You are, once again, misrepresenting my argument. In a
previous post, I used sources to support my argument about the historical association between socialism and independent trade unions (shared origins in opposing the exploitation of workers, shared beliefs in a minimum wage, employment rights, social security and freedom for trade unions to operate and shared political activity through the participation by trade union members in socialist political parties.) I used sources to show that, historically, the Nazis banned independent trade unions and had their members blacklisted, beaten and tortured - and murdered thousands of them. My argument is based on history, yours appears to be based on an attempt to conflate socialism with Communism.
This is another misrepresentation. I'm not engaged in a 'contest' between them, I've argued for treating both sides in the same way, by distinguishing the normal - socialists and conservatives - from the extremes - Communists and fascists. I've shown that conservative parties use some socialist policies while remaining conservative (and vice versa). Your argument seems to be that the Nazis used some socialist policies, so they were socialist. I've argued that using socialist policies because they are popular or useful doesn't make a conservative (or extreme-right) party into a socialist one. It's understandable that you would want to dismiss as irrelevant discussion of conservativism or the extreme right, in a discussion of whether the Nazis were socialists or on the extreme right. There's a difference between what's inconvenient for your argument and what's irrelevant.
Once again, you miss the main point of my argument, even though we agree that I've made it more than once. The history of socialism is the history of opposition to the exploitation of workers, which was done through independent trade unions, which were persecuted by the Nazis. Once again, with your references to Communist regimes, you imply that the extreme left is the norm for socialism. As before, it's understandable that you would try to dismiss evidence as irrelevant, when it's inconvenient for your argument. However, as I said, the history of socialism is relevant to its meaning.
The Nazis used some socialist policies because they were popular or useful, just as other political parties use ideas from their opponents for the same reasons. The Nazis wanted Germany to recover from the Great Depression. Increasing spending on public infrastructure can be useful for recovering from an economic slump, as the spending creates demand for businesses, helping them to survive. The Nazis wanted to wage a major war; in such a war, central planning is normal. When mobilising for the war, Winston Churchill's government transformed Britain "from a primarily free market economy to a planned economy", because "Increasing state control of the economy was necessary to further the war effort" (
The National Archives) - the British government was using some socialist ideas because they were useful, this didn't make Churchill (a conservative) into a socialist. The Nazis were ethnic nationalists; there are many ethnic nationalist parties today which are on the far right and the marchers who chanted the ethnic nationalist, Nazi slogan "Blood and Soil" were at a "Unite the Right" rally.