Fuck off you brain damaged boomer. The Nat Soc is marxism trope is so far off the mark it is practically out of this solar system. Yet, for the retarded, here again is why:
The party is all-embracing. It rules our lives in all their breadth and depth… There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism… Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers.
An entirely Americentric argument, spurred on by certain batty ideologues and infamous websites, claims that Adolf Hitler was not the far-right, anti-communist nationalist that everyone else remembers him to be, but rather an egalitarian socialist.[note 1] Much like the Discovery Institute and their assault on the theory of evolution, this attempts to evoke the association fallacy on anyone who practices left-wing politics and by that standard anyone who slightly leans to the left is an adherent of fascism. While the Nazis did oppose capitalism as an "international" ideology out to destroy the German nation, Hitler was not opposed to private enterprise within a national "sandbox". Furthermore, in order to get to power he allied with people whose economic views were much more pro-business, distancing himself from alte kaempfer like Gottfried Feder and bringing people such as Hjalmar Schacht into his circle.
The Nazi use of the term "socialist" most likely originates from the philosopher Oswald SpenglerWikipedia's W.svg- famous for his book The Decline of the WestWikipedia's W.svg – from his book Preussentum und SozialismusWikipedia's W.svg whose view of "socialism" openly opposes Marxism and class conflict as well as supports corporatism:
“”English society is founded on the distinction between rich and poor, Prussian society on the distinction between command and obedience…Democracy in England means the possibility for everyone to become rich, in Prussia the possibility of attaining to every existing rank.
—H. Stuart Hughes. Oswald Spengler. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers, 1992. Pp. 108.
“”In general, it is a question not of nominal possession but of the technique of administration. For a slogan’s sake to buy up enterprises immoderately and purposelessly and to turn them over to public administration in the place of the initiative and responsibility of their owners, who must eventually lose all power of supervision—that means the destruction of socialism. The old Prussian idea was to bring under legislative control the formal structure of the whole national productive force, at the same time carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and leaving scope for the kind of personal enterprise, talent, energy, and intellect displayed by an experienced chess player, playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords….Socialization means the slow transformation—taking centuries to complete—of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official.
— H. Stuart Hughes. Oswald Spengler. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers, 1992. Pp. 109.
Spengler viewed Marxism as a foreign encroachment of the French and British and insisted on his form socialism with German characteristics:
“”Prussiandom and socialism stand together against the inner England, against the world-view that infuses our entire life as a people, crippling it and stealing its soul…The working class must liberate itself from the illusions of Marxism. Marx is dead. As a form of existence, socialism is just beginning, but the socialism of the German proletariat is at an end. For the worker, there is only Prussian socialism or nothing… For conservatives, there is only conscious socialism or destruction. But we need liberation from the forms of Anglo-French democracy. We have our own.
—Heinrich August Winkler, Alexander Sager. Germany: The Long Road West. English edition. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pp. 414