Steve Shives - Is Batman Fascist?

[Jonathan101]

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 is kind of a strawman.

The last scholar is a philosopher who, much like Eco, isn't actually an expert on Fascist studies in the way the others were and was there because he had just written a (slim) book about Trump and Fascism in time for the 2020 elections.

Nobody is saying that the USA isn't corruptible. In fact I'm challenging the idea that it was ever a safeguard against authoritarian regimes, because if you look at the pre-war and post-war Presidents many of them look even MORE fascistic than Donald Trump in many ways (and were certainly called "Fascist" in their time)...except, today, we have social media and a 24/7 news cycle with fewer restrictions than existed before. If Trump looks like more of a threat to democracy than before that either speaks to ignorance about US history, or because the culture he operates in has changed somehow...despite things, objectively, being more democratic than ever before.

And talking about a "rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators" is a bit disengenuous when the Fascist comparisons with Trump usually go hand-in-hand with comparing him directly to Hitler.

The point I keep hammering home is that people keep using fascism as an insult and invoke whatever definitions seem to support that without really understanding them, because they have a superficial knowledge of what fascism truly "is" beyond "something we have to watch out for". And that might seem fine in the short-term, but in the long term it can have negative consequences. And we are living in the "long-term" right now.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Nobody is saying that the USA isn't corruptible. In fact I'm challenging the idea that it was ever a safeguard against authoritarian regimes, because if you look at the pre-war and post-war Presidents many of them look even MORE fascistic than Donald Trump in many ways (and were certainly called "Fascist" in their time)...except, today, we have social media and a 24/7 news cycle with fewer restrictions than existed before. If Trump looks like more of a threat to democracy than before that either speaks to ignorance about US history, or because the culture he operates in has changed somehow...despite things, objectively, being more democratic than ever before.

The culture has changed. It's safe to say that access to information and social media has led to a bigger proportion of opinions to facts really, and that's whether you are the obvious right-wing base of Fascism that exists at like any time/place in history or the budding leftist generation that's completely removed from the Cold War.

And talking about a "rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators" is a bit disengenuous when the Fascist comparisons with Trump usually go hand-in-hand with comparing him directly to Hitler.

Fascism by accounts in the article pretty much point to a rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators. Otherwise they just call Trump either Putin or simply all-but-Fascism when they increasingly choose to make each their piece about all the steadfast characteristics of Fascism -- just that he's not totally there yet.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Though I do understand that your point isn't exactly "the article's point" so to speak.

[Jonathan101]

Nobody is saying that the USA isn't corruptible. In fact I'm challenging the idea that it was ever a safeguard against authoritarian regimes, because if you look at the pre-war and post-war Presidents many of them look even MORE fascistic than Donald Trump in many ways (and were certainly called "Fascist" in their time)...except, today, we have social media and a 24/7 news cycle with fewer restrictions than existed before. If Trump looks like more of a threat to democracy than before that either speaks to ignorance about US history, or because the culture he operates in has changed somehow...despite things, objectively, being more democratic than ever before.

The culture has changed. It's safe to say that access to information and social media has led to a bigger proportion of opinions to facts really, and that's whether you are the obvious right-wing base of Fascism that exists at like any time/place in history or the budding leftist generation that's completely removed from the Cold War.

And talking about a "rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators" is a bit disengenuous when the Fascist comparisons with Trump usually go hand-in-hand with comparing him directly to Hitler.

Fascism by accounts in the article pretty much point to a rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators. Otherwise they just call Trump either Putin or simply all-but-Fascism when they increasingly choose to make each their piece about all the steadfast characteristics of Fascism -- just that he's not totally there yet.

The culture has changed, but we're still invoking definitions of Fascism from an Italian novelist writing in 1995, and comparing politicians to a genocidal maniac who died in 1945. But the culture has changed.

Even comparing him to Putin seems a bit much, since Putin has had hundreds of journalists flat-out murdered and. operates with a much colder, more meticulous efficiency.

You could say that Trump "would be" like Putin or even Hitler if he could get away with it...but, that's what the Tea Partiers said about Obama, and why they celebrated so much when Trump was elected- not just because he was "there guy" but because they honestly thought they had finally ousted an Obama / Clinton regime that was pushing for death camps.

Trump is certainly closer to fascism than they were, but...probably further than any number of US politicians and Presidents prior to him. Trying to argue that the face and nature of fascism has changed and that he's some sort of "modern fascist", while still treating him like Hitler 2.0, is nothing more than moving the goalposts.

Again, in the short term this might seem harmless since Trump is seen as "fascist enough" that it doesn't really matter, but in the long-term it's just symptomatic of the state of US political discourse and trends going all the way back to George Washington (who in his time was denounced as a tyrant and had people marching in the streets literally calling for his head- as the French Reign of Terror played out across the pond).

Odds are that over the next four years all kinds of insider stories about the Trump administration will come out and we'll get a better idea of whether he was truly battling tooth-and-nail to establish a neo-Fascist dictatorship or if he was barely capable of even running a circus, while Biden/ Harris get denounced as fascists in their own term and whoever follows Trump for the right gets the same treatment.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Nobody is saying that the USA isn't corruptible. In fact I'm challenging the idea that it was ever a safeguard against authoritarian regimes, because if you look at the pre-war and post-war Presidents many of them look even MORE fascistic than Donald Trump in many ways (and were certainly called "Fascist" in their time)...except, today, we have social media and a 24/7 news cycle with fewer restrictions than existed before. If Trump looks like more of a threat to democracy than before that either speaks to ignorance about US history, or because the culture he operates in has changed somehow...despite things, objectively, being more democratic than ever before.

The culture has changed. It's safe to say that access to information and social media has led to a bigger proportion of opinions to facts really, and that's whether you are the obvious right-wing base of Fascism that exists at like any time/place in history or the budding leftist generation that's completely removed from the Cold War.

And talking about a "rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators" is a bit disengenuous when the Fascist comparisons with Trump usually go hand-in-hand with comparing him directly to Hitler.

Fascism by accounts in the article pretty much point to a rogues gallery condition of evil Fascist dictators. Otherwise they just call Trump either Putin or simply all-but-Fascism when they increasingly choose to make each their piece about all the steadfast characteristics of Fascism -- just that he's not totally there yet.

The culture has changed, but we're still invoking definitions of Fascism from an Italian novelist writing in 1995, and comparing politicians to a genocidal maniac who died in 1945. But the culture has changed.

Even comparing him to Putin seems a bit much, since Putin has had hundreds of journalists flat-out murdered and. operates with a much colder, more meticulous efficiency.

You could say that Trump "would be" like Putin or even Hitler if he could get away with it...but, that's what the Tea Partiers said about Obama, and why they celebrated so much when Trump was elected- not just because he was "there guy" but because they honestly thought they had finally ousted an Obama / Clinton regime that was pushing for death camps.

Trump is certainly closer to fascism than they were, but...probably further than any number of US politicians and Presidents prior to him. Trying to argue that the face and nature of fascism has changed and that he's some sort of "modern fascist", while still treating him like Hitler 2.0, is nothing more than moving the goalposts.

Again, in the short term this might seem harmless since Trump is seen as "fascist enough" that it doesn't really matter, but in the long-term it's just symptomatic of the state of US political discourse and trends going all the way back to George Washington (who in his time was denounced as a tyrant and had people marching in the streets literally calling for his head- as the French Reign of Terror played out across the pond).

Odds are that over the next four years all kinds of insider stories about the Trump administration will come out and we'll get a better idea of whether he was truly battling tooth-and-nail to establish a neo-Fascist dictatorship or if he was barely capable of even running a circus, while Biden/ Harris get denounced as fascists in their own term and whoever follows Trump for the right gets the same treatment.

The same type of dynamics exist between racism/systemic racism, rent control/rent control 2.0, evolution/social evolution, etc.. as they apply to Christian America / Catholic America. All the subsequent conditions aren't very mutually exclusive, for lack of a better term, from the parent conditions, though people tend to argue/regard them as incompatible for consideration of principles in concept/practice.

What we look at are similar mechanisms for the same ends in a framework that has an only so different though more padded homeostasis. I'm fine with people considering if Trump is using newspeak if they correctly assess not only if he's doing that, but if that's relevant/pertinent to the matter of today (more importantly how it is, I think). These aren't precise math equations, and the point I believe of Eco isn't to make it into that as an end. You still need to consciously consider the principles and make it consistent with your overall thought/claim.

And really I don't care to factor in what the right wing said and at the time. I mean especially the tea party for god sakes. Why not pull a line from like Cletus from the Simpsons or, fair enough I guess, Lex Luthor or Kingpin (probably Kingpin). I get that we Overall need a more precise measure to "nail" trump to the wall, but this is pretty consistent speculation considering there's warranted danger in his rhetoric and he is "more fascist enough".

edit: sorry for the cartoon references, just trying to keep it real here.

Also, how about, like, Hitler Jr.?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't think, at least here or with Shives, that there is an effort to figurize Trump as Hitler. Pointing to Fascism doesn't mean that and it doesn't have to.

People see Fascism and they immediately point out that there's no account of mass deaths or absolute authoritarianism. But there is a lot you can say for the matter.


Anyways, sorry I've belabored as much as I might have. I was engaged with this today mostly on coffee and no food by lunch time and I can't help but feel real wiredly about it.

I feel like I understand your concern a bit better but I don't see much of a problem of establishing a spectrum of fascism.

[Jonathan101]

My point was to criticise Eco and point out that his definition is flawed, and express my annoyance with everyone using it, especially since it is mostly because he is famous rather than truly versed in the subject.

The problem with labelling every right-wing strongman as a "fascist" is that they probably don't see themselves like that and neither do their supporters, and in the vast majority of cases they aren't plotting another Holocaust, trying to start a new world war or trying to establish an absolute dictatorship. In the long run it just looks and sounds like hyperbole and can make them MORE popular rather than less just because their critics sound dishonest, and it legitimises the right labelling every Liberal or Leftist a Marxist or a Fascist themselves.

On top of that, there are a number of people who really and truly believed that global war and genocide were set to happen under Trump and were actually going into therapy over it (sometimes with therapists who agreed with them).

Sooner or later, a full-blown Fascist or some other sort of extremist might actually show up and take over, and the US won't be equipped to deal with them. Not because they haven't been vigilant enough, but because they have been hypervigilant to the point of exhausting and fooling themselves. In the meantime Americans keep fighting each other over real and imagined threats because of some "blood of patriots" crap.

As to the Tea Party, my point was that they too honestly believed that Obama was a Fascist (or a number of them did at any rate) and this partially accounts for the revival of the far-right, just as the fear of Trump partially accounted for the rise of a far-left. Cumulative extremism is a documented thing and when actual extremists take power it is usually in cases where both sides are in the ascendant and people think they have to choose between one lot of lunatics or another (which is why extremists on either side of the fence both hate moderates and centrists).

Politics in America today seems to be about making things sound as terrible as possible in order to force people to vote X or support Y in order to avoid Z.

And a "spectrum of fascism" is fine as long as it isn't actually a "spectrum of Nationalism" or "Spectrum of Conservatism" under a "Fascist" name. Otherwise it has the same problems as making a "spectrum of Marxism" (or a right-wing version of a "spectrum of fascism") and trying to cram Anarchists, Socialists, Syndicalists and Liberals onto it as if they all believe in much the same thing.

...but, mostly, I came here just to bash Eco.

[CmdrKing]

The problem with labelling every right-wing strongman as a "fascist" is that they probably don't see themselves like that and neither do their supporters, and in the vast majority of cases they aren't plotting another Holocaust, trying to start a new world war or trying to establish an absolute dictatorship. In the long run it just looks and sounds like hyperbole and can make them MORE popular rather than less just because their critics sound dishonest, and it legitimises the right labelling every Liberal or Leftist a Marxist or a Fascist themselves.

My point is that not only was Trump, in fact, gearing up to do this thing, he very obviously was, to the point that claiming he wasn't is equivalent to saying "it's not fascism until there's gas chambers".

Like, sorry, kicking a group out of the military, attempting to declare that doctors can legally refuse to treat them, and attempting to legally define them as not existing is blinking neon signs of "setting up for a genocide". Claiming this doesn't rise to the level of fascism is predicated on... what, not being for realisies? Him just doing it to placate his base (since he's an amoral grifter who doesn't really care about the politics aside from receiving endless praise) and it was gonna stop there?

I find the counter argument here extremely uncompelling. Like, left-fascism has more-or-less existed historically (I'd class Stalin and Mao thusly), and being wary of such figures rising is to the good. And being scared of being called a Marxist is laughable. Ooooooooh noooooooooo I primarily view history and social forces as a struggle between those who own everything and those who do the labor, so eeeeeviillll.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

My point was to criticise Eco and point out that his definition is flawed, and express my annoyance with everyone using it, especially since it is mostly because he is famous rather than truly versed in the subject.

The problem with labelling every right-wing strongman as a "fascist" is that they probably don't see themselves like that and neither do their supporters, and in the vast majority of cases they aren't plotting another Holocaust, trying to start a new world war or trying to establish an absolute dictatorship. In the long run it just looks and sounds like hyperbole and can make them MORE popular rather than less just because their critics sound dishonest, and it legitimises the right labelling every Liberal or Leftist a Marxist or a Fascist themselves.

Okay, as a social assertion in the form of public protest or partisan bickering, for instance for instance, yes definitely. Also on levels of decency if you please, just for the specific reason you gave of anybody on any type of constituency basis.

On top of that, there are a number of people who really and truly believed that global war and genocide were set to happen under Trump and were actually going into therapy over it (sometimes with therapists who agreed with them).

And just on this, the reflexive of that is not necessary true for Fascism. The only point there being that that's not really my hypothesis per se about what would happen, and also foremost I don't think it'd be a necessary facet for consideration.

Sooner or later, a full-blown Fascist or some other sort of extremist might actually show up and take over, and the US won't be equipped to deal with them. Not because they haven't been vigilant enough, but because they have been hypervigilant to the point of exhausting and fooling themselves. In the meantime Americans keep fighting each other over real and imagined threats because of some "blood of patriots" crap.

Perhaps, if I may be so blunt. As I agree with the first condition I don't see too much to argue there I guess. People will remember the left calling Trump a fascist, but I don't think that the DNC was so far as drinking necessarily all that much kool aid on the matter. They were vocal for sure, but to varying degrees of sensationalism for the most part, I'd say leaning on the lighter side compared to the social media left.

I personally feel information is so perverted on social media that I wish people would take it a little more superficially or at least patiently, but I'm probably blowing into the wind there.

As a digest on the left, the people typically more concerned with social theory respectively instead of baser survivalist rhetoric, lobbing around fascism for consideration is not all that snobbish or eclectic. By terms of radicalizing the left and right, I'd say Trump is somewhat unprecedented for modern US times. Speculating about him being a fascist seems incredibly more pertinent now than what I know about historical presidents. But really what do I know? I'm really not that confident lol, but if you want to throw an example down then I'd appreciate it.

As to the Tea Party, my point was that they too honestly believed that Obama was a Fascist (or a number of them did at any rate) and this partially accounts for the revival of the far-right, just as the fear of Trump partially accounted for the rise of a far-left. Cumulative extremism is a documented thing and when actual extremists take power it is usually in cases where both sides are in the ascendant and people think they have to choose between one lot of lunatics or another (which is why extremists on either side of the fence both hate moderates and centrists).

I'm inclined to agree, but I've always appealed more strongly to conventionally established progressivism, particularly on this forum for instance. Which basically just means you tend to take the boring route on more decisive issues.

I personally feel that I let the right to its own devices plenty enough. I know that socially it's a more mirrored perspective rather than hierarchical in terms of social knowledge, and I say that in full despite not being very familiar with any conservatives that are much fluent at all in progressive understanding. But I don't think it's lofty as a philosophical consideration. Again I'm not much of an activist.

Politics in America today seems to be about making things sound as terrible as possible in order to force people to vote X or support Y in order to avoid Z.

I took several philosophies in college, even a fun one based on argumentation logic. So I follow so to speak.

And a "spectrum of fascism" is fine as long as it isn't actually a "spectrum of Nationalism" or "Spectrum of Concervatism" under a "Fascist" name. Otherwise it has the same problems as making a "spectrum of Marxism" (or a right-wing version of a "spectrum of fascism") and trying to cram Anarchists, Socialists, Syndicalists and Liberals onto it as if they all believe in much the same thing.

...but, mostly, I came here just to bash Eco.

Sounds very interesting, but I'm just not specifically sure what a spectrum of nationalism or conservatism under the fascist brand would look like for instance.

I guess yeah I agree that you don't want to 3-dimensionalize stuff the way Marxism was. Really I love looking into the phenomena of that though.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

And being scared of being called a Marxist is laughable. Ooooooooh noooooooooo I primarily view history and social forces as a struggle between those who own everything and those who do the labor, so eeeeeviillll.

I mean like yeah. Basically conservatives have no nuanced understanding of economics or anything, Business, sure, and that's not really for nothing. But intuitively, it's just a matter of recognizing collectives as you encounter them, which accounts for evil takes on Feminism and Marxism. It's not like Naziism was much of an issue in the US for social persuasion... until recently at least.

And of course that's obviously heavily slanted and more indicative of my limited experiences online and also almost undermining successful conservative cities kinda and begs the question.