Fascism Comes To Spain: This Time, We're Serious

[JollyRoger]

Too late. She's already been allocated.

Until a higher bidder comes along.

 

[kosiosko 1]

As for the idea that University was free, that's just nonsense. Someone quite obviously paid for it. Guess who.

So we seem to be in agreement, there are different ways to price things and pay for them... and stat-ism doesn't necessarily lead to chaos like Stalin's and pol pot...

 

[Abegweit]

So we seem to be in agreement, there are different ways to price things and pay for them... and stat-ism doesn't necessarily lead to chaos like Stalin's and pol pot...

Obviously it doesn't and I don't recall claiming that it did. It would be absurd to claim otherwise as we all live in states and clearly we are surviving. What I did say is that socialism and attempts to abolish the price system lead to chaos.

As for these "many ways" to price things and pay, there really are only two. One is - by voluntary exchange and contract in the free market. The other is by government edict, forcing other people to supply what you want. Price fixing is just one of the many ways that the state does this - and far from the most odious.

Enough state edicts and enough theft leads to exactly the same result as socialism - chaos and death.

It's interesting to speculate on how rich the world might be if everyone pulled their own weight instead of having so many who live off theft.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Obviously it doesn't and I don't recall claiming that it did. It would be absurd to claim otherwise as we all live in states and clearly we are surviving. What I did say is that socialism and attempts to abolish the price system lead to chaos.

post 194

Any time they attempted to abolish the price system, the country was immediately and irrevocably seized by chaos. Lenin's War Communism and Pol Pot's mad schemes are a couple of examples.

your right you didn't say it, Lenin/pol pot.... sorry for saying Stalin/pol pot

As for these "many ways" to price things and pay, there really are only two. One is - by voluntary exchange and contract in the free market. The other is by government edict, forcing other people to supply what you want. Price fixing is just one of the many ways that the state does this - and far from the most odious.

Enough state edicts and enough theft leads to exactly the same result as socialism - chaos and death.

but i already gave an example of where it was very successfull used which are not one of your two... by voluntary exchange and contract in a civil society

It's interesting to speculate on how rich the world might be if everyone pulled their own weight instead of having so many who live off theft.

yes solicialist thought is very interesting... we will get the mix right one day

 

[Abegweit]

but i already gave an example of where it was very successfull used which are not one of your two... by voluntary exchange and contract in a civil society

Which example was that? You gave me many examples of state edicts to benefit special interest groups including one example of outright theft (free university). I don't recall anything else.

yes solicialist thought is very interesting... we will get the mix right one day

The hallmark of a fanatic - failure is proof that you need to redouble your efforts.

 

[Rashiminos]

But if striking is simply ruled out as an option, what power do these workers have? "Lobbying" doesn't amount to much if you have no weight behind your position.

Pure, unadulterated, VIOLENCE. Words can fail, after all.

 

[Yeekim]

So, let me get this straight:

While Spain is teetering on the verge of financial collapse and has unemployment figures around 20%, a group of government employees, already paid well above national average, uses illegal action to blackmail the rest of society?

That sounds like most commendable working-class solidarity action indeed...oh wait...

 

[Virote_Considon]

Which example was that? You gave me many examples of state edicts to benefit special interest groups including one example of outright theft (free university). I don't recall anything else.

Its only "theft" if its taken against the owners will.

The hallmark of a fanatic - failure is proof that you need to redouble your efforts.

The hallmark of the simpleton - blinded to the idea of of other possible forms of system but their current.

 

[Mise]

Because one greedy union is not symptomatic of authoritarian nature of the contemporary bourgeois state. The use of the military to manipulate workers by the state, on the other hand, is.

You don't think that the outrageous, greedy demands and utterly irresponsible actions of an out of control union is symptomatic of what happens when a union gets far too much power, and the strike is far too easily abused? Again, your ideological blindness means you can't see the obvious parallels, which are so blatant to anyone without a partisan axe to grind.

 

[Quackers]

So what is the story of the "inside joke" about "fascism" in the title?

 

[Mise]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=393412

 

[kosiosko 1]

Which example was that? You gave me many examples of state edicts to benefit special interest groups including one example of outright theft (free university). I don't recall anything else.

The hallmark of a fanatic - failure is proof that you need to redouble your efforts.

*bolding mine*

new idea ... take the paragraph as a whole, to be a single example of an alternate pricing system... one that worked, of voluntary exchange by contract in a civil society as opposed to your one, of voluntary exchange by contract in a free market

if capitalism is so right why do you/others want to improve/change it, is not your redoubling of efforts on capitalism's worth ... proof of its failure after 200 odd years

 

[countrygrl]

Read about it:

*insert list of strikes where owners and government stepped in violently to end them*

The two are the same. For whom do you think will protect the private property rights of the rich? Who do you think runs the blessed government?

You're still making the same error. These incidents are really no different than what is taking place in Spain. They may just be flavored differently. A free market is a free market. A free market is not using your power to abuse workers, or to purchase mercenary groups to step in and do your bidding. That's not capitalism. Capitalism is not at fault, authoritarianism is still the root cause. I've read your "Ask a Red Threads," and I do find them instructive and useful, but you show your inherent bias time and time again when you discuss matters such as these. How, on one hand, can you wash away the deaths of millions of people at the hand of communism while lay full blame on the misery that you link to here on capitalism? When you discuss the long and sordid history of communism, bolshevism, Maoism, etc. you never shy away from long lists of blatant excuses for why so many people died. "The society wasn't ready, none of the leaders were really communist/socialist, they had to get rid of espionage and saboteurs, it was an agrarian society that wasn't quite ready." Yeah, blah, blah, blah.

In both cases -strike breaking and the purges of communism - and in this case in Spain, the problem isn't the existence of any explicit economic model. The problem is always authoritarianism and the exploitation of people. It is the inherent evil the lurks within the hearts of men, and the lust for power, and it knows no political stripe. This trait of humanity cuts both ways (or all three ways if you want to consider Fascism a third way). Socialists can exploit people. Communists can exploit people. Capitalists can exploit people. That is man, not an economic model.

The day that everyone realizes that authoritarianism is the real problem is the day that all of us can collectively begin to move forward and pursue more fruitful labors.

Capitalism is, first and foremost, a political structure, determined by economic realities. That is how I [we] use the term "capitalism," not as a catch-all phrase for a bankrupt and paradoxical set of ideologies like ignoramus paladins do.

Why are you so insistent on terminology existing on your terms alone. You get bent out of shape when people convey socialism and communism in a light that isn't accurate. But then you turn around and do the same thing to people who believe in Capitalism and free market enterprise. If you don't like conservative Americans calling Obama a socialist, then don't stuff your personal Marxist driven mantra about capitalism down their throats.

I wonder, are you a member of that caste of super-rich? Since you are probably not, what makes you think you can get there? What makes you think they will let you?

Can't you can the emotional rhetoric for just a minute? 67% of today's billionaires started with nothing. I wonder why they were allowed into the club. How'd this happen? Was there some form to fill out? Did you have hang out with the right people? Did they do insidious and dirty things? What makes you think they will let you in!? HA! Enough with the melodrama. This isn't some Hollywood script where the rich people only wanna keep it to themselves. If a capitalist thinks they can make a small bit of interest, or some residuals, on another capitalist with a new idea, they will let them join the club.

But Capitalism, by its nature, deprives the majority of control of the means of production, and so renders them subservient to those who possess such control, Bourgeoisie or Petty Bourgeoisie. It is in the self-interest of the majority to pursue Socialism. Beyond material concern, the freedom which Socialism represents, the attainment of self-governance, and the ability to rely on your fellow man as if on your brother is worth more than any gilded cage that the Galts could offer.

To sacrifice your autonomy to a self-declared elite because you do not trust yourself to run your own life? Perhaps for the "coward slave", as Burns had it, but not for "a man of independent mind" with "a pith o sense an pride o worth", and I, for one, rather fancy myself the latter.

Wait a second, isn't there some irony here? In two sequential posts you went from showing me how great a socialist business was within a capitalist society. And now you're telling me that capitalism deprives people out of the means of production and controlling their own destiny more directly?

If the evil capitalists were really hell bent on depriving the masses of the means of production we could starve your business establishment out in a month. What, after all, would your precious socialist business sell if it lost its capitalist suppliers? But we're not as nefarious as you make us out to be. Is it sad that the world isn't as dramatic as you wish it were?

No on to real business as opposed to these frivolities.
I think that we must first establish the fact that we are one in the same. We are people who desire to live our lives with an independent mind. We are both a latter set. I will take a half-step further and say that, in sense, it is in the majorities interest to pursue the mindset that is conducive to socialism. But it's only a half-step, and that is because you cannot even come close to convincing me that everyone wants to control the means of production. It's an ideal to pursue for sure. But it's something that just does not exist. The people who genuinely want to be of an independent nature are the ones who enter the productive class in a capitalist society. The dregs just look to subside in a comfortable existence. They seek to live as comfortable a life as possible while expending as little energy as possible on work and learning. But sadly, both our ideal societies are plagued by the same problem. It is chained to the sea by a lower class that has no interest in obtaining an independent mind. Today, having the self-serving feeling that you are of an independent mind is even more important than actually possessing one! People just don't have the interest in controlling the means of production or becoming something more. It's like I've said before, employees are always quick to declare they know how to run things better than the managers. But if you gave them the manager hat they'd do everything they could to hand it right back to you. The vast majority of the people in the west have no desire to actually run their own lives. They don't want to make decisions. They don't want to think. They don't want to learn. They don't to go home and read books, or learn calculus, or read philosophy. The only time common people want to read is when it's somewhat of a mindless fad (like with Twilight!). People don't want to make decisions at work. People don't want to shoulder responsibility for their actions. They don't want to have to worry about their retirement, or play a more independent roll in their healthcare, they don't want to work on their own cars, or take care of the environment, or read newspapers. They don't want to see how fast they can do the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle. Common people don't want to hang out with their friends and talk about politics. They wanna talk about how much sex they've had in the past week, or talk about sports.

Common people do not want anything to do with a life of fulfillment, they want a life of ease and excitement (entertainment). And until you change this psyche, you can never have socialism. And if you change this psyche there is no reason to pursue socialism because capital (in the form of money) will be meaningless.

And the Miami scenario? That actually happened in Spain, in 1936, and it turned out pretty well, all things considered. (Pity about the fascists, of course.) Turns out, on a fundamental level, you don't really need rich people.

I read it briefly. I'm not impressed. If this is the best you can tout to the masses then you're going to have a hard time achieving anything. Especially in this day and age. Spain in 1936 was nothing like our current conception of modern society. Things may have been "okay," but there was a necessary regression. The economic regression that would take place today would be far more significant and damaging as well. Reading the counter points to Catalonia makes me question your attachment to this historical event even more. I'd is not applicable.
Also, if your counterpoint is that society can thrive without capitalists, then why can't the masses circumvent their reliance on capitalists in our current society?

- 135 of them earn more than €600,000 a year.
- 713 of them earn between €360,000 and €540,000 a year.
- The average for all air traffic controllers in Spain is €350,000 a year.

These are really staggering salaries. You guys do realize that these individuals would fall within your dreaded top 10% in America right? The control of capital is your talking point? Seems pretty weak to me.

Point: The workers, while well-paid professionals, are still proletarian. High-level bankers are not. Socialists advocate for the democratisation of labour, not the pointless levelling of income.

What if they pooled their savings, decided to quit under threat of government force, and opened a bank? Who would you support then?

Because one greedy union is not symptomatic of authoritarian nature of the contemporary bourgeois state.

But if a single business exhibits an authoritarian nature, you'll jump down their throat. There are thousands of corporations, and millions of businesses that are benign in nature, that treat their workers with decency and respect. The vast majority of businesses in a capitalist system understand that rewarding those that work hard, offering education benefits, and other forms of compensation are direct ways to improving the bottom line. Businesses that cannot keep good help are the second quickest to go under behind those that are badly managed. If you treat people as badly as you and Cheezy believe people get treated, then you don't stay in business.

I went to google libertarian socialism and got prompted with libertarian socialism oxymoron. Google is pretty smart.

You clearly cannot think critically... Socialism is merely providing the workers with the means of production. Why does this mean that you cannot have a libertarian government?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You're still making the same error. These incidents are really no different than what is taking place in Spain.

That is precisely the point we have been trying to make.

They may just be flavored differently. A free market is a free market. A free market is not using your power to abuse workers, or to purchase mercenary groups to step in and do your bidding. That's not capitalism.

I am sorry, dear, but that is capitalism in the raw. You might understand that if you'd ever experienced it. But even if you haven't, you can still read about it. A book is a powerful weapon.

Capitalism is not at fault, authoritarianism is still the root cause.

Technically correct, since it is not abstract capitalism, but capitalists. Capitalists by nature behave authoritatively. It is part of what makes them who they are.

I've read your "Ask a Red Threads," and I do find them instructive and useful, but you show your inherent bias time and time again when you discuss matters such as these.

If by bias you mean the inherent perspective that every person shows all the time, and when someone presents something from their point of view and in defense of things they believe in, then yes, I am "biased." So is everyone on Earth, all the time.

Tell you what, if I'm so biased and wrong, why don't you provide us with an example, and then refute it for us with evidence. Show me why I am wrong to say what I have said.

How, on one hand, can you wash away the deaths of millions of people at the hand of communism while lay full blame on the misery that you link to here on capitalism?

Oh dear, diving in the tut quoque already? This is a very quick way to make me ignore you.

When you discuss the long and sordid history of communism, bolshevism, Maoism, etc. you never shy away from long lists of blatant excuses for why so many people died. "The society wasn't ready, none of the leaders were really communist/socialist, they had to get rid of espionage and saboteurs, it was an agrarian society that wasn't quite ready." Yeah, blah, blah, blah.

And you want me to take you seriously?

In both cases -strike breaking and the purges of communism - and in this case in Spain, the problem isn't the existence of any explicit economic model. The problem is always authoritarianism and the exploitation of people. It is the inherent evil the lurks within the hearts of men, and the lust for power, and it knows no political stripe. This trait of humanity cuts both ways (or all three ways if you want to consider Fascism a third way).

Fascism, to quote a very smart person, is capitalism in decay.

Socialists can exploit people. Communists can exploit people. Capitalists can exploit people. That is man, not an economic model.

And precisely what point do you presume to be making with that statement?

The day that everyone realizes that authoritarianism is the real problem is the day that all of us can collectively begin to move forward and pursue more fruitful labors.

The day you realize your precious free market isn't so high and mighty, the sooner we can move forward.

Why are you so insistent on terminology existing on your terms alone.

Because, my dear, my terms are correct.

You get bent out of shape when people convey socialism and communism in a light that isn't accurate.

As should anyone in the face of mistruths.

But then you turn around and do the same thing to people who believe in Capitalism and free market enterprise.

The real world is not a place where everyone is entitled to their feelings and opinions, where everyone must respect how everyone else feels and everyone can be right. There are concrete right and wrongs, concrete correctness and incorrectness.

If you don't like conservative Americans calling Obama a socialist, then don't stuff your personal Marxist driven mantra about capitalism down their throats.

I think some reading could do you and your snotty attitude some good. Go cruise wikipedia for a few minutes, read the article on capitalism. Then the one on Marxism. And maybe follow a few links from those pages and read them too.

As my friend Traitorfish has said before, opinions don't matter when dealing with concrete facts and definitions. There is no "wiggle room," no perspective, no place for subjectivity whatsoever. Obama is not a socialist. That conservatives insist on labeling him as such is not my fault for "shoving Marxism down peoples' throats," it speaks only of their own ignorance and buzzword obsession.

Can't you can the emotional rhetoric for just a minute? 67% of today's billionaires started with nothing.

I wonder why they were allowed into the club. How'd this happen? Was there some form to fill out? Did you have hang out with the right people? Did they do insidious and dirty things? What makes you think they will let you in!? HA! Enough with the melodrama. This isn't some Hollywood script where the rich people only wanna keep it to themselves. If a capitalist thinks they can make a small bit of interest, or some residuals, on another capitalist with a new idea, they will let them join the club.

Deary deary, how old are you? I don't think you've ever had a real job. Have you ever stopped to think, what would happen if every worker in a Burger King, for example, suddenly started doing everything right, and was the most perfect employee ever, and behaved that way for the rest of their lives, how much would their economic situation improve? Sure, some may get promoted for their hard work, but you can't promote everybody, so the fact that some get through and "legitimately" work their way into affluence is really meaningless when discussing the supposed ease of upward mobility and playing up the supposed meritocratic nature of capitalism.

And of course, none of that changes the fact that the people who are rich have become so because people under them have been paid less.

Wait a second, isn't there some irony here? In two sequential posts you went from showing me how great a socialist business was within a capitalist society. And now you're telling me that capitalism deprives people out of the means of production and controlling their own destiny more directly?

During the First Servile War, tens of thousands of slaves revolted and fled to the Sicilians hills, where they founded a new society separate from the Roman Republic. Does this act mean that slavery allowed its victims to control their destiny?

If the evil capitalists were really hell bent on depriving the masses of the means of production we could starve your business establishment out in a month. What, after all, would your precious socialist business sell if it lost its capitalist suppliers? But we're not as nefarious as you make us out to be. Is it sad that the world isn't as dramatic as you wish it were?

Who is this "we?" You are most likely not a capitalist.

Businesses that cannot keep good help are the second quickest to go under behind those that are badly managed. If you treat people as badly as you and Cheezy believe people get treated, then you don't stay in business.

Question: do you buy from Wal-Mart? Target? The Gap? JC Penny? Old Navy? Dell? HP? Apple? These companies and more run sweat shops paying their workers a dollar a day ($2-$5 for the lucky ones) in absolutely horrid conditions, with no right to organize or protest, and no alternative employment to turn to. It is as if 1890 Birmingham were transported to Manila and Taipei today.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Most states (all states?) have rules that control how necessary workers may strike. In Norway at least, I know that we would never accept that all doctors or nurses suddenly called in sick. Whenever they strike, they do it piecemeal and slowly escalating it, until the state needs to forcibly arbitrate to make everybody return to work. If all nurses in Norway suddenly went on strike, I'm pretty damn sure we would declare martial law or something similar. And, since most people aren't sick constantly, the state can survive without health workers for some time. The point is that they put lives in danger by going on a full scale strike.

The same is true for the air traffic controllers. I'm pretty sure that they are as necessary to the continual running of society as health workers, and thus they can't simply go on an all-out strike like this. Yes, business and tourist flights can survive being delayed, but emergency flights with wounded or dying people can not! As such, I find it fully acceptable that the Spanish state forces people to stop striking.

Didn't see where in the thread the salaries were discussed, but here is the data I got through Norwegian media:

- There are 2,300 air traffic controllers in Spain.
- 135 of them earn more than €600,000 a year.
- 713 of them earn between €360,000 and €540,000 a year.
- The average for all air traffic controllers in Spain is €350,000 a year.
- The government recently (in February) put an upper limit on overtime and total work hours to 1,670 hours per year work. This would lower the average salary to €200,000 a year.

Remember that we are talking about a state with ~20% unemployment and huge economic problems. For each individual a cut of almost 50% in their salary is a huge thing, of course, but is a forced regulation of more free time and less salary - when the salary is still 10 times more than the average for all of Spain! - really a good reason to go on an all-out strike and put peoples lives at risk?

Do you really support the air traffic controllers in this Traitorfish?

I would like to contest the validity of that claim, but I really don't have the time.

I haven't heard that they aren't allowed to resign. I doubt they want to do that though, in a country with such a high unemployment rate.

I'm really surprised to hear you defend this. Hell, I'm amazed anybody is defending this. Of course the ATCs ought to be defended. They may have excessive salaries, though I'm not going to lose sleep because people whose critical importance to society is self-evident are getting paid a wage that still falls well short of the parasitical bankers whose importance nobody is convinced of. They have also engaged in pretty obviously illegal action, and I do not support their reckless decision to strike without notice. I also oppose deception, theft and violence. However, in none of these cases do I think it is appropriate to enact slavery as a punishment. I had never imagined I would need to put forward this as an argument. Haven't we put this behind us?

I have no intention of resigning from my current job, but I'd be rather alarmed if I were told that I could not resign, and that if I didn't show up for work for any reason the army would be sent to escort me there at gunpoint.

Yeah, real working class struggle here, Traitorfish. Seriously, you call yourself an ultra-leftist/anarchist, and yet you stick up for people earning half a million dollars? Hell, even if that's the upper end and most of them only earn half that, you're STILL sticking up for the very top 0.1% of the population - the upper echelons of society, that in your opinion shouldn't even exist As if this was in any way some valiant proletarian struggle Traitorfish, my advice to you is to not get a hard-on every time someone goes on strikes; you'd have a lot more credibility if you didn't knee-jerk support any and all strikes out of ideological blindness. For some reason, you scream bloody murder when hundreds of bankers earning 6 figure salaries hold the country to ransom, but when ATCs do it you scream bloody murder when the government tries to clamp down on them I don't know whether to laugh or to cry at the hypocrisy of it all...

Unless he was advocating that a state of emergency be declared in order to have the army enslave the bankers I don't think that's really fair. Do you really think Spain's actions are defensible?

The hypocrisy to me seems to be that when one group, representing the capitalist elite, blackmails governments around the world, they are showered with more money than they know what to do with. On the other hand when another overpaid group, who actually are doing critically important work, act in a similarly underhand way, the army is sent in and slave labour makes an unlikely comeback. It appears that the Spanish state sees a distinction between the two groups, one that I think is fairly obvious, but even if you don't I'm still shocked that you see no apparent problem with forcing them to work.

Have to be very intelligent? Oh, please... this bungled strike shows their intelligence plainly.
Very stressful? They why do they insist to work overtime?

The air controllers do not get any sympathy from me, in fact if I were in government handling this is Spain I'd have told the whole bunch that they'd either accept more controllers and no overtime, or be fired.

But I would never force air controllers to work under threat of imprisonment. So Spain would temporarily take a heavy hit on its air traffic in order to replace them - it wouldn't be the end of the world. It'd just be economic damage.

I'm surprised to see so many people here advocating what could indeed be described as a "fascist" measure to force people to work. Is it envy over those wages? Sure seems to be.
I'd like to see what tune they'd sing if they were ever forced on pain of prison to do some job (instead of just being fired) with the justification that their refusal would cause economic damage.

This is a terrible precedent. True, its not something likely to be often used, and it wasn't much of an offense against those air controllers because, hey, they didn't escalate to the next logical step, a mass resignation. That would indeed make this case extremely interesting. But it's still out of line for any government.

There you go, someone that I rarely agree with but who draws the line at forced work. That's how it is supposed to be. Instead we have a bunch of people, most of whom should know better, meekly accepting the most backwards state abuse of labour in decades just because the victims are beneath their empathy.

And since when was *gasp* *horror* economic damage sufficient cause to enact a state of emergency and shred the most basic of human rights? I'm pretty sure that we took a bit of economic disruption when slavery was abolished in the first place. That wasn't considered sufficient justification to deprive people of their freedom back then, and it shouldn't do now. I don't at all like the idea that my basic rights are contingent on them not inconveniencing the economy. The economy is supposed to serve us, not enslave us. And yet people cheer...

 

[onedreamer]

No, really.

In response to a major strike by air traffic controllers of the Unión Sindical de Controladores Aéreos (USCA), the Spanish government has declared martial law, and used Fascist-era legislation to threaten striking workers with imprisonment.

From The Guardian:


From BBC News:


Nor is this the first time that Francoist legislation has been so abused:

From The International Committee of the Fourth International:



Does capitalism show its true face, revealing its necessary authoritarianism? Or will some among us manage, through means unforeseeable, to twist this as the sins of the extreme left? The government is currently held by the so-called "Socialist Workers' Party", as little as that sort of thing means in neoliberal Europe.

- Why no link to El Pais?
- Did Fascism ever go away from Spain?
- Are you suggesting through your title that Francoist Fascism wasn't serious? All joke, all fake?
- Since when can laws be abused?
- Capitalism is a product of Liberalism, not of Authoritarianism. You might want to shoot in the right direction.

 

[Newbunkle]

Capitalism is a product of Liberalism, not of Authoritarianism. You might want to shoot in the right direction.

I think you're confusing Capitalism with a free market.

 

[Mise]

Unless he was advocating that a state of emergency be declared in order to have the army enslave the bankers I don't think that's really fair. Do you really think Spain's actions are defensible?

Did I defend the Spanish government's actions?

 

[onedreamer]

I think you're confusing Capitalism with a free market.

I think not. You know, an authoritarian state tends to control industry and production. Authoritarianism isn't simply a social policy where police beats people on the streets. It has economical policies too. Besides I find pretty hard to separate capitalism from free market. Of course we can have state capitalism, but it isn't exactly the same thing.

 

[Lone Wolf]

- Did Fascism ever go away from Spain?
- Are you suggesting through your title that Francoist Fascism wasn't serious? All joke, all fake?

Fascism Comes to Country X is a recent Off-Topic meme.