> is a matter of considerable debate to say the least.
Correct. Ironically the person you're responding had an issue with the black and white claim that "socialism=communism" and wanted to add nuance, and did that by presenting a black and white claim that "the nazis were socialists", which is a claim that could use a lot more nuance.
I'm not so sure I buy this article. It seems to spend quite a bit of time defending claims that the Nazis were socialist from the obvious modern-day attacks of Trump supporters, which is probably not the way to get the most historically-valid ideas.
I spent a (tiny) bit of time looking for other articles on this topic, and it seems like one of the main arguments goes something like "Nazis were not socialists - they were racists". However, I really fail to see what one thing has to do with the other. The other main argument is much better - that the Nazis were using the word "socialist" in their name as a cynical political ploy, and not really an expression of their "true beliefs".
For my part, I have to say I was quite surprised when recently reading "Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich", which talked a bit about the Nazis actual policies towards the economy. I have to say, they certainly sounded very socialist to my (libertarian-leaning) ears. I mean, they took major control of the economy, dictating work hours and salaries, among other clearly socialist/communist things that I can't quite remember anymore.
I think it's a pretty interesting question, and as others have said, "Socialism" isn't so well-defined. But looking at actual Nazi policies instead of motivations and rhetoric seems to me to be table-stakes in actually understanding the issue.
Correct. Ironically the person you're responding had an issue with the black and white claim that "socialism=communism" and wanted to add nuance, and did that by presenting a black and white claim that "the nazis were socialists", which is a claim that could use a lot more nuance.