← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · triskelion
Thread ID: 6586 | Posts: 4 | Started: 2003-05-10
2003-05-10 02:34 | User Profile
Bread and Justice by Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera Well then: if communism puts an end to many good things, such as family attachments and national sentiment; if it provides neither bread nor freedom and makes us subservient to a foreign country, what is to be done? We are not going to resign ourselves to the continuation to the capitalist regime. One thing today is painfully obvious: the crisis of the capitalist system and its devastating consequences which communism is doing nothing to attenuate. What is to be done, then? Are we in a cul-de-sac? Is there no way of placating the hunger of the masses for bread and justice? Do we have to choose between the desperation of the bourgeois regime and the slavery of Russia? No. The National Syndicalist Movement is convinced that it has found the right way out: neither capitalist nor communist. Faced by the individualist economy of the bourgeoisie, the socialist one arose, which handed over the fruits of production to the State, enslaving the individual. Neither of them have resolved the tragedy of the producer. To address this issue let us erect the synicalist economy, which neither absorbs the individual personality into the State, nor turns the worker into a dehumanized cog in the machinery of bourgeois production. The national syndicalist solution is the one which promises to bear the most fruit. It will do away once and for all with political go-betweens and parasites. It will free production from the financial burdens with which finance capital overwhelms it. It will overcome the anarchy it causes by putting order into it. It will prevent speculation with commodities, guaranteeing a profitable price. And, above all, it will pass on the surplus value not to the capitalist, not to the State, but to the producer as a member of his trade union. And this economic system will make a thing of the past the depressing spectacle of unemployment, slum housing, and misery.[ââ¬Â¦] Workers! Comrades! Decisive moments are approaching. No one can stand back with his arms folded. The fate of everyone is in the balance. Either the workers, forcefully, implacably, will put an end to the capital and join the National Syndicalist Movement to impose a regime of national solidarity, or internationalism will turn us into stooges of some foreign great power. The National Syndicalist Movement, conscious that it has strength and reason on its side, will keep up the assault on all its enemies: the right, the left, communism, capitalism. For Fatherland, Bread, and Justice. We are sure to win. It is essential in interest of both the producers and the nation. We will impose a new order of things, without people starving, without professional politicians, without bosses, without usurers, without speculators. Neither right, nor left! Neither communism nor capitalism! A national regime. The National Syndicalist regime! Long live Spain!
2003-05-10 03:38 | User Profile
Hey, that Jose guy seems familiar.... :D
2003-05-14 07:57 | User Profile
You are right that Franco and De Rivera never got along but ironicly enough Franco's regime was for quite some time basically a revisting of the regime of Jose Antonio's father General Miguel Primo de Rivera who rulled Spain from '25 to '30 in a very traditional autocracy. This is funny because Jose Antonio spent a lot of time attempting to defend his father's record while pushing a radically differant agenda.
Franco was never friendly to the Monarchists (which were for a while were represented by the Carlists within the regime) or the Falangists and while he payed lip serice to corporatism he had no interest in making it a reality. The Franco regime was interested in upholding the traditional role of the Church (althought the Church turned against him in the '50s), preventing a communist revolution and maintaining a traditional social structure (which he failed to do as the economy followed the European wide trends of business in the '50s) as he adopted free market dogma.
He gradually turned against his coalition partners so as to dominate the regime alone as early as the late late '40s. Numerous Carlist and Falangist coups were attempted but they all failed resulting in those factions being purged.
The Franco regime was called Fascist simply because the leftist establishment objected to it's conservative nature.
The Falangists were not Fascist (nor are the numerous groups using that name that exist to day) in the Italian of French sense of the term. They had very differant ideas about National Syndicalism, the Church and no interest in imperialism. If I can get some stuff translated you can see the differance between Fascism and the Falangist outlook.
2003-05-15 01:18 | User Profile
Franco supported quasi - corporaist like structures at first because the the Falangists and Carlists demanded it. I think at some level he was receptive to the ideas behind corporatism as the Church advocated it and I think he knew in some sense that the outlook helped maintain traditional social values. In the end, his grasp of such things were shallow so he simply used the faux corporate structures as a way to dole out patronage. As he slowly forced out the Carlists and Falangists he also slowly dumped his mostly hollow corporatism. His adoption of capitalism was basically by default.
As the Falangism it was radically differant then Italian and French Fascism outside of a basic rejection of parlimentarianism, a love of traditionalism (which held differant implications to both) and a support of corporatism (which differed greatly in both theory and practice) so in the end they differed about as much as I do from Buchanan.
Franco and his supporters represented his own faction, the Falangists that followed Jose Antonio another, the Church still another faction and the Carlists a forth. None of them were uncritical supporters of the Italian model and they all held the NSDAP regime with varying degrees of hostility although they supported it to different extents as they saw it as means to halt the growth of the USSR.
If all the factions, save Franco's clique, were close to any one outlook it would have been Charles Maurras's outlook in broad stroke.