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 the!
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/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at
http://www.eudoramail.com
