I don't want him to look stupider, please provide undeniable facts.
Introduction
Nazism was a right-wing ideology in both theory and practice. This can be observed from the statements made by Nazi leaders (most notably Adolf Hitler himself), as well as the practical policies implemented by the Nazi government. Let's take a look at both of these areas in turn.
Nazism in Theory
Nazi ideology, despite the name, was fundamentally anti-socialist in nature. In a 1923 interview with George Sylvester Viereck, Hitler stated that Nazism “unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists.” In this quote, Hitler not only states that Nazism affirms the right to private property (thus automatically distinguishing it from socialism), but admits that the term "National Socialism" was essentially arbitrary. This is far from the only anti-socialist statement from Hitler; in a 1935 speech to the Reichstag, he said:
We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility.
In addition, the book Hitler's Table Talk includes the following statement:
I absolutely insist on protecting private property. It is natural and salutary that the individual should be inspired by the wish to devote a part of the income from his work to building up and expanding a family estate. Suppose the estate consists of a factory. I regard it as axiomatic, in the ordinary way, that this factory will be better run by one of the members of the family that it would be by a State functionary—providing, of course, that the family remains healthy. In this sense, we must encourage private initiative.
In other words, the Nazis had no issues with private property; they cared only about "racial purity," and exterminating those who did not fit their warped notions of ethnic propriety.
Nazism in Practice
According to a study in The Journal of Economic History, the Nazi economy was "basically capitalist," retaining the role of private property and market forces. As the study puts it:
Irrespective of a quite bad overall performance, an important characteristic of the economy of the Third Reich, and a big difference from a centrally planned one, was the role private ownership of firms was playing - in practice as well as in theory. The ideal Nazi economy would liberate the creativeness of a multitude of private entrepreneurs in a predominantly competitive framework gently directed by the state to achieve the highest welfare of the Germanic people.
The Nazis favored privatization (the word was literally coined to describe their policies), and opposed state ownership. According to the aforementioned study:
Available sources make perfectly clear that the Nazi regime did not want at all a German economy with public ownership of many or all enterprises. Therefore it generally had no intention whatsoever of nationalizing private firms or creating state firms. On the contrary the reprivatization of enterprises was furthered wherever possible.
According to another study from the University of Barcelona:
The Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors.
In other words, the Nazi government privatized numerous industries and social services, and did their best to oppose any kind of public and state ownership.
Conclusion
Nazism was opposed to socialism in principle, and "basically capitalist" in practice. It was in no way a left-wing ideology. I hope this answers the question; let me know if I've omitted anything important.
Sources
Nazism is a right wing ideology. More can be said on this, but do check out this section of the FAQ with responses from /u/kieslowskifan and /u/g0dwinslawyer.
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. flesh-eating-turtle when he says that it was in no way a left-wing ideology: I think it's pretty clear it had left-wing elements, at least early on, which makes perfect sense, as it's fundamentally a reaction to the incredible popularity and electoral and political success of socialism. One of the great efforts made by early Nazi propaganda was the attempt to claim the popular parts of socialism / communism while leaving behind its baggage (as far as right wingers saw things): pacifism, and the elimination of all private property and enterprise. Overall, National Socialism used some of the language of socialism and, at least initially, pursued some socialist goals (alongside right wing beliefs), but these were not its core beliefs.
Let's look at the 25-Point Nazi Manifesto of 1920. Here's a few points:
All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
The state must provide the opportunity for a livelihood for citizens. If it is impossible, then non-citizens are to be expelled from the Reich.
The first obligation of every citizen is to productively work mentally or physically. As such, we demand:
Abolition of unearned income, breaking of debt (interest)-slavery
We demand the nationalization of all associated industries (trusts)
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare
We demand the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land, and prevention of all speculation in land
These are obviously socialist in character (other than the non-citizens bit). As such, to anyone who thinks the right-wing solely exists in terms of modern American left and modern American right, this rings all the leftist alarm bells.
At the same time, let's see some others:
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries
Personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be a member of the race.
Only citizens can live in Germany
Only citizens can manage German administration and law
Immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented; immigrants must be expelled
The first there is very much not capitalist. At the same time, it's meh as far as a proper socialist is concerned (why only heavy industry?), while the third is passable for socialists but anathema to communists, as it preserves a class structure. The second is not so much anti capitalist or communist as anti-profiteering, a specific reaction to a belief that many profited by supplying the common German soldier with shoddy goods at inflated prices. The rest are completely outside what any major socialist or communist organization was doing. A focus on nationalism was antithetical to the broader communist viewpoint and would remain so until Stalin successfully advocated socialism in one country. Racism was similarly seen as a capitalist conceit designed to keep workers at each others' throats.
Most importantly, remember the date of this Manifesto: 1920. As the Nazi Party gained in strength, "We demand the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land, and prevention of all speculation in land" scares some of the capitalists and farmers who would otherwise be inclined to support the Nazis. Realizing this, Hitler "corrected" it by clarifying that it only applied to Jews. Many of the fundamental socialist principles that mark the 1920 manifesto are abandoned by the time the Nazis come to power in 1933, even as the non-socialist elements are preserved or expanded. They don't abolish profit by unearned income. They don't nationalize heavy industry; they allow it to grow in a capitalist fashion. They allow private industry to continue and even grow, with industrial megacorps such as Krupp thriving under Nazi contracts (it is true that much comes under government control during the Second World War, but that happens across the planet, due to the pressures of total war; it no more makes the Nazis communist than it makes the UK or the USA such; see also Mr. Turtle's solid material in his post). They don't redistribute land to the peasantry, other than taking it from Jews, but then again they take everything from Jews so this should not be seen as socialist land reform; the private farmholding class survives and even thrives as the Nazis' blood and soil romanticism embraces their traditional role.
You see a similar shedding or downplaying of the socialist bits and a maintenance of the core right-wing elements of nationalism and glory through war in Mussolini's fascism as well. When I teach this material, I refer to an outer and inner core of fascistic beliefs. They can be neatly divided into "what they believed early on--and when not in power" and "what they actually did when in power".
Let's focus on the big picture. The Nazis had a largely capitalist economy, even allowing for command elements of a wartime nature. Their allies were always right-wing and centrist political parties (notably the conservative DNVP), never leftist ones (i.e. the Social Democrats or Communists). And most notably, they proclaimed it their mission to destroy Marxism/Bolshevism in all its forms, odd for a supposed socialist party (and note the wording: this isn't a German left-wing-party squabble as I've seen some try to describe it as; they weren't trying to destroy specific German parties, but the cause of Marxism as a whole). They destroyed the German left when they took over Germany. They then invaded the Soviet Union and sought to wipe it from the face of the earth, murdering commissars and communist party functionaries specifically.
Essentially, the only way to accept the NSDAP as a socialist party is to 100% buy into the leftist elements of the 1920 manifesto, ignore the rest of it, and ignore its eventual implementation 13 years later that jettisons a bunch of the leftist elements when the Nazis come to power. Then you have to take a peculiarly American conservative view that any major involvement by government in the welfare of its citizens makes a party a left-wing party (regardless of what else they say or do). The Nazis certainly involved themselves in this way, with things like mass welfare, universal employment, but overall this is an unquestioned (and unjustified) definition. Lastly, you must ignore every part of the Nazis' "death to Marxism" rhetoric and follow-on actions, its unsocialist obsession with race and nationalism, its capitalist economic structures, and its alliances with the traditional conservative powers to do so. It's a curiously "one-drop" view of political ideology, where any leftism means 100% leftism, no matter how thin the leftist elements or how strong the right-wing ones.
Overall I think it's clear that the "Nazis are socialists" idea is fundamentally untenable, and basically your dad is falling for a century-old bit of marketing while ignoring any actual evidence on the ground; the classic and simple rebuttal is something about how the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is somewhat limited in its democracy despite the name. I find the heart of this argument is based on fundamental misunderstandings of the definition of left and right, and similar misunderstandings of what the Nazis actually did vs. what some claim they did. To try and get through, I always avoid the first part--the definition game--because they'll always start with the axiom that Nazis = commies and see any attempt by you to change that as proof that you're ignorant / one of "them"; it's a distraction. It also puts the burden in the wrong place. If they claim that the Nazis were a left-wing party, ask them why and to prove it, since they're making the claim. Often you'll then hear something like "the government owned all business" or something equally false which can much more easily be disproven rather than by going, "well, in 1863 the Social Democrat Party was formed..."
Hopefully I didn't miss any essential nuances here, but I had to cut a lot of subtleties to meet the character limit and now it's late and I'm off to bed. I'll check back in the morning for issues.
Sources: Best simple source that really does a great job in a short bit of time, while also bringing in other countries, is The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert O. Paxton. It's a common class text and rightfully so. There's also Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism and Alan Cassels' Fascism.
Hey kid this should shut your dad up. The national socialist party was created by Hitler in the 1920s. Calling the national socialist party was a power move by the nazis as a way of hyping their base. Propaganda was passed out pushing anti socialist and left views and communists, socialists, and strasserists were all hunted just like Jews. He also privatized his industries and work with them against the common worker. He also alienated the common worker from the spiritual workforce. And he set up a strict hierarchy were only the ubermench(pure germans) benefitted.
There is a simplistic way of showing right wing and left wing. Without dabbling into all the economics, which in Germany is lesser often used as a indicator for left versus right wing than social issues (Nationalism is inherently right wing).
Look where the Nazis sit in the Reichstag.
You clearly see the Nazis having been allocated the most right hand side of the parliament with their iconic light-brown party uniforms, while the entirety of all politicians from the opposing parties wear suits.
. . . . .
u/flesh_eating_turtle is right about all the facts. The Nazis did favour privatization over socialization since they wouldn't have to bother with the production if companies did it for them. This is in stark contrast to the State-controlled Planned Economy of the USSR, where the quotas, goals and direction were given by the Central administration (As you may be all aware of).
Even in contrast to France did the Nazis neither nationalize nor socialize the arms industry, while the coalition government of 1936-37 allowed its military to order materiel directly from government owned factories instead of the standard producers of let's say, Tanks - Renault and Somua. Those obviously protested against this on the basis of "property rights".
Besides that following legislation 1936, exports outside of France were only permitted through the government and the French army was supposed to be the only and main customer for arms sales.
The arms manufacturers and industrialists of Germany remained largely independent, fulfilling requests from the Army, while at the same time being supported by the government itself.
The economic policy of Nazi Germany is best described as "Interventionism". It is still a market economy, but the government has its influence in it. Capitalism was never abolished, Socialism was not introduced. The fiscal policies didn't differ much from the previous administrations of the three powerful Reichskanzler aside from the following:
The Anti-cyclic fiscal policy, fundamentally Keynesian, was introduced into the "Sofortprogramm der NSDAP" (Instantaneous program of the NSDAP). It meant a turn away from market liberal economics. It was laid out for short term economic growth, while risking high inflation in the future.
The Nazis capitalized on the economic downturn of the financial crash and the Great Depression as the workers were less able to leverage higher wages, which subsequently were not stable and sank on average. This meant that due to reduced production costs the Nazis and the Military were more able to purchase arms from the various companies. They lowered taxes for agriculture, housing and car industries to relieve some burden and encourage expansion.
Later on, at around 1936/37 the Nazis strengthened their connection ti the Industry through personal interaction and appointing them in government positions. The private sector was highly cooperative towards the Nazis and benefitted itself from the deal through the grant of tax cuts and essentially slave labour from the labour camps.
The Nazis in the end are the Nazis.
They did (by far) not have any more correlation with Socialism than they did with existing Right-Wing organisations and ideologies like Monarchism or Conservatism so it would be misleading to point out cherry picked examples of supposedly "Socialist" policies ignoring the general state of affairs where they went the other direction.
The Nationalization of War Industries in France, 1936-1937: A Case Study
bpb Nationalsozialismus, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Hans-Ullrich Thamer. 06.04.2005