.
Today, April 14, the anniversary of the Second English Republic, I take to recover the lost text on the web, written from the script used for the lecture delivered at the CAUM (Club of friends of UNESCO in Madrid) in June 2007.
.
This is the second time afforded me to speak publicly about Franco. In the first, however, many years ago, the topic was addressed from a perspective very different: the daily life under the regime, seen through the narrative of war.
Today is about presenting a directly political approach, focusing mainly on the binomial Franco = religion. But now, as then, I must say that is not an issue to address with pleasure. It is a sad and gloomy period of our history, we are obliged to know and do not forget, for two basic reasons:
1) Overcoming definitely strong trappings of dictatorship that lives on in our endless "transition."
2) Doing justice to those who fought against Franco's brutal repression and / or who were victims of it.
To address the issue that concerns us, it must attempt an analysis, albeit very brief, to define what exactly the Franco regime, what are its defining features.
And the first challenge before us, taking the intellectuals, sociologists and historians who have addressed the issue, is the huge number of arguments in a debate still unresolved: is it really the dictatorship Franco's fascist regime? Or, put another way, fascism is the political model that best allows us to observe and understand this historical period?
I'm back to reviewing, preparing my presentation, some relatively recent reviews, such as José Felix Tezanos, Torres del Moral, Raúl Modoro, Salvador Giner, Jose Casanova, Alfonso Botti ... And I say "some" and not necessarily the most significant or most significant, which, together, brandish the full range argumentative about whether or not we are before we can define a regime as fascist.
Certainly, the issue is so complex that I will not try to bridge that discussion here. The arguments are many, their only exposure would be much more time than seems acceptable in an oral presentation, and the goal of this intervention is another. But I like to remember where you insert historically the emergence of a regime of this kind, which already has its precedents.
We must go back for it to liquidation of the ancien regime in France is produced in the late eighteenth century, and recoilless involves two effects:
1) The economic power moved definitively into the hands of the bourgeoisie, which moves in this order to the clergy and nobility.
2) The bourgeoisie is also made with the political power, and so unquestioned since the Revolution of 1848.
It is from this process in France and in other heavily industrialized areas of Europe, when the nineteenth century allows us to see the advent of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that has become reactionary and conservative and aimed at securing the oppression of the proletariat and avert the danger that it represents the high degree of organization attained by the labor movement.
In this process, which in France starts from the Consulate of Napoleon Bonaparte, ending the scope of the Revolution of 1789, we call it "Bonapartist" political.
However, "Bonapartist" as authoritarianism or dictatorship of a wealthy middle class, once an enemy of the aristocracy and the monarchy, and now on the defensive before a people who claim their enjoyment of the revolutionary gains, known in France at least two phases clearly differentiated
1) Napoleon I still can be seen from a dual perspective: that of the real settlement of the Old Regime or the authoritarianism which puts an end to the revolution.
2) The internal coup of Napoleon III, within the Republic emerged from the Revolution of 1848, leaves no place for these ambiguities. With the Second Empire, establishing a kind of dictatorship bourgeoisie that prefigures, in its essential political features, which will be the twentieth-century fascism, with the focus of attempts to stifle or destroy the revolutionary labor movement.
Recall that, in fact, 1848 is the date of publication of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Karl Marx, on the other hand, without using the term "fascist", which is not yet coined, described brilliantly in The 18 th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, the defining features of this second "Bonapartist" a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, traits that exaggerated manner, we find in fascism and Nazism of the twentieth century.
Well, in the case of Spain, despite the timid liberalism of the Constitution of 1812, 1868 and despite the fleeting passage of the First Republic, the bourgeois revolution was never realized: it was not in economic terms, much less in political terms.
insurgent forces that stand in 1936 against the Second Republic in Spain do still basically agricultural, where economic power is largely in the hands of the landowner and financial oligarchies (clergy and nobility, with little presence of the wealthy middle class) and where the industrial sector plays a minor role.
Nevertheless, as evidenced by the Constitutional Biennium of the Second Republic and the triumph Popular Front in the 1936 elections, labor and peasants, and all the progressive political forces of nature have reached the highest level of organization and mobilization that terrifies the above oligarchies.
Clearly, then, that the basic intention of the groups supporting the insurgency is not (at least not with a heavy weight) the establishment of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie of a fascist, just how are you are inspired the second "Bonaparte. Rather, it seeks the regression prerrepublicanas and pre-revolutionary stage.
But on the other hand, the degree of organization of labor and peasant in Spain promotes political action inspired by Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.
would therefore be useful to examine the occurrence of the different political families that make up the Franco regime to assess the importance that the fascist-inspired political project is in the regime, from the uprising and civil war to the death of the dictator.
In the existing schemes then in Italy (since 1922) and Germany (since 1933), is to avert the danger of the triumph of the Bolshevik Revolution and neutralize the revolutionary attempts of the proletariat in countries that already possess a high degree industrialization. And this is through a speech that supposedly beyond capitalism and communism, with a strong fanatical mass mobilization, within a one-party totalitarian state that controls not only the public sphere but also all the individual movements and society in the private sphere.
Both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism will be based on the paternalistic corporatism completely neutralizes the working class. And at the same time, will integrate those forces from the ancien regime that can provide significant support. In the case of Italy, Mussolini established the Vatican State and the temporal power of Pope, who had lost Pius IX. In the case of Germany, Hitler much with two religions that hold it in his rise to power: the Lutheran religion and the Catholic religion. As you know, Cardinal Pacelli, later Pius XII, signed the Concordat of 1933 which gives a lot of privileges to the Catholic Church.
In this sense, we have the precedent of the first "Bonapartist", when Napoleon Bonaparte, with the Concordat of 1801 (still in force in the three departments of Alsace-Moselle), returns to the church most of the privileges lost with the liquidation of the Old Regime. And, as then, where the triumph of the bourgeois revolution and does not backtrack, the Church is committed to the new tyranny of the conservative bourgeoisie. Pius XI and Pius XII are and will be, respectively, for a historical memory that does not falsify the undeniable reality, the parents of fascism and Nazism.
Still, there was always a series of frictions, both in the Italian system as in German, with the Church, which, despite their privileges, not satisfy their desire is that bishops are directly involved in policy decisions.
The case of Spain contains important differentiators. First, because the Franco regime was not established as a result of a mass movement comes to power through elections, and then eliminate democracy, but it emerges and is legitimized as "winners" of a civil war. The Popular Front created an imminent danger of revolution that warns all conservative sectors of English society, the oligarchy, the financial oligarchy and then the various reactionary political families. But these families opt for divergent political projects.
Since the beginning of civil war until the end of the Second World War in 1945, clearly the only force comparable to the Italian fascio are the Falange. The founder of the English Falange, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, proclaimed the beginning that his organization was founded to defend and honor the memory of his father. The theory of trade union corporatism is essentially Ramiro Ledesma, founder of JONS However, there are major contradictions in the political project of the Falange, with a program of land reform and industrial upgrading (of course, without political liberalism without ideas shown), feeds the nostalgia of Spain created by the Catholic Monarchs, the echoes of the Empire outdated and appeals to a political system that goes back to the sixteenth century, with all the paraphernalia as the yoke and arrows, along with love an outfit similar to the fascist (hence the shirt is blue) paramilitary organization and the constant appeal to the language of fists and guns.
The second family with an important role within the insurgent forces are the Carlist. Carlism, of course, is an anti-democratic force, but his political project has nothing to do with fascism. It is back to a traditional monarchy, opposed both to the parliamentary monarchy (in the style of Elizabeth II) and absolute monarchy (in the style of Fernando VII). Indeed, the traditional monarchy desired by the Carlist the king's power is limited by tradition and privileges, on the one hand, and by God on the other. All power emanates from God, and therefore, the monarch must be a faithful servant to their opinions.
The third family is the policy of monarchical regime Alfonso, who support the military uprising against the Republic with the intention to restore the Bourbon monarchy.
Finally, we might consider the military, whose obsession seems to be the unity of Spain
Fascism is therefore far from being the meeting point of the great political families who rise up against the Republic. The common ideology, really integrating element of the insurgent forces, is Catholicism. And that gives the English Catholic Church the true role what is known as "Rise." There are neither national syndicalism fascism political projects that best enable us to understand the framework of the regime, but precisely the nacionalcatolicismo, which at different stages of the Franco dictatorship given greater or lesser relevance to each of the main political families above.
God, Fatherland, the Nation as inseparable from God and the Church is the meeting place used by Franco for 40 years to ensure their personal power.
Upon the military coup of 1936 and, as a result thereof, the onset of civil war, the forces that make up what will be the Franco regime move in the context of a pre-war Europe, which already has lit the fuse of World War II. The National-bet, therefore, friendship with the Axis powers, so that cutting fascism Falange is the privileged expression of the insurgent groups.
civil war, we must not forget this, is legitimized as a crusade, with the blessing of the English Episcopal Conference and the blessing of the Vatican. Despite its privileged role in these moments, the decree of unification into a single party (Traditionalist English Falange de las JONS), which integrates with Falangists and Carlist monarchist and anti-republican right, subtraction forces to national syndicalism. Moreover, the role of this unique game in Spain is very different from their counterparts play in Italy and Germany. Franco is based more directly on the Church and the military to counterbalance the political power of trends grouped in the game, for the benefit of his personal power, it becomes unquestionable.
However, the intervention of the Italian Blackshirts in the war, the bombing of German aviation, fascist paraphernalia, and finally, sending the Blue Division to reinforce the Russian front, make the Spain of Franco, during civil war and during the early years of World War II, in a clear satellite Axis.
The first signs of distancing occur as early as 1942 with the dismissal of Serrano Suner and the statement of Spain as "non-belligerent." This rift deepens since 1944, when samples of defeating the Axis powers now seem undeniable. Franco's Spain happens to be a "non-belligerent country" to a "neutral country."
From the point of view of what life was like once finished the English civil war, the dismantling of the fascist paraphernalia will take many years to occur, but the political family composed of the smell and inconvenience Falangists and defeat.
At this time, although the only party never had control of a totalitarian political project, FET DE LAS JONS is relegated to the subsidiary role of social control and the exchange of privileges (hereafter speak of the "Movement "). The great benefit is, once again, the Catholic Church, with the agreement reached in 1941 reaffirmed its tight monopoly on morality, conscience and private life of each and every one of the English.
However, this change make-up as "neutral" is not accepted in the international arena in 1945, and Spain entered a period of political and economic isolation that extends into the fifties.
Certainly, the outcome of the Second World War opened many expectations:
The losers in the civil war, the families of the countless reprisals and Republicans in exile home in the hope of intervention by the Allies to end the dictatorship. For his part, from within the regime, the monarchists are Alfonsism time for the restoration and ascent to the throne of Juan de Borbón.
Franco once again shows his ability to cling to power until the end of his life. From 1941 pact with the Episcopal Conference, the Franco dictatorship has reached its own self as a "traditional Catholic kingdom, where General Franco," Caudillo of Spain by the grace of God, ruled as regent for life with the power of an absolute monarch.
The deep darkness of the autarky of the 40 seems to evoke the nineteenth-century caveman longings as Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo (See his History of the English heterodox), with a seamless nacionalcatolicismo.
However, both the internal pressures of the industrial bourgeoisie (mainly Catalan), seeking higher profits, as the monarchists who have been frustrated in the short term his claims require the State to seek a some international openness in the fifties.
And in this new era of Franco's dictatorship, the Catholic Church will, once again, the great star and great benefit. Vatican State, created by Benito Mussolini in 1929, and Pope Pius XII (who, incidentally, nobody calls to account for their responsibilities in the global war) become one of the two major poles of the new opening. With the Concordat of 1953, which replaces the pact of 1941, consolidated the Catholic religion as the only religion of Spain and enshrine the seamless monopoly of the Church in education, ethics, morality and control public life the English private. Establishing a military clergy present in all the barracks, chaplains in prisons and hospitals, bishops with their ability to exercise direct censorship on teachers and teaching on any manual is published (many of those gathered here have been old enough to ever fallen in our hands the Encyclopaedia Alvarez).
The other pole of the international opening of 1953, what are the agreements with the United States to install military bases in Spain (Torrejon, Zaragoza, Moron, Rota). This pact is signed in exchange for practically nothing (the powdered milk distributed in schools), unless international recognition of the scheme as something no longer stigmatized.
It should be borne in mind that we are in the Cold War, and the United States, internally, are embarking on a "witch hunt" launched by Senator McCarthy, retaliation intellectuals, writers, filmmakers and professionals from around type likely to be accused of "un-American activities."
Franco's Spain is no longer seen as a fascist dictatorship (although the domestic paraphernalia is still not dismantled), but rather as something akin to anti-communist dictatorships and the U.S. banana promoted in Latin America. Here, however, the dictatorial framework is already established, and requires no intervention by the CIA. Moreover, by its geopolitical location and its strategic value as a key between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, this is one of the bastions sweet tooth for the growing U.S. imperialism.
Thus, gripped between the United States and the Vatican State, internationally legitimizing the Franco regime and completely ossified, the English have had to continue suffering the vicious oppression of the dictatorship, from 1953 until Franco's death.
The end of autarky occurs, however, inevitable changes in the composition of the economy and English society. Together with the traditional landowners and financial oligarchs, has come to develop a strong industrial bourgeoisie (especially in Catalonia and the Basque Country), and moved to a not so protectionist mercantilism as the early stages.
the end of the fifties and early sixties, comes into play a new political family, so far away. This is, again, a card played by the Catholic Church in all stages of the dictatorship is the true protagonist and the most benefit: I refer to the technocrats of Opus Dei, who will occupy the key ministries on issues economic. And Franco, as always, retains its ability to give primacy to the political family that suits you best to maintain his personal power, relegating without settlement or a back seat to the others.
The main figure in the economy of the sixties is, as you know, Laureano Lopez Rodo. The development discourse now changed completely: If the previous steps the regime declared itself as both anti-capitalist (fascist version either of these competitions or in the version back to the old regime and the traditional oligarchy) now speaks of a Capitalism without liberalism, capitalism without democracy (because they are elements that allow the reorganization of the labor movement and the "social disintegration").
As you remember many of us here in the sixties, from the ranks of the technocrats of Opus Dei, it is theorized about the difference between economic liberalism and political liberalism, praising the former and demonizing the latter.
economic changes entail, however, unpredictable social changes. Despite the total absence of democracy, phenomena such as the European tourist influx and mobility achieved thanks to the proliferation of Seat 600 English made many begin to get out of the intellectual and moral lethargy caused by decades of isolation, disinformation and obscurantism, envisioning what it means different ways of living and of being a citizen, to speak freely and to cross borders.
Moreover, in the sixties there is a shift in international politics of the Catholic Church, which first caught off the dictator game and undermines the nacionalcatolicismo (as this is conceived) as a seamless understanding between regime and the Church. I refer, of course, the Second Vatican Council.
the death of Pius XII, the Church is forced to wash his face and heavy makeup to the direct implications of this pope in the designs of repression or, if necessary, extermination of any human being Catholic or at least non-Christian, based on fierce and cruel totalitarian dictatorships such as English.
Now the church, at the global level and anti-Christian West, is forced to compete with other religions, and not always in a situation of monopoly or clear majority in the leading powers of the "free world." You can no longer claim a respectful manner in the United States, England, in secular France, while in countries like Spain dictatorial political regimes based on roughly to repress other religions. For its part, the U.S. is not viewed favorably by their satellite countries repress Protestant denominations (ie, who may be fellow of the President).
Vatican II introduced, thus making him, the old Protestant notion of "religious freedom." But make no mistake: the "religious freedom" in nothing is a concept akin to "freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief" that proclaim the Universal Declaration of 1948 and the 1950 European Convention.
Franco The shy religious freedom law of 1964 has no impact on the lives of most of the English, who are being monitored and controlled from the dioceses and parishes. It's simply a law that puts an end to the persecution of Protestants and other minority groups and allows them freedom of worship. The entire English population does not fall into one of these tolerated religious minorities remains forcing Catholic (and necessarily "good Catholic" parish's certificate appropriate to exercise certain public functions such as teachers). And this situation continues until the Constitution of 1978, thirteen years after completion of the Council initiated by John XXIII, Pope sanctimonious priests of guitar, theologians like Mr. Tamayo and "bishops Secular "as Mr. Peces-Barba. For those who truly aspire to the minimum levels of freedom of conscience set forth in the Universal Declaration, Juan XXIII appears rather as the cleverest and most hypocritical among the Popes of the twentieth century.
A dictator's death, with the inauguration of King vowing to defend "until the last drop of blood" the principles that inspired the "Movement", the constitutional period opens with three major political blackmail that make the current situation a true prolongation of the Franco dictatorship:
1) The undisputed stay in Spain as a bastion and military satellite United States, whose culmination is performed during the first socialist government, with the fraudulent election between NATO or American bases.
2) monarchy itself, which ultimately results in late winners to former monarchists Alphonsa, among the political families of the regime.
3) The maintenance of the Catholic Church as a factual state religion in the form of a criptoconfesionalismo, with the revision and updating of the Concordat of 1953.
Given the title and purpose of this exhibition, with the deployment of this third point (or the third blackmail) with which I conclude. With
Basic Agreement between the English State and the Holy See in 1976 at a pre-constitutional times, starting this update the Concordat. The 1976 Agreement introduces essentially three things:
1) The notion, accepted uncritically by the state, "religious freedom", as this arises directly from the Second Vatican Council.
2) The waiver by the State (and this in exchange for nothing), to participate directly in the appointment of bishops, which nevertheless remain civil or military authorities.
3) The commitment to substitute new content items remaining from 1953 Concordat, which was done with the Agreements of 1979, already negotiated before the adoption of the Constitution:
-Economic Issues.
-legal Affairs.
-Education and Cultural Affairs.
-religious care to the armed forces.
The Concordat of 1953 was not, therefore, never abrogated. The structure that determines the Church - State relations remains intact, and what has actually done is replace the old furniture phases of building a new furniture.
Base Agreement of 1976 and the four agreements of 1979 (but previously agreed) maintain all the privileges of the Catholic Church, eliminating hurtful statements, such as the open declaration of denominational the State or the assertion that "the Catholic religion is the only religion of Spain." In this, Cardinal Tarancón, presented as one of the architects of the "transition" is really the fox in the shade, the Juan XXIII English.
The 1978 English Constitution, especially Article 16, born and as a result of the blackmail of arrangements and agreements, to collect the face value of new views of the Church:
In Article 16.1, freedom ideological and religious freedom and worship is recognized as a right of individuals and communities. And, as we have seen in all the case law issued since then from the Supreme Court and from the Constitutional Court, the term "community" is understood as widely: from one municipality to a public school, from the army to a body or a company of the same or forces
security ... What characterizes a community, unlike a partnership or a private organization, is that the individual can not escape, without more, of belonging to it:
"If a public school Catholic majority on the School Board decides to impose the entire school community (parents, students, faculty, and staff) his religious convictions, its symbols and icons, the courts, under our legislation, recognize the possibility of a public confessional, without affecting the non-denominational state (case CP "Macias Picavea" of Valladolid).
"If a municipality acts in an openly confessional, not only as a participant but as an organizer of liturgical worship and the public officer (if the Chief of Police Local Villarreal) who wants to escape the assistance to them must litigate for years. When he was finally recognized its "immunity from coercion," it is exempted, but no one does justice for past sufferings, coercion and harassment experienced, whose authors are in complete impunity.
Moreover, Article 16.2 which exempts us from the obligation to report on our ideology or our religious beliefs, becomes, by virtue of the above, in a mockery and an insult to all English. In the above cases, affected citizens have been forced to give up this right to assert their freedom of conscience, suffering and all the pressures and defamatory statements that believers have wanted militants cast on them.
Article 16.2 does not protect us at any point sensible (ie, when the state of our beliefs make us moral assaulted in disqualification or discrimination). We are obliged to speak out at this point from the time we made our statement of income tax, from enrolling a child in a public school or publicly funded, which shows if the student does or does not teach religion in Catholic , since we went to court and we have to choose between plans "vows or promises, although the litigation is involved the Church and the Board is chaired by the crucifix behind the head of a judge of Opus Dei ... And here we could mention an endless rosary of situations ...
Article 16.3, after the statement that "no religion shall have a state character, created the excuse to legitimize the current Concordat with the statement that" public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of English society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with Catholic Church and other confessions. "
To start, here is missing any positive consideration of non-religious convictions. But as well we will see, the supposed "cooperation" with the Catholic Church comes to developing a whole legal corpus Ecclesiastical Law which makes in public entity and, therefore, state religion, in sharp contrast to the first sentence of the article in question.
loop that completes the Catholic confessional prominent English state, as permanence nacionalcatolicismo seamless, masked in contradictory statements, closes with the Organic Law on Religious Freedom 1980.
With it, the non-religious beliefs are reduced to mere negativity, a "lack of belief" or "no belief", and the excuse to establish new agreements with other denominations, is to have closed the Franco dictatorship binomial = Catholicism.
The consequences of this cornerstone of the National-renovated, composed of the Agreements of 1976 and 1979, by Article 16 of the Constitution and the Organic Law of Religious Freedom of 1980, suffering mainly widely visible in four areas:
1) Public policy of the Catholic hierarchy as true civil and military authorities (in fact, are by far the undemocratic power that seeks fourth masking), with the support and indulgence of the state (supposedly secular):
- The annual offering to the Apostle Santiago and confessional states of the Head of State and the royal family at all Its public, whether or not the exercise of its institutional functions, speaking on behalf of the English and fell, also on behalf of all, before the representatives of God "Catholics.
"The continued participation of members of government, regional authorities, communities and municipal authorities, in exercising its functions, acts of Catholic worship, on behalf of all citizens they represent.
"The state funeral for the victims of the terrorist attacks of March 11, 2004 in Madrid, many of whom, evidently, were not Catholic, is one of the most shameful episodes of our recent history with regard to freedom of conscience. The utter contempt that our governments (both PSOE and PP) are to the non-Catholic citizen is only comparable to the openness with which Cardinal Cañizares brings us back to more genuine nacionalcatolicismo Franco.
-Shows
equally shameful has been the recent military funerals and tributes to fallen soldiers on missions abroad, attended the General Military Archbishop, assuming that all of them and their families are Catholic (or, simply, are marginalized , ignored or stigmatized if they claim not to be).
2) The financing of the Catholic Church Money public and maintaining a parafuncionariado of priests and bishops, and the relevant chaplaincy, places us squarely in clerical undeniably a conception of the state.
3) In terms of education, which in the Universal Declaration is a primary right of parents (believers or not) to decide what kind of education they want for their children is turned into an exclusive right of Catholic parents (the pacts with Muslims and Protestants do not generate the same requirements) with the maintenance of other parafuncionariado of catechists in schools and a whole network of Catholic ideology supported with public money (almost 90% of private education concert).
4) With the reintroduction in 1995 of the crime of blasphemy (Articles 522 to 525 of Criminal Code), under the guise of "offending religious feelings", the design issued by the Organic Law on Religious Freedom 1980, which of any religious conviction is not an "absence of belief" in this field also makes the state in secular arm of the Catholic Church (and other faiths, although less so), punishing the sins and crimes.
seems obvious that if the principle of equality is applied to believers and nonbelievers, to protect the religious feelings would also be protected political beliefs, philosophical, aesthetic ... and why not, football buffs for each club ... It is obvious that this is not the meaning of fundamental rights that should protect individuals and not the convictions on which they project their feelings because that would mean the complete collapse of the freedom of thought and expression. Recent cases, such as the global uproar over cartoons of Muhammad and in the nacionalcatólica Spain, the attacks suffered by Iñigo Ramírez de Haro, the photographer Leo Bassi Montoya highlight the factual confessional state, shielding certain ideologies (the cutting religious) that can participate in political life without being exposed to the same degree of criticism than the others.
What has changed since the Franco dictatorship in relation to religion? Exactly what the Church's good to change to clean its image and make us forget its history. But here the power of the Catholic Church, the fundamental element in the dictatorship of Franco, of necessity now open to a certain tolerance towards other religions, there continued unabated. This to mockery and derision of a true democracy and to show the absurdity of a "transition" that it is almost as long as one's own historical era that sought to leave behind.
We left the jail, yes, and we can express things that were previously unthinkable. But we continue on the patio, under a freedom restricted and monitored.
This is the second time afforded me to speak publicly about Franco. In the first, however, many years ago, the topic was addressed from a perspective very different: the daily life under the regime, seen through the narrative of war.
Today is about presenting a directly political approach, focusing mainly on the binomial Franco = religion. But now, as then, I must say that is not an issue to address with pleasure. It is a sad and gloomy period of our history, we are obliged to know and do not forget, for two basic reasons:
1) Overcoming definitely strong trappings of dictatorship that lives on in our endless "transition."
2) Doing justice to those who fought against Franco's brutal repression and / or who were victims of it.
To address the issue that concerns us, it must attempt an analysis, albeit very brief, to define what exactly the Franco regime, what are its defining features.
And the first challenge before us, taking the intellectuals, sociologists and historians who have addressed the issue, is the huge number of arguments in a debate still unresolved: is it really the dictatorship Franco's fascist regime? Or, put another way, fascism is the political model that best allows us to observe and understand this historical period?
I'm back to reviewing, preparing my presentation, some relatively recent reviews, such as José Felix Tezanos, Torres del Moral, Raúl Modoro, Salvador Giner, Jose Casanova, Alfonso Botti ... And I say "some" and not necessarily the most significant or most significant, which, together, brandish the full range argumentative about whether or not we are before we can define a regime as fascist.
Certainly, the issue is so complex that I will not try to bridge that discussion here. The arguments are many, their only exposure would be much more time than seems acceptable in an oral presentation, and the goal of this intervention is another. But I like to remember where you insert historically the emergence of a regime of this kind, which already has its precedents.
We must go back for it to liquidation of the ancien regime in France is produced in the late eighteenth century, and recoilless involves two effects:
1) The economic power moved definitively into the hands of the bourgeoisie, which moves in this order to the clergy and nobility.
2) The bourgeoisie is also made with the political power, and so unquestioned since the Revolution of 1848.
It is from this process in France and in other heavily industrialized areas of Europe, when the nineteenth century allows us to see the advent of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie that has become reactionary and conservative and aimed at securing the oppression of the proletariat and avert the danger that it represents the high degree of organization attained by the labor movement.
In this process, which in France starts from the Consulate of Napoleon Bonaparte, ending the scope of the Revolution of 1789, we call it "Bonapartist" political.
However, "Bonapartist" as authoritarianism or dictatorship of a wealthy middle class, once an enemy of the aristocracy and the monarchy, and now on the defensive before a people who claim their enjoyment of the revolutionary gains, known in France at least two phases clearly differentiated
1) Napoleon I still can be seen from a dual perspective: that of the real settlement of the Old Regime or the authoritarianism which puts an end to the revolution.
2) The internal coup of Napoleon III, within the Republic emerged from the Revolution of 1848, leaves no place for these ambiguities. With the Second Empire, establishing a kind of dictatorship bourgeoisie that prefigures, in its essential political features, which will be the twentieth-century fascism, with the focus of attempts to stifle or destroy the revolutionary labor movement.
Recall that, in fact, 1848 is the date of publication of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. Karl Marx, on the other hand, without using the term "fascist", which is not yet coined, described brilliantly in The 18 th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, the defining features of this second "Bonapartist" a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, traits that exaggerated manner, we find in fascism and Nazism of the twentieth century.
Well, in the case of Spain, despite the timid liberalism of the Constitution of 1812, 1868 and despite the fleeting passage of the First Republic, the bourgeois revolution was never realized: it was not in economic terms, much less in political terms.
insurgent forces that stand in 1936 against the Second Republic in Spain do still basically agricultural, where economic power is largely in the hands of the landowner and financial oligarchies (clergy and nobility, with little presence of the wealthy middle class) and where the industrial sector plays a minor role.
Nevertheless, as evidenced by the Constitutional Biennium of the Second Republic and the triumph Popular Front in the 1936 elections, labor and peasants, and all the progressive political forces of nature have reached the highest level of organization and mobilization that terrifies the above oligarchies.
Clearly, then, that the basic intention of the groups supporting the insurgency is not (at least not with a heavy weight) the establishment of a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie of a fascist, just how are you are inspired the second "Bonaparte. Rather, it seeks the regression prerrepublicanas and pre-revolutionary stage.
But on the other hand, the degree of organization of labor and peasant in Spain promotes political action inspired by Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany.
would therefore be useful to examine the occurrence of the different political families that make up the Franco regime to assess the importance that the fascist-inspired political project is in the regime, from the uprising and civil war to the death of the dictator.
In the existing schemes then in Italy (since 1922) and Germany (since 1933), is to avert the danger of the triumph of the Bolshevik Revolution and neutralize the revolutionary attempts of the proletariat in countries that already possess a high degree industrialization. And this is through a speech that supposedly beyond capitalism and communism, with a strong fanatical mass mobilization, within a one-party totalitarian state that controls not only the public sphere but also all the individual movements and society in the private sphere.
Both Italian Fascism and German National Socialism will be based on the paternalistic corporatism completely neutralizes the working class. And at the same time, will integrate those forces from the ancien regime that can provide significant support. In the case of Italy, Mussolini established the Vatican State and the temporal power of Pope, who had lost Pius IX. In the case of Germany, Hitler much with two religions that hold it in his rise to power: the Lutheran religion and the Catholic religion. As you know, Cardinal Pacelli, later Pius XII, signed the Concordat of 1933 which gives a lot of privileges to the Catholic Church.
In this sense, we have the precedent of the first "Bonapartist", when Napoleon Bonaparte, with the Concordat of 1801 (still in force in the three departments of Alsace-Moselle), returns to the church most of the privileges lost with the liquidation of the Old Regime. And, as then, where the triumph of the bourgeois revolution and does not backtrack, the Church is committed to the new tyranny of the conservative bourgeoisie. Pius XI and Pius XII are and will be, respectively, for a historical memory that does not falsify the undeniable reality, the parents of fascism and Nazism.
Still, there was always a series of frictions, both in the Italian system as in German, with the Church, which, despite their privileges, not satisfy their desire is that bishops are directly involved in policy decisions.
The case of Spain contains important differentiators. First, because the Franco regime was not established as a result of a mass movement comes to power through elections, and then eliminate democracy, but it emerges and is legitimized as "winners" of a civil war. The Popular Front created an imminent danger of revolution that warns all conservative sectors of English society, the oligarchy, the financial oligarchy and then the various reactionary political families. But these families opt for divergent political projects.
Since the beginning of civil war until the end of the Second World War in 1945, clearly the only force comparable to the Italian fascio are the Falange. The founder of the English Falange, José Antonio Primo de Rivera, proclaimed the beginning that his organization was founded to defend and honor the memory of his father. The theory of trade union corporatism is essentially Ramiro Ledesma, founder of JONS However, there are major contradictions in the political project of the Falange, with a program of land reform and industrial upgrading (of course, without political liberalism without ideas shown), feeds the nostalgia of Spain created by the Catholic Monarchs, the echoes of the Empire outdated and appeals to a political system that goes back to the sixteenth century, with all the paraphernalia as the yoke and arrows, along with love an outfit similar to the fascist (hence the shirt is blue) paramilitary organization and the constant appeal to the language of fists and guns.
The second family with an important role within the insurgent forces are the Carlist. Carlism, of course, is an anti-democratic force, but his political project has nothing to do with fascism. It is back to a traditional monarchy, opposed both to the parliamentary monarchy (in the style of Elizabeth II) and absolute monarchy (in the style of Fernando VII). Indeed, the traditional monarchy desired by the Carlist the king's power is limited by tradition and privileges, on the one hand, and by God on the other. All power emanates from God, and therefore, the monarch must be a faithful servant to their opinions.
The third family is the policy of monarchical regime Alfonso, who support the military uprising against the Republic with the intention to restore the Bourbon monarchy.
Finally, we might consider the military, whose obsession seems to be the unity of Spain
Fascism is therefore far from being the meeting point of the great political families who rise up against the Republic. The common ideology, really integrating element of the insurgent forces, is Catholicism. And that gives the English Catholic Church the true role what is known as "Rise." There are neither national syndicalism fascism political projects that best enable us to understand the framework of the regime, but precisely the nacionalcatolicismo, which at different stages of the Franco dictatorship given greater or lesser relevance to each of the main political families above.
God, Fatherland, the Nation as inseparable from God and the Church is the meeting place used by Franco for 40 years to ensure their personal power.
Upon the military coup of 1936 and, as a result thereof, the onset of civil war, the forces that make up what will be the Franco regime move in the context of a pre-war Europe, which already has lit the fuse of World War II. The National-bet, therefore, friendship with the Axis powers, so that cutting fascism Falange is the privileged expression of the insurgent groups.
civil war, we must not forget this, is legitimized as a crusade, with the blessing of the English Episcopal Conference and the blessing of the Vatican. Despite its privileged role in these moments, the decree of unification into a single party (Traditionalist English Falange de las JONS), which integrates with Falangists and Carlist monarchist and anti-republican right, subtraction forces to national syndicalism. Moreover, the role of this unique game in Spain is very different from their counterparts play in Italy and Germany. Franco is based more directly on the Church and the military to counterbalance the political power of trends grouped in the game, for the benefit of his personal power, it becomes unquestionable.
However, the intervention of the Italian Blackshirts in the war, the bombing of German aviation, fascist paraphernalia, and finally, sending the Blue Division to reinforce the Russian front, make the Spain of Franco, during civil war and during the early years of World War II, in a clear satellite Axis.
The first signs of distancing occur as early as 1942 with the dismissal of Serrano Suner and the statement of Spain as "non-belligerent." This rift deepens since 1944, when samples of defeating the Axis powers now seem undeniable. Franco's Spain happens to be a "non-belligerent country" to a "neutral country."
From the point of view of what life was like once finished the English civil war, the dismantling of the fascist paraphernalia will take many years to occur, but the political family composed of the smell and inconvenience Falangists and defeat.
At this time, although the only party never had control of a totalitarian political project, FET DE LAS JONS is relegated to the subsidiary role of social control and the exchange of privileges (hereafter speak of the "Movement "). The great benefit is, once again, the Catholic Church, with the agreement reached in 1941 reaffirmed its tight monopoly on morality, conscience and private life of each and every one of the English.
However, this change make-up as "neutral" is not accepted in the international arena in 1945, and Spain entered a period of political and economic isolation that extends into the fifties.
Certainly, the outcome of the Second World War opened many expectations:
The losers in the civil war, the families of the countless reprisals and Republicans in exile home in the hope of intervention by the Allies to end the dictatorship. For his part, from within the regime, the monarchists are Alfonsism time for the restoration and ascent to the throne of Juan de Borbón.
Franco once again shows his ability to cling to power until the end of his life. From 1941 pact with the Episcopal Conference, the Franco dictatorship has reached its own self as a "traditional Catholic kingdom, where General Franco," Caudillo of Spain by the grace of God, ruled as regent for life with the power of an absolute monarch.
The deep darkness of the autarky of the 40 seems to evoke the nineteenth-century caveman longings as Marcelino Menéndez y Pelayo (See his History of the English heterodox), with a seamless nacionalcatolicismo.
However, both the internal pressures of the industrial bourgeoisie (mainly Catalan), seeking higher profits, as the monarchists who have been frustrated in the short term his claims require the State to seek a some international openness in the fifties.
And in this new era of Franco's dictatorship, the Catholic Church will, once again, the great star and great benefit. Vatican State, created by Benito Mussolini in 1929, and Pope Pius XII (who, incidentally, nobody calls to account for their responsibilities in the global war) become one of the two major poles of the new opening. With the Concordat of 1953, which replaces the pact of 1941, consolidated the Catholic religion as the only religion of Spain and enshrine the seamless monopoly of the Church in education, ethics, morality and control public life the English private. Establishing a military clergy present in all the barracks, chaplains in prisons and hospitals, bishops with their ability to exercise direct censorship on teachers and teaching on any manual is published (many of those gathered here have been old enough to ever fallen in our hands the Encyclopaedia Alvarez).
The other pole of the international opening of 1953, what are the agreements with the United States to install military bases in Spain (Torrejon, Zaragoza, Moron, Rota). This pact is signed in exchange for practically nothing (the powdered milk distributed in schools), unless international recognition of the scheme as something no longer stigmatized.
It should be borne in mind that we are in the Cold War, and the United States, internally, are embarking on a "witch hunt" launched by Senator McCarthy, retaliation intellectuals, writers, filmmakers and professionals from around type likely to be accused of "un-American activities."
Franco's Spain is no longer seen as a fascist dictatorship (although the domestic paraphernalia is still not dismantled), but rather as something akin to anti-communist dictatorships and the U.S. banana promoted in Latin America. Here, however, the dictatorial framework is already established, and requires no intervention by the CIA. Moreover, by its geopolitical location and its strategic value as a key between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, this is one of the bastions sweet tooth for the growing U.S. imperialism.
Thus, gripped between the United States and the Vatican State, internationally legitimizing the Franco regime and completely ossified, the English have had to continue suffering the vicious oppression of the dictatorship, from 1953 until Franco's death.
The end of autarky occurs, however, inevitable changes in the composition of the economy and English society. Together with the traditional landowners and financial oligarchs, has come to develop a strong industrial bourgeoisie (especially in Catalonia and the Basque Country), and moved to a not so protectionist mercantilism as the early stages.
the end of the fifties and early sixties, comes into play a new political family, so far away. This is, again, a card played by the Catholic Church in all stages of the dictatorship is the true protagonist and the most benefit: I refer to the technocrats of Opus Dei, who will occupy the key ministries on issues economic. And Franco, as always, retains its ability to give primacy to the political family that suits you best to maintain his personal power, relegating without settlement or a back seat to the others.
The main figure in the economy of the sixties is, as you know, Laureano Lopez Rodo. The development discourse now changed completely: If the previous steps the regime declared itself as both anti-capitalist (fascist version either of these competitions or in the version back to the old regime and the traditional oligarchy) now speaks of a Capitalism without liberalism, capitalism without democracy (because they are elements that allow the reorganization of the labor movement and the "social disintegration").
As you remember many of us here in the sixties, from the ranks of the technocrats of Opus Dei, it is theorized about the difference between economic liberalism and political liberalism, praising the former and demonizing the latter.
economic changes entail, however, unpredictable social changes. Despite the total absence of democracy, phenomena such as the European tourist influx and mobility achieved thanks to the proliferation of Seat 600 English made many begin to get out of the intellectual and moral lethargy caused by decades of isolation, disinformation and obscurantism, envisioning what it means different ways of living and of being a citizen, to speak freely and to cross borders.
Moreover, in the sixties there is a shift in international politics of the Catholic Church, which first caught off the dictator game and undermines the nacionalcatolicismo (as this is conceived) as a seamless understanding between regime and the Church. I refer, of course, the Second Vatican Council.
the death of Pius XII, the Church is forced to wash his face and heavy makeup to the direct implications of this pope in the designs of repression or, if necessary, extermination of any human being Catholic or at least non-Christian, based on fierce and cruel totalitarian dictatorships such as English.
Now the church, at the global level and anti-Christian West, is forced to compete with other religions, and not always in a situation of monopoly or clear majority in the leading powers of the "free world." You can no longer claim a respectful manner in the United States, England, in secular France, while in countries like Spain dictatorial political regimes based on roughly to repress other religions. For its part, the U.S. is not viewed favorably by their satellite countries repress Protestant denominations (ie, who may be fellow of the President).
Vatican II introduced, thus making him, the old Protestant notion of "religious freedom." But make no mistake: the "religious freedom" in nothing is a concept akin to "freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief" that proclaim the Universal Declaration of 1948 and the 1950 European Convention.
Franco The shy religious freedom law of 1964 has no impact on the lives of most of the English, who are being monitored and controlled from the dioceses and parishes. It's simply a law that puts an end to the persecution of Protestants and other minority groups and allows them freedom of worship. The entire English population does not fall into one of these tolerated religious minorities remains forcing Catholic (and necessarily "good Catholic" parish's certificate appropriate to exercise certain public functions such as teachers). And this situation continues until the Constitution of 1978, thirteen years after completion of the Council initiated by John XXIII, Pope sanctimonious priests of guitar, theologians like Mr. Tamayo and "bishops Secular "as Mr. Peces-Barba. For those who truly aspire to the minimum levels of freedom of conscience set forth in the Universal Declaration, Juan XXIII appears rather as the cleverest and most hypocritical among the Popes of the twentieth century.
A dictator's death, with the inauguration of King vowing to defend "until the last drop of blood" the principles that inspired the "Movement", the constitutional period opens with three major political blackmail that make the current situation a true prolongation of the Franco dictatorship:
1) The undisputed stay in Spain as a bastion and military satellite United States, whose culmination is performed during the first socialist government, with the fraudulent election between NATO or American bases.
2) monarchy itself, which ultimately results in late winners to former monarchists Alphonsa, among the political families of the regime.
3) The maintenance of the Catholic Church as a factual state religion in the form of a criptoconfesionalismo, with the revision and updating of the Concordat of 1953.
Given the title and purpose of this exhibition, with the deployment of this third point (or the third blackmail) with which I conclude. With
Basic Agreement between the English State and the Holy See in 1976 at a pre-constitutional times, starting this update the Concordat. The 1976 Agreement introduces essentially three things:
1) The notion, accepted uncritically by the state, "religious freedom", as this arises directly from the Second Vatican Council.
2) The waiver by the State (and this in exchange for nothing), to participate directly in the appointment of bishops, which nevertheless remain civil or military authorities.
3) The commitment to substitute new content items remaining from 1953 Concordat, which was done with the Agreements of 1979, already negotiated before the adoption of the Constitution:
-Economic Issues.
-legal Affairs.
-Education and Cultural Affairs.
-religious care to the armed forces.
The Concordat of 1953 was not, therefore, never abrogated. The structure that determines the Church - State relations remains intact, and what has actually done is replace the old furniture phases of building a new furniture.
Base Agreement of 1976 and the four agreements of 1979 (but previously agreed) maintain all the privileges of the Catholic Church, eliminating hurtful statements, such as the open declaration of denominational the State or the assertion that "the Catholic religion is the only religion of Spain." In this, Cardinal Tarancón, presented as one of the architects of the "transition" is really the fox in the shade, the Juan XXIII English.
The 1978 English Constitution, especially Article 16, born and as a result of the blackmail of arrangements and agreements, to collect the face value of new views of the Church:
In Article 16.1, freedom ideological and religious freedom and worship is recognized as a right of individuals and communities. And, as we have seen in all the case law issued since then from the Supreme Court and from the Constitutional Court, the term "community" is understood as widely: from one municipality to a public school, from the army to a body or a company of the same or forces
security ... What characterizes a community, unlike a partnership or a private organization, is that the individual can not escape, without more, of belonging to it:
"If a public school Catholic majority on the School Board decides to impose the entire school community (parents, students, faculty, and staff) his religious convictions, its symbols and icons, the courts, under our legislation, recognize the possibility of a public confessional, without affecting the non-denominational state (case CP "Macias Picavea" of Valladolid).
"If a municipality acts in an openly confessional, not only as a participant but as an organizer of liturgical worship and the public officer (if the Chief of Police Local Villarreal) who wants to escape the assistance to them must litigate for years. When he was finally recognized its "immunity from coercion," it is exempted, but no one does justice for past sufferings, coercion and harassment experienced, whose authors are in complete impunity.
Moreover, Article 16.2 which exempts us from the obligation to report on our ideology or our religious beliefs, becomes, by virtue of the above, in a mockery and an insult to all English. In the above cases, affected citizens have been forced to give up this right to assert their freedom of conscience, suffering and all the pressures and defamatory statements that believers have wanted militants cast on them.
Article 16.2 does not protect us at any point sensible (ie, when the state of our beliefs make us moral assaulted in disqualification or discrimination). We are obliged to speak out at this point from the time we made our statement of income tax, from enrolling a child in a public school or publicly funded, which shows if the student does or does not teach religion in Catholic , since we went to court and we have to choose between plans "vows or promises, although the litigation is involved the Church and the Board is chaired by the crucifix behind the head of a judge of Opus Dei ... And here we could mention an endless rosary of situations ...
Article 16.3, after the statement that "no religion shall have a state character, created the excuse to legitimize the current Concordat with the statement that" public authorities shall take into account the religious beliefs of English society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation relations with Catholic Church and other confessions. "
To start, here is missing any positive consideration of non-religious convictions. But as well we will see, the supposed "cooperation" with the Catholic Church comes to developing a whole legal corpus Ecclesiastical Law which makes in public entity and, therefore, state religion, in sharp contrast to the first sentence of the article in question.
loop that completes the Catholic confessional prominent English state, as permanence nacionalcatolicismo seamless, masked in contradictory statements, closes with the Organic Law on Religious Freedom 1980.
With it, the non-religious beliefs are reduced to mere negativity, a "lack of belief" or "no belief", and the excuse to establish new agreements with other denominations, is to have closed the Franco dictatorship binomial = Catholicism.
The consequences of this cornerstone of the National-renovated, composed of the Agreements of 1976 and 1979, by Article 16 of the Constitution and the Organic Law of Religious Freedom of 1980, suffering mainly widely visible in four areas:
1) Public policy of the Catholic hierarchy as true civil and military authorities (in fact, are by far the undemocratic power that seeks fourth masking), with the support and indulgence of the state (supposedly secular):
- The annual offering to the Apostle Santiago and confessional states of the Head of State and the royal family at all Its public, whether or not the exercise of its institutional functions, speaking on behalf of the English and fell, also on behalf of all, before the representatives of God "Catholics.
"The continued participation of members of government, regional authorities, communities and municipal authorities, in exercising its functions, acts of Catholic worship, on behalf of all citizens they represent.
"The state funeral for the victims of the terrorist attacks of March 11, 2004 in Madrid, many of whom, evidently, were not Catholic, is one of the most shameful episodes of our recent history with regard to freedom of conscience. The utter contempt that our governments (both PSOE and PP) are to the non-Catholic citizen is only comparable to the openness with which Cardinal Cañizares brings us back to more genuine nacionalcatolicismo Franco.
-Shows
equally shameful has been the recent military funerals and tributes to fallen soldiers on missions abroad, attended the General Military Archbishop, assuming that all of them and their families are Catholic (or, simply, are marginalized , ignored or stigmatized if they claim not to be).
2) The financing of the Catholic Church Money public and maintaining a parafuncionariado of priests and bishops, and the relevant chaplaincy, places us squarely in clerical undeniably a conception of the state.
3) In terms of education, which in the Universal Declaration is a primary right of parents (believers or not) to decide what kind of education they want for their children is turned into an exclusive right of Catholic parents (the pacts with Muslims and Protestants do not generate the same requirements) with the maintenance of other parafuncionariado of catechists in schools and a whole network of Catholic ideology supported with public money (almost 90% of private education concert).
4) With the reintroduction in 1995 of the crime of blasphemy (Articles 522 to 525 of Criminal Code), under the guise of "offending religious feelings", the design issued by the Organic Law on Religious Freedom 1980, which of any religious conviction is not an "absence of belief" in this field also makes the state in secular arm of the Catholic Church (and other faiths, although less so), punishing the sins and crimes.
seems obvious that if the principle of equality is applied to believers and nonbelievers, to protect the religious feelings would also be protected political beliefs, philosophical, aesthetic ... and why not, football buffs for each club ... It is obvious that this is not the meaning of fundamental rights that should protect individuals and not the convictions on which they project their feelings because that would mean the complete collapse of the freedom of thought and expression. Recent cases, such as the global uproar over cartoons of Muhammad and in the nacionalcatólica Spain, the attacks suffered by Iñigo Ramírez de Haro, the photographer Leo Bassi Montoya highlight the factual confessional state, shielding certain ideologies (the cutting religious) that can participate in political life without being exposed to the same degree of criticism than the others.
What has changed since the Franco dictatorship in relation to religion? Exactly what the Church's good to change to clean its image and make us forget its history. But here the power of the Catholic Church, the fundamental element in the dictatorship of Franco, of necessity now open to a certain tolerance towards other religions, there continued unabated. This to mockery and derision of a true democracy and to show the absurdity of a "transition" that it is almost as long as one's own historical era that sought to leave behind.
We left the jail, yes, and we can express things that were previously unthinkable. But we continue on the patio, under a freedom restricted and monitored.
