is spiderman a fundamentally libertarian character?
>>154855393Yes.
I love Dikto. I like how crazy he is. This man never compromised his core values.
>>154855393No, he helps people without expecting any compensation. That's irrational altruism according to Rand. The people should either help themselves or pay Spider Man for the service he provides.
>>154855439No
>>154855461And he even had the decency to illustrate his opinions very nicely so people who didn’t like his words could just appreciate his art instead
Superheroes are kind of funny, politically. You can poke at them from multiple political perspectives.>LibertarianSuperheroes as the absolute individuals, their powers and masked disguises allowing them greater liberty than the common citizenry; but, like the ideal Libertarian, they are responsible and disciplined with this ultra-freedom, and mostly use it to defend the common good of the citizenry, including, crucially, life, liberty, and property.>FascistSuperheroes as the embodiment of will-to-power; the Overmen, in which the power and will of a State is concentrated into a single individual, and that supreme being has the right to decide for himself what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil, and to mete out those judgments as he sees fit upon the lesser beings of the world.>DemocraticSuperheroes are citizens, above all else; when they take off their masks and put away their costumes, they become ordinary men and women, with ordinary jobs and ordinary lives, and no more rights and privileges than any of us. Rather than ruling us as kings or gods, superheroes preserve freedom and liberty for all, and claim no more of it for themselves than any other person, at least when they're off the clock.About the only angle I can't really work superheroes into is the genuine Leftist/Communist outlook. Which is really funny given how many lefties are in modern comics.
>>154855537That’s not fascism, burger
>>154855393Not really since all of Peter's problems are self inflicted as seen by the fact that he got Flash to leave him alone after beating the crap out of him and stopped pining after the ice queen bitch Liz in favor for women who actually wanted him
>>154855393>>154855393>libertarianObjectivist.>It's the same thi-Nope.
>>154855393Objectivist/Randian you mean, and at the very begining yes.
>>154855598Aunt May wasn't the sort of problem you could punch though
>>154855754Yeah. Bens family was dead and May IIRC had disowned her entire family according to Brand New Day, as seen by her reaction to JJJ's dad bringing her relatives to her wedding as a surprise and how fast she told them to fuck off and never come back first chance she had an excuse to banish them.Plus Peter was around 16-17 at the start of the series and legal emancipation wasn't a thing that looked good on your record if you wanted to get into college at the time
>>154855393No, he is a Democrat/Leftist, just like every other superhero. Only superheros who are "right wing" are the superhero(actual villains) from the Boys and that Rorschach guy from Watchman.
>>154855853Wrong
>>154855853You are stupid
>>154855496You didn't read Rand and are just repeating a retarded strawman online.
>>154855393If Spider-Man was a libertarian character he’d be rich and everything would constantly be going well for him because all libertarian fiction is power fantasy.
>>154855930Nobody does that except to laugh at it
>>154855901>>154855911lol the timestamps
>>154855393For some reason, I expected him to sound like a stereotypical nerd when I first learned of him. …he does not. At allhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8Y2-j2pMVk
>>154856008So?
>>154855597Superheroes (and vigilantes) are often considered fascist its not like the other Anon made it up>BBBBUT I DON"T LIKE ITI don't know man...just ask google to explain it to you or something jeez.
>>154856045>>BBBBUT I DON"T LIKE ITNot what I meant
>>154855393Libertarianism is a tricky thing. I'd like it to be true as Ditko says but when he says stuff here >>154855510 I think that the compromise he hates is inherent to reality. He himself had to compromise before, during, and after Spider-Man. He himself took the opportunity afforded to him by Marvel but then as he grew to "realize" how this arrangement was detrimental to him, he then had to show self-interest and cut ties. But since human perception is anything but objective, there is an inherent compromise in any decision due to the limited time and resources in the world. Now this doesn't excuse people who are evil and think their subjective superiority over someone else means they deserve more time/resources than you. But it does show that because there is a constant flux of good and bad people fighting over limited shit, that means at some point you have to compromise. If you had the option to know what millions of households were doing and who were potential terrorists, would you violate people's privacy to gain this knowledge?One man's self interest in this scenario could be that you value and need safety much more than another man's privacy as that data could be stolen and his secrets are much more valuable than anothers. On one hand, you'd possibly tempt yourself into gaining all this power you could exercise wrongly. On the other you could possibly stop deadly attacks that you have a duty to stop.
>>154855496I've been dwelling on this, I don't know his full opinion on the matter but from how Mr. A comes off I get the impression Ditko and a few others correlated the term Objectivism to moral objectivity vs moral subjectivity and relativism.However Rand's idea was more the latter, she believed that rather than an absolute good and bad which everyone must conform to it was pivotal for someone to evaluate what is good and bad for themselves. The objectivism refers to the thought process of being objective about the reason and the act, rather than automated behavior from the unreasoned beliefs of others.But it is still possible for a Randian objectivist to choose to do what would not be good for them, but only so far as they choose of their own will rather than be pressured or conditioned.That's where it's not likely for Mr. A or Peter to be Randian. Mr. A acts on a philosophy seeming of his own design and decision but it is based on a dictated absolute good and evil, not deciding.If Mr. A had to choose whether or not to kill an innocent man remotely threatened by an evil one to assist in a crime; in Mr. A's eyes if the innocent man even humors the idea he is no longer innocent and must be dealt with to prevent evil propagating through any morally grey excuse.Peter on the other hand is in a different boat but similar winds in his sails, he is governed to act based on an absolute tier of accountability. Regardless of what others do or why, if Peter has a greater power to take responsibility into his hands he must, so he must try to the extent possible to spare the innocent man, and at times even the villain if possible.Which is completely fucking insane when you come across your Norman Osborns and Cletus Kasadys, but such is the drama turned melodrama of serial superhero stories.
>>154856344Contd. Now I know that was Glowie-type thinking but the point is, when you're having to govern so many different vested interests and you have to wrangle all of these ndividual rights, you have to use capitalism to cancel out each competitive force so one doesn't grow too strong. And the only surefire way to do that is to tax. A governing body that is mutually agreed upon, dissuades self-interest and instills trust. So to ensure the capitalistic cycle of changing money amounts, that means men's self interest must win and lose then vice versa at some point during each's life. The government facilitates that cycle and tries to mitigate the ill effects. The ideal is to be strived for and that is the main practical takeaway from objectivism. These are sometimes situations that call for losing trust in one group to gain the trust of another because one offers more than the other. It is calculating and perhaps immoral in a sense but sometimes situations call for as much moralness to be saved before all of it is lost. What does Ditko say about the nuking of Hiroshima and what do objectivists and libertarians have to say about it? I'm kinda trying to wrap my head around the arguments and I might be butchering this argument but eh, I'm just trying to understand. So yes, an aspect and certain amount libertarianism/objectivism is inherent to Spider-Man. The problem is that any kind of political ideology when described in these terms is just a model of the greater whole that is life. So to be specific I would say Peter's personality and outlook being colored in some way by Ditko's objectivism and libertarianism is inherent to the character. That is the inciting incident of the origin. Peter's own self interest which he wielded haphazardly backfired on him. Ditko said it is because he was teen that this happened and didn't know enough about this philosophy yet kinda like Ditko not knowing enough about Marvel before he realized to him, they were against him.
>>154855983not if they're the uncompromising artist/scientist type ie many characters in rand or a self-insert of ditko himself>>154855598what about jameson and his use of the press to corral the irrational mass?
>>154856404I dunno about that last part with the comparison to Mr. A. I feel like there were a couple of times that Spidey still punished a lesser criminal that was guilty by association or did similar to himself in the origin where they let evil go by. I also think Spencer's recent run showed that the Maximum Carnage moment was OOC given he then tries to kill Norman during Sins Rising I think and put a stop to him. He realizes that the impartial rule of law that is there to dissuade anarchy and rash judgements that could cuase fear and panic as to who has moral authority in society is not as effective as simply stopping the murderer now before more lives are lost. That is a last resort our real world cops do every so often. So yeah I just think that particular Maximum Carnage is retarded but not a core part of Peter's character or philosophy even if Marvel wants him to be Steven Universe talk no jutsu.
>>154856421Would you say Ditko’s other mainstream creations might also fall under this umbrella? Hawk & Dove, Dr. Strange, Ted Kord, Creeper, etc.?
>>154855510I kinda wish Ditko did a whole series on philosophy as basically an illustrated history of philosophy.
>>154856498Hawk and Dove, yes moreso given their entire gimmick as a concept/duo. Question obviously considering he was prototype Mr. A. Dr. Strange less so, but I haven't read enough yet to be the judge of that but given how Strange is involved in a universe exploding and then it being recreated, Ditko was just having fun doing creative stuff and just had him be a good guy that didn't explore the morals as much. I need to look at Creeper again and see what his deal is under Ditko again before I make any judgement calls. I forget his connection other than just Ryder being a policial commentator that is too principled (i.e. based in Ditko's mind) for the bosses.
>>154856496>So yeah I just think that particular Maximum Carnage is retarded but not a core part of Peter's character or philosophy even if Marvel wants him to be Steven Universe talk no jutsu.I agree those moments of meandering are sparse but felt highlighting where misled writers take the virtuous principle to absurdity.Rationally Peter only needs to help those unable to save themselves from what they're not culpable for.I honestly wish lapses like Maximum Carnage were officially removed from canon even if kept in print.
>>154856691Eh. Maybe one day a guy like me will get off their ass and start writing until they get so good, they infilitrate Marvel. Me? We'll see if I even start a book seriously and earnestly. First, I gotta get off here. Anyway, Ditko definitely didn't let his philosophy cause himself to stray away from just making entertaining shit from time to time. Look how he drew Winnie or other stuff. Man...Bayonetta-type chick here looking pretty fine. I just say that because I think most of us are more reminded of Bayo when we see a girl like this.
One time, I emailed a guy who interviewed Ditko's brother and in it, Ditko's brother Pat, mentioned a girl named Mary Jane who was at a pharmacy they lived near in a story. I emailed him but this was years after the interview and Pat had died. I asked if he ever followed up with Pat about that bit about asking if that MJ inspired Steve to use that name. He didn't get to ask before he died. Holy fuck was I bummed.
>>154855496>randRand was a hypocritical jew who decreed reliance on others and died on welfare
>Oh no...Oh NO! OOOOHHHH FFFFUUUUCCKKKKK!!!!!>BREVOORT, QUESADILLA, WACKER, YOSHIDA!!!!!! AIIIEEEEE!!!!Oh wait>1978>ARRRCCCHHHIIIEEEEE!!!! WTF DO WE DO?!??!?>Idk>Hi my name is Jim Shooter. Glad to be here.Ahhhh....happy ending? Ditko's image here aged like milk? For a while at least?
>>154855393Fundamentally? No. There is a libertarian streak in many super-heroes, Spider-Man included, in that they choose to help people because they want to, outside of the state apparatus. Then again, you could argue there’s a socialist argument in many heroes as well, provided they’re the kind of socialist who leads by example.Of course, this becomes more complicated when you have heroes who are literally kings or work for God or gods.
>pic relYeah at one point I feel like Ditko said he was Peter and Stan was Jameson and one time Stan said he was Peter but he was also Jameson. A very weird room to be a fly on the wall for.
>>154857143
>>154855393Yeah Ditko was a libertarian psychotic, but that doesn't necessarily mean Spidey must believe any of that wacky stuff.
>>154855496I too get all my opinions from Simpsons writers
>>154857327>What? Somebody has black and white moral thinking? That must mean I must see them in black and white moral thinking!
>>154855537That's not Fascism, that's a basic understanding of Nietzscheanism. Nietzsche despised the nationalism and populism of his day and favored a kind of aristocratic rule. If you want superheroes to be Fascist (in the original sense of the term), that's a completely different argument.
>>154857623Nietzsche was bonkers as a bag of cats. Just a dangerously insane human being.
>>154857657As was every philosopher.
Has anyone read this? Looks interesting.https://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Travelers-Liberal-Identity-Artists/dp/1496830547
>>154855510>words words wordsHoly shit, the left truly could never meme!Did Ditko really expect anyone to read this wall of crap and become interested in his leftist ideology? If so, he's an even bigger retard than I thought.
He's by definition conservative because only conservatives are able to put their biases aside and treat everyone, even those they disagree with through a neutral lensIf spiderman were anything else if he saw someone he disagreed with politically in danger he'd look the other way
>>154856526Hey, that web pattern on the blue part is nice.
>>154857657>>154857725Eh, his philosophy makes some sense when you learn that he suffered from chronic pain throughout his entire life.
>>154859297It’s a bit much
>>154857826Nice art
>>154857014Guess what? Finally after so many decades>>154857099Ditko raped Quesada and Marvel back in a 2007 unhinged essay
>>154855393I think superheroes, at their core, do have a kernel of libertarianism/objectivism, if only because the government is always portrayed as incompetent at best and downright evil and actively helping the bad guys at worst. I know this is a basic concession of the medium, since if the government was competent, there would be no story since they'd always save the day before the superhero does, but still. Even Super Hero Media that tries to be fair, like invincible, still has government figures like Cecil Stedman acting extremely shady. Yes, corporations are also portrayed as bad guys, like LexCorp and OsCorp, but usually portrayed as one bad apple situation instead of a very ruthless critique of capitalism. I think The Boys comes closest to critiquing capitalism through the superhero lens, but that's because it's overwhelmingly anti-superhero at its heart and even then, it doesn't portray the government in a positive light either.
>>154862994also if government was portrayed as competent it would break verisimilitude
>>154862994>basic concession of the genre*My bad
>>154856779I wouldn't have expected too much desu, Dirtko's MJ was more a cypher and the name was pretty common name at the time. The MJ we know only exists because Stan ran with John Romita drawing her as a supermodel type.
>>154855393Yes. This is why his comics fell off cliff the moment leftards were put to write them.
>>154855853Rorschach was literally Moore's autistic venting because he a jealous of Steve Ditko.
>>154863160No? He loved Ditko but hated his ideology. They're almost polar opposites.
>>154863124Fuck off, contrarian cuck
>>154863214>"He loved Ditko">Cuts to Moore calling Ditko crazy and insane in the "In Search of Steven Ditko" BBC documentary
>>154863249Yeah. btw don't mention the part where he says that his Spider-Man comics were the best, and after he left they weren't the same
>>154863395Ditko was so good that even the jealous hater had to admit his comics were the best. Next level.
>>154863102Yes. I know. I know about Ann Margret. But I still would've liked to know. Even by the slimmest of margins if Pat managed to recall or not or if this mystery MJ left an impression on him or not. Her appearance could have been an inkling of what Ditko was imagining her to look like.
Question/hypothetical for the thread: What would Ditko think of The Punisher? He would probably not like him because of the grimness and harshness of the world depicted and the character himself. Stuff like the drugs and prostitutes would dissuade him from reading it. But now imagine a Punisher that Ditko himself depicted. That would be kinda interesting to see. Might end up like Mr. A but I had a funny thought of Ditko secretly marking out whenever Frank killed a criminal.
>>154863415That’s cope, Dunning-Krugeranon. And mindreading isn’t real.
>>154863415Disliking something just because you dislike the creator is retarded, good for him>>154863755Oh he would despise him. Maybe Ditko wouldn't have a problem with that world if Frank didn't kill. Reminds me of the speechless Mr. A story. Ditko Frank would only use non lethal weapons. And don't give a shit when the criminals die, as long as he didn't kill them
>>154857143Strange looks like he’s vibing hard there
>>154864488He does that a lot
Reading Ditko’s work through the ages, I’m convinced he’s more of an Aristotelian than a Randian. He was certainly influenced a lot by Rand but I think what we saw of his work up until he passed away reveals a more complex picture.
>>154855496Rand is an objectivist, not a libertarian. Libertarians help people out of their own will, not by design or obligation.
>>154858365He is parodying leftists, retard. Thats not what he is saying, its what "the system" says.
>>154855510This is why I dislike Objectivism more than libertarianism. At least libertarianism makes sense from the perspective of wealthy Americans and their economic interests. Objectivism tries to construct an entire moral framework around those ideas. It is devoid of any understanding of material conditions or historical development.It's ironically more similar to parts of the postmodern left that treat all people and all nations as if they share the same cultural, political, and institutional circumstances. The dictators that Ditko criticizes in these countries may well have been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths, but those nations were already impoverished, unstable and underdeveloped beforehand. replacing them with democratic capitalist systems resulted in hybrid regimes where corruption, weak institutions, led to the many shitholes we have today. The only third world countries that achieved a reasonably decent standard of living did so under collectivist and authoritarian governments that first established the basic industrial and institutional foundations of the state.
>>154863249Yeah, even Steve knew what they were doing with the documentary.
>>154865232Ditko himself said he was more influenced by Aristotle and Rand also said so about herself I'm pretty sure.
>>154864376But doesn't Mr. A kill a lot?
>all this because Flo wouldn't fate him
>>154866313*date
>>154863249
>>154856127I FUCKING SAID GOOGLE AN EXPLANATION YOU GOD DAMN RETARD
