...The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men

-- Hitler in Mein Kampf

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

Excerpt from an interview with Hitler. Note the part about "private property".

Obviously he railed against Marxism all the time, but these were the most obvious quotes. He clearly did defend private property, and I'm not really sure that there was any collective farming like he describes of his "German ancestors".

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It seems I read once that "socialist" was just in the party name to garner support of those who would be supportive of socialist values. I can't recall the publication, but wonder if that's true?

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, but that's something that is harder to be succinctly convincing about to someone who is enough of a philistine to say "nazis were socialist" to begin with. That said, in the source I linked, the very next paragraph is:

‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…

If it's nearly as appropriate to call yourselves liberal as it is to call yourselves socialist, you probably aren't much of either (and indeed, as much as I despise liberals, Hitler was not a liberal either).

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 5 points 1 month ago

Thanks. That's a liberal (sorry, I couldn't resist) definition of socialism he used there too, even allowing for the "national" qualifier.