No, he's supposed to be an inspiration for humanity to reach the stars and improve ourselves, as well as helping stop villains mortal authorities are powerless against. The FBI aren't going to do much against someone like Metallo. There are depictions which delve into Christian imagery, but that's typically in the movies and it's reduced to imagery like Superman falling while having his arms outstretched like a cross (Superman Returns), and Clark sitting next to a picture of Jesus (Man of Steel). His origins of escaping Krypton and being found and raised by the Kents imply Moses.
But which Superman are we discussing? There are several mainstream versions in the comics, as well as those in other media. General Superman philosophy is achievable but that would entail examining them all and finding their commonalities for a shared dogma. Tommy's kind of a terrible person even aside from the killing, as in he spies on women naked via X-ray vision without their consent and gloats about it in front of them - he did this to Wonder Woman when he was auditioning for the JLA. Superman would tolerate him and try to inspire him but a friend? No.
Robin Hood was in the past fighting a corrupt government, a folk hero. Not the same context. He's friends and colleagues with Green Arrow in multiple incarnations of the DCU, they regularly serve on the Justice League together. Superman doesn't like lex because he's a corrupt super-criminal, he's disappointed how Lex has wasted his life when he could be the hero he claims he is. It's got nothing to do with ambition in itself, Lex hasn't got ambition the wants dominance. He wants to be a king, who's answerable to nobody - many versions are upset about Superman because he shows how much of a fraud Lex is. Lex could be the best of humanity, but he's just an arrogant, narcissist who uses everyone. Superman would get along with Goku, but wouldn't approve of how he kills people. He's admire how Goku trains himself and his determination - it'd remind him of Batman, who does the same thing in the DCU. Lex doesn't "question" things he wants them to bend to his will, if he sees someone as an obstacle he tries to murder them.
With the absolute power Superman has becoming a tyrant is a natural danger, he shifts the pendulum of politics if he shifts his focus on altering society by his strength. It's become a common trope explored in comics for years. It ultimately doesn't matter east his ideologies are it's how he uses his strength to shape society is that are - if you don't agree in him he'll punish you. It's taking vigilantism to the next step. It's how we get super powered gods and kings.Becoming an authoritarian leader is hardly the danger. Its the other end i am talking about. Superman creating moral structures that are rigid. Its not easy being contrarian, believe me.Superman creating a value system with heresy and blashempy as concepts is my problem.
I'm sure JAK is just using that as a single example, not that that was the sole time Superman did that during that time period. Superman knew the world had "rules" because he lived life normally as Clark Kent, which he exploited subtly to find justice.As said, superman was more than in action comics #1. Moreover, just because superman obeyed a law in one instance(and broke it by trespassing and assaulting) doesn't mean he wasn't an anarchist, as such doesn't mean he the thought the world of rules. Especially when The weak were persecuted. His objective wasn't to obey the law.That just happened by coincidence in that instance and more importantly that was needed to protect the weak at that time . Superman is a strongman from space fighting for the weak. He has an objective and theorey. Anarchists value action more than theory. They have objectives and try to implement their theory in practice.It's not just blind "break the rules!! Yeah! My man!" . I view the superman concept itself as praxis by the real clark kent(not glasses persona) .There are many types of anarchists. But, they have one thing in common.
He wasn't just about brute force, he used his brain to catch the bad guys while maintaining his identity. He follows society's as Clark Kent, that's why it's important for him to be a reporter.
Anarchists lack of theory is why they're so disorganised while Superman is very organised. He plans ahead, he doesn't just go with his gut and strike blindly hoping he got the job done. Nor are they that good at implementing them in practice.
[quote]"power should wherever possible be uprooted and eliminated".
Micel Foucault isn't an anarchist as far as I know, he is a Leftist and briefly a Communist before turning on them for their despicable attitudes about LGBT and Jewish people. And signed a 1977 petition to the French parliament to lower the consent laws between adults and minors below 15. I suggest using quotes from someone less problematic.
Superman is power itself, he just has the ability they lack because they're people in the real world. Except he doesn't do that, Superman still needs the government to look after the homeless and the marginalised since he can't fix everything by himself. He doesn't take over the governments functions in society. But what kind of anarchist is he? There are numerous versions of anarchy. Labels mean things, if people didn't think he fit in that box they wouldn't be putting him in boxes like anarchy.Anarchists exists to resist power and power based violence (direct or structural). Superman takes power out of the equation. He makes every kind of power structures irrelevant. He was a gladiator for the little guy as he was one of them.Bare in mind, if i was the only one who thought superman was an anarchist. I might have considered i might be wrong. Still am not discounting that happening . Regardless, you can view him as whatever. It's only a label. It doesn't mean much. What means much to me is this. Superman to be written with this basic principle.
Wasn't able to find who did that quote, who said it?"those who break the rules are scum, but those who abandon their friends, their ideals and principles are worse than scum"
Superman would break rules if need be to help the weak and carry out real justice.
Superman does break rules, but he also has a history of working with authorities. What is "real justice" in this context?
Super-heroes being vigilantes as well as helping the police have been a thing longer then we've been alive. So much so it's a trope in fiction for vigilantes to have a "friend on the force." It makes sense in that it's easier to that bad guys with assistance from authorities who can fill in gaps and cover more ground, because even Superman can't do everything.You know i felt the same sentiment.i was flabbergasted that this was superman as well. But on the reverse.the books actually made me feel like what? what the heck! Is this thing??? There is a dramatic shift in characterisation especially when comicscode came to be. Especially, when i got to read bill finger origin. I was like what is happening here? Obey the law? help the police???? What the hell is happening?Clark is being asked by his good father pa kent to be a vigilante/criminal??? Moreover,he is asking him to obey the law and fight crime assisting the police? I was like, this doesn't make a knick of sense. It instantly turned me off. It was only when i got a different superman that was an alien asking some wierd questions about generally everything that it made me actually find a reprieve.