No more strikes, no more lock-outs, no more usurious interest, no more of capitalism's abusive financial formulae, no more starvation wages, no more political salaries gained by happy accident, no more anarchic liberty, no more criminal loss of production, for national production is above all classes, all parties, and all interests.
Many call that the fascist state. If it is, then I who share that idea . . . and believe in it, declare myself fascist.
1. What is meant by: (a) 'ongoing abuses of legislation' (Source F); (b) 'corporatist' (Source I)? (2)
2. (a) What can be inferred about Koestler's deep feelings in Source H? (3)
(b) How would a member of the 'defeated Spanish reaction [right]' challenge Koestler's attempt to downplay the significance of communism? (4)
3. What questions would a historian wish to ask of Calvo Sotelo's claim to be
'fascist'? (Source J) (3) *4. Comment on the value of Sources F and G for a historian studying opposition to the left, 1931-6. (6) 5. 'Opposition to the left during the period April 1931 to June 1936 became steadily more militant.' Discuss this view, using these sources and your own knowledge. (7)
Was this article helpful?