What is Socialism?

[Stuart Galbraith]

44 minutes ago, Rick said:

I repeat myself...

Maybe the 5 best responsibility/economic sentences you’ll read.

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of the economy of any nation.

 

Doesnt no2 clash with Christian values? I accept it may not be viewed as Governments place to do it, but as Government is of the people, for the people, and individuals are unlikely to have the money to make those improvements to society themselves, then who else is going to?

 

5, And once again, what happens when technology removes the need for lots of cheap labour? You either set yourself to keep people in Workhouses, Prisons, or on a regular stipend so they can participate in the economy in at least some fashion. You cannot run an economy on the top 50 percent of the population. No, I dont like the idea either, but I console myself with the idea that the Clergy have been paid for only working on Sundays for the past two thousand years, and nobody seems to suggest their efforts are a waste.

 

None of these necessarily commends a socialist approach to the problem. But failing Capitalism coming to terms with these problems, just as the Georgians and Victorians tried to do, you will inevitably get it. Its kind of like driving around without a seatbelt, and claiming the window is so hard when the collision comes. Well, what do you expect? You cant expect people to languish in poverty with no way out without grasping for a branch, no matter how imperfect it is. Even Bismark clearly understood that. So why dont we?

 

[BansheeOne]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Thats interesting, so it actually predated the large influx of Jews from the Soviet Union in the aftermath of WW2? I assumed it was a 'lets do the Kolkhoz right' kind of thing.

Well the immigrants from pre-WW I to the early 20s were predominantly Russian Jews fleeing pogroms and civil war. Maybe it's the other way round and you could say Russians have a natural tendency towards collectivism if freed from feudalist shackles. 😁

[Stuart Galbraith]

Never looked at it that way.

 

[BansheeOne]

Frankly I think it's the same reason often cited for the above-average representation of Jews among early socialists: If you tend to be shunned, even persecuted as an outsider in authoritarian- and nationalist-trending systems of government and society, of course you're going to gravitate towards an ideology holding that everyone's equal regardless of nationality, religion, gender, etc. If they don't let you at home, at least you can try to build a little utopia with like-minded people of your own kind elsewhere.

[seahawk]

You could also make a point that Jewish religious tradition already has a strong social (not socialist) charity part. Things like Tzedakah already saw donating for charity as a moral obligation. Which also is a reason why Jews were often running bank in later times, as Maimonides conceived of an eight-level hierarchy of tzedakah, where the highest form is to give a gift, loan, or partnership that will result in the recipient becoming self-sufficient instead of living upon others.

[bojan]

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

...kibbutzim...

There was a similar concept of "zadruga" here already in early to mid 19th century, where peasants from same village would pool resources and money in order to increase efficiency of production and reduce costs and overheads. Those also had funds for schooling of the member's children etc.

Overall, it is an examples of "collective farms" w/o state pressure and control of those.

[Stuart Galbraith]

It's been noticed before the appeal of Socialism and latterly communism in strongly religious communities, ie Wales, Spain, Italy, Vietnam. I vaguely recall reading Engels had a strict Protestant upbringing, and that Marxs and Engels works has a kind of religiosity in style,  making it possible to bridge one religion to another. Kind of like Scientology does I guess.

 

[bojan]

Around here in poor areas priests tended to gravitate toward socialist/communist views quite often. Example from WW2 Serbia:

Out of 207 priests killed in Branicevo region in Serbia attributed to a "communist killing of priests" by various pseudo-historians:

- 87 were supporters of Mihajlovic chetniks or communist partisans (support for communists was very widespread among low level clergy) killed by Ljotic collaborators (Ljotic was pure run out of mill fascist, offering his service to Germans during occupation)

- 64 were collaborators and communists killed by Mihajlovic Chetniks

- 49 were killed by communists (some collaborators, some chetniks supporters)

- 7 were unclear cases (at least one was possibly joint chetnik/partisan action that failed and then he died later in unclear circumstances, so he was on both groups bad side).

Out of those killed by communists, at least 13 were on "death list" by Mihajlovic chetniks for being supporters of Ljotic.

 

[urbanoid]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It's been noticed before the appeal of Socialism and latterly communism in strongly religious communities, ie Wales, Spain, Italy, Vietnam. I vaguely recall reading Engels had a strict Protestant upbringing, and that Marxs and Engels works has a kind of religiosity in style,  making it possible to bridge one religion to another. Kind of like Scientology does I guess.

In case of pre-war Spain the 'republicans' tended to be madly anti-religious, probably more than the USSR itself. Their persecutions and attacks against the Church were absolutely savage.

OTOH it wasn't the case with strongly religious Poland, support for communism during the interwar period was rather low. Even after communism was installed on Soviet tanks, local leaders never resorted to 'Spanish republican' methods against religion.

I'd say you're looking at correlation, not causation.

[Rick]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Doesnt no2 clash with Christian values? No.

Genesis 3: 17-19 and 2 Thessalonians 3: 10-12 are two examples. There is a deeper understanding in that it is the man's (husband's} responsibility to provide for his family. NOT THE STATE!

Charity is mentioned several times in the Bible to those who TRULY DESERVE IT! 

I accept it may not be viewed as Governments place to do it, but as Government is of the people, for the people, and individuals are unlikely to have the money to make those improvements to society themselves, then who else is going to? 

Alexis de Tocqueville noted Church and charity. He, iirc, noted the negative consequences of public welfare spending.

 

5, And once again, what happens when technology removes the need for lots of cheap labour? You either set yourself to keep people in Workhouses, Prisons, or on a regular stipend so they can participate in the economy in at least some fashion.

Absolutely false. People are adoptable and can relearn. Even my wife states I'm -- more or less -- trainable  

You cannot run an economy on the top 50 percent of the population. It seems something close to this is occurring in the U.S.

https://www.ntu.org/foundation/tax-page/who-pays-income-taxes

No, I dont like the idea either, but I console myself with the idea that the Clergy have been paid for only working on Sundays for the past two thousand years, and nobody seems to suggest their efforts are a waste.  I know it is tongue-in-cheek, but they work more than many U.S. welfare recipients. 

None of these necessarily commends a socialist approach to the problem. But failing Capitalism coming to terms with these problems, just as the Georgians and Victorians tried to do, you will inevitably get it. Its kind of like driving around without a seatbelt, and claiming the window is so hard when the collision comes. Well, what do you expect? You cant expect people to languish in poverty with no way out without grasping for a branch, no matter how imperfect it is. Even Bismark clearly understood that. So why dont we?

Ever notice one cannot have the parasite of Socialism without the host of Capitalism? 

 

 

[seahawk]

3 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

In case of pre-war Spain the 'republicans' tended to be madly anti-religious, probably more than the USSR itself. Their persecutions and attacks against the Church were absolutely savage.

OTOH it wasn't the case with strongly religious Poland, support for communism during the interwar period was rather low. Even after communism was installed on Soviet tanks, local leaders never resorted to 'Spanish republican' methods against religion.

I'd say you're looking at correlation, not causation.

It has nothing to do with religion per se, but how the local branch of the church was connected to the state and government. In the dark ages the catholic church provided a lot of the available social welfare. They did this by using more or often less voluntary donations (tithes) by their followers and also benefiting from reduced taxation from the state in return for providing such services. The only other players where Confraternities (also strong religious connection) and guilds. The Spanish church was not that big on charity but very big on owning land.

[Rick]

31 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It's been noticed before the appeal of Socialism and latterly communism in strongly religious communities, ie Wales, Spain, Italy, Vietnam. I vaguely recall reading Engels had a strict Protestant upbringing, and that Marxs and Engels works has a kind of religiosity in style,  making it possible to bridge one religion to another. Kind of like Scientology does I guess.

 

But not so in the U.S. In the U.S. labor unions -- which were and probably still are needed -- were and are mostly anti-communist and very pro-American. 

[urbanoid]

10 minutes ago, Rick said:

But not so in the U.S. In the U.S. labor unions -- which were and probably still are needed -- were and are mostly anti-communist and very pro-American. 

Getting closer, nice. 

[sunday]

27 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The Spanish church was not that big on charity but very big on owning land.

Do you have a source for that, especially one that states that was the situation of the Church in Spain in the late 19th/early 20th centuries?

[seahawk]

16 minutes ago, sunday said:

Do you have a source for that, especially one that states that was the situation of the Church in Spain in the late 19th/early 20th centuries?

I am aware of the Spanish confiscation, which saw the forced expropriation of land and property from the church. Which made the church deeply anti-socialist and saw 2 different outcomes in Spain. In the North it kind of improved the situation as local farmers could buy the plots and increase production. But there the land distribution was more mixed anyway.

In the South and Southwest however, the plots were huge and when auctioned of by the state local farmers did not have the means to buy them, so most went to local land owners and this actually made things worse, as those already owned much of the arable land.

But the main thing is that the Spanish Church was very close to the government at least until the 19th century. This closeness (and some internal cleansing) ruled out strong socialist tendencies within the church.

So the republicans logically opposed the church in the same way they opposed the nationalist or carlist ideas.

[lucklucky]

On 2/3/2023 at 12:50 PM, BansheeOne said:

Now this you will have to explain, thoroughly.

 

Now your words explain it. You are trying to take the Socialism out of National Socialist Party.

Now i make the question , how much of the Socialist ideology in Nazism influenced the Anti-Semitism of Nazis masses?

You know the tropes : Jewish capitalists control the finance world, etc. We have the Anti-Semitic essays of Karl Marx for a basis.

--------

Quote

Actually Israel even introduced a form of collectivisation, and successfully  sold it to American tourists as Kibutz.

That is Collectivisation done right, you are free to go and to get out. I have no problem with Socialism or Communism if the people are voluntary. I will wish them luck in their endeavour.  The problem is that Socialism, Communism in practice is coercive and at same time the extent of the power they reclaim over individuals is immense.

[sunday]

@seahawk, keep trolling in the Ukrainian threads, pls. At least you know enough of those matters to make that credible.

"Socialist tendencies" in the Roman Catholic Church...

Or even, "Socialists" in the mid-19th century governments of Spain.

There were no Socialists in any Spanish government before the 1920s.

Unless you are implying that Socialism and Freemasonry are the same, apart from their hate of the One True Church.

Edited February 4, 2023 by sunday

[seahawk]

I did not mean to say there were socialist tendencies, I meant to say that the history of the Spanish church as one of the major pillars of the Spanish government made the clergy much more unlikely to support socialist ideas later on.

[sunday]

Now you are saying you are able to read the minds of past Spanish clergymen...

[lucklucky]

For a person that joined Religion, Socialism, Anti-Semitism (via Socialism not via Racial aspects)  while saying to be Anti-Communist.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

Coughlin was born in Canada to working-class Irish Catholic parents. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1916, and in 1923 he was assigned to the National Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan. Coughlin began broadcasting his sermons during a time of increasing anti-Catholic sentiment across the globe. As his broadcasts became more political, he became increasingly popular.

Initially, Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal; he later became a harsh critic of Roosevelt, accusing him of being too friendly to bankers. In 1934, he established a political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. Its platform called for monetary reforms, nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of labor rights. The membership ran into the millions but was not well organized locally.^[1]

After making attacks on Jewish bankers, Coughlin began to use his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary. In the late 1930s, he supported some of the fascist policies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The broadcasts have been described as "a variation of the Fascist agenda applied to American culture".^[2] His chief topics were political and economic rather than religious, using the slogan "Social Justice". After the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939, the Roosevelt administration forced the cancellation of his radio program and forbade distribution by mail of his newspaper Social Justice. Coughlin largely vanished from the public arena, working as a parish pastor until retiring in 1966. He died in 1979 at the age of 88.

Economic policies[edit]

(..)

 

Among NUSJ's articles of faith were work and income guarantees, nationalizing vital industry, wealth redistribution through taxation of the wealthy, federal protection of workers' unions, and limiting property rights in favor of government control of the country's assets for public good.^[26]

Illustrative of Coughlin's disdain for free-market capitalism is his statement:

We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also so to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited.

 

Not a person widely known today but in 30's

Quote

At its peak in the early-to-mid 1930s, Coughlin's radio show was phenomenally popular. His office received up to 80,000 letters per week from listeners. Author Sheldon Marcus said that the size of Coughlin's radio audience "is impossible to determine, but estimates range up to 30 million each week"

 

[FALightFighter]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Doesnt no2 clash with Christian values? I accept it may not be viewed as Governments place to do it, but as Government is of the people, for the people, and individuals are unlikely to have the money to make those improvements to society themselves, then who else is going to?

No, it doesn't. Christian values never prescribe forcing someone else to practice charity, only that individuals should voluntarily choose to be charitable. So if you choose to take the product of your work and give it to someone who didn't work for it, then no problem. If you want to force me to take the product of my work and give it to someone else of your choosing, then we have problem.

[seahawk]

9 minutes ago, FALightFighter said:

No, it doesn't. Christian values never prescribe forcing someone else to practice charity, only that individuals should voluntarily choose to be charitable. So if you choose to take the product of your work and give it to someone who didn't work for it, then no problem. If you want to force me to take the product of my work and give it to someone else of your choosing, then we have problem.

The church had different opinion on the tithe in the past.

[BansheeOne]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

There was a similar concept of "zadruga" here already in early to mid 19th century, where peasants from same village would pool resources and money in order to increase efficiency of production and reduce costs and overheads. Those also had funds for schooling of the member's children etc.

Overall, it is an examples of "collective farms" w/o state pressure and control of those.

If you think about it, it's a logical step over the open field system which required everyone in the village to cooperate while tending to your strip in the field(s) that needed to this season, and there was also common land for joint use. Enclosure made that harder to the point it became unviable in most of Europe by the 19th century, so you could either become part of the emerging commercial agriculture, move to the city and become a worker in industry, or develop new forms of cooperation. Don't know much about period conditions in the Balkans, but I suspect that being a backwater in industrialization encouraged the latter.

As an aside, the above development was of course a major factor in laying the ground for the rise of socialist ideas which sought to address the changes in the life of the masses. In fact, landlords appropriating commons and making life harder for the erstwhile commoners in the 15th and 16th century is considered one of the causes of the German Peasant Wars, which as noted East Germany later in turn appropriated as part of its communist history. Obviously from a Marxist point of view, it's all about the ruling class progressively seizing the means of production since the time of neolithic Primitive Communism.

[Ivanhoe]

59 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

That is Collectivisation done right, you are free to go and to get out. I have no problem with Socialism or Communism if the people are voluntary. I will wish them luck in their endeavour.  The problem is that Socialism, Communism in practice is coercive and at same time the extent of the power they reclaim over individuals is immense.

You may be interested in this;

https://mises.org/library/tale-two-colonies

[BansheeOne]

52 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Now your words explain it. You are trying to take the Socialism out of National Socialist Party.

Now i make the question , how much of the Socialist ideology in Nazism influenced the Anti-Semitism of Nazis masses?

You know the tropes : Jewish capitalists control the finance world, etc. We have the Anti-Semitic essays of Karl Marx for a basis.

No, I'm trying to establish what socialism means in National Socialism, and arguing that in the ideology of the NSDAP in power, not much is left to explain it; and further, that there is no difference between the "National" and "socialism" parts. Again, let's pull out the party's chief ideologist Alfred Rosenberg: The Party Platform. Nature, Principles and Goals of the NSDAP (25th edition, 1943). Improved Google translation.

Quote

Introduction

If a people falls into great misfortune, but still possesses living spiritual strength, then the unequivocal answer to the question of the deeper reasons for its decline becomes the first condition for rebirth. The fact alone that such a large empire as Germany could withstand an entire world, only to collapse and - after this collapse - to show the worst downsides of the heroic spirit of the time forces every thinker to ask the most serious questions. He will recognize that the mercantilism, the "economic" thinking geared purely to the ego, the spirit of soulless internationalism, combined with a widespread conceitedness, openly took control on November 9, 1918, but had for years, for decades, sprawled internally already. The German people lost its mental balance and fell victim to seducers who exploited the degrading state of mind to inject doctrines poisoning the people (human culture, internationalism, pacifism, parliamentarism, etc.).

[...]

The one fatal error was the permitted misrepresentation of the terms national and social. The circles and parties which pretended to defend the most precious goods of the people have done so far too often only in foreign policy terms. Domestically they have not infrequently considered rank, position and money as sufficient advantages to look down on their fellow countrymen in work coats as second-degree citizens. The Volksgenosse was not valued as such, but as an economic object. This snobbery became a welcome means of agitation in the hands of foreign seducers of the people.

Added to this evil was the equation of dynasty and national interest. Undoubtedly there had been times when the personality of the king or emperor was at the same time a guarantor for the whole empire. But the fact that this state of affairs became a standing compulsive tenet required a Byzantinism which endeavored to cover up all the weaknesses of the imperial government and in this way, albeit unintentionally, in turn strengthened the opponents of the German state as such. People had forgotten that nationhood, its interests, its well-being and its honor had to stand even above the personality of the monarch. Here, too, nationalism in foreign policy not infrequently became anti-social against the people.

In addition to these enemies, there was an increasingly detached attitude among the learned classes. The one-sided interest in darkest antiquity, in the science of the Orient, in abstract, bloodless principles, widened the chasm between the intellectual worker - that is, the national intelligentsia, which was actually called to lead a people in its struggles for life - and the manual worker, and here, too, unscrupulous elements and foreign agitators were given the opportunity to exploit the poverty of the istarving sections of the population for purposes quite different from those pretended.

The preaching of class struggle thus fell on fertile ground, and for decades its representatives have not let a day go by without trying again and again to reopen the wounds in the German people's body.

The German worker saw himself separated from his blood-related intellectual class and believed in the doctrine of the eternal class struggle as a natural law; he heard many sendlings from foreign nations saying the same thing as his native leaders and believed in the equality of men and in the solidarity of the proletariat of all countries; he saw the day-to-day injustice of the age of the machine and believed in the just future state; he felt a visible capital  dominating the world, he saw before his eyes his entrepreneurs, who were often not friendly to the people, and believed in the necessity of overthrowing all capital, in salvation through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In addition to the pursuit of apparently ideal goals, Marxism understood how to mix in its actual essence and to falsify the socialist ideas that had been in motion for a long time before it, and which used to grow organically. While it preached equality, equality between Germans, French, Jews and Chinese, he taught fighting to the death between different classes within the same people, thus refuting himself from the start; while it referred to property as theft not only occasionally, as was done in the past, but as theft fundamentally (wherein the logical absurdity - that where there is no property the concept of theft cannot exist - has been completely obscured), he taught nothing else than personal enrichment at the expense of others.

Marxism professed to fight usurious world capitalism, yet from its inception it has worked hand in hand with the major international banks and stock exchanges. To this very day. November 9, 1918 was the stock market revolution, carried out with anti-capitalist, plundered and incited workers, with the long-awaited aim of putting Germany's national industry and agriculture, which had not yet been fully taken over by the World Banks, into the hands of supranational loan capital. That was the meaning of the struggle against these soil-grounded economic powers in Germany, as it was being waged by "anti-capitalist" Marxism in conjunction with plutocratic democracy. But that was also the sense behind the fact that the Social Democracy in the Reichstag had opposed all usury laws, stock exchange taxes, luxury taxes etc. since 1880. They did not wish for the welfare of the people, but deliberately and systematically cultivated great injustice in order to be able to organize the troops of the revolution with the help of the discontent thus encouraged.

That was the great fraud of the 19th century, as it finally triumphed in Moscow in November 1917 and in Berlin in November 1918: the anti-capitalist world revolution, led by the slaves of world capital*.

[* The acceptance of the Dawes dictate on August 29, 1924 was a turning point in the decade-long political construction of the world republic.]

Marxism was not socialism = community spirit, but its conscious, only covert mockery [empasis mine]. Marxism was not a declaration of war against the materialism of the age, but the culmination of this Mammonistic thought. Marxism was not an economic struggle at all, but a popular struggle for power and culture among all the peoples of Europe. Marxism falsified the ideas of internationalism, class struggle, and pacifism into the socialist principle, which had nothing to do with them.

This enormous world deception became complete and possible because in the course of the 19th century, the leadership of both people-exploiting capitalism and Marxism was in the hands of the representatives of one and the same people: in the hands of the Jews. So Marxism was and is ultimately a race struggle.

Freed from almost all inhibitions by the French Revolution and its effects in the other countries, Jewishness had the same effect as in previous centuries. Tough energy, ruthlessness, international affinity while enjoying civic equality, innate parasitism ... all this formed the basis for the Jewish rule of money, in the sign of which we stand today.

In order to render the rising dangers of the beginning workers' movement harmless to itself, the Jewish high-capitalist banking world "supported" Marxism, established "workers'" newspapers, built trade union houses, agitated against entrepreneurs and farmers, incited denomination against denomination, in order to ... rule through division! That is why, for decades, Jews or insignificant people who are linked to the existence of their party for better or for worse, and evil wonks, which are to be found in every people, have held the leading positions in the workers' parties of all states. There were a very small number of detached dreamers among these leading people; they were just as harmful as the conscious perpetrators.

The sins of the farmers and industrialists accommodated the deceit, and for decades now the economic and political struggle has been waged on the wrong front: instead of entrepreneurs and workers recognizing their national, political and economic togetherness and, based on this recognition, turning on the mobile bank capital weighing on all peoples, and the stock market speculation that was destroying everything, they waged a bitter war against each other for the benefit and well-being of the laughing third party: the stock market Jew and his uncircumcised brothers in spirit.

That is why the National Socialists declare: fight these bank consortia that already dominate almost everything and their owners, but also fight every single industrialist or farmer who forgets his völkische duty over self-interest. And ruthlessly fight them of all, because these pests obfuscate the need for a völkisch-bound economy. Protect the national economy, fight its scorners.

In the crudely materialistic Marxist worldview, which replaced the concept of quality with the purely material concept of quantity; which denied the value of the creative individual and called upon the masses; which made popular and political lies its principle, National Socialism sees its mortal enemy (wherein party affiliation only plays a secondary role). To overcome this world view and destroy it, to render its main representatives harmless in every direction, is one of the NSDAP's most important goals. Only when this has been achieved will the paths be free for a German Reich, for a truly German fatherland.

It is now clear why the new people's movement bears the name National Socialist German Workers' Party.

National, nationalistic it is with all the fervor of newly experiencing an ancient, only buried nature; socialist in the knowledge that the co-creator, co-builder of a state should not, at best, be thrown a social handout (as happened on the part of the liberal state), but that the state as such has the duty of supervising all this what all its members need [emphasis mine]. In the further realization that all this cannot be realized before the bacillus that poisons our blood and soul has been rendered harmless: the Jew and the Jewish spirit born of him with his adherents from the German camp, the ruthless struggle against these seducers of the German people has been taken up. And that means at the same time: fight of all mentally and physically productive workers against the drones and parasites. For National Socialism there are neither "proletarians" nor "bourgeois" as two hostile classes, but only Germans as comrades in blood and fate. Productive Germans.

[...]

Out of the whole screed, we get very little about what socialism means; it is rather literally stated to mean community spirit, and also the state supervising all the means its members need, but "no handouts". We get a lot of other things it's not, too: Not Marxism, which is only a Jewish distraction maneuver to have the exploited masses fight each other; not class struggle, as the intellectual worker is worth just as much as the manual laborer; not necessarily anti-capitalism either, unless it's the "mobile" trans-national (read: Jewish) capital that doesn't create, only destroy, and accumulates without productive effort of its owners (in Nazi parlance, the distinction between schaffendes und raffendes Kapital).

The book goes on to explain the 25 points of the NSDAPs "unchangeable" 1920 platform, which indeed include some which could be called socialist demands:

Quote

[...]

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the whole for the benefit for the general good. We demand therefore:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice of life and property that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment due to a war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. Therefore, we demand ruthless confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts).

14. We demand that the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

[...]

In the event, this turned out to be not so unchangeable; in 1928, Hitler had a footnote added to 17. declaring that contrary to claims of political enemies, the NSDAP was firmly standing on the principle of private property, and free expropriation of land referred only to such acquired illegitimately in he first place, particularly by Jewish speculators ... you get the overall drift. Hitler unilaterally reneged on Point 3 demanding new German colonies, substituting "living space in the East" in "Mein Kampf", too. Rosenberg is also busy explaining the "real" meaning of 14. and 15., "but fundamentally they say: ..."

Not adhering to the program for the sake of endearing the party to industrialists and their donations was the major reason for the Strasserists leaving the party after the Strasser brothers lost the power struggle with Hitler, and he managed to pull people like Goebbels over to him; Gregor Strasser was of course killed in the 1934 Night of the Long Knives. Afterwards, Hitler is the sole source of Nazi policy under the Führer principle, and socialism is whatever he says. The thing is, he doesn't say much about it, if anything.