Steve Shives - Is Batman Fascist?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, it's not really "about" that, it's just what they did to attain power.

I'm just looking at the distortion of modernist principles that roles into one political grasp for power.

[TGLS]

I think the shortest definition of Fascism is: "Fascism defines national enemies, and seeks to reorganize society to destroy them." I think that covers pretty much all of the big ones (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao)

[Jonathan101]

It's just a bit simplistic. For a start, Hitler originally tried to take power by overthrowing the government outright in the Beer Hall Putsch (which itself followed the failed right-wing Kapp Putsch, as well as left-wing Spartacus Uprising and Munich Soviet Republic, not to mention the questionable legitimacy of the Weimar Republic itself which was declared pretty impromptu.

When Hitler DID get elected to power, the Republic was already on life support, and not just because of the Nazi's. The sitting President was a monarchist, the biggest rivals to the Nazi's were the Stalinist KPD, and Hitler was the FOURTH Chancellor in a row to rule by Emergency Powers rather than the first; in fact, his predecessor as Chancellor- Kurt von Schleicher- plotted to establish a dictatorship himself, but was ironically thwarted by Hitler who refused to go along with it (mostly because he wanted to be dictator himself, but still). Even the countries he invaded were semi-fascist (Austria), National Socialist (Czechoslovakia) and de facto military dictatorship (Poland).

As for Mussolini, pre-Fascist Italy had a bunch of its' own problems already, and if anything was way TOO democratic (e.g. there was an election every year), plus he was forced to serve at the pleasure of the King. He was in a much weaker position than Hitler was and it is hard to tell how much he was simply a lying opportunist vs how much he was genuinely forced to make compromises in order to keep his government from being ripped apart by factionalism from without and within. Mussolini at one point even offered to make the Socialist party legal again and establish a (conditional) semi-democratic two-party system but was rebuffed (though it probably wouldn't have been popular on his own side if it wasn't).

They didn't want power just for its own sake (although some authors claim otherwise) but because they had visions they wanted to impose on society. Those visions were not fully fleshed out or universally agreed upon even within their own parties, and they had to make compromises with other groups to achieve them as well as bend to political, social and economic realities at times...but, that's sort of true of any ideology. The problem with fascism (besides the violence and terror and bigotry etc) is that it came to power pretty much as soon as it was developed (vs things like Marxism or Liberalism which developed over decades before leading to successful revolutions) so they didn't have a clear ideology or set of policies to map / hide behind. The Bolsheviks had a lot of the same problems (and violent solutions) that the Fascists did, but they were a more ideologically unified bunch with decades of theory behind them so they managed to look more robust and consistent than they really were.

I think the shortest definition of Fascism is: "Fascism defines national enemies, and seeks to reorganize society to destroy them." I think that covers pretty much all of the big ones (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao)

Yeah but no.

Their enemies are defined by their opposition (real or imagined) to what the fascist already believes. The emphasis on enemies is more of a tool to unify and mobilise the movement, but that doesn't mean they don't have plans for without them. Every party and movement can devolve into "enemyism" (which is a word I just made up).

Hitler was a German ultranationalist from a young age. His opposition to Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, Jews etc stemmed largely from their real-or-imagined opposition to German nationalism and his vision of a German nation (which evolved over time). He didn't come up with grand and mad building projects or force members of the party to attend the opera just because he wanted to annoy the Jews.

[CmdrKing]

long post, quoting so people can refer back to it

It's generally understood that the Nazis took a great deal of inspiration for the early days of their genocide from American Jim Crow laws, pretty much only truly originating the Final Solution. In this light, why is it surprising then that a lot of American presidents show a lot of elements of fascism?

Where it's tricky is separating out the normal behaviors of an imperial power from the specific aspects that are more characteristic of fascism, because while there is overlap it's not universal either.
But in general as both an aspirant empire and a deeply, uncommonly racist one, the US has always teetered on the edge of what we'd generally consider fascism in one form or another. Trump's distinguishing characteristics here are a) deliberately making overtures (and seemingly being subordinate to in several ways) to other fascistic leaders at a time of resurgent fascistic thought and b) deliberately drawing inspiration from Hitler in specific in driving the country over that cliff.

Also: the word you want is Leninist, not Marxist. Basically anyone who joins or benefits from a union is engaging in Marxist principles, it's too old and proliferated a philosophy to really have the meaning you're using here.

[TGLS]

I think the shortest definition of Fascism is: "Fascism defines national enemies, and seeks to reorganize society to destroy them." I think that covers pretty much all of the big ones (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao)

Their enemies are defined by their opposition (real or imagined) to what the fascist already believes. The emphasis on enemies is more of a tool to unify and mobilise the movement, but that doesn't mean they don't have plans for without them. Every party and movement can devolve into "enemyism" (which is a word I just made up).

Hitler was a German ultranationalist from a young age. His opposition to Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, Jews etc stemmed largely from their real-or-imagined opposition to German nationalism and his vision of a German nation (which evolved over time). He didn't come up with grand and mad building projects or force members of the party to attend the opera just because he wanted to annoy the Jews.

Well, the way I see it is like this:
-> Obviously, not all totalitarians are fascists. Pinochet for example.
-> Not all fascists are irredentist or expansionist. Franco for example.
-> Any economic policy is simply in aid of accomplishing another task.

I suppose you could argue ultranationalism fits in there, but if the goal is to create a spectrum of fascism that isn't just a spectrum of nationalists, we're going to need to find something else.

Given that irredentism is basically a special case of a enemy to be crushed (Italian and German Irredentism was quite central to their fascisms), the Nazis had made anti-semitism central as early as 1920 (they were literally selling tobacco called Anti-Semit), and the Left-Fascists I noted had defined their enemies at an early stage.

Contrasting the TGLS-Fascism against Enemyism is pretty simple. Any Enemyist would be satisfied by pinning their enemy so they can't do anything (compare with the US policy of containment of Communism in the cold war), while the TGLS-Fascist would seek to completely crush their enemy into dust (compare with the Nazi policy of war of extermination in WW2),

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Also: the word you want is Leninist, not Marxist. Basically anyone who joins or benefits from a union is engaging in Marxist principles, it's too old and proliferated a philosophy to really have the meaning you're using here.

Very true and I failed to mention it earlier. Conservatives embrace unions very strongly despite Marx's influence on it.

[Jonathan101]

long post, quoting so people can refer back to it

It's generally understood that the Nazis took a great deal of inspiration for the early days of their genocide from American Jim Crow laws, pretty much only truly originating the Final Solution. In this light, why is it surprising then that a lot of American presidents show a lot of elements of fascism?

Where it's tricky is separating out the normal behaviors of an imperial power from the specific aspects that are more characteristic of fascism, because while there is overlap it's not universal either.
But in general as both an aspirant empire and a deeply, uncommonly racist one, the US has always teetered on the edge of what we'd generally consider fascism in one form or another. Trump's distinguishing characteristics here are a) deliberately making overtures (and seemingly being subordinate to in several ways) to other fascistic leaders at a time of resurgent fascistic thought and b) deliberately drawing inspiration from Hitler in specific in driving the country over that cliff.

"Generally agreed" by whom?

Racial anti-Semitism dates back to the 19th century. The Nazi's used American race laws as a guideline when constructing their own anti-Jewish laws, but those laws were not necessarily the beginnings of the Holocaust which was a very haphazard, disorganized affair and most scholars date the Final Solution to beginning in late 1941 at the earliest, after their attempts to deport or expel the Jews didn't go as planned.

As to American Presidents, the point was that they were indeed "fascisty" to varying extents but none of those led to a Holocaust (save the Indians, but I stuck to 20th century Presidents). All of them did things that were as bad or even worse than anything Trump did, and many of them dog-whistled to right-wing extremists as well and the evidence that he is drawing specially from Hitler (rather than part of the pattern of corrupt and racist US officials) is scant.

And if by "other fascistic leaders" you mean Putin, Bolsanaro, Erdogan etc, then either you expect them to carry out a Holocaust some time soon or you think they are somehow less likely to go full-Hitler than Trump for...some reason, and you think that the US is somehow as or more vulnerable to Nazism than they are.

Also: the word you want is Leninist, not Marxist. Basically anyone who joins or benefits from a union is engaging in Marxist principles, it's too old and proliferated a philosophy to really have the meaning you're using here.

Considering that unions predate the writings of Marx by decades if not centuries I'm going to say "no", and I'm not sure what "meaning" you are talking about since I only used the term in passing.

Might as well say that every commune is engaging in early Christian principles- I suppose it is technically true, but also kind of misleading.

I think the shortest definition of Fascism is: "Fascism defines national enemies, and seeks to reorganize society to destroy them." I think that covers pretty much all of the big ones (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao)

Their enemies are defined by their opposition (real or imagined) to what the fascist already believes. The emphasis on enemies is more of a tool to unify and mobilise the movement, but that doesn't mean they don't have plans for without them. Every party and movement can devolve into "enemyism" (which is a word I just made up).

Hitler was a German ultranationalist from a young age. His opposition to Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, Jews etc stemmed largely from their real-or-imagined opposition to German nationalism and his vision of a German nation (which evolved over time). He didn't come up with grand and mad building projects or force members of the party to attend the opera just because he wanted to annoy the Jews.

Well, the way I see it is like this:
-> Obviously, not all totalitarians are fascists. Pinochet for example.
-> Not all fascists are irredentist or expansionist. Franco for example.
-> Any economic policy is simply in aid of accomplishing another task.

I suppose you could argue ultranationalism fits in there, but if the goal is to create a spectrum of fascism that isn't just a spectrum of nationalists, we're going to need to find something else.

Given that irredentism is basically a special case of a enemy to be crushed (Italian and German Irredentism was quite central to their fascisms), the Nazis had made anti-semitism central as early as 1920 (they were literally selling tobacco called Anti-Semit), and the Left-Fascists I noted had defined their enemies at an early stage.

Contrasting the TGLS-Fascism against Enemyism is pretty simple. Any Enemyist would be satisfied by pinning their enemy so they can't do anything (compare with the US policy of containment of Communism in the cold war), while the TGLS-Fascist would seek to completely crush their enemy into dust (compare with the Nazi policy of war of extermination in WW2),

Firstly, saying that "any economic policy is simply in aid of accomplishing another task" is technically true, but a bit misleading since some ideologies- and idealogues- downplay the importance of economic policy (like the Nazi's) while others make it the cornerstone of their philosophy (Marxists, Libertarians).

Also, you are a rare person who thinks that Franco was a fascist but Pinochet wasn't. Lots of scholars would argue that even Franco wasn't (at least not "in his heart", and he gradually moved away from it after the Axis powers started losing), but most would agree that Pinochet was trying to ape Franco and / or fascism, and the main difference is his adoption of explicitly free-market policies (which he only did after his plans for a fascist corporatist economy fell through).

Irredentism is just about retaking lost territory (real or imagined). The French were "irredentist" in the Treaty of Versailles when they took back Alsace-Lorraine. It isn't the same as stressing an enemy.

By "enemyism" I meant just overstressing an enemy, usually for the purpose of achieving unity-through-fear. It can be used to any end by any faction. You can't say that any fascist "would seek to completely crush their enemy to dust" and invoke the "Nazi policy of war of extermination" because, hate to break it to you, the Italian fascists and other fascist movements were much more tolerant of their enemies than the Nazi's were. The Nazi's- and more specifically Hitler (since their were card-carrying National Socialists who thought Nazi anti-Semitism went too far; even Himmler got queasy at times)- were EXTREME "enemyists", even by the standards of fascism.

In point of fact, almost EVERY ideology defines their enemy "at an early stage". Liberals were originally fighting against monarchy, feudalism and censorship; Socialists against capitalists; Feminists against the Patriarchy etc. Having a strong emphasis on "the enemy" is usually a sign of either being in a state of war with said enemy, or that some sort of radical extremist is running things- and Hitler was considered extreme even by the standards of early 20th century German nationalists and anti-Semites, many of whom were shocked by some of the things Hitler was saying, and not all of whom stressed anti-Semitism. It's a matter of recognising the differences between Fascism vs Nazism vs Hitlerism (vs other forms of authoritarianism), all of which are varying shades of bad and rotten but only one of which was hammering home the anti-Semitism to such a sociopathic extreme.

Also, on the subject of totalitarianism- little known fact, the term was firstly used as an insult against Italian Fascists, who happily embraced it...but, it originally meant simply that the state would have "total authority" or "ultimate authority", and as Italy was pretty Classical Liberal (i.e. right-Libertarian by modern standards) with a strong Libertarian-Left opposition, this was seen as very bad. Fascist Italy is often thought to be a "failed" totalitarian state compared to Hitler's Germany or Stalinist Russia, but in reality they weren't aiming for a super-invasive police state in the first place. By the Italian definition, we are arguably all living in a totalitarian state already...make of that what you will.

[Jonathan101]

Also: the word you want is Leninist, not Marxist. Basically anyone who joins or benefits from a union is engaging in Marxist principles, it's too old and proliferated a philosophy to really have the meaning you're using here.

Very true and I failed to mention it earlier. Conservatives embrace unions very strongly despite Marx's influence on it.

Conservatives hate unions, unless it is police unions or something. Big business crippled the trade union movement in America long ago during the Red Scares (it might be undergoing a revival right now though), and it became associated with mobsters.

Even so, just because Marx "influenced" unions doesn't mean that he or Marxists have a monopoly on the concept. They predate Marx and many other, non-Marxist Socialists and Anarchists- as well as politically neutral parties- exerted influence on it as well. If anything it was the Unions that influenced Marx rather than the other way around.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Oh yeah.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

From what I understand, Hitler took inspiration from the Indian Reservation System, as far as structuring his scapegoating of the Jewish.

Not saying that that comprehensively his political agenda surrounding that, just that it's been documented.

Also I agree with Jonathan on enemies not being the central thesis of Fascism, when considering from an international perspective.