Labienus

After seeing the thread on Salazar, I wanted to discuss the case of his neighbor, Francisco Franco.

I have often heard that Francisco Franco was a fascist. Of course, his regime had several characteristics that the fascist regimes(Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy) had but it also lacked some of them.

For example, it is pretty obvious that he was a nationalist but I just don't see his nationalism as radical or extreme as Mussolini's or Hitler's.

Also, he did not wage war of expansion, unlike Mussolini and Hitler. He believed that Spain was for Spaniards, thus rejecting the idea of expansionism.

I don't want to excuse Franco as I probably wouldn't have liked to live under his oppressive rule. However, I think that a line between Fascism and traditional right-wing dictatorships should be established.

Nemowork

The people he led were certainly various degrees of fascists but Franco always seemed to me to be a bit apolitical, he just picked a side with the most pragmatic motives because it gave him the most chance of success for his desire to reestablish an authoritarian order and to satisfy his ambition.

rory-c

depends how you define fascist doesn't it. it also depends what era you're looking at, the franco of 1936-7 had a slightly different idealogy than the franco of the 60s.

1936 franco was quite obviously fascist i would have thought. murdering hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen is pretty extreme too.

rory-c

although its true its difficuly to pin a philosophy on him, much easier to say what he was against.

Labienus

Thats quite true but the Franco of 1936 was in the middle of a civil war. Not that I justify his actions, but I think that we have to take that into consideration when we label him as a fascist.

rory-c

ok, well im not great with definitions but a quick online dictionary defines fascism as

a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and being extremely proud of country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed

he ticks all the boxes there doesn't he.

to be pedantic in my opinion in 1936 i dont think Spain was in a civil war, it was an upsrising by the army to take control of the country.... the main reasons being to stamp out the left and the republic and get rid of all political opposition other than themselves...

Labienus

Well according to that definition, it does seems true.

rory-c

well it was just from the first online dictionary that came up on google. you can define it differently if you want

Chancellor

Indeed. Paradoxally, in Marxist/Eastern European AND English dictionaries the term "Fascist" seem to be equivalent to what historians call "Generic Fascism", or quite as often, "Dictatorial Anti-Communism". Regarding this I only can recommend Texas historian Stanley G. Payne's the History of Fascism (or, if you prefer something lighter, Fascism - a short introduction by Fascist scholar Kevin Passmore).
(Without exclusively adding the word "generic", it's doubtful Germany's National Socialism should be considered Fascist. They movements sprung from different directions, exercised notably different policies (not least regarding the "Jewish question") and were at war with each other for two years.)

Franco's ideas might be regarded as ultra-conservative to the extent they sought to re-create his own ideal version of pre-Enlightenment Spain. Germany had never exercised National Socialism before Hitler and even if he would emphasise some ideas of traditionalism, this should be considered much more a modernist ideology. Fascist Italy was suberbly modernist (aided by the usurping of the Futurist movement); it sprung originally from the Socialist Party but gradually went "off track", scaling off its allegiance to any aspect of Italian political life to a core of authoritarian rule through means of terror, militarized society, and an anti-capitalist, anti-communist emphasis on the economy. Franco's regime did until the late 1950s pursue a near-planned economy, blessed by the Fascist-inspired Falange, which otherwise was outmaneuvred by traditional values and elites (such as rich landowners, a main target by the original Fascist manifesto of Mussolini) and the old nobility (deemed by Nazis as a "pocket" of racial degeneration through inbreeding). Far right, syncretic or both, true Fascist regimes (adding Nazi Germany) sought to create new elites, new doctrines, and a new society, let be an inhuman and hideous one.

Fascism, National Socialism and ultra-Conservatism (itself a thousand ideologies in the name of one) share their opposition to bourgeoise-liberal society (including democracy, individualism, capitalism) that had dominated Europe since the revolutions following 1789, particularly in Spain. Nevertheless, as seen in numerous Generic Fascist (Hitler, Mussolini) and conservative (Salazar, Dollfuß) regimes, they diverted on numerous areas and didn't hesitate to pinpoint this fact.

Labienus

Very informative post, I will look at these books. Thank you