How did other contemporary political movements (communists, conservatives) critique the Nazi stance on property and profit?

1. Left-wing denunciations: “profit over people” — the communist line

Communist and socialist critics framed Nazi economic policy as a class betrayal: they argued the regime slashed wages, smashed unions and imprisoned left opponents while corporate profits rose, portraying Nazism as a capitalist-friendly dictatorship that used state power to discipline labour and boost profits ^{[1] [2]}. The World Socialist Web Site cited studies showing falling real wages and rising corporate profits under Nazi rule, and emphasised that concentration camps first held political prisoners such as communists — evidence, in their view, that the regime targeted labour organisation to protect capitalist interests ^[1]. Academic overviews likewise characterise the Nazi system as preserving private property and profit while subordinating them to state and military goals rather than abolishing them outright ^[2].

2. Left critique of expropriation and “Aryanization” — property as theft

Left critics did not deny that Nazis pursued expropriation when it suited racial or state objectives; historians and institutions document systematic confiscation of Jewish property through “Aryanization” and looting in occupied territories, which the left used to underscore the regime’s criminal collusion with business and banks ^{[5] [6] [7]}. Yad Vashem and Britannica reporting detail the mechanics of seizure and the role of financial institutions, vocabulary that left commentators deploy to argue the regime both protected and profited from private property when convenient, while legal and extra‑legal theft of vulnerable populations enriched firms and the state ^{[7] [5]}.

3. Conservative and business responses: tactical alignment, not doctrinal socialism

Conservative elites and many business leaders backed or tolerated the Nazis as a protective alternative to communism; this alignment was presented by contemporaries and later historians as pragmatic, not ideological — conservatives sought order and property rights against leftist upheaval, while Nazis promised to defend industry though intervening heavily for state goals ^{[3] [8]}. School-level histories note that industrial and conservative support helped bring Hitler to power amid economic crisis, a theme used by conservative defenders to insist Nazism stabilized the economy rather than expropriated it ^{[9] [8]}.

4. Right‑wing apologetics and reinterpretations: “no true socialism” arguments

Some conservative or libertarian voices — including modern commentators and think tanks — argue Nazism was anti‑socialist in practice and functioned to preserve private property and corporate profit, framing critiques that call Nazism “socialist” as misleading ^{[10] [11]}. These sources stress the mixed, instrumental nature of the Nazi economy: private ownership persisted, markets operated, and the state intervened to mobilize for war rather than to socialize production permanently ^{[4] [11]}.

5. Historians’ synthesis: mixed economy, selective expropriation, political messaging

Academic studies and syntheses emphasise contradiction: Nazi rhetoric attacked “usury” and “parasitic profiteering” while policy protected many private owners and even transferred some state assets to private hands; where property and profits threatened regime aims they could be subordinated, redirected, or seized — especially along racial lines ^{[12] [2] [4]}. Economists and historians describe a hybrid system combining private profit with central planning for rearmament and autarky, and point out that the party’s anti-capitalist rhetoric was selective and instrumental ^{[4] [2] [12]}.

6. What critics agreed on — and where they diverged

Across the spectrum critics agreed the Nazis used economic power ruthlessly: left critics emphasised repression of labour and enrichment of industry ^[1], while conservative-leaning accounts emphasise the regime’s defense of property against communism and its mixture of private and state control ^{[3] [4]}. Disagreement centers on motive and consequence: was Nazism primarily a protector of capitalist profit or primarily a totalitarian reordering of property and labour? Sources show both elements coexisted and were deployed tactically ^{[2] [4]}.

7. Limits of available reporting

Available sources document contemporary left criticisms and the conservative-business alignment, and they analyse the practical economy of Nazi Germany, but they do not provide extensive contemporary quotations from every political movement’s press across the 1930s spectrum; for some specific party manifestos or newspapers’ day‑by‑day critiques, available sources do not mention those texts ^{[1] [3]}. Where sources dispute each other, this summary cites the divergent academic and journalistic interpretations above ^{[2] [4]}.

If you want, I can assemble primary-source excerpts (party pamphlets, contemporary newspaper critiques) or timeline examples showing how specific communist and conservative outlets described property and profit at key moments — say 1932–1934 — using the sources available.