Fascism and Science Fiction

American corporatocracy depends on a weak central government so they can replace the central government. People in Europe or many parts of the United States which are urbanized can laugh at the whole "cyberpunk" future of direct rule by corporations but I live in Appalachia where that's just Tuesday.

Coal Companies, Power Companies, and Oil Companies have actually served as the defacto government in our history on many occasions. Even today, there's places where the local government is entirely in their pocket.

And that's because regulation of these companies is removed out of a desire to increase "personal freedom."

edited 29th Apr '17 7:01:52 PM by CharlesPhipps

To me, the logic of encouraging corporate overreach through deregulation in the name of "economic freedom" dovetails with the unsettling trend of certain Silicon Valley-type techno-libertarians and their ilk turning to neoreactionary politics; both seem to stem, more than anything, from a prioritisation of negative liberty (freedom from interference) over positive liberty (freedom to self-determine), which when taken to an extreme leads to the belief that democracy is bad because most people support certain regulations which are anathema to the negative liberty absolutist's view of the world. To whit, there's often a class superiority component to this reasoning, whether we're talking about technocrats or plutocrats—the idea that those who haven't made it must be lesser people.

From the technocratic side of this equation, I think it's clear to see where the appeal in illiberal systems lies for certain sorts of science fiction fans. There are particularly extreme examples of this which stray outright into totalitarian or racial supremacist territory—Theodore Beale is a particularly odious example—but milder versions of this "superior intellect justly wins out" mentality are far from rare in the fandom at large.

Don't forget the Survivor's Fallacy. "I worked hard to get where I am. If you're not successful, clearly it means you're not working hard enough."

Science Fiction fans are as a group convinced that they are better-educated, more intelligent, and more tolerant than fans of, say, romance novels. It follows that science fiction literature would have some bias towards the more intelligent being the movers and shakers of their worlds. And then it's just one step towards depicting worlds ruled by oligarchies or fascism in general in order to keep the uneducated masses in line with what's good for them.

Let's not overgeneralize, nor succumb to stereotypes. Science Fiction fans as a group...are wildly divergent, and hold a wild variety of different and conflicting opinions. Especially as science fiction has become steadily more mainstream for the last several decades.

Today, there is a huge overlap between science fiction fans and romance fans!

(Likewise, there is a huge group of science fiction fans who make absolutely no pretense to be tolerant or inclusive; fans who seem to actively want the world to return to the way it was in the past...but with spaceships.)

The idea that intelligence and technology will solve all our problems goes back to the earliest days of science fiction—but it began being heavily subverted or even inverted with the New Wave Science Fiction movement of The '60s. Although one could argue that such subversions can be traced back at least as far as Frankenstein.

That's not how fascism usually manifests. Regimes and movements given the name were anti-intellectual and their principles were much woolier than the contemporary communists. They "turned politics into aesthetics" as one observer put it, and their message generally amounted to "We must defeat an all-pervasive enemy in our society who is keeping us back, and to do that we must reclaim an old birthright disdained by today's intelligentsia. Once we have the right leader for the job, the country is united behind him and everyone is ready to make sacrifices for the greater good, all our problems will disappear." They always emphasised that they were with the people against the uninspired, out-of-touch intellectuals running the country.

Science-fiction has tended to be the opposite of that. (Fantasy though often comes close.) It has certainly been authoritarian, elitist and glorified lone pioneers, but not so much the all-encompassing "national project" that is the heart of fascism.

Well I guess it depends on whether you're speaking about Fascism as it historically existed on Earth, or Fascism as the idea of "authoritarian, ruthless, nationalist government that prioritizes the state above the individual". Anti-intellectualism doesn't need to be part of that definition.

One of the problems with saying "this is fascist" or "that is fascist" is that fascism is a rather broad term. To quote Orwell: “It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.”

The average writer of sci-fi potboilers from back in the day was probably closer to an anarcho-capitalist than anything totalitarian, since they were obsessed with lone, isolated genius working contrary to the barbaric masses. Fascism has that as well, in an "I'm better and smarter than you so obey me!" way, but it's difficult to reconcile the scientific authoritarianism of classical sci-fi with the romanticism of fascism, with the folk mythology revivalism and what have you. Fantasy, which tends to be obsessed with Medieval Stasis, is a much better fit for fascists.

edited 4th May '17 7:43:12 AM by CrimsonZephyr

Sci-fi fandom's relationship to fascism is usually based on aesthetics and invocation of superiority actually. The typical uncomfortable sci-fi narrative the OP is speaking of basically goes like this. "Humanity is under siege by some sort of implacable foreign (alien) entity which only its superior military hardware and innate superiority can eradicate. Politicians will get in the way and peace with these beings is impossible."

Its not as common as it used to be but it's been made fun of enough to be a noticeable part of the genre's cultural heritage and is still popular in military sci fi.

I say that as someone who writes m sci-fi. Won't name names who kind of invokes that to me.

Very true, although if it weren't for MilSF, I think it would be bordering on a Dead Horse Trope these days.

Though probably only bordering, since the growth in popularity of SF means that all sorts of people are writing it these days, and it covers the entire political spectrum from ultra-right to ultra-left, and all sorts of at-ninety-degrees options in between.

I'm using "fascism" the way I've seen historians use it. A fascist regime is authoritarian, but it is distinct from other forms (traditional monarchy, communism, theocracy) by what I outlined. The distinction is not rhetorical: there's a reason why the communists long outlasted most fascists, and their parties considered each other their worst enemy despite both being against democratic government.

You're right, that exists (the weirdest was when it cropped up in Anne McCaffrey's Diana, which is otherwise quite anti-militaristic). I guess it didn't register because I don't consider stuff like Star Wars or Warhammer 40K to be science fiction; whatever their other merits, they are not speculative fiction advancing innovative ideas.

I see two trends that we should distinguish here. One is glorifying warfare, which Star Wars is guilty of. Warhammer manages to glorify and condemn war at the same time, oddly enough. I know "pulp" space operas can be very bad about this though I can't name any.

The other is government for but not by the people. For a comparison, consider H L Mencken, still revered by parts of the American right. He was an intellectual elitist and distrusted democracy for its lowest-denominator tendencies, and precisely for that had no love for the fascists who drew on popular prejudices. He wanted a world ruled by the most intelligent, but admitted there was no way to ensure that. As part of that he promoted women and black writers in his magazine that he considered worthy (and that the mainstream ignored). This is the sort of elitism that not-pulp science fiction sometimes engages in.

I would say that the most important trait of a fascist ruler is justifying repression and dictatorship because that's the only way to keep the country safe from the menaces that surround it.

STAR WARS is an interesting case because it takes moment to also glorify peace and democracy. While we don't see much of it, the movies take the moment to explain democracy and freedom are superior to the authoritarian militarism of the Empire.

WARHAMMER 40K is an off-brand because it exists squarely in Poe's Law territory. The Imperium of Man is charitably able to be described (by RPG.net and 4chan) as "Catholic Space Nazis." The thing is, the Imperium is supposed to be comically inept and slowly dying out because of their stupidity.

The thing is, recently, Warhammer 40K has started dialing back the comic stupidity of their universe with things like Gaunt's Ghosts and so on without the "this is a nonfunctional stupid state" elements (albeit Dan Abnett keeps quite a bit).

HONOR HARRINGTON is notable for the fact it deals primarily with Right-leaning politics but is primarily Horatio Hornblower in Space so the governments it deals with are all antiquated ones based on monarchy as well as 17th century models.

DUNE is another feudal Space Opera universe. However, it's a Feudal Future which doesn't whitewash the fact it's a horrible exploitative government. However, you wouldn't think that if you just remembered the original book and its adaptations as the fact Paul is an awful leader comes up to the second novel. Even then, GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE lionizes the autocracy of Leto II even as he's supposedly a monster.

No idea how Kevin J. Jackson handles it.

MOBILE SUIT GUNDAM sometimes is anti-war and other times leans a little heavy to how awesome Zeon and it's evil doers are.

edited 5th May '17 8:37:06 PM by CharlesPhipps

Paul's bad leadership in the Dune sequel never really made sense to me. It's clear he's appalled by the Fremen going on a religious war throughout space, committing atrocities in his name, but there's never a clear explanation for why he doesn't just go, "As your Emperor and living god, I'm telling you: cut that shit out."

I haven't read the book in awhile but I believe the Fremen's Jihad is necessary to establish Paul's irreversible rule. There's also the fact Paul thinks the only way humanity won't eventually go extinct is to become the God Emperor/Sandworm which he refuses to do—and thus that puts him into a depression.

But yes, it does seem like Paul is suffering SOME author-driven angst.

FYI, thanks guys, you inspired me to write an article for the Fantasy Book Critic which was published today.

Black, White, and Gray Morality in Space

edited 6th May '17 1:50:03 PM by CharlesPhipps

that warhammer move away is understandable but a little bit annoying because it make the imperium more likable they should be, hell today the imperial guard is the "heroic" faction of underdogs that win by sheer determination, ughhh.

" a prioritisation of negative liberty (freedom from interference) over positive liberty (freedom to self-determine), which when taken to an extreme leads to the belief that democracy is bad because most people support certain regulations which are anathema to the negative liberty absolutist's view of the world"

I said the oposite, they love the idea of self determination(and not surprising that is how justify their weath) nd thing only can be gain is without minimum interference, if others cant decide them that is their fault.

In Dune Paul is prescient. He knows what the consequences will be from any action he takes. If he were to say "as the Mahdi I command you not to bathe the galaxy in blood in my name," he would be murdered by his inner circle and then the jihad would happen anyway, with him no longer being present to restrain his followers from the worst abuses.

It's not the case that Paul is a terrible leader, and therefore unable to avoid the jihad. It's that the jihad is unavoidable, and Paul is doing his best to moderate it.

His son Leto II knows that three and-a-half millennia of ruthless repression are the only way to preserve the human race, and he's willing to become the required monster.

Neither of these situations can apply to the real world, because we don't have real prescience that can accurately predict the consequences of any action. It's a Space Whale Aesop in that respect.

The real-world applicable Aesop of the series might be "don't put blind faith in any mere man as your leader, no matter how super-humanly cool he seems to be." That message is of course always relevant, and is essentially anti-fascist.

The Omniscient Morality License so to speak.

:)

Indeed.

Paul doesn't have perfect presience, though; other people with prescience act as blind spots for him. That's why things like the radioactive drill that blinded him can still take him by surprise. Given that, I don't think Omniscient Morality License applies.

Thing is, justifying violent repression because worse things would happen without it has been used by every authoritarian regime ever. (It's a Fantastic Aesop, by the way, not a Space Whale Aesop.)

I've read from others that the point Herbert was making with the whole series is that absolute prescience would steal your humanity and make you a slave in service to the future. Hence why Paul rejects it and stays human enough to keep the company of the woman he loves but Leto II gives up all his humanity.

A comparison could be made with Foundation, the other classic in which a mastermind looks ahead to save humanity from millenia of suffering. At least Hari Seldon can be understood as he had much less influence over the galaxy, but one has to wonder why the modes of government are so backwards in this far future.

"It's not the case that Paul is a terrible leader, and therefore unable to avoid the jihad. It's that the jihad is unavoidable, and Paul is doing his best to moderate it. "

I find that a little bit weird, a way to said he didnt nothing wrong because Paul cant stop the caos, and "required to be necesary evil" is kinda a thing a lot of represive goverment have used in the past.

I didn't say he did nothing wrong, merely that the jihad was unavoidable, and that what he was doing was trying to mitigate its worst abuses, which would be a generally moral action.

Yes every authoritarian government has claimed they were the only alternative to something worse, but the reason it is a Fantastic Aesop (yes, that's a better trope fit) is that for real world authoritarians who can't see the future it's merely a propaganda tactic. Paul and Leto II, however, can actually see the future.

Why are the governments in Dune and Foundation so backward?

Well, it could be argued that totalitarian authoritarian governments are the norm for humankind, with the current little oasis of democracy in Western civilization over the past three or so centuries being the exception. And of course, there are definite aristocratic patterns in our own government even now. In George W. Bush we had a president who was the son of a former president, and we just barely missed electing the spouse of a former president - by electing a man who inherited most of his wealth. There's a quote from Herbert on the Feudal Future trope page about how governments eventually mutate into aristocratic forms.

There's also the argument of distance. In Dune and Foundation, the fastest form of communication is a ship. When you have no instantaneous communication you can't govern directly. You have to have representatives with the power to act in your name.

Honestly? Because they're inspired by history, and there's a lot of despotic governments in human history. Foundation was openly based on Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And Herbert got a lot of things in Dune from history as well.

Plus, a despot just makes such a good villain. :)

Take note that Paul is aware he can avoid the Jihad and prevent it. It just requires him not to lead the Fremen to kill the Harkonnens and remove the Emperor's power base. Paul makes the conscious choice to make himself a messiah so he can get his revenge. The consequences thereafter are billions of lives.

And he could probably let himself be killed to stop it.

So he's making choices he's aware are monstrous. For very human reasons.

edited 10th May '17 12:54:31 AM by CharlesPhipps