There is no 'jargon' to compare left and right leaning parties from 80 years ago, to today's versions. To exercise ANY comparison within that context in a serious tone, is to build the most flammable straw man that even laughing at it would set the argument to ashes.

eta: I realize arguing with bots and paid farms is to do a disservice to everyone, but it's just painful to see these bad faith arguments presented as 8th grade reading level trick-questions. That said, fucking vote. It's your democratic responsibility in society that is based on social governance.

No, Hitler himself said that the cooptation of "socialism" was on purpose[0], don't get fooled by simple naming, it's the easiest way one can be manipulated (e.g.: "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"):

> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, 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. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint...