Is there such a thing as "benign fascism"?

[Tooting Carmen]

1. Of course not, but a bit more time is needed for a true objective and unbiased analisys of his rule. Still too many biased and emotionally/ideologically motivated opinions.

2. I don't know much how repressive was Spain under Franco, some people argue it wasn't much but I guess it was proportional to the level of internal menace, don't forget Spain had a very bloody civil war with lots of very radical marxist and anarchist groups, still today the left in Spain is considerably more radical than here.

In Portugal there was no such degree of opposition and communist groups were marginal, there was never the risk of a civil war vs marxist factions, so obviously there was no need to take too harsh measures.

(1) True, though surely the commonplace notion that he was nothing more than an "evil Catholic fanatic" is itself hysterical and emotional?

(2) It is estimated that around 500,000 people in Spain were killed by Franco and his supporters, some of them in the context of the Civil War and others in mass executions in the years/decades following. At least within mainland Portugal - the colonies of course were another matter - I am not aware of Salazar's regime being guilty of anything comparable to that. And in what way is the contemporary Left in Spain more radical than in Portugal?

[Tooting Carmen]

Of course there are nuances and different versions of. Look at communist China now, they allow private ownership now.

Well it is true in this instance that China isn't really Communist anymore (the point is it was between 1949-75, with all the attendant misery). Now it is just a one-party administrative dictatorship.

[Ouistreham]

It is estimated that around 500,000 people in Spain were killed by Franco and his supporters, some of them in the context of the Civil War and others in mass executions in the years/decades following. At least within mainland Portugal - the colonies of course were another matter - I am not aware of Salazar's regime being guilty of anything comparable to that. And in what way is the contemporary Left in Spain more radical than in Portugal?

• During the Civil War, Franco was Spain's Lenin (he won that war)
• In the post-war years he was a kind of Stalin.
• Then he became the Gorbatchov of his own regime.
• And when he died, he left a thoroughly modernized country ripe for parliamentary democracy.

The evolution of this regime is an extraordinary feat that has no parallel in history.

[Sebastianus Rex]

• During the Civil War, Franco was Spain's Lenin (he won that war)
• In the post-war years he was a kind of Stalin.
• Then he became the Gorbatchov of his own regime.
• And when he died, he left a thoroughly modernized country ripe for parliamentary democracy.

The evolution of this regime is an extraordinary feat that has no parallel in history.

That's the idea many (non leftist) people have of Franco's regime in Portugal. They prepared very well the path and the tradition for democracy, and the economy was booming in the 60's and 70's.

[Erronkari]

May be we can add to this list Marcos Pérez Jiménez from Venezuela.

[Tooting Carmen]

May be we can add to this list Marcos Pérez Jiménez from Venezuela.

Were his social achievements really comparable to Salazar's or Peron's though?

[Sebastianus Rex]

(1) True, though surely the commonplace notion that he was nothing more than an "evil Catholic fanatic" is itself hysterical and emotional?

(2) It is estimated that around 500,000 people in Spain were killed by Franco and his supporters, some of them in the context of the Civil War and others in mass executions in the years/decades following. At least within mainland Portugal - the colonies of course were another matter - I am not aware of Salazar's regime being guilty of anything comparable to that. And in what way is the contemporary Left in Spain more radical than in Portugal?

1) He was not religious at all, he was even anti clerical, maintained good relations with the Catholic Church because Cardinal Cerejeira was his childhood friend. He saw religiousness as an useful tool for social order nothing more than that, it was a pact of convenience.

2) I doubt very much those numbers in the post war. In the civil war around 1 million died, that is statistically confirmed but in the context of the war. I told you, have to bear in mind the reds committed monstrous atrocities (raping nuns, killing savagely the priests, cold blood massacres on civilians etc). They were dealing with extremely violent armed groups attempting a Bolshevik revolution, certainly not choirboys, but of course the mainstream media usually hides who were the "Republicans" and the ignominious crimes they committed, Wich originated a reaction of the conservative factions. The Spanish Civil war was very divisive for Spanish society, I'm not sure if are aware of how bloody it was.

[Tooting Carmen]

1) He was not religious at all, he was even anti clerical, maintained good relations with the Catholic Church because Cardinal Cerejeira was his childhood friend. He saw religiousness as an useful tool for social order nothing more than that, it was a pact of convenience.

2) I doubt very much those numbers in the post war. In the civil war around 1 million died, that is statistically confirmed but in the context of the war. I told you, have to bear in mind the reds committed monstrous atrocities (raping nuns, killing savagely the priests, cold blood massacres on civilians etc). They were dealing with extremely violent armed groups attempting a Bolshevik revolution, certainly not choirboys, but of course the mainstream media usually hides who were the "Republicans" and the ignominious crimes they committed, Wich originated a reaction of the conservative factions. The Spanish Civil war was very divisive for Spanish society, I'm not sure if are aware of how bloody it was.

What I meant was it is still highly debated and uncertain how many deaths attributed to Franco were during the Civil War itself, and how many were executions during his 1939-75 regime. And I am aware that the Republicans were extremely far from being saints and sections of them were very violent and/or too cuddly towards Stalin, but at the end of the day it was Franco himself who instigated the Civil War.

[Red Pill]

Which is a silly and nonsensical definition. My value-neutral definition of fascism is "an authoritarian and nationalistic hybrid of both capitalism and socialism".

It's not her definition, it is how generally it is perceived today by large segments of our society. In my opinion true fascism is a totalitarian and ultra-nationalistic ideology that perceives violence and war as positive features necessary for national renewal. It's not a black and white thing of course like every definition. For instance I don't think that Francoism was a true fascist movement. Even if very repressive it was more a reactionary traditionalist movement. True fascism claims to have a revolutionary aspect. The old Falange Española de las JONS was a true fascist party before its merging with the Carlists by Franco. I agree that fascism has aspects of both capitalism and socialism, while opposing both and generally considering itself a "third way". Of course feel free to disagree with my definition.

[Tooting Carmen]

May be we can add to this list Marcos Pérez Jiménez from Venezuela.

Didn't he partially bring the Venezuelan oil industry under State control? (In contrast to Juan Vicente Gomez, who handed nearly all of it to US corporations).