Is Nazism's ideals vague?

Nazism is a special variety of fascism with ideas such as racism and anti-semitism at its core.

Isn't this, the racism, the reason why nazism is somehow vague?

Like let's say there's a Nazi party in Germany and in Japan.

The German Nazis say that their race is the superior race,
While the Japanese Nazis claim that theirs is the superior one.

So, will these claims for 'superiority' will make their claims vague and confusing?
What do you think?

its not confusing or vague at all.

it is nationalism; love of ones own group, and the wish for a homogenous population within ones own borders, and socialism. as far as i can tell it is less of a sense of innate superiority, and more a quest to achieve superiority.

Fascism in no way brings about socialism or is about a love for socialism. Fascism is a form of capitalism which arises out of a crisis situation in which the bourgeoisie will do anything to defend their property from the rising consciousness of a working class. Fascism is effectively the most entrenched stage of capitalism and most costly.

nazism isnt fascism though, its national socialism.

It was based on fascism.

And this Hitler's "socialism" has nothing to do with the socialism we uphold. What Hitler said in an interview in 1923 to George Sylvester Viereck: "Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. (...) Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. (...) Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property." :bored:

It IS capitalism! With a socialist mask to deceive the working class!

It is NOT socialism because it's against the "international capitalists" and the "Jewish bourgeoisie". While they opposed other capitalists, they imposed a national capitalist system within Germany's borders. While they opposed the Jewish bourgeoisie, they put on command the Germanic and "Aryan" bourgeoisie. Both fascists and nazis try to make it unclear to the workers with something called "class conciliation", in Germany something like this: "everyone together, workers and employers, for the development of Germany and the superiority of the Aryan race." Well, the owner of the means of production was still the bourgeoisie! It just didn't have Jewish employers anymore. But nazis and fascists like to make the workers think the class struggle has to be repudiated, that the working class have to respect and love their employers. What it has to do with socialism? NOTHING! :mad:
And socialism appeared first in France, not in Germany!

The "Socialism" in "National Socialism" is equivalent to Social Capitalism, maybe a bit further to the right.

The only reason the party used the word Socialism was so that they could gather support from the working class.

There were Nazis, such as Ernst Rohm and the Stasser brothers who actually stood for what they considered "socialism" (pushed for nationalisation of major industrial firms, expanded worker control, confiscation and redistribution of the estates of the old aristocrats, social equality etc.)

Hitler, of course, had no such ambitions - pretty much all Nazis with such views were either expelled or murdered in the Night of Long Knives.

Folks like Strasser and Rohm accepted the claims of German national superority, the need for living space, to drive the Jews out of public life ect. Basically all that for which National Socialism has been subsequently reviled (unless the nazis are to be reviled for failing to nationalise industry. But they did go on to confiscate estates of aristocrats (and turned such estates into vacation resorts for the workers) and of course the program of the browns was indeed about social equality (of Germans))).
The purge of 1934 did not substantially alter the nature of National Socialism any more so than did the purges of stalin substantially alter the nature of Communism.

All political ideals are necessarily vague. Hence why we must use historical examples to explain who we are and what we want.

The only solid principle that Nazism has is they reject the idea of the Modern Nation-State and believe that Nations should be an extension of race and thus just a giant tribe like gathering. The reason it is so vague is because Hitler who developed it could care less about any principles he just wanted power and to make Europe pay. The only other solid principle Hitler believed in was "Will to Power" he literally believed if you thought you could do it then you could. This explains a lot of his erratic behavior during the war where he issued orders that didn't make any sense or were not even possible.

TL;DR Hitler was a nut and only had limited political development almost all of it was hate based.

Actually, nazism is based of fascism. It is combination of fascism and traditional far-right reactionaryism. But, they are still quite different.

Fascism actually begun as a nationalistic sorelian system. It merely just evolved into an nationalistic state-worshiping system that embraces the nation and state. Nothing to do with racism, but usually fascists are also racists. (Not as much as nazis though)

It's either syncretic, or right-leaning syncretic. Unlike far-right wing Nazism and Absolute Monarchism. And, it's ideas are usually called 'Fascism' ever since 1945. Instead, it comes in the form of 'socialist' parties in the third world, such as the Baath party under Saddam Hussein and Hafez/Bashar Assad, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, and such are good examples of modernish fascists.
Mussolini's regime is a good example of fascism during the ww2 era. Basically, it is third-positionism.

Imperial Japan was not nazi. It was just traditional far right reactionaryism.

It's vague if you consider the Neo-Nazis and Skinheads National Socialists. Groups of racists that masturbate in circles to WWII footage aren't National Socialists. German National Socialism isn't vague at all, it's clearly defined.

Even if you believe that Stalin's purges did not alter the nature of the bolshevik/communist party, your claim would still not hold true because bolshevism is hardly the end-all of communism.

German National Socialism is extremely vague the only solid principle is Racial Nationalism that is it there is nothing else to the ideology. Seriously read Mein Kampf or any other material that describes their platform the whole thing is just a giant race bait and offers no solid ideological reasoning other than Race War is a Holy Event that should be embraced.

I always thought that Fascism was a form of Capitalism.

Perhaps a horribly distorted form which erodes the power of the bourgeoisie,but other than that I would say that the two ideas are,mostly,separate.

I hate to appear as a devil's advocate, but Otto Strasser was against Hitler's persecution of Jews and condemned the Nuremberg Laws, so the initial Strasserism (unlike its latter-day British National Front's incarnation) can hardly be considered anti-Semitic. There was even a group of Jewish activists in his "Black Front" (the so-called "Union of German Jews"). There are a lot of things to attack Strasser for (for instance, his Protestant religious fundamentalism or anti-feminism), but he was not an anti-Semite. Rohm, of course, is completely another matter.

"Communism is not socialism. Marxism is not socialism. (...) Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. (...) Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property."

-Hitler.