I highly recommend the Spanish Civil War tour in Barcelona by Nick Lloyd (https://twitter.com/Civil_War_Spain). Unfortunately, the war is still a touchy subject in Spain, so his tour is the best you'll get until Spain builds a proper museum.
I find this quite concerning and rather paternalistic, especially when far-right/fascists keep winning elections and the PP still exists.
I'm not ignorant of the attrocities but Spain needs to be able to discuss current issues linked to or reminiscent of that era despite it upsetting a lot people.
It's suppressing free speech, and Spain has a disgraceful recent history of anti free-spech legislastion passed by the PP in the years following their win in 2011. Spain passed a gag law in 2013, the same year Vox was created. Perhaps it seems you have to create a far-right party to enjoy free speech. /s
Vox is a far-right party but it isn't a fascist one because they play under the Spanish Constitution rules.
Describing PP in that same political spectrum is a bad joke, the same kind you make when saying 'Spain has a disgraceful recent history of anti free-spech legislastion' (sic). Can you please give us any example? Any sentence? Any ource? Can you honestly say that you can't speak freely in Spain?
In the caricature you've drawn, it looks like the 'fascists' have all the power, keeping everyone with their mouths shut, but you need to take the whole picture, from far-right to far-left, and don't forget the disproportionate power of the regional nationalist parties.
The main point you forget is the interest of many parties to re-write History, being the Spanish Civil War one of their favorite subjects because, at the end, most of them were supporting a dictatorship, not a democracy. Or a Franco dictatorship, or a Stalin dictatorship, but none of them fighting for democracy or for the original spirit of the II Spanish Republic.
I don't know. Let's ask the imprisoned Catalonian ministers?
How can ya have any pudding if ya don't eat ya meat?"
Yes, I believe you can. Where to start? The disgusting re-appearance of political prisoners in Spain, for Catalan leaders expressing the idea that Catalunya should determine its own destiny, while Spanish politicos laughably and hypocritically complain about the same in Venezuela (but to the twisted fascist mind, their political prisoners are just 'criminals' - I'm sure Maduro would use the same justification). The destruction of an edition of the Jueves comic drawing that showed the (then) prince earning a childrearing grant having sex with his wife. A rapper in exile to avoid being remanded for singing about the king. Plenty of other examples.
No, free speech is not protected in Spain, quite the reverse.
Their imprisonment without bail follows the Spanish Law, based on democratic principles, and it's quite dishonourable to compare Spain and Venezuela political situations.
On the other hand, nobody destroyed any edition of 'El Jueves', please see https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/Jueves-retira-ejemplares-po...
Every cover is available even online, even the controversial ones https://twitter.com/eljueves/status/834078228541165568
They make fun of the Catalonian nationalists too by the way https://twitter.com/eljueves/status/1171369631786917888
About Valtonyc, the rapper you're talking about 'in exile to avoid being remanded for singing about the king' that's not true. He was judged and sentenced to 3 and a half years of prison for 'crimes of threats, insults to the Crown, and glorification of terrorism'. To avoid going to prison, he fled.
Yes, free speech is well protected in Spain.
>> to the twisted fascist mind, their political prisoners are just 'criminals'
QED
Maybe you should think about why you can't prove your point of view, and why you need to resort to name-calling.
Unless they are in prison because e.g. they were driving under influence, or stealing money, or hit someone, or some other such crime, then it's not different at all...
>About Valtonyc, the rapper you're talking about 'in exile to avoid being remanded for singing about the king' that's not true. He was judged and sentenced to 3 and a half years of prison for 'crimes of threats, insults to the Crown, and glorification of terrorism'. To avoid going to prison, he fled.
That is supposed to be a refutation of what the parent wrote?
The whole trial has been live streamed.
About your second question, making threats, insulting the Crown, and glorification of terrorism is not just 'singing about the king'.
That's not free speech.
Well, rebellion and sedition _are_ political ideas. Political ideas are not just "more taxes/less taxes", or "healthcare for all/private healthcare" and other regular everyday party differences.
And of course, the kind of political ideas political prisoners all over the world get in jail for in regimes that stifle political expression are more often than not branded "rebellion", "sedition", by those putting them there...
>The whole trial has been live streamed.
Well, the Moscow trials of Stalin were well reported to the masses as well. That's neither here, nor there.
>About your second question, making threats, insulting the Crown, and glorification of terrorism is not just 'singing about the king'.
Sure. But wanting the king dethroned (if not beheaded, for effect) is a totally legit political idea, that was part of most countries progressing to real civic democracy, and people and politicians should be able to express it. In a modern democracy, if it must have some relic of feudal times in the form of a decorative king, said king shouldn't still be anything sacred.
"and glorification of terrorism" there's no shortage of regimes that labeled anything they didn't like "terrorism".
Heck, the British would also be offended by Americans in the colonies "insulting and threatening the King" and called their fighting terrorism, so there's that.
Just because a regime exists, doesn't mean protecting it is just or should continue to exist.
Those politicians are not in prison for 'having an idea', they're in there for actively acting against the current Spanish Constitution, against the Spanish Law, and against the regional Catalonian Law as well.
All of that using Public Funds.
About free speech, it's a Right with some limits, as any Right. For example, tell me whether in your opinion, thanks to that Right, anyone can 'sing' promoting hate against transsexuals, or promoting to kill Afro-Americans, or to torture children.
Well, wasn't Mandela in prison for similar things? Acting against the "current law" is not enough in itself to make one's imprisonment just.
Especially if they didn't hurt/kill anyone, but acted politically (spoke, organized, etc), even if the established laws forbids it.
>About free speech, it's a Right with some limits, as any Right. For example, tell me whether in your opinion, thanks to that Right, anyone can 'sing' promoting hate against transsexuals, or promoting to kill Afro-Americans, or to torture children.
It wouldn't be nice, but they should be able to sing those things. For example there are all kinds of e.g. death metal songs that speak of killing people in satanic rituals, torturing virgins, heck even torturing children should be there. Should metal be banned?
More importantly, when there are "some limits" (as opposed to no), it's not just the blatantly clear cases (e.g. don't talk against killing afro-americans) that are problematic, but the gray ones.
One man's freedom fighter's are another man's terrorists for example, so e.g. the Clash singing about Sandinista could be said to "promote terrorism".
Or e.g. "promoting hate towards the Crown". Well, "God save the Queen, she's not a human being, it's a fascist regime" by Sex Pistols, is a mighty fine song.
Or how about interpretation? Someone might write a song about e.g. black crime in their neighborhood, and it could be interpreted as "racism against blacks" if they're not black themselves.
Or they could consider some "democracy bringing war" celebrated in the media and government, as "resource grabbing" attempt. Should they be able to sing about it?
And tons of other things besides.
Except when it isn't.
Articles 490 and 491 of the criminal code govern lèse-majesté. Any person who defames or insults the king, the queen, their ancestors or their descendants can be imprisoned for up to two years
The problem with talking about this era is that half the country believes that the republicans were blameless and the nationalists were the devil. Both sides freely executed suspected political enemies, but the left is unwilling to recognize this. If the republicans had won there would have been as many or more executions than under Franco's regime. There would have even been a chance that Spain became communist, which would have resulted in even more deaths.
Now, I agree with you on the lack of freedom of speech in Spain. But it censors the left as much as the right is censored in England or Germany. That is to say, the censorship is shameful but on the same level as the rest of Europe.
I wish I could share your optimism. It's hard for me to believe there will be any future that doesn't include environmental collapse.
Despite the label, USSR/PRC can hardly be called communism. They are various forms of State-capitalism: all the institutions (wage slavery, prisons, secret police, industry, propaganda) remain that of any capitalist society.
See "There is no communism in Russia" or "Trotsky protests too much" by Emma Goldman for historical context about why USSR vs US or Trotsky vs Staline are false dilemmas between tyrannic ideologies.
> This is a humanity problem.
Indeed, all empires (or "civilizations") share the same problems. Only by actually changing the structures of power can we try to achieve a different outcome.
Although, it's arguably late to save our planet from capitalists / pretend-communists. These long-toothed vampires will NEVER stop until the last drop they can suck out of it.
Already a million species are facing extinction. Yet it's business as usual. These psychopaths couldn't care less about other people or the planet they stand on. We as humans could do so much better...
I don't think "fun" is the word for anarchism. I mean, maybe you had a very privileged/singular experience of approaching anarchism from a theoretical standpoint.
But the bloody repression faced by anarchists around the globe is not "fun". Don't get me wrong, i'm glad you had fun with rebellious ideas. There is fun to have in living in the moment and trying your best to fight injustice.
I'm just slightly upset that you would consider what is the only hope for actual liberation for millions of people a simple fun youth concern.
> I think capitalism works well so long as people can keep it honest.
Can you elaborate? How does institutionalized injustice/violence "work well"? Where i'm from in France is pretty fucked up: we're millions living in poverty and facing police/fascist killings and beatings while a tiny elite eats caviar and drinks champagne in the fancy restaurants of Paris. (without even mentioning white supremacy and islamophobia/antisemitism)
> Nations are the problem, not capitalism.
Don't you think they're the two sides of the same coin? How could capitalist inequalities maintain themselves without a central State to exert violence against those who refuse this rule? How could a tyrannical regime maintain itself without sharing some of the benefits of exploitation with a (capitalist) elite?
It could very well be that some institutionalized violence is necessary for society to work, and some injustice is inevitable in the process (humans being imperfect).
If in your perfect anarchist society I was hell bent on smacking you down (and I was quite larger than you), would the society just let it happen, or would it employ some sort of "violence"? And if said society had some rules and/or specific people to handle those situations, wouldn't the violence be "institutionalized"?
>How could capitalist inequalities maintain themselves without a central State to exert violence against those who refuse this rule? How could a tyrannical regime maintain itself without sharing some of the benefits of exploitation with a (capitalist) elite?
Quite easily? We've had tyrannical regimes before capitalism two (feudal, asiastic, and several other forms).
We even had tyrannical regimes promising the end of tyranny and capitalism (e.g. Stalinist USSR).
Nothing to say we couldn't have a tyrannical regime promising anarchism as well. People can use all ideas/ideologies/regimes to serve their own purposes.
And of course you don't need a central state to have inequalities or tyranny.
A number of powerful groups that prey on less powerful ones is enough. They don't even have to be permanent, groups could assemble at will and at different configurations to prey on those less powerful (like e.g. barbaric tribes used to do) and then stop existing after they've succeeded.