Just for the record Nazism - while literally translates to the words “national socialism” does not translate to the same meaning as “socialism” in English; it is what you would call fascism - which is radically opposed to the values of socialism.

While socialism strives for the equity of all people, Nazism is about slashing the rights of people based on how divergent they are from the vision of the Aryan Master Race. While socialism is about destroying social order of heredity, Nazism is about not just maintaining the hereditary order, but radically enforcing it - whether you live or die is based on your ancestry and culture; your right to profit, and your rights in general, are dictated by the purity of your genetics and level of nationalist assimilation.

"While socialism strives for the equity of all people"

how can that be the case when a hierarchy is required to enforce "equality"?

"While socialism is about destroying social order of heredity"

the meaning of socialism does not change simply because you choose to redefine it btw

Where do you get that flowery definition of socialism? Marx described it as a a dictatorship of the proletariat and the reality of self-described socialist states were brutal dictatorships.

Side note: I have been informed that I am banned from creating threads here.

A good warning that leftist authoritarianism will always use flowery language of safety and equality to silent dissident voices.

its about banning private property and the ability to generate profit, so all resources must come through the government and people on fucking computers who are fans of video games think that is a good idea lmao

All the rules that they implemented actually where favorable to big businesses and capitalist.  They outlawed workers unions and strikes and they implemented wage freezes.  Big corporations actually made record profits during the Third Reich. 

Alex Jones is obviously playing a character and coming up with these wild conspiracies to attract everyone to watch and support his abysmal products. Everyone is looking for conspiracies and Alex Jones knows this and uses it to his advantage. With that said, the tech giants should've never banned him. It just gives him more ammo for his conspiracies and actually helps him.

You seem relentlessly determined to misunderstand me AND socialism AND Nazis, which is really quite remarkable.  Congratulations, I guess. 

1.  Here is my logical argument.  I don't think I can be more explicit than this. 
a.  Socialists often want to regulate stuff, and sometimes nationalize stuff. 
b.  Nazis regulated some stuff and nationalized some stuff, and also privatized some stuff. 
c.  Socialism is far from the only motivating factor that causes people to want to regulate stuff and nationalize stuff.  Among the other motivations that exist is totalitarianism, which I assert is a political concept the Nazis adhered to. 
d.  The fact that Nazis regulated stuff and nationalized stuff is not good evidence that they were socialist. 

If you want specific examples of the "stuff", look back in the thread—the material has already been quoted. 

2.  No.  No, no, no, no, no.  You are confusing the GOAL and the METHOD. 

3.  So you're saying a state that is both totalitarian and capitalist, for example, is totally impossible? 

4.  Let's say a state pushing vegetarianism outlaws meat and a farmer who sells vegetables to people is happy because it helps his livelihood.  Is it more useful to call him a vegetarianist, or just selfish? 

5.  Here's an example of the way in which you just give a kneejerk reaction to your twisted perception of me instead of actually pay attention to what I am writing. 

Me:  "Can you at least agree with me that the name "National Socialists" (Nazi) cannot be presumed to indicate whether the new leadership was socialist after kicking out the old socialist leadership?"
This question says, can't we agree that THE NAME, THE NAME AND ONLY THE NAME YOU FUCKING FOOL is no reliable indicator? 

You:  "it can because again THEIR POLICIES WERE SOCIALIST POLICIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

For someone who hates totalitarians, you sure do have a totalitarian mindset.  You can't even accept that one fucking thing not proving they are socialist doesn't prove that they AREN'T socialist.  I wasn't asking you to admit they weren't socialist.  I was asking you to admit the NAME doesn't prove they were socialist after the old socialists that gave the party the socialist name got kicked out.  Maybe they were still socialist after—but the name is not good evidence. 

Five TIMES five is insanity squared. 

" Socialism is far from the only motivating factor that causes people to want to regulate stuff and nationalize stuff.  Among the other motivations that exist is totalitarianism, which I assert is a political concept the Nazis adhered to."

socialism is not a motivation its a method

the desire for equality for example is a motivation that can lead to socialism being implemented... as we are seeing now 

and as i have said already socialism and totalitarianism are not exclusive to each other

"Nazis regulated some stuff and nationalized some stuff, and also privatized some stuff.  "

what did the nazis privitise? and if you repeat that they privitised businesses that they then controlled then i'm going to have to have to start assuming you are trolling as you have accused me of doing

"Socialists often want to regulate stuff, and sometimes nationalize stuff. "

in this context what is the difference?

"The fact that Nazis regulated stuff and nationalized stuff is not good evidence that they were socialist.  "

on the scale that they did? yes, yes it is in combination with the entitlements they produced for citizens which again were all socialist in nature, they weren't about encouraging free enterprise or self determination but about regulation and handouts from the government

"So you're saying a state that is both totalitarian and capitalist, for example, is totally impossible?"

the definition for totalitarianism is 

"a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."

the definition for socialism is

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

 capitalism

an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

the point i'm making is that both socialism and totalitarianism are predicated on state control/regulation whereas capitalism is about free enterprise

i'm not going to be dishonest though and state it couldn't happen because it could if resources became too concentrated into one business but obviously its far more likely to be born out of socialism

" You are confusing the GOAL and the METHOD.  "

jesus christ i stated both the goal and the method... its right there

GOAL - "That sounds just like socialism which demands that no one in a community have private property for the purpose of generating profit"

METHOD - "therefore subjugates them to the power of the state and how the state decides to alot resources to them"

why did you have so much trouble understanding something so simple

furthermore why are you arguing so desperately to defend something you don't seem to understand... the rich capitalists who funded marx and told him to put this bilge out are laughing in their high chairs puffing on their big cigars at this shit

"Let's say a state pushing vegetarianism outlaws meat and a farmer who sells vegetables to people is happy because it helps his livelihood."

do i really need to outline why its nonsensical to compare an ideology to a job?

if the farmer is only happy because its his livelihood then its not relevant obviously... is he happy because he hates meat sellers? because he likes exerting control over what people are allowed to eat?

""Can you at least agree with me that the name "National Socialists" (Nazi) cannot be presumed to indicate whether the new leadership was socialist after kicking out the old socialist leadership?"

This question says, can't we agree that THE NAME, THE NAME AND ONLY THE NAME YOU FUCKING FOOL is no reliable indicator?  "

so you're asking me to disassociate their title from their actions? and you think that makes sense?

if i call someone you are unfamiliar with a fool what is your first question in response going to be? what is going on in your brain man? lol

look at what you have to do to yourself to justify this nonsense lmao

"YOU FUCKING FOOL"

you see that right there? that's frustration 

"All the rules that they implemented actually where favorable to big businesses and capitalist."

the ones they had under their thumb? ok

and how do you presume they funded all their social programs? where do you think governments get money from? at this point i wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know to be honest

If you think I've said, at any point, that totalitarianism and socialism are mutually exclusive then you can just stop reading right now.  I'm serious, there's no point. 

"the point i'm making is that both socialism and totalitarianism are predicated on state control/regulation whereas capitalism is about free enterprise"

And the point I was making is that if it's possible to be totalitarian and capitalist then it's obviously possible for a certain type of totalitarianism to be in conflict with socialism.  This is what I meant earlier when I said

and you said

because apparently I can't possibly paint a picture so clear that you can see it without me having to lead you up to it by the nose.  Even if, for the sake of argument, the Nazis were both totalitarian and socialist your objection is STILL wrong because the claim that you made was that it was categorically impossible to have totalitarianism that was in conflict with socialism.  If that wasn't what you meant to say, then fuck you. 

BTW, "That sounds just like socialism which demands that no one in a community have private property for the purpose of generating profit"  The total abolition of private property doesn't sound like a Nazi ideological position to me.  I would be happy to be proven wrong there but if I am right then this is at best a senseless strawman argument; which pretty much sums up my feelings about a lot of what you've said these past couple of days.  This is a very specific question of fact that you should be able to answer. 

The Nazis were fanatically anti-Communist.  Not just Soviets.  I dunno why you're pulling Karl Marx into this when the 1932 Nazi platform included "12. Eliminate the Marxist threat."

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.  I think it makes sense in the context of "political party that gets a complete change of leadership but keeps the old name" to say, "Hey, maybe it's fucking possible, just possible mind you, that the values and ideals expressed by the founders of the party that got kicked out weren't so important to the new leadership and they just kept the name because they weren't totally opposed to it and didn't want to have to rebrand themselves.  Maybe they just didn't care.  Or maybe they still had those ideals, but we shouldn't just make that assumption based on the name that they didn't have any hand in creating." 

The Republican Party and Democratic Party of the USA have undergone radical changes to their ideology (most notably, in recent history, 1960-1970) but they didn't change their names.  Not the best example because both parties still claim to value democracy and republicanism, but still, do you see where I'm going here? 

I don't know everything about you, but I am not totally unfamiliar with you.  I think it's not completely outrageous to form an opinion on someone after several thousand words of conversation.

Yes.  Yes it fucking is.  Do you know why we never got around to "what is the ratio of socialist vs. non-socialist vs. anti-socialist policies enacted by the Nazi Party" that you wanted to do and accused me of ignoring?  Well, the reason, which I believe I have mentioned before or at least alluded to, is because it was utter torture trying to get you to dialog on simple questions that you either flat-out could not understand or refused to properly answer.  The road you wanted to go down is so open-ended and historically complex that I knew there was little chance to do it justice in those circumstances.  (Did every single thing the German government did reflect the wishes of the Nazi Party?  Is discouraging smoking socialist or just solid health policy?  Is it socialist when the USA or the individual states discourage smoking on the grounds of the public health and the cost to society of the medical consequences?  Is it socialist to even hold tobacco producers accountable for the damage?)  I think you wanted a mindless list-war, no, I think you expected the mindless vague list you started with to be the be-all and end-all. 

I'm mostly done with this, but I'll keep riding it into the ground for now.  How low can you go?  Is there any limit to your failure to parse logic?