Are Superheroes Fascist By Modern Standards?

[Kae]

NOPE


What you wanted more of an answer?
OK FINE, the concept of the superhero can really go both ways as many of them do encompass elements of authoritarianism and even genetic superiority, but this is by no means universal and while some writer may choose to interpret them in that manner specifically, others can be the opposite, I mean after all many super-heroes operate outside the law doing work specifically for the betterment of their communities without seeking any compensation for it, like I don't know about you guys but that sounds like a fucking anarchist.

So no, the concept can very much apply to all political stances, it's just that since we live in Neoliberal Capitalist society and these works tend to be very aspirational as well as avoid controversy, they tend to portray it in a positive manner, though not all the time as Batman definitely addresses the corruption and political opportunism that happens within the system, X-Men the discrimination and fear of the other whether that's a race or homosexuality or whatever, same could be said of Doom Patrol, Spider-Man addresses the class struggle and so on, like way too many comics to even list.

 

[BrawlMan]

No.

​

 

[Gordon_4]

No.

​

I need to see if I can buy the trade of that.

 

[Dreiko]

Typically they're fighting the fascists. Though you have people claiming white bread is fascist so I guess it depends on what you mean by "today's standards".

I guess you could have a superhero who makes everyone else around them able to just protect themselves, sort of like a buffer, but that'd not make for a very interesting story. It'd be like in Naruto where everyone in the village is a ninja to one degree or another. You either still get a superninja villain which necessitates a superhero type figure to save the day anyways or you have a normal slice of life show which is boring when what you're fixing for is a superhero show.


In one part naruto even starts sharing his fox chakra with everyone else in the village during a huge battle but that still only goes so far. In big powerful battles you want to focus your power on a single point not evenly spread it around because Kiba and his Akamaru will feel bad for being useless.

 

[Terminal Blue]

But the reality is we don't know what would happen to anyone with powers. The idea that they would all become murderous assholes because "who's gonna stop me." completely ignores things like, you know, personal morals, their own ideals about right/wrong, etc.

I mean that's true.

However, it's not hard to find morally impossible situations.

For example, global warming is one of the biggest disasters our species has ever faced, and will certainly kill a lot of people. If superman were real, he could force the governments of earth to commit to the radical policies needed to combat global warming, saving millions of lives down the line. He probably wouldn't even need to hurt or kill anyone. If anyone opposed him, he could just leave them stranded on a remote island until they changed their minds.

But, doing so would make superman an arbitrator of the political process. It sets a precedent that superman can step in and influence the political process if it's necessary to save lives or preserve humanity, and even if superman never does it again, the fact would remain that he always could.

So naturally, superman would never do that. Superman's moral convictions would not allow him to force radical changes to society simply because his morality says so. Superman would never want to become a tyrant, even for good reason. He accepts the moral restraint to allow humanity to make mistakes.

But people are still going to die, and superman could have prevented it, and chose not to.

Superman is kind of built on the assumption that that kind of moral restraint is virtuous, but there's also a critical position that would see it as fundamentally selfish and cowardly. To quote a very revealing phrase, "with great power comes great responsibility". If superman has such great power, is he not also obligated to accept the responsibility to exercise that power? Would the people who get hurt or die because of superman's refusal to violate his own moral restraint have the right to hold him accountable for having such great power and yet not using it.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Every time this argument "superheroes would be evil" I always go.

"Well, that's a Supervillain"

That's the core dynamic between a superhero and a supervillain two people who use their power in different ways. That's the main reason why super villains versus superheroes are so appealing, in superhero comics people use their powers for various things good, bad, and between. Some use it to help, some use it to get money, some use it to build a better system whether misguided or not and some use it to cause pain for the fun of it. It depends on the person.

Also, supervillains keeping the status quo is nothing new in comics, in fact, superheroes fighting evil government organizations is an extremely overused plot.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I mean that's true.

However, it's not hard to find morally impossible situations.

For example, global warming is one of the biggest disasters our species has ever faced, and will certainly kill a lot of people. If superman were real, he could force the governments of earth to commit to the radical policies needed to combat global warming, saving millions of lives down the line. He probably wouldn't even need to hurt or kill anyone. If anyone opposed him, he could just leave them stranded on a remote island until they changed their minds.

But, doing so would make superman an arbitrator of the political process. It sets a precedent that superman can step in and influence the political process if it's necessary to save lives or preserve humanity, and even if superman never does it again, the fact would remain that he always could.

So naturally, superman would never do that. Superman's moral convictions would not allow him to force radical changes to society simply because his morality says so. Superman would never want to become a tyrant, even for good reason. He accepts the moral restraint to allow humanity to make mistakes.

But people are still going to die, and superman could have prevented it, and chose not to.

Superman is kind of built on the assumption that that kind of moral restraint is virtuous, but there's also a critical position that would see it as fundamentally selfish and cowardly. To quote a very revealing phrase, "with great power comes great responsibility". If superman has such great power, is he not also obligated to accept the responsibility to exercise that power? Would the people who get hurt or die because of superman's refusal to violate his own moral restraint have the right to hold him accountable for having such great power and yet not using it.

Superman would just move the Earth further from the Sun. No problem.