PACHAURI CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pachauri in a spot as climategate hits TERI
by Ajmer Singh, Mail Today India

Monday, January 11th 2010, 8:26 AM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of UN's Nobel Peace Prize-winning
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had advocated
emission reductions at the recently concluded Copenhagen Climate
Summit.

But back home in India, he seems to be failing to uphold standards of
propriety in his professional dealings.

During his tenure, first as director from 1982, and then as director-
general of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) since 2001, Pachauri
was a member of the boards of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission
(ONGC), Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and National Thermal Power
Corporation (NTPC), three of India's biggest public sector energy
companies, all of whom by the very nature of their business contribute
heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions, according to the
IPCC, are adding to the country's growing carbon footprint and
hastening climate change.

TERI, in fact, entered into business dealings with these companies and
allegedly benefitted from Pachauri's association with them. Pachauri's
dealings have also been noticed by the international media. Recently,
the Sunday Telegraph of London had accused him of amassing a fortune
using his links with carbon trading companies. Pachauri dismisses the
report as "a pack of lies".

The climate change hero was an independent director on ONGC's board
for three years between June 2006 and June 2009, during which he was
entitled to first-class air travel when he attended meetings, five-
star hotel stays and an allowance of Rs 25,000 for each meeting
attended. This was in addition to having a say in the PSU's decision-
making process. It was during this period that TERI had secured
business contracts from ONGC.

This practice is against ONGC's official code of conduct which says:
"The directors and management shall act within the authority conferred
upon them in the best interests of the company and will use their
prudent judgment to avoid all situations, decisions or relationships
which give or could give rise to conflict of interest or appear to
conflict with their responsibilities within the company."

Pachauri says he is now not on the board of any public sector
undertaking. "What is stated applies only for short periods in the
past," he replied to a questionnaire sent by Mail Today. "TERI is a
not-for-profit organisation working for the welfare of society and its
revenues cover costs and provide no private benefit to any party."

Pachauri's position is untenable, as ONGC and TERI launched a joint
business venture in March 2008 called ONGC-TERI Biotech Ltd (OTBL);
this was while the TERI director-general was on its board. This
entity's objective was the "large-scale application of microbial
product oil zapper for clean-up of oil spills in farmers' fields and
around oil installations and treatment of oily sludge hazardous
hydrocarbon waste".

TERI had a 47 per cent share in OTBL; ONGC held 49 per cent and the
rest was picked up by financial institutions. The OTBL official
website says ONGC and TERI reserve the rights of patents and the use
of technology and patents exclusively. When asked about this, Pachauri
said: "The joint venture (OTBL) was established largely at the
insistence of ONGC. A decision to set up OTBL was taken only on
October 31, 2006, at a board meeting that I did not even attend." Does
that mean he wasn't even aware of the decision to set up OTBL? OTBL
was set up in 2008, and ONGC insiders told this correspondent all the
work awarded to TERI was done on a nomination basis and not through
tenders, as is the accepted practice.

Pachauri for his part claims that "TERI has not even charged OTBL any
royalty for the technology provided to ONGC and other oil companies in
India, as is the case with most IITs and CSIR labs. Any funds provided
to TERI are purely to cover costs of activities carried out and
performed successfully." Another senior ONGC official confirmed to
Mail Today that close to Rs 30 crore was paid directly and indirectly
to TERI over a period of time for the execution of projects, which
included bio-remediation, pipeline corrosion inhibitors and microbial
enhanced oil recovery (MEOR).

OTBL was also involved in these transactions, he said. Pachauri denied
this as well.

"The amount of Rs 30 crore has perhaps been mentioned erroneously for
OTBL," he said. "It is an independent entity with separate accounts,
and any funding received from ONGC by OTBL is separate from any
transactions involving OTBL and TERI." Intriguingly, ONGC has two
specialty labs - Institute of Reservoir Studies (IRS) in Ahmedabad and
Institute of Biotechnology and Geo-Tectonics Studies (INBIGS) at
Jorhat, Assam - to do what TERI was contracted to do. Both labs were
set up to handle high-value, high- end and extremely specialised
research.

Pachauri conceded that the decision to set up OTBL was based on the
work done jointly by TERI and IRS. Pachauri may not see this as a
conflict of interest, but former minister of state for petroleum and
natural gas Santosh Gangwar said he had complained against it.

"I had demanded an inquiry against Pachauri in a letter I wrote to
Petroleum Minister Murli Deora some time back," he confirmed.

"This is a case of conflict of interest on Pachauri's part. TERI is
benefitting from ONGC." The associate director of the environment NGO,
Centre for Science and Environment, Chander Bhushan Singh said
Pachauri and TERI need to come clean on their conflict of interest
dealings with ONGC. Pachauri doesn't see it this way.

"The presence of any TERI person on the board of a PSU cannot be seen
as a conflict of interest just as the presence of a secretary to the
government of India on TERI's governing council - which is the case -
can be seen as serving the public interest." On if the association of
anyone from TERI on PSU boards had served any public interest, he
claimed: "It is (in) the larger public interest, with no private
benefit to any party." Pachauri said projects were awarded to TERI
because it served the objectives of PSUs.

He said: "TERI's track record of successfully completing projects and
serving the objectives of several PSUs is the reason why these were
awarded to my organisation, with several of them going back in time
well before I joined the boards of these organisations." He added that
in certain isolated incidents he had recused himself.

But then he contradicted himself later in his reply: "The boards of
the PSUs I have been associated with generally consist of over 20
members, and there is no way I could have influenced any decision
within this structure even if I was a part of such a decision."
Pachauri was also on the board of another OTBL client - IOC - from
January 1999 to September 2003. TERI signed a memorandum of
collaboration with IOC to treat oil sludge, a waste product thrown up
by oil refineries.

IOC uses the TERI-developed oil zapper technology to treat the waste.
According to IOC, its mini- utility project for charging solar
lanterns was launched in technical collaboration with TERI. Pachauri
was also on the NTPC board from 2002 to 2005, and then from January
2006 onwards. In 2006, NTPC and TERI signed a MoU to implement rural
electrification jointly through distributed generation schemes.

Under this project, TERI and NTPC identify suitable technology, and
then fund and implement appropriate electricity delivery mechanisms.

Pachauri had a reply for this too: "TERI took the initiative of
providing that organisation with its biomass gasifier technology to
set up power generation in villages that had no access to electricity.

TERI did not charge any royalty for the technology developed over
decades of research and development and was in fact reimbursed by NTPC
sums that were far below costs incurred by TERI." But Pachauri's
problems run deeper. The Sunday Telegraph of London, in a recent
report, claimed Pachauri had established an "astounding worldwide
portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing
billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC's policy
recommendations". Pachauri's answer to this charge is: "I haven't
pocketed a penny from my association with companies and institutes,"
he said.

"All honoraria I get go to TERI and to its 'Light A Billion Lives'
campaign for reaching solar power to people without electricity. My
dealings are above board." The climate change hero is quick with his
answers, but doubts over his links linger.

Source Link: indiatoday.intoday.in

The climate denier whore for fascism has no data.

PACHAURI CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Pachauri in a spot as climategate hits TERI
by Ajmer Singh, Mail Today India

Monday, January 11th 2010, 8:26 AM EST
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)

Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of UN's Nobel Peace Prize-winning
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had advocated
emission reductions at the recently concluded Copenhagen Climate
Summit.

But back home in India, he seems to be failing to uphold standards of
propriety in his professional dealings.

During his tenure, first as director from 1982, and then as director-
general of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) since 2001, Pachauri
was a member of the boards of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission
(ONGC), Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) and National Thermal Power
Corporation (NTPC), three of India's biggest public sector energy
companies, all of whom by the very nature of their business contribute
heavily to greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions, according to the
IPCC, are adding to the country's growing carbon footprint and
hastening climate change.

TERI, in fact, entered into business dealings with these companies and
allegedly benefitted from Pachauri's association with them. Pachauri's
dealings have also been noticed by the international media. Recently,
the Sunday Telegraph of London had accused him of amassing a fortune
using his links with carbon trading companies. Pachauri dismisses the
report as "a pack of lies".

The climate change hero was an independent director on ONGC's board
for three years between June 2006 and June 2009, during which he was
entitled to first-class air travel when he attended meetings, five-
star hotel stays and an allowance of Rs 25,000 for each meeting
attended. This was in addition to having a say in the PSU's decision-
making process. It was during this period that TERI had secured
business contracts from ONGC.

This practice is against ONGC's official code of conduct which says:
"The directors and management shall act within the authority conferred
upon them in the best interests of the company and will use their
prudent judgment to avoid all situations, decisions or relationships
which give or could give rise to conflict of interest or appear to
conflict with their responsibilities within the company."

Pachauri says he is now not on the board of any public sector
undertaking. "What is stated applies only for short periods in the
past," he replied to a questionnaire sent by Mail Today. "TERI is a
not-for-profit organisation working for the welfare of society and its
revenues cover costs and provide no private benefit to any party."

Pachauri's position is untenable, as ONGC and TERI launched a joint
business venture in March 2008 called ONGC-TERI Biotech Ltd (OTBL);
this was while the TERI director-general was on its board. This
entity's objective was the "large-scale application of microbial
product oil zapper for clean-up of oil spills in farmers' fields and
around oil installations and treatment of oily sludge hazardous
hydrocarbon waste".

TERI had a 47 per cent share in OTBL; ONGC held 49 per cent and the
rest was picked up by financial institutions. The OTBL official
website says ONGC and TERI reserve the rights of patents and the use
of technology and patents exclusively. When asked about this, Pachauri
said: "The joint venture (OTBL) was established largely at the
insistence of ONGC. A decision to set up OTBL was taken only on
October 31, 2006, at a board meeting that I did not even attend." Does
that mean he wasn't even aware of the decision to set up OTBL? OTBL
was set up in 2008, and ONGC insiders told this correspondent all the
work awarded to TERI was done on a nomination basis and not through
tenders, as is the accepted practice.

Pachauri for his part claims that "TERI has not even charged OTBL any
royalty for the technology provided to ONGC and other oil companies in
India, as is the case with most IITs and CSIR labs. Any funds provided
to TERI are purely to cover costs of activities carried out and
performed successfully." Another senior ONGC official confirmed to
Mail Today that close to Rs 30 crore was paid directly and indirectly
to TERI over a period of time for the execution of projects, which
included bio-remediation, pipeline corrosion inhibitors and microbial
enhanced oil recovery (MEOR).

OTBL was also involved in these transactions, he said. Pachauri denied
this as well.

"The amount of Rs 30 crore has perhaps been mentioned erroneously for
OTBL," he said. "It is an independent entity with separate accounts,
and any funding received from ONGC by OTBL is separate from any
transactions involving OTBL and TERI." Intriguingly, ONGC has two
specialty labs - Institute of Reservoir Studies (IRS) in Ahmedabad and
Institute of Biotechnology and Geo-Tectonics Studies (INBIGS) at
Jorhat, Assam - to do what TERI was contracted to do. Both labs were
set up to handle high-value, high- end and extremely specialised
research.

Pachauri conceded that the decision to set up OTBL was based on the
work done jointly by TERI and IRS. Pachauri may not see this as a
conflict of interest, but former minister of state for petroleum and
natural gas Santosh Gangwar said he had complained against it.

"I had demanded an inquiry against Pachauri in a letter I wrote to
Petroleum Minister Murli Deora some time back," he confirmed.

"This is a case of conflict of interest on Pachauri's part. TERI is
benefitting from ONGC." The associate director of the environment NGO,
Centre for Science and Environment, Chander Bhushan Singh said
Pachauri and TERI need to come clean on their conflict of interest
dealings with ONGC. Pachauri doesn't see it this way.

"The presence of any TERI person on the board of a PSU cannot be seen
as a conflict of interest just as the presence of a secretary to the
government of India on TERI's governing council - which is the case -
can be seen as serving the public interest." On if the association of
anyone from TERI on PSU boards had served any public interest, he
claimed: "It is (in) the larger public interest, with no private
benefit to any party." Pachauri said projects were awarded to TERI
because it served the objectives of PSUs.

He said: "TERI's track record of successfully completing projects and
serving the objectives of several PSUs is the reason why these were
awarded to my organisation, with several of them going back in time
well before I joined the boards of these organisations." He added that
in certain isolated incidents he had recused himself.

But then he contradicted himself later in his reply: "The boards of
the PSUs I have been associated with generally consist of over 20
members, and there is no way I could have influenced any decision
within this structure even if I was a part of such a decision."
Pachauri was also on the board of another OTBL client - IOC - from
January 1999 to September 2003. TERI signed a memorandum of
collaboration with IOC to treat oil sludge, a waste product thrown up
by oil refineries.

IOC uses the TERI-developed oil zapper technology to treat the waste.
According to IOC, its mini- utility project for charging solar
lanterns was launched in technical collaboration with TERI. Pachauri
was also on the NTPC board from 2002 to 2005, and then from January
2006 onwards. In 2006, NTPC and TERI signed a MoU to implement rural
electrification jointly through distributed generation schemes.

Under this project, TERI and NTPC identify suitable technology, and
then fund and implement appropriate electricity delivery mechanisms.

Pachauri had a reply for this too: "TERI took the initiative of
providing that organisation with its biomass gasifier technology to
set up power generation in villages that had no access to electricity.

TERI did not charge any royalty for the technology developed over
decades of research and development and was in fact reimbursed by NTPC
sums that were far below costs incurred by TERI." But Pachauri's
problems run deeper. The Sunday Telegraph of London, in a recent
report, claimed Pachauri had established an "astounding worldwide
portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing
billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC's policy
recommendations". Pachauri's answer to this charge is: "I haven't
pocketed a penny from my association with companies and institutes,"
he said.

"All honoraria I get go to TERI and to its 'Light A Billion Lives'
campaign for reaching solar power to people without electricity. My
dealings are above board." The climate change hero is quick with his
answers, but doubts over his links linger.

Source Link: indiatoday.intoday.in

The denier is a whore for fascism.

On Jan 12, 9:19*am, * US * wrote:
The denier is a whore for fascism.

And you, sir, are just a whore !

wrote
?*¥ou are right there, Sparky.

? Socialism = Liberalism = Fascism = National (Nazi) Socialism =
Obamism
??**??

Political correctness is destroying Europe.

America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
now Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.

ROTFLMAO! The Canadian living in Canada sucking from the pension and public
health care system claims he's an American and a Capitalist!!!

Your grasp of science is like your grasp of history, that of a grade school
drop out.


One of the most frequent arguments used in favor of the notion that Hitler and
the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) were leftist is the
fact that they used "sozialistische" in the party's title. The party's
appropriation of the term was a sick lie.
Generally there have been three broad economic variations in terms of
ownership of production: aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owns the land
and productive wealth; capitalism, in which a broader range of private
individuals own the means of production; and socialism, in which everyone owns
and controls the means of production.
As traditionally understood, these three variations roughly fall into a right,
center, left pattern as well - with authoritarian, dictatorial regimes and
absolute monarchs on the extreme right; corporate/capitalist oligarchies right
of center; free enterprise with widespread private ownership more or less in
the middle; labor republics or social democracies in which the workers
partially own and primarily control the means of production left of center;
and utopian communist societies where everyone owns everything and there is
essentially no private property on the extreme left. In short, the more
limited and narrow the ownership and control of production, the further right.
The more widespread such ownership and control, the further left.
By calling themselves "National Socialists", the NSDAP was attempting to woo
the left-wing citizenry merely by coopting the terminology. The "national"
combined with the "sozialistische" implied that the nation as a whole would
control the means of production. During his rise, Hitler exploited social
unrest by promising workers to back labor unions and increase the standard of
living. The reality was quite different: the Nationalsozialistische party only
represented nationalists, as defined by the NDSAP and represented by the
ruling elite, not the nation as a whole. And it was only a corporate oligarchy
which owned much of anything. Under the National Socialists in Germany, the
system of government was a combination of aristocracy and capitalism (extreme
right and centrist). The workers, "the people", owned and controlled nothing -
as they would under socialism or any left-wing government.
Private German businessmen owned and controlled the means of production - and
answered to the National Socialist Party. The NDSAP "Charter of Labor" gave
employers complete power over their workers and established the employer as
the "leader of the enterprise," and dictated that the owner "makes the
decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the
enterprise".
Contrary to their promises, the NDSAP outlawed trade unions, collective
bargaining, and the right to strike. They formed the "Labor Front" which
replaced the old trade unions and which did not represent workers - and
workers' wages fell by 20-25%. Industries, trusts, and military production
were not nationalized and remained in the hands of private owners under the
control of the party. Granted, the NDSAP did nationalize a few utilities -
such as the railroads - and created a few public works programs such as the
construction of the Autobahn. But these were primarily in order to facilitate
the war industry and such "nationalization" did not mean that these were owned
by the people, but by the government - and were built with materials which fed
back into the capitalist oligarchs. The German National Socialists, like the
Italian Fascists, were corporatists.
How much control did "the people" have under the NDSAP in terms of running the
government? Virtually none. A central principle of the party was Führerprinzip
- "the leadership principle". The National Socialists did not have party
congresses in which policy was discussed and determined - there were no
dissenting voices heard, no compromises or concessions made. What mattered
most was what the leader thought and decreed. Those whose opinions differed
from those of der Führer either maintained silence or were purged.
The hierarchical nature of the corporatism espoused by the NDSAP, with der
Führer at the pinnacle, supported by a capitalist oligarchy is in direct
opposition to the egalitarianism espoused by socialism and other leftist
political schools of thought. The National Socialists were anti-egalitarian in
every sense and had an elitist view of society in which the superior
individual - the übermensch - would emerge on top. So, in terms of
social/governmental structure and economics, the National Socialists cannot be
considered "socialist" by any stretch of the imagination.
I will grant that the totalitarian extremes of the NDSAP can be compared to
the totalitarian extremes of, say, Stalinism - but that does not make Hitler
any more left-wing than it does Stalin. Both were variations on the
aristocratic (or its extreme, monarchic) systems - systems representing the
far right. It can much more easily be argued that Stalin was right-wing than
it can that Hitler was left-wing. In fact, I'd say that the latter cannot be
argued at all.
But what of the social policies of the NDSAP? In the thread in which this
discussion arose, I cited the late Steve Kangas who composed a lengthy essay
addressing this whole issue. In it, he identifies a number of principles,
opposing rightist ideals and leftist ideals. These include (but are not
limited to) the following:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.

He goes on - and I won't reiterate his arguments here - to demonstrate that
Hitler and the NDSAP leaned, often heavily, toward the right, often far right,
in every single instance. Many of these leanings are obvious to anyone with
even a rudimentary knowledge of National Socialist policies and history.
Again, for those in doubt, I'd recommend checking out the essay itself.
He also discusses National Socialist foreign policy in terms of militarism vs.
pacifism. It should suffice here to quote from Mein Kampf:
QUOTE
If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity
which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be
mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and
no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so
many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering:
a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female
mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the
world into the service of a higher culture.
That may sound like a "real man" - but it sure as hell doesn't sound like a
liberal.
So: in terms of economics, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of government
structure, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of social policy, the NDSAP was
right-wing. In terms of militarism, the NDSAP was right-wing. I fail to see
how anyone can possibly argue that the Nazis were leftist.

New name with a lot say?
Must be nymshifting ****wit. Oh well, plenty of space
left to increase the killfile by one, my hard drive is a terabyte.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, because you responded to George
Hammond the complete fruit cake, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
Update: the last clearance was 25/12/09. Some individuals have been
restored to the list.

I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file ****wits like you.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day and **** off.




"gram" wrote in message
...
wrote
? ¥ou are right there, Sparky.

? Socialism = Liberalism = Fascism = National (Nazi) Socialism =
Obamism
?? ??

Political correctness is destroying Europe.

America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
now Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.

ROTFLMAO! The Canadian living in Canada sucking from the pension and
public
health care system claims he's an American and a Capitalist!!!

Your grasp of science is like your grasp of history, that of a grade
school
drop out.


One of the most frequent arguments used in favor of the notion that Hitler
and
the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) were leftist is
the
fact that they used "sozialistische" in the party's title. The party's
appropriation of the term was a sick lie.
Generally there have been three broad economic variations in terms of
ownership of production: aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owns the
land
and productive wealth; capitalism, in which a broader range of private
individuals own the means of production; and socialism, in which everyone
owns
and controls the means of production.
As traditionally understood, these three variations roughly fall into a
right,
center, left pattern as well - with authoritarian, dictatorial regimes and
absolute monarchs on the extreme right; corporate/capitalist oligarchies
right
of center; free enterprise with widespread private ownership more or less
in
the middle; labor republics or social democracies in which the workers
partially own and primarily control the means of production left of
center;
and utopian communist societies where everyone owns everything and there
is
essentially no private property on the extreme left. In short, the more
limited and narrow the ownership and control of production, the further
right.
The more widespread such ownership and control, the further left.
By calling themselves "National Socialists", the NSDAP was attempting to
woo
the left-wing citizenry merely by coopting the terminology. The "national"
combined with the "sozialistische" implied that the nation as a whole
would
control the means of production. During his rise, Hitler exploited social
unrest by promising workers to back labor unions and increase the standard
of
living. The reality was quite different: the Nationalsozialistische party
only
represented nationalists, as defined by the NDSAP and represented by the
ruling elite, not the nation as a whole. And it was only a corporate
oligarchy
which owned much of anything. Under the National Socialists in Germany,
the
system of government was a combination of aristocracy and capitalism
(extreme
right and centrist). The workers, "the people", owned and controlled
nothing -
as they would under socialism or any left-wing government.
Private German businessmen owned and controlled the means of production -
and
answered to the National Socialist Party. The NDSAP "Charter of Labor"
gave
employers complete power over their workers and established the employer
as
the "leader of the enterprise," and dictated that the owner "makes the
decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the
enterprise".
Contrary to their promises, the NDSAP outlawed trade unions, collective
bargaining, and the right to strike. They formed the "Labor Front" which
replaced the old trade unions and which did not represent workers - and
workers' wages fell by 20-25%. Industries, trusts, and military production
were not nationalized and remained in the hands of private owners under
the
control of the party. Granted, the NDSAP did nationalize a few utilities -
such as the railroads - and created a few public works programs such as
the
construction of the Autobahn. But these were primarily in order to
facilitate
the war industry and such "nationalization" did not mean that these were
owned
by the people, but by the government - and were built with materials which
fed
back into the capitalist oligarchs. The German National Socialists, like
the
Italian Fascists, were corporatists.
How much control did "the people" have under the NDSAP in terms of running
the
government? Virtually none. A central principle of the party was
Führerprinzip
- "the leadership principle". The National Socialists did not have party
congresses in which policy was discussed and determined - there were no
dissenting voices heard, no compromises or concessions made. What mattered
most was what the leader thought and decreed. Those whose opinions
differed
from those of der Führer either maintained silence or were purged.
The hierarchical nature of the corporatism espoused by the NDSAP, with der
Führer at the pinnacle, supported by a capitalist oligarchy is in direct
opposition to the egalitarianism espoused by socialism and other leftist
political schools of thought. The National Socialists were
anti-egalitarian in
every sense and had an elitist view of society in which the superior
individual - the übermensch - would emerge on top. So, in terms of
social/governmental structure and economics, the National Socialists
cannot be
considered "socialist" by any stretch of the imagination.
I will grant that the totalitarian extremes of the NDSAP can be compared
to
the totalitarian extremes of, say, Stalinism - but that does not make
Hitler
any more left-wing than it does Stalin. Both were variations on the
aristocratic (or its extreme, monarchic) systems - systems representing
the
far right. It can much more easily be argued that Stalin was right-wing
than
it can that Hitler was left-wing. In fact, I'd say that the latter cannot
be
argued at all.
But what of the social policies of the NDSAP? In the thread in which this
discussion arose, I cited the late Steve Kangas who composed a lengthy
essay
addressing this whole issue. In it, he identifies a number of principles,
opposing rightist ideals and leftist ideals. These include (but are not
limited to) the following:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.

He goes on - and I won't reiterate his arguments here - to demonstrate
that
Hitler and the NDSAP leaned, often heavily, toward the right, often far
right,
in every single instance. Many of these leanings are obvious to anyone
with
even a rudimentary knowledge of National Socialist policies and history.
Again, for those in doubt, I'd recommend checking out the essay itself.
He also discusses National Socialist foreign policy in terms of militarism
vs.
pacifism. It should suffice here to quote from Mein Kampf:
QUOTE
If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd
unity
which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be
mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course,
and
no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what
so
many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and
whimpering:
a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female
mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting
the
world into the service of a higher culture.
That may sound like a "real man" - but it sure as hell doesn't sound like
a
liberal.
So: in terms of economics, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of
government
structure, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of social policy, the NDSAP
was
right-wing. In terms of militarism, the NDSAP was right-wing. I fail to
see
how anyone can possibly argue that the Nazis were leftist.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:29:48 -0500, gram wrote:

wrote
?*¥ou are right there, Sparky.

? Socialism = Liberalism = Fascism = National (Nazi) Socialism =
Obamism
??**??

Political correctness is destroying Europe.

America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
now Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.

ROTFLMAO! The Canadian living in Canada sucking from the pension and public
health care system claims he's an American and a Capitalist!!!

Your grasp of science is like your grasp of history, that of a grade school
drop out.


One of the most frequent arguments used in favor of the notion that Hitler and
the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) were leftist is the
fact that they used "sozialistische" in the party's title. The party's
appropriation of the term was a sick lie.
Generally there have been three broad economic variations in terms of
ownership of production: aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owns the land
and productive wealth; capitalism, in which a broader range of private
individuals own the means of production; and socialism, in which everyone owns
and controls the means of production.
As traditionally understood, these three variations roughly fall into a right,
center, left pattern as well - with authoritarian, dictatorial regimes and
absolute monarchs on the extreme right; corporate/capitalist oligarchies right
of center; free enterprise with widespread private ownership more or less in
the middle; labor republics or social democracies in which the workers
partially own and primarily control the means of production left of center;
and utopian communist societies where everyone owns everything and there is
essentially no private property on the extreme left. In short, the more
limited and narrow the ownership and control of production, the further right.
The more widespread such ownership and control, the further left.
By calling themselves "National Socialists", the NSDAP was attempting to woo
the left-wing citizenry merely by coopting the terminology. The "national"
combined with the "sozialistische" implied that the nation as a whole would
control the means of production. During his rise, Hitler exploited social
unrest by promising workers to back labor unions and increase the standard of
living. The reality was quite different: the Nationalsozialistische party only
represented nationalists, as defined by the NDSAP and represented by the
ruling elite, not the nation as a whole. And it was only a corporate oligarchy
which owned much of anything. Under the National Socialists in Germany, the
system of government was a combination of aristocracy and capitalism (extreme
right and centrist). The workers, "the people", owned and controlled nothing -
as they would under socialism or any left-wing government.
Private German businessmen owned and controlled the means of production - and
answered to the National Socialist Party. The NDSAP "Charter of Labor" gave
employers complete power over their workers and established the employer as
the "leader of the enterprise," and dictated that the owner "makes the
decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the
enterprise".
Contrary to their promises, the NDSAP outlawed trade unions, collective
bargaining, and the right to strike. They formed the "Labor Front" which
replaced the old trade unions and which did not represent workers - and
workers' wages fell by 20-25%. Industries, trusts, and military production
were not nationalized and remained in the hands of private owners under the
control of the party. Granted, the NDSAP did nationalize a few utilities -
such as the railroads - and created a few public works programs such as the
construction of the Autobahn. But these were primarily in order to facilitate
the war industry and such "nationalization" did not mean that these were owned
by the people, but by the government - and were built with materials which fed
back into the capitalist oligarchs. The German National Socialists, like the
Italian Fascists, were corporatists.
How much control did "the people" have under the NDSAP in terms of running the
government? Virtually none. A central principle of the party was Führerprinzip
- "the leadership principle". The National Socialists did not have party
congresses in which policy was discussed and determined - there were no
dissenting voices heard, no compromises or concessions made. What mattered
most was what the leader thought and decreed. Those whose opinions differed
from those of der Führer either maintained silence or were purged.
The hierarchical nature of the corporatism espoused by the NDSAP, with der
Führer at the pinnacle, supported by a capitalist oligarchy is in direct
opposition to the egalitarianism espoused by socialism and other leftist
political schools of thought. The National Socialists were anti-egalitarian in
every sense and had an elitist view of society in which the superior
individual - the übermensch - would emerge on top. So, in terms of
social/governmental structure and economics, the National Socialists cannot be
considered "socialist" by any stretch of the imagination.
I will grant that the totalitarian extremes of the NDSAP can be compared to
the totalitarian extremes of, say, Stalinism - but that does not make Hitler
any more left-wing than it does Stalin. Both were variations on the
aristocratic (or its extreme, monarchic) systems - systems representing the
far right. It can much more easily be argued that Stalin was right-wing than
it can that Hitler was left-wing. In fact, I'd say that the latter cannot be
argued at all.
But what of the social policies of the NDSAP? In the thread in which this
discussion arose, I cited the late Steve Kangas who composed a lengthy essay
addressing this whole issue. In it, he identifies a number of principles,
opposing rightist ideals and leftist ideals. These include (but are not
limited to) the following:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.

He goes on - and I won't reiterate his arguments here - to demonstrate that
Hitler and the NDSAP leaned, often heavily, toward the right, often far right,
in every single instance. Many of these leanings are obvious to anyone with
even a rudimentary knowledge of National Socialist policies and history.
Again, for those in doubt, I'd recommend checking out the essay itself.
He also discusses National Socialist foreign policy in terms of militarism vs.
pacifism. It should suffice here to quote from Mein Kampf:
QUOTE
If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity
which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be
mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and
no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so
many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering:
a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female
mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the
world into the service of a higher culture.
That may sound like a "real man" - but it sure as hell doesn't sound like a
liberal.
So: in terms of economics, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of government
structure, the NDSAP was right-wing. In terms of social policy, the NDSAP was
right-wing. In terms of militarism, the NDSAP was right-wing. I fail to see
how anyone can possibly argue that the Nazis were leftist.

Good points.

* US * wrote in message ...
The denier is a whore for fascism.