As Glenn notes, National Socialism was socialism, unhappy though leftists might be when it's pointed out.

It can also be argued that it's the other way around; a lot of socialism is first and foremost national socialism.

I've often wondered: if Hitler and, say, the American Enterprise Institute, are far to the right, what exactly do the two have in common?

Almost the entire political space is "socialism", though. Except for the despots at one extreme, who dominate the people for their own benefit, and the anarchists at another extreme, almost everyone wants to make a better society (failing to different degrees). Whether capitalist, communist, theocratic, libertarian, green... if you're trying to improve society, you're engaging in a kind of socialism.

But Nazi socialism didn't have the hallmarks of today's liberal socialism: redistribution of wealth, equality of outcome, etc. There were a few aspects in common with modern socialism, like anti-smoking campaigns and demand-side subsidization of infrastructure, but no one would list Hitler's atrocities as "invading Czechoslovakia, exterminating the Jews, and building the autobahn".

I'm not clear what the point is. Nazism seemed opportunistic, using whatever approach it deemed advantageous. Socialist programs were merely a tool for getting and maintaining power. Recall, that Germany was in the throes of a second depression at the time that Hitler came to power. So social programs would have a great deal of populist appeal.

Further, it's pretty clear that the military side of Nazi Germany, which dominated its brief existence, has nothing in common with modern socialist ideology or governance.

Nazism seemed opportunistic, using whatever approach it deemed advantageous. Socialist programs were merely a tool for getting and maintaining power.

Really? When did "Nazism" use the libertarian, free-market approach?

"Nazi" was a word made up by Hitler's opponents. Hitler knew exactly what he was -- a "National Socialist." If it seems otherwise, that's because of defects in today's history books.

Recall, that Germany was in the throes of a second depression at the time that Hitler came to power. So social programs would have a great deal of populist appeal.

Obviously, otherwise he would not have come to power, but the fact that a socialist is popular does not mean he is not a socialist.

Further, it's pretty clear that the military side of Nazi Germany, which dominated its brief existence, has nothing in common with modern socialist ideology or governance.

Do you think Nazi Germany was the only socialist state to have a "military side"? How did the military side of Nazi Germany differ from that of the military side of the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, the PLO, and other examples of "modern socialist ideology or governance"?

Don't confuse real-world examples of socialist states with the pacifist utopias described by college English teachers.

if you're trying to improve society, you're engaging in a kind of socialism.

To quote from The Princess Bride, "I do not believe that word means what you think it means."

But Nazi socialism didn't have the hallmarks of today's liberal socialism: redistribution of wealth, equality of outcome, etc.

There certainly was redistribution of wealth. You don't think Hitler bought the autobahn and all those fine houses with his own money, do you?

As for "equality of outcome," no society (socialist or otherwise) has achieved that. If anything, the most socialist societies, like the Soviet Union, have more inequality.

I can think of many cases where countries have been destroyed or transformed into dictatorships or near dictatorships by promises of socialism - Cuba, USSR, Venezuela, Germany, ect.

I can't think of one where someone actually used the conservative flaw; as in where someone took power on a "we will protect you" platform and then they actually either destroyed the country of transformed it into a dictatorship.

It seems to me pretty obvious which side of the political spectrum has the real dangers. Offer someone "free money" and they will vote for Satan himself. Offer someone "protection", and they will still be relatively discerning.

Whether capitalist, communist, theocratic, libertarian, green... if you're trying to improve society, you're engaging in a kind of socialism.

Good gravy, I hope so you are under 21 years of age and American, so I can attribute this statement to the notorious shortcomings of American public education. You might as well have said that people in art conservation and who believe in the Law of Conservation of Mass are a kind of conservative.

Socialism is a theory of government, not just a post-Christian exhortation to love your neighbor as you love yourself, or remember Donne's words that no man is an island.

That theory rests on the assumption that people are generally too dumb, weak, or selfish to be trusted to manage their own affairs with justice and charity towards all, including voluntarily taking care of their neighbor when the neighbor is down on his luck, and including making the judgment call of whether a hungry neighbor is best served by giving him a fish or teaching him to fish, or even allowing him to starve to serve as a good example to others of why you should not refuse to bait hooks just because worms feel icky.

Hence the socialist proposes that we collectively appoint a conservator (the government) of our morals, a collection of wise men who have the wisdom and discipline to act morally and effectively in the way we ourselves can't.

It's true the socialist tries to paint the person who opposes socialism as someone who doesn't give a damn about his fellow creatures. But that's a lie. The usual opposition to socialism is based on the suspicion that the magic cadre of philosopher kings who can make all the right decisions don't exist, and that the people we might choose to rule over us and make moral decisions for us will, alas, turn out in reality to be no better -- and frequently worse -- at making those decisions than we are.

You might say the socialist is pessimistic about the average citizen's heart but optimistic about his head, while those who oppose socialism think just the opposite.

Nazism seemed opportunistic, using whatever approach it deemed advantageous. Socialist programs were merely a tool for getting and maintaining power.

Karl, you can't seriously think that we should distinguish between social systems on the basis of the motives of its leaders? Country A with old-page pensions and national health care is socialist because its leaders support these institutions on deeply-held moral beliefs, whereas Country B with identical old-age pensions and national health care is not socialist because its leaders support these institutions from a cynical desire to maintain their leadership positions by crassly and ignominiously following the will of the people? C'mon.

Anyway, I think you're wrong. Whatever the motivation of Hitler himself and his inner circle, National Socialism was a mass movement. Do not forget that, unlike Bolshevism, it acquired power in Germany fair and square, through democratic election, not violent revolution. Many millions of Germans were National Socialists, and I suspect most of them because they believed in its principles -- that is, they were socialists, at least in the FDR sense.

Actually, the comparison to FDR Democrats is interestingly close: some have argued that FDR embraced various mild forms of socialism less out of personal conviction of their eternal worth (he is said to have been skeptical of Social Security as a permanent institution), but to steal the thunder of the far more radical forces to his left that had been energized by the Depression. In essence, the people were demanding some kind of movement towards socialism, and it was either Social Security and the WPA or something far worse, like outright Bolshevism.

In the same sense, many middle-class Germans turned to National Socialism in the 30s less out of conviction of its eternal worth than for fear of the Bolshevists, who had knocked off the nascent Russian liberal democracy 15 years earlier and were in the process of smothering the Spanish liberal democracy at the time, not to mention starving Ukrainian peasants by the millions. In essence, there was the feeling that some kind of move towards socialism was necessary, and it was either Kindergeld and Hitler Youth or something much worse, like being swallowed by Stalin.