Steve Shives - Is Batman Fascist?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Guys really though I know Shives glows like Manhattan but he's not doing a persuasive essay here, it's strictly debate format, and it's a case where he's actually on the side of the property along with his guest whom he apparently has known for a long time and is also a positive fan of it.

Fascism in my eyes always seems to be something people use as a general pejorative term for someone using power they don't like no matter how valid or invalid it is. So color me jaded or apathetic on Shives's opinion.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Is Batman a cop?

[Fianna]

I'd say that Batman (along with most superheroes) has more in common with libertarian ideology. It's the fantasy of concerned citizens using private resources to fix society's problems, with public institutions only having a minimal, support role. There's no effort by Batman to take over Gotham City or to get the GCPD to mimic his methods, which he would if he were a fascist; instead, he wants to keep fighting crime independently, without joining, controlling, or being restricted by the state.

Not to say the stories are necessarily trying to promote libertarianism. It's just, the public institutions can't be effective compared to the superheroes, otherwise there'd be no point in having superheroes.

[MithrandirOlorin]

I'd say that Batman (along with most superheroes) has more in common with libertarian ideology. It's the fantasy of concerned citizens using private resources to fix society's problems, with public institutions only having a minimal, support role. There's no effort by Batman to take over Gotham City or to get the GCPD to mimic his methods, which he would if he were a fascist; instead, he wants to keep fighting crime independently, without joining, controlling, or being restricted by the state.

Not to say the stories are necessarily trying to promote libertarianism. It's just, the public institutions can't be effective compared to the superheroes, otherwise there'd be no point in having superheroes.

Actually in War Games he does take over the Police temporarily.

[clearspira]

Steve Shives - the block bot King. Seriously, go to your Twitter, doesn't matter if you've ever exchanged two words with the guy or not. 50/50 chance that someone else you have subbed to has put you on his block list just for existing.

He the the stereotype of the left in human form.

[Jonathan101]

I like Steve Shives, don't have time to watch an hour long video right now.

I can add to the debate tho, here is Thought Slime, the most anarchist youtuber I know of, explaining his thoughts on the Batman.
https://youtu.be/73M2sq9zK-I

My personal view is that, "No, Batman is not a Fascist" but then I use the 14 points outlined by Umberto Eco, and while it is a spectrum, Batman does not do Newspeak, he is not obsessed with an imagined plot, and he is not tied up in machismo and guns. He really does not hit the points.
"Ur-Fascist"
https://web.archive.org/web/20170131155 ... r-fascism/

Well...while I agree that Batman is not a Fascist, Umberto Eco is not really seen an authoritative source on the subject in the field of Fascist Studies. He was a Medieval Scholar, novelist and philosopher who grew up in Fascist Italy and had a pro-Enlightenment bias, and his definition is biased and broad and sprinkled with his personal beliefs and experiences. He was repeating and revitalising a lot of arguments that were considered dated even in the 90s, and the only reason his arguments are so popular is probably because he himself was already a popular author.

So, whether or not Batman meets the criteria laid out by Eco is largely irrelevant.

(Eco is a personal peeve of mine going back to university, for the record)

[Rocketboy1313]

Well...while I agree that Batman is not a Fascist, Umberto Eco is not really seen an authoritative source on the subject in the field of Fascist Studies. He was a Medieval Scholar, novelist and philosopher who grew up in Fascist Italy and had a pro-Enlightenment bias, and his definition is biased and broad and sprinkled with his personal beliefs and experiences. He was repeating and revitalising a lot of arguments that were considered dated even in the 90s, and the only reason his arguments are so popular is probably because he himself was already a popular author.

So, whether or not Batman meets the criteria laid out by Eco is largely irrelevant.

(Eco is a personal peeve of mine going back to university, for the record)

You know, I don't mind people shooting down what I cite, because that is the point of having citations, but could you list a few sources you would point to?

I am asking so I can read/watch something and then refer to it when these kinds of conversations come up.

[Jonathan101]

Well...while I agree that Batman is not a Fascist, Umberto Eco is not really seen an authoritative source on the subject in the field of Fascist Studies. He was a Medieval Scholar, novelist and philosopher who grew up in Fascist Italy and had a pro-Enlightenment bias, and his definition is biased and broad and sprinkled with his personal beliefs and experiences. He was repeating and revitalising a lot of arguments that were considered dated even in the 90s, and the only reason his arguments are so popular is probably because he himself was already a popular author.

So, whether or not Batman meets the criteria laid out by Eco is largely irrelevant.

(Eco is a personal peeve of mine going back to university, for the record)

You know, I don't mind people shooting down what I cite, because that is the point of having citations, but could you list a few sources you would point to?

I am asking so I can read/watch something and then refer to it when these kinds of conversations come up.

Roger Griffin- "Fascism (Key Concepts in Political Theory)" and Stanley Payne- "A History of Fascism" are good starting points (the former is a shorter read), as well as "Definitions of Fascism" on Wikipedia.

Griffin makes a passing criticism of Eco in his book; mostly, scholars just don't talk about Eco at all (though they reference each other), and what they do discuss contradicts him in various ways. There are numerous definitions of Fascism and each have their pros and cons, but Eco is the only one I have seen who argues that Fascism is so contradictory that it only really needs one trait out of 14 to form, and I think the only one who stresses the alleged anti-Enlightenment nature of Fascism (others would argue that it actually represents the "dark side" of the Enlightenment), which is probably because he was personally a big fan of the Enlightenment.

Basically, there are different "camps" (and for that matter "sub-camps") that each have their own distinct takes on Fascism, and most are ideologically driven and thus cherry pick the evidence on what Fascism "is", which is why people argue so much about whether this or that party or movement or politician is a Fascist or not. The root of this is that Fascists didn't always know themselves and were making it up as they went along- which to some extent is normal for any ideology-; that they came to power shortly after being "invented" (compare, say, Marxism, which "came to power" in Russia decades after Marx was writing); and they were formed of different factions each with their own particular agendas and interpretations.

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).

[Rocketboy1313]

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.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think Batman is guilty of 1, 6, and 11.