Not in the real world it isn't. But that is what it seeks to achieve--the maintenance of an equitqble economic system in which people are paid a sum equal to the value of their labor investment. If you disagree, then what exactly do you think socialism hopes to achieve?A more egalitarian society is an aspect of socialism, not its end goal separated from the process.
You got the wrong implication, my fault. I really just wanted to know if you thought they valued free-enterprise over state intervention-- I didn't mention socialism in the question. They used many types of intervention, some of which I mentioned above, including socialist policies.You are implying it by naming intervention as socialist and opposing it to capitalism as if was necessarily one or the other.
So, you don't think it's impossible for a government to use socialist policies to enrich an elite minority at the expense of a destitute population? Look at Zimbabwe.However, the latter half of your statement is somewhat correct. In fact, fascists are willing to use what they can to advance their productive goals, which is fundamentally opposed to socialism which has a moral aspect to it (the egalitarianism you mentioned).
1) Socialist policies can be implemented without the fulfillment of the "moral obligation" to reimburse the people for their labor equitably. First and foremost because large scale socialism never does so, and as I mentioned before, the nazi's did attach moral qualification to the people's well-being but they did so via the well-being of the state. The difference is simply one of method of redistribution, in effect. That doesn't alter the substance, or necessarily the intent, of the policies--and certainly not the application.Without that morality, you cannot call them socialist and be accurate. And even if you want to argue it, because they used whatever they could, economic intervention, capitalism (they did promote corportations did they not), slave labor whatever, you can attach any phrase to them and be just as accurate, rendering the distinction meaningless.
2) If you are defining capitalism as the promotion of corporations by the nazi government, then your idea of capitalism has very little to do with "free-enterprise."
3) So you are saying the distinction is meaningless because they used certain other means as well? No, I don't think its meaningless. As has been mentioned earlier, the party grew out of a socialist workers party that became ultra-nationalized and later turned to barbaric practices such as slavery in addition to their other means. Regardless, not like I have a personal stake in the matter anyway, it is historical fact that they implemented socialist policies, disagree if you like, or look it up.