Radical Atom
22nd July 2016, 23:24
Most spaniards are kept in the dark about our country's recent history and sadly it gets quite literal, picture this: after Cambodia, Spain is the country with most disappeared people/mass graves in the world. The now ruling party (the ironically named People's Party *shudder*) is the spiritual successor of the regime, including having had some francoist ministers in its ranks, purposely sabotaging and fighting any effort of republican family members to be able to see the remains of their loved ones and refusing even to this day to unequivocally condemn the crimes of the Franco regime. Searching around and listening to some conversation about the topic, I was very much surprised to hear that some people say that, according to them: at least technically, Franco wasn't a full fledged fascist, more like an ultra-nationalist third positionist and his relationship with fascism being more due to his opportunism and cronyism, even being sometimes at odds with the Falange (the main fascist party of the nationalist side on the Spanish Civil War, and the only party during this scumfuck's rule), to the point that a part of Falange wanted him dead (citation needed). Having burnt in my mind the absolutely disgusting, despicable, dehumanizing experience that the Spanish people had to suffer, in a sort of irrational way, it was almost impossible to think of it as any other thing than fascism, I mean calling it anything else could not even begin to make justice to the injustice and suffering brought to a people who had been not long ago ready to fight for an awesome revolution that would transcend not only the "caciquista" and almost medieval the backwardness, corruption and superstition of the country, but even the most advanced capitalism of its time; a revolution towards socialism.
Feelings, however, do not matter at all when it comes to material reality. So:
Is third-positionism used wrongly by making it interchangeable with fascism? Aren't they somewhat equivalents, one pretending to be a more "acceptable" middle ground (something which many fascists do as well)? Or is it just white-washing by ideologues trying to paint a little less despicable picture by trying to wipe the fascist label? Anyone who's had access to more information than what this now "democracy" (but no less francoist) offers its citizens could shine a light on that?
There are some facts that everyone can agree on:
The nationalists were composed by fascists (national syndicalists they called themselves, whatever that means), monarchists, carlists (monarchists who favored a diferent line of succession to the throne) and various right wing groups.
The nationalists were militarily and economicaly supported by overtly fascist nations: the nazi Third Reich (Condor Legion is just one example), fascist italy (Aviazione Legionaria for instance) and Estado Novo Portugal.
Despite its neutral facade on the international sphere, francoist Spain sought cooperation and alliance with axis powers during WWII (and after the "civil war" was sadly won by the nationalists) or Germany at the very least and it did send a voluntary regiment to fight against the Soviet Union, which even today is getting officially commemorated (instead of having their monuments fucking demolished) police and military institutions, which haven't changed much since the laughable "democratic" transition.
After WWII Spain was on very good terms with U.S.A. who as with many other countries as a proxy to stop the "spread of the comunizm!" and the Soviet Union's expansion. Many military bases where built in spanish territory and apparently Nixon even toasted to Franco.
Whatever the regime's true aligment was it did share many similarities with what we convencionally could agree are characteristics of fascism (and not just stereotypes): corporatism and class collaborationist rhetoric to "restore the country's glory" to justify the former, born out of the threat to the interests of the bourgeoisie (and in this case, much more backward institutions like the church and the monarchy), virulent opposition to Leftists of all stripes, anti-intellectualism, reactionary gender roles (the church played a crucial part in Spain's society and we're still paying for it), national chauvinism and the idea of a "national" race (not to mention the obsession with Judeo-masons their version of Judeo-bolshevism) among many other things.
So just to recap, could francoist spain be anything other than fascism? What was the relationship between Falange and the goverment?
And as aside, any info on that regard about Estado Novo? Its a shame that so much of this gets swept under the rug when it should be denounced and made known.
Would post background links for those interested but I still don't have enough posts. Also missed the "or not?" in the title cause I'm a newbie and the gods of the web want to have a laugh at me.
Feelings, however, do not matter at all when it comes to material reality. So:
Is third-positionism used wrongly by making it interchangeable with fascism? Aren't they somewhat equivalents, one pretending to be a more "acceptable" middle ground (something which many fascists do as well)? Or is it just white-washing by ideologues trying to paint a little less despicable picture by trying to wipe the fascist label? Anyone who's had access to more information than what this now "democracy" (but no less francoist) offers its citizens could shine a light on that?
There are some facts that everyone can agree on:
The nationalists were composed by fascists (national syndicalists they called themselves, whatever that means), monarchists, carlists (monarchists who favored a diferent line of succession to the throne) and various right wing groups.
The nationalists were militarily and economicaly supported by overtly fascist nations: the nazi Third Reich (Condor Legion is just one example), fascist italy (Aviazione Legionaria for instance) and Estado Novo Portugal.
Despite its neutral facade on the international sphere, francoist Spain sought cooperation and alliance with axis powers during WWII (and after the "civil war" was sadly won by the nationalists) or Germany at the very least and it did send a voluntary regiment to fight against the Soviet Union, which even today is getting officially commemorated (instead of having their monuments fucking demolished) police and military institutions, which haven't changed much since the laughable "democratic" transition.
After WWII Spain was on very good terms with U.S.A. who as with many other countries as a proxy to stop the "spread of the comunizm!" and the Soviet Union's expansion. Many military bases where built in spanish territory and apparently Nixon even toasted to Franco.
Whatever the regime's true aligment was it did share many similarities with what we convencionally could agree are characteristics of fascism (and not just stereotypes): corporatism and class collaborationist rhetoric to "restore the country's glory" to justify the former, born out of the threat to the interests of the bourgeoisie (and in this case, much more backward institutions like the church and the monarchy), virulent opposition to Leftists of all stripes, anti-intellectualism, reactionary gender roles (the church played a crucial part in Spain's society and we're still paying for it), national chauvinism and the idea of a "national" race (not to mention the obsession with Judeo-masons their version of Judeo-bolshevism) among many other things.
So just to recap, could francoist spain be anything other than fascism? What was the relationship between Falange and the goverment?
And as aside, any info on that regard about Estado Novo? Its a shame that so much of this gets swept under the rug when it should be denounced and made known.
Would post background links for those interested but I still don't have enough posts. Also missed the "or not?" in the title cause I'm a newbie and the gods of the web want to have a laugh at me.