Two Spains: Ramiro Ledesma vs José Antonio

by Zoltanous and Judas

In the narrative of Spanish Fascism, it's often believed that Franco took over the Falange from the genuine Fascists loyal to José Antonio Primo de Rivera. But a closer look at the Falange's inner workings suggests a more intricate scenario, especially regarding its leadership. José Antonio Primo de Rivera might not embody the core of Spanish Fascism, as his significant ideological clashes with Ramiro Ledesma Ramos indicate. For instance, José's preference was for Guild Socialism over Fascism in economic philosophy. He notably criticized Italian Fascism's Corporate State as superficial, lacking genuine organic unity. He was a strong proponent of Guild Socialism and prioritized land reform above other Spanish reforms, viewing Spain as a country blighted by the adverse effects of industrial capitalism due to its underdeveloped capitalist structure and agrarian base.

For José, land reform was critical to averting the societal breakdown that Marx had forecasted. Though José studied Marx thoroughly, he did not fully understand the nuances of Industrial Society, which created tactical and strategic divergences with Ledesma. Ledesma saw complete industrialization as vital for Spain, while José contended that land reform should not encourage industrialization but uphold a strong agrarian society. José believed that the Falange's focus should be on small rural communities, an idea that Ledesma thought was ludicrous, arguing for the necessity to dominate urban centers while still valuing rural inhabitants.

José's ideology was heavily influenced by Catholic traditions, inspired by thinkers like Donoso Cortés and Vázquez de Mella, resulting in his advocacy for "guildism." In contrast, Ledesma's modernist stance saw the State as the engine of historical progression, influenced by Hegel, Fichte, and particularly Nietzsche. This philosophical rift also permeated their views on individual roles in society. José's perception of the "person" was shaped by Catholicism and diverged from Ledesma's non-individualistic, collective vision that embraced a communitarian ethos underpinned by an ethical state. Ledesma, meanwhile, was open to a state capitalism model similar to the Soviet and Italian Fascist systems if needed, which would involve sweeping nationalizations and socialization of land via communal or cooperative means, with industrial unions becoming integral to the state structure. His plan was to foster class cooperation, even if through force, recognizing the demands of his era.

While capitalism is the current predominant system, it serves as a precursor to a new model of social organization, specifically Corporatism, until its own potential collapse. José aimed not to revert but to forestall a process he saw as inevitable, as history would demonstrate. José understood that halting capital accumulation, a concept he derived from Marx, was not feasible with Guild systems alone, but required the State to intervene. This could lead to socialization of production through unions, cooperatives, or the State. José did not call for the elimination of small properties, acknowledging their enduring nature despite widespread capital accumulation. Ledesma harbored a strong aversion toward the monarchy and aristocrats in general. This sentiment not only led to frequent arguments with José but also caused him to hold disdain for other so-called "Fascist movements."

“Mosley is there out, with his shirts, his fascist party and his mussolinian dreams; as here Primo de Rivera, with a similar team… they have a leader, an aristocrat Duce, millionaire, who spends his money organising the party. Just like that, Mosley, the Englishman, who is Sir, multimillionaire and flamboyant. So is Primo de Rivera, the Spaniard, millionaire and superfine. So is Starhemberg, who is prince and everything else. All of them are soft, doughy, cottony, with good manners, that pretend to implant a Corporate State… They are characterised also for their notorious tendency to disown all people´s angish then they are incubated in privileged social classes and they are linked to all the reactionary forms of the society.”

— Ramiro Ledesma Ramos quoted in Ramiro Ledesma Ramos: National Bolshevik by Juan Antonio Llopart Senent

José, being from an aristocratic lineage, faced accusations from Ledesma, who held proletarian views, of lacking an understanding of modern politics. Ledesma was open to forming alliances with the left rather than the traditional conservatives, as evidenced by his attempts to unify the Falange with the CNT from 1931 to 1935, as described in Ledesma's work, The Conquest of The State. He endeavored to persuade Marxists and anarchist activists towards the concept of nationalism, focusing on transforming the syndicalist groups into national constituents. His successful recruitment is reflected in the conversion of figures like Santiago Montera Diaz, Manuel Mateo, Alvarez de Sotomayor, Francisco Bravo, Sinforiano Moldes, and Emilio Gutiérrez Palmas, all of whom had been communists or affiliated with the CNT.

At the same time, José aimed to secure the endorsement of traditional conservatives such as Franco. Consequently, it was predictable that Ledesma would be sidelined and muted by the Francoist regime, which sided with the financial elites that Ledesma so openly opposed. In 1933, when Basque financiers were looking for a leader to head a reactionary movement, they initially extended some support to Ledesma. However, they ultimately dismissed him as excessively radical and too marginal for substantial investment. Ledesma's pronouncements alarmed capitalists and traditional conservatives alike. José lambasted capitalism for its individualistic and bourgeois-dominated economy that reduced workers to mere components in the machinery of bourgeois production. Furthermore, he condemned state-controlled socialist economies for subjugating individuals by transferring control to the state, which he equated with another form of capitalism.

In contrast to Western democracies like Great Britain, Ledesma preferred an alliance with the USSR, aligning his views more closely with other Axis-aligned countries prior to Operation Barbarossa.

"Long live the new world of the 20th century! Long live Fascist Italy! Long live Soviet Russia! Long live Hitler's Germany! Long live Spain, we'll do it. Down with the bourgeois and parliamentary democracies!"

— Ramiro Ledesma Ramos quoted in Fascism In Spain 1923-1977 by Stanley G. Payne

Historian Stanley G. Payne notes that José garnered substantial financial backing from major enterprises and worked alongside conventional conservatives. Yet, a detailed review of José's writings and his remarks to intimates reveals that he was essentially an opportunist. He sought personal advancement through association with the Italian movement and its influence.

“Although José Antonio wrote a prologue to the Spanish translation of Mussolini’s Il Fascismo and hung an autographed photo of the Duce beneath his own father’s portrait in his office, he had no real personal respect for the Italian leader. He told his intimates that Mussolini had mother created a new juridical system nor effected a revolution, but had merely constructed a myth that the Spanish movement might exploit to it own profit.”

— Stanley G. Payne, Falange: A History of Spanish Fascism

José consistently refuted the notion that the Falange was a Fascist organization, making this clear on more than one occasion. A significant example was during the 1934 Montreux Fascist conference, also known as the Fascist Internationale, where he rejected the invitation, stating that the Falange differed fundamentally from Fascism. His assertion caused confusion among the Italian Fascists. In the mid-1930s, during the phase of "Universal Fascism," Italians somewhat ambiguously recognized the Falangists as kindred spirits in Fascism, sharing values of "authority, hierarchy, order," a bent towards corporatism, and anti-materialist idealism. Yet, José understood that despite superficial resemblances with other "national renewal" movements that were anti-Marxist and anti-Liberal, there were significant ideological distinctions. Notably, José's dismissal of nationalism and his willingness to engage with the bourgeoisie diverged from orthodox Fascist tenets. He eventually conceded that he had exploited the label of Fascism as a convenient cover to advance his own agenda.

“In a big meeting at Salamanca on February 10th, 1935, and again before Madrid’s “Circulo Mercantil,” on April 19th, 1935, he stressed that National Syndicalism did not propose a socialized economy but only a certain amount of state socialism for vitally needed reforms. He repeated his earlier statement that Mussolini’s corporatism represented no more for Spain than a point of departure.”

“It was doubtful that José Antonio had the temperament of a Fascist, in the conventional sense of the term. He continued to dine, albeit secretly, with liberal friends; he was too willing to admit that the opposition was human, too friendly in personal relations, to fit the pattern.”

— Stanley G. Payne, Falange: A History of Spanish Fascism

In 1936, José's expressed his final reflections on the subject of Fascism:

“Anarchism: Pretends to solve inharmony between man and its environment by dissolving collectivity in individuals. Fascism: Pretends to solve it by absorbing the Individual into the Collectivity.”

“Fascism is fundamentally false: it is correct in seeing that it is about a religious phenomenon, but it seeks to replace religion with idolatry. Nationalism. Nationalism is romantic, anti-Catholic: thus, deep down, Anti-Fascist. Thus, we see its multiordinsry character, tiring for its permanent tension. False, as well, I’m economics, because it does not remove the true base: Capitalism. The whole thing of the corporative system can be a phrase: it conserves the duality: employer-worker, although turned giant through Unions. That is to say, it keeps the bilateral scheme of the real ruin of work, and dimmed or not, the mechanic of surplus value. But Fascism carefully sees (perhaps, above all, in Germany) that there’s some form of asceticism to assume.”

— José Antonio Primo de Rivera, Cuaderno de Notas de un Estudiante Europeo

While José publicly appeared to embrace Fascism, in private he criticized it and persistently sought to secure Italian backing for his party. In contrast, Ledesma championed Nationalist ideologies, a stance that José openly challenged.

“And we are not nationalists, because being a nationalist is pure nonsense; it is to implant the deepest spiritual springs on a physical motive, on a mere physical circumstance; we are not nationalists because nationalism is the individualism of the peoples.”

— José Antonio Primo de Rivera, Selected Writings

José Antonio Primo de Rivera's political stance was deeply influenced by Catholic ideology, which became more apparent in his later works. He adopted a humanitarian outlook and distanced himself from Fascism, predicting its brief existence. He also criticized National Socialism for its racial doctrines, labeling it as a misguided romantic form of democracy. In contrast, Ledesma was a proponent of Fascism, and while he had reservations about the racial doctrines of National Socialism, he did not reject it entirely. He harbored a profound respect for Nazism and Adolf Hitler, even emulating Hitler's hairstyle. Ledesma's political engagement was significantly inspired by Hitler during a trip to Germany in 1930. At 25 years old, Ledesma dove into the political sphere with Hitler as a key influence. José, meanwhile, aimed to carry on the political heritage of his father, Miguel Primo de Rivera, Spain's dictator for nearly a decade, whose policies prefigured certain elements of Franco's future regime. José's positions often echoed his father's and would later shape Franco's rule as well.

The fusion of Ledesma and José's factions occurred on February 13, 1934, but it was fraught with ideological tensions. The Falange's membership was diverse, including monarchists, dedicated Fascist revolutionaries, liberals, and Carlists. José and his allies were particularly wary of Ledesma's push for radical social reforms, notably his economic policies, fearing they might lead to the movement's proletarianization. The alliance ultimately disintegrated, culminating in a split. José could be described as a humanitarian with pacifist tendencies. He spoke of the "dialectics of fists and guns," advocating for Spain's cultural and historical rejuvenation through strictly defensive violence. He held that any violence from the Falange should be morally and legally defensible. However, his hesitance to resort to violence led to the deaths of 41 Falangists at the hands of leftists before he sanctioned retaliation.

In 1935, Ledesma publicly disagreed with the party's trajectory, condemning its drift towards conservative ideology. In Discurso a las juventudes de España, Ledesma's most significant work, he argues for a shift in focus within Spanish Fascism, emphasizing the importance of tactics and strategy over theoretical considerations. Ledesma called for a national revolution aimed at elevating human strength, which he believed necessitated violent action and personal purification. After leftists killed 41 Falangists, Ledesma insisted on vengeance, leading to further bloodshed.

The violence intensified, resulting in 67 more Falangist deaths and about 64 leftist fatalities, bringing the total Falangist casualties to 108. Initially reluctant to resort to terrorist tactics, José eventually yielded to the Falange's demands for retribution. The assassination of Falangist newspaper vendor Matías Montero in 1934 became a rallying point for the fledgling movement. Socialists and anarchists, determined to thwart a Fascist movement in Spain, targeted José and other leaders like Ledesma. Following the murder of the tenth Fascist, Juan Cuéllar, by socialists in Madrid in June 1934, Falangists struck back, targeting Socialist Youth members. They killed Juanita Rico, believed to have desecrated Cuéllar's body, and injured two other Socialists. Rico's funeral was widely publicized, and she was declared "the first victim of Fascism in Spain." Rico's assailants, acting without leadership approval, further inflamed the violence. José Antonio intervened to prevent further attacks, including an assassination plot against Indalecio Prieto and a bombing of the Socialist headquarters in Madrid.

In early 1935, internal disputes and controversial violence led José to expel Ledesma from the Falange. Ledesma's radical corporatism clashed with José's conservative, aristocratic perspective. The Falange's ideology was diverse, combining conservatism, political Catholicism, anti-clerical National Syndicalism, and José's own elitist ideas. Those loyal to José did not shy away from denouncing Ledesma, unfairly painting him as envious, a Bolshevik, and a crude proletarian. Falangist theorists often downplayed Ledesma, considering him a peripheral figure in their works on National Syndicalism. José even sent his partisans, the blueshirts, to counter Ledesma's splinter faction. Fernández Cuesta, who would later rise in the Franco-era Falange, played a significant role in this sidelining.

Ledesma's staunch advocacy for the nationalization of banks to tackle financial exploitation was one of the rare points of agreement with José. Nonetheless, their views diverged sharply elsewhere. Although the Falange's program had Catholic influences, it supported church-state separation and did not aim to impose Catholicism on dissenters, a concession José made to Ledesma's influence. In November 1934, the Marquis of Eliseda, a key Falange benefactor, left the party over its "heretical" stance on church-state relations, cutting off vital funding and propaganda resources. The Catholic Church even threatened the party leaders over their views on clericalism.

José regarded the Jewish Question primarily as a religious concern of minor importance, linked to Freemasonry, while Ledesma saw Jews as key players behind Communism and Liberal Capitalism. The Falangist newspaper Arriba, under Franco's leadership, built upon both perspectives, asserting that the "Judeo-Masonic International" was responsible for the creation of capitalism and Marxism, two great evils affecting humanity. Ledesma contended that the aftermath of World War I demonstrated the impracticality of small, autonomous regions, suggesting that only within more expansive geopolitical constructs could new solutions emerge. He thus championed the idea of a powerful, centralized government. In contrast, José supported a federal structure but favored a degree of regional autonomy that acknowledged Spain's cultural diversity and safeguarded large landholdings. He reasoned that while this strategy would protect Spain's unity, it could impede widespread industrial advancement and the modernization of Spanish society.

Conclusions

As a means to show even more differentiation between both Ledesma and José, I’ll highlight them here:

José Antonio Primo de Rivera and Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, despite their shared opposition to Liberalism and Marxism, had a few points of agreement, such as the nationalization of banks and the promotion of Hispanidad. Yet, they diverged sharply on the issue of land reform. Ledesma pushed for an industrial Spain, while José envisioned a primarily agrarian nation with subdued industrial growth. This discrepancy reflected the tension between Fascist Corporatism and the Guild Socialism of Distributism. Furthermore, Ledesma demanded the eradication of all aristocratic titles, not just the monarchy's abolition with the Republic's establishment. Conversely, José sought to retain aristocratic privileges without the monarchy, categorizing Ledesma as a staunch Fascist and José as a Catholic Conservative. Due to these differences, Spanish Fascists eventually distanced themselves from José Antonio Primo de Rivera, as they would later from Franco. José's image as a Fascist leader dissolved as his genuine beliefs became apparent, aligning him more with figures like Otto Strasser or Engelbert Dollfuss.

Both Ledesma and José Antonio were sentenced to death by the Republicans and ultimately executed. Before his execution, José had a political epiphany, attempting to negotiate peace between Franco and the Republicans with a proposed unity government. However, Franco dismissed this offer, leaving José feeling deceived and resentful, even derogatorily calling Franco a "chicken." Franco, initially relieved by José's demise as it removed a rival, craftily exploited José's death. He perpetuated the myth of "El Ausente" (The Absent One) while withholding acknowledgment of José's death, allowing him to become Francoism's primary martyr. The slogan "¡José Antonio, Presente!" (José Antonio, Present!) became a ritualistic chant in public gatherings and schools, as Franco seized José's legacy from the moment of his death. The original Falangists, the "old shirts," held limited sway in Franco's regime, occupying few roles and not controlling the administration of the state party, Falange Española Tradicionalista. Fernández Cuesta, Franco's appointed leader of the Falange, declared in October 1937 that National Syndicalism was fully compatible with capitalism, subverting José's vision and exploiting his martyrdom.

Post-Franco, admirers of José have highlighted his "humanism," aversion to totalitarianism, focus on individuality, and Catholic values, distancing from Franco's legacy. Meanwhile, Ledesma was largely forgotten, eclipsed by Franco's regime, and his writings faced potential censorship by the influential Catholic Church. A modest monument erected a quarter-century after his death did little to preserve his memory. Although the right wing lauded Ledesma's nationalism, his socialist and proletarian rhetoric led to his rejection. Ledesma, who fought against bourgeois nationalism in favor of proletarian socialism, saw his works unpublished and untranslated, ironically fitting his preference to remain unrecognized by the Anglo-American sphere. Despite potential controversies this may stir among Falange "purists," the reality is National Syndicalism (Spanish Fascism) owes its existence to Ledesma. José shaped the movement, but without Ledesma's foundational work, the Falange might have been merely a conservative group.

---

For further exploration on related topics, consider the following: