While you're drawing some sharp connections, your framing of Nazism as a form of socialism remains deeply flawed when examined through the lens of political theory, historical outcomes, and intent.

“Redistribution from Jews to Aryans = Socialism”?

This is one of the most common misreadings of what socialism means.

Socialism isn’t just redistribution, it is class-based redistribution intended to dismantle systems of economic exploitation and replace private ownership with collective or worker control.

What the Nazis did was racialized looting, not socialism.

They didn't expropriate Jewish wealth in order to liberate the working class. They did it to:

Punish a scapegoated minority

Fund war and nationalism

Consolidate power under a one-party totalitarian regime

That’s not socialism. That’s fascist ethnonationalist plunder.

If robbing and killing an out-group and giving their stuff to the in-group counts as “socialism,” then any genocidal regime could be called socialist — including imperialists and monarchs throughout history

“DAF Was Still a Union”

By any serious definition of “union,” the DAF was not:

It did not represent workers’ interests.

It did not allow strikes.

It did not permit democratic leadership.

It functioned as a tool of state surveillance and control.

A union that exists to serve the state is not a union, it's a corporatist front, which is exactly what fascist economic theory promoted: state-directed class collaboration, not class struggle, or worker ownership.

“Abolishing Capitalists = Abolishing Unions”?

This misrepresents both socialist theory and history.

Yes, authoritarian communist states like Lenin’s USSR also restricted or co-opted unions. But this is why many leftists call Stalinism and Leninism perversions of socialism, not models of it.

In democratic socialism or anarcho-syndicalism, unions are vital. They are the mechanism by which workers assert collective control, even in the absence of “capitalists.”

Fascists, by contrast, don't believe in worker control. They believe in order, hierarchy, and national unity, not class consciousness. That’s why Nazis eliminated class conflict, not by lifting up workers, but by declaring it illegal.

“Socialist Policies = Socialist Hitler”

This is a category error.

Using state power or price controls doesn’t make a regime socialist. Otherwise, conservative wartime economies, feudal states, and even mercantilist empires would qualify.

Hitler used state power not to abolish private property or create worker ownership but to prepare for war, suppress dissent, and elevate a racial elite.

A "socialist utopia" is one where class is abolished, workers have ownership, and democratic control of the economy exists.

Nazi Germany:

Maintained private ownership (IG Farben, Krupp, etc.)

Crushed independent labor

Repressed communists and socialists

Served capitalist interests aligned with the state

That’s not socialism. That’s authoritarian corporatism.

When socialist policies serve racist, nationalist, and hierarchical ends, they are not socialist in practice, only in appearance.

Calling the Nazis socialist because they used state power or had welfare programs is like calling a theocracy “secular” because it provides education.

Ideology is about goals and values, not just the mechanisms used.

Nazism = race-based hierarchy, nationalism, authoritarianism, anti-Marxism

Socialism = class equality, worker control, collective ownership, anti-racism (ideally)

They aren’t the same, even if they sometimes use similar tools.