Explain

explain

The spanish republicans were openly slaughtering Catholic clergy during the civil war. Franco turned out to be like the mildest dictator of the whole 20th century.

Catholics are natural fascists

Based Father Coughlin telling it like it is.
>Why didn't we listen?

>Franco wins
>succesfully keeps marxists and agitators at bay for his entire reign
>dies
>Fulfills every monarchists wet dream and reinstates Monarchy
>king says "fuck this" and makes it a democracy

Is there anything more JUST?

>Soviet Union bankrolling Communists and Anarchists
>Republicans just roll over and fucking die, or join the Commies and Anarchists
>Commies and Anarchists establish "utopia": Armed forces roam the countryside like bandits raping, looting, murdering, and commandeering goods and money
>Eventually they come to a conundrum: On one hand, those who have internalized Communism/Anarchism the most want to be referred to as Officers. On the other hand, everyone is equal, so there should be no ranks or hierarchy and everyone should be called "Comrade"
>The Anarchist/Communist forces immediately begin to murder each other over this minor issue of terminology
.
.
.
>Franco and the Fascists just kind of sit there watching the Anarchists/Communists implode in a virtue signalling death spiral
>Eventually get bored, at which point they just march on into the occupied villages and towns, mop up the Anarchists/Communists that didn't kill each other, and are hailed as heroes by the locals

>Franco
>fascist
"No." He allied with fascists but wasn't one himself.

Is this a peek into what's in store for the future

As a monarchist this always kind of troubled me, what if a monarch goes full retard. And by that I don't mean just being incompetent or malevolent, but abolishing monarchy altogether? Like that one dipshit in Nepal who offered his country to the Maoists who then broke every promise they've given him.

>Conservative, totalitarian nationalist emphasizing a strongly militarized society wasn't a fascist.

Man, it's amazing that you split those hairs.

It does make me wonder who the king was talking to at the time Franco was ruling.

He must of been in contact with western forces who were convincing him to abdicate or switch to democracy after he takes over

This should address to you the fundamentally flawed nature of your beliefs.

why do i have the feeling this cuck is somebody who argues that certain communist states weren't true communist

Even by their own definitions they weren't, they were at the intermediary stage of socialism. Fascism however isn't bound by clear definitions, it in fact doesn't have any intellectual spine to speak of.

Well but everyone could ask the same question, not just monarchists. Like democrats, what if someone is democratically elected and then abolishes democracy? Because Hitler did exactly that.

>hitler
>elected

>when its my retarded ideology, it wasn't true communism
>when it's the ideology I don't like, it was fascism

kys

Hitler wasn't democratically elected.

Democrats also typically propose a series of checks and balances to prevent them from doing something like that. But the type of absolute monarchist that would consider themselves a monarchist these days couldn't propose something similar as it would defeat the initial purpose.

I'm not a communist, and no socialist state has ever met the definition of communist (all property held in common). And Franco meets the loose standard for what qualifies as a fascist.

>no socialist state ever met the definition of socialism that I keep changing every time socialism fails

Franco was certainly not a fascist, he was anti communist because communist shitheads started a civil war in his country and then lost. Then when they lost they started shouting le fascism

You're forgetting the Catholic Church remained especially strong in Spain. The Inquisition was abolished relatively late there, and even afterwards, remained a large landowner presiding over peasants, naturally incurring their wrath. Furthermore, Catholic clergy sided directly with ruling class interests, often providing strikebreakers when needed and even organizing some of the right-wing terror squads that operated in the countryside (Juan Soldevilla y Romero, the ultra-reactionary Cardinal Archbishop of Saragossa, was murdered by anarchists in revenge for his role in financing and recruiting assassins to gun down union organizers during this period). Don't forget the clergy vehemently opposed anything deemed "Progressive" for back then: higher wages for industrial workers, unions, women's rights, betterment of the education system, etc.

In fact, I'd have to say the anti-clericalism of the period is completely understandable, given Spain's history and relationship with the Church.

Bait.

But "checks and balances" are ultimately undemocratic and kind of make democracy a self-contradicting ideology.

>power is derived from will of the people
>people elect someone who wants to abolish democracy
>therefore, we must create enough checks and balances that would prevent them from doing that
>there are constitutional barriers that prevent people from electing who they want, therefore it's not about people's will at all
Americans ran into the same problem in South Vietnam. The majority of the population wanted to vote for Ho Chi Minh, who was certainly no democrat, so they literally barred people from voting for him with the justification of "protecting democracy", it's completely absurd.

I already said they were socialist. Socialism is a very loose term that refers to a broad range of ideologies all concerned with addressing the problems of labor. They however were not communist.

>Franco was certainly not a fascist, he was anti communist because communist shitheads started a civil war in his country and then lost. Then when they lost they started shouting le fascism

First off, the right started the civil war with an attempted coup. Second he absolutely was a fascist, since he meets the definition. He was a conservative totalitarian nationalist that emphasized a heavily militarized state.

>the church wuz oppressin us and shiet

nottu dissu shitto agen

>But "checks and balances" are ultimately undemocratic and kind of make democracy a self-contradicting ideology.

You're making a basic error in assume the ideology of your average democrat is democracy. It's liberalism, and the idea behind the checks and balances is ensuring that liberty, not democracy, is maintained.

>onservative totalitarian nationalist that emphasized a heavily militarized state.

We talking about Franco or Stalin here

Nah, it's easily rectified by mandating that the monarch cannot abdicate without establishing a clear and legitimate successor.

It was, you reactionary idiot.

Ah, now we're getting to the grey area. Stalin was socially conservative, but the fundamental ideological underpinning of his ideal was different. He still advocated for many of the progressive ideals of Marxism-Leninism; his stated aim being still to establish socialism and eventually communism. Whereas a truly conservative politician is just trying to maintain a specific ideal status-quo.

Then you don't have an absolute monarchy.

Moreover, how do you plan to enforce this?

>He was a conservative totalitarian nationalist that emphasized a heavily militarized state.
Fascism by definition isn't conservative, it's extremely modernist. Some intelliguanas even coined the term "reactionary modernism" because fascism borrows from reaction when it comes to style but remains modernist and progressive in its core, which makes it far more modernist than reactionary.

Franco was just an old word order reactionary, a relict of a bygone era, the last counter-enlightement politician. Nothing right of him but the wall, fascists were actually to his left.

Good point actually. But then they cannot really call themselves democrats.

>And Franco meets the loose standard for what qualifies as a fascist.

Only because you allow Marxists to define fascism for you, rather than actual fascists.

Stalin is literally Hitler if you replace the Jews with the Kulaks. He even genocided 6 million of them!

This "he was an authoritarian so hes a fascist" meme needs to fucking go

>Fascism by definition isn't conservative, it's extremely modernist.

That was never actually a core of its ideals, and they flipflopped on it quite regularly.

As I said earlier, fascism does not have an intellectual spine the same way Marxism, Liberalism, or Anarchism do.

>Good point actually. But then they cannot really call themselves democrats.

They can in so far as they consider democracy to be the preferable means by which they decide things in government.

Who said anything about absolute monarchy?

Fascists were never able to create a consistent definition, because it wasn't an intellectual movement.

Most monarchists. You don't see people calling themselves monarchists to champion constitutional monarchy these days.

What kind of wacky monarchists are you hanging around?

The Veeky Forums kind.

>not an intellectual movement
lol
As opposed to what exactly?

>That was never actually a core of its ideals, and they flipflopped on it quite regularly.
Fascism originated in national syndicalism and socialism (Mussolini and Hitler both started out as socialists), then slowly gravitated to the right until it basically became radical centrism. They're too left to be considered right and too right to be considered left, basically.

>anarchism
>intellectual spine
That's such a poor bait I have trouble dignifying it with a proper reply.

>They can in so far as they consider democracy to be the preferable means by which they decide things in government.
If they're willing to sacrifice democracy in the name of liberty, then they're no democrats.

Anarchism, Liberalism, and Marxism. Which all had a clear intellectual spine owing to their drawing from a fairly specific source each (respectively, Proudhon, Locke, and Marx).

Fascism had intellectuals, but they were each trying to paint their own picture of it without drawing from a common source, so it wound up taking a form specific to each country it manifested in, requiring that outsiders define it by what each movement had in common in their practices.

>That's such a poor bait I have trouble dignifying it with a proper reply.

Proudhon. Both the social anarchists and individualist anarchists considered themselves to be drawing from his work.

>If they're willing to sacrifice democracy in the name of liberty, then they're no democrats.
>requiring absolute ideals for your definitions rather than practices

How's highschool?

>Both the social anarchists and individualist anarchists considered themselves to be drawing from his work.
Well yes, and since we know trees by their fruit, we can safely conclude Proudhon was pretty garbage.

>How's highschool?
Projecting? I'm 30.

>Well yes, and since we know trees by their fruit, we can safely conclude Proudhon was pretty garbage.

That's not really the point I'm trying to get at. The quality of the particular spine is irrelevant, what matters is that it had some clear intellectual roots and thus a clear definition. You can tell at a glance what is and is not anarchism, because it draws from a common source.

>Projecting? I'm 30.

Well, they do say growing up is optional.

>passive aggressive implications

hi r.eddit

>That's not really the point I'm trying to get at. The quality of the particular spine is irrelevant, what matters is that it had some clear intellectual roots and thus a clear definition. You can tell at a glance what is and is not anarchism, because it draws from a common source.
Right. I think your criticism stems from the fact anarchism is theory-based while fascism is practice-based. This is also a reason why anarchism can only work in theory.

>Well, they do say growing up is optional.
True, learning to ignore intellectual lightweights with reddit spacing will be a next step towards my maturity.

>Right. I think your criticism stems from the fact anarchism is theory-based while fascism is practice-based. This is also a reason why anarchism can only work in theory.

Fascism isn't really based in anything except common despotism and nationalism.

>complains about reddit spacing

I'd bet my left testicle I've been here longer than you. Go complain about proper formating of a paragraph elsewhere.

>Fascism isn't really based in anything except common despotism and nationalism.
Defining fascism as basically any authoritarian regime that's left of Lenin is intellectually dishonest and only serves as a tool to label your political enemies. I'd say fascism has three pillars: authoritarianism, corporatism and modernism. If it doesn't check on all threes then it's not really fascism.

>I'd bet my left testicle I've been here longer than you.
Betting something you don't have seems meaningless. I'd bet your right testicle that you definitely weren't here before 2008.

>Defining fascism as basically any authoritarian regime that's left of Lenin is intellectually dishonest and only serves as a tool to label your political enemies

Thank you for this

I think you meant to type "right of lenin"

Indeed I did.

Franco wasn't a Fascist. He could be described as conservative, traditionalist, authoritarian, nationalistic. None of these things are exclusive to Fascism (which is an ideology which focus on the state above all else).

I strict exactly is "authoritarian" in this context? Using a looser definition it seems like modern Japan could be described as fascist using these pillars. Japan most certainly is not fascist. I'd add another pillar to clear it up.

Didn't the US make a point of making Japan be lightly fascist to counter possible communist influence though?

Is modern Japan authoritarian? They are a western-style democracy as far as I know.

The republican government took lands and privileges back from the church. Later when the war started, the commies burned down churches and convents across the country. They didn't like it.

>Defining fascism as basically any authoritarian regime that's left of Lenin is intellectually dishonest and only serves as a tool to label your political enemies.

But I never once did this. Franco was socially conservative, totalitarian, and militaristic. Traits found in every single fascist state.

>I'd say fascism has three pillars: authoritarianism, corporatism and modernism. If it doesn't check on all threes then it's not really fascism.

Then you'd wind up excluding a bunch of states and organizations that called themselves fascist quite explicitly.

>Betting something you don't have seems meaningless.

Oh snap!

>I'd bet your right testicle that you definitely weren't here before 2008.

I hate to say it, but I've been here since 2006.

It depends. Its a very conservative place despite being a liberal democracy. Its definitely corporatist and modern.

how are you defining authoritarian?

>Traits found in every single fascist state.
These traits were found in practically every state before the revolutions in the 1700s and most after even still.

>Franco was socially conservative, totalitarian, and militaristic. Traits found in every single fascist state.
And also in Stalinist Russia and more or less the entire Warsaw Pact.

>Then you'd wind up excluding a bunch of states and organizations that called themselves fascist quite explicitly.
Such as? But nevertheless, your arguments are devoid of any kind of logical consistency. First you argued it doesn't matter what "fascists" called themselves, now you're acting like self-identification is important. Decide.

>I've been here since 2006
I somehow doubt it.

>Franco was socially conservative, totalitarian, and militaristic. Traits found in every single fascist state.

That doesn't mean he was a fascist though. That's like saying
>Stalin was a human being with a heart, lungs, and spleen. Organs found in every democracy

Actually totalitarianism and the obsessive focus on militarism were pretty uncommon. Totalitarianism was found pretty much only in 20th century ideologies, in fact.

Prior to that, the idea that every action and thought of the citizenry was a matter of state importance wasn't really a thing.

>And also in Stalinist Russia and more or less the entire Warsaw Pact.

See >Such as? But nevertheless, your arguments are devoid of any kind of logical consistency. First you argued it doesn't matter what "fascists" called themselves, now you're acting like self-identification is important. Decide.

It is when you're trying to define a movement from the outside. A bunch of states called themselves fascist without a clear intellectual spine, so outsiders were forced to define them by their unifying features, which happened to included Franco in the definition, by being a fascist in everything but name.

>I somehow doubt it.

You started it. I'm an oldfag, and you're newfag cancer.

>umm they called themselves fascists that must mean they're fascists
>but the USSR? NOT TRUE COMMUNISM

What did the pinko mean by this?

Oh, I forgot the "such as?" part. Cleric fascism would be right out in that definition you used.

The fact that property wasn't held in the common in the USSR. It was a socialist state, but not a communist one.

I'm not sure why the right wing here has such a problem with words.

I know that, and I agree with you, but R E A L L Y makes you think why this guy has double standards

>being a fascist in everything but name
The only fascist thing about Franco was that he allied with fascists against the communists. Considering fascism is very modernist and Franco's core ideas revolved around completely rejecting modernity, it would be pretty odd to label him a fascist.

>You started it. I'm an oldfag, and you're newfag cancer.
I can only provably date my posts to 2010 because that's as far as archives go with my old tripcancer. Your move to prove you've been here longer.

I agree with that guy, as in, Franco is a hispanic caudillo, not very different from Latin American dictators of the XIX century that preceded Fascism, for example Rosas of Argentina.

Catholic nationalism with dictators is something older than Fascism.

Franco is much more similar to the Catholic Dictator o Austria assasinated by the Nazis, Dolfuss, than to Hitler or Mussolinni, who werent Christians in any way.
Portugal also had a very similar guy for decades, Salazar.

What double standards? The USSR doesn't meet the basic definition, whereas Franco's government does meet the basic description of fascism.

>Considering fascism is very modernist and Franco's core ideas revolved around completely rejecting modernity, it would be pretty odd to label him a fascist.

But fascism isn't universally modernist. Most fascist governments were explicitly conservative historically speaking. Clerical fascism was expressly anti-modernist.

>I can only provably date my posts to 2010 because that's as far as archives go with my old tripcancer. Your move to prove you've been here longer.

Haha! You think I give a shit. I don't need to prove dick shit to you. You're the only who started accusing me of being from Reddit because I properly space my paragraphs. No, you started this game, but I have no interest in playing it. Get an assessment of your priorities going here: you're a 30 year old man who considers your authenticity to an anonymous imageboard to be something of import; you are quite possibly the single most pathetic person I've met here.

Dolfuss was expressly fascist.

he btfo red scum

anarchists are neat except for the whole murdering priests and nuns thing, but they should have never trusted the commies

>explain

Religions are not exempt from errors in judgement, just like any other human institution.

>authoritarianism = fascism

you are uneducated

>But fascism isn't universally modernist.
It explicitly is.

>Haha! You think I give a shit. I don't need to prove dick shit to you.
You sound quite incensed just because you got outed as redditor. Just don't pretend to be from here and we're cool.

Fascism isn't conservative you dumb cuckold

>German empire was fascism
>Soviet Union was fascism
>Baroque absolutist monarchies were fascism
>everything is fascism
Kill yourself.

>murdering nuns

How scum do you have to be to do this shit

>It explicitly is.

Except it isn't. Again, your definition would exclude both clerical fascism and Austrofascism.

>You sound quite incensed just because you got outed as redditor. Just don't pretend to be from here and we're cool.

Whatever helps you sleep man. I'm not a 30 year old man who plays at being an authoritarian hardass while considering my credentials on an anonymous anime imageboard to be something of import. Regardless of what you say, I know for a fact these words are registering with you.

>I don't understand the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

I know, it's unreasonable of me to expect a History and Humanities board to understand basic political terminology and ideas.

Name ONE thing that isn't fascism.

Pharisaical Judaism

>Except it isn't. Again, your definition would exclude both clerical fascism and Austrofascism.
Clerical fascism is not really a thing though, it's a term created by a butthurt democratic conservative to label Catholics who supported Mussolini. It's more of a slur than anything, on par with calling someone a Judeo-Bolshevik.
Austrofascism is more interesting and peculiar because it's a genuine synthesis of fascism and Catholic reaction. But as a syncretic ideology they're just on the opposite spectrum of NazBol.

>I'm not a 30 year old man who plays at being an authoritarian hardass
You're a secular liberal normalfag redditor, that much is known. You're the outsider here.

the definition of communist is literally impossible to achieve, and is used as a false promise by those who seek power for themselves

how have you not seen this yet?

Mussolinism.

>a large landowner presiding over peasants, naturally incurring their wrath

the peasants were the ones fighting with the Nationalists, most were agriculturists and monarchists.

it was the city folks, miners, and intelligentsia that revolted.

the same goddamn thing happened in the French Revolution.

Leftist logic is that nothing is really communism while everything is really fascism.

Russian revolution too.

>Austrofascism is more interesting and peculiar because it's a genuine synthesis of fascism and Catholic reaction. But as a syncretic ideology they're just on the opposite spectrum of NazBol.

Austrofascism is a fascist ideology and your definition excludes it, proving your definition to be garbage.

>that much is known

Romans 1:22

>the definition of communist is literally impossible to achieve, and is used as a false promise by those who seek power for themselves

holy shit whoever set this ideology up is a genius. create an intentionally ambiguous definition that leads to power seeking and if/when you fail you can always try again because it wasn't the "true ideal"

communism is truly diabolical.

>Austrofascism is a fascist ideology and your definition excludes it, proving your definition to be garbage.
It's syncretic on the right side of the spectrum, much like NazBol is syncretism of the left side of the spectrum. If NazBol embrace some tenets of communism, it doesn't mean that fascism = communism. I really think you're out of your depth here.

>Romans 1:22
Your reddit is showing.

>It's syncretic on the right side of the spectrum, much like NazBol is syncretism of the left side of the spectrum. If NazBol embrace some tenets of communism, it doesn't mean that fascism = communism. I really think you're out of your depth here.

I really think you're a fucking idiot here. Because Austrofascism is a fascist ideology that draws straight from Italian fascism. It's not syncretic; it's just unique to the particular culture, as literally every fascist movement was, which is why it required definition from an outside source.

National Bolshevism is just an offshoot of National Socialism (which itself is just fascism unique to Germany).

>Your reddit is showing.

Matthew 16:2-3

It seems literally everything is proof of Reddit to you.

A simple illustration of what I mean, if my previous post wasn't clear enough. Austrofascism absolutely is syncretic.

>It seems literally everything is proof of Reddit to you.
You reek of reddit more than anyone I've seen all day. Complete with the random fedora dropping of Bible verses.

Not true. Many peasants rejected both the Whites and Reds, forming either the Greens or Blacks that sought to primarily defend their own lands and homesteads rather than enforce an ideology.

Monarchists are a special kind of cuck. Nobody was born a noble in primitive societies. You made yourself a noble by leading the people in the middle of struggle and hardship. In this sense Franco, Mussolini, are nobler than any would be monarch then and today. Giving away political power to a pampered playboy just because he happened to be the great great great son of a monarch is beyond cuckoldry. No. Nietzsche got it right. The most noble were often the most brutal.

Check 'em.

>A simple illustration of what I mean, if my previous post wasn't clear enough. Austrofascism absolutely is syncretic.
>this unsourced JPG proves my point

Ok then. Why don't you try that one in a political science course?

Strasserism is not syncretic in the slightest, it was a completely independent ideology. Neither was Austrofascism, which as I said, drew directly from Italian fascism, specifically Giovanni Gentile. It just placed religion and social conservatism as important values.

You are on this stupid tangent because you refuse to abandon your retarded definition that would get you laughed out of a university.

>You reek of reddit more than anyone I've seen all day. Complete with the random fedora dropping of Bible verses.

Okie dokie then. Once again, you're a 30 year old man, who is obsessed with what site someone hails from. Let me ask you: what was your father doing at this age? Is he proud of you?

You are, also, wrong, still, but I can't prove that.

>You reek of reddit more than anyone I've seen all day. Complete with the random fedora dropping of Bible verses.
>only redditors reference the bible

cuck numbers