They used the label "socialist" only early on for propagandistic purposes so they could destroy / substitute themselves for the socialist movement -- which was powerful and omnipresent across Europe. Germany had just gone through a failed socialist revolution and the largest force in civil society were social democrats and socialists, so using this language was useful for them, and early on they had people in their ranks who were trying to somehow fuse nationalism with some sort of socialism. Those people were exterminated.
All the NAZI leadership (after the knight of the long knives) openly spoke of their hatred of any kind of socialism -- philosophically and organizationally -- and of all socialists and socialists of all kinds were the first to be put in death camps. The entire moral and ethical framework -- the celebration of the nation and race above all else, the subservience to a singular leader, etc. reflect a hatred of socialist (internationalism, secularism, class solidarity instead of nationalism, helping the poor and weak, women's liberation) values which were considered "degenerate" and "Jewish"
(And unlike Stalinism/Maoism which also reflects similar outcomes in this case the goal is explicit and stated and propagandistically proclaimed rather than hidden under a layer of Bolshevik ideology)
So I'm not sure why libertarians etc (and recently Elon Musk) in the US keep repeating this assertion ("NAZIsm is socialism!) as some kind of fact. It only underscores a lack of knowledge of history, it's not some "gotcha", it's a self-own that only takes advantage of people who don't know the history.
It's worth adding that the change of the name to NSDAP also happened before Hitler consolidated control and "Socialist" was added over his objections.
With respect to people repeating this idiotic claim, it dates at least back to the 70's in various places, seemingly as a counter for groups on the right that wanted to create distance from the nazis.
All of which also happened in some 'communist' countries.
the USSR came after all of those (who weren't Bolshevik aligned) but the Jews, they did let the jews live but they closed many of the synogogues and many of them had to flee to barely hospitable fringe regions to practice their religion.
Sure, and I actually wouldn't call the leadership of the USSR at that time (Stalinists) socialists either. It wasn't even that they wiped out those "who weren't Bolshevik aligned". The entire 1917 Bolshevik leadership was exterminated by Stalin by the end of the 20s.
(And frankly people who grew up in the Eastern Bloc in USSR-times were not taught this in history class, either. Or they got a distorted version of it)
What was established there in the late 20s and early 30s was very much a return of many of the forms of Tsarist autocracy, but with a paint job.
"Socialism in one country" and the efforts around it was the re-establishment of Great Russian Nationalism and a cult around a leader as the motive force of everything. Underneath that there was some usage of aspects of "Marxist" ideology, so it's not nearly as clear as what happened in Germany, but it's not dissimilar.
There's a reason why the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was able to be signed.
I'd be willing to consider them "socialist" in the way that Marx used socialism. There's after all a whole chapter in the Communist Manifesto dedicated to forms of socialism that were all wildly different ideologies, ranging from the utopian to the outright feudalist.
In that Marxist sense, that "socialism" has a very limited implication about a very limited set of concepts around putative public ownership of the means of production, one could call the Stalinists socialist. But by that use, then one should be aware that it's a trait of a set of ideologies that otherwise have pretty much nothing to do with each other.
And indeed, he called out the "return of many of the forms of Tsarist autocracy, but with a paint job" explicitly in describing "feudal socialism".
A later preface (by Engels, I think? I think it was one of the prefaces from after Marx death) points out that they used the word "communist" because the word socialist at the time had become largely associated with some of those ideologies that they did not want to be confused with. And of course "communism" has since become equally overloaded by ideologies so different their adherents have pretty much nothing in common.
Already before Lenin died, there was already the notion of "left" and "right" communism, as two incompatible camps that were not even single ideologies, but sets of ideologies. Hence Lenin's "'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder" that covered a range of "left" communist ideologies (because the Bolsheviks were considered "right" communists)
It's more complicated than that, because after Lenin, the USSR and countries in its sphere like East Germany considered themselves not to be Communist but rather socialist, as they believed that true Communism was an end goal to be achieved in the future like "We will achieve Communism by the year 2000"
Fair enough, though this also throws away 150/200 years of convention. In the end, the buckets and labels serve little purpose. What is important is to point out that "fascists are just socialists" is a garbage slogan/slander that obscures the reality of history behind an ideological cover that serves only the purpose of implying that any collective action inevitably turns into tyranny. Or something.
The reality is that "actually existing libertarianism" is just as or more liable to degrade into authoritarianism as it hands over blanket authority to the private market -- and, eventually, the form of the state that arises when said market goes into crisis. As we've seen in practice many times, and with the way a whole class of American "libertarians" have embraced the triumph of the will motive force behind Trumpism in the present day. (Or lined up behind Pinochet, etc. in the 70s)
I mostly agree with you - the point I made is mainly one to make with people who get really insistent on that labelling, as a means to point out that even if they believe Stalinism is socialism, that still doesn't mean it's the same socialism as whichever flavour they're trying to equate it to.
Fully agree with you regarding the "fascists are just socialist" canard.
With respect to libertarianism, I like to taunt US libertarians by pointing out that the first liberatarian was Joseph Dejacque, a French anarcho-communist, who, of course, given his anarchist background, praised Proudhon for the view that property is theft - and requires state power to oppress those who reject it - but criticized Proudhon as a "moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian" for not going far enough in his rejection of authority.
All the NAZI leadership (after the knight of the long knives) openly spoke of their hatred of any kind of socialism -- philosophically and organizationally -- and of all socialists and socialists of all kinds were the first to be put in death camps. The entire moral and ethical framework -- the celebration of the nation and race above all else, the subservience to a singular leader, etc. reflect a hatred of socialist (internationalism, secularism, class solidarity instead of nationalism, helping the poor and weak, women's liberation) values which were considered "degenerate" and "Jewish"
(And unlike Stalinism/Maoism which also reflects similar outcomes in this case the goal is explicit and stated and propagandistically proclaimed rather than hidden under a layer of Bolshevik ideology)
So I'm not sure why libertarians etc (and recently Elon Musk) in the US keep repeating this assertion ("NAZIsm is socialism!) as some kind of fact. It only underscores a lack of knowledge of history, it's not some "gotcha", it's a self-own that only takes advantage of people who don't know the history.