Was Adolf Hitler a socialist?

Published by carolyn on Fri, 2020-08-14 01:38

Brothers Otto (left) and Gregor Strasser were early Socialist members of the NSDAP, as well as veterans of the Great War and the right-wing Bavarian Freikorps in 1919. Otto then turned further to the Left and was expelled from the Party in 1930 because of disputes with Adolf Hitler.

by Carolyn Yeager

WAS ADOLF HITLER A SOCIALIST? ACCORDING TO HIS conversations with Otto Strasser in 1930, as reproduced below, the answer is a clear No.

In a recent conversation with my nephew, a 'constitutional conservative', he reiterated that his main complaint against Hitler is that he was a Socialist, and the NSDAP was a Socialist party. Even though I try to explain to him that Germany's "National Socialism" was not the Soviet-style or even a garden-variety socialism, and Hitler was not actually a socialist, my nephew will not accept it, pointing to a couple of items in the NSDAP party program's 25 points that "were never changed."

If you think the same, or know someone who does, you might appreciate two articles I found to send him that do a good job of showing why Hitler was not a socialst: at fullfact.org and at vox.com. Check them out. In addition, I was really happy to discover a 'debate' between Adolf Hitler and Otto Strasser, one of the more left-wing socialist members of the NSDAP along with his brother Gregor. I'm somewhat chagrined to say I've never seen it before now, not being any kind of a fan of Otto Strasser and having no desire to read about him. But to the extent what Strassser wrote is accurate, he gives a a very convincing (to me) explanation of the Leader's beliefs.

This conversation between the two men allegedly took place on May 21st and 22nd, 1930, according to notes left by Strasser. As I understand it, friends and colleagues of his were told about the meeting after it happened and confirmed it in writing 12 days later:

We the undersigned declare that this account is faithful to the narrative that Dr Strasser gave of his meeting over the past few hours, the night of 21st of May.  Signed: Richard Shapke, Herbert Blank, Günther Kübler, Paul Brinkman.
Berlin, June 2
nd 1930

I've copied Day 2 below with my added underlining and comments.

May 22, 1930

Thursday May 22nd, at 10 in the morning, after a brief meeting with my brother Gregor, I returned to the Hotel Sanssouci with Mister Hitler, as we had agreed previously.

As we had outlined the plan of the day’s conversation yesterday, I had reflected on five fundamental points which I communicated to my brother in the course of our brief meeting; they were as follows:

1 We want a German revolution that fundamentally encompasses all domains and involves all means.

2 It follows from the above that we are equally opposed to bourgeois capitalism and internationalist Marxism.

3 In my eyes, property is not inalienable, we desire a German socialism, and thus participation in all the ownership, direction, and profits of the German economy.

4 This revolutionary position forbids us from participation in a coalition government.

5 This anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist attitude means that we do not envision military intervention against Russia.

I met Mister Hitler at breakfast. On this occasion, we would only discuss general questions, the announcement of the dissolution of the Saxon parliament, and perspectives on the next election. After which we met in the room of the hotel where I found myself in the company of many. Mister Adolf Hitler, his personal secretary Rudolf Hess, Minister Amann, director of the Völkischer Beobachter, my brother Gregor Strasser, Mister Hans Hinkel, associate of the Editions Combat Society and myself. I asked Mister Hitler if our conversation would take place between four pairs of eyes, because I wanted to know the real thoughts of Hitler, without there being other people to take into consideration. This proposition was rejected by Mister Hitler, as the people present were directly concerned with the debate.

On the other hand, I was indifferent about debating the fundamental questions of socialism before a larger audience, that’s why I accepted, knowing that my interlocutors were, in any case, favorable to Mister Hitler.

At Hitler’s demand, I began in roughly these terms: “The discussion yesterday showed that important points should be clarified. Namely to know if you, like me, are of the opinion that the revolution to which we aspire must be implemented on political, economic, and spiritual level. In which case that implies that we be inflexible and fight bourgeois capitalism and internationalist Marxism with equal ardor, which leads us to the central point of this meeting. Our propaganda must not only attach itself to the anti-Marxist struggle, it must equally attack capitalism and found a German socialism.

Which necessitates that we clarify the concept of property. I believe that religious respect for private property excludes all possibility of German socialism. We naturally know that all culture rests on ownership, but recognize the extraordinary importance of this ascertainment, namely that the material foundation allows the human being to flourish and have a proud and proper bearing, thus the necessity of giving the non-property owning 80% of Germans the possibility of acquiring a form of property. Today’s capitalist system doesn’t give them this possibility. The position to-day is like that before the Wars of Liberation. At that time Baron vom Stein said these words which inspire us today: “If the nation is to achieve freedom and honor, it will be necessary to give the oppressed sections of this nation property and the right of co-determination.”

The oppressed then were the serfs who cultivated the land without owning anything, not even their bodies. It was necessary to liberate the peasantry. Today we must liberate the working masses. In that time, they authorized the henceforth free peasants to acquire land in participation in our common destiny. Today the working masses must acquire ownership and be involved in decision making.

Private property was conceived for agriculture, as the soil is divisible into little parcels. In industrial matters, things present themselves differently, so we must opt for collective ownership of the enterprises in which people work. In order to distribute land to the peasants, Stein had to confiscate it from the large landowners, as he couldn’t find un-owned land. Today we must do the same: the entrepreneurs maintain a monopoly on industrial property, so we must seize a part of this property to give to the workers, and in a broader sense, to the people collectively. These proposals will be treated as Bolshevism, but the large landowners treated Baron Vom Stein as a Jacobin. However: the liberation of Prussia was unthinkable without the liberation of the peasantry. Likewise, the liberation of Germany happens through the liberation of the German workers.”

On the demand of Mister Hitler, I declared that in my opinion, 49% of property and wealth should remain in the hands of their current owners, 41% should return to the state which represents the nation, and 10% to the personnel of the enterprise. Decisions should be made with equal representation between the entrepreneur, the state, and the employees, in a way that reduces the influence of the state and increases that of the workers.

Hitler: “That’s Marxism, Bolshevism, pure and simple. You pretend to extend this democracy to economics, which lead us politically to Russia, and ruins the entire nation in the same stroke. Likewise, you will end all progress of humanity, which was always made by an individual, by a great inventor.”

I replied by rejecting this notion of progress. For me, the invention of toilets is not a cultural act.

Hitler: “You want to completely deny the evolution of humanity since the stone age until the formidable inventions of modern technology, erase it with a stroke of the pen in the name of a system that you’ve imagined.”

I responded to him that I did not believe in the progress of humanity. Moreover, I think that man has remained the same for millennia, even if he has modified his appearance. Mister Hitler do you believe that Goethe is obsolete because he didn’t drive an automobile or Napoleon because he didn’t have the radio? I only see stages of alteration in this pretense of progress. The 20 year old man dreams of being 30 and that is progress. The man in his forties who will turn 50 will be more circumspect, and the 60 year old would hardly see the years to come as progress. Actually, contrary to what the liberals pretend, the organism doesn’t develop in a linear fashion, but through biological cycles of life and death.

Mister Hitler responded that my statements were purely theoretical. Practical life attests day after day to the technological progress of humanity, progress that always finds its driving force in the greater individuals.

I objected that the great names of history didn’t know the meaning of the role they played. Man is not the creator of history, he is the instrument of destiny.

Mister Hitler then brusquely asked me if I also intended to deny that he had founded National Socialism. I denied it in effect, as I saw National Socialism as the fruit of destiny, an idea implanted, more or less deeply, in the hearts of hundreds of thousands of men, and with pressing consequences. It had found a perfectly strong expression with him, Hitler, but the concurrent appearance of National Socialism likewise proved that it was a historical process more than an affair of man or organization. This observation holds for the establishment of capitalism, beyond notions of good or bad. Today, the capitalist system is in decline, it is moribund and must cede its place to socialism, which will forge the next 150 years.

Hitler: “What you call socialism is a purely Marxist vision. The system that you erect is academic work, it doesn’t correspond to the reality of life. In this sense there is no capitalist system. The head of the enterprise is dependent on his workforce, the willingness of his workers to participate in a common effort. If they strike, his property is worthless. On the other hand, by what right could they claim a part of this property, even to participate in decisions? Mister Amann, would you accept it if your stenographers suddenly wanted to take part in your decisions? The employer is responsible for production, and assures the workers their subsistence. Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.”

I replied that a simple look over the rulers of the capitalist system demonstrates that it is exactly the opposite of natural selection in our sense. And is it natural, when selection is done by money! The acquisition of wealth is the worst criterion for a man aspiring to heroism. In contrast, the socialist system favors responsibility, service to the community, and respect for the citizens, creating an entirely different natural selection.

But when Hitler defended the idea that the economy should obey the criteria of profitability, I interjected: “In this regard, National Socialism defends a completely opposite position! In my eyes, the economy has no other meaning and no other duty besides that of assuring the nourishment, clothing, and dwelling of the nation, and securing reserves for times of war or want. But if we consider the economy as the means to cover our needs, it is indifferent to the costs of production being higher in Germany than in other countries. In a National Socialist Germany, it doesn’t matter if American farmers produce corn at half the cost, because the global market doesn’t interest us. Naturally, that implies economic autarky, and in order to implement it, a state monopoly on international exchanges that is the only guarantee of an advantageous trade policy for the nation.”

Hitler: “Your theories are disastrous and dilettantish. So do you think that we can withdraw ourselves from global commerce? We need to import the essential raw materials and export our own manufactured goods. A few months ago, I received a report from East Asia on global economic competition (Hitler was alluding to a letter from Lieutenant Kriebel, who was then in China). We cannot nor do we want to hinder this evolution. Quite the opposite, the white Nordic race has a mission to organize the world in such a manner that each country produces what suits it best. It is incumbent upon us to realize this grandiose project. Believe me, National Socialism would mean little if it was limited to Germany alone and did not seal the domination of the world by the white race for 1000 or 2000 years. That doesn’t mean the exploitation of other races. To put it simply, the inferior races are called to realize other destinies than the superior races. We want to assure the domination of the world in concert with the Anglo-Saxons.”

I replied that I was appalled by the definition of such an objective that joins the ideal of high finance, which sees the world as a vast field of exchanges destructive to national economies and all differences between peoples. For me, National Socialism restrains its objectives to national autarky whose strength and vital force is the unique condition of supply in the absence of any imperialist or capitalist objectives.

My brother [Gregor] intervened here in the debate in order to say to Mister Hitler that in his opinion also we must aim for economic autarky and reduce our involvement with the global economy to the necessary minimum for the provision of raw materials.

Mister Hitler responded that autarky could be aimed for in the long term, but that wouldn’t be for 100 years. We could not subsist in the absence of external exchanges of goods.

A long economic discussion followed on that exact point, that I quickly brought back to the socialist field with a concrete question for Mister Hitler: “If you seized power in Germany tomorrow what would you immediately do with the Krupp firm? Regarding the shareholders, the workers, the property, the benefits, and the direction, would you keep things as they are?”

Hitler: “Of course. Do you think I’m stupid enough to destroy the economy? The state will only intervene if people do not act in the interest of the nation. There is no need for dispossession or participation in all the decisions. The state will intervene strongly when it must, pushed by superior motives, without regards to particular interests.”

Me: “But Mister Hitler, if you want to preserve the capitalist system, you don’t have the right to speak of socialism! As the militants are socialists in the first rank, they refer to the program of the party, which expressly demands the socialization of enterprises of national interest.”

Him: “The expression of socialism [in the party program, I think he means -cy] is faulty in itself, and above all it doesn’t imply that enterprises must be nationalized, but only that they can be, in the scenario where they operate against the interest of the nation. For a long time that hasn’t been the case; it would be criminal to destroy the economy.”

Me: “I’ve never seen a capitalist claim that he acts for the good of the nation. How do you say that from the outside? How do you think to anchor the right of state intervention, without creating a body of functionaries with limitless and arbitrary power over the economy, and moreover is that not more disruptive for it than socialism?”

Him: “Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”

Me: “Fascism has not found its way between capital and labor. It hasn’t even searched for it, it limits itself to containing social struggles by maintaining the all powerlessness of capital over labor. Fascism is not the overcoming of capitalism. On the contrary, until now in any case, it has maintained the capitalist system in its power, as you would do yourself.”

Him: “That is only theory. In reality, there is only a single economic system: responsibility upwards, authority downwards. I expect that Mister Amann will have authority over his subordinates and accountability for his acts before me. Mister Amann expects his department head to act responsibly towards him and demands the obeisance of his stenographers, which in turn are responsible before their department heads and exercise their authority in their duties. It has been like that for millennia and it cannot be else-wise.”

Me: “So what is the difference between the executive responsible before the board (he must realize maximum returns) who rules over his employees and workers, and the shop foreman who responds with his team before the director of the factory (he ensures everyone works hard) and has authority over the workers?”

Him: “The system is just, and there cannot be any other. The system today only lacks responsibility before the nation. A system that rests on anything other than authority downwards and responsibility upwards cannot really make decisions, it engenders anarchy and Bolshevism. That is clear from even the nature of the production process, which knows no distinction between capitalism and socialism.”

Me: “It’s true Mister Hitler, the processes of production remain the same. The assembly of a car is not much different in the socialist system than in the capitalist system. On the other hand, the policies of production, the economic objectives are the responsibility of the system. And a few years ago, the system gave to two or three dozen men, no better or worse than others, the judicial, moral, and economic means to throw 250,000 workers in the Ruhr into the streets, a million Germans including their families, because a title of ownership conferred them unlimited decision making power. [Strasser is referring to a 1920 communist-socialist worker's uprising in the Ruhr industrial region. -cy] I say that it’s the system that is criminal and we must change it, and not the men. The reality of capitalism and the necessity of instituting socialism is clearly visible.”

Him: “But in order to change this institution, there is no need for the workers to become co-owners of the enterprise or participate in its decisions. It’s the role of a strong state to assure that production serves the interests of the nation. If it is lacking in certain cases, the state will take energetic measures, seizing the enterprise and putting its destiny in its hands.”

Me: “But that would not change the destiny of the workers, objects of the economy, rather than subjects. Moreover, I note that you were ready to break with the sacrosanct principle of the inviolability of private property. Then take that step, why bother with arbitrary intervention case by case by functionaries insufficiently informed of local conditions and at the mercy of personal denunciations, why not directly and organically anchor this right of intervention in the economy?”

Him: “Some fundamental differences oppose us here, as collective ownership and decision making resemble Marxism. But, for my part, I reserve the right of intervention to an elite within the state.”

The debate found itself interrupted by the arrival of Mister Stohr and Mister Buch, who accompanied Hitler to his private room, joined by Mister Hess. It was about half past one. I stayed for a moment with the remaining people, nothing decisive was said. Mister Hitler never informed me of the results of these two long meetings, neither verbally, nor by writing.

Source: https://europapatrianostra.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/hitler-strasser-lentretien-historique-des-21-et-22-mai-1930/

Foundation manifesto of the Black Front.

At the end of the above-mentioned meeting between Adolf Hitler and Otto Strasser, the Cercle des Editions Combat prepared to leave Hitler's party.

Otto Strasser wrote the manifesto that was to be made public as soon as the separation was announced, with the help of Count Reventlow, Captain Buchrucker, Herbert Blank, Eugen Mossakowsky and a number of party leaders in North Germany (including Dr. Von Leers, now a Hitler fan).

The separation took place on July 4, 1930, after Dr. Goebbels, at Hitler's request, ordered the exclusion of a number of "suspect" Berlin activists. At the last moment, several "conspirators" (including Count Reventlow and Dr. Von Leers!) joined the ranks, while the bulk of the militants, under the leadership of Strasser, Buchrucker and Blank, founded the Fighting Community of Revolutionary Socialist Nationalists, which by merging with the Action Circle, with members of the Bündish Youth and opponents within the SA (Stennes putsch) became the Black Front.

We think it was instructive for the history of Hitler's party and the Black Front, but also for understanding the Hitlerian system, to reproduce here the essential points of this document of the opposition group (published in the Nationaler Sozialist No. 110 of July 4, 1930).]


Otto Strasser


There really are no honest constitutional conservatives. It's a pretense like conservatism, generally.
The law is what is best for the (biological) community. What does not sustain the community brings extinction. What sustains us is legitimate. That's the core principle of National Socialism, which distinguishes and conditions its socialism from genocidal Marxism. Constitutional conservatism is not sustainable.
Thomas Jefferson understood that core idea. He believed in abandoning the Constitution where it threatens or fails national survival. This is the compelling necessity doctrine.
There is a larger law than the Constitution; the law of species (Volk) self-preservation. 
Constitutional conservatives are fooling themselves, if they treat the constitution as a perfect quasi-religious document that is never changed or should never change, and should be adhered to even if, it brings us to mass suicide. Constitutional conservativism is as tone deaf to human biology as is mass murder communism. It must be a living document or else it is abandoned for something else. However, we can't let communists take that as a license to do whatever they want. Change must be restricted to what sustains us.
If we live under a constitutionally arrived at tyranny now, constitutional conservatism preserves it because it is "constitutional." There is no meaning to constitutionalism, except, legalism.
I'm using that reasoning to add a Board of Trustees to NYS Government to remove Andrew Cuomo from office. Regime change is possible with the right principle.
Probably cause for CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE can be brought against Cuomo, but no one in government will say that, which is why we need a new institution to clean out the bad apples and co-conspirators.
It is rather funny that Jefferson is more of a National Socialist than you might imagine; and when you did your Table Talks, there were shades of Jefferson in Hitler's words, which should surprise any Hitler-haters and Jefferson-lovers.
There is a big difference between National Socialism and Democrat Socialism. NS strengthens the family as a pillar of the volk. DS attacks the family as a pillar of capitalism. One approach sustains us; the other brings extinction.
People who nitpick over this or that about Hitler just want something to nitpick over because they want to keep a false identity (constitutional conservative, in this case) that prevents them from embracing a simple bio-political truth. I suppose your nephew was against the Point that prohibits war profiteering. However, that keeps wars short and sweet. For-profit wars have no end and oddly, the taxpayer, not the enemy, pays the bill. The longer the war, the more profits.
Of course, the interview shows Hitler's Angolphilia, which was his ruination. He didn't realize the "Anglo-Saxons" were out to genocide Germany.
When Strasser says, we want a German revolution that "involves all means," that is not National Socialism. Any peaceful or violent means that threaten the volk are prohibited.
"Any means that serve the Volk" is the proper formulation.

I suppose your nephew was against the Point that prohibits war profiteering.

He says he is against 'state control of the means of production' which I guess best relates to Point 13, Nationalization of all businesses which have been up to the present formed into companies (trusts). However, Hitler said to Strasser that meant they could, not that they would. Only in the case of a big conflict, he said. And I don't recall that going on. But my nephew doesn't know that, he's not well versed in the literature. I hope what I sent him now (what I linked to) will educate him more. What he fancies he wants is maximum freedom. Certainly what we're experiencing in US cities right now is not the kind of freedom we want, and we agree on that! 

German companies still competed for production contracts all through the war.  The National Socialists certainly did not sieze or control the means of production.


I think AH came across beautifully clear on Day 2; I'm still processing Day 1. I'm very pleased with this document, and I think it's a big help. So thanks to Otto Strasser for that.

The  brothers Strasser were- I'm trying to be polite here- two SOBs.
They fled to Canada where they started a defamation campaign against Hitler - including the same accusations against Trump refering to the "golden shower" with prostitutes.
The demagogue Otto Strasser is simply  proposing(point 3 above), like Bernie Sanders, to take property and money from the rich, the productive, and give them to the lazy, poor.
Even more revealing is his point 5 : He wants no confrontation with peace-loving, progressive bolshevik Russia: He's  showing again his true colours, like in red.
Otto and Gregor Strasser: Two low life trouble makers who tried to stop Germany's national revolution. Nothing else.
Thanks for the article Carolyn.

GREGOR Strasser did not go to Canada. He remained in the party and was killed in the so-called "Night of the Long Knives." I'm surprised you didn't know that! Gregor wanted more socialism but he tried to work within the party. He was very popular and highly thought of. Gregor WAS a Gerrman patriot and Hitler respected him. I can't say the same for Otto, who joined the NADAP in 1925 and wanted special friendship status for Russia. Although, as Hitler said on Day 1, he appreciated Otto's intellectual contributions to the party and hoped he would continue as a propagandist. 

Gregor was a member of the DAP before Hitler joined, as was Dietrich Eckart and Gottfried Feder.

Carolyn: You mention the Night of the Long Knives.
Former chancellor Kurt von Schleicher und Ernst Roehm were conspiring to overtrow Hitler. Hitler had to act quickly by extrajudicially neutralising the homo Roehm (who wanted to become the commander of the Reichswehr), the homo clique around him, and the leftist, Russia-friendly Strasserites - actually commies. Hitler did a very good job: Two birds down with one shot.
After the event, Hitler instructed the new SA chef, Viktor Lutze, to crack down on debauchery, homosexuality, high living in the SA.
At the Nuremberg Tribunal, Hermann Goering was asked why they executed the SA leaders and the Strasserites.  Goering; "I did a damn good thing wiping them out, otherwise they would have wiped us out."
The reason Hitler is so much hated is bc he, for the first time ever, succeeded bringing about a nationalist revolution. In other words: Universal Abrahamism was in the process of being gradually fased out of Germany.

I'm glad you brought this up because I was sorry I used the slang name "Night of the Long Knives" instead of looking up the correct name "Operation Hummingbird" or Roehm Putsch. The ideological conflict between Hitler and Gregor Strasser caused the latter to resign from the party in Dec. 1932. The following month, Hitler "publicly repudiated Strasser" for his asociations with Schleicher. In March '33, Strasser renounced his Reichstag seat and left politics altogether. That's the story, but was he still conspiring with Roehm?

Hitler said after the putsch that he did not approve the killing of Strasser and that it was an accident or mistake that he regretted. Hitler always admired those who were talented, hard-working, successful and tried to win them over. I completely agree with Hitler's ideological stance against Socialism; as he said repeatedly to Otto Strasser in those talks: if something smells of Marxism, he rejects it ... like stopping a rat from getting a foothold into your home.

As we see with Trump vs the RINO's and Never-Trumpers, it's very hard (and dangerous) to get rid of the holdovers and ideological enemies within a political party ... as it is within a government.

          Dear Ms. Yearger,
It is actually, Point 13 of the Programme of the NSDAP, 24th February 1920.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Now, we can look at Point 17 of the same program and implement what Der Führer said to avoid misinterpretation to Point 17 and adopted to Point 13 as well.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *
* On April 13, 1928, Adolf Hitler clarified section seventeen in the programme in order to stop political mischaracterizations: "Because of the mendacious interpretations on the part of our opponents of Point 17 of the programme of the NSDAP, the following explanation is necessary.: Since the NSDAP is fundamentally based on the principle of private property, it is obvious that the expression "confiscation without compensation" refers merely to the creation of possible legal means of confiscating when necessary, land illegally acquired, or not administered in accordance with the national welfare. It is therefore directed in the first instance against the Jewish companies which speculate in land."

I don't believe that this accurately represents Hitler's positions. In fact workers were given a decision-making role in the workplace, and industry was regulated also by the government.


We have to remember this 'conversation' took place in 1930, three years before he took power. And it is the account of a rival, so that's probably true.

Hadding - I read the article by Heneman at your blog and it was very helpful. Thanks. However, I didn't find that it says or shows how "workers were given a decision-making role" in the running of the businesses or factories. It seems what was instituted was more of a 'checks & balances' apparatus using courts, assuring that neither side gets an unfair advantage or can get away with behavior seen as harmful to the state or the national economy. I don't see any disparity between what Hitler said to Strasser in 1930 and what was created & carried out in 1933-35 and beyond.

What exactly do you think is not accurate in Strasser's presentation of Hitler's statements in their debate?

An interesting article, but I think there needs to be more context. There are many variations to socialism, none of which are Marxism/communism. Here is a decent general description: https://slife.org/socialism   My co-op is a form of socialism.
I have always maintained that the rise of socialism must be seen in the context of the dismantling of the craft guilds and rise of the trade guilds, i.e finance capitalism. The craft guilds were concerned with the local economy, while the trade guilds were the globalists of their day. The early socialists saw co-operatives as the inheritors of finance capitalism. While they hardened that stance over time, but even at the 1870 international meeting, the overwhelming majority rejected Marxism as not being socialism. Marx had better publicists, so that "became" the prevailing view.
Another point that needs clarification is the "property". Property is moveable. When socialists speak of ownership of property by capital, they were/are referring to the fruits of labour - the product. Land is, and always has been "real property", however few people understand that. "Property" is now understood (but not legally accepted) as including real property.
i am a Canadian, and decades ago, we had people running for city council who ran and were elected as socialists and communists. The socialist I knew was a small businessman, the communists were Jewish lawyers. The socialist detested the communists, not because they were Jews, but because they were Marxist/Leninists.
In my opinion, the fact that Hitler sidelined finance capital and the Bank of International Settlements, to a great extent, makes him a socialist. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. He stated several times that National Socialism was a German solution to German problems, and not for export.
Keep up the good work.