Yes there is. Socialism is based on self-identity by socioeconomic class, whereas nationalism promotes self-identity by nation or race. The two are mutually exclusive. They can and have been combined, by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., but never without contradiction and intellectual dishonesty. In Hitler's case, if you look at the historical record, you'll see he dropped the socialist plank of his platform after he offed Ernst Roehm in '34.
The whole idea of there being a generic something called "fascism", (with a little "f"), as distinguished from the specifically Italian "Fascism" is basically just a leftist propaganda tool.
What are you talking about? I made no mention of "fascism", which I agree is one of the most over-used and diluted words in the English language. Nazism certainly coopted many elements of Italian Fascism, but the two were not one and the same, and I made no effort to use the latter term.
But, if you insist on a general notion of "fascism"
Huh? Where do I insist on a general notion of fascism?
a fascist state is a totalitarian socialist regime not explicitly based on the Marxist model and nationalist rather than internalist in its character and aims. Sweden is probably the only extant fascist state among the industrialized western nations, but many others are a close approximation.
That claim is silly. Fascism, which in theory has many comendable components, is based of popular identification by industry, nation and corporation. It is derivative of socialism, but very different. We can debate Fascism, if you want, rather than Nazism, but there's got to be some limit to our rambling.
Sweden is probably the only extant fascist state among the industrialized western nations, but many others are a close approximation.
Huh?
No. Socialism is radically egalitarian at least in its theory. While many socialist theorists view class identity as the path to achieving their end goal, socialism's end qualifier is "the people" - not the proletariats, not the bourgeois, not the capitalists, but the people in which all the former categories are wiped away as relics of a previous time. You and I both know the idiocy and impossibility of this goal, but from a strictly theoretical point it is socialism's professed desire - control of the means of production by the people. Hitler simply sought to achieve this by formenting nationalistic racial unity among Germans rather than the class warfare sought by other communist-socialist types. If you want to understand it more, read up on the WWI era marxists in Germany. WWI's outbreak sparked several major German leftist political thinkers into action to develop their deeply entrenched marxist thought in a new direction by synthesizing it with radical nationalism. The result emerged over the next two decades in the Nazi party. The Nazi movement didn't randomly pop up out of thin air. Ideas have consequences and the nazi system may be directly traced to its origins, which are indisputably of the far left.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Not in the least. If you wish to further discuss nazi politics and the horrid problems they create you should educate yourself on the topic. Hitler's combination of nationalism and socialism was the product of a left wing intellectual movement in the 1910's among German marxists who sought to make nationalism the tool by which their socialist world would be realized. They created a horrid and apalling system of left wing bilge that came to be known as nazi political thought and did so absent the nationalist-socialist contradiction you irrationally profess as a matter of fact for what seems to be no particular reason other than you've heard it stated on authority elsewhere.
They can and have been combined, by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.,
Then they are not mutually exclusive.
but never without contradiction and intellectual dishonesty.
What's the contradiction then? Specifically state it. Then tell me why it doesn't stop the development of the 1910's political philosophy of the pre-nazi writers who gave birth to that very movement.
In Hitler's case, if you look at the historical record, you'll see he dropped the socialist plank of his platform after he offed Ernst Roehm in '34.
That he killed off a threat to his power who also happened to be an avowed socialist in no way means he abandoned socialism. On the same token, Hitler took an avowed leftie kook of far higher importance to the nazi movement than Roehm, Joe Goebbels, and made him a chief secondary and later the named successor as Fuehrer. Hitler offed Roehm because Roehm was a power threat and because competing communist factions were power threats. That does not in any way mean he could not and did not keep the commies that were loyal allies.