You surprise me again.  I didn't know you were capable of such straight up logic.  People don't know how to discern degrees of intensity (which you already explained) so thats why we have a topic where people equate Hitler with socialism.   As if you are either anti-socialist or a Nazi.... and there no other schools of thought.  Or people just completely misidentify Nationalism.  But yes, Nationalism seeks to take complex issues and simplifies it under an 'us vs them' argument.  If we build this wall... the jobs come back.  Well, anyone with a post elementary school education realizes this tactic.  I will argue that while this is this brand of fear mongering is clearly identified as 'right-wing'  the tactic itself proceeds the political wing concept.  I mean, if we are being honest, Nationalism is basically the concept of sowing racism and exploiting that in the population for political gain.  And even more basic and older than that is leading through fear.  And to come full circle, yes, the far-right is know for using the same tactics of Hitler (minus the genocide most of the time) and others.   Nationalism is a far right concept. 

There's definitely more than a few people online who consider themselves to be part of the "alt-right" and openly identify as such, though there doesn't seem to be any universally accepted definition of what the alt-right actually is, other than being to the right of most mainstream Republicans.

But what makes them "right" wing at all? Nationalism isn't specific to left or right wing. The previous posts of fear-mongering being a right wing tactic is....off base. I think I'll just go back to Hitler is Hitler, and everyone wants to make their political opponent Hitler, which is pretty easy to do because he did whatever it took to get total control.

So please explain national bolshevism and Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro. The Eastern Block also became quite nationalistic and at times had extremely nationalistic policies resulting in genocide and mass resettlements based solely on one's nationality - evident by the homogeneousness of post-socialist countries, which weren't this homogenous at the start of the 20th century.

Or just face reality and stop this nonsense. Just because Trocki's Communism is international doesn't magically send nationalism to the right.

The only other people I've seen call his party socialist was his actual party... ya know the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Hitler and his party were very much socialists. This idea that they were not or that socialism was a minor part or after thought of their philosophy is naive revisionist history at best and a lie at worst. The party stood for state control of industry, capital, education, the press, and a strong central government. It's all right there in their 25 point plan. No amount of mental gymnastics can change that fact.

You just made yourself a prime example of how people fell for Nazi propaganda. 

+1 

Elaborate 

Yeah, Amy! We wan't answers to your reasoning.

Nationalism is on the far right in contemporary reality.  We can't argue over well known concepts.   This is like basic.

all i'm going to do is repost my response to jumpin... if you can't decipher from that what the truth is then as i told him you are beyond help

""Only when it waas absolutely necessary to do so for war efforts did the state take control."

its telling to me that everyone who pushes this narrative uses the exact same article each time, but regardless from your article:

the author is calling branches of government "private entities" here:

"Besides the transfer to the private sector of public ownership in firms, the Nazi government also transferred many public services (some long established, others newly created) to special organizations: either the Nazi party and its affiliates or other allegedly independent organizations which were set up for a specific purpose"

i am calling the nazi party government/state btw in case that wasn't obvious and i don't see how you could consider them anything else in this context

regardless this alone should raise the eyebrow of anyone thinking about this rationally

"On one hand, the intense growth of governmental regulations on markets, which heavily restricted economic freedom, suggests that the rights inherent to private property were destroyed."

the author admits here that the nazis destroyed private property rights... because again as anyone thinking about this rationally understands a business can't be private while being controlled by the state to the extent that they were in nazi germany

“the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in industry….But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of the economy affairs was enormously extended.”

that there is so much double talk when it comes to this topic should lead people to question things more but alas it does not unfortunately

if this isn't a damning comment i don't know what is

" “I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that 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….The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”"

that is socialism in a nutshell if you cannot understand that then there really is no helping you"