I believe that you may have missed the point.

The official name for North Korea is the DPROK (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea). The previous poster mentioned this to illustrate that just because a country or party calls itself something doesn't necessarily make it true (just as describing the Nazi party as Nationalist socialism would be... uh... a bit of a misnomer).

I dunno if I'd call describing the Nazi party as Nationalist Socialism a "misnomer", they were pretty socialist economically. I mean sure the rest of their policies were pretty different to standard socialism bu that's where the "Nationalist" part comes in

I think "misnomer" is accurate. The Nazis privatized many businesses that had been public assets in the Weimar Republic, including banks, the railway network, chemical companies, steelworks, shipbuilding, etc. Most centralized economic control related to militarization. They eliminated collective bargaining, persecuted trade unionists, froze wages and issued propaganda equating entrepreneurialism with racial advancement. They also permitted and encouraged the use of slave labor.

Not very socialist.

Bernie=Socialist=National Socialist Nazi is the right's version of "Trump does this, Hitler also did this, ergo Trump=Hitler"

People seem to not understand that the key part is not how two things are alike, it is more important how two things are NOT alike.

The Nazis were not socialist in ANY sense.  They just took over the word.  I refer you back to Waygo0k's point about DPRK or frankly almost any country that has "Democratic" in its name being anything but.

I refer you back to my point in my post you quoted but clearly didn't read

The Nazis dismantled a number of Weimar-era welfare programs and retooled them to support militarization and their Social Darwinist aims. Some of these resulted in what we would now consider robust public welfare operations - free education, unemployment benefits, custodianship of orphaned children, etc., and some of them made measurable improvements to the lives of many Germans. However, everything was sublimated to militarization.

Qualification for the programs was, of course, conditional, as these were very much in the fold of social engineering. I don't know if it's a great analogy, but a modern comparison might be the community outreach programs of Hezbollah or Hamas. Do they actually help people? Yes. Do they also help to account for the organizations' popularity? Yes. Do they provide models that could be replicated elsewhere? Not very likely. Do they fit into a neat socialist / capitalist binary? No.

I think this is an interesting summary, written by an American economist in 1944:

In the six years between the Fascist victory in Germany and the outbreak of war, Nazism erected a system of production, distribution and consumption that defies classification in any of the usual categories. It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or communism: private property and private profit still existed. The Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics of capitalism and a highly planned economy. Without in any way destroying its class character, a comprehensive planning mechanism was imposed on an economy in which private property was not expropriated, in which the distribution of national income remained fundamentally unchanged, and in which private entrepreneurs retained some of their prerogatives and responsibilities in traditional capitalism. All this was done in a society dominated by a ruthless political dictatorship.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9476/c9476.pdf

I refer you back to my point in my post you quoted but clearly didn't read

To clarify, you said the Nazis were not socialist in the "traditional" sense--I said they were not socialist in any sense.

holy shit he still thinks trump is getting back into office

he could be a jeff jansen follower.https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-jeff-jansen-stands-belief-trump-will-come-back-power-after-election-overturned-1589025

To clarify, you said the Nazis were not socialist in the "traditional" sense--I said they were not socialist in any sense.

Okay, well in that case, I disagree. They were socialist in the sense that their precursor was a worker's party and kept some of their policies, or at least the ones that were conducive towards their war efforts. You don't get to re-label them just because you don't like their brand of "socialism" lol

It depends whether you make a case for the ethno-national-cultural component of Nazi Germany and whether that is reflected in the production undertaken and controlled. If you view Nazi Germany as an ethno-state whos raison d'etre is the German/Nordic people above all us and society is geared to uplifting their lives and the state controls the productions and systems for the betterment of the German/Nordic people, then you COULD call it socialism of a sort.

On the other hand, if you view Nazi Germany as a state that didn't take into consideration the welfare of the German people and they had no control or influence on this, and that its reason for existence is to wage war and engage in conquest, then I don't think they really qualify as socialist.

TLDR: You could make some reasonable claim that Nazi Germany was socialist, but I don't really buy it.

I view Nazi Germany as the former. I mean obviously things worked out disastrously but Hitler made his intentions pretty clear.  Just because he fucked up and got a lot of his "golden race" (or whatever he called it) Germans killed doesn't change the intention

I will add that I'm sure the intention desperately shifted towards saving his skin or salvaging as much of the situation at any cost towards the end of the war, but overall his ideology was more or less a bastardized version of socialism with war as his method of obtaining the material/land/etc necessary to support it. it goes without saying that his definition of what constituted a German was extremely narrow, but I'd imagine that's where the National (and right-wing) bits come in.

Folks, acknowledging the Nazis had some kind of socialism does not invalidate socialism, nor does it mean the other side "wins". Likewise, acknowledging they were also nationalist does not invalidate every nationalist movement around the globe or anything termed as "nationalist" with respect to our own domestiv politics.

You can tell who the tribalists and low-order thinkers are if they are so wound up in their "us vs. them" view that they think in such a manner. Higher-order thinkers can do something like be on the left, acknowledge the Nazis had socialist elements, and then carry on with their beliefs because they aren't dumb enough to think "Because Nazis did X, ergo you are a Nazi if you do X."

still sort of sad they discontinued the beetle tbh

It all went south, literally and figuratively, when they moved production to Brazil. Then the new ones just seemed to lack the grooviness of the original bugs.