Hello,
The following is an excerpt from a new Green Web Bulletin (#68), entitled
"Ecofascism: What is It? A Left Biocentric Analysis". The complete bulletin
(about 36k or 5,400 words) is available from the Green Web
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The material below gives some flavour of the
bulletin.
Best,
David Orton
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This bulletin is an examination of the term and concept of "ecofascism."
It is a strange term/concept to really have any conceptual validity. While
there have been in the past forms of government which were widely considered
to be fascist - Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain, or
Pinochet's Chile, there has never yet been a country that has had an
"eco-fascist" government or, to my knowledge, a political organization which
has declared itself publicly as organized on an ecofascist basis.
Fascism comes in many forms. Contemporary fascist-type movements (often
an alliance of conservative and fascist forces), like the National Front
(France), the Republicans (Germany), the Freedom Movement (Austria), the
Flemish Block (Belgium), etc., may have ecological concerns, but these are
not at the center of the various philosophies and are but one of a number of
issues used to mobilize support - for example crime-fighting, globalization
and economic competition, alleged loss of cultural identity because of large
scale immigration, etc. For any organization which seeks some kind of popular
support, even a fascist organization, it would be hard to ignore the
environment. But these would be considered "shallow" not defining or "deep"
concerns for deep ecology supporters. None of these or similar organizations
call themselves ecofascists. While for fascists, the term "fascist" will have
positive connotations (of course not for the rest of us), "ecofascist" as
used around t!
he!
environmental and green movements, has no recognizable past or present
political embodiment, and has only negative connotations. So the use of the
term "ecofascism" in Canada or the United States is meant to convey an insult!
Many supporters of the deep ecology movement have been uncomfortable and
on the defensive concerning the question of ecofascism, because of criticism
levelled against them, such as for example from some supporters of social
ecology, who present themselves as more knowledgable on social matters. (The
term "social ecology" implies this.) This bulletin is meant to change this
situation. I will try to show why I have arrived at the conclusion, after
investigation, that "ecofascism" has come to be used mainly as an attack
term, with social ecology roots, against the deep ecology movement and its
supporters plus, more generally, the environmental movement. Thus,
"ecofascist" and "ecofascism", are used not to enlighten but to smear.
Deep ecology has as a major and important focus the insight that the
ecological crisis demands a basic change of values, the shift from
human-centered anthropocentrism to ecocentrism and respect for the natural
world. But critics from within the deep ecology movement (see for example the
1985 publication by the late Australian deep ecologist Richard Sylvan, _A
Critique of Deep Ecology_ and his subsequent writings like the 1994 book _The
Greening of Ethics_ , and the work by myself in various Green Web
publications concerned with helping to outline the left biocentric
theoretical tendency and the inherent radicalism within deep ecology), have
pointed out that to create a mass movement informed by deep ecology, there
must be an alternative cultural, social, and economic vision to that of
industrial capitalist society, and a political theory for the mobilization
of human society and to show the way forward. These are urgent and exciting
tasks facing the deep ecology movement,!
a!
nd extend beyond what is often the focus for promoting change as mainly
occurring through individual consciousness raising, important as this is, the
concern of much mainstream deep ecology.
The purpose of this essay is to try and enlighten; to examine how the
ecofascist term/concept has been used, and whether "ecofascism" has any
conceptual validity within the radical environmental movement. I will argue
that to be valid, this term has to be put in very specific contexts - such as
anti-Nature activities as carried out by the "Wise Use" movement, logging and
the killing of seals, and possibly in what may be called "intrusive research"
into wildlife populations by restoration ecologists. Deep ecology supporters
also need to be on guard against negative political tendencies, such as
ecofascism, within this world view.
I will also argue that the social ecology-derived use of "ecofascist"
against deep ecology should be criticized and discarded as sectarian,
human-centered, self-serving dogmatism, and moreover, even from an anarchist
perspective, totally in opposition to the open-minded spirit say of anarchist
Emma Goldman. (See her autobiography _Living My Life_ and in it, the account
of the magazine she founded, _Mother Earth_.)
What seems to have happened with "ecofascism", is that a term whose
origins and use reflect a particular form of HUMAN social, political and
economic organization, now, with a prefix "eco", becomes used against
environmentalists who generally are sympathetic to a particular non-human
centered and Nature-based radical environmental philosophy - deep ecology.
Yet supporters of deep ecology, if they think about the concept of
ecofascism, see the ongoing violent onslaught against Nature and its
non-human life forms (plant life, insects, birds, mammals, etc.) plus
indigenous cultures, which is justified as economic "progress", as ecofascist
destruction!
With industrial capitalist societies having permanent growth economies,
increasing populations, increasing consumerism as an intrinsic part of the
economy, non-sustainable ecological footprints etc., and no willingness to
change any of this, the struggle over what little wild Nature remains and
whether it is going to be left alone or put to "use", is becoming
increasingly brutalized. Those who refuse to rise above suicidal short term
interest, whether workers or capitalists, see themselves as having a stake in
the continuation of industrial capitalism and are prepared to fiercely defend
this at the expense of the ecology. Yet despite this "on the ground" reality
which many environmental activists are facing, there seems to be an ongoing
attempt to link the deep ecology movement and its supporters with ecofascism
- that is, to malign some of the very people who are experiencing ecofascist
attacks!
Conclusion
This bulletin has shown that the concept of "ecofascism" can be used in
different ways. It has looked at how some social ecology supporters have used
this term in a basically unfounded manner to attack deep ecology and the
ecological movement, and it also looked at what can be called ecofascist
attacks against the environmental movement. So we can say that the term
"ecofascism" can be used:
-Illegitimately. This is the use of the term which has been advanced by
some social ecologists who have tried to link those who defend the Natural
world, particularly deep ecology supporters, with traditional fascist
political movements - especially the Nazis. The "contribution" of these
particular social ecologists has been to thoroughly confuse what ecofascist
really means and to slander the new thinking of deep ecology. This seems to
have been done from the viewpoint of trying to discredit what some social
ecologists apparently see as an ideological rival' within the environmental
and green movements. This social ecology sectarianism has resulted in
ecofascism becoming an attack term against those environmentalists who are
out in the trenches being attacked by real ecofascists! I have also defended
the late Rudolph Bahro against the charge of being an ecofascist or Nazi
sympathizer.
- Legitimately, to describe "Wise Use" type activities, that is, against
those who want to exploit Nature until the end, solely for human/corporate
purposes, and who will do whatever is seen as necessary, including using
violence and intimidation against environmentalists and their supporters, to
carry on. We should not be phased by "Wise Use" supporters calling their
ecodefender opponents ecoterrorists, or saying that they themselves are "the
true environmentalists." This is merely a diversion. Also I have raised in
this bulletin for discussion, what seem to me to be some real contradictions
within the deep ecology camp itself around the ecofascism issue, e.g.
intrusive research.
Hopefully this article will also enable deep ecology supporters to be
less defensive about the terms ecofascist or ecofascism. These terms, if
rescued from social ecology-inspired obfuscation, do have analytical
validity. They can be used against those destroyers of the Natural world who
are prepared to use violence and intimidation, and other fascist tactics,
against their opponents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~greenweb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
Hello,
The following is an excerpt from a new Green Web Bulletin (#68), entitled
"Ecofascism: What is It? A Left Biocentric Analysis". The complete bulletin
(about 36k or 5,400 words) is available from the Green Web
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The material below gives some flavour of the
bulletin.
Best,
David Orton
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This bulletin is an examination of the term and concept of "ecofascism."
It is a strange term/concept to really have any conceptual validity. While
there have been in the past forms of government which were widely considered
to be fascist - Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain, or
Pinochet's Chile, there has never yet been a country that has had an
"eco-fascist" government or, to my knowledge, a political organization which
has declared itself publicly as organized on an ecofascist basis.
Fascism comes in many forms. Contemporary fascist-type movements (often
an alliance of conservative and fascist forces), like the National Front
(France), the Republicans (Germany), the Freedom Movement (Austria), the
Flemish Block (Belgium), etc., may have ecological concerns, but these are
not at the center of the various philosophies and are but one of a number of
issues used to mobilize support - for example crime-fighting, globalization
and economic competition, alleged loss of cultural identity because of large
scale immigration, etc. For any organization which seeks some kind of popular
support, even a fascist organization, it would be hard to ignore the
environment. But these would be considered "shallow" not defining or "deep"
concerns for deep ecology supporters. None of these or similar organizations
call themselves ecofascists. While for fascists, the term "fascist" will have
positive connotations (of course not for the rest of us), "ecofascist" as
used around t!
he!
environmental and green movements, has no recognizable past or present
political embodiment, and has only negative connotations. So the use of the
term "ecofascism" in Canada or the United States is meant to convey an insult!
Many supporters of the deep ecology movement have been uncomfortable and
on the defensive concerning the question of ecofascism, because of criticism
levelled against them, such as for example from some supporters of social
ecology, who present themselves as more knowledgable on social matters. (The
term "social ecology" implies this.) This bulletin is meant to change this
situation. I will try to show why I have arrived at the conclusion, after
investigation, that "ecofascism" has come to be used mainly as an attack
term, with social ecology roots, against the deep ecology movement and its
supporters plus, more generally, the environmental movement. Thus,
"ecofascist" and "ecofascism", are used not to enlighten but to smear.
Deep ecology has as a major and important focus the insight that the
ecological crisis demands a basic change of values, the shift from
human-centered anthropocentrism to ecocentrism and respect for the natural
world. But critics from within the deep ecology movement (see for example the
1985 publication by the late Australian deep ecologist Richard Sylvan, _A
Critique of Deep Ecology_ and his subsequent writings like the 1994 book _The
Greening of Ethics_ , and the work by myself in various Green Web
publications concerned with helping to outline the left biocentric
theoretical tendency and the inherent radicalism within deep ecology), have
pointed out that to create a mass movement informed by deep ecology, there
must be an alternative cultural, social, and economic vision to that of
industrial capitalist society, and a political theory for the mobilization
of human society and to show the way forward. These are urgent and exciting
tasks facing the deep ecology movement,!
a!
nd extend beyond what is often the focus for promoting change as mainly
occurring through individual consciousness raising, important as this is, the
concern of much mainstream deep ecology.
The purpose of this essay is to try and enlighten; to examine how the
ecofascist term/concept has been used, and whether "ecofascism" has any
conceptual validity within the radical environmental movement. I will argue
that to be valid, this term has to be put in very specific contexts - such as
anti-Nature activities as carried out by the "Wise Use" movement, logging and
the killing of seals, and possibly in what may be called "intrusive research"
into wildlife populations by restoration ecologists. Deep ecology supporters
also need to be on guard against negative political tendencies, such as
ecofascism, within this world view.
I will also argue that the social ecology-derived use of "ecofascist"
against deep ecology should be criticized and discarded as sectarian,
human-centered, self-serving dogmatism, and moreover, even from an anarchist
perspective, totally in opposition to the open-minded spirit say of anarchist
Emma Goldman. (See her autobiography _Living My Life_ and in it, the account
of the magazine she founded, _Mother Earth_.)
What seems to have happened with "ecofascism", is that a term whose
origins and use reflect a particular form of HUMAN social, political and
economic organization, now, with a prefix "eco", becomes used against
environmentalists who generally are sympathetic to a particular non-human
centered and Nature-based radical environmental philosophy - deep ecology.
Yet supporters of deep ecology, if they think about the concept of
ecofascism, see the ongoing violent onslaught against Nature and its
non-human life forms (plant life, insects, birds, mammals, etc.) plus
indigenous cultures, which is justified as economic "progress", as ecofascist
destruction!
With industrial capitalist societies having permanent growth economies,
increasing populations, increasing consumerism as an intrinsic part of the
economy, non-sustainable ecological footprints etc., and no willingness to
change any of this, the struggle over what little wild Nature remains and
whether it is going to be left alone or put to "use", is becoming
increasingly brutalized. Those who refuse to rise above suicidal short term
interest, whether workers or capitalists, see themselves as having a stake in
the continuation of industrial capitalism and are prepared to fiercely defend
this at the expense of the ecology. Yet despite this "on the ground" reality
which many environmental activists are facing, there seems to be an ongoing
attempt to link the deep ecology movement and its supporters with ecofascism
- that is, to malign some of the very people who are experiencing ecofascist
attacks!
Conclusion
This bulletin has shown that the concept of "ecofascism" can be used in
different ways. It has looked at how some social ecology supporters have used
this term in a basically unfounded manner to attack deep ecology and the
ecological movement, and it also looked at what can be called ecofascist
attacks against the environmental movement. So we can say that the term
"ecofascism" can be used:
-Illegitimately. This is the use of the term which has been advanced by
some social ecologists who have tried to link those who defend the Natural
world, particularly deep ecology supporters, with traditional fascist
political movements - especially the Nazis. The "contribution" of these
particular social ecologists has been to thoroughly confuse what ecofascist
really means and to slander the new thinking of deep ecology. This seems to
have been done from the viewpoint of trying to discredit what some social
ecologists apparently see as an ideological rival' within the environmental
and green movements. This social ecology sectarianism has resulted in
ecofascism becoming an attack term against those environmentalists who are
out in the trenches being attacked by real ecofascists! I have also defended
the late Rudolph Bahro against the charge of being an ecofascist or Nazi
sympathizer.
- Legitimately, to describe "Wise Use" type activities, that is, against
those who want to exploit Nature until the end, solely for human/corporate
purposes, and who will do whatever is seen as necessary, including using
violence and intimidation against environmentalists and their supporters, to
carry on. We should not be phased by "Wise Use" supporters calling their
ecodefender opponents ecoterrorists, or saying that they themselves are "the
true environmentalists." This is merely a diversion. Also I have raised in
this bulletin for discussion, what seem to me to be some real contradictions
within the deep ecology camp itself around the ecofascism issue, e.g.
intrusive research.
Hopefully this article will also enable deep ecology supporters to be
less defensive about the terms ecofascist or ecofascism. These terms, if
rescued from social ecology-inspired obfuscation, do have analytical
validity. They can be used against those destroyers of the Natural world who
are prepared to use violence and intimidation, and other fascist tactics,
against their opponents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~greenweb/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
message sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to signoff from the list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the message body should read
unsubscribe infoterra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
