> He dismisses someone who opposed a fascist dictatorship as being "antisocial" and says she was harming society by opposing said dictatorship.

I'm struggling to understand the mindset that leads to this confusion. The person in question was violently rioting, throwing molotov cocktails to destroy private property. It appears that you think intentions are dispositive—that she was a good person because she opposed the Franco regime in her heart. Thus, under your view, the only way I can think she’s antisocial is tacit support of Franco.

You overlook the possibility that I think her stated motivations are insincere or that her actions were counterproductive. Violent rioting is not a meaningful response to “fascism.” It always hurts your fellow citizens instead, and usually results in entrenching whatever system that you’re opposing.

Separately, Francoist Spain wasn’t “fascist” in the sense you’re using it at the relevant time. After reforms in 1955, it became what’s sometimes called “developmental dictatorship.” (That’s how the Wikipedia article describes it.) Other similar regimes included Park Chung-hee in South Korea: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/saje.12391.

I do think developmental dictatorships are a valid form of government for countries transitioning to modernity. Democracy has been a miserable failure all across south asia and africa, while developmental dictatorships like in South Korea (and Taiwan and Singapore at the beginning) have been exceedingly successful. I assume you’ve never thought very hard about national development.