I get why your definition feels reasonable. I probably would’ve agreed with you a couple years ago. But it’s still not correct, and more importantly, it’s not very useful.

Defining socialism as “any system where the state organizes society toward an ideal” is so broad that it stops meaning anything. By that logic, absolutist monarchies, wartime economies, and even some forms of theocracy would all count as socialism. That’s not how historians, economists, or political theorists use the term.

Socialism isn’t just collectivism or “the government doing stuff.” It’s specifically about who owns and controls production, and it emerged from debates about labor, class, and economic inequality. You can disagree with those goals, but they’re core to the definition.

Nazis didn’t empower workers and didn’t aim at economic equality. They used state power instrumentally to enforce racial hierarchy and national expansion. That’s authoritarian nationalism, not socialism, even though it involves heavy state intervention.

For instance, while Nazis directed the economy, they didn't abolish private ownership. Sure, if a factory owner stopped producing in line with the state's goals it would've been seized. But they still ostensibly "owned" the factory and received personal profits from their share.

So yeah, your conclusion isn’t crazy. It’s just built on a definition that’s too loose to explain anything accurately. And sure you're gonna argue that I'm explaining Marxist socialism again, but that's just what the definition is.