Fascism and Antifascism: Yesterday and Today
Navarro, Vicente, Monthly Review
I salute the organizers of this week's events for choosing the theme of fascism as the major topic for our deliberations. Fascism is again on the rise on both sides of the Atlantic and we all need to understand what fascism is, why it appears, and how it manifests itself We need to understand that, contrary to what we are told by the U.S. media, fascism is not an extreme development, limited in time and place, that occurred a long time ago. Quite the contrary. Fascism is extended, generalized, and exists everywhere. But it is good that you chose the Spanish Civil War, as the proper terrain for discussing the nature of fascism and, equally important, of antifascism. We are just celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War, the only popular war - and the only antifascist war - that the United States has ever fought. It is quite fitting, therefore, that in the midst of this year - long celebration, we dedicate at least a few days to an understanding of the prologue to that war: the Spanish Civil War.
During this week we have seen several movies about the Spanish Civil War, including Tierra y Libertad ("Land and Liberty") by Ken Loach, one of the best and most progressive film directors in the English-Speaking world. His movies Poor Cow, Family Life, Kes, Hidden Agenda, Riff-Raff, and Raining Stones deserve to be classics. His most recent film Tierra y Libertad, which we have just seen, was hailed at the Cannes Film Festival of 1995 as one of the best movies of the year. We have also seen the classic film For Whom the Bell Tolls, based on Hemingway's novel, and the excellent The Good Fight, an epic saga about the U.S. citizens who joined that struggle for a better world. I want to salute you for keeping history and hope alive. It fills me with great joy that you, representatives of the youth of this country, want to learn from this important page in human history.
During this week of study, I have felt somewhat uncomfortable, however. It is characteristic of this week's films, and indeed of all the literature, movies, plays, and cultural expressions about the Spanish Civil War known in the Anglo-Saxon world, that the main characters are usually non-Spaniards, with true Spaniards relegated to the background. As a Catalan and a Spaniard, I feel somewhat used. It is as if the authors and film makers wanted to make a point and chose Spain to make it. Yet although it is the Spanish people who make their own history, that history is frequently narrated in the United States and United Kingdom by non-Spanish voices. There are many books, movies, plays, and documentaries produced by, written by, and featuring Spaniards who are unknown to English-Speaking audiences, Spaniards who are rarely mentioned or recognized in English-language history books. These are the people, like my father and another, my uncles and aunts, and millions of others like them, who were anarcho-syndicalists, communists, socialists, and Trotskyists, who fought and lost a war in Spain. After the war they continued fighting fascism. For some, like my uncles and aunts, the fight continued in France where they - the Spanish republicans - started the anti-Nazi resistance, the maquis, a fact that, incidentally, the French left has always been reluctant to accept. Many were caught, shot, or interned in concentration camps, where they died, escaped (as did one of my aunts), or were liberated (as was another aunt, who was liberated by an African-American division). Others, like my parents, stayed in Spain and were brutally persecuted and repressed by the fascist forces.
The voices of this generation of Spaniards are unknown in the history to which you have been exposed, of which this week has been a good representation-but this ignorance has a cost. What I want to do today is to present their point of view, the point of view of antifascism, because it is extremely important for you to understand not only fascism, but also antifascism. There is an urgent need to organize against the enormous threat of fascism and to do so, we need to learn from what others have done in the past. The reality of the antifascist struggle is more complex than the version presented here this week or in the English-language literature. Let me give you two examples.
First, we have the excellent movie by Ken Loach, Tierra y Libertad As expected, the two main characters are not Spaniards; they are an Englishman and an American, both members of their countries' Communist parties. Both joined a battalion of anarcho-syndicalists and Trotskyists which also included other antifascist forces. In the course of the war, two positions clearly appear: one is supported by the anarcho-syndicalists and Trotskyists (the POUM) who want a revolution right away before fascism is defeated, with peasants taking over land holdings and workers taking over the factories. The other is supported by socialist and Communist forces who want to focus all their effort on defeating fascism, leaving the revolution for a later stage after the war is won. Such a strategy requires a whole set of class alliances that the first strategy does not. So in pursuing this line, the Communists brutally repress the anarcho-syndicalists and Trotskyists, which outrages Loach's British Communist, who tears up his Communist Party card in disgust. The American, however, joins the international Communist-led battalions, the International Brigades, involved in the repression of the anarcho-syndicalists and Trotskyists. Actually, his battalion kills the only heroine, a Spaniard, who represents the revolution that was suppressed. Communism, and behind it, Stalin, is presented as the major force responsible for the defeat of both the revolution and die antifascist war. Ken Loach, whose political views are close to those of the Trotskyist tradition, chooses Spain and the Spanish Civil War to make his point: the Communist parties have been the long-term enemies of the revolutionary potential that existed in the West.
Loach should be applauded for denouncing the enormous sectarianism of what has been called Stalinism - the sectarian practices of many forces on the left, primarily Communist forces, that have used repression and manipulation rather than conviction to put forward their position. But it is important to make several distinctions and clarifications that Loach fails to make in his criticism of the Spanish Communist Party and of Stalin. First, Stalinism is a horrible sectarian practice that is not unique to the Communist parties. The anarcho-syndicalists and Trotskyists have had their own share in such practices. None other than George Orwell, whose book Homage to Catalonia inspired Loach's movie, denounced the heavy and provocative discourse and practice of the POUM. Trotsky himself and the Fourth International dissociated themselves from the Spanish Trotskyists, the POUM, criticizing them for their unruly practices, sectarianism, and excessive independence. Stalinism from all sources must be denounced. But the point needs to be made that sectarian practices were carried out not only by the Communists: many others did it as well.
The second point that needs clarification is that Loach uses the Stalinism of the Communist Party to discredit the position that the primary objective of the antifascist forces was to defeat fascism. Here again, even Orwell wrote that for a long time he
preferred the Communist point of view than that of the POUM. The Communists had a well-defined political fine, a better political line from a mere common sense point of view .... The pure revolutionary discourse of the POUM impressed me as futile. After all, the most important goal was to win the war.... I would have joined the International Brigades under Communist leadership.(1)
This letter was written a few months before the events narrated in the movie took place, specifically, before the infamous events of May 1937 when the Communists, fought the POUM and the anarcho-syndicalists in the streets of Barcelona while the incredulous popular classes watched in disgust. "Why don't you stop shooting each other, and shoot at the fascists instead?" a working-class woman asks of both sides in the movie. The paradox of the film is that it does not answer this key question. This was, after all, what the majority of the antifascists wanted. Loach can disagree with this position, but it is a very important question that deserved better treatment in the film. To see the defeat of the antifascists in Spain as the result of sectarianism and manipulation by the Communist Party and the international policies of Stalin is wrong. Even leading anarcho-syndicalists disagreed with that position. Stalin was rightly viewed by Spanish Trotskyists as their exterminator because he was carrying out in Spain the same repression of Trotskyists that he implemented in the Soviet Union. But the main theme of Loach's movie, the Stalinists-versus-trotskyists conflict, was a rather minor conflict in the whole European and Spanish scene. The Spanish war was much more than a conflict between these two traditions. It was a war between antifascist forces, mainly based in the working class, the peasantry, and other popular masses, and the oligarchy and capitalist class of Spain, supported by Hitler and Mussolini. Only Stalin supported the antifascist side and the antifascists welcomed and thanked Stalin for that. None other than the anarcho-syndicalist Federica Montseny, the best Minister of Health Spain has ever had (and who, along with La Pasionara, is one of the best-known women in Spanish history), wrote a eulogy for Stalin, thanking him for being the only leader to send arms to the Republican side.
But the most disappointing part of Loach's film is the virtual absence of a description and analysis of fascism. When Ken Loach was asked why he had chosen to make this movie at this time, he replied that he did it because of the current resurgence of fascism. Yet fascism barely appears in the movie. The premiere of Tierra y Libertad occurred in Barcelona just as the successors of the Francoist forces - the right-wing Popular Party (PP)-were winning most of the cities in Spain in the last regional and municipal elections on May 28 of this year. The PP is led by Jaime Aznar, grandson of the editor of what used to be a profascist newspaper, La Vanguardia of Barcelona. His grandfather signed editorials in which he applauded the killing of striking workers by the extremely brutal political police in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when I was a student at Barcelona University. Jaime Aznar protested in 1982 when the city of Guernica, destroyed by Nazi bombers during the Spanish Civil War, removed the names of Franco and Jose Antonio (founder of the Fascist Party) from the major streets of that much bombed city when democracy was established in Spain.(2) An antifascist film should have demon strated the continuity between the fascists of yesterday and the newly discovered democrats of today. This is the most important task of antifascist intellectuals today, including yourselves: to see the linkage between yesterday's fascists and today's right-wing; to see how fascism persists, is expressed, and succeeds.
The victory of the PP was due to the massive abstention from the regional and municipal elections by the working class due to its discontent with the liberal economic policies of the socialist party, the PSOE. The only major city where the PP did not win was Barcelona, the site of the 1992 Olympics and most importantly, the city where Ken Loach's story takes place. In Barcelona, an alliance of socialists, communists, greens, and Catalan leftist republicans won the elections. Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, was the only region in Spain where the left did not lose. Their loss in the rest of Spain to some degree resulted from the sectarianism and struggles operating within the various traditions of the left. This sectarianism was absent in the Catalan left. Why? Because the fascist repression after the war was particularly brutal in Catalonia. Fascism was anti-catalan as well as anti-working class, the largest class in the most industrial section of Spain. Following the war depicted in Loach's movie, the fascist nightmare began in Catalonia and the antifascist forces united and collaborated in the underground. In that struggle, the Communist Party played a major role. My mother, an anarcho-syndicalist all her life, voted for the Communists in the first democratic elections in 1977 to thank them for their leadership in the antifascist struggle during the Franco regime. She told me, "The Communists redeemed themselves during the resistance." And a few months ago, following her death at the age of 96, militants of all left-wing political persuasions attended her burial. At one point during the ceremony, a leading trade unionist, a Communist, shouted, "Long live anarcho-syndicalists," and was joined by all present. What a pity Loach was not there! He would have seen that sectarianism can be transcended by a strong love for and commitment to the working people, and the realization that it is a handicap and an obstacle to their achieving liberation. It was the involvement in the antifascist struggle that forced out sectarianism. The most sectarian voices are often those that are not involved in real popular struggles.
Loach should have made an antifascist, not an anti-communist, movie. His anti-Stalinism has been used by the right wing in Spain. None other than La Vanguardia, having now converted to a democratic paper under the same ownership as when it was a pro-franco paper, has published positive reviews of Loach's film. Several articles in La Vanguardia concluded that fascism may have been necessary to stop what was even worse, communism. Today this position is widely held among large sectors of the European fight, in both its conservative and its liberal traditions.
Which leads me to the second point I want to make, that is, the class nature of fascism. It is important not to forget that fascism is a class response to a threat. It is the capitalist class's defense of its interests against the threat of the working class when, using its democratic rights, this class gains political space to the point of questioning the property rights on which capitalism is based and threatens the reproduction of the capitalist order. Fascism is a profoundly anti-working class, anti-Marxist, antidemocratic state which promotes a nationalistic, racist, and imperialist ideology. It denies the existence of class and class struggle, promoting instead the harmony of all interests in society, integrated within a corporatist state led by a fascist party. Foremost is the national interest, which supersedes any other corporatist interests, and the superiority of die nation whose subjects are considered to belong to a race superior to other races outside the state's boundaries (or inside its boundaries, such as in Spain, where Catalans and Basques were declared not true Spaniards). A whole set of discourses and practices are then promoted to support that ideological position. Blue shirts, the fascist salutes, the fascist liturgy, paraphernalia, and symbols, the call for an expansion of the empire, the admiration of physical force and violence, the need to keep the race pure, and so on - all are the symbols of fascism.
Recently some progressive historians have questioned this class interpretation of fascism. In his highly acclaimed book The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991, Eric Hobsbawm criticizes the left for holding on to a class view of fascism. In a much celebrated chapter, Hobsbawm denies that fascism is the response of the capitalist class under stress. He believes that fascism appears first, then once in power it is supported by the capitalist class in the same way that this class always supports those in power. Hobsbawm whites, "The point about really big business is that it can come to terms with any regime that does not actually appropriate it, and any regime must come to terms with it." Big business (the name used to define a critical component of the capitalist class) did not support the establishment of fascism, although later on it benefitted from and collaborated with fascism. The New Republic,(3) the New York Review of Books,(4) and many other publications have applauded this reinterpretation of fascism. And, interestingly enough, this chapter of Hobsbawm's book was the only one translated and published in the major Spanish press at that time. It is also the chapter in which Hobsbawm denies the fascist character of Franco's regime. Quoting Professor Lintz of Yale University, he considers the Franco regime an authoritarian but not a totalitarian regime in which the state was not a fascist state. This, incidentally, is also the thesis of the Spanish right.
Eric Hobsbawm, however, is wrong both in denying the class character of fascism and denying the fascist character of Franco's state. But first let me reiterate a point I made earlier concerning the problem of ignoring, in the account of the Spanish realities, the antifascist voices within Spain. Professor Lintz, the only source Eric Hobsbawm approvingly draws on in his book regarding this point, is a Spaniard who since the 1960s has worked at Yale University and who is profoundly anti-Marxist. During the 1960s and 1970s he worked to neutralize the burgeoning of Marxist thought at Spanish universities by introducing there the dominant liberal North American academic thought. He denied that the Franco regime had been or ever was a fascist state. Rather, it was a conservative authoritarian state with an apathetic populace that did not much care about politics. As proof of this depoliticization, Lintz referred to polls showing that people did not know the names of the Franco cabinet. For anyone who lived and suffered under the brutal Francoist repression, this definition of the Franco regime is plainly absurd. The enormous repression by that regime explains why people were afraid to participate in the only type of politics that was meaningful to them. The type of politics offered by the Franco regime was irrelevant to them. As the Spanish Marxist scholar Juan Martinez Alier wrote, in an excellent critique of Lintz first appearing in a publication in 1975,
a better way of measuring politicization would have been their [the Spanish people's] involvement in political strikes, the anti-Franco jokes, or their listening to the underground radio station. Who could have been able to ask these questions and who could have answered them under the Franco regime? This "apathetic" working class was the one who, by mobilizing, forced the fall of that regime. In the same period that the public was supposedly apathetic, there was in Spain the highest number of strikes in all of Europe.(5)
At the international level, Lintz became well known when he developed his famous notion of a dichotomy between authoritarian regimes (the right-wing dictatorships) and totalitarian regimes (the Communist regimes), used by the Reagan administration as a justification for supporting the former. Authoritarian regimes allow diversity and transform themselves into democracies. Totalitarian regimes do not. One would have thought that the events occurring since 1989would have discredited such a position.
But let me now answer Hobsbawm directly. The fascist regime in Spain was funded and supported by the major economic components of the Spanish capitalist class. There is plenty of Spanish literature and documentation, ignored by Hobsbawm, that proves that the major economic interests of Spain financed the Spanish fascist coup. A crucial source was the financial empire of Joan March, who had been a major founder of the Liberal Party and owner of the liberal paper La Libertad ("Liberty"). He was considered an exemplary entrepreneur, a modernizer, and an alternative to the oligarchic land-based reactionary sectors of capital. When their interests were affected the Socialist-led Republican government, however, and the working-class parties kept growing, March allied himself with the oligarchy and became the major financial supporter of that coup, along with his international friends, including Torkield Rieberg, president of the U.S.-based oil company Texas Company, who, with the permission of the U.S. government, supplied all the petroleum needed for the planes and ships that transported the fascist forces. Today Joan March's interests continue unchallenged in Spain and his financial empire supports one of the major liberal foundations in Spain, La Fundacion March, with the assistance and support of many U.S.-based scholars. Big business therefore supported the fascist regime from its very beginnings. These interests were the initiators of those movements! But they were not alone. The landowners and the majority of small business associations also supported and financed the fascist uprising and the fascist regime that followed. In the cities, these groups were also able to mobilize the middle classes and the professionals, who were distressed by the growing strength of the working class and the unsettling of the social order. Franco's famous fascist meetings with middle-class mobilizations always took place in the middle-class neighborhoods, never in working-class communities. These middle classes and business interests that had previously supported conservative and liberal parties were now in support of the fascist uprising and the fascist regime. The "liberal" as well is the conservative press became the fascist press.
And this is the most important point you need to know. Fascism is already present in the wounds of capitalism and liberal democracy. The fascist forces are already in existence under a democratic regime, parading themselves as democratic instruments. The so-called democratic press becomes the fascist press. The same press that paraded itself as democratic before Franco and after Franco was the fascist press under Franco. And the army that carried out the fascist coup was the army of the democratic state. It is terribly important that you grasp this. I have lived under a fascist regime for many years and, I assure you, I know how to recognize a fascist when I see one. And there are a lot of fascists parading themselves as democrats here in the United States. You recognize them by their profoundly anti democratic views, their racism, their imperialism, their anti-working-class position, their support for hierarchy and order. Look at many members of the U.S. Congress and you will recognize that discourse today.
Finally, as to the question of whether the Franco regime was fascist or not, the best answer was provided by Franco himself. He proudly declared himself a fascist and was the head of the fascist state.6 He was also the head of the fascist party to which all the functionaries owed their loyalty, from academic professors to mailmen. The national day was the Day of the Hispanic Empire and Spanish Race. Catalans and Basques were forbidden their own culture. As a child I was forbidden to speak my mother tongue, Catalan. A policeman would hit me, saying "Don't talk like a dog. Talk like a Spaniard. Use the language of our Empire!" Classes did not exist and to speak about class struggle was forbidden-much to the benefit of those who were practicing this struggle to their own great advantage, the capitalist class of Spain. Salaries were decided by national decree until 1968, when a general strike gave rise to highly regulated and decentralized collective agreements, led by the fascist unions. Until 1975, all university professors had to swear allegiance to the fascist party.
Today the right-wing party in Spain, led by Jaime Aznar, is a continuation of the Francoist right. Needless to say, there are also authentically democratic forces that are also on the right, but the majority of them would support a fascist regime again if the working-class parties made a serious attempt to transcend the capitalist order. They would rely on elements of repression, already existent in the Spanish state, that are a continuation of those that existed during the fascist regime.
We have a similar situation in the United States, although the absence of a fascist period in U.S. political history makes it somewhat difficult for you to observe and understand the fascist elements here. But the U.S. right has always been very close to the fascist right. The U.S. government and the Vatican were the major supporters of the Franco regime. President Eisenhower was the primary voice responsible for breaking with the international isolation of Franco's regime and President Nixon referred to Franco as a foremost defender of Western civilization. Today, admirers of Franco, Pinochet (a student of franco in the Spanish military academy), and D'Aubuiss6n (a creature of die CIA) are dictating national policies in powerful forums and committees of the U.S. Congress. This is why there is more urgency than ever to denounce elements of fascism in public discourse and practice in the United States, and for all antifascist forces to unite in this effort. In this struggle, the left-wing forces will need to transcend their sectarianism - the disease of the left - and unite in a broad front to protect and expand our democratic, economic, social, and political rights, which today are in deep peril of diminution and even extinction.
The papers and the evening news present us with a constant and growing tangle of stories in which the rather limited U.S. welfare state is being dismantled, the protection of workers, consumers, and our environment eliminated, and the civil rights of minorities and women diminished. These policies are advocated from within a dominant culture in which violence a la Rambo is glorified, racism and sexism are presented as scientifically based, and the average working person is officially regarded with contempt and considered undeserving of entitlements. These are fascist elements of a discourse that is presented as reasonable and democratic. Behind it lies an unprecedented aggression by the dominant and ruling classes of the country against the popular constraints on the realization of their interests. It is time for all the segmented and fragmented forces dispersed today, either in sectarian practices or in the post modernist discourse, to come to terms with this reality and rediscover the history of antifascism, learning from it and building upon it. There is a more urgent need than ever to establish a broad alliance of the working and popular classes with the social movements and democratic forces, to respond to class aggression and establish an antifascist front. That struggle did not end with the victory of the antifascist forces at the end of the Second World War. It must continue today at a time when fascism is growing again. The fact that fascism does not appear with die usual fascist paraphernalia should not mislead us. The positions it defends and the interests behind it are increasingly clear for all to see. You as young intellectuals should help make this clearer by informing others of the historical continuity between the past and the present. And as scientists, you should help to expose the reality behind the appearances and to fight the whole intellectual and cultural project that obfuscates that reality. This seminar has been a beautiful example of both. I salute you on that.
Editors' Comment on "Fascism and Antifascism"
Dr. Navarro argues persuasively that fascism came into the world in the 1920s and 1930s as capitalism's way of coping with the threat of revolution from below. He also tells us that "Fascism is again on the rise on both sides of the Atlantic, and we all need to understand what it is, why it appears, and how it manifests itself."
Does this imply that Dr. Navarro thinks that fascism is making a comeback today for the same reasons that it first appeared in the interwar years? He doesn't say so, and it seems unlikely that he thinks so. Capitalism triumphed on a global scale after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nowhere is it now threatened by revolution from below.
This poses a puzzling question that Dr. Navarro does not broach: what purpose might a resurgent fascism serve in the period that began around 1990 and must be assumed to have considerable staying power?
We have no pat answer, but we would like to suggest a line of reasoning that seems plausible and might act as a stimulus to further discussion and debate. Having conquered the world, capital, like a horse given its head, immediately began to act out its wildest dreams, firing workers, slashing wages, smashing unions, merging monopolies to make even bigger undermining welfare states, wiping out barriers to trade and capital movements, etc., etc. From capital's point of view the results have been wonderful: profits and stock markets have boomed: the rich have gotten richer even faster than during the Reagan-Thatcher years. But there is no coin without two sides. For the rest of society the main fruits of this capitalist orgy have been massive and increasing unemployment and monumental insecurity.
Two aspects of a dialectical process are at work here. Both seem to be set on inflexible tracks and their interaction has had only negative and destructive consequences. In these circumstances the rise of fascist elements and movements is certainly not surprising. But so far capitalism has had its way using existing institutions and procedures. As long as this remains possible, capital will have little incentive to encourage the organization and growth of fascism. At the same time it is important to recognize that a sort of advance guard advocating changes in existing institutions and procedures is present among numerous right-wing leaders and activists who find sympathy and encouragement in significant sectors of the capitalist class. These people are ready and anxious for the time to come when capital's attitude may change in their favor, perhaps rapidly and drastically.
Our second comment is of an entirely different kind; it has to do with the way antifascists, among whom we rank ourselves along with Dr. Navarro as seasoned veterans, can most effectively carry on their educational and political work.
As Dr. Navarro clearly recognizes, there were times in the past when sectarianism nullified attempts to build a unified antifascist movement. Learning from this experience, we should be very careful to avoid repeating it. We presume Dr. Navarro agrees with us on this. If so, we hope he will reconsider his sharp criticism of Eric Hobsbawm. Citing Hobsbawm's recent book, The, Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991, but not actually quoting from it, Dr. Navarro writes, "Eric Hobsbawm criticizes the left for holding on to a class view of fascism. In a much celebrated chapter, Hobsbawm denies that fascism is the response of the capitalist class under stress.... Eric Hobsbawm is wrong both in denying die class character of fascism and denying the fascist character of Franco's state."
In the same celebrated chapter cited by Navarro Hobsbawm writes: "The rise of the radical right after the First World War was undoubtably a response to the danger, indeed to the reality, of social revolution and working-class power in general, to the October Revolution and Leninism in particular. Without these there would have been no fascism.... The right-wing backlash responded not against Bolshevism as such, but against all movements and notably the organized working class, which threatened the existing order of society, or could be blamed for its breakdown" (Age of Extremes, pp. 124-125, emphasis added).
We don't want to get into a debate with Dr. Navarro about Eric Hobsbawm's interpretation of fascism. It is a very large and complicated subject about some aspects of which even people with the same politics are bound to have differences. All we want to suggest is that in an article espousing the antifascist cause, it would be entirely appropriate to cite Eric Hobsbawm as a long" time supporter. After all he has been prominently identified with the British and European left for more than half a century and no one has better antifascist credentials.
Author's note: On November 28, 1995, the Spanish Parliament granted Spanish citizenship to all members of the International Brigades in recognition of their contribution to the struggle for democracy in Spain. The motion was made by a joint proposal of socialists, communists, and Basque nationalists, and was approved by the Parliament.
(1.) Cited in M. Berga, "Loach, Orwell yel Thatcherismo," El Pais, 25 May 1995, edicion Catalan, p.2 (2.) "Aznar critica el cambio de nombres de calle," El Pais, 19 May l995, p.20. (3.) Eugene Genovese, "The Squandered Century," New Republic, 17 April 1995, p. 40. (4.) T. Judt,"Downhill All the way," The New York Review of Books, 25 May 1995, p. 20. (5.) J. Martinez Alier, "Notas sobre el Franquismo," Cuadernos de Ruedo Ibeno 43-45(1975). Published later in Papers: Revista de Sociologia 8 (1978). (6.) M. Vazquez Montalban, La Autobiografia del General Franco (Spain: Planeta, 1992).…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: Fascism and Antifascism: Yesterday and Today. Contributors: Navarro, Vicente - Author. Magazine title: Monthly Review. Volume: 47. Issue: 8 Publication date: January 1996. Page number: 14+. © 1999 Monthly Review Foundation, Inc. COPYRIGHT 1996 Gale Group.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.