It's actually a bit of a complicated question, as the underlying "selling point" of the National Socialist framework is the government working very hard for the Nation's benefit. It's specifically not the "transitory" Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Marxist theory, nor is it the weirdly representative stuff the Democratic Socialists try to tell people they're working for.
The big thing is that Nazism describes a somewhat utilitarian mixed market. Keep Capitalism as motivation for the public to work, use command economy to force shit in the direction it needs to go. As I've said before, Fascism explicitly rejects morality of means and focuses utterly on morality of goals.
The Nazis abridge this sort of thinking heavily, thanks to Hitler being an autocratic fool, but very much still operated as a mixed market wherever the State didn't see a use for laying down comprehensive demands.
This is also why so many people who pay attention to the details call China Fascist, because they operate their economy almost exactly the same way the Nazis did before they went to war in earnest.
TL;DR: The Socialism described by Hitler hold a key divergence from Marx in recognizing the value of a mixed market, and is more a "code of ethics" for the nature of the economy instead of a hard policy position. Consequently, a mild variation of it can very much be "Right Wing Socialism", in the same way the Scandanavian countries are Socialist today; the overall operation of the society is bent towards benefiting the society at large, rather than benefiting individual members of it.