Are Superheroes Fascist By Modern Standards?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That’s a good point...I think you’re right to say that I was wrong to lump them both together in this context.

Even when Bats is in the uniform he has much more potential for inspiring real life vigilantes than Mr Fantastic?

I mean Batman's whole shtick is that he's a rich guy who goes out at night and beats up poor people.

Mr. Fantastic's shtick is that he's a middle-class academic living the American Dream (The first verse of David Byrne's "once in a lifetime" essentially). And sure there's class issues and mandarin issues to consider there, but it's so fundamentally harmless as to be irrelevant.

The problem with superheroes is similar to the issues we have with police irl, we are asking too much of them, we are asking them to handle issues far beyond what they were meant for.

It's never good when one genre sucks up the oxygen. It used to be action movies, then fantasy movies, musicals in the '60s, Westerns for a big while. Now it's the superhero genre.

If the superhero genre stuck to its lane, it wouldn't be an issue but since it has so much scrutiny and free real estate in people's imagination, it kind of has become this immovable thing.

[Adam Allen]

Well, we're also basically into Elseworlds territory, the way we're talking about superheroes, at this point. Mr. Fantastic does not "do whatever he wants". Not unless we're talking about the Ultimate universe version, and he's clearly indicated as a villainous version of Reed Richards. In 616, acting with a conscience and with respect for both the law and for the individual rights and concerns of others is how the stories would tend to differentiate Richards from everyone's favorite villain, Dr. Doom. Doom is Richards, acting only on what he thinks and wants to do, disregarding everyone else. Honestly, isn't this why, comparatively speaking, Doom tends to look so much cooler than Richards? Dr. Doom will just go off and steal the Beyonder's powers or whatever, while Reed will be off worrying to himself about what is the right path of action. He's just as capable, but hobbled -- as it were -- by a commitment to act responsibly, to not inadvertently trample the rights of others.

This same problem of mischaracterization goes for Captain America, too. Cap "was always a fascist". Good way to get eyes on your blog I guess, but no closer to reflecting reality, for all of that.

[The Darknight Detective]

Well, we're also basically into Elseworlds territory, the way we're talking about superheroes, at this point. Mr. Fantastic does not "do whatever he wants". Not unless we're talking about the Ultimate universe version, and he's clearly indicated as a villainous version of Reed Richards. In 616, acting with a conscience and with respect for both the law and for the individual rights and concerns of others is how the stories would tend to differentiate Richards from everyone's favorite villain, Dr. Doom. Doom is Richards, acting only on what he thinks and wants to do, disregarding everyone else. Honestly, isn't this why, comparatively speaking, Doom tends to look so much cooler than Richards? Dr. Doom will just go off and steal the Beyonder's powers or whatever, while Reed will be off worrying to himself about what is the right path of action. He's just as capable, but hobbled -- as it were -- by a commitment to act responsibly, to not inadvertently trample the rights of others.

This same problem of mischaracterization goes for Captain America, too. Cap "was always a fascist". Good way to get eyes on your blog I guess, but no closer to reflecting reality, for all of that.

I think the problem is everybody defines fascist differently. God knows it rarely matches the original versions from the '20s and '30s.

[JackDaw]

Well, we're also basically into Elseworlds territory, the way we're talking about superheroes, at this point. Mr. Fantastic does not "do whatever he wants". Not unless we're talking about the Ultimate universe version, and he's clearly indicated as a villainous version of Reed Richards. In 616, acting with a conscience and with respect for both the law and for the individual rights and concerns of others is how the stories would tend to differentiate Richards from everyone's favorite villain, Dr. Doom. Doom is Richards, acting only on what he thinks and wants to do, disregarding everyone else. Honestly, isn't this why, comparatively speaking, Doom tends to look so much cooler than Richards? Dr. Doom will just go off and steal the Beyonder's powers or whatever, while Reed will be off worrying to himself about what is the right path of action. He's just as capable, but hobbled -- as it were -- by a commitment to act responsibly, to not inadvertently trample the rights of others.

This same problem of mischaracterization goes for Captain America, too. Cap "was always a fascist". Good way to get eyes on your blog I guess, but no closer to reflecting reality, for all of that.

When has Mr Fantastic cleared what he decides to do with the government or some legal authority above him? The main 616 version has created universes (via Franklin’s powers).

I don’t think it’s that unfair to say he does what he wants..though it’s usually happens that he’s well motivated.

Even the 616 version is a wafer thin sliver from villainy...surely that was what the Hickman “Solve Everything” story arc (and much of the subsequent run) was all about.

[Adam Allen]

When has Mr Fantastic cleared what he decides to do with the government or some legal authority above him? The main 616 version has created universes (via Franklin’s powers).

I don’t think it’s that unfair to say he does what he wants..though it’s usually happens that he’s well motivated.

Even the 616 version is a wafer thin sliver from villainy...surely that was what the Hickman “Solve Everything” story arc (and much of the subsequent run) was all about.

The Fantastic Four are not usually depicted as operating outside of the authority or approval of the law. It's true that government officials are not depicted as being given complete oversight and detailed information about exactly everything Reed does or is capable of doing, but beyond story settings where it is explicitly highlighted as some issue, both the Fantastic Four and Avengers are generally considered as acting with the approval of and in cooperation with the government.

You may want to call that fascist, that they are supposed to be a part and protecting the status quo, but I think even that is a consideration that was meant to be explored by the (comics version) story of Civil War. And though Cap's surrender at the climax of the story I guess is supposed to suggest some kind of grey area or nuance to it, I think it's clear that for most of that story, the superheroes working with the government were the ones depicted as the real bad guys. That included Reed.

As far as the "created universes" part, do you mean at the end of the Secret Wars thing? Because the entire multiverse had been destroyed, with only the one Battleworld or whatever with God Emperor Doom running it, as the only part of reality left -- and they'd just defeated Doom, right? I don't know, I guess I'm saying -- I don't know what authority you think they should have submitted to, before recreating the universe? Would it have been better if they set up a government and took votes, first? (Really, isn't that a fantastical enough situation to set aside our real-world ideas about the sanctity of democracy, at that point?)

By "Solve Everything", are you talking about the Future Foundation era? I really liked that period, and not quite sure why you say it was all about being "a wafer thin sliver from villainy" ... but, I would also say that a lot of the dramatic tension for comics characters generally tends to be that any of us is a wafer thin sliver away from villainy, anyway -- that's kind of the point. It's when you get complacent about your own, personal need to consider the right and wrong of your actions, that you are in danger of ending up on the wrong side.

[Speed Force League Unlimited]

What does change the status quo mean? Real life condition or in comics condition? I'm used to comics supposedly reflecting on real life issues while these colorful characters roam free who can change, but changing stuff in their stories will cheapen them compared to real life so they keep doing what they're doing and will drop their value to a certain degree.

[Scott Taylor]

Not sure if it's western.

"Plant your feet firmly and the ground and say 'No, you move;" kind of describes this famous dude from China, doesn't it?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ianasquare.jpg

There were more people who stood up to tanks that day, he was just the guy who went "viral" through photos. But sure, lets call him the same. He's still just one incident and pretty much an outlier if you look at Chinese history and culture. In the west, meanwhile, we make movies about this type of stuff and the attitude of "no, you move" completely permeates the culture.

That's not at all the intent and context of that scene.

Intent is not relevant to its appearance, though, which is really what we are talking about. Safe to say that hardly any comic creators intended their work to be fascist, yet here we are.

[JackDaw]

By "Solve Everything", are you talking about the Future Foundation era? I really liked that period, and not quite sure why you say it was all about being "a wafer thin sliver from villainy" ... but, I would also say that a lot of the dramatic tension for comics characters generally tends to be that any of us is a wafer thin sliver away from villainy, anyway -- that's kind of the point. It's when you get complacent about your own, personal need to consider the right and wrong of your actions, that you are in danger of ending up on the wrong side.

Yes, “Solve Everything” was near the start of that era, the wonderful Hickman run.

It was clear (I think) that the Council of Reeds was essentially a group of tyrants (albeit benign ones) that made decision after decision without recourse to any democratic scrutiny.

And also clear that the 616 Reed came close to joining...

And effectively a lot of Hickman’s subsequent Avengers run explored similar themes: the small Cabal (of which Reed was a member) clearly made decisions which effectively obliterated universes without recourse to any higher authority. (Though the problems posed by the incursions were may happen specifically designed to force this. It’s a fair question to ask what real choice the Cabal had, save to act unilaterally.)

Effectively Reed is portrayed as a faultless superman who can be trusted to make decisions on behalf of everyone. It’s the essence of a fascist dream..though I do agree with Revolutionary Jack’s earlier point that it’s all so far fetched that it’s pretty harmless.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

He's still just one incident and pretty much an outlier if you look at Chinese history and culture.

That smacks of a kind of Western-centrism, i.e.we are unique and exceptional. Chinese history and culture is in fact full of large scale rebellions from the ground challenging the powers to be, "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus has it ever been." Chinese history is full of fragmented and divided states and so on.

[Moon Ronin]

I think the problem is everybody defines fascist differently. God knows it rarely matches the original versions from the '20s and '30s.

Orwell and What is Fascism pretty much says that there was really not solid definition of the term in 1944. It all sums up with something like "I don't agree with you and I think you're a bully" and not much has changed over 75 years.

The title of the thread uses the phrase "Fascist by Modern Standards" yet does not state said standards and the only 'standard' that Kripke gave in the interview was "They’re there to protect white, patriotic America". Robert Paxton said of defining fascism "There was no 'Fascist Manifesto,' no founding fascist thinker." - fascism does not have a set philosophy. So even in the 1920s and 30s there was no set "idea" fascist Portugal resemble more the USSR's Soviet Union than Nazi Germany yet it is was most likely the longest running fascist government.

So going by what Robert Paxton has outline in his books in the daunting task of trying to define Fascism I'd have to say no Superheroes in general are not written as fascist. And as Lachlan Montague said "As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much that it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries,". I would think that given Fascist a "modern" standard then calling Captain America one is terrible and whitewashes the historical context of the impact of Fascism and its effects on millions of people.

[The Darknight Detective]

Orwell and What is Fascism pretty much says that there was really not solid definition of the term in 1944. It all sums up with something like "I don't agree with you and I think you're a bully" and not much has changed over 75 years.

The title of the thread uses the phrase "Fascist by Modern Standards" yet does not state said standards and the only 'standard' that Kripke gave in the interview was "They’re there to protect white, patriotic America". Robert Paxton said of defining fascism "There was no 'Fascist Manifesto,' no founding fascist thinker." - fascism does not have a set philosophy. So even in the 1920s and 30s there was no set "idea" fascist Portugal resemble more the USSR's Soviet Union than Nazi Germany yet it is was most likely the longest running fascist government.

So going by what Robert Paxton has outline in his books in the daunting task of trying to define Fascism I'd have to say no Superheroes in general are not written as fascist. And as Lachlan Montague said "As of now, the term 'fascist' has been used as an insult so much that it has diluted the meaning, and in particular the evil nature the word carries,". I would think that given Fascist a "modern" standard then calling Captain America one is terrible and whitewashes the historical context of the impact of Fascism and its effects on millions of people.

I'm in complete agreement with this. When I hear the word, I tend to ignore it and try to interpret what the speaker is really saying instead.

[Scott Taylor]

That smacks of a kind of Western-centrism, i.e.we are unique and exceptional. Chinese history and culture is in fact full of large scale rebellions from the ground challenging the powers to be, "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus has it ever been." Chinese history is full of fragmented and divided states and so on.

Political is just one aspect of culture. China has had a tumultuous past, due to a bevy of harsh-handed dictators. That people would rather be alive than dead doesn't change the overall cultural tendencies. We've not even seen a government run by the people in China!

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Political is just one aspect of culture. China has had a tumultuous past, due to a bevy of harsh-handed dictators. That people would rather be alive than dead doesn't change the overall cultural tendencies.

"Cultural tendencies" aren't static, unchanging, nor permanent, nor unchallenged or unchallengable.

We've not even seen a government run by the people in China!

Taiwan is a democracy run by largely Chinese descent people in an area of land that was historically part of China (though today politically isn't, thankfully). Taiwan started out as a dictatorship by Chiang Kai Shek but in the '80s thanks to protests and internal reforms, it became a democracy, which they did all by themselves. Hong Kong (which was never fully democratic admittedly) is now at the heart of protests against CCP imperialism.

Furthermore, "Governmnent run by the people" is a pretty recent development in human history. If you go back to 1600s Europe, you would say "we've not even seen a government run by the people in England, France, Germany". Historically at that point, Democracy and Republic was something you saw in Ancient Greece and Rome, and a little bit in Renaissance Italy. And yet the next four hundred years (about a quarter of recorded UK History) had the Parliament system of England become the model of representative democracy after that. The French Revolution inaugurated a century or so ahead of its time, the model of contemporary democracy. Female suffrage is going to have its centennial in 2020 or 2021 in both England and USA. IN France, it will be 2045.

[Adam Allen]

Yes, “Solve Everything” was near the start of that era, the wonderful Hickman run.

It was clear (I think) that the Council of Reeds was essentially a group of tyrants (albeit benign ones) that made decision after decision without recourse to any democratic scrutiny.

And also clear that the 616 Reed came close to joining...

And effectively a lot of Hickman’s subsequent Avengers run explored similar themes: the small Cabal (of which Reed was a member) clearly made decisions which effectively obliterated universes without recourse to any higher authority. (Though the problems posed by the incursions were may happen specifically designed to force this. It’s a fair question to ask what real choice the Cabal had, save to act unilaterally.)

Effectively Reed is portrayed as a faultless superman who can be trusted to make decisions on behalf of everyone. It’s the essence of a fascist dream..though I do agree with Revolutionary Jack’s earlier point that it’s all so far fetched that it’s pretty harmless.

Huh, I was not familiar with the Solve Everything story, always good to learn more! I will have to read that arc! But yeah, sounds like the point was supposed to be that joining them would have been the wrong thing to do ... but having Reed almost join, then not, doesn't make him a bad guy. I mean, I haven't read it, but I wouldn't think that's meant to be the point?

I did read a lot of that Cabal stuff ... and yeah, I think those guys were supposed to be morally grey, at best. It's true, it was depicted like they didn't have any choice but to destroy these other universes, which were going to die anyway when they collided with ours (or 616, our POV universe) so they are effectively saving half of the people who would die, if they failed to act. Eh, to be honest though, was not much of a fan of that entire premise. There were some good parts to all that ... liked Sunspot and Cannonball getting to be Avengers, loved the Thor/Hyperion bromance, initially liked Black Swan as a villain, but ultimately that whole incursion arc just got incredibly complicated and confusing, and I kind of hated it, by the time everything was destroyed for the second Secret Wars. Though, Secret Wars had some good part to it, too.

Hm, taking a moment to recall hating on all of that? Sure, why not! Cyclops is one of the people the good Reed Richards picked for his ark, to survive the end of everything, and right during the end times when the Ultimate universe goes to war with 616 -- for no reason by the way, because both universes are going to be destroyed when they collide anyway, thus the two arks -- Cyclops suddenly has a Phoenix egg, which he uses to give himself the powers of the Phoenix! What? How? Phoenix egg? What are you even --?

But yeah, random crap like that was all over that whole Incursion storyline. It was a mess. Anyway, the little group with Reed, Professor X and the rest was the Illuminati, and I didn't care for them ... the Cabal was their villainous counterpart, formed when Namor broke off from them, to more quickly and proactively destroy whole universes.

Anyway, super long and mostly pointless tangent aside, disagreed that Reed is portrayed as a faultless superman. The Council of Reeds and the Maker (Ultimate Reed) are clearly flawed versions, that 616 could become if he makes the wrong choice. That the "main" Reed we see ends up making the right choices -- you know, that's like Spider-Man siding with the Registration side first, then switching to Cap's side, during Civil War. Basically, I think the point is we're supposed to take away -- we're able to make mistakes, but it's worth while to keep trying, because it's still possible to do right, even if you screw up.

In short, superheroes are meant to be something makes us strive to be better people. That's not a fascist thing.

[Agent Z]

Neal Kirby's response to the January 6 insurrectionists who wore Captain America shirts.