I don't mean to argue on behalf of moral absolutism, certainly, but the idea that people are very easily brought on board with violent fascism simply isn't true. Even Nazis did not originally believe in much of the violent acts of Nazism. Gas chambers were created to distance the soldiers from the consequences of their actions. Before that the soldiers carrying out executions were becoming physically ill from guilt and sleepless nights (as documented in the writings of Nazi Generals); they certainly knew what they were doing was morally wrong.
There's a reason propaganda is required to convince the masses of the inhumanity of their Enemy. Most people do not actually want to hurt other people and understand that doing so is morally wrong. It's why they must be convinced that the other people are not actually so much people as Other. It's a very long, careful, calculated walk toward accepting those choices and I think it's dangerous and sloppy to erase so much of that path in favor of "anyone can be corrupted" narratives that shift the lines so close together. It creates a sense of inevitability in many ways that, as I said, removes the idea of moral culpability for one's actions. (And in this example, Steve is still raised in Brooklyn, correct? He's still the often anti-authoritarian figure he has been historically who does not easily cower from the very human fear of dissent? Because those would be the usual factors that would make someone align with fascism in a real world context, if this is meant to resonate as frighteningly possible.)
Sure, making it Steve Rogers packs more of a punch, but that's just a writer using the work of others to accomplish much of the emotional weight. If the point being made is that horrible violence can arise anywhere, we already know that. If the idea is to show fascists as sympathetic, innately human figures worthy of sympathy, who does that serve exactly?
I think creating an original work intended as an examination of human morality and its complexities is worthwhile. Absolutely. It's also very different from assigning a completely new history to an antifascist figure that is entirely antithetical to everything that he has ever stood for.
I don't mean to go back to this well, but I have to - you really need to read the actual comic.
I feel like a lot of people have the impression that a switch was flipped and suddenly everything changed, but that's not the case. Spencer very methodically charts Young Steve's life from his pre-HYDRA days. He shows the rhetoric that brings him on board - a conversation where his childhood suffering (poverty, sickness, an abusive father) are blamed on the American values of independence and self-sufficiency. Steve builds relationships with Elisa, Whitehall, and Zemo, people who legitimately care about his well being. He's praised and protected, and his values remain the same, just... twisted.
And that's all compared to a modern HYDRA suicide bomber in Issue #1, who lives a shit life and ends up in a shit place and is welcomed by a bunch of white supremacists. He's not always comfortable with it, but it's his family now. And how can he say no?
This isn't "Steve's a Nazi, ooh, magic, isn't that crazy, let's watch him punch dudes." Spencer is a solid writer. He's telling a story and he's doing it pretty thoroughly. It's worth reading - even if you try it for free sometime with Marvel Unlimited, I'd strongly suggest giving it a shot.
But, yeah, it shows how otherwise decent people can be seduced into a belief in fascism. HYDRA Cap is a tragic figure, because we see him struggle with his own actions, and know that there's a decent person underneath. I think it's something people need to be reminded of - that not everyone is a Red Skull, and that victimizers can be victims as well.
I suspect you'd disagree, and take more of an absolutist approach to fascism. It's something I waver on, honestly, so I doubt I'm going to persuade you that Spencer's angle is the right one.
In the end, honestly, I just don't see Captain America as a sacred cow. He's a guy in funny boots from a kid's magazine. Telling the story with him is easier and more marketable than an original version would be. Make him a werewolf or an old man or a fascist. Just try and write something good, you know?
This is such a hamfisted 'pull back the curtain' style reveal that it took away a lot of any significant setup, instead bluntly hammering it into our heads as a 'shock' in order to sell more comics.
Honestly, I don't disagree, but like I said - it's not using the Cube as a "wow, things are different, poof!" The Cube is just to nudge things along. I'm willing to dismiss it as a shortcut, but I understand that using those sorts of shortcuts can undermine the narrative.
