--- Volker Bahn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> the meanings of left and right were always very problematic. In my

Agreed!  Finally.


> personal
> political past right was synonymous with nationalistic, conservative,
> (materialistically) focused on self-interest and coercion whereas left
> stood
> for non-nationalistic, grass-roots oriented, altruistic attitudes. I
> know
> that this is my personal experience of the terms and it clearly tells
> you
> were I would like to put myself. Obviously you have a very different
> concept
> of left and right and I don't think that we are getting anywhere with
> these
> terms.

Agreed again.  Actually, my complaint is that the terms "Right" and "Left"
are often tossed around indiscriminantly with little thought.  If Rockwell
is right in his statements about what the Nazi's did and promoted, then it
is patently absurd to label Rockwell and Nazi's as both being "rightwing"
as they are diametrically opposed on so many issues.

At the same time noting that one is a vegetarian therefore one is also a
Nazi is a logical fallacy.  I have not made this claim, but merely
observed that the Nazi's promoted such a policy.  (Note also that simply
because the Nazi's promoted something does not automatically make it
wrong.  What if Nazi's also held the belief one should be nice to their
mother?).


> 
> From the article:
> Of course, the media are free to define terms
>                   however they like, but the fact is that the
>                   ideological origins of Nazism are with the left.
>                   The term Nazi itself is short for the National
>                   Socialist German Workers Party. Nazism was
>                   fashioned as a totalitarian nationalist alternative
>                   to the totalitarian international socialism of the
>                   Lenin model. But national or international, the
>                   relevant word is socialist, which should be the
>                   first tip-off to Nazism's leftist origins.
> 
> 
> Steve:
> Actually, I think that the parallels between Communists, Nazis and
> Socialism are stronger than you think.  The Nazis were National
> Socialists.  They played a very active role in managing the economy and
> planning production.
> 
> Volker:
> As I wrote, my definition of left is very different from what Llewellyn
> H.
> Rockwell Jr. tries to suggest here. It is interesting to note that he
> first
> argues that the term right doesn't have a clear meaning anymore but then
> goes ahead and states that Nazis have their roots in the left (which
> logically has to be just as unclear as right). Obviously, he considers
> himself rather right-winged and argues against the validity of that

Actually, I think he would claim that he is often mistakenly called a
"Right Winger".  As somebody associated with the Ludwif von Mises
institute he would be quite opposed to many Nazi policies (no not
necessarily vegetarianism either...his first complaint would probably be
central planning).


> label
> and the connotations but doesn't have a problem with labelling the
> others
> (left-wing) and throwing them in one pot with the Nazis. There are clear
> double standards here.

See the above.



 
> The whole theory that Nazis were basically socialists is the most absurd
> thing I have heard about them since the denial of the holocost. I
> unfortunalety mostly have German sources but being German you can be
> sure
> that I went through this topic thouroughly several times in my life.
> To conclude from a name of an organisation to its goals is spurious. To

That was not the entirety of my post or Mr. Rockwell's.


> conclude from the term Socialist in the National Socialst that Nazi were
> basically socialists is ridiculous. Nazi ideology was actually quite
> vague
> and diverse except for a few points: achievment of absolute power, the
> eradication of the jews, and the nationalistic expansion of Germany's
> territorry. The used any kind of means to reach these goals with a
> special
> preference for violent means. The socialst elements you mentioned were
> NOT
> part of the Nazi ideology, they were merely means to an end: the Nazis
> needed popular support to reach their goals. After world war I and the

The distinction you are drawing is quite fine.  They didn't espouse the
Socialist philosophy, but they enacted many policies consistent with it. 
Whatever.



> economic crisis of the 20's full employment and other measures aimed at
> the
> improvment of the situation of workers and peasants were very popular.
> Furthermore, the Nazis needed central planning of the economy to get
> prepared for war. There goal was not a centrally planned socialist
> economy,
> they simply used some elements of a certain kind of socialism to pursue
> their goals.

Yeah and?  I would not place these guys in the same boat with people who
favor a "Free Market", would you?


 
> With this background the analogy between environmentalists and Nazis
> becomes
> completely irrational and far-fetched (as anyone with minimal knowledge

Uhhh, read the posts again PLEASE.  There was no analogy.  Merely the
cliam that if one wants to stick to the "Right-Left" single dimensional
continuum for political philosophy then putting them on the right seems
silly.  The assertion that there was an anology between environmentalist
and Nazis is purely the creation of John Foster.  So take it up with him.


> about both could have sensed from the start and probably the reason why
> emotions flew so high on the list - your claim gave me a couple of bad
> nights as well).
> 
> Just becaused they used some elements of environmentalism and socialism
> without sharing the same major goals doesn't mean anything. That is
> about as
> far-fetched as concluding that your ideology must be pretty close to
> Hitler's ideology because you both breath(ed).

Now you are starting to see the problem (I hope).  This is pretty much
what people do when they claim that Libertarians are Right Wing Whackos
and Nazis are Right Wing Whackos.  About the only comparison you could
make is that people who believe in Libertarianism or Nazism both happen to
breath.

[snip]


> There are always different approaches in ideological discussions -
> theoretical and real life ones. The neo-liberal free market ideology
> based
> on ultimate individual rights might in theory be quite remote from
> Naziism.
> In real life however, this idelogy leads to effects quite contrary to
> its
> claims and fairly similar to a totalitarian system. A democracy and free

Ahhh I see now it is your turn to make sweeping polemic claims.  Do I
sense a double standard.


> market ideologies are based on the premise of informed individuals and a
> leveled playing field. However, as we can easily observe in real life,
> media
> are owned and controlled quite closely by few corporations (except maybe
> for
> the internet). Only a small minority has the cash to make their voice

And what?  Things would be much different with only one entity controlling
the media?  Also, again this is a sweeping polemic statement with little
about as much evidence as Rockwell used to back it up.


> heard
> widely and even if you have the cash the big corporations might just
> refuse
> to sell you airtime if you don't have to say what they want to hear
> (e.g.,
> http://adbusters.org/uncommercials/ follow the links under the
> pictures).
> The commercial propaganda mashine is quite similar to Hitler's
> propaganda
> mashine (which was efficient enough to fool you into the believe that
> the
> Nazi's goals were socialst and not nationalist egoist).
> And here comes the connection to EE: solving environmental problems
> through
> free market principles is fine for those people who have capital and
> private
> property. How about the poor people? How will they bargain with a
> factory
> about air polution? How will they get air-time, lobby polititians with
> large
> campaign contributions and log onto the internet? How will they bargain
> for
> a decent salary if they don't even have enough money to eat properly?
> How
> will the pay for GMO seeds, fertiliser and pesticides, to nurish
> themselves?
> Didn't we already go through this free market experiment in Victorian
> England with all the associated social and environmental costs? Why do
> we
> have to repeat history?


Ahh yes, democratic nations with (relatively) free markets are identical
to Nazi Germany.  Puhlease!  Talk about sweeping polmic statements.

Your absolutely right, central planning is the way to go.  Lets not worry
about what an environmental mess countries that were under Central
Planning are...anything is better than the market.


=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 
'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come." 
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!
http://photos.yahoo.com


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%