Steve Shives - Is Batman Fascist?

[Jonathan101]

My problem with Eco is that he is the author I see most often getting pulled out in arguments over Fascism as if his particular definition is somehow the "authoritative" one, when in fact it's just one of many, and one of the less thoroughly researched and more ideologically tinted ones at that. And it's probably just because Eco was a world famous author while the others are mostly well known only in academia, along with Eco's definition being very broad and Eco himself being dead (and, thus, less likely to contradict or complain about how people are using his work).

I reference Eco mostly because it is accessible.
Most people do not have time for a book, but an article that has a lot of author flourish is easy to digest and appreciate. I also find his 14 points something that is easier to understand without them having to be quantified, a pitfall I see in the social science is trying to come up with objective percentages or counts that have to be hit in order for things to count.

Showing people that fascism can take the form of nebulous and creeping ideology based around machismo, bullshit, and reactionary politics is accurate as far a layman is concerned.

And incredibly simplistic and misleading as far as people more versed in the topic are concerned.

It isn't just about coming up with objective percentages (though in a way he's not innocent of that, as it is implicit), it's about accuracy and avoiding the pitfall of using fascism as an insult or a synonym for anything you dislike, or accusing people of fascism who honestly don't see themselves as fascist...and getting irritated with academic and experts when they don't side with you (usually while simultaneously accusing fascists of being "anti-intellectual" themselves).

American's have been calling their politicians and parties fascist for decades and that might make it MORE likely to become fascist rather than less, either because it's like "crying wolf" or because they just stop caring. It can also mean that other dangerous ideologies can be on the ascendancy because people don't agree on whether it is truly fascist or not, in part because they are drawing from different authorities (or "authorities") with their own definitions simply out of ignorance or laziness.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I feel like western theories of government in the sense of being a genuine function of public trust allow for a pretty organic understanding of what might be a fascist government.

Characterizing them at that point might be a bit proving too much.

[Rocketboy1313]

American's have been calling their politicians and parties fascist for decades and that might make it MORE likely to become fascist rather than less, either because it's like "crying wolf" or because they just stop caring. It can also mean that other dangerous ideologies can be on the ascendancy because people don't agree on whether it is truly fascist or not, in part because they are drawing from different authorities (or "authorities") with their own definitions simply out of ignorance or laziness.

I would say that people will be less able to recognize fascism moving in because of the "Cry Wolf" factor, but no one is becoming a fascist out of spite for people calling them fascist.

[Jonathan101]

American's have been calling their politicians and parties fascist for decades and that might make it MORE likely to become fascist rather than less, either because it's like "crying wolf" or because they just stop caring. It can also mean that other dangerous ideologies can be on the ascendancy because people don't agree on whether it is truly fascist or not, in part because they are drawing from different authorities (or "authorities") with their own definitions simply out of ignorance or laziness.

I would say that people will be less able to recognize fascism moving in because of the "Cry Wolf" factor, but no one is becoming a fascist out of spite for people calling them fascist.

I'm not sure how you would know that, but I meant more that people will become apathetic to fascism and think it can't be "that bad" or "not that big a deal" if they think it is just a scare word or an insult that people throw at each other.

There is a case to be made that Trump is yet another step in that direction, the result of decades of buildup, but he is far more a symptom than a cause. Mass rallies, cults of personalities around the candidates, multi-class appeal, sacralisation of politics, a sense that your political opponents are "the enemy" and should not / cannot be compromised with, a sense of overwhelming crisis, a sense of victimhood...none of these were invented by Trump or Trumpists, but they seem to have become part-and-parcel of American culture over the past several decades, made louder by a 24/7 news cycle and social media.

....and I'm only just remembering that we are in a Batman thread, not a US politics thread.

[CmdrKing]

Okay, but at a certain point you need to boil the topic down to a form that's useful. And history is useful when it helps us learn how to prevent it from repeating. So nitpicking the definition of fascists should lead us to an obvious question:

When did Hitler become a fascist?

Any answer that puts this moment after his becoming Chancellor is entirely useless. He outlined what he wanted to accomplish once in power long before he acquired it, and his atrocities were fairly consistent with that outline. Recognizing him as a fascist and preventing his rise to power was the best path to avoiding all that, and it was ignored, because many, many people are attracted to fascism and many more pretend 'it could never happen here'.

Similarly, if we're going to engage in preventative treatment of fascism, then recognizing what they see as problems in society, what their goals for society are, and how they propose to solve them are all key tools to recognizing it. And in that respect, things like strong appeals to authoritarianism and ethno-nationalism are pretty obvious red flags.

Also of course Trump took multiple steps towards genociding my people so y'know, pussyfooting around the fact he was an aspiring fascist is pretty laughable to me.

Switching back around, the video doesn't actually conclude Batman's a fascist. Indeed it finds he doens't come particularly close. But it does explore why it's common for people to question this, because the sort of extrajudicial authoritarianism the darkest versions of Batman engage in are what most people associate with Fascism, without considering the other elements.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Idunno ICE detention camps was (is?) pretty bad too.

[Jonathan101]

Okay, but at a certain point you need to boil the topic down to a form that's useful. And history is useful when it helps us learn how to prevent it from repeating. So nitpicking the definition of fascists should lead us to an obvious question:

When did Hitler become a fascist?

Any answer that puts this moment after his becoming Chancellor is entirely useless. He outlined what he wanted to accomplish once in power long before he acquired it, and his atrocities were fairly consistent with that outline. Recognizing him as a fascist and preventing his rise to power was the best path to avoiding all that, and it was ignored, because many, many people are attracted to fascism and many more pretend 'it could never happen here'.

Similarly, if we're going to engage in preventative treatment of fascism, then recognizing what they see as problems in society, what their goals for society are, and how they propose to solve them are all key tools to recognizing it. And in that respect, things like strong appeals to authoritarianism and ethno-nationalism are pretty obvious red flags.

Also of course Trump took multiple steps towards genociding my people so y'know, pussyfooting around the fact he was an aspiring fascist is pretty laughable to me.

Switching back around, the video doesn't actually conclude Batman's a fascist. Indeed it finds he doens't come particularly close. But it does explore why it's common for people to question this, because the sort of extrajudicial authoritarianism the darkest versions of Batman engage in are what most people associate with Fascism, without considering the other elements.

The arguments from fascist scholarship over this subject tend to be:

1) That American's are actually pretty bad at recognising fascism
2) That many definitions of fascism out there- including but not limited to Eco's- are actually not that great, and even decent ones are misrepresented
3) That being hypervigilant against fascism can lead to other problems and is often counter-productive
4) That Trump is a thoroughly American phenomenon and invoking Hitler to describe him- or any other politician- is missing the point and just shows small reference pools

Also, the idea that history (o any other subject) has to be "useful" is a thoroughly anti-intellectual stance (and precisely the sort of thing Hitler believed, incidentally). It just leads to laziness and cherry picking, and tends to make people you arrogantly assume that they already "know" what is useful before they even look at anything.

And it's all of these things together that lead to questions like "is Batman fascist?". Not to long ago I even heard a prominent fantasy author argue that the fantasy genre itself is fascist. It's symptomatic of people not knowing or agreeing on what fascism "is" or how it should be dealt with. These guys might conclude that Batman is not fascist, but I've certainly heard others conclude that he is (and even that superhero fiction in general is).

[CmdrKing]

The arguments from fascist scholarship over this subject tend to be:

1) That American's are actually pretty bad at recognising fascism
2) That many definitions of fascism out there- including but not limited to Eco's- are actually not that great, and even decent ones are misrepresented
3) That being hypervigilant against fascism can lead to other problems and is often counter-productive
4) That Trump is a thoroughly American phenomenon and invoking Hitler to describe him- or any other politician- is missing the point and just shows small reference pools

Also, the idea that history (o any other subject) has to be "useful" is a thoroughly anti-intellectual stance (and precisely the sort of thing Hitler believed, incidentally). It just leads to laziness and cherry picking, and tends to make people you arrogantly assume that they already "know" what is useful before they even look at anything.

And it's all of these things together that lead to questions like "is Batman fascist?". Not to long ago I even heard a prominent fantasy author argue that the fantasy genre itself is fascist. It's symptomatic of people not knowing or agreeing on what fascism "is" or how it should be dealt with. These guys might conclude that Batman is not fascist, but I've certainly heard others conclude that he is (and even that superhero fiction in general is).

One of the functions of history is to help understand the present. It’s not the totality of history of course, but one function.

And bluntly any scholar who tut tuts comparing modern movements to historical fascism is not worth listening to. If, for precision, we want to call the modern landscape “fascistic” or “having common elements with fascist movements” for the sake of precision, that’s one thing. Scholars need a level of precision.

But a flat rebuke? Nah, that’s just repeating the arguments of neo-fascists to obfuscate the reality that we’re experiencing a global resurgence of fascistic politics.

Like, it’s absurd to argue Trump as a uniquely American phenomenon, and confuses his aesthetic (which is specific to his 80s supervillain appeal) for the manner and goals with which he governed (which is creating an America First (a slogan of both Trump AND self-described 1930s American fascists!) ethnostate with the self-serving incompetence of historical fascist regimes)

[Jonathan101]

The arguments from fascist scholarship over this subject tend to be:

1) That American's are actually pretty bad at recognising fascism
2) That many definitions of fascism out there- including but not limited to Eco's- are actually not that great, and even decent ones are misrepresented
3) That being hypervigilant against fascism can lead to other problems and is often counter-productive
4) That Trump is a thoroughly American phenomenon and invoking Hitler to describe him- or any other politician- is missing the point and just shows small reference pools

Also, the idea that history (o any other subject) has to be "useful" is a thoroughly anti-intellectual stance (and precisely the sort of thing Hitler believed, incidentally). It just leads to laziness and cherry picking, and tends to make people you arrogantly assume that they already "know" what is useful before they even look at anything.

And it's all of these things together that lead to questions like "is Batman fascist?". Not to long ago I even heard a prominent fantasy author argue that the fantasy genre itself is fascist. It's symptomatic of people not knowing or agreeing on what fascism "is" or how it should be dealt with. These guys might conclude that Batman is not fascist, but I've certainly heard others conclude that he is (and even that superhero fiction in general is).

One of the functions of history is to help understand the present. It’s not the totality of history of course, but one function.

And bluntly any scholar who tut tuts comparing modern movements to historical fascism is not worth listening to. If, for precision, we want to call the modern landscape “fascistic” or “having common elements with fascist movements” for the sake of precision, that’s one thing. Scholars need a level of precision.

But a flat rebuke? Nah, that’s just repeating the arguments of neo-fascists to obfuscate the reality that we’re experiencing a global resurgence of fascistic politics.

Like, it’s absurd to argue Trump as a uniquely American phenomenon, and confuses his aesthetic (which is specific to his 80s supervillain appeal) for the manner and goals with which he governed (which is creating an America First (a slogan of both Trump AND self-described 1930s American fascists!) ethnostate with the self-serving incompetence of historical fascist regimes)

It's less "any fascist scholar" than "seemingly most of them".

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... nald-trump

It's also not a case of saying that Trump is a "uniquely" American phenomenon, but that he is more similar to any number of American politicians than he is to Hitler. Lots of American governors, Senators, mayors and even Presidents have been just as or more corrupt / racist etc than Trump was, as well as any number of world leaders and dictators who were not labelled fascist. American Fascists used "America First" yes, but they did not invent the term and it has been used by many other American politicians before and after them.

There has been a resurgence of "far-right" politics around the world, but they don't consider that to be the same as fascism. You might strongly disagree with them or say that it doesn't really matter and is just nitpicking, but their point is that this allows pro-Trump supporters to say "no he's not", as well as being not much different from them labelling Liberal or Leftist politicians Marxists or even fascists, if nobody is caring about accuracy except when it suits them to. Scholars aren't aiming for precision so that other people "don't have to be".

More to the point, they see the "fascistic" elements of Trump to be a symptom of much deeper problems in American politics going back several decades (keeping in mind Trump ran on much more moderate platforms in the past and almost nobody thought he was "fascist" until 2015, even if they thought he was a narcissistic jerk), namely the habit of using "fascist" or "Hitler" as insults, and that saying "but this time we really mean it!" probably isn't the best defence. It's part of the trend towards increased radicalisation (or at least intransigence) of American politics and media (or at least social media) and if it isn't solved then future Presidential candidates or other politicians might be more fascistic or some other sort of extremist still. They view increased accuracy as a SOLUTION to that (or part of one at least), not a specious distraction.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

CmdrKing's assessment is pretty consistent with like the last two scholars, let alone the last one.

America's unionized republic along with its centrism since the outset of WWII in the form of socialized institutions dependent on a market economy is a structural vanguard to authoritarian regimes. To say that that isn't corruptible or that we have to stick to the rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators doesn't seem very necessary.