"Its about a community working for itself."

all communities "work for themselves" anything else cannot be defined as a community

"Real socialism is a form of government where the people crowdfund what they want."

ok so if i wanted to lets say build a missile and i convince the idiots of a community to give me funds to build that missile that according to you would be socialism correct?

do patreon and gofundme represent socialism?

"not this fear everything theory you have"

i don't fear everything, but recently my fear of stupidity and ignorance has been expanding rapidly

"If you keep lying to yourself"

about what? the definition of socialism that i can find in dictionaries and is widely accepted?

"Medicate is socialism.  Social Security is socialism.  These are programs that benefit the public.  "

they do not solely benefit the public... to pay for these programs the public must also be taxed and that tax carries the penalty of violence and imprisonment if its not paid

" but if you don't understand on the most basic level what socialism is"

lol that's rich

First: 
"neither Communism, Fascism nor National Socialism have anything to do with the right side of the political spectrum and all share a common socialist root."

This is not what Wikipedia says the book said.  It said the book said that "He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual."  Clearly fascism and national socialism being based on socialism (or "sharing a common root" in socialism) and fascism, national socialism, and socialism all sharing a common root are not at all the same thing.  It's like the difference between chimpanzees and humans sharing a common ancestor and humans having chimpanzees as ancestors.  So can you confirm or disconfirm for me that you disagree with what Wikipedia says here?  I'd like to establish that this is in fact your stance before potentially spending time going closer to the source. 

Second: 
"I think that putting Fascism next to Communism or National Socialism is simply wrong."
It's commonly asserted that the Nazis were fascist.  It seems like you certainly disagree with this, but could you just confirm that for me? 

Third: 
"in the OP at 36:41 to 37:37 we can see a quote that to me shows Hitler was a socialist."
In that case, would it be fair to say that to you socialism is not strongly concerned with any specific economic policies?  In other words, it doesn't matter what sort of economy the state is exerting influence over—the fact that the state is exerting that influence means it's socialism.  Command economy or not; competition within markets or not; workers permitted to have collective negotiating power with employers or not—anything goes as long as the state is interventionist. 

You are so very wrong.
There are multiple types of nationalism.
You have both left-wing and right-wing nationalism.

The right-wing nationalism is very much linked with the extremely strong patriotic stance that the far-right takes, shit. Trump built his campaign on it.

Again wrong. Study some history.
He was right wing.
Trump and many far-right fascist groups tend to hold similar views to Hitler. That is... They tend to be Anti-Muslim, which is no different from Antisemitism.

Yeah. You are wrong though.
Socialism in it's extreme and purist form can be pretty terrible.

But nations like Australia, Canada, Netherlands and so on leverage various socialist schemes to achieve some of the best Welfare, Healthcare and a highest living standards in the world. - Because Socialism is cancer, right?

It's fine as long as the health care is good enough. 

Beyond help? Wtf! You are so blinded by your own bias that you cannot approach the subject neutrally. You want the Nazi economy to be socialistic because in your narrow minded world view socialism is the devil, and everything that is evil must then be socialism by default. First you cherry picked the quotes from wikipedia that fitted your narrative. Then someone presents you with an article, that cites primary research. Then you dismiss it, but still go on to cherry pick the information in it that fits your narrative.

The fact that you can't distinguish between public ownership and private ownerships for organizations within the Nazi Party says everything really. That's like saying Donald Trump's businesses are state owned businesses.

The studies are conclusive, the german economy at the time was focused on privatization of the public sector. Which is the opposite of socialism.

Your argument is basicly just: "The government had power - hence Socialism!!" Ignoring the fact that the state didn't use that power to build a public sector. If it did, I would agree with you, but it simply wasn't the case.

What is particularly amusing to me, is that people with your World view always scream that socialism has never worked. And then you claim Nazism is socialism. The evil nature of the Third Reich and its eventual destruction had little to do with their economic model. The economic model of Nazi Germany was actually pretty successful, they made Germany an economic superpower in less than a decade immediately after the economic stranglehold of the Treaty of Versailles and the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

So which is a lie? Nazism being socialism or socialism always failing or both?

I am most certain I do not need help from you in German history, economics, or political science.

In short, as I’ll explain below? your post amounts to nothing more than a series of reframing the article into something it isn’t all saying because you won’t accept the facts resulting from you getting fact-checked.

Your two main issues is you lack the ability to see the difference between private and public ownership even when it is spelled out in front of you. You also have no grasp on what socialism is.

The author is not saying businesses were made into branches of the government private entities, you just made that up. A government putting regulations on business or redistributing business ownership to members of one class of people (especially those tied to the oligarchy, is not socialism. It’s quite the opposite, since socialism advocates the abolition of class distinction, it is a revolution against nepotism as it is also a revolution against entitlement due to birthright.

Being a member or affiliate of a party, subject to state laws and regulation, does not mean your businesses are a branch of it. That would make all business in the world, and most through history, socialist - which is false.

Your definition  state controlling people = socialism is also false. Socialism is the public ownership of the state, not the state ownership of the public. You literally wrote the polar opposite of theborder of socialism.

A class of people being agents of the state is also not socialism - again, socialism is about the abolition of of class distinction. The Nazis advocated the dominance of the Aryan master race - a group the Nazis considered superior to all others based on their genetics - this again, is not socialism: putting power into the hands of such a group is the opposite of socialism. Whether you are of a noble line or a so-called noble race has no relevance in socialist society; socialism fights against these sorts of traditions. By your argument of “being agents of the government is being a socialist” falls apart because then all forms of government through history (minus anarchism) are socialism since they all have agents, and with your appeal to possible interpretations as correct interpretations, then it becomes a valid arguemebt (in your frame) to say that anyone who is a citizen or subject to law is an agent of the government, and therefore part of a socialist system; you’ve already somewhat made this comparison above.

To draw an analogy to your argumentative style: “The colour of the socialist party is red, much like the Republican party of the US. The Republicans are therefore socialist. If you can’t see this, you cannot be helped.” that’s your mode of argument in a nutshell; if you cannot understand that then there really is no helping you.

"again, socialism is about the abolition of of class distinction. "

no, wrong... that's communism

"In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")^[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movementwhose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money^[3][4] and the state."

i can't blame you for confusing them because they both suck and one leads to the other

nevermind the fact that its internally inconsistent since you can't order a society without a hierarchy

"Being a member or affiliate of a party, subject to state laws and regulation, does not mean your businesses are a branch of it. That would make all business in the world, and most through history, socialist - which is false."

 "By your argument of “being agents of the government is being a socialist” falls apart because then all forms of government through history (minus anarchism) are socialism since they all have agents"

what you said here is false since most businesses are not associated to a political party but regardless it is the extent to which they are controlled by the government that is important

if you can't for example liquidate your assets and convert your businesses into another type then you don't really own your business

"The Nazis advocated the dominance of the Aryan master race - a group the Nazis considered superior to all others based on their genetics - this again, is not socialism"

correct, but that's fairly obvious since its not explicitly an economic model while socialism is

the definition of socialism once more :

"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."

 "this again, is not socialism: putting power into the hands of such a group is the opposite of socialism. Whether you are of a noble line or a so-called noble race has no relevance in socialist society; socialism fights against these sorts of traditions."

and who controls the means of production under socialism then? don't you understand that ultimately someone has to manage the resources of the community under socialism? i truly hope its just naivety and not willful ignorance that's leading you to make statements like this

"To draw an analogy to your argumentative style"

i don't have a style... your own article proves you wrong lmao

" “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 you don't understand what this means is sad man its really fucking sad

"You want the Nazi economy to be socialistic because in your narrow minded world view socialism is the devil"

you would do well to not state that i've made arguments that i do not make

while i do say that i think theft under the threat of violence (socialism) is wrong, i have always conceded that a society needs some degree of redistribution of resources in order to remain stable

i say that just about every time i have one of these discussions... the problem comes about when its taken too far under ideologies such as equality of outcomes

"everything that is evil must then be socialism by default"

nope don't believe that at all when it comes to methods of governance and i can concede that capitalism has problems as well

but socialist are too stupid generally to discern between consequences of just being a living organism and consequences that are a direct consequence of systems of governance

we see that most notably in the idea that inequality as a whole is the result of socialization, which stems from the idea that everyone is just a blank slate and men and women are the same etc etc etc

"First you cherry picked the quotes from wikipedia that fitted your narrative."

wrong for the third time

the quotes i posted to you came from an article another poster quoted in order to demonstrate that private enterprise was at its highest point in nazi germany

...his article hilariously disproves his assertion and he doesn't seem even now to be able to understand that

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

"Then someone presents you with an article, that cites primary research. Then you dismiss it, but still go on to cherry pick the information in it that fits your narrative."

how can i simultaneously dismiss the article and cherry pick from it?

"The fact that you can't distinguish between public ownership and private ownerships for organizations within the Nazi Party says everything really."

to reiterate from the article you claim is "primary research" (which its not btw)

"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."

" “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.”"

"Your argument is basicly just: "The government had power - hence Socialism!!""

if you ignore what i've actually posted then yeah

"What is particularly amusing to me, is that people with your World view always scream that socialism has never worked."

wrong for the fourth time i'm afraid

"The evil nature of the Third Reich and its eventual destruction"

the control of the nazi party over the people of germany was a large part of the evil nature of the third reich and a significant component of that was socialism

"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."

" “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.”"

"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."

"The economic model of Nazi Germany was actually pretty successful, they made Germany an economic superpower in less than a decade immediately after the economic stranglehold of the Treaty of Versailles and the Wall Street Crash of 1929."

which i have never denied... what the fuck are you on dude?

"So which is a lie? Nazism being socialism or socialism always failing or both?"

if you can go back and find me stating that socialism "fails" whatever the fuck that means i'll owe you a cookie, how about that?

It's pointless talking to o_O.Q whatever you tell him gets ignored. Some people love living in a world of alternate facts and alternate history and he is one of them. Its best to just ignore him.

Gonna need some details on this one.