Are the Nazi Party extreme far right or extreme far left?

First topic message reminder :

Simple question

I don't give a shit!


Now... anything to say about the points raised...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

I don't give a shit!


Now... anything to say about the points raised...?

Now, now, calm down -  the law is the law, please respect it, you wouldn't want someone stealing your stuff.

So... still nothing you say about the points raised...!?


Yawn...

Jejune Tommy wrote:Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist.

In the same way that Donald Trump thought of himself as a member of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity. Seriously? Josef Goebbels is your authority? That’s like dusting off a turd deposited by the family dog, to clean up the house. Goebbels was a pervert and a liar. And you are going to make him your authority?

Unsubstantiated claim no. 1 wrote:The association between socialist tyranny and some imaginary Right is nothing more than a deception all too successfully ginned up by Progressivists desperate to hide the truth about themselves and (especially) their antecedents.

Unsubstantiated claim no. 2 wrote:The Left lies. Always.

Unsubstantiated claim no. 3 wrote:All. Like Jonah G’s seminal book, it provides whole bandoleers of powerful ammunition against any Leftards attempting to perpetuate a particularly vicious fraud you may run across.

These are your arguments? It’s no more than: he said, you said, she said, they said… A string of mere words, providing no substantiation, nor common sense..an effusive rambling of idiocy.

What you are giving us is textual evidence without any context. You have less idea of what socialism is than the Nazis themselves. If a Nazi says he is socialist, you will take his word for it. Hey, NEWS FLASH…Nazis lied…a lot. And they were stupid...not clever. Where they weren’t lying, they were not understanding. Like you.

jejune tommy wrote:What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty.

This is pure ‘transferred intent’…where you are doing what you accuse the left of doing. You are operating on “a jejune sense” that Nazis were wrong, lefties are wrong...therefore the Nazis must have been the same as the Lefties. We’ll call you ‘jejune tommy’.

Rather that quoting post-reformist, secondary (Nazi) sources, the proper way is to go to the origins of socialism to anchor the idea of socialism. Once we have the archetype down, we look to see how a later example compares,

We don't take the word of the people being judged for it. That would be a tautology. Given the question we are asking--were the Nazis left or right--we are judging them not corroborating them. That's like asking the bank robber if he robbed the bank...you can predict his answer by the situation.

TOMMY keeps on digging up his neo-nazi blogs to try and defend his warped agendas...

IF Tommy were to actually produce some legitimate data or some kind of cogent and coherent argument, then maybe people would be able to debate his points..

Unfortunately, all he keeps doing here is recycling his same fetid old nonsense, making him look more and more stupid by the day.

Original Quill wrote:

Jejune Tommy wrote:Goebbels never doubted that he was a socialist.

In the same way that Donald Trump thought of himself as a member of Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity.  Seriously?  Josef Goebbels is your authority?  That’s like dusting off a turd deposited by the family dog, to clean up the house.  Goebbels was a pervert and a liar.  And you are going to make him your authority?

Unsubstantiated claim no. 1 wrote:The association between socialist tyranny and some imaginary Right is nothing more than a deception all too successfully ginned up by Progressivists desperate to hide the truth about themselves and (especially) their antecedents.

Unsubstantiated claim no. 2 wrote:The Left lies. Always.

Unsubstantiated claim no. 3 wrote:All. Like Jonah G’s seminal book, it provides whole bandoleers of powerful ammunition against any Leftards attempting to perpetuate a particularly vicious fraud you may run across.

These are your arguments?  It’s no more than: he said, you said, she said, they said…  A string of mere words, providing no substantiation, nor common sense..an effusive rambling of idiocy.

What you are giving us is textual evidence without any context.  You have less idea of what socialism is than the Nazis themselves.  If a Nazi says he is socialist, you will take his word for it.  Hey, NEWS FLASH…Nazis lied…a lot.  And they were stupid...not clever.  Where they weren’t lying, they were not understanding.  Like you.

jejune tommy wrote:What is it based on, this connection? Little beyond a jejune sense that Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists are nasty.

This is pure ‘transferred intent’…where you are doing what you accuse the left of doing.  You are operating on “a jejune sense” that Nazis were wrong, lefties are wrong...therefore the Nazis must have been the same as the Lefties.  We’ll call you ‘jejune tommy’.

Rather that quoting post-reformist, secondary (Nazi) sources, the proper way is to go to the origins of socialism to anchor the idea of socialism.  Once we have the archetype down, we look to see how a later example compares,

We don't take the word of the people being judged for it.  That would be a tautology.  Given the question we are asking--were the Nazis left or right--we are judging them not corroborating them.  That's like asking the bank robber if he robbed the bank...you can predict his answer by the situation.

Your waffle is completely unsubstantiated...


You have still not put up any tangible evidence to support the claim that nazism/fascism was in any way right or far right politics...


The right wing are often accused of wanting to destroy/remove the welfare system and the nhs... but Mussolini actually introduced the welfare system to Italy and Nazi Germany had a health care system and gave food and shelter to the poor and homeless as well as providing jobs for them...


Also... right wing supports free market capitalism... the Nazis didn't... they oversaw large state and large state control over the economy... they wiped out a huge amount of private businesses and the rest was completely under the control of the authorities who controlled everything about them including the supply chains, the means if production, even wages and prices... this is synonymous with other authoritarian left wing regimes... and the opposite of right wing politics and capitalist economics...!


The only things I've seen on this thread so far in support of nazism/fascism being right wing... is that they were nasty and people say they are far right...!


Hardly conclusive arguments are they...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:I have posted this before... and the link...


But just for zit who can't argue the points so attacks the lack of link instead...


http://coldfury.com/2014/02/

Utter tommyrot - the facts are these:

I have given my view on this issue here and elsewhere citing respected sources Britannica and Wikipedia which most reasonable people prefer to raving far-right bootboy blogs.

Other posters have gone further and explained in patient detail why your view is misguided.

Moreover, the forum has voted on the matter and 86% do not share your constructed reality.

In short, you have lost, game over, Elvis has left the building.

Now I won't pretend to understand your constant need to indulge yourself in mental masturbation, all I ask is you cease soliciting others to join in with you.

----------

And who is Zit?

Oh and here I've posted a...

yawn! and a 

...so you don't need to interrupt your stroke.

Mental masturbation. Brilliant .
Tom cums across as a real wanker.

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I have posted this before... and the link...


But just for zit who can't argue the points so attacks the lack of link instead...


http://coldfury.com/2014/02/

Utter tommyrot - the facts are these:

I have given my view on this issue here and elsewhere citing respected sources Britannica and Wikipedia which most reasonable people prefer to raving far-right bootboy blogs.

All you have done is repeat the (false) claim that nazism/fascism is 'far right'... and if you are going to be honest... you will admit that the only reasons you have given on this thread for holding this belief are;

1) You have only ever heard nazism/fascism be described as being 'far right' any/every time it is ever mentioned on tv/radio/MSM/news outlets/by leftie politicians etc (as has been happening for decades)...

2) You can point to a few other 'official' sources that also claim that this description of nazism/fascism as 'far right' is correct...

3) You say that as it is a popular/widely held belief by a huge section of the public (who have also been being told it is 'far right' for years by the exact same sources and believe it is true for the very same reasons as you)... then it must be true!


I don't dispute the fact that nazism/fascism is now widely known as having the label of 'far right'... and it is also a subsequent popular belief that when nazism/fascism is analysed under the scope of political science, then it is undoubtedly a kind of right wing politics... problem is that when you actually analyse it... it isn't right wing politics at all... it is decidedly of the far left wing of politics!!!



Other posters have gone further and explained in patient detail why your view is misguided.

No they haven't... all they have done is repeat the false claim of 'far right' and try to waffle away the evidence I have presented that proves it is far left... while no be of them have actually shown anything the nazis/fascists ever did that was in any way right wing politics...!


The forum has voted on the matter and 86% do not share your constructed reality.


The forum answered the question of whether nazism/fascism is better known as being 'far right or far left'... entirely based on what it is labelled as... not based on any real knowledge of political science/political economics or any in depth knowledge/analysis of the important relevant facts/details!




In short, you have lost, game over, Elvis has left the building.

No... not at all...!

I have provided plenty of explanation as to what constitutes 'left wing' politics... and I have provided plenty of evidence as to show conclusively that nazism/fascism was/is and can only be a 'far left' political regime!!!


And as yet... nobody here has even been able to provide any form of definition/description of what constitutes right wing politics/beliefs/ideals... let alone be able to then show examples of how nazism/fascism fits in with any of these defining 'right wing' political/economic characteristics...!!!

It's funny how the lefties here are always shouting accusations of what the 'right wing' are all about...


But now I'm asking them to provide a proper list of right wing beliefs/ideals that define 'right wing' politics... and then give examples of how nazism/fascism fitted in with any of these core beliefs/ideals...?


They have shown NOTHING!!!


What does that tell you...!?

Tells me you are in deep denial.

Time you changed hands.

Jejune tommy, you lost. See ya...

Social conservatism and Nationalism are both RW beliefs. These are the core of the Nazi's evil. Placing the State itself as supreme, and ensuring all things work to its advancenent even at the expense of others is deeply Nationalistic. Both the BNP and the Nazis wanted to preserve the 'greatness' of their nation as they saw it should be.

In turn, anything that could be seen to hinder the drive for a strong nation could be seen as a problem. This is why RW politics so often conflict with minority groups- religious, ethic, disabled, LGBT etc. They don't conform, they are either outsiders who are suspicious, unable to work as an able bodied person or do not support the traditional gender roles or build families. These are problems for those with a socially conservative mindset. They were all persecuted by the Nazis, and US Republicans continue to work against them today.

Nationalism, not socialism, drive the Nazis to claim land and push for global domination with a master race. Social darwinism is a deep conservative view whereby some peoples are naturally superior. We saw nothing of its like in socialist states, for all their own faults.

And again, wealth inequality was supported in Nazi Germany. Business could thrive so long as they did as the Nazis wanted. That is in no way socialism. That is Nationalist authoritarianism. Screw the little people so long as the State is strong.

They may have had some welfare policies and social healthcare- that doesn't make it socialist in all. Anymore than the UK today is socialist, it clearly isn't. It isn't black and white.

Finally, even if it is conceded that some welfare aspects of Nazi Germany were 'socialist', that does not in any way allow comparisons. The horrors of the Nazis were not socialist in nature whatsoever (unlike those in the USSR and PRC for example); they were wholly Nationalist and Socially Conservative- both RW political ideologies.

Explain which part/parts of the Nazi Party you have a problem with so we can all understand?

Wrong les... nationalism is very left wing... the left want to nationalise everything and control everything as far as businesses and means of production are concerned...


The BNP also has very left wing policies as well as their nationalist stance... they even promoted themselves as 'the labour party your parents would have voted for'...


Nationalist socialist or state socialist is left wing politics...




And Quill... you have not given any tangible arguments on this thread... your weak denials of the points I've raised are nothing but flannel...


You have not put any arguments explaining what right wing politics/ideals are and how nazism/fascism fits in with any of it.

Major wrote:Explain which part/parts of the Nazi Party you have a problem with so we can all understand?

I have a problem with the Nazis that weren't  killed in WW2.
They were a cancer on the world , and still are.
Cauterizing them is the only cure.
Is there a part of the Nazi party that you don't admire, Maj?

And les .. are you really saying that the snp and plaid cmmry are 'right wing conservatives' and akin to nazism/fascism...!?

A nazi poster called Maj.
Had a nickname that was a akin to a vag.
He would cheer and would strut
When the Nazis kicked butt
And his swastika was worn as a badge.

"...It favours nationalisation, higher taxes, protectionism and (though it keeps quiet about this) republicanism. It markets itself as "the Labour Party your parents voted for". Its manifesto calls for "the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports," and promises to "restore our economy and land to British ownership" and "to give workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes..."

Dan Hannan on the BNP...

Eilzel wrote:Yeah, since National Socialism never really worked in the interest of the common man but the 'state' it was never socialism in any real sense (though neither was the Soviet Union really). The disingenuous Right like to gloss over this, focusing their argument purely on the fact the word 'Socialism' exists in the full meaning of Nazism.

Of course, they do not make the same argument for the Democratic Republic of Korea being democratic...

Try looking at my post above and this bit...


"...promises to "restore our economy and land to British ownership" and "to give workers a stake in the success and prosperity of the enterprises whose profits their labour creates by encouraging worker shareholder and co-operative schemes..."..."

Jejune tommy wrote:And Quill... you have not given any tangible arguments on this thread... your weak denials of the points I've raised are nothing but flannel...

Tommy, we have four pages of this thread.  It's all devoted to your lies, lack of substantiation, failures of logic, and lack of attention to rigorous argument form.  You lose a point, and you go into spasmodic denial. And then you do what you always do: allow enough time for your first round of debunked points to pass, and then raise them again in another round.

What are we...starting in on the fourth round?  The only way you will stop is if the Umps call the game on account of of darkness.  We're bored...and mom's got pot roast and potatoes for dinner, now on the table.  Bye.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Wrong les... nationalism is very left wing... the left want to nationalise everything and control everything as far as businesses and means of production are concerned...


The BNP also has very left wing policies as well as their nationalist stance... they even promoted themselves as 'the labour party your parents would have voted for'...


Nationalist socialist or state socialist is left wing politics...




And Quill... you have not given any tangible arguments on this thread... your weak denials of the points I've raised are nothing but flannel...


You have not put any arguments explaining what right wing politics/ideals are and how nazism/fascism fits in with any of it.

Nationalism and Nationalisation are not the same thing. Are you denying the Nationalist and Social Conservatism of the Nazis are traditionally RW views?

I prefer to believe in well researched and sourced data such as this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

To any guff Tom spews out, particularly when his sources are far right places such as Breitbart and Goebbels!
Perhaps he thinks Georing, Himmler and Adolf himself are impartial sources.

Original Quill wrote:

Jejune tommy wrote:And Quill... you have not given any tangible arguments on this thread... your weak denials of the points I've raised are nothing but flannel...

Tommy, we have four pages of this thread.  It's all devoted to your lies, lack of substantiation, failures of logic, and lack of attention to rigorous argument form.  You lose a point, and you go into spasmodic denial.  And then you do what you always do: allow enough time for your first round of debunked points to pass, and then raise them again in another round.

What are we...starting in on the fourth round?  The only way you will stop is if the Umps call the game on account of of darkness.  We're bored...and mom's got pot roast and potatoes for dinner, now on the table.  Bye.

No... we have had 4 pages of me putting up numerous arguments from a variety of sources in support of my claim that nazism/fascism is nothing to do with right wing politics but is in fact another form of far left authoritarianism...


The only person on this thread so far to offer up anything even remotely tangible in the way of argument as to what might be considered as typical right wing politics/ideals and how nazism/fascism could well fit in with that... is les! (Although... he is wrong to suggest nationalism is an exclusively right wing ideal... unless he will also support the view that the snp and plaid cmmry are right wing and akin to nazism/fascism and the same as he thinks the BNP are all about...!?)



I've been asking everybody to show...

1) What are the defining right wing ideals/beliefs/policies?

2) How does nazism/fascism fit in with any of them?



As I've shown a multitude of examples of what is typically left wing politics/ideals... and examples of nazism/fascism and how they fit well within the definition of left wing politics/ideals...




Now... Quill... instead of just offering up weak denials and hyperbolic waffle against the points I've raised that prove the left wing basis of N/F...


Can you please answer questions 1 & 2 and provide valid reasons and examples of what are typical right wing political ideals and how N/F fit into those examples...!?


That would be an argument in support of your claim...


All you have done so far is put up weak denials to the evidence/points that I have raised in support of my claim...


But you haven't provided anything to prove otherwise...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Different type of socialism Quill... thats why nationalist/state socialism was far left...

So is capitalism, as long as you're being permissive with definitions.  It assumes a market, which is social in form....you can't have a market with only one individual.  Any economic/political system is socialist, by your inclusive standards, because it involves a collectivity.

So now you are trying to say capitalism is socialism!!!???





I'll just leave that hanging out there for a while...





I thought we had already established that nazism/fascism wasn't capitalism because the authorities controlled all business and means of production... as well as wages and prices!!!


And one more little thing... did you know that Mussolini introduced the welfare system to fascist Italy...!?





How very far right of him...!

 Who told you that because whoever it was lied to you? Italy had a welfare system long before Mussolini and his band of fascists marched on Rome.

Read some history books.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Socialism was a big part of the Nazi regime... they had a health care system and the poor and homeless were given food and shelter and jobs...

Yes, unfortunately they never lived up to it.  The health care and shelter were what we called Kamps.  Nazism didn't have much use for anyone whom the state couldn't use.  The sick and disabled were given a one-way trip to the ovens.

US Holocaust Museum wrote:Wartime, Adolf Hitler suggested, "was the best time for the elimination of the incurably ill." Many Germans did not want to be reminded of individuals who did not measure up to their concept of a "master race." The physically and mentally handicapped were viewed as "useless" to society, a threat to Aryan genetic purity, and, ultimately, unworthy of life. At the beginning of World War II, individuals who were mentally retarded, physically handicapped, or mentally ill were targeted for murder in what the Nazis called the "T-4," or "euthanasia," program.

The "euthanasia" program required the cooperation of many German doctors, who reviewed the medical files of patients in institutions to determine which handicapped or mentally ill individuals should be killed. The doctors also supervised the actual killings. Doomed patients were transferred to six institutions in Germany and Austria, where they were killed in specially constructed gas chambers. Handicapped infants and small children were also killed by injection with a deadly dose of drugs or by starvation. The bodies of the victims were burned in large ovens called crematoria.

Because the Nazis concern was one-way, they had no care or concern for anyone not useful to the state.  Hardly the kind of benevolence that socialism intends.

Different type of socialism Quill... thats why nationalist/state socialism was far left...


The lefties are all in favour of abortion/abortion of disabled/people having choice of self euthanasia if sick/Ill etc...


A step further left would be the authoritarian enforcement of it...


And don't forget the leftist communist China one child policy where forced abortions have happened to women pregnant with 2nd child...




Still waiting for you to name these right/far right govts who exhibit the same nazi/fascist ideals...!?

Forced abortions are illegal in China. Forced abortions happen in the West as well even though it is illegal.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Jejune tommy wrote:And Quill... you have not given any tangible arguments on this thread... your weak denials of the points I've raised are nothing but flannel...

Tommy, we have four pages of this thread.  It's all devoted to your lies, lack of substantiation, failures of logic, and lack of attention to rigorous argument form.  You lose a point, and you go into spasmodic denial.  And then you do what you always do: allow enough time for your first round of debunked points to pass, and then raise them again in another round.

What are we...starting in on the fourth round?  The only way you will stop is if the Umps call the game on account of of darkness.  We're bored...and mom's got pot roast and potatoes for dinner, now on the table.  Bye.

No... we have had 4 pages of me putting up numerous arguments from a variety of sources in support of my claim that nazism/fascism is nothing to do with right wing politics but is in fact another form of far left authoritarianism...


The only person on this thread so far to offer up anything even remotely tangible in the way of argument as to what might be considered as typical right wing politics/ideals and how nazism/fascism could well fit in with that... is les! (Although... he is wrong to suggest nationalism is an exclusively right wing ideal... unless he will also support the view that the snp and plaid cmmry are right wing and akin to nazism/fascism and the same as he thinks the BNP are all about...!?)



I've been asking everybody to show...

1) What are the defining right wing ideals/beliefs/policies?

2) How does nazism/fascism fit in with any of them?



As I've shown a multitude of examples of what is typically left wing politics/ideals... and examples of nazism/fascism and how they fit well within the definition of left wing politics/ideals...




Now... Quill... instead of just offering up weak denials and hyperbolic waffle against the points I've raised that prove the left wing basis of N/F...


Can you please answer questions 1 & 2 and provide valid reasons and examples of what are typical right wing political ideals and how N/F fit into those examples...!?


That would be an argument in support of your claim...


All you have done so far is put up weak denials to the evidence/points that I have raised in support of my claim...


But you haven't provided anything to prove otherwise...!

I've been asking everybody to show...

1) What are the defining right wing ideals/beliefs/policies?

Hitler's boast that the Third Reich would last a thousand years. Unfortunately it included countries other than Germany and who didn't want to be part of the Nazi facist Third Reich

2) How does nazism/fascism fit in with any of them?

See answer to 1. above.

So... you got nothing then... ok...!

Who gives a shit anyway? It was over 70 yrs ago.Why argue over it now?

nicko wrote:
Who gives a shit anyway?  It was over 70 yrs ago.Why argue over it now?

OBVIOUSLY Tommy Monk must "give a shit..",  nicko  !!!

As he has been the leading proponent of the "Hitler and Mussolini were lefties" denialist garbage on here over several weeks already..



*********************************************************************



AND,  what a sick joke it is, to see Tommy keep on claiming that people won't "answer (his) points.."  on here...

WHEN he hasn't actually made any new and genuine "points" on here to dispute the numerous times he been proven wrong..

But instead, simply keeps on copy&pasting nonsense from assorted fascist and neo-nazi bloggers, as if finding other lies and lunatic ramblings somehow transforms his delusional rubbish into some kind of "truth"  !        

nicko wrote:Who gives a shit anyway?  It was over 70 yrs ago.Why argue over it now?

Because the Nazi party is alive, kicking and thriving across central Europe.?
It is very relevent in these troubled times.
http://dailym.ai/2eZGxAm

nicko wrote:Who gives a shit anyway?  It was over 70 yrs ago.Why argue over it now?

As has become obvious, it matters very much to Tommy and his fellow travelers - can't imagine why.  

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


So now you are trying to say capitalism is socialism!!!???





I'll just leave that hanging out there for a while...





I thought we had already established that nazism/fascism wasn't capitalism because the authorities controlled all business and means of production... as well as wages and prices!!!


And one more little thing... did you know that Mussolini introduced the welfare system to fascist Italy...!?





How very far right of him...!

 Who told you that because whoever it was lied to you? Italy had a welfare system long before Mussolini and his band of fascists marched on Rome.

Read some history books.

Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis said it on question time last week... and nobody disputed it...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b080bvm3

Obviously, now, Irn does. What say you, tommy?

Mussolini and his fascists introduced a welfare system...


http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/385

Tommy Monk wrote:Mussolini and his fascists introduced a welfare system...


http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/385

But there was a welfare system in place before the fascists marched on Rome and not as you were implying that there wasn't and it was down to Mussolini to introduce one?

I think we should all remember that we're talking about a political system that is a century old now ...

Did the Nazis have some economic policies that parallel what the left want today? Okay, sure.

Would the left today condone the nativism, xenophobia and conspiratorial thinking of the Nazis? No, of course not.

nicko wrote:Who gives a shit anyway?  It was over 70 yrs ago.Why argue over it now?

that's quite true neither left nor right is the same animal it was back then.

Plus the world is not the same. the is far more trade and cooperation between nation than at any previous point in human history

veya_victaous wrote:

Plus the world is not the same.

Correct. The world isn't what it was a century ago. If it was we would still be using words like "Thee" and "Thou" like in the Shakespearean area, using horse and carriage, and dying of infectious diseases which are now easy to treat.  

The world isn't even the same from ten years ago, thanks especially to the great strides made in electronics and social media.

Just spotted an article about the changing world and I will make a new thread, to share it.

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Mussolini and his fascists introduced a welfare system...


http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/385

But there was a welfare system in place before the fascists marched on Rome and not as you were implying that there wasn't and it was down to Mussolini to introduce one?

All here...


http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/385

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

But there was a welfare system in place before the fascists marched on Rome and not as you were implying that there wasn't and it was down to Mussolini to introduce one?

All here...

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/385

Out of the mouths of babes:

Dr. Carl Levy wrote:The Fascists drew upon their predecessors. Furthermore, the post-1945 welfare state inherited the institutions of welfare that the Fascist state had erected. Looking the other way, the approaches of governments in the late nineteenth-century drew upon ways Napoleon and the Enlightenment reformers approached the issue of poverty and charity.

It's the article you pointed to, jejune tommy.  A word to the wise: read first; think logically; and learn how to construct (your own) arguments. Don't just take Breitbart's word for it.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

All here...

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/385

Out of the mouths of babes:

Dr. Carl Levy wrote:The Fascists drew upon their predecessors. Furthermore, the post-1945 welfare state inherited the institutions of welfare that the Fascist state had erected. Looking the other way, the approaches of governments in the late nineteenth-century drew upon ways Napoleon and the Enlightenment reformers approached the issue of poverty and charity.

It's the article you pointed to, jejune tommy.  A word to the wise: read first; think logically; and learn how to construct (your own) arguments.  Don't just take Breitbart's word for it.

From the quote you just tried to use against me...


"...the post-1945 welfare state inherited the institutions of welfare that the Fascist state had erected..."



If you're gonna try to be clever with me... you have to back it up with intelligence...!


Or at least the intelligence to actually read what you're posting...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Out of the mouths of babes:



It's the article you pointed to, jejune tommy.  A word to the wise: read first; think logically; and learn how to construct (your own) arguments.  Don't just take Breitbart's word for it.

From the quote you just tried to use against me...

"...the post-1945 welfare state inherited the institutions of welfare that the Fascist state had erected..."

If you're gonna try to be clever with me... you have to back it up with intelligence...!

Or at least the intelligence to actually read what you're posting...

Good for you tommy...so Dr. Levy's point was that the whole of welfare reform in Italy was a continuous movement, from the pre-Fascist state to the post 1945 state.

Now, go back and re-read Irn's point: "there was a welfare system in place before the fascists marched on Rome..."

Not really... the previous 'welfare system' was not a universal one where all the poor or needy could benefit... it was one where it was a type of insurance scheme where some workers/wealthy could choose to pay in to (or not) and only those who did pay into it could get anything out of it in harder times...


And I'm not sure that was even in operation at the time of the fascists becoming in charge...


It's all on the link I gave you...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Not really... the previous 'welfare system' was not a universal one where all the poor or needy could benefit... it was one where it was a type of insurance scheme where some workers/wealthy could choose to pay in to (or not) and only those who did pay into it could get anything out of it in harder times...

And I'm not sure that was even in operation at the time of the fascists becoming in charge...

It's all on the link I gave you...

You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that.  Even when you lose, you keep going.

Quill said...


"...Good for you tommy...so Dr. Levy's point was that the whole of welfare reform in Italy was a continuous movement, from the pre-Fascist state to the post 1945 state..."



This is where YOU are wrong and YOU are losing...


As I explained earlier... there was no proper welfare state in Italy before Mussolini/fascism brought it in!!!


And this carried on after fascism using all the framework the fascists created!!!


The Nazis also had a health care system as well as provisions of food and shelter for poor/homeless, and a system of providing job opportunities for them!!!



What bits of all this aren't left wing/socialist...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quill said...


"...Good for you tommy...so Dr. Levy's point was that the whole of welfare reform in Italy was a continuous movement, from the pre-Fascist state to the post 1945 state..."



This is where YOU are wrong and YOU are losing...


As I explained earlier... there was no proper welfare state in Italy before Mussolini/fascism brought it in!!!

And this carried on after fascism using all the framework the fascists created!!!

The Nazis also had a health care system as well as provisions of food and shelter for poor/homeless, and a system of providing job opportunities for them!!!

What bits of all this aren't left wing/socialist...?

Your wrong. And your own article proves it.

There's a certain quality that you have in common with Donald Trump: you both hate to lose. You've lost this one horribly, tommy, and you've gotta learn to turn it loose.

The Liberal state relied upon the institutions of Catholic charity, the opere pie, to alleviate poverty. Thus the nineteenth century liberal elite, indeed the greatest representative of them all, Cavour, envisaged a carità legale, in which the delivery of relief was in the hands of the Church, even if these institutions had been formally secularised. The suppression of certain religious orders and the sale of Church property were not used to alleviate the enormous poverty that blighted the Kingdom of Italy. This windfall was diverted into financing armaments, shipping and building railways. The opere pie, controlled by local elites, became sources of corruption and influence peddling. Even Crispi's attempts to clean up a scandalous solution (the books of the opere pie were a black hole and the lot of orphans and the elderly poor in these institutions was shocking) did not amount to much.


Even in the 1890s, Italy was a land wracked by pellagra, scurvy, rickets typhoid fever, pulmonary tuberculosis and, most deadly of them all, malaria. The decline in mortality was slow. The Giolittian era (1900-1914) is often pictured as the great breakthrough. In 1900 Italy was thirty years behind France, Germany or the United Kingdom when it came to social legislation. But Dr Quine has little time for Giolitti's efforts. His social policy was ungenerous and slight. Giolitti's introduction of social insurance was limited to the Northern (largely male) industrial working class: in 1905 1 per cent of the Italian labour force were in the cassa nazionale, while 51 per cent of the German labour force was insured. His fiscal conservatism (the lack of progressive taxation compounded by a huge budget deficit caused by his imperialist adventure in Libya) limited the cash available. And like his predecessors he lacked personnel to be factory inspectors or to inspect orphanages and poor houses. The South was almost completely forgotten...

...the Fascists set to creating a welfare state after the collapse of Liberal Italy..


Workers gained access to a system of health care...


The first legislation to protect the rights of children in the care of wet nurses, foundling homes, orphanages, reformatories and prisons was passed by the Fascists in 1927. The Fascists also established the ONMI, which promoted benefits for mothers and children. The Fascists were the first government in modern Italy who tried to tackle the problem child abandonment through the creation of modern, rational and secure forms of care. These progressive acts were driven forwards by the regime's aim to regenerate the Italian race through welfare and to promote a higher birth rate, so that Italy could become a great imperial power. Until 1938 these demographic politics could be the politics of the secular Left...


She [Dr Quin] is very damning of Italian liberalism: 'Stripped of its high-minded principles and values, Italian liberalism was nothing more than a coterie of men dedicated only to the pursuit and preservation of political power'...

Tommy Monk wrote: The Liberal state relied upon the institutions of Catholic charity, the opere pie, to alleviate poverty. Thus the nineteenth century liberal elite, indeed the greatest representative of them all, Cavour, envisaged a carità legale, in which the delivery of relief was in the hands of the Church, even if these institutions had been formally secularised. The suppression of certain religious orders and the sale of Church property were not used to alleviate the enormous poverty that blighted the Kingdom of Italy. This windfall was diverted into financing armaments, shipping and building railways. The opere pie, controlled by local elites, became sources of corruption and influence peddling. Even Crispi's attempts to clean up a scandalous solution (the books of the opere pie were a black hole and the lot of orphans and the elderly poor in these institutions was shocking) did not amount to much.


Even in the 1890s, Italy was a land wracked by pellagra, scurvy, rickets typhoid fever, pulmonary tuberculosis and, most deadly of them all, malaria. The decline in mortality was slow. The Giolittian era (1900-1914) is often pictured as the great breakthrough. In 1900 Italy was thirty years behind France, Germany or the United Kingdom when it came to social legislation. But Dr Quine has little time for Giolitti's efforts. His social policy was ungenerous and slight. Giolitti's introduction of social insurance was limited to the Northern (largely male) industrial working class: in 1905 1 per cent of the Italian labour force were in the cassa nazionale, while 51 per cent of the German labour force was insured. His fiscal conservatism (the lack of progressive taxation compounded by a huge budget deficit caused by his imperialist adventure in Libya) limited the cash available. And like his predecessors he lacked personnel to be factory inspectors or to inspect orphanages and poor houses. The South was almost completely forgotten...

...the Fascists set to creating a welfare state after the collapse of Liberal Italy..


Workers gained access to a system of health care...


The first legislation to protect the rights of children in the care of wet nurses, foundling homes, orphanages, reformatories and prisons was passed by the Fascists in 1927. The Fascists also established the ONMI, which promoted benefits for mothers and children. The Fascists were the first government in modern Italy who tried to tackle the problem child abandonment through the creation of modern, rational and secure forms of care. These progressive acts were driven forwards by the regime's aim to regenerate the Italian race through welfare and to promote a higher birth rate, so that Italy could become a great imperial power. Until 1938 these demographic politics could be the politics of the secular Left...


She [Dr Quin] is very damning of Italian liberalism: 'Stripped of its high-minded principles and values, Italian liberalism was nothing more than a coterie of men dedicated only to the pursuit and preservation of political power'...

From a reliable academic source...

The real involvement of the Italian State in the Welfare started with the advent of the First World War, when the needs generated by the conflict increased the government’s weight in the domestic economy. From this a first minimum level of assistance was established for numerous groups of citizens, and this carried on until the beginning of the thirties when the great depression changed the situation.

So there was a welfare state in Italy prior to Mussolini marching on Rome?

http://www.academia.edu/4401481/National_and_local_welfare_state_in_Italy._Origin_and_development_1861-1978_

The march of the fascists...



Mussolini's welfare state was actually the 'warfare state'. Look it up - everything went past him and he used 'warfare' to award the media with vast sums of money to print his message and those that helped him build up his nation and his army for no other reason than to establish Italy and buld a great empire which was lost all those years ago. It's fairly common knowledge that he was a dictator and he ended up on the end of a rope upside down. I'd post the images for you but they're not very nice.

I think you need to read the quotes in my above post again...