What do you mean? It certainly is. It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto). Not to mention that crunchy, back-to-the land ideas are a really important part of contemporary far right propaganda.
I’d also argue that this doesn’t really sow division amongst environmentalists; just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
Your post really called out all the “smart” people who have decided on a form of fascism to appeal to their idea of how to fix the world.
They won’t change their mind cause they want less people and they want to think it fixes stuff without having to read a study about it. They liked it during covid when there were less people to interact with I think and had comfort in wealth to not have to suffer the consequences and now just aim for it.
The problem is Discrediting by Association. Any meaningful, impactful movement that challenges the growth paradigm and threatens profiteers is disingenuously categorized as ecofascist.
Reddit/r/collapse wouldn’t talk about population at all for years because of the knee-jerk reaction to lump it in with eugenics and genocide. They grew up and now it is carefully moderated and discussed well. It seems Lemmy ain’t there yet.
If you are an ecology dude like me you remember I=PAT. How can we discuss solutions when we self censor ethical and moral discussions around the P pillar?
Well first was this guy’s ideology really distinct or is he just a fascist who talks about environmental issues as a post-hoc justification to make his objectively deranged actions seem more reasonable? And if he’s just a fascist I don’t think he need to take his justifications seriously by giving him a newly named ideology.
But I didn’t mean there are no singular eco-fascists anywhere on earth. There are 8 billion people on the planet so I could make up a mad lib ideology and chances are it’s similar to what someone somewhere believes. But I’ve never met one to my knowledge, not even online. There’s no organized push for this or political power behind it. The vast majority of fascists don’t give a shit about the environment and the vast majority of environmentalists oppose fascism. So the only time I see it mentioned is when people get criticized for discussing the impacts of human population.
I understand why it’s a touchy subject. Past racist policies used overpopulation as a justification for crimes against humanity. But that the human impact on the earth is proportional to our population is just a fact, and it doesn’t make you a fascist to acknowledge that. You’re only a fascist if you think that fact gives you a right to brutalize people, and, as I’ve said, I just don’t hear this from any organized or popular thinkers.
I heard about this around Paul Watson, who is accused of “eco-fascism” because he claimed we should reduce our population by billions, and his close friendship with David Foreman, who is both very implicated in environmentalist actions and has harsh conservative views. Overall, i’ve heard that there are quite a few similar thinking individuals in Sea Shepherd.
In an interview, Paul Watson said that “rich people just want to get richer, and poor people just want to get rich”, implying that the over-consumption by the richest parts of populations does not mean we should focus our efforts there, because “it’s human nature to consume and destroy”. I don’t know if that’s eco-fascism, but that’s precisely what this meme denounces, and it’s held by a quite important figure.
I also heard of Edward Abbey who doesn’t promote violence directly but combines a very conservative and very environment first ideology, same as this Garrret Hardin. Both are quite influent in environmentalist activism.
Radical environmentalism, even when combined with advocacy for peacefully reducing the earth’s population, is not fascism. Fascism is a specific ideology. Most of the people you listed are anti-government activists. Some are even anarchists. Fascism requires a totalitarian state. They are also internationalist in their politics, where fascism is hyper-nationalist. I’m similarly not aware of any strong racial theory in their ideas, which is perhaps the single most important part of fascism. You can disagree with their viewpoints but it’s crazy to call them fascists when they don’t fit the definition and have deep ideological disagreements with fascism.
This is precisely why I don’t like this term. It’s just a smear against the environmental movement that doesn’t fit the actual ideology it’s criticizing. Which again, I don’t mind criticism but I do mind thought-terminating cliches in place of thoughtful critique.
Garret Hardin is probably the one person who you could argue does fit the eco-fascist label, but I would argue his influence has waned dramatically. Maybe there are a few boomers who uncritically parrot his views but there is no organized political movement from his ideas. I can’t think of any disciples of his ideas of any prominence.
On calling fascists people also advocating against government, I mostly agree with you, but not in this case. Because while some of them are effectively libertarian, so at first different from fascism as a strict ideology, their views and goals require use of authority, like “anarcho”-capitalists who seem to fight against authority of the state, but in the end would recreate it one way or another in corporations. This specific goal of reducing population to a set number is also something that, even if it’s peaceful, implies control over other individuals, which is to my eyes the main premise of fascism, state over individual. You can argue that it’s not a state but a company or a group of company, it’s all the same to me : it’s about controlling individual via artificial entities. The fact that in this goal of reducing population, they target third world countries specifically, is to my eyes the nail in the coffin : controlling every people lives to reach a specific goal, insisting specifically on third world countries, is a fascist stance. Maybe you got there with a non-fascist mindset, maybe you will forget it and evolve, but it perfectly aligns with fascist theories.
On purity of fascism and absence of clear organisation, yes, it’s not strictly fascists as in italian far right parties during the first half of 20th century, but it’s fascism as in controlling the lives of third world people for reasons filled with paternalism and eurocentrism. You can argue that water tinted with a bit of dirt is not yet mud, but i think it’s still pertinent to call it mud when you want to encompass all water contaminated by dirt.
Overall, i really dislike leftists afraid of using the word fascism : to me, it’s a spectrum, like most things, there is no clear definition, and you can get stupidly exclusive if you want a strict definition. Plus we have to get rid of it at first sign, not when it’s a full grown organisation, rather whenever some movements or peoples begins to stir in this direction. You’re not having an accident every time you let your car going slightly off course, but by thinking about the accident and correcting trajectory, you avoid it.
And lastly, nitpicking fascism is a game played by fascists themselves : “Oh, we’re not fascists, we’re not advocating for mass murdering explicitly. Oh, we’re not fascists, we’re not advocating for a single party yet. Oh, we’re not fascists, we still want elections.”
And if he’s just a fascist I don’t think he need to take his justifications seriously by giving him a newly named ideology.
Giving an important branch of fascist ideas a name doesn’t “take his justifications seriously” in any sense of condoning them. It’s also not newly named, but been discussed in academic studies of far right tendencies for decades, at least since the 60s. It’s a useful category for describing a set of ideas which have substantial influence.
But I’ve never met one to my knowledge, not even online.
There are probably lots of ideologies you don’t hear about all the time. Instead of just rejecting their existence with a total lack of curiosity you could instead read about them. At least start with the Wikipedia page…
It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto).
“Michelle Chan, vice president of programs for Friends of the Earth, said, “The key thing to understand here is that ecofascism is more an expression of white supremacy than it is an expression of environmentalism.””
just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
Something doesn’t have to be correct or honest to be an ideology. It’s a shared doctrine among a significant part of the far right that “protection of the environment” is their purported motivation for exterminating undesirables. That’s absolutely an ideology, even if they’re wrong about its effects or even dishonest about it. I don’t believe it’s all said cynically and knowingly either, and I don’t think that Michelle Chan, in that quite accurate quote, is saying that they never believe in the stories they’re telling themselves about it. Just that the deeper cause for their actions is actually white supremacy. It would be like saying a religious ideology wasn’t an ideology just because it’s motivations are not the actual existence of some supernatural entity but instead cultural forces, bonding, the comfort of rituals etc., and I don’t think that makes much sense.
How is it a subtype? It has nothing unique to environmentalism and all to do with ethnic supremacy. They’re simply using racism to wedge themselves into actual world problems.
White supremacy also has nothing to do with white people actually being supreme, it’s about the narratives that shape the worldview of the people subscribing to the ideology.
What do you mean? It certainly is. It has been, for example, an influence in several right extreme terror attacks (notably the Christchurch, NZ mass shooting in 2019 comes to mind, where the murderer explicitly described himself as such in his manifesto). Not to mention that crunchy, back-to-the land ideas are a really important part of contemporary far right propaganda.
I’d also argue that this doesn’t really sow division amongst environmentalists; just because it has ‘eco’ in the name doesn’t mean these people actually care about the environment, it’s all aesthetics.
Yes, surprised at these comments considering how much this stuff is some of the current hot topics in research.
Sorted by date:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&scisbd=1&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ecofascism
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q="indigenous+stewardship"&scisbd=1
Biodiversity is one of my areas, chat.
Your post really called out all the “smart” people who have decided on a form of fascism to appeal to their idea of how to fix the world.
They won’t change their mind cause they want less people and they want to think it fixes stuff without having to read a study about it. They liked it during covid when there were less people to interact with I think and had comfort in wealth to not have to suffer the consequences and now just aim for it.
Good post. Love the resources.
Some people have just “never seen” fascism. Shrug.
The problem is Discrediting by Association. Any meaningful, impactful movement that challenges the growth paradigm and threatens profiteers is disingenuously categorized as ecofascist.
Reddit/r/collapse wouldn’t talk about population at all for years because of the knee-jerk reaction to lump it in with eugenics and genocide. They grew up and now it is carefully moderated and discussed well. It seems Lemmy ain’t there yet.
If you are an ecology dude like me you remember I=PAT. How can we discuss solutions when we self censor ethical and moral discussions around the P pillar?
Well first was this guy’s ideology really distinct or is he just a fascist who talks about environmental issues as a post-hoc justification to make his objectively deranged actions seem more reasonable? And if he’s just a fascist I don’t think he need to take his justifications seriously by giving him a newly named ideology.
But I didn’t mean there are no singular eco-fascists anywhere on earth. There are 8 billion people on the planet so I could make up a mad lib ideology and chances are it’s similar to what someone somewhere believes. But I’ve never met one to my knowledge, not even online. There’s no organized push for this or political power behind it. The vast majority of fascists don’t give a shit about the environment and the vast majority of environmentalists oppose fascism. So the only time I see it mentioned is when people get criticized for discussing the impacts of human population.
I understand why it’s a touchy subject. Past racist policies used overpopulation as a justification for crimes against humanity. But that the human impact on the earth is proportional to our population is just a fact, and it doesn’t make you a fascist to acknowledge that. You’re only a fascist if you think that fact gives you a right to brutalize people, and, as I’ve said, I just don’t hear this from any organized or popular thinkers.
I heard about this around Paul Watson, who is accused of “eco-fascism” because he claimed we should reduce our population by billions, and his close friendship with David Foreman, who is both very implicated in environmentalist actions and has harsh conservative views. Overall, i’ve heard that there are quite a few similar thinking individuals in Sea Shepherd.
In an interview, Paul Watson said that “rich people just want to get richer, and poor people just want to get rich”, implying that the over-consumption by the richest parts of populations does not mean we should focus our efforts there, because “it’s human nature to consume and destroy”. I don’t know if that’s eco-fascism, but that’s precisely what this meme denounces, and it’s held by a quite important figure.
I also heard of Edward Abbey who doesn’t promote violence directly but combines a very conservative and very environment first ideology, same as this Garrret Hardin. Both are quite influent in environmentalist activism.
Radical environmentalism, even when combined with advocacy for peacefully reducing the earth’s population, is not fascism. Fascism is a specific ideology. Most of the people you listed are anti-government activists. Some are even anarchists. Fascism requires a totalitarian state. They are also internationalist in their politics, where fascism is hyper-nationalist. I’m similarly not aware of any strong racial theory in their ideas, which is perhaps the single most important part of fascism. You can disagree with their viewpoints but it’s crazy to call them fascists when they don’t fit the definition and have deep ideological disagreements with fascism.
This is precisely why I don’t like this term. It’s just a smear against the environmental movement that doesn’t fit the actual ideology it’s criticizing. Which again, I don’t mind criticism but I do mind thought-terminating cliches in place of thoughtful critique.
Garret Hardin is probably the one person who you could argue does fit the eco-fascist label, but I would argue his influence has waned dramatically. Maybe there are a few boomers who uncritically parrot his views but there is no organized political movement from his ideas. I can’t think of any disciples of his ideas of any prominence.
On calling fascists people also advocating against government, I mostly agree with you, but not in this case. Because while some of them are effectively libertarian, so at first different from fascism as a strict ideology, their views and goals require use of authority, like “anarcho”-capitalists who seem to fight against authority of the state, but in the end would recreate it one way or another in corporations. This specific goal of reducing population to a set number is also something that, even if it’s peaceful, implies control over other individuals, which is to my eyes the main premise of fascism, state over individual. You can argue that it’s not a state but a company or a group of company, it’s all the same to me : it’s about controlling individual via artificial entities. The fact that in this goal of reducing population, they target third world countries specifically, is to my eyes the nail in the coffin : controlling every people lives to reach a specific goal, insisting specifically on third world countries, is a fascist stance. Maybe you got there with a non-fascist mindset, maybe you will forget it and evolve, but it perfectly aligns with fascist theories.
On purity of fascism and absence of clear organisation, yes, it’s not strictly fascists as in italian far right parties during the first half of 20th century, but it’s fascism as in controlling the lives of third world people for reasons filled with paternalism and eurocentrism. You can argue that water tinted with a bit of dirt is not yet mud, but i think it’s still pertinent to call it mud when you want to encompass all water contaminated by dirt.
Overall, i really dislike leftists afraid of using the word fascism : to me, it’s a spectrum, like most things, there is no clear definition, and you can get stupidly exclusive if you want a strict definition. Plus we have to get rid of it at first sign, not when it’s a full grown organisation, rather whenever some movements or peoples begins to stir in this direction. You’re not having an accident every time you let your car going slightly off course, but by thinking about the accident and correcting trajectory, you avoid it.
And lastly, nitpicking fascism is a game played by fascists themselves : “Oh, we’re not fascists, we’re not advocating for mass murdering explicitly. Oh, we’re not fascists, we’re not advocating for a single party yet. Oh, we’re not fascists, we still want elections.”
Giving an important branch of fascist ideas a name doesn’t “take his justifications seriously” in any sense of condoning them. It’s also not newly named, but been discussed in academic studies of far right tendencies for decades, at least since the 60s. It’s a useful category for describing a set of ideas which have substantial influence.
There are probably lots of ideologies you don’t hear about all the time. Instead of just rejecting their existence with a total lack of curiosity you could instead read about them. At least start with the Wikipedia page…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_ideologies
“Michelle Chan, vice president of programs for Friends of the Earth, said, “The key thing to understand here is that ecofascism is more an expression of white supremacy than it is an expression of environmentalism.””
In other words, it isn’t an ideology.
Something doesn’t have to be correct or honest to be an ideology. It’s a shared doctrine among a significant part of the far right that “protection of the environment” is their purported motivation for exterminating undesirables. That’s absolutely an ideology, even if they’re wrong about its effects or even dishonest about it. I don’t believe it’s all said cynically and knowingly either, and I don’t think that Michelle Chan, in that quite accurate quote, is saying that they never believe in the stories they’re telling themselves about it. Just that the deeper cause for their actions is actually white supremacy. It would be like saying a religious ideology wasn’t an ideology just because it’s motivations are not the actual existence of some supernatural entity but instead cultural forces, bonding, the comfort of rituals etc., and I don’t think that makes much sense.
White supremacy is the ideology.
Sure, that’s the overarching category. It is a subtype of that.
How is it a subtype? It has nothing unique to environmentalism and all to do with ethnic supremacy. They’re simply using racism to wedge themselves into actual world problems.
White supremacy also has nothing to do with white people actually being supreme, it’s about the narratives that shape the worldview of the people subscribing to the ideology.
Yeah no duh