If we analyze specific superheroes, we would lose the common features of the genre (white, male, perfectly athletic - certainly a reactionary view at the very least) in favor of specific backstories. There is no fallacy in describing these unifying features, and I did mention that some later-developed characters fall outside the canon image of the superhero.
Yet your proof is cherry-picking individual (and usually, long-standing which is even more cherry-picking) characters and individual traits of their backstory. Such as Batman being rich and calling it a class-war, which is just ridiculous.
A good proof would be if you took my two lists and see how much does it apply to the two big superhero teams in the industry: Avenger's and Justice League (just long-standing, consistent characters). Go ahead, you made the claim, prove it. I'm willing to accept primary sources being Wikis rather than pointing out individual comics or storylines.
The problem here is that the very story about superhumans is structured like this: male, white, strong superhero (super)human being an undisputed protagonist.
You have described, again, a great deal of escapist, power-fantasy Western literature. Also, something that has been slowly changing in superhero comics, with far more female, non-white leads now. The new Spiderman is black, Thor is a woman now (I think, I do not pay close attention to DC continuity) and other characters like Ms.Marvel (the only superhero comic I recently read) went from ideal blond white woman to a Pakistani immigrant.
You also have to keep in mind that mayor, lucrative characters are deliberately held in stasis partly to keep them "true" and because publishers are terrified that any change would destroy their marketing value (such as what happened when Captain AMerica said "hail Hydra").
He is protecting ordinary humans - the sheep. And he's always or almost always operating outside legal boundaries, and always or almost always solving the problem with violence. So the separation of the perfectly athletic male "heroes" and the sheeple who are just a human mass to be "saved" by the hero is present in most such narratives, and is classic. It does not matter what ideology the superhuman himself espouses - the story is structured in a way that is imbuing elitist direct-action power fantasies as a good thing in the minds of the audience, it is the domination of strong authoritarian males who act as they want.
Ah, so it doesn't matter what the actual story is, what the context is for the character's actions, what the author's clear intentions were, what the motifs and ideology of the story is, all that is needed to make a story fascist is that you
could read fascism into it.
You seem to be of the opinion that a story can benefit fascism only by having its heroes give the Roman salute or walk around with the imperial eagle or a swastika. That's not so. The authoritarian strong white male power fantasy is deeply troubling, but the problem with fascism is that it also originated from western thought, and western culture, and there was - and still is - a very large demand for authoritarian or even fascist ideas in society.
No, I am on the opinion that for something to be called fascist, it has to
actually be fascist and advocating fascist ideals in content and
not vaguely resemble fascist.
If your definition of fascist is "everything that is right-wing" than your definition, and criticism, is meaningless.
Are there disturbing undercurrents, notes of authoritarianism in superhero comics? Yes. That is a valid criticism or at least observation. But authoritarianism by itself is not fascism. it is merely one of many building blocks of it. White, male power fantasy by itself is not fascist. I have given a working, check-able definition of fascism, one that you have not notably disagreed with. If it does not fit, it isn't.
It is not exclusive, but if you look down into history, you will find this ideal, this cult, in the historic predecessors and precursors which fascist though heavily relies on - the empires, dominated by unchained autocrats, who created massive states in their "perfect" image, in the militaristic cult of the strongman.
An element of fascist ideology =/= fascist.
What started as mockery of the fascist idea, is by now a militaristic superhuman character that serves to illustrate and enforce US global dominance. The US is a global empire, one of the last such things remaining on Earth.
Yeah, but that makes him a nationalist symbol, which he always has blatantly been. That does not make him fascist. You could easily TURN him into a fascist symbol, yes, but that does not mean that he is.
"Super-soldier" is also, itself, a horrible idea, and for a long time - at least in my culture - it was considered a fascist one.
While I agree it is a horrid idea, it is irrelevant to the discussion. What your culture considers fascist is also irrelevant, because we are talking about what can be objectively be called fascist, not subjectively. You seem to have the two confused, which would explain a lot.
Batman's physique dominates the image of him just as it does with Superman - when you see a panel with a strong brawly man, you don't think "intellectual!", so I guess there's that.
So they are anti-intellectual (and thus fascist?) because they are super-fit? Ignoring the fact that one of the consistent traits of Batman is being detective (even if it is often badly written) and that Superman has a reporter alter-ego (hardly a anti-intellectual occupation, is it?)?
But the fact that it is already a close match (and superheroes somehow always use violence to solve problems) is telling.
The only thing telling is that he is somewhat close
but not a hit. Some depictions make him closer and some are far distant, but that can be more easily chalked up to diversity of authors.
Fascism refined and was created on a foundation of Western thought. It did not appear in a vacuum.
Irrelevant to the argument.
Not necessarily. The image of a strong man sticking it up to that evil smartass alone is an image, which has a certain meaning even in form alone. By making scientists an often-used villain type, it also betrays a certain intent.
But that intent is not necessarily anti-intellectual. The idea that a scientist-villain is a villain because he is a scientist does happen, but is far from exclusive and not as popular as it once was. Often villains are villains for their own crazy reasons and use science and super-science as a means of power.
What about it?
So what happens when the hero is fighting someone who actually more accurately fits the fascist superman criteria? Many of them are sadistic, enjoy violence and brutality for its own sake, masculine, disdain intellectualism (although some like Freeze are intellectuals themselves), non-romantic nor sentimental and disdain weakness (which should be on that list, shouldn't be?). The only other two elements, disdain of death (an odd criteria for fascist superman IMO) and virility (you can't show their children being caught up in the violence, although several often have women kept).
Very few of Batman's villains are wheelchair-bound weaklings (I can't think of any one of them), or if they are, they often have some mayor power or advantage that mostly negate that disability. Punching weak, disabled people is actually a mark of the villain in the superhero genre, not of a hero.
The villains are often ugly, yes. But a good deal of them are not weak, if not outright physically or otherwise superior to an average human.
But I think the very idea of an oligarch who fights crime on his own is very dangerous. In real life, such people make corporate or paramilitary death squads and kill undesirables. They become the real "men of steel" and real vigilantes, and then people say it is horrible. So the disconnect between the hero Batman and what really happens when rich people fight others in thier own way, is also interesting.
Only if you ignore other aspects of the story's context and focus exclusively on Batman's origin as a rich man. Bruce Wayne's wealth was not a defining trait of him, merely as a source and means for his gadgets and ability to gain expertise.
I do not disagree that the idea of "rich people can solve all societal problems like crime and poverty" is a dangerous idea to embrace (and frankly, I can't recall it ever being one that Batman comics, cartoons or even films advocate except perhaps the last one), but yet not really part of Batman's character. Batman is defined by going out and solving crime by personally (rather than by indirect agents) punching it in the face, not as Bruce Wayne the billionaire with wealth and influence. Yes, it has problematic ideas on its own but it is not fascistic nor class-warfare.
"
- PeZook
