Of the various actors involved in Spain’s reversion to democracy, I wouldn’t rate Franco, but that’s another topic.
On Eco’s list of features of fascism, I’d gloss the idea of opposition to modernism as more a matter of valuing the simplistic and grandiloquent over the complex, moderate and uncertain. Both fascists and nazis prized technological modernism, the cult of speed and of size - another form of extremism.
Franco, Mannerheim, Horthy. All authoritarians but not subscribers to the ideological fascist claptrap that was extrapolated from authoritarianism. They had to make their accommodations with Hitler, as Pilsudski and Attaturk would have to had if they’d lived long enough.
ETA: the Swedes and the Swiss were not authoritarians and managed to steer clear of Hitler by paying bribes, not blood.
The America-hating fuckstick said If you disagree with me, then you’re vermin.
(Someone should tell the dumb cluck dickhead
It sounds better in the original German)
OK, but to give credit where it’s due, I got that from Krugman, who credited Molly Ivins with coining it. I guess accidentally making it into a couplet was mine.
IIRC she was referring to Pat Buchanan’s speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, in which Pat mused about a “cultural war”, to “take back our nation”.
Both Bush and Quayle tried to distance themselves from that speech.
They’re both fascists. They haven’t yet succeeded in all of their goals, but it’s having those goals that makes them fascist. If you’re going to argue that you’re not an actual fascist until you’ve taken over totalitarian control of your country, then you’d have to conclude that there was only one fascist each in Germany, Italy, Japan, and Spain. Goebbels, Himmler, Goering? They didn’t rule Germany, so they weren’t fascists.
Well, have they publically espoused a desire or plan to take over totalitarian control of our country? or is that just what we think they would like to do?
I mean certainly there is the American Nazi party- they are fascists.