[jokethrowaway]

That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population.

I think the divergence in views is in the definition of socialism we have; I see it as an economical doctrine of state centralisation, you probably have other egalitarian ideals attached to it.

Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank? I think they were closer to socialism that nowadays mainstream left wing parties

[freeflight]

> That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population.

Using that same line of reasoning one could frame the American slave trade as "socialist" in nature because the slave owners were "socialized" by the exploited slaves.

> Economically, on a scale from free-market to socialism, where do you think nazis rank?

Which is kinda meaningless, if you want to see were Nazis stood on what you gotta look at their actions past abstract economic theories and their own PR, you have to look at the people they oppressed, persecuted, killed and for what reasons they did it.

Or you could also look at what kind of people [0] and ideas [1] in large parts inspired them.

Those weren't socialist/communist ideals out of the East, that inspiration came nearly exclusively from the West, a lot of it from over the pond, straight down to originally coining the term "Untermensch" and the associated race theories [2]

[0] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/henry-ford-grand-cross-1938...

[1] https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172422/hi...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch#Etymology

[danans]

> That can very well be socialism for a subgroup of your existing population.

This is like calling ancient Sparta - where the Spartans lived in an egalitarian structure while simultaneously oppressing their Helot slaves - socialism.

Or for a more a recent example, apartheid South Africa, where whites received a great deal of support via government policy that practically ensured their prosperity. That wasn't socialism, either.

Socialism is not about centralized state control. It's about whether the state plays a strong role in ensuring a standard of living for all it's citizens. In successful examples (like Social Security and Medicare in the US) it has accomplished this while the majority of the economy is not under state control.

[jokethrowaway]

That's exactly my point, there is a difference between the ideals of socialism and the economic doctrine which plays out when socialism gets implemented.

In terms of economic policy, all the examples you cited are on the left side or going left in my book. There is definitely nothing capitalistic about state intervention.

It also makes sense historically: it took us a long time to understand that capitalism is the most efficient way to create value and advance technology. Even the communist dictatorship that is China understood that and it's using this to rule the world, while the western world (especially the USA) marched back on their capitalism and hampered their economy with more and more regulations.

I think we still don't have enough capitalism and we need a completely unregulated market and no government at all.

[danans]

> I think we still don't have enough capitalism and we need a completely unregulated market and no government at all.

Who was arguing the merits of capitalism? Not me.

But true colors shine through. It seems like your actual motivation for arguing that Nazis were socialist was just a device to argue for unfettered capitalism by falsely associating socialism with them. That's a weak rhetorical trick that far right commentators have been using for quite a while now.