Posted on 10/07/2021 5:50:08 PM PDT by bitt
Amazing how many, including here, consider the National socialist German Workers party right wing.
She can run on me angry
The fascists were left. Mussolini ran the Italian communist party newspaper until he decided that they needed to be nationalist too. He invented fascism of course. Also highly recommended - Paul Johnson, “Modern Times”, has the whole story and many others. A good video - TIK on Mussolinis fascism -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=06vJY9nLMXU&t=219s
Franco was not a fascist though. He effectively ran a coalition of fascists, traditionalists, monarchists, big business, and Spain’s “main street”. These did not get along. The fascist “Falange” was forced into a marriage with very odd partners.
In other news, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. — the son of former President/Dictator Marcos — said he was running for President of the Philippines and that he would unite Filipinos.
I won’t be the slightest bit surprised if he wins.
Weirdly enough, that’s because he was in undisputed power for forty years. It seemed that he would live forever. Rather like Castro, who went on for 56 years.
Bong Bong has big money behind him, and in the weird Filipino election system where one can win with a minority vote, it certainly is possible.
None of that conflicts with anything Marx or Engels wrote. Does not make one not a left-winger.
The Manifesto plainly says “These measures (taken to subvert society) will of course be different in different countries”, and The Principles of Communism states that “(i)n all likelihood, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually”.
The danger with using such a restricted definition means that one loses the ability to discriminate, and risks self-delusion. The rest of the world certainly does not think that way of “right” and “left”. One cannot fit Confucius, Ortega y Gasset, Chesterton, Bismarck, de Maistre comfortably under that blanket. The truth is, as Russell Kirk pointed out, that conservatism is not one thing, but everything that is not “left”. Which is both refreshing and stimulating as well as frustrating for political taxonomists.
Why not Bismarck? He certainly set Germany down the left path, with his “state socialism”, a term Adolf himself resurrected.
The “rest of the world” has been comfortably numbed. If you want to see the largest brainwash in human history, look at the “rest of the world”. It’s because of their false “left and right” definition (which is actually doublethink in in the real world) that “Republicans” in the USA get painted as national socialists any time any one of them expounds social conservative anything.
If Russell Kirk defined conservatism as what is not left-wing and omitted the opposing “right wing” term, he was on to something, I do have to say. But first you have to define what indeed is left-wing and be honest about it; and anything that incorporates atheistic socialism can simply not and never be “conservative” or “right wing”.
I remember when I was stationed in country . . . Bong Bong was a wild man back then. I hope he’s changed his ways or the country may be in for a rough ride.
My hunch is that the people love Duterte and is the tough man that they can respect.
Franco was apolitical, with two goals: To live and die in a Catholic Spain, and to bring peace to Spain. He accomplished both; while the US fought in Vietnam, Britain in Kenya, Aden, and Malaya, France in Indochina and Algeria, Portugal in Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau - Spain had peace. The first goal prevented the radical 1960s from impacting Spain; the leftist mess there today is the result of the 1960s happening over a decade later.
The “welfare state” imposed by Franco (certainly nothing like that we run here) was the result of his realization that the desperation of the working poor had to be addressed. He understood the danger while fighting an enemy composed of people with “nothing to live for, and nothing to die for”; average people needed a stake in the country.
Today we are seeing that play out here in the US not just in the urban ghettos, but with the increasing number of young people who will never breed or settle down to mortgage payments. The left uses them well for street theater, but both sides understand the danger of this growing segment completely removed from the day-to-day activity of this country. They felt they could afford having 13% of this country sit on the sidelines producing nothing; that number is much higher now.
It depends on what you mean by apolitical. One could say he was non ideological, in some ways of thinking vs the stuff we talk about in the US these days. He certainly backed a state church and traditional social values.
Franco’s welfare system was and is fully European style, much more so than the US even now, with a British NHS type medical system, extended unemployment cover, vast public housing estates, etc. And this all was after their Civil War, fully developed in the 1960’s.
“The success of the stabilization program was attributable to a combination of good luck and good management and the impressive development during this period was referred to as the “Spanish miracle”. Between 1959 and 1974, Spain had the next fastest economic growth rate after Japan. The boom came to an end with the oil shocks of the 1970s and government instability during the transition back to democracy after Franco’s death in 1975.”
“Good luck”? No bias there.
Bong bong (who is 60 now) hasn’t been a wild man for a long time. On the other hand he hasn’t got a reputation for anything but his name. It’s the name, Marcos, that matters in this case, for supporters or opponents.
I credit Opus Dei and Basque bankers for the Spanish “miracle”.
So is Chevy’s career.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.