>>455226>show me a socialist country that wasn't a capitalistic monarchy with "socialism" painted of it.
There have been no socialist countries that were monarchies. You may want to check up what a monarchy is. One very striking feature of monarchical systems is formal hereditary rule. The only socialist country where important political figures came from the same family more than once is the Democratic people's republic of Korea. They have intra party elections that just turned out that way, not a formal hereditary succession. And no member of the Un family actually held the same position. By claiming the Soviet Union was a monarchie you'd be saying that Lenin, Stalin, Malenkov, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbachev were all related.
Some socialist countries use capitalist elements in their economy because they do not yet have a sufficiently developed techno industrial base to switch to a fully socialist mode of production.
>national socialism is based on socialism
No it wasn't, they just called them self socialist, but they were fascist. The Fascist economic policies had more in common with neo-liberlaism than anything else. Both Fascism and neo-liberalism like to privatize a lot of the economy, increase exploitation of the workers, reduce worker earnings, and spend a lot on military. Both have issues with inflation.
>it's known that national socialists were quite frenly to marxists before Hitler
It's not known to me, but since we know how history turned out that can't have been genuine friendship.
>it's also known that NatSoc and Marxists were trying to perfect this ideology called socialism
Known to whom ? I have never heard of this. I have read a lot of Marxists from that time they don't write anything about this.