"Germany has had some form of universal healthcare since the 1880s and German public education is even older."

if they were against these policies why didn't they take them away? your argument hinges on them being against these policies, you understand that right?

instead they expanded on them

"I saw nothing that describes free child care for all"

" The Nazis also supported an extensive welfare state (of course, for ‘ethnically pure’ Germans). It included free higher education, family and child support, pensions, health insurance and an array of publically supported entertainment and vacation options"

https://aeon.co/ideas/fascism-was-a-right-wing-anti-capitalist-movement

" As for gun control that is neither inherently right or left wing as it's a policy pushed by both sides in various nations and circumstances."

you wouldn't say gun control is a socialist talking point? seriously?

"Privatization occurred along with an increase in monopolies while certain industries were absorbed into the government as a way to boost military power. "

again to reiterate the nazis controlled and planned the economy, how do you control the economy when private businesses can do whatever they want? 

"As for economic policy it's a myriad of inconsistency and reactions to specific events."

let me correct you here, its a myriad of inconsistency if you want to push a disingenuous argument about how despite their policies almost all being socialist, their title being socialist etc etc etc that they weren't actually socialist

"it's like the extremes of both capitalism and socialism."

sure keep telling yourself that

"slavery is arguably a conservative economic policy or at the very least anti socialist since Marxism seeks to end the systems of class"

marx was a bafoon who was funded by rich capitalists to create an ideology that would allow them to further consolidate their power but that's besides the point

ok marx seeks to end systems of class by putting the control of the means of production to the collective.. first off how do you do this without some type of authority controlling the means of production? would that not be a class above another class? like in say... germany?

"The removal of women from the work force is a result of social conservatism."

i disagree but i'll just concede this one since i really can't be bothered going into that now

"Also abortion was made illegal for German citizens. "

which is irrelevant since i could argue that under certain conditions a collective might call for this to happen such as in a religious collective

No.

Socialism at its heart advocated the need of firearms for the working class in order to protect themselves from the oppression of the ruling class. To quote Vladmir Lenin:

"What kind of militia do we need, the proletariat, all the toiling people? A genuine people’s militia, i.e., one that, first, consists of the entire population, of all adult citizens of both sexes; and, second, one that combines the functions of a people’s army with police functions, with the functions of the chief and fundamental organ of public order and public administration."

To quote Fidel Castro:

"To some of the Western countries that question democracy in Cuba, we can say: There can be no democracy superior to that where the workers, the peasants, and the students have the weapons. They have the weapons. To all those from countries that question democracy in Cuba we can say: Give weapons to the workers, give weapons to the peasants, give weapons to the students, and we’ll see whether tear gas will be hurled against workers on strike, against an organization that struggles for peace, against the students…."

Gun control does sometimes occur as the ruling class decides that they value maintaining their rule over maintaining true socialism, however it is not so much a tenet of socialism as it is a tenet of totalitarianism (Note: I do support some level of gun control, so I feel like I should note that gun control is not inherently totalitarianism).

"Socialism at its heart advocated the need of firearms for the working class in order to protect themselves from the oppression of the ruling class."

so i'm imagining that i can randomly pull any modern socialist and have them extol the virtues of gun control to me and have this happen at least 80% of the time?

who is arguing for gun control now? its not the right of course so where are these arguments for gun control coming from?

It seems you may be falling into the "Bernie Sanders is a Socialist" trap or generally conflating Socialism with (American) Leftism. True advocacy for Socialism does not exist within the mainstream in the United States, however, generally on the fringes where true advocacy for Socialism exists, anti gun control sentiments are fairly common.

But again, lets ask some prominent figures what they think about gun control:

Karl Marx: "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"

Mao Zedong : “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.”

Eugene Debs: “Recollect that in arming yourselves, as you are bound to do unless you are willing to be forced into abject slavery, you are safely within the spirit and the letter of the law.”

There's more to politics than just american democrats and republicans. Like someone else said on this forum Australian gun reform was largely pushed by their conservative parties. Then within the United States the bill of rights which created the 2nd amendment was considered to be a liberal document at the time. Then you have the socially conservative Japan which has some of the most restrictive gun rights in the developed world. The role of guns in a society are only relative to that 1 specific society. There is nothing purely right or left about it its all about the cultural norms of whatever society you're talking about at the moment. 

being right leaning doesn't instantly mean you want to do away with all social programs. By most definitions the United States is both a socially and fiscally conservative country but even the most hardcore of republicans don't push for the end of public education or full privatization of government services. As for Marxism in the communist manifesto the government Marx advocates for is a collective democracy with no true ruling class as everyone has equal say in the economic goals of the society. Whether or not communist nations achieved that is an entirely different conversation (they didn't but whatever) but a system of government officials and wealthy business owners at the top, clearly defined middle and lower classes with a slave class at the very bottom is basically as anti Marxist as you can get. Also in what ways did the Nazis control industries that did not have a direct impact on the military? And finally a collective calling for a ban on abortion based on religious principles would be a socially conservative.

"True advocacy for Socialism does not exist within the mainstream in the United States"

ah yes the no true scotsman fallacy rears its ugly head

i could argue that socialism as its defined is not possible if you want to get as technical as you are to be evasive

because i could argue that the concept is based on eliminating the state while devolving power back to the collective as a whole 

now obviously this is impossible unless you completely eliminate individuality, in order to practically have collective control of the resources of a community, the community establishes some type of authority and has that authority regulate resources

so obviously concessions have to be made when dealing with ideologies that have no basis in reality such as these when taken wholly as they are defined

"where true advocacy for Socialism exists, anti gun control sentiments are fairly common."

true advocacy? you mean the people who want to abolish the state but can't tell you how they'll regulate things afterwards? are you really trying to pretend they have anything worthwhile to say?

"Karl Marx"

again karl marx was funded by rich capitalists to write his bullshit and no sees the inherent conflict of interest and dishonesty there so why should anything he has to say be taken seriously when he's such a hypocrite?

"it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product."

"What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general."

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/05/10/ugly-racism-karl-marx/

this is the person much of the left are raising as their god

he was only ever a pawn being used to further the objectives of the rich and powerful and never cared about people

his objective was never to produce a way for the common man to live a better life, he was directed to produce a justification for taking people back into feudalism and that is why his ideology is so incoherent

I don't see anyone here praising Marx.

In fact this whole post seems to be a strange acknowledgement of the points I made dressed up to look like a refutation. Like, you say criticize me for using the "no true scottsman" fallacy, right before you concede that yes, these people like Sanders don't actually adhere to the core tenets of socialism. Then you ignore my argument that people who actually adhere to those tenets are often anti gun control by simply saying that you don't care about what they have to say.

Like, what even is this? Even your decontextualization is getting lazy here (though that isn't to say it isn't there. That rant about Marx? Decontextualization.)

Gun control? So, shoot on suspicion is now gun control? Because that's how it was in Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic had very stringent Gun control laws, but the Nazis mellowed them up greatly for Germans - unless you where Jew or of color. That Nazi Gun control hoax has it's roots by the "Jews For The Preservation Of Firearm Ownership" and further propagated by the NRA, which consequently considers any Gun control as a Nazi scheme. But considering that the Nazi gun laws just prior to WW2 were about as lax as they are in the US now after the laws of 1938, so actually the reverse would be the truth. Here, it's a tough and long read, but it details both the hoax and how the laws really were in the 1930s in Germany. The Volkssturm, where the Nazis recruited about everything they could for the War in 1944/1945 was only possible to raise because of the lax gun laws - they brought their own guns half the time.

The state funded education was a remnant of the German Empire (it was instituted under Bismark in 1887) and the Weimar republic, not a Nazi philosophy. But they would have killed their support if they had removed that as it was by then considered a Prussian value , so they kept it in place.

The healthcare is due to their pursuit for racial purity and Aryan perfection. It weeded out all those unwanted by the Nazis: Jews, people of color (well, non-Aryans in general), people with disabilities, with chronic diseases... Like the public education, this is also something that Bismark came up with in times of the German Empire, but the nazis twisted it for their own use, achieving results sadly not as dissimilar to the US today without universal healthcare when talking about disabilities and chronic diseases. Back then in Germany, they were denied, while now in the US, they can't afford it. While certainly not the aim in the US, it does draw some sad parallels

There was no free childcare, and if you meant the Hitlerjugend and the Bund Deutscher Mädels, those where purely political education and indoctrination programs. In fact, Nazi policy was for the Women to stay in the kitchen and raise the children while their Husbands go to work, so no childcare was even needed.

So, all 4 debunked. Any other ones?

"being right leaning doesn't instantly mean you want to do away with all social programs."

that's a fair argument but i think when you consider the breath of the social programs the nazis introduced and maintained its pretty darn dishonest to state that they were not socialist

". As for Marxism in the communist manifesto the government Marx advocates for is a collective democracy with no true ruling class as everyone has equal say in the economic goals of the society."

ok lets say there is a minority that thinks pedophilia should be encouraged and they want to remove age of consent laws, do they have an equal say?

"ut a system of government officials and wealthy business owners at the top, clearly defined middle and lower classes with a slave class at the very bottom is basically as anti Marxist as you can get."

marxism is incoherent bullshit, if you disagree explain to me logically how the resources of a community will be regulated after the state is abolished

" Also in what ways did the Nazis control industries that did not have a direct impact on the military?"

" The Nazi government substituted conscious, over-all dfrection of the economy for the autonomy
of the market mechanism and subordinated the economic system to
a predetermined objective, the creation of a war machine. A vast
network of organizations was erected to embrace individuals, corporations, manufacturers, farmers, dealers, small business and large
business - in short, every factor of production, distribution, and
consumption. By dominating this organizational structure through
which orders could be issued to every businessman, and by insisting
upon strict obedience from all, the government obtained complete
control over the economy"

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

"And finally a collective calling for a ban on abortion based on religious principles would be a socially conservative."

which is again irrelevant, you understand that a religious sect that advocates for the restriction of abortion can also practice socialism right?

or is your line of thinking "socialism is good" "conservatism is bad" therefore "socialism cannot be practiced where conservatism is also practiced"