The "superheroes are fascists" argument

[ouroboros]

Just for fun, here's why I think it's a worthless argument. From one of my blog-essays:

"The biggest problem of the "heroes are fascist" argument is that it soon becomes entirely tautological, like Freud. In Freud's opinion the Oedipal theory was validated whether or not a man did or didn't marry a woman like his mother. A man who married a woman like his mother confirmed Freud's theory directly; a man who married a woman completely unlike his mother was undergoing "displacement," which in some roundabout way still validated the Oedipal theory.

Similarly, most of the "heroic fascist" arguments fall into the same circular arguments seen above. Does the hero work directly for the government? Then he's a fascist. Does the hero work on his own, reporting to no authority? Then he's "a kind of paramilitary right wing law and order force." Is the hero a badass fighting against the system, like (say) Snake Plissken? The argument will admit of no meaningful exceptions: the badass fighting the system is a fascist too. In other words, everything proves what the theory's proponent wants to prove, and the few exceptions the advocate may provide, if he provides any, simply happen to appeal to his or her particular moral system."

[Shawn Hopkins]

It's not who they work for, it's simply strongmen singularly about exerting their will on others through strength and that violence is shown to be an acceptable solution to almost any problem. The method is the fascist factor.

[ed2962]

Has anyone actually called Snake Plissken a fascist?

[Shawn Hopkins]

Has anyone actually called Snake Plissken a fascist?

No one who lived.

[millernumber1]

Just for fun, here's why I think it's a worthless argument. From one of my blog-essays:

"The biggest problem of the "heroes are fascist" argument is that it soon becomes entirely tautological, like Freud. In Freud's opinion the Oedipal theory was validated whether or not a man did or didn't marry a woman like his mother. A man who married a woman like his mother confirmed Freud's theory directly; a man who married a woman completely unlike his mother was undergoing "displacement," which in some roundabout way still validated the Oedipal theory.

Similarly, most of the "heroic fascist" arguments fall into the same circular arguments seen above. Does the hero work directly for the government? Then he's a fascist. Does the hero work on his own, reporting to no authority? Then he's "a kind of paramilitary right wing law and order force." Is the hero a badass fighting against the system, like (say) Snake Plissken? The argument will admit of no meaningful exceptions: the badass fighting the system is a fascist too. In other words, everything proves what the theory's proponent wants to prove, and the few exceptions the advocate may provide, if he provides any, simply happen to appeal to his or her particular moral system."

Pretty solid! I especially like that the argument that superheros are fascist is basically a conspiracy theory - and its proponents are never willing to consider another perspective.

[ouroboros]

It's not who they work for, it's simply strongmen singularly about exerting their will on others through strength and that violence is shown to be an acceptable solution to almost any problem. The method is the fascist factor.

What I find amusing in the Marxist screed-- which is the most common, not to say the only, source of the "fascist" critique-- is that the fascism of violence is naively contrasted with the fantasy of a "quiet revolution." One can see this ideal put into literary form in Upton Sinclair's 1906 THE JUNGLE. After endless descriptions of the protagonist being abused by the capitalist system, the revised edition ends by giving him a small part in the rise of socialism in the U.S., all of which is accomplished through just such a "quiet revolution."

I'm not criticizing Sinclair's inability to accurately predict the future-- that is, the failure of Socialism in early 20th cent America-- but rather, the naivete expressed in the novel that the Socalists will just get ushered into office because a majority of voters will realize what's right. The truth IMO is that no party gains power without wheeling and dealing and cutting out the competition. And all of these strategies, even though they may invoke "persuasion" or "deception" more than "force" like the alleged fascists, are just as devoted to people "exerting their will."

Occasionally some of these stratagems will be aired publicly, like Watergate and "Bridgegate, and then they cause the instigators assorted headaches. But that *method* goes on as before, and I doubt that any political party of any kind has ever risen to power without resorting to wheeling, dealing, and covert manipulation. Thus the idea that fascists alone are guilty of "exerting their will" is a false argument.

[millernumber1]

What I find amusing in the Marxist screed-- which is the most common, not to say the only, source of the "fascist" critique-- is that the fascism of violence is naively contrasted with the fantasy of a "quiet revolution." One can see this ideal put into literary form in Upton Sinclair's 1906 THE JUNGLE. After endless descriptions of the protagonist being abused by the capitalist system, the revised edition ends by giving him a small part in the rise of socialism in the U.S., all of which is accomplished through just such a "quiet revolution."

I'm not criticizing Sinclair's inability to accurately predict the future-- that is, the failure of Socialism in early 20th cent America-- but rather, the naivete expressed in the novel that the Socalists will just get ushered into office because a majority of voters will realize what's right. The truth IMO is that no party gains power without wheeling and dealing and cutting out the competition. And all of these strategies, even though they may invoke "persuasion" or "deception" more than "force" like the alleged fascists, are just as devoted to people "exerting their will."

Occasionally some of these stratagems will be aired publicly, like Watergate and "Bridgegate, and then they cause the instigators assorted headaches. But that *method* goes on as before, and I doubt that any political party of any kind has ever risen to power without resorting to wheeling, dealing, and covert manipulation. Thus the idea that fascists alone are guilty of "exerting their will" is a false argument.

Fundamental, I think, to the argument that superheros are fascist is the idea that morality is subjective or communally determined - the one person's conscience cannot justify acting to stop another person's action as an individual. Only state-sponsored methods of stopping individual actions are considered non-fascist. As a moral absolutist (that is, I believe morality is absolute, independent of culture, and accessible to every person via the conscience, to differing degrees depending on education and psychological health), I don't have such a problem.

[ouroboros]

Fundamental, I think, to the argument that superheros are fascist is the idea that morality is subjective or communally determined - the one person's conscience cannot justify acting to stop another person's action as an individual. Only state-sponsored methods of stopping individual actions are considered non-fascist. As a moral absolutist (that is, I believe morality is absolute, independent of culture, and accessible to every person via the conscience, to differing degrees depending on education and psychological health), I don't have such a problem.

The emphasis on communal determinism would seem to be glossed by this Marx-assertion:

Are men free to choose this or that form of society? By no means.

I won't get into Marx's notion of freedom, which in part involves control of production. But that sentence alone speaks volumes as to the opposition to individual action.

[Ragged Maw]

Not every superhero is (current) Carol Danvers. And what about heroes who, say, care WAY more about rescuing civvies from disaster areas as opposed to punching out villains.

[millernumber1]

The emphasis on communal determinism would seem to be glossed by this Marx-assertion:

I won't get into Marx's notion of freedom, which in part involves control of production. But that sentence alone speaks volumes as to the opposition to individual action.

Yup. Which is pretty much a reason to be opposed to Marx's thought and Marxism, in my book. Not that there aren't others. But that's one of the biggest.

Sadly, this belief permeates every corner of society's thoughts without awareness.

[Francisco]

Fascist superheroes: Almost everyone in Watchmen. Specially Rorschach. But then again Watchmen was a criticism and deconstruction of superheroes.

[millernumber1]

Fascist superheroes: Almost everyone in Watchmen. Specially Rorschach. But then again Watchmen was a criticism and deconstruction of superheroes.

I'm a bit confused about Rorschach being fascist. He's cruel, and fanatical, but he doesn't have a cult of personality, and he imagines society crumbling, not imposing his own order. All he's concerned with during the book itself is attempting to punish those he thinks deserve it in his own tiny sphere of influence. That hardly seems fascist. That's not to defend it as good or justice, but it doesn't fit the fascist philosophy or political patterns. Ozymandias, maybe - in fact, quite likely - but even Dr. Manhattan doesn't seem that interested in actually ruling.

[t hedge coke]

I won't get into Marx's notion of freedom, which in part involves control of production. But that sentence alone speaks volumes as to the opposition to individual action.

It involves the person producing having control or a hand in the control of what they are producing.

Not, the State having control, or the person with the most money or a landed title.

That's in no way counter to individual action, but designed and intended to empower and valorize the individual.

[Shawn Hopkins]

What I find amusing in the Marxist screed-- which is the most common, not to say the only, source of the "fascist" critique-- is that the fascism of violence is naively contrasted with the fantasy of a "quiet revolution." One can see this ideal put into literary form in Upton Sinclair's 1906 THE JUNGLE. After endless descriptions of the protagonist being abused by the capitalist system, the revised edition ends by giving him a small part in the rise of socialism in the U.S., all of which is accomplished through just such a "quiet revolution."

I'm not criticizing Sinclair's inability to accurately predict the future-- that is, the failure of Socialism in early 20th cent America-- but rather, the naivete expressed in the novel that the Socalists will just get ushered into office because a majority of voters will realize what's right. The truth IMO is that no party gains power without wheeling and dealing and cutting out the competition. And all of these strategies, even though they may invoke "persuasion" or "deception" more than "force" like the alleged fascists, are just as devoted to people "exerting their will."

Occasionally some of these stratagems will be aired publicly, like Watergate and "Bridgegate, and then they cause the instigators assorted headaches. But that *method* goes on as before, and I doubt that any political party of any kind has ever risen to power without resorting to wheeling, dealing, and covert manipulation. Thus the idea that fascists alone are guilty of "exerting their will" is a false argument.

I don't think anyone would make that argument. It's just that accomplishing goals by being stronger and with glorified violence is a fascist element. If they solved their problems through talking stuff out no one would call them fascist.

[ouroboros]

Fascist superheroes: Almost everyone in Watchmen. Specially Rorschach. But then again Watchmen was a criticism and deconstruction of superheroes.

Can one call it a "deconstruction" if the meaning the author finds is not in the original work? That is, if it's been imposed by the author?