Why do people want to think Superman is a fascist with absolute power?

[catman]

Historically, Superman is the polor opposite of fascist because Siegel and Shuster created him as the antiubermensch who save innocent people and punch fascist.
Since creation, Superman has been described as the gurdian of everyone and He has fought every racism, fascism, injustice, etc.
Despite this fact, Why do casual readers or non comic readers want to think Superman is fascist by quoting Alan
Moore's statement about superheroes or Garth Ennis's Boys, etc?

Recently, Even Dan Didlo as former chief of DC comics wanted to make Superman evil authoritarian and fascist.
I don't understand why people want to see fascist Superman so anxiously because it is polor opposite of Superman's nature.
Do you understand why?

[The World]

It's not that people think he's a fascist. It's ironically his modern writers attempts to keep him neutral on all things that makes it easy for people to project whatever attitudes they want onto him.

[Quinlan58]

- Because he's been framed as an embodiment of the American Way since the 40's, and Americans as a rule have a complicated relationship with the American Way (even back then, even before Superman was created) that means some of them can't help but see it as just imperialism.
- Because he's a white dude who came from the sky and tacitly declared himself the authority on what was right and what was wrong (even, or perhaps especially, if he himself denies having done this), and who is universally beloved by the world (in-universe). A lot of people are skeptical towards this archetype.
- Because the world's greatest hero who everyone trusts implicitely and could defeat every other superhero (that the general audience recognizes) makes for a good villain for "screw the authority" stories (see also: every fanfic from every series that turns the "Big Good" figure evil).

[The World]

- Because he's been framed as an embodiment of the American Way since the 40's, and Americans as a rule have a complicated relationship with the American Way (even back then, even before Superman was created) that means some of them can't help but see it as just imperialism.
- Because he's a white dude who came from the sky and tacitly declared himself the authority on what was right and what was wrong (even, or perhaps especially, if he himself denies having done this), and who is universally beloved by the world (in-universe). A lot of people are skeptical towards this archetype.
- Because the world's greatest hero who everyone trusts implicitely and could defeat every other superhero (that the general audience recognizes) makes for a good villain for "screw the authority" stories (see also: every fanfic from every series that turns the "Big Good" figure evil).

Lol when Supes was saluting the flag everyone was saluting the flag. It was pretty much law, you didn't have a choice in the matter because the government had it's foot up the ass of all branches of entertainment. If he's going down for that then all the old school heroes are going down for that. By the Bronze Age Clark was a citizen of every country on Earth. Yeah you had Byrne and some other Post-Crisis numbskulls trying to swerve him back to being a USA girlscout but honestly what weren't those guys wrong about. By the mid aughts the American Way BS was pretty much dumped for good.

[Riv86672]

American Way BS

There’s nothing wrong w. The American Way.

[manwhohaseverything]

Lol when Supes was saluting the flag everyone was saluting the flag. It was pretty much law, you didn't have a choice in the matter because the government had it's foot up the ass of all branches of entertainment. If he's going down for that then all the old school heroes are going down for that. By the Bronze Age Clark was a citizen of every country on Earth. Yeah you had Byrne and some other Post-Crisis numbskulls trying to swerve him back to being a USA girlscout but honestly what weren't those guys wrong about. By the mid aughts the American Way BS was pretty much dumped for good.

whatever may be reason Superman got stuck with that..Even if i believe supporting the war effort wasn't wrong..Clark continued with that shtick.Others didn't.

- Because he's been framed as an embodiment of the American Way since the 40's, and Americans as a rule have a complicated relationship with the American Way (even back then, even before Superman was created) that means some of them can't help but see it as just imperialism.
- Because he's a white dude who came from the sky and tacitly declared himself the authority on what was right and what was wrong (even, or perhaps especially, if he himself denies having done this), and who is universally beloved by the world (in-universe). A lot of people are skeptical towards this archetype.
- Because the world's greatest hero who everyone trusts implicitely and could defeat every other superhero (that the general audience recognizes) makes for a good villain for "screw the authority" stories (see also: every fanfic from every series that turns the "Big Good" figure evil).

yeah! all these..

[catman]

- Because he's been framed as an embodiment of the American Way since the 40's, and Americans as a rule have a complicated relationship with the American Way (even back then, even before Superman was created) that means some of them can't help but see it as just imperialism.
- Because he's a white dude who came from the sky and tacitly declared himself the authority on what was right and what was wrong (even, or perhaps especially, if he himself denies having done this), and who is universally beloved by the world (in-universe). A lot of people are skeptical towards this archetype.
- Because the world's greatest hero who everyone trusts implicitely and could defeat every other superhero (that the general audience recognizes) makes for a good villain for "screw the authority" stories (see also: every fanfic from every series that turns the "Big Good" figure evil).

So, People are not interested in what true Superman is?
He has been the paragon of good and polor opposite of fascism,totalitarianism,racism, etc, hasn't he?
For example,Superman Smash the Clan is based on the anti-racism, anti-KKK campaign that Superman was used in Golden age.

[MajorHoy]

There’s nothing wrong w. The American Way.

Problem is, what defines "The American Way"? And who's defining it?

Is "The American Way" the same for a middle-class, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male as it is for other people who have different backgrounds? (Not a question of should it be the same, but is the reality the same experience for people of different economic statuses, different racial backgrounds, different religions, different sexual identities, etc.)

[Jim Kelly]

It seems like there are a lot of people in the U.S. who admire the fascists and hate all the people that oppose them. So Supes being a fascist might be a positive for those folks--and that's why they want him to be that.

But I have two theses which could answer why sometimes the World's Greatest Super-Hero is read to be a fascist.

Thesis 1: Many children's stories when read from an adult perspective seem to be pro-fascist. In MY DINNER WITH ANDRE, after talking at length about THE LITTLE PRINCE, Andre then dismisses it as fascistic. Andre is a dope. He brings his adult perspective to a children's story. Children have this need to be in power. But who can blame them, since they are under the thumb of a dictator--their parents. The only way out of this is for them to become the dictator. Children aren't given any other options. They aren't being given equality and the right to vote--they have to do as they're told. So all they know is that if they can have great power, then they can call the shots. Conclusion: Superman is a child's fantasy, so by that very nature, when read by adults, he comes off as fascist. The answer is not to apply an adult perspective to something that is meant to have a child's perspective.

Thesis 2: Superman is an analogy for the United States. As goes the Republic, so goes the Man of Steel. When the country was struggling out of a Depression, it was weak but punching above its weight. As the fascists grew to power overseas, the U.S. developed its own counter-posing power. When the U.S. became the world's super-power, it was the strongest it had ever been. It became the world's policeman and imposed its will on other nations, without consideration for their right to self-determination. Its failures abroad in proxy wars and its failures at home in socio-economic conflicts humbled and weakened the U.S. as a world power. When the U.S. is more humanistic and freedom loving, so is the Man of Tomorrow. When the U.S. is more xenophobic and fascistic, so is the King of the Comic Books.

[catman]

It seems like there are a lot of people in the U.S. who admire the fascists and hate all the people that oppose them. So Supes being a fascist might be a positive for those folks--and that's why they want him to be that.

But I have two theses which could answer why sometimes the World's Greatest Super-Hero is read to be a fascist.

Thesis 1: Many children's stories when read from an adult perspective seem to be pro-fascist. In MY DINNER WITH ANDRE, after talking at length about THE LITTLE PRINCE, Andre then dismisses it as fascistic. Andre is a dope. He brings his adult perspective to a children's story. Children have this need to be in power. But who can blame them, since they are under the thumb of a dictator--their parents. The only way out of this is for them to become the dictator. Children aren't given any other options. They aren't being given equality and the right to vote--they have to do as they're told. So all they know is that if they can have great power, then they can call the shots. Conclusion: Superman is a child's fantasy, so by that very nature, when read by adults, he comes off as fascist. The answer is not to apply an adult perspective to something that is meant to have a child's perspective.

Thesis 2: Superman is an analogy for the United States. As goes the Republic, so goes the Man of Steel. When the country was struggling out of a Depression, it was weak but punching above its weight. As the fascists grew to power overseas, the U.S. developed its own counter-posing power. When the U.S. became the world's super-power, it was the strongest it had ever been. It became the world's policeman and imposed its will on other nations, without consideration for their right to self-determination. Its failures abroad in proxy wars and its failures at home in socio-economic conflicts humbled and weakened the U.S. as a world power. When the U.S. is more humanistic and freedom loving, so is the Man of Tomorrow. When the U.S. is more xenophobic and fascistic, so is the King of the Comic Books.

Historically,Isn't Superman pro liberal or lefty centerist?
What is so fascistic about Superman who only want to save everyone?

[Jim Kelly]

It depends how you define fascism. If you mean Fascism as a specific political theory owned by far right extremists--then by definition no one in the centre or on the left can be a Fascist. But if you define fascism as extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behaviour, then it doesn't matter what political party they support. They are fascist because they impose their will on others.

In my opinion, Josef Stalin may have paid lip service to Marxist ideals, but he was still a repugnant fascist at heart.

Sometimes people do the wrong things for the right reasons. In the first Superman story (ACTION COMICS 1 and 2), the Champion of the Oppressed imposes his will on others. He tells them what to do and sets himself up as the ultimate authority. He forces the war profiteer, Emil Norvell, to go with him to San Montane and take part in the war there. Norvell isn't allowed any freedom of choice. Supey might have some pacifist agenda but he accomplishes his mission in a bloody, violent manner.

[catman]

It depends how you define fascism. If you mean Fascism as a specific political theory owned by far right extremists--then by definition no one in the centre or on the left can be a Fascist. But if you define fascism as extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behaviour, then it doesn't matter what political party they support. They are fascist because they impose their will on others.

In my opinion, Josef Stalin may have paid lip service to Marxist ideals, but he was still a repugnant fascist at heart.

Sometimes people do the wrong things for the right reasons. In the first Superman story (ACTION COMICS 1 and 2), the Champion of the Oppressed imposes his will on others. He tells them what to do and sets himself up as the ultimate authority. He forces the war profiteer, Emil Norvell, to go with him to San Montane and take part in the war there. Norvell isn't allowed any freedom of choice. Supey might have some pacifist agenda but he accomplishes his mission in a bloody, violent manner.

I agree that Golden age Superman is violent vigilante.
But, Superman has changed since Golden age.
At least, Superman is pro liberal or centrist from probably Silver age.
If Superman is truly right authoritarian, Why did Grant Morrison stop Dan Didio try to make Superman right authoritarian?

[Ascended]

So, People are not interested in what true Superman is?
He has been the paragon of good and polor opposite of fascism,totalitarianism,racism, etc, hasn't he?
For example,Superman Smash the Clan is based on the anti-racism, anti-KKK campaign that Superman was used in Golden age.

People are always interested in what Superman truly is.

The issue is that a lot of people don't know what that really means.

People see Clark as retro and old fashioned. Someone who helped build the status quo, or is at least complicit in it. A father figure in a world where "Okay Boomer" is a warcry in the battle between generations. Somehow the average person has come to see Superman not as the Man of Tomorrow, but as the Man of Yesteryear. Practically everything a casual person might say about Superman is likely to be the exact opposite of the truth....but because this is Superman, global icon (DC screwing him up for thirty+ years hasn't helped), they're so set in their opinion you'll be hard pressed to change their mind. Just look at Morrison's Action #1; maybe the most perfect distillation of the Superman archetype in modern comics and how many people said it was everything Superman *isn't?* They love the exact same archetype and story when it doesn't have an "S" on it, but they think Superman is something different, something that spent all its value....even though the reality is that Clark is as relevant today as he ever was.

And this is gonna piss some of y'all off but I think there's a degree of....socio-moral decay....involved too (but that word is far stronger than what I mean, it's not quite right so don't take it too literally...). Some heroes, they're defined by their bad days. They lose a parent or uncle or puppy and they never get over it. They tell us, in their broody, high school ideal of cool way, that it's okay to let the bad days rule you and your worldview. But Superman asks for a little more. He's defined by his best days. He looks for the best in people. I think that invites the idea that, if you're a fan, then shouldn't you try to live above your bad days too? And being your best self like that? That's hard. Requires work.

And this is just superheroes and entertainment so it's not like this is a big direct influence on anyone; we're not talking religion or philosophy here so don't feel like I'm saying otherwise, but I think it's there and I think people resent, a little bit, elements that maybe make the bare minimum effort look like, well, bare minimum effort.

But mostly it's just that the world thinks Superman is retro and old fashioned.

Thesis 2: Superman is an analogy for the United States. As goes the Republic, so goes the Man of Steel.

I agree.

Historically,Isn't Superman pro liberal or lefty centerist?
What is so fascistic about Superman who only want to save everyone?

Discounting a few eras like the 50's and 80's, yes. His actual politics are hard to nail down, and they shift with writers and eras, but in a real broadstroke way he's a left leaning centrist. Or something thereabouts, anyway.

As for what is so fascistic about it....here's a quote from the first issue of New52 Action: "You know the deal Metropolis, treat people right or expect a visit from me!" Yes, we know that Clark is a good guy who just wants to do his part to make the world a better place, no different than any of us. We know he's not going to hurt an innocent person. But take that basic understanding out of it, and this is a dude who doesn't believe in moral relativity, who has no legal authority given to him by the people but is forcing his views and beliefs on everyone around him anyway.

[Jim Kelly]

I agree that Golden age Superman is violent vigilante.
But, Superman has changed since Golden age.
At least, Superman is pro liberal or centrist from probably Silver age.

If you look at one of the greatest Superman stories from the 1960s (and for me one of the greatest stories period) in SUPERMAN 162 (July 1963)--"The Amazing Story of Superman-Red and Superman-Blue"--Red and Blue are quite fascistic in what they do. They force everyone to be good. It's like the ultimate power fantasy. They do it for a good cause--the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. give up their nuclear arsenal--but it's still the height of control and manipulation.

In fact, posters on here will say what a controlling jerk Superman was in those 1960s comics (using much stronger language than I would). And read from an adult perspective, I'd agree. I referenced the first two issues of ACTION to make the point that this was how he always acted. It wasn't something that Mort Weisinger invented. But the comics were not supposed to be read as sophisticated social novels for adults. Getting people to do what you want and what you think is good--that's a fantasy that we all have. So having Superman do these things just felt good to the reader. It's wish fulfillment.

Put into practice, in the real world, it's fascism.

[catman]

People are always interested in what Superman truly is.

The issue is that a lot of people don't know what that really means.

People see Clark as retro and old fashioned. Someone who helped build the status quo, or is at least complicit in it. A father figure in a world where "Okay Boomer" is a warcry in the battle between generations. Somehow the average person has come to see Superman not as the Man of Tomorrow, but as the Man of Yesteryear. Practically everything a casual person might say about Superman is likely to be the exact opposite of the truth....but because this is Superman, global icon (DC screwing him up for thirty+ years hasn't helped), they're so set in their opinion you'll be hard pressed to change their mind. Just look at Morrison's Action #1; maybe the most perfect distillation of the Superman archetype in modern comics and how many people said it was everything Superman *isn't?* They love the exact same archetype and story when it doesn't have an "S" on it, but they think Superman is something different, something that spent all its value....even though the reality is that Clark is as relevant today as he ever was.

And this is gonna piss some of y'all off but I think there's a degree of....socio-moral decay....involved too (but that word is far stronger than what I mean, it's not quite right so don't take it too literally...). Some heroes, they're defined by their bad days. They lose a parent or uncle or puppy and they never get over it. They tell us, in their broody, high school ideal of cool way, that it's okay to let the bad days rule you and your worldview. But Superman asks for a little more. He's defined by his best days. He looks for the best in people. I think that invites the idea that, if you're a fan, then shouldn't you try to live above your bad days too? And being your best self like that? That's hard. Requires work.

And this is just superheroes and entertainment so it's not like this is a big direct influence on anyone; we're not talking religion or philosophy here so don't feel like I'm saying otherwise, but I think it's there and I think people resent, a little bit, elements that maybe make the bare minimum effort look like, well, bare minimum effort.

But mostly it's just that the world thinks Superman is retro and old fashioned.



I agree.



Discounting a few eras like the 50's and 80's, yes. His actual politics are hard to nail down, and they shift with writers and eras, but in a real broadstroke way he's a left leaning centrist. Or something thereabouts, anyway.

As for what is so fascistic about it....here's a quote from the first issue of New52 Action: "You know the deal Metropolis, treat people right or expect a visit from me!" Yes, we know that Clark is a good guy who just wants to do his part to make the world a better place, no different than any of us. We know he's not going to hurt an innocent person. But take that basic understanding out of it, and this is a dude who doesn't believe in moral relativity, who has no legal authority given to him by the people but is forcing his views and beliefs on everyone around him anyway.

So,you think Superman and all superheroes are fascistic as Alan Moore has criticized superhero genre in Watchmen or Miracleman because Superman forces his view to others around him?
If so, Are Superman and superhero concept inherently
fascistic and immoral as casual readers have said? I want to hear your opinion.