That said, your identification of Nazism and related forms of fascism as "socialism" is similarly inaccurate because of the aforementioned conflicts between fascism and socialism, most critically, the manner in which the authoritarian elements of fascism undermine the participatory elements of socialism. That said, the collusion of state and corporate power inherent in fascism illustrates its decidedly non-socialist nature. For example, consider the perspective of researchers Buccheim and Scherner in The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry.
This obviously illustrates a reality starkly different from the conception of Nazi Germany being "socialist" in nature. It's been remarked upon before (and deserves further mention), that rightists would not be quick to extend the same literal interpretation to the Soviet-controlled German "Democratic" Republic. There can be no basis for the inconsistency other than a cheap political point. Further elaboration on the nature of the collusion of state and corporate power under the Third Reich is provided by Ferguson and Voth in Betting on HitleróThe Value of Political Connections in Nazi Germany. Consider the abstract:Private property in the industry of the Third Reich is often considered a mere nominal provision without much substance. However, that is not correct, because firms, despite the rationing and licensing activities of the state, still had ample scope to devise their own production and investment profiles. Even regarding war-related projects, freedom of contract was generally respected; instead of using power, the state offered firms a number of contract options to choose from. There were several motives behind this attitude of the regime, among them the conviction that private property provided important incentives for increasing efficiency.
Establishment of the "socialist" label can be broadly described as a cheap means of capturing the benefits of raw worker militancy; however, the Nazi opposition to Marxism, anarchism, and forms of legitimate socialism is a well-established reality, and Ernst Rohm and the SA were of course the targets of the infamous Night of the Long Knives.This paper examines the value of connections between German industry and the Nazi movement in early 1933. Drawing on previously unused contemporary sources about management and supervisory board composition and stock returns, we find that one out of seven firms, and a large proportion of the biggest companies, had substantive links with the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Firms supporting the Nazi movement experienced unusually high returns, outperforming unconnected ones by 5% to 8% between January and March 1933. These results are not driven by sectoral composition and are robust to alternative estimators and definitions of affiliation.
Moreover, your apparent insinuation that "markets = capitalism" is just as inaccurate as your "government = socialism" misconception. Socialism is in fact able to facilitate more competitive market enterprise than capitalism through its elimination of wealth and market concentration.
For another thing, you'd have to confront the reality that "political" democracy cannot be legitimately separated from economic democracy, and the economic order dominant in the U.S. is decidedly anti-democratic. Were the state of affairs involving an elite few having control over the resources that affected the daily lives of the vast majority manifested through the vessel of a state, it would be rightly recognized and condemned as authoritarian in nature. Why then should there be a difference when such a state of affairs exists in the economic realm, merely because this is not recognized as a *real* establishment of authoritarianism?