage loan. All current mortgages, where it is not the case already, are to be declared non-terminable short-term direct reduction mortgages [Tilgungshypotheken], reducing the rate of interest. In this manner German land is gradually freed and a truly generous settlement is reached. Even the simplest man will once again be able to live on his own plot in his own small house. The emergence of supercapitalism derives from the previous liberalization in sale of, and yield capacity of, the soil. With free land there is no supercapitalism.

Nationalization of the monetary system. Our finances are in the hands of private individuals, particularly Jews and other international people. That is an absurdity in itself, since money is the blood of the national body of the Volk [Volkskörpers]. The state as the representative of the people can only really govern if it possesses power of disposal4 over money and finance. Today money too has been alienated from and deprived of its purpose of being a convenient means of exchange between labor and wage, goods and purchase price, between producer and consumer. Money today instead serves as a means of generating more money again and again through banking-practices and stock-jobbing, without any real work involved. Our true savings- and credit-institutes must become nationalized banks, eliminating the obscene profits of the shareholders as well as the princely salaries of the directors and the royalties of the supervisory boards. We demand a Reich Economic Council5 to examine the reestablishment of the banks and enterprises in relation to the real requirements and welfare of the community. Future creditworthiness will no longer extend to property, but to people. From this it follows that, as in the past, business will be built upon the competency, reliability, and honesty of the individual, by which the requisite tranquility and organic growth will be brought to our economy.

The stock market game is rejected as harmful and unnecessary, since trading in assets is to be prohibited. Our currency is to be redesigned. Unending interest, which has as its premise the immoral interpretation of capital’s immortality so cunningly devised by its inventors and guardians, is superseded through a service of interest payments gradually replacing the capital. This would put an end once and for all to the interest-slavery originating out of the Orient.

5. Breaking up of our large estates for the purposes of settlement, according to the yield capacity of the individual territories.

12. Protection of the German worker against foreign labour, which depresses the German worker’s wages and standard of living.

The German Socialist Party is a party of the financially-weak layers of the Volk, i.e. the workers, civil servants, shop-assistants, artisans, small-businessmen and peasants, the teachers, settlers,6 technicians. He who sees things clearly joins us without hesitation. False Jewish-socialism and the interest-economy must be as chaff before the wind.

Outline for the Founding of a
German Socialist Party
on a Jew-free and Capital-free Foundation

Merely the form of government and the men in charge have changed, while capitalism and Jewry will rear their heads higher than ever under democracy. As before, you, the German Volk, will be leeched dry, plundered and condemned to toil and worry. How did it come to this, and shall it remain this way forever? The cause of this failure lies in the fact that the struggle against these two powers has hitherto been conducted separately. Yet both are intimately connected.

Social-democracy only engages in a mock-fight against capitalism, for its leaders are Jews and capitalists!

Yet the Jew-experts1 struggle in vain against Jewry because they stand firmly on the ground of the capitalist state order, so both they and social-democracy are bound to fail.

The change required to finally establish real freedom for the German Volk is to form a German Socialist Party.

Lassalle, the founder of German social-democracy, must as a Jew have known his racial-comrades [Rassegenossen] well when he said: “A popular movement has to keep its distance from capitalists and Jews where they appear as directors and leaders, and instead pursue its own aims.”

however, the party does not want a Western-style democracy with a Jewish-plutocratic apex, but a free Peoples’ State [Volksstaat] in which capitalism and Jewry are overcome.

Until now capitalism and Jewry have stood in the way of such reforms.

being instead quite anti-capitalist and Jew-free [Judenrein]. It allows itself to be guided solely by the welfare of the whole, and strives for a far more even distribution of vital commodities and for the recovery and revival of the Germans, whose folk-strength [Volkskraft] has been so gravely afflicted. But it is not through a fresh revolution or abrupt change that new conditions will be striven for 

Ok then maybe put your definition of socialism then.

Because talking about a socialism "but not the one of Marx" would actually make the stupid argument "that was not real socialism" a valid argument you understand that?

Marx defined socialism, anyone talking today about socialism refers to Marx's idea. It's only logical to assume that when you use a word you use the most widely spread meaning of the word and not an obscure definition used 100 years ago.

Maybe that with your definition of socialism Nazis could be considered socialists, who knows?

So, one of the big reasons that Hitler had referred to this as Socialism was an attempt to sway working class voters (a large part of the German voting bloc) to his camp. As said above, the most popular socialist thinkers had been from Germany.

not just racist,

racist and nationalist.

but the questions is what are you what is the alternative?

enslaving yourself to the financial elite of the british empire?

shall the entire world be enslaved to royalty and a banking cartel?

what do you want?

The Capitalist system with its exploitation of those who are economically weak, with its robbery of the workers labour power, with its unethical way of appraising human beings by the number of things and the amount of money he possesses, instead of by their internal value and their achievements, must be replaced by a new and just economic system, in a word by German Socialism
Gregor Strasser

‘Because we had become nationalists in the trenches,’ he told an audience in 1924, ‘we could not help becoming socialists in the trenches.
Adolf Hitler

Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.
Joseph Goebbels
Quote in The New York Times, November 28, 1925

After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.
Adolf Hitler as quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 288

What the world did not deem possible the German people have achieved…. It is already war history how the German Armies defeated the legions of capitalism and plutocracy. After forty-five days this campaign in the West was equally and emphatically terminated
“Adolf Hitler’s Order of the Day Calling for Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece,” Berlin, (April 6, 1941), New York Times, April 7, 1941

To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.

Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed., “First Interview with Hitler, 4 May 1931,” Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews, New York: John Day Co., 1971, pp. 31-33. Also published under the title Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931 , published by Chatto & Windus in 1971

    I will tolerate no opposition. We recognize only subordination – authority downwards and responsibility upwards. You just tell the German bourgeoisie that I shall be finished with them far quicker than I shall with marxism... When once the conservative forces in Germany realize that only I and my party can win the German proletariat over to the State and that no parliamentary games can be played with marxist parties, then Germany will be saved for all time, then we can found a German Peoples State.

Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed., “First Interview with Hitler,4 May 1931,” Secret Conversations with Hitler: The Two Newly-Discovered 1931 Interviews, New York: John Day Co., 1971, pp. 36-37. Also published under the title Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler in 1931 published by Chatto & Windus in 1971

    I have learned a great deal from Marxism as I do not hesitate to admit… The difference between them and myself is that I have really put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun. The whole of National Socialism is based on it… National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order.

What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.
Adolf Hitler as quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 149

Strasser represented the party circles who favoured an assertive ‘Germanic’ form of socialism: ‘We are socialists,’ he wrote in 1926 in a pamphlet setting out the future tasks of the movement, ‘[and] are enemies, deadly enemies of the present capitalist economic system.’
Stachura, Strasser, p. 51; see too Kissenkoetter, Gregor Strasser, p. 24.

In 1930 that resentment boiled over into an open rupture. In July 1930 Gregor Strasser's brother Otto, who represented a small group of uncompromising anti-capitalist revolutionaries, seceded from the party with a formal announcement that ‘the socialists leave the NSDAP’.107 In August von Salomon resigned in protest at the failure of the party to support the aspirations of the SA to become a proto-army to rival the established armed forces.
K. Gossweiler Die Strasser-Legende (Berlin, 1994), p. 19; Kissenkoetter, Gregor Strasser, pp. 41–7.

And socialism was a neologism 60 years before Hitler came to power.  

You're trying to put a socialist label on NSDAP, even though the party was not completely socialist in its nature. Opposing capitalism doesn't mean you're a full socialist.
If you compare nazi socialism with soviet socialism you'll see that they're different.
Hitler did not want a class to rule over other classes like it was in other socialist republics. He wanted a nation to rule over other nations. He didn't want wealth to be distributed among the people but for the whole world to be under a single leadership and used socialism to gain support of the masses.  

It's hard for you guys to find common ground because all of you are right. NSDAP wasn't a normal left socialist party, but it also wasn't a normal right nationalist party. It combined both and these views are usually on the opposite side of the spectrum.

How it came to be this way? While normal left socialism is about giving power to the working class and the revolutionary fight for freedom, Germans had their own interpretation. To them socialism (called Spengler's prussian socialism) was the revolutionary fight of the German nation. While in socialism and communism classes of people felt oppressed and felt the need to fight for their rights, in nazism the whole nation felt like it has to regain its status lost after the first world war.

It's interesting that the main enemy of NSDAP was KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands), so we can't say that they really wanted communism and socialism in their country. They only used these ideas because they were popular at the time. How to get the whole political spectrum on your side? Create a party that combines some ideas of the far left and some of the far right