D'souza has keen insights.
It is the lazy man's philosophy. Just saying it makes it true. If it sounds beneficial, charitable and has a smiling face, it must be good. cancel that; it IS good.

I can just see neo-feminists start to label nonvegetarians, “Tigers.”

Like attributing hatred to a tiger. To them, it's just meat.

They like the trappings. The Nazi uniforms, and symbols and logos were very sharp. Why not? They were designed in Hollywood, a smart move. But most of the neo-Nazis haven't a clue about Nazi philosophy, it does, however, give them a series of groups to hate.

Ludwig von Mises in the revised 1951 edition of his 1937 Socialism, had a short description of Nazism. It played upon the anti-capitalistic Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz ( the commonweal ranks above private profit), Lebensraum (the desire for the nation to a land self sufficient in resources), and Nahrungsfreiheit (freedom from importing food.) It took decades of propaganda in schools to instill the racism against any Jew or other non-Aryan but to also accept many non-Aryans, some who had Jewish background, as leaders. Just a lot of non-capitalistic mentality.

So asking which is better is a little like asking if dying by fire is better than dying by drowning.

Herb,
I think the use of the term "Nazi" in today's lexicon has very little to do with the historic sense of the word. Labelling someone as a "Nazi" today has a powerful emotional reaction, but it doesn't conjure visions of jack-booted Storm Troopers nor the entire list of Nazi atrocities. Rather, the term "Nazi" is used to demagogue, much like the term "Racist" is used. And so it could be said that the term "Nazi" and/or "Racist for that matter, can be defined as "someone who wins an argument against a liberal /progressive /leftist /socialist /Democrat.
Regards,
Ferrari Yooper

This is why I opt always for "Collectivst" to cover the spectrum of those who believe in, and act to, empower the Force of Rulership. I don't see a dime's worth of meaningful difference between the whole sorry lot of tyrants.

Which is one of the reasons for this post. A great examplle of the perversion of the word.

Hold on there. All of the "isms" are pretty easy to define, especially economically.
Socialism/communism: The means of production are held by the state.
Nazism/fascism: The means of production are privately held, but controlled by the state.
The end result is almost the same. The heads of state invariably find themselves with so much power that they inevitably become dictators, no matter what illusions are foisted on the population.

There is a difference in the way they enslave you.
Socialism and communism control the means of production. As a result, everyone works directly for the state.Nothing is privately owned. Nazism and fascism, the means of production are privately held but are rigidly controlled by the state. That means that you could own thing within the parameters dictated by the state. This gives the illusion of greater freedom than it actually allows. Since the government holds the power and is in control of everything in all four cases, the heads of state inevitably become dictators, regardless of what they call themselves.

Part 2
The political and social philosophy of the Nazi State were not necessarily bad or malevolent in and of themselves. After all Hitler was Time Magazine’s Man Of The Year in 1938 and praised for the German Miracle. But the actions of the leadership of the Nazi regime, and the crimes carried out later in the name of National Socialism, which gave complete control to a very small number, showed us that under such a system it was impossible to have individual freedom of thought, speech or action, to say the least.
Primarily for these reasons I place Nazi Germany at 5:00 on the circular continuum. Perhaps even 5:30.
But here is the kicker.
If one looks at Stalinist Russia, what is seen is that Stalinist Russia applied a nearly exact copy of the rules of National Socialism, only under the name of Communism. Look through the list of characteristics above and you will realize that the systems of National Socialism and Communism as practiced by Stalin are nearly identical. There were, of course, some differences. In Soviet Russia the State owned all means of production. It confiscated nearly all private property, and so on. But the basic political and social philosophy of Soviet Russia was nearly identical to that of Nazi Germany!!
So was Stalin a Nazi? One might say “Yes.” with a straight face.
The Nazis killed nearly 12 Million people in their concentration camps. And it is estimated that Stalin killed nearly 30 Million in his gulags. For all of these reasons I place Soviet Russia at 7:00 on our scale, or perhaps 6.30.
As you see, despite their being political arch enemies during the 1920s and 1930s, these systems are very, very much alike.
Jonah Goldberg, in his great book “Liberal Fascism”, begins the book by demonstrating the impossibility of clearly defining “fascism”. Attempting to do so is like playing philosophical whack-a-mole. I think the same can be said of trying to define “Nazi”. On February 24, 1920, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) published their platform for Germany which contained 25 demands. You can read this document at jewishvirtyallibrary.org. But reading it will not define Nazi as we came to know it. While most of the demands sound nationalistic, most can also be viewed as not outrageous, given Germany’s position at the time, and the difficulties it faced under the Treaty of Versailles.
If I were to offer a definition of Nazi, as it is used in our political discourse today, I would probably define it like this.
A Nazi is someone who wants power, and to control, manipulate and dominate others by whatever means available. A Nazi wants others to shut up and accept his or her ideas, opinions or rules as indisputable fact. A Nazi is racist (persecution of the Jews), sexist (women are of secondary importance), homophobic (the German Nazis sent them to the concentration camps), and all the other “...ist” and “...phobic” labels so easily bandied about. A Nazi, in power, will round up those who disagree and shoot them. A Nazi has no concern for you or your concerns.
I think it is interesting and telling that those of us who honestly want to have an honest dialogue are labeled Nazis by those with whom we want to talk, while they at the same time try ever means to demonize us, try to shut us up, attack us in the streets (think Antifa) and use lies and deception to impune our concerns and our very character. Sounds a bit like a Nazi, don’t you think?

Part 1
I have always had an image of politics and political systems as a continuum - but not in the form of a line, but in a circle. That circle is divided into Left and Right hemispheres by a line from 12:00 to 6:00.
At 12:00 you are at Democracy - that is, pure democracy. Perhaps the US, under the Constitution, is to the Right slightly at 1:00 as a Constitutional Republic. I would put say Britain slightly left at 11:00 as a Parliamentary Democracy, only because that system allows for turnover of the leadership by way of a vote of “no confidence” in the Commons.
Any government can swing left or right depending on the leadership and it’s agenda.
Today, both the US and Britain, as well as France and other Western Democracies are tending ever more Left. The US is probably somewhere between 10:00 and 12:00, while Britain and France are probably between 9:00 and 11:00.
While I might spend a lot of space on this circle, the subject is, after all, a definition of “Nazi”, so I will focus on the part of the circle below a line from 9:00 to 3:00.
At 6:00 are the most totalitarian and oppressive regimes one can imagine. Think Oceania from Orwell’s 1984.
Nazism was characterized by a governmental system based on a 1) singular leader, 2) a political philosophy of conformity, 3) a pervasive and powerful military, 4) enforcement via secret police, 5) indoctrination of the youth of the country, 6) the elimination of all political opposition, 7) persecution of ethnic and political minorities, and 8) a certain amount of isolation of the population from the outside world. There were, of course, other aspects.

The “D” stood for “Deutsche” (“German” in English)

Although there are parallels to the growing collective of self professed morally superior pure blooded Democrats.

I am not sure it makes a difference what we call collectivists. They all have no regard for my rights as a person, and will take whatever they can get away with from me, and imprison or kill me if I object.

Full length: Nazional Sozialiste Democratisch Arbeiters Partei (NSDAP). Parse this form of fascist motion (socialist cubed) however you will.

Putting that one on my to-read list!

+2

Fascism is alive and real. Not so much Nazism.

There are no "Nazi's" today. They belonged to a specific place and time. We may have some "Neo-Nazi's" now, but these are just people who somehow, and in their mental deficiency, "relate" to the 20th-century group.

Every time a leftie uses it as a pejorative against a conservative, they only BILLBOARD their own mental deficiencies and historical/political ignorance.

I am about two-thirds through Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. The book presents in extreme detail the various elements of Nazi and Fascist ideology and practice, and all the subtle differences, along with equivalent parts that permeate the past and present Democratic Party. I have always considered that fascist dictator for life, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was a major force of destruction to American society, freedom, and legitimate government process. The book documents why I have thought that way, but in (immensely footnoted and attributed) detail of all the wreckage by the Left, FDR, and the Democrats, including the historical and ongoing mess. As to blarman's oxymoron, historian Aryeh Unger calls it, "voluntary compulsion."

fascist...rejection of liberty, freedom, and the right to life in it's totality

What helped create the swamp is career politicians becoming more beholden to donors and all the just as $$$ influenced conniving "good friends" seated all around them, leading recently voted-in newbies into sundry temptations in what's called "learning the ropes.".

Milo speaks his mind, and only because of what he says, has been labeled a Nazi by leftists. Here is a recent event against Milo by well to do “democratic socialists” at public restaurant full of people,
https://youtu.be/Y7PPL7O5ciQ

I would argue that today's Democratic Party is about as Fascist as one can go loyalty-wise without the nation itself actually embracing Fascism. They castigate members of their own party who don't march in lockstep, hands raised to "heil" the new/anointed glorious leader. That's what happened to Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries of 2016. It's also happened to a few lawmakers who have been effectively shunned by their own party: see Montana's Jon Tester. The fascism also steps up specifically in the case of Hillary who kills anyone who gets in the way of her political ambitions, whether it be State Troopers, her husband's prostitutes, business partners, or even campaign workers like Seth Rich.

I would also point out that "private ownership which is heavily controlled by the State" is an oxymoron.

The goal is the same (power), they just use slightly different tactics to pursue it so, yes, there is little difference from an overall perspective.