• ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Isn’t that not just an imperialistic trait, not necessarily a fascistic one? Franco’s Spain didn’t collapse, while it was still very much fascistic.

    All the while, this trait is very much applicable to the Roman, Ottoman, Soviet or US empires.

    • frezik
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Historians debate just how fascist Franco was. Hell, Orwell wasn’t even quite sure, and he was very open about the fact that he went to Spain to kill a fascist.

      Edit: a choice passage out of Homage to Catalonia, emphasis added:

      But there were several points that escaped general notice. To begin with, Franco was not strictly comparable with Hitler or Mussolini. His rising was a military mutiny backed up by the aristocracy and the Church, and in the main, especially at the beginning, it was an attempt not so much to impose Fascism as to restore feudalism. This meant that Franco had against him not only the working class but also various sections of the liberal bourgeoisie—the very people who are the supporters of Fascism when it appears in a more modern form. More important than this was the fact that the Spanish working class did not, as we might conceivably do in England, resist Franco in the name of ‘democracy’ and the status quo; their resistance was accompanied by—one might almost say it consisted of—a definite revolutionary outbreak. Land was seized by the peasants; many factories and most of the transport were seized by the trade unions; churches were wrecked and the priests driven out or killed. The Daily Mail, amid the cheers of the Catholic clergy, was able to represent Franco as a patriot delivering his country from hordes of fiendish ‘Reds’.

      And as a side note, the Daily Mail has been terrible for a long, long time.