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.”
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.”