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

First topic message reminder :

Simple question

Tommy Monk wrote:I think you need to read the quotes in my above post again...

No Tommy, I think you need to read a proper academic study that I have already produced showing that there was a welfare state in place before Il Duce marched on Rome.

Here's another one with details of how Il Duce's welfare (warfare) was all about social control of the population...

'The second step took place especially after 1927 with the foundation of the Corporatist state, when the regime began to look at the implementation of a Fascist social policy. Thus, the 1930s and early 1940s witnessed a great increase in welfare programs, such as a scheme for family allowances in 1933/1934 and one for compulsory sickness insurance in 1943 (Ferrera 1986: 389). From a quantitative viewpoint, during the regime the social expenditure grew to some 15-17 per cent of the state budget, two or three times more than in 1922 (Flora 1986). The supporting structure of the Fascist model of the ‘Social State’ was represented by various state social security and assistance institutions, such as the ONMI—Opera Nazionale per la Maternità e l’Infanzia (National Organization for Motherhood and Childhood) constituted in 1925; the INFPS—Istituto Nazionale Fascista della Previdenza Sociale (Fascist National Institute of Social Security) constituted in 1933; the INFAIL—Istituto Nazionale Fascista per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Fascist National Institute for Insurance against Industrial Accidents) constituted in 1933; the INAM—Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro le Malattie (Disease Support Workers National Institute) constituted in 1943 (Silei 2000; Giorgi 2009).

All these achievements were built up in a political perspective that gave social policy a very important ideological status as a privileged tool for the creation and the maintenance of social control (De Felice 1968, 1974). As Ferrera (1986: 389) has noted, the large insurance agencies (INFPS, INFAIL and INAM) became an ‘arena of clientelistic exchanges, through the provision of selective benefits to social clients whose consensus had to be secured and preserved’. Moreover, although the regime’s leadership always highlighted the achievements of Fascist social policy, the real effect of the dictatorship’s welfare state was a pattern of episodic, fragmentary and discriminatory protection (Quine 2002). In this framework, the reality was that unemployment insurances were at the level of starvation wages and workers gained access to a clearly inadequate health care system. Moreover, access to these inadequate services was based on
political and social discrimination. For instance, aid for the unemployed during the post 1929 crisis went to those ‘with the right politics’ (Quine 2002). Furthermore, many resources were invested in campaigns—such as those against alcoholism and drugs—that produced few practical results but were useful for the purposes of social control'.

http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/post-fascist/post-fascist

Like I told you, he used welfare (warfare) to buy the media and everything else in his attempt to make Italy a great Empire again. Here's the title of the study which sort of gives the game away.

It's over Tommy and you have been rumbled.

People say that the expansion of the welfare state under Labour was all about state control of the people... lefties/fascism go hand in hand it seems...


And...


"...National Fascist Party, which under Benito Mussolini ruled the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 until 1943, the Republican Fascist Party that ruled the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, the post-war Italian Social Movement and subsequent Italian neo-fascist movements.."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1511253/Labours-bulging-client-state-now-employs-44pc-of-people.html


Big state... big state control...


Still leftie...



Nobody has shown anything r/w about any of it still yet...!?



It's all leftie politics and ideals...

Irn Bru wrote:It's over Tommy and you have been rumbled.

He cannot hear - he has his fingers in his ears.

Show us the evidence that there is to hear...?


So far there has been no evidence!!!


I'm willing to listen if you can tell me...?


Give us a summary of the best bits of all the damning evidence that has been provided here on thread so far...?

Can't be arsed - you are way beyond my boredom threshold.

It's not about me though is it...!?


It's about the truth/facts/evidence!


So start posting some...?


If you cannot... then this shows you never had any in the first place!!!


So nows your chance to nail it!!!


Put up the crucial and undeniable facts that you claim are dotted throughout this thread...?


Or admit that you don't really have any...!?






I bet we see nothing...

No, it just shows that I can't be arsed - and that you are way beyond my boredom threshold.

Who is "we" btw - have you been granted pluralis majestatis?  

We have a saying here in the forest "Some people can bore the arse off a concrete donkey"

Ziz wrote:No, it just shows that I can't be arsed - and that you are way beyond my boredom threshold.

Who is "we" btw - have you been granted pluralis majestatis?  

No... it shows that you are unable to answer any of the points/arguments I have made so far on this thread...


And that you are unable to provide any evidence in support of any of the claims of any of the other posters on this thread so far either...!!!


This thread is not about me... and it is not about you either... it is not about how 'arsed' (or not) you feel... and not about your boredom threshold...


Answer the posts... if you can?... Or don't bother posting at all!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:No, it just shows that I can't be arsed - and that you are way beyond my boredom threshold.

Who is "we" btw - have you been granted pluralis majestatis?  

No... it shows that you are unable to answer any of the points/arguments I have made so far on this thread...


And that you are unable to provide any evidence in support of any of the claims of any of the other posters on this thread so far either...!!!


This thread is not about me... and it is not about you either... it is not about how 'arsed' (or not) you feel... and not about your boredom threshold...


Answer the posts... if you can?... Or don't bother posting at all!

No really, you are truly boring - I'm surprised no-one has cared enough to tell you that before.

Ziz wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



No... it shows that you are unable to answer any of the points/arguments I have made so far on this thread...


And that you are unable to provide any evidence in support of any of the claims of any of the other posters on this thread so far either...!!!


This thread is not about me... and it is not about you either... it is not about how 'arsed' (or not) you feel... and not about your boredom threshold...


Answer the posts... if you can?... Or don't bother posting at all!

No really, you are truly boring - I'm surprised no-one has cared enough to tell you that before.

Thanks for that... now... do you have anything to add that is relevant to the topic of debate...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:

No really, you are truly boring - I'm surprised no-one has cared enough to tell you that before.

Thanks for that... now... do you have anything to add that is relevant to the topic of debate...?

I might have if you weren't so boring.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ziz wrote:No, it just shows that I can't be arsed - and that you are way beyond my boredom threshold.

Who is "we" btw - have you been granted pluralis majestatis?  

No... it shows that you are unable to answer any of the points/arguments I have made so far on this thread...


And that you are unable to provide any evidence in support of any of the claims of any of the other posters on this thread so far either...!!!


This thread is not about me... and it is not about you either... it is not about how 'arsed' (or not) you feel... and not about your boredom threshold...


Answer the posts... if you can?... Or don't bother posting at all!

I have answered your claims and given you several including two peer reviewed academic articles to dispute what you claim. Just answer this quwstion...

Was there a welfare programme in place before the fascists marched on Rome?

Tommy Monk wrote:

People say that the expansion of the welfare state under Labour was all about state control of the people... lefties/fascism go hand in hand it seems...


And...


"...National Fascist Party, which under Benito Mussolini ruled the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 until 1943, the Republican Fascist Party that ruled the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945, the post-war Italian Social Movement and subsequent Italian neo-fascist movements.."

Official figures show that welfare spending went down under Labour. That was achieved with low unemployment and decent jobs with decent pay. That's the sensible way to reduce welfare spending - not like the Tory party who just want to take benefits of those that had nothing to do with the collapse of the financial system but who are expected to pay for it,

That's why they call the Tories the Nasty Party.

Here's the data on welfare spending - Office of National Statistics

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I think you need to read the quotes in my above post again...

No Tommy, I think you need to read a proper academic study that I have already produced showing that there was a welfare state in place before Il Duce marched on Rome.

Here's another one with details of how Il Duce's welfare (warfare) was all about social control of the population...

'The second step took place especially after 1927 with the foundation of the Corporatist state, when the regime began to look at the implementation of a Fascist social policy. Thus, the 1930s and early 1940s witnessed a great increase in welfare programs, such as a scheme for family allowances in 1933/1934 and one for compulsory sickness insurance in 1943 (Ferrera 1986: 389). From a quantitative viewpoint, during the regime the social expenditure grew to some 15-17 per cent of the state budget, two or three times more than in 1922 (Flora 1986). The supporting structure of the Fascist model of the ‘Social State’ was represented by various state social security and assistance institutions, such as the ONMI—Opera Nazionale per la Maternità e l’Infanzia (National Organization for Motherhood and Childhood) constituted in 1925; the INFPS—Istituto Nazionale Fascista della Previdenza Sociale (Fascist National Institute of Social Security) constituted in 1933; the INFAIL—Istituto Nazionale Fascista per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Fascist National Institute for Insurance against Industrial Accidents) constituted in 1933; the INAM—Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro le Malattie (Disease Support Workers National Institute) constituted in 1943 (Silei 2000; Giorgi 2009).

All these achievements were built up in a political perspective that gave social policy a very important ideological status as a privileged tool for the creation and the maintenance of social control (De Felice 1968, 1974). As Ferrera (1986: 389) has noted, the large insurance agencies (INFPS, INFAIL and INAM) became an ‘arena of clientelistic exchanges, through the provision of selective benefits to social clients whose consensus had to be secured and preserved’. Moreover, although the regime’s leadership always highlighted the achievements of Fascist social policy, the real effect of the dictatorship’s welfare state was a pattern of episodic, fragmentary and discriminatory protection (Quine 2002). In this framework, the reality was that unemployment insurances were at the level of starvation wages and workers gained access to a clearly inadequate health care system. Moreover, access to these inadequate services was based on
political and social discrimination. For instance, aid for the unemployed during the post 1929 crisis went to those ‘with the right politics’ (Quine 2002). Furthermore, many resources were invested in campaigns—such as those against alcoholism and drugs—that produced few practical results but were useful for the purposes of social control'.

http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/post-fascist/post-fascist

Like I told you, he used welfare (warfare) to buy the media and everything else in his attempt to make Italy a great Empire again. Here's the title of the study which sort of gives the game away.

It's over Tommy and you have been rumbled.

What are you waffling about...?


I said that Mussolini/fascists introduced the welfare system to Italy...


You said...

"...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..."



Everything in your above post relates to times after Mussolini and fascism first gained power... and the only other thing you have posted so far, to back up your claim, is this...

"...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..."

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


And that is so vague as to hardly be anything conclusive in support of your claim...!


All it says is that the welfare state began to be established some time after the start of ww1 (1914)... and then it is saying that "needs generated by the conflict increased the government’s weight in the domestic economy"...


Not saying actual start date of anything recognisable as a welfare state...


It then says...

"...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..."


Established when?

What 'assistance'?

And for what 'groups'?


As Mussolini/fascists were in power from 1922...


So your claim that Italy had a welfare state 'long before' Mussolini/fascism, is shown by your own posts of 'evidence' to be false!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I think you need to read the quotes in my above post again...

No Tommy, I think you need to read a proper academic study that I have already produced showing that there was a welfare state in place before Il Duce marched on Rome.

Here's another one with details of how Il Duce's welfare (warfare) was all about social control of the population...

'The second step took place especially after 1927 with the foundation of the Corporatist state, when the regime began to look at the implementation of a Fascist social policy. Thus, the 1930s and early 1940s witnessed a great increase in welfare programs, such as a scheme for family allowances in 1933/1934 and one for compulsory sickness insurance in 1943 (Ferrera 1986: 389). From a quantitative viewpoint, during the regime the social expenditure grew to some 15-17 per cent of the state budget, two or three times more than in 1922 (Flora 1986). The supporting structure of the Fascist model of the ‘Social State’ was represented by various state social security and assistance institutions, such as the ONMI—Opera Nazionale per la Maternità e l’Infanzia (National Organization for Motherhood and Childhood) constituted in 1925; the INFPS—Istituto Nazionale Fascista della Previdenza Sociale (Fascist National Institute of Social Security) constituted in 1933; the INFAIL—Istituto Nazionale Fascista per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Fascist National Institute for Insurance against Industrial Accidents) constituted in 1933; the INAM—Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro le Malattie (Disease Support Workers National Institute) constituted in 1943 (Silei 2000; Giorgi 2009).

All these achievements were built up in a political perspective that gave social policy a very important ideological status as a privileged tool for the creation and the maintenance of social control (De Felice 1968, 1974). As Ferrera (1986: 389) has noted, the large insurance agencies (INFPS, INFAIL and INAM) became an ‘arena of clientelistic exchanges, through the provision of selective benefits to social clients whose consensus had to be secured and preserved’. Moreover, although the regime’s leadership always highlighted the achievements of Fascist social policy, the real effect of the dictatorship’s welfare state was a pattern of episodic, fragmentary and discriminatory protection (Quine 2002). In this framework, the reality was that unemployment insurances were at the level of starvation wages and workers gained access to a clearly inadequate health care system. Moreover, access to these inadequate services was based on
political and social discrimination. For instance, aid for the unemployed during the post 1929 crisis went to those ‘with the right politics’ (Quine 2002). Furthermore, many resources were invested in campaigns—such as those against alcoholism and drugs—that produced few practical results but were useful for the purposes of social control'.

http://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/surveillance-and-society/article/view/post-fascist/post-fascist

Like I told you, he used welfare (warfare) to buy the media and everything else in his attempt to make Italy a great Empire again. Here's the title of the study which sort of gives the game away.

It's over Tommy and you have been rumbled.

What are you waffling about...?


I said that Mussolini/fascists introduced the welfare system to Italy...


You said...

"...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..."



Everything in your above post relates to times after Mussolini and fascism first gained power... and the only other thing you have posted so far, to back up your claim, is this...

"...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..."

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


And that is so vague as to hardly be anything conclusive in support of your claim...!


All it says is that the welfare state began to be established some time after the start of ww1 (1914)... and then it is saying that "needs generated by the conflict increased the government’s weight in the domestic economy"...


Not saying actual start date of anything recognisable as a welfare state...


It then says...

"...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..."


Established when?

What 'assistance'?

And for what 'groups'?


As Mussolini/fascists were in power from 1922...


So your claim that Italy had a welfare state 'long before' Mussolini/fascism, is shown by your own posts of 'evidence' to be false!!!

It relates to before Mussolini grabbed power and it also shows what a sham his welfare (waefare) was. Go and read it all again.

I've read what you posted up and it doesn't show anything you claim.

Tommy Monk wrote:I've read what you posted up and it doesn't show anything you claim.

Because it all went right over your head. The first study showed there was a welfare state in place prior to the fascists march on Rome and the second showed that Il Duce's welfare state was actually a warfare state designed to controll the masses.

It's all there and if you can't see it then I'm afraid you are blind to the realty of it all.



Disgusting gits weren't they Tommy?

No it didn't Bru...


All dates shown in what you posted were after 1922 which was after Mussolini and fascists took over...

Right, here we go Tommy. Read this....

The most significant leap in the history of the Italian welfare state before 1945 occurred during the Great War and in the immediate post-war period. This of course coincided with the massive industrialisation of the country due to the imperatives of war mobilisation. During the war years, women entered a wide variety of industrial occupations for the first time. Dr Quine should have placed greater emphasis on this seminal shift. In the years 1917-1919 social entitlements were dramatically increased. The first compulsory unemployment scheme for full-time workers was introduced and even agricultural workers were partially covered. And finally compulsory pensions were introduced: social insurance coverage of the labour force, which was at 2 per cent in 1915 leapt to 38 per cent in 1920 (versus 57 per cent in Germany). Fascism inherited this watershed moment, but it neither created it, nor improved very much upon it. I

So let that be the end of it. There was a welfare state in place in Italy before the March on Rome.

Tommy cannot read.
He's still at the crayons and colouring book stage. .
But he only likes white crayons.

You said there was a welfare state in Italy LONG before Mussolini/fascism had power...


Which is simply not true going by what little you have posted up, and if you read everything else properly...


The bit you highlighted is the unsubstantiated opinion of whoever it was doing the book review on Dr Quine's works.


And was talking about the pay in insurance scheme for only some workers that I mentioned earlier...

Tommy Monk wrote:You said there was a welfare state in Italy LONG before Mussolini/fascism had power...


Which is simply not true going by what little you have posted up, and if you read everything else properly...


The bit you highlighted is the unsubstantiated opinion of whoever it was doing the book review on Dr Quine's works.


And was talking about the pay in insurance scheme for only some workers that I mentioned earlier...

Indeed it was and it was in the link you posted. I have goven you other academic articles as well but you seem to think that Mussolini rolled up in Rome with a warfare state programme in his pocket which he put in place on day one.

You're getting ridiculous now and clutching at straws. His warfare state was to control the masses - nothing more. It's all the works I gave you to read.

You originally said it existed long before Mussolini/fascism... but have only given one vague reference to the paying in insurance scheme for full time workers that i have already mentioned... and also only a vague reference to it being in place and only a couple of years before mussolini/fascism took over in 1922...


Hardly evidence of a comprehensive welfare state long before Mussolini/fascism is it...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

You originally said it existed long before Mussolini/fascism... but have only given one vague reference to the paying in insurance scheme for full time workers that i have already mentioned... and also only a vague reference to it being in place and only a couple of years before mussolini/fascism took over in 1922...


Hardly evidence of a comprehensive welfare state long before Mussolini/fascism is it...!?

And it did. As you have already mentioned that their was a welfare state in place before the March on Rome why are you arguing about it?

There's plenty more in the works I gave you to prove the point as well as pointing out that Mussolini's welfare (warfare) state was nothing more than a con to control the masses - never a welfare state.

Your rumbled.

No there wasn't...


A vague reference to an insurance system for some workers that I have already explained... was not a welfare state!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:No there wasn't...


A vague reference to an insurance system for some workers  that I have already explained... was not a welfare state!!!

This looks like quite a lot to me...

During the war years, women entered a wide variety of industrial occupations for the first time. Dr Quine should have placed greater emphasis on this seminal shift. In the years 1917-1919 social entitlements were dramatically increased. The first compulsory unemployment scheme for full-time workers was introduced and even agricultural workers were partially covered. And finally compulsory pensions were introduced: social insurance coverage of the labour force, which was at 2 per cent in 1915 leapt to 38 per cent in 1920 (versus 57 per cent in Germany).

It was in your link. Are you saying all that isn't true now?

Pwooor likkle Tom Tom has lost his own arguement. Beaten by his own spin and lies.
And as the thread title says, by an overwhelming 80% majority, the Nazi party were, and still are, extreme right wing.

Handy Andy wrote:Pwooor likkle Tom Tom has lost his own arguement.  Beaten by his own spin and lies.
And as the thread title says, by an overwhelming 80% majority, the Nazi party were, and still are, extreme right wing.

That's democracy in action

That was all unsubstantiated opinion from the book reviewer...


Not what Dr Quine said...



So we are left with the fact that Mussolini/fascism created the first proper welfare state system in Italy!


And it may well have been partly about trying to control the people as you claim...


Not too unlike this...


http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/labours-client-state.html?m=1

Tommy Monk wrote:That was all unsubstantiated opinion from the book reviewer...


Not what Dr Quine said...



So we are left with the fact that Mussolini/fascism created the first proper welfare state system in Italy!


And it may well have been partly about trying to control the people as you claim...


Not too unlike this...


http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/labours-client-state.html?m=1

And of course what the author wrote was all unsubstantiated opinion as well then.

Have you read the book?

Tommy Monk wrote:That was all unsubstantiated opinion from the book reviewer...


Not what Dr Quine said...



So we are left with the fact that Mussolini/fascism created the first proper welfare state system in Italy!


And it may well have been partly about trying to control the people as you claim...


Not too unlike this...


http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/labours-client-state.html?m=1

I just read your link. Here's an extract...

Labour have managed it in just 12 years. Guess what? Out of the 200 constituencies (another way of saying 200 seats in the Politburo) with the highest proportion of benefit recipients, a massive 189 have Labour MPs.

One third of the seats in Parliament are represented by dole scounging, benefit sucking fucking wastrels, high on tax payers money and living the fucking life of Riley at the expense of everyone else.

There it is. Labour's "client" state. Wonder why the streets are full of Stella swilling, Argos blinged mongtards without a care in the world? Labour WANTS it that way. Wondered why most of London speaks Somali and dresses in fucking tents? Labour wants it that way. Wondered why gun crime and violence in the UK makes us the most dangerous fucking place in Europe? Labour wants it that way.

You traitorous bastards. You have used our stolen money to fuck us. A country ruined so that YOU could have the power to bribe yourselves to yet more power.

Labour handing out benefits to all and importing millions... just to buy voters and control...