Ecology and fascism

[Good Intentions]

I guess the question is, given that these processes of colonialisation have been going on for half a millenium, how on earth you start moving in the other direction.

Without wanting to seem like I'm jumping on a bandwagon, I think the Zapatistas are doing some research into that question as we speak. That type of action seems to me to be the only meaningful way forward.

 

[Good Intentions]

One thing that particularly bothered me during the reporting of the Niger famine. One camera crew went to the next street and showed a market with plenty of food. The people starving in the back streets couldn't *afford* any.

Which is why I think green politics, taken to it's conclusion, is ultimately incompatible with the right - it needs to abolish capitalism.

Do you realise how few people know that Ethiopia is a breathtakingly fertile country? They export huge quantities of tobacco, with a noteworthy industry in watermelons. Watermelons.

 

[Wess]

Which is why I think green politics, taken to it's conclusion, is ultimately incompatible with the right - it needs to abolish capitalism.

Are you guy's fair dinkum or what? ... What a stupid ignorant argument ...and how the fuck can you come to anywhere near some of the conclusions is beyond me.


Jesus christ .. in my experience one of the definitions of being Right or Left wing is whether you care for the environment or not. The Right could care fucken less about the environment and the Left do care. generally of course, there are always exceptions but thats the way it is.

Honestly reading the politics forum is like talking to a bunch of year 12 students at times .... all theoretical knowledge.

 

[laptop]

And, Wess, you are disagreeing with Good Intentions how?

Have you got a lump of not stuck to your screen that you need to wipe off?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Jesus christ .. in my experience one of the definitions of being Right or Left wing is whether you care for the environment or not. The Right could care fucken less about the environment and the Left do care. generally of course, there are always exceptions but thats the way it is.

It's not though is it? Why can't right wingers be environmentalists? How many people is 'in your experience,' and would that be relevent to the political situation somewhere else?

Anyway, I'm following this thread with interest but don't have a lot more to add. Some people here have put more into it than I have. IMO, though, I think the terms left and right are overused generally and environmental ideas really stretch the boundaries of how useful they are.

 

[newharper]

This is a problem facing all of us; that people react to it in a way that reflects their own agenda is no surprise, and as the problems become worse ...,

unfettered capitalism is the only way. TINA.

 

[rich!]

Sorry to pick up on just one point, but it's an important one and one I did a lot of reading around...

Working out why population decreases happen is very, very difficult. But one of the stronger candidates is actually girls receiving education, not wealth per se.

You could argue that this is exposure "to capitalist culture"... but it's still not the same thing as an economically determinist argument.

(puts serious hat on)

Bucky Fuller, that champion of resource management, ephemerality ("doing more with less") and industrialism, liked to point out that there was a phenomenal negative correlation between "electricity per capita" and "births per woman".

 

[Good Intentions]

Something that is easy to forget, especially in a setting such as urban, is that practising right wingers believe in what they are doing - they really, honestly believe that following whatever variation of conservative/capitalist/corporate politics will make their lives better. This is why the right has enviromental tendencies - Tories also have gardens.

 

[slaar]

Many also believe it will make other people's lives better too. That's not exclusive to the left.

 

[Good Intentions]

Of course. And to caricaturise others in this fashion ("only the left is compassionate") is ultimately to caricaturise oneself. And to leave oneself open to some very, very nasty surprises.

Ultimately people act only out of self interest. Our task is to give a meaningful idea of what actually is in our self-interest. But that's another discussion, relevant here only as much as to anything.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Interesting thread Bernie.

I think Fascism differes in a a fundemental way from capitalism in its romanticism - folk, nation, racial destiny - wheras captialism will consitantly burn romanticism to dust with the cynical acidity of balance sheet ethics (witness the withering decline of state religion in industrailised countries). Its an Ur - ideology which is no real ideology at all - more a coincidence of self interest of those who gain power and wealth through market forces. Of course, this doesn't stop it from using 'romantic' discourses for its own interests (notably nationalism, religion and fascism) - but the market will ultimitely win out.

Like Fascism, ecological movements have a strong romanticism - 'nature' and the 'natural', wilderness, 'authentic' idigenous peoples, gaia-stlyee mysticsm and 'traditional' metods of production and consumption are consistantly and unquestionaly considered superior to the modern, scientific and industrialised.

Given this, there are obvious overlaps between the two romantic discourses - so the likes of the BNP and liberal greens are equally at home with farmers markets, protectionism and the sort of little englander environmentalsim of Tolkien.

Whilst there are not the same thing it is easy to see how a dollop of malthusain logic could propel a chunk of green thinking in the direction of authoritarianism and such 'life boat ethics' as enforced population control and considering the bulk of humainity as a plague, a plantetry parasite that needs controlling for the good of the planet. Whilst this is still not fascism, its definitely occuying some of the same territory and we may yet see something like 'eco-fascism' emerge.

Antother factor to consider - which I dont think anyone has really touched on - is the millenial romanticism of strands such as the anarcho-primitivists (who have some common ground with american right wing militias and some of the christian cults).
There is a dangerous combination of wishful thinking and wilful self delusion - low impact, low tech lifestyles are fine and dandy but cannot possibly provide the essentials for six billion plus people.
There is also a almost tangible desire amongst primiatvists and there fellow travellers for the arrival of some post-industrial utopia of sustainalbe living in a massively de-populated world. Ive had fun plotting and planning in this direction myself whilst skipping the nasty bit where we have to have the death of 95% of the worlds poulation before we get to the point where the rest of us are living in some self-reliant, autonomous idyl in some dingly dell welsh valley.

The ecological movment has to grasp the whole issue of science, sustanability and social systems (the point about appealing to self interest is abslutely crucial here) and learn to think pragmatically and rationally beyond its treehugging, comfort blanket romanticism before some very very nasty elements co-opt it.

(posting in haste from work - apols for any general crapness in post)

 

[Paris Garters]

That article I posted up suggests the German far-Right where cynically exploiting Green politics to broaden their street appeal; this is rather a different angle than the ecologically minded coming to unpleasantly Authoritarian/Malthusian positions. Mainstream parties in the UK often pay lip service to Green issues. Any sign of this with the BNP?

Oh yes. Check out the BNP website, they've got a big article on peak oil etc, with predictable claims about being the only ones who care about 'our' future enough to tackle the issues, yada yada, the usual ploy to capture the attention of those who feel disenfranchised with Labour.
Fascism is by definition linked to Nationalism. This in itself is incompatible with serious environmentalism as it's intrinsically a global issue, the activities of any nation states will inevitably affect others. The mass destruction of planetarily significant biosystems such as the south american rainforests has already had a far wider impact, for example, and if the climate goes completely tits up, as it's on it's way to doing, then we're all buggered.

 

[Good Intentions]

It's not that simple, PG. There's nothing in the definition of nationalism that prevents wanting an agrarian, super-green and depopulated nation and wanting tuning all of the state resources to create it. Which would be eco-fascism. We've been debating whether this would be actually possible without compromising either enviromentalism or fascism (we agree that it's so bad an idea no sane mind could really concider it), but that doesn't stop anybody who hasn't gone to this effort to believe that it's possible.

 

[Paris Garters]

Yeah, it was a simplistic post but it's too complex to cover all at once without writing an essay online, so I tried to go for the core ideological issue.

It's true that there's nothing to stop people wanting it - what I meant was there's a dichotomy between holding that as an ideal, and it being a possibility in isolation from the rest of the world. That's why i referred to serious environmentalism, as in scientifically based rather than as a niche political concern or some sort of romantic concept. A better example may have been the melting icecaps affecting the gulf stream - an individual nation state can take whatever extreme measures it likes, but if the climatic conditions (influenced by the activities of other nations) render self sustainability difficult, or methods of food and energy production can't adapt fast enough, yer little proud (eg)white ghetto is looking at either co-operation or domination for survival...
oh fuck.

The point I'm trying to make is that the classic isolationist, send'em back attitude of the far right isn't technically compatible with the global co-operative action that's needed to sort out the shit that humanity has got itself into with it's endearing zeal for discovery/ insatiable greed and wilful ignorance of consequences (depends if it's sunny or not). I'm all right jack is no use if your next door neighbours are building dodgy nuclear reactors (see Siemens in eastern europe).

Are people are using the label fascism when they really mean totalitarianism, which can of course mean right wing or left? You all sound loads fucking better informed than me so maybe I'm being thick...(ducks and covers).

 

[slaar]

Playing the devil's advocate, whilst dramatic falls in UK food production would be very costly we haven't been self-sufficient in food for generations. Much of our GDP is based on office-situated services like banking, insurance and consulting which wouldn't be affected much by a substantial fall in temperature.

 

[steve0223]

There is a dangerous combination of wishful thinking and wilful self delusion - low impact, low tech lifestyles are fine and dandy but cannot possibly provide the essentials for six billion plus people.

Can you elaborate on this? I thought hi-tech and high-impact as we have at the moment is unsustainable. If we're talking about essentials being food, housing, water and information i'd say that's entirely possible with permaculture style food production and building techniques.

I'd really recommend taking a look at http://permaculture.org.au/ , there is a link to a flash video thing called 'Greening the Desert', a project which took an area of arid desert in jordan, desalinated it and now its producing food..

I mention this as its really useful to be able to cite a set of techniques and principles that are low impact, use both 'traditional' knowledge and modern science, and also highly productive and abundant as a counterfoil to both the 'back to nature / apocalyptic die-off' crowd and the 'industrial economies can only provide our needs' lot. Obviously this is ignoring how these systems could be implimented on a larger scale...

 

[Kaka Tim]

Im not any sort of expert but as I understand it the huge increase in food production over the past 50 years has been driven by artifical fertilizers and the mass production of these is reliant on abundant cheap energy (in the form of hydro carbons such as oil and gas).

George Monbiot been has been writing some intersting stuff on this -

"In 2003, the biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter "containing 44 x 1018 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity of the planet's current biota". In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries' worth of plants and animals."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1659036,00.html

Yes this is clearly unsustainable - especially if cheap energy proves to be a (historically speaking) short term blip - we're using up 100s of years worth of energy and resources at a rapidlly accelrating rate which is fueling global warming and actually makig the planet less fertile - squeezing the planets porodcutivity for short term financial gain.

Yes you can set up perma-culture and sustainable living projects but I cant see how they come close to providing the essentials for billions unless the gross global inequalities in power and wealth are seriously tackled - and the welathy and powerful are never going to allow that to happen unless they are forced to (evidence? all of recorded history).

The whole discourse of 'sustainable development' is a smokescreen - it suggests that with a few reforms and smarter, 'greener' consumption then we we will be able to mitigate the negative effects of industrilaisation and economic growth. But - as I think most people here accept - its consumption itself, and the whole captialist system which demands it must always grow at an ever faster rate - that is the problem.

i.e hydorgen or electric care - yes they have zero carbon emissions - but large amounts of emergy are required to produce the hydrogen or charge the batteries (not to mention the production costs of producing enough of these cars - whcih are further increased by the market requirement that people 'upgrade' their vehicle every 18months or so ). All thats happening is that the energy and emmisions costs of 'green' cars are passed to another part of the economy.

Given all this, one likely outcome is that the rich and powerful continue to consume finite resources at an ever increasing rate whilst protecting that 'right' by force - and it is when this happens that you will see a revival of malthusian, social darwinism and - yes - fascist ideas in order to justify what will effectively be planet wide genocide.

Has anyone got any convincing evidence that 'sutainable' farming etc can provide the essentials for 6 billion people? I love that to be the case - but I am not convinced that it can realisticaly replace the present - and clearly unsustainable and finite - cheap energy boom.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Playing the devil's advocate, whilst dramatic falls in UK food production would be very costly we haven't been self-sufficient in food for generations. Much of our GDP is based on office-situated services like banking, insurance and consulting which wouldn't be affected much by a substantial fall in temperature.

Not directly, but higher energy costs will make food imports increasingly expensive -as well as the higher costs related to decreasing amounts of arable land due to global warming and soil degredation as a result of intesive agriculture. This in turn will fuck the economy - which will then fuck eveyone else (bar the powerful few).

 

[Paris Garters]

Playing the devil's advocate, whilst dramatic falls in UK food production would be very costly we haven't been self-sufficient in food for generations. Much of our GDP is based on office-situated services like banking, insurance and consulting which wouldn't be affected much by a substantial fall in temperature.

well, yeah, but that's far from the only impact we'd be experiencing if the current massive consumption of resources continues. What I'm saying is that without a pan global attempt at increasing sustainability, the effects of this will be felt globally, whatever the political bent of any individual state. I was just trying to give examples of this - remember what was happening to the scandinavian forests in the 80's? I don't think it was those nations producing the acid rain. IE, any individual society even trying to create a more low impact way of living by whatever means will be undermined by the activities of others which will ultimately affect this. So, if it's something that has to be tackled by the worldwide community, then that does'nt really fit in with fascist ideology too well. The logical conclusion in this case is going to war with everyone who doesn't agree with you (which is what the "oh fuck" referred to), and wars aren't cheap and rely massively on fossil fuels and other limited resources. I can see why it would be possible to go down the road of totalitarianism to force a change of culture to halt environmental degradation, and other people on the thread have alluded to this frankly very scary scenario. I just don't think that anyone who really understands ecology, and the human species' place in that, could see that as the best way of doing it.

 

[steve0223]

There's been a huge increase in a certain sort of food production, monoculture which depends on hydrocarbons for sure. This is why some people say organic agriculture ain't as productive as that form of agriculture then they are probably right - it can't produce acres and acres of the same crop year after year..but it can produce a variety of different foods, and using crop rotation and growing crops for mulch maintain a health soil. In comparison with industrial farming of course its labout intensive but this can also be seen as a postive i'd suggest - as to produce enough food in this way we're going to need to be involving a lot of people...

I am not denying your argument here about needed to tackle global capitalism, i hate the way 'substainability' has been co-opted by market forces. What i do think though is that the end of cheap oil means the end of economic growth, quite a challenge for global capitalism, some might say that capitalism needs cheap oil to function.So by building local projects now that are focusing on post oil issues - energy generation, food production and local economies is an ideal opportunity to actually show how global capitalism is fcking us all over.

"Look everyone - the boss man couldn't give a fck about you, and they are also gearing up to secure their own food supplies and resources whilst encouraging the rest of us to blame each other and fight over the remaining crumbs.Here's some different ways of doing things - <points at permaculture projects and autonomous communities> "

 

[Paris Garters]

...leads one to wonder if it's useful to consider fascism as something capitalism does when stressed?

that's a really interesting and deeply worrying thought. And I believe you may well be right, running through past examples.

 

[Paris Garters]

Yeah Steve, this is something I've given a lot of thought to and done quite a bit of research on over the years. Modern agriculture definitely has a finite lifespan - parts of east Anglia are already heading towards a form of desertification because of extensive agriculture, it's losing huge amounts of topsoil every year. Check out 'Our food, our land' by Richard Body, it was written in the early 90's but has loads of good info. Dodgy title, good book.
Permaculture is definitely a winner, it can produce a huge amount of food in a relatively small space, in a whole range of climates, and doesn't take that much work once it's up and running.
I've been working on small scale permaculture stuff myself, and learning skills I think will be useful like sustainable woodland management. As you said, though, it's the wider implementation that's the issue.

Me, I'm cracking on with me compost and awaiting the apocolypse

 

[Kaka Tim]

Me, I'm cracking on with me compost and awaiting the apocolypse

I read that as 'crapping on my compost'

(makes mental note to avoid PG's fruit and veg)

 

[Kaka Tim]

There's been a huge increase in a certain sort of food production, monoculture which depends on hydrocarbons for sure. This is why some people say organic agriculture ain't as productive as that form of agriculture then they are probably right - it can't produce acres and acres of the same crop year after year..but it can produce a variety of different foods, and using crop rotation and growing crops for mulch maintain a health soil. In comparison with industrial farming of course its labout intensive but this can also be seen as a postive i'd suggest - as to produce enough food in this way we're going to need to be involving a lot of people...

I am not denying your argument here about needed to tackle global capitalism, i hate the way 'substainability' has been co-opted by market forces. What i do think though is that the end of cheap oil means the end of economic growth, quite a challenge for global capitalism, some might say that capitalism needs cheap oil to function.So by building local projects now that are focusing on post oil issues - energy generation, food production and local economies is an ideal opportunity to actually show how global capitalism is fcking us all over.

"Look everyone - the boss man couldn't give a fck about you, and they are also gearing up to secure their own food supplies and resources whilst encouraging the rest of us to blame each other and fight over the remaining crumbs.Here's some different ways of doing things - <points at permaculture projects and autonomous communities> "

I think we're all mostly of a mind here. In fact the absence of crystal bangers, tree huggers and gerneral highly informed level of debate on this thread is some small crumb of comfort.

 

[Idris2002]

Here's a relevant story about farmers in Mali organising against GM crops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm

I wouldn't oppose GM crops in principle. But this story seems like more evidence that as long as their controlled by the MNCs they're going to be deployed in ways that won't live up to the world-saving hype.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> Has anyone got any convincing evidence that 'sutainable' farming etc can provide the essentials for 6 billion people? I love that to be the case - but I am not convinced that it can realisticaly replace the present - and clearly unsustainable and finite - cheap energy boom.

These guys have got about 30 years worth of experience with their method and are still suggesting that it can be done.

http://www.growbiointensive.org/

 

[steve0223]

I read a book about biointensive and it appears to be very successfull, but also a hell of a lot of work. For a really good example of urban food growing in the UK is a couple from the suburbs ,michael + julia guerra, who have permacultured their back (and eventually their front) garden, and who are producing shitloads of food for a bit less effort.

check out article about it

 

[Good Intentions]

Here's a relevant story about farmers in Mali organising against GM crops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4445824.stm

I wouldn't oppose GM crops in principle. But this story seems like more evidence that as long as their controlled by the MNCs they're going to be deployed in ways that won't live up to the world-saving hype.

The problem isn't GM. I don't know a single life scientist who doesn't think GM foods has enormous potential for improving human quality of life.

The problem is the people who are implementing GM: global capital

 

[Idris2002]

which puts my point better than I did.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Bumped because it's relevant to some other issues being discussed right now.