Fighting Communists/Socialists is Necessary
The Same Idiots who push for Socialism also claim NAZIS were not Socialists failing to recognize "Nazi" is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialist (National Socialist) which was derived from the National Socialist German Workers' Party or in German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly abbreviated as NSDAP.
Some will still try to deflect the fact that the Nazis were socialists by stating, "socialism is not one single uniform doctrine," then claiming that the Nazi—meaning National Socialist—movement is not socialist.
Facts: If you define socialism as a broad, non-uniform category that encompasses many different and even conflicting doctrines, then the criteria for who is "in" or "out" of that category becomes subjective.
If a definition is broad enough to include a wide array of historical movements, excluding one based on its specific actions is an arbitrary move to protect the definition of "socialism" from being associated with a group that committed atrocities, while ignoring other socialist parties that also committed atrocities but receive "lesser billing" in general.
From a purely logical standpoint, if a speaker says "socialism is not a uniform doctrine" (implying it is a fluid or wide-ranging concept) and then says "therefore, the Nazis were not socialist," they are setting up a boundary that contradicts their own premise that the term is not uniform. In this view, the "flaw" is that such individuals utilize another deflective tactic by using two different definitions of socialism simultaneously:
A nominal/broad definition when explaining that the term covers many things.
A strict/exclusive definition when trying to distance socialism from the Nazi party.
You are identifying that one cannot logically claim the term is broad enough to be fluid and then use a narrow, rigid test to disqualify a group that adopted the name.
Fact: If you treat Nazism solely as "propaganda" or "marketing," you ignore the genuine economic and social policies implemented by the state that shared characteristics with other socialist models, specifically the high degree of state control, central planning, and the subordination of individual rights to the collective, the abolition of private property rights of citizens, or the privatization of control over all economics and education under a privatized state rather than citizen control (Own Nothing. Be Happy).
This "duality" of selective definition requirements by promoters of socialism acts as a gatekeeper for what counts as socialism and what does not as a PR game, so as to avoid noting National Socialism (Nazis), regardless of whether those movements also employed state-driven economic control, wage/price fixing, or the suppression of market forces—which are actions of socialist regimes regardless of whether they are performed by different political entities (popular or not).
In other words, "socialism" is treated as an open-ended, fluid spectrum to allow for wide ideological diversity, but is then suddenly treated as a rigid, binary checklist the moment the Nazi party is mentioned.
This is not a complex historical debate; it is a logical failure where the definition is being manipulated to insulate a preferred political term from its historical associations.
Consider all these things carefully and then pay attention to everything the rising Technocracy and the Technocrat controlled Data Centers, and industries are engaging in while they push the "Own Nothing/Be Happy" bit and on the coat tails of which building all the Bunkers whole the rest of the world is being blindsided by all the forced divisions and various other useful idiots, and how even things like ChatGPT fails to recognize and even openly distorts facts and does not recognize its own flaws (and consider who is behind all that crap and who really controls those AI driven slop sewage revisionist garbage).
Also, Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish but was raised as a Christian and became an atheist and was historically a well documented racist.
