THIS is the Alternative to "Eco-Fascism"?

Here's a remarkable quotation from an op/ed by Adbusters activist Micah White in today's edition of the ever entertaining (but not overly concerned with factual accuracy) Guardian:

Democratic, anti-fascist environmentalism means marshalling the strength of humanity to suppress corporations. Only by silencing the consumerist forces will both climate catastrophe and ecological tyranny be averted. Yes, western consumption will be substantially reduced. But it will be done voluntarily and joyously.

What's remarkable is that White wants to suppress corporations and consumption as the alternative to full-blown eco-fascism being suggested by Finnish green activist (nutcase?) Pentti Linkola of whom Micah writes with justified alarm:

Linkola has built an environmentalist following by calling for an authoritarian, ecological regime that ruthlessly suppresses consumers. Largely unknown outside of Finland until the first English translation of his work was published last year, Linkola represents environmentalism pushed to its totalitarian extreme. "An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth," he writes concluding several pages later that "discipline, prohibition, enforcement and oppression" are the only solution.

Linkola has a cunning ability to blend reasonable ecological precepts with shocking authoritarian solutions. His bold political programme includes ending the freedom to procreate, abolishing fossil fuels, revoking all international trade agreements, banning air traffic, demolishing the suburbs, and reforesting parking lots. As for those "most responsible for the present economic growth and competition", Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for "re-education" in eco-gulags: "the sole glimmer of hope," he declares, "lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens."

The whole eye-opening op/ed is well worth reading (and shuddering over).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    The whole eye-opening op/ed is well worth reading (and shuttering over).

    I didn't feel the need to adjust my windows, but I DID shudder over it.

  • ||

    The whole eye-opening op/ed is well worth reading (and shuttering over).

    I'm definitely going to shutter over that article so I don't have to look at it.

  • ||

    All: OK - shuddering it is. Blogging without a first cup of coffee is not recommended.

  • ||

    As for those "most responsible for the present economic growth and competition", Linkola explains that they will be sent to the mountains for "re-education"

    Obersturmfuhrer Linkola will definitely get re-educated if he shows up on my mountain.

  • CavMedic||

    Seriously. In what bizzare alternate universe do the greenie-weenies pack the gear to oppress the rest of us (as much as they might like to).

    In an all out fight they'd get their clock cleaned (especially against the third world types they claim to love so much, who are accustomed to privation and who would be willing to smack the mocha latte right out of their smirking face if it meant the chance at a higher standard of living.)

  • DBN||

    Agreed. I have to admit that I don't really see the threat. The Reds at least had some support from masses of workers; the greens have what - hipsters in chunky black glasses and tight jeans?

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    "the greens have what - hipsters in chunky black glasses and tight jeans?"

    Several large governments with a lot of guns.

  • DBN||

    Which governments would those be? The US isn't on board. Russia isn't going to give up its oil industry, nor China and India on economic growth. Are you worried about Finland?

  • ||

    Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, and Poland would be on the scene to fuck them up too.

  • Matt Yglesias||

    "hipsters in chunky black glasses and tight jeans"

    Hey! I resemble that remark!

  • fish||

    Nope! ".....chunky hipsters in chunky black glasses and tight jeans"

    Now you do!

  • ||

    The makings of a great dystopian sci-fi novel are in this statement. I need to get started on it.

  • ||

  • ||

    Is it worth the read? Aw hell its available for free, so I'll download it and get started. Sounds like its my kind of story, from the wiki entry.

  • ||

    Very enjoyable; not a demanding read but pleasant nonetheless. You'll want to beat up a hippy after reading, assuming you don't already.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Whole lot of axes ground within it, as well as enough in-jokes and references to make a nutmeg cake, but it's worth a free download.

    The description of what the Ice would look like if the ice age glaciers came back to our society is by itself worth the cost of admission.

  • prolefeed||

    "Fallen Angels" is garbage. In my case, literally -- threw that puppy in the trash partway through.

    Just. Plain. Awful. Sci-Fi.

  • Mosquevite Sandwich||

    So, Linkola doesn't just have crazy, delusional thoughts, he openly voices them. Huh, there is no reason he wouldn't make a fine US Congressman. Surely he'd find a nice warm, wet, retarded spot right in the Democratic Caucus.

  • reasonistreason||

    it will be done voluntarily and joyously.
    Yes, but only after the
    criminalization of advertising
    because, you see
    our imaginations are pillaged by any corporation with an advertising budget

    He's only trying to protect you from being mind-raped by advertisements, and you have the nerve to call him a fascist? Some people...

  • ||

    Yes, western consumption will be substantially reduced. But it will be done voluntarily and joyously.

    Perhaps the craziest thing I have read all year.

    He's yet another one who sees the natural role of the populace as the malleable clay of Larger Forces. These Larger Forces, in the form of corporations pushing a consumerist agenda on the slack-jawed proles, are the only reason people want more and better stuff.

    He wants to replace the corporations with, well, at the end of the day, the State, as the Larger Force at work. Basically, he's stuck in the '20s, with a head full of Soviet Realist propaganda of the People marching happily forward under the benign guidance of, well, him and his buddies.

  • Yonemoto||

    I don't understand what's so crazy about that statement in isolation? Isn't the overenthusiastic consumptionism corporatism largely a result of government collusion and crony capitalism?

    I think that a voluntaryist consumption-minimization movement would have legs. Certainly, many people have voluntarily switched to recycling over landfilling, for example.

  • cynical||

    Well, there you go. We must side with the Eco-Communists to defeat the Eco-Fascists. Historical precedent.

  • The Internet||

    Well I never!

  • ||

    "Yes, western consumption will be substantially reduced. But it will be done voluntarily and joyously."

    What about Eastern consumption? Last I checked, China and India were catching up to the West in terms of using fossil fuels and buying frivolities for personal amusement...oh, he means Western STYLE consumption. Gotcha.

  • MNG||

    There is no shortage of environmental nuts, but at the end of the day my question is, as ecology increasingly demonstrates how connected aspects of the environment are, making it more apparent that what you do on your property may harmfully effect other people and theirs, when can coercion be used to stop people from doing such things?

  • ||

    Coercion by whom? Monolithic Government, or smaller community based groups of concerned people? One =/= the other all of the time.

  • MNG||

    I'm not presupposing any New World Order or anything.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It's going to happen, MNG, and it's 50/50 odds as to which Team is in charge when the totalitarian switch gets flipped.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    ...when can coercion be used to stop people from doing such things?

    Anytime, MaNG. You can go for it right now on your own, vigilante-style. Let's see how that lasts before some redneck with rusting, leaking cars on his lawn blows you away before you can unbutton your solar-powered taser.

    I'm 'fine' with coercion as long as we quit pretending it is somehow voluntary and joyous. Let's just stop kidding ourselves and admit we are pointing guns at people's faces, instead of saving unicorns, puppies, and our poor sacred imaginations from Brain-rape by nefarious peddlers of plastic shit. Oh wait...good guys don't force people to do shit with deadly (rapely?) force.

  • MNG||

    Drax
    I dig your handle (did you prefer the smart drax or dumb drax a la Infinity Watch) but you've got some serious gun-related violent fantasy issues dude.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Smart Drax, but Infinity watch was pretty cool. Yes, I rountinely renew my nerd-card.

    Regarding guns, I personally don't own a gun (more of a cash flow issue to some extent). I'm not a fan of violence and the concept of "non-lethal" weapons appeal to me on some level because killing a person, especially just some punk who wanted my tv, is not on my list of things to do before I die. However, I would not be as conflicted with killing a would-be rapist who creeps into my daughter's bedroom. If I do purchase a gun, I might go with a shotgun loaded with bean bag ammunition to reduce the chance of actually killing someone by increasing the chance of seriously maiming a person. Also, with an actual gun around, I might stick it in my mouth or against my temple most days(WORK days, Days I read Chony's comments, Days I look at my pathetic "higher education" certificates, Days I breathe, etc.) and we can't have that because my hands shake too much. Oh and I think it's illegal to kill oneself, so you know, I can't do it because it's the law and shit.

  • ||

    what you do on your property may harmfully effect other people and theirs, when can coercion be used to stop people from doing such things?

    A fair question.

    Externalities are a problem, but only if one says that the property owner is not liable for them. Which is why libertarians oppose caps on corporate liability for offshore drilling or nuclear power plant accidents.

    Also there is a problem with 'commons'*, - since there is no "owner", there is no-one who would have standing to make a claim.

    *And I can't see any way that the atmosphere can be anything but a commons.

  • Tony||

    Exactly... hence the necessity of regulations. It's governments' job to protect the commons.

  • Yonemoto||

    And government's destiny to fail to do so in the interest of special interests.

  • Tony||

    And it's libertarians' destiny to do everything they can to protect the special interest boondoggles that are currently in place and demonize any attempts to rectify them.

  • fish||

    And it's libertarians' destiny to do everything they can to protect the special interest boondoggles that are currently in place and demonize any attempts to rectify them.

    Example?

  • Tony||

    This climate change denier bullshit. We can't possibly upset the strangehold over energy that oil and coal have--with lots of government backing--because government might fall prey to special interests!

  • fish||

    I like you! You really took the government catechism to heart.

  • cthorm||

    If the government wants to intervene and stop dependence on oil and coal to save a hypothetical future, fine. Gov't decisions played a major role in erecting that dependence anyway. BUT, pretending that we can end dependence on oil/coal with unicorn dreams of solar/wind in anything approximating the near term is complete bullshit. You want cleaner air? Take a long hard look at the NRC...because more nuclear power is the only way to get cheap, scalable, and clean power with current technology. The day enviros advocate an overhaul of the NRC and more nuclear power is the day I'll start taking them seriously.

  • MNG||

    Well, many of them did oppose the cap on punitive damages that saved BP's ass.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Nothing would have made me happier than seeing BP sued into oblivion in respect to the spill. But, you know, somebody had to protect them for being fuckups.

    Thanks for being fair MNG. I've got you on my good troll list. When the revolution comes, you will get a $20 gift card to Applebees (more than most of the screwed in the gulf will be getting).

  • ||

    making it more apparent that what you do on your property may harmfully effect other people and theirs, when can coercion be used to stop people from doing such things?

    An acquaintance of mine, and his partner, who bring home over $300,000/annually combined, are having a solar panel system installed on their home, which will largely be completely paid for through gummint grants and subsidies, which are all paid for by tax dollars taken through coercion.

    So yes, we should be able to do something about harmful acts done to us on someone else's property. We should demand that they share their new subsidy with the rest of us or be forced to pay the full cost of the system.

    Oh wait, that wasn't what you were talking about, was it?

  • ||

    Anyone else think guys like White and Linkola lie awake at night masturbating to fantasies of mass-death, with themselves and a few chosen ones as the only survivors left to establish a new Eden?

  • ||

    If only we had a holocaust and an apocalypse, then I'd get the babes!

  • fish||

    If you've seen his picture you'd realize it might take two or three holopocalypses to get him laid!

  • Upgrayyed||

    Yes, but luckily M4M procreation has yet to surface.

  • Brett L||

    This is the subtext of pretty much the entire Green movement: 1-6 billion people who aren't like me need to die so that the people who are like me can live in a new Eden.

    Discovering that millenialist heart is what led me to be skeptical of all of their other claims.

  • ||

    This is what drove me away from the Green scene. I would not consider myself a super-radical eco warrior, but I had a lot of sympathy for people who protested chopping down forests, killing whales, nuclear power plants, and overpopulation. College had such a negative influence on my earlier years. My all-women's campus was right next to the ag-enviro school. Not the best combo for learning anything real about the world. Then I got a job and started doing some real reading on forestry, hunting, nuke plants and the myth of the population bomb and had an epiphany.

    The Greenies are so very condescending as well. Only they know the True Way and Path to Light and Salvation. The rest of us are helpless, mindless slobs who have no choice but to succumb to the powers of evil corporations and their tool of satan, advertising. No wonder people equate environmentalism with religion.

  • EcoDude||

    I always thought, if advertising is so pernicious, why didn't my dad use tampons after seeing so many commercials for various types on TV?

  • ||

    Ad-busters' represents a demographic that should never be allowed to enter cities or anywhere else where some aesthetic standards are required.

    Horrible, horrible, styleless scum.

  • ||

    gah, left out readership.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Democratic, anti-fascist environmentalism means marshalling the strength of humanity to suppress corporations. Only by silencing the consumerist forces will both climate catastrophe and ecological tyranny be averted"

    Or we could simply reject the unproven assertions that what we are doing is causing any "catastrophe" and go on about our business

  • Linkola||

    WTF?? STUPIDITY!!!

  • Abdul||

    Micah White needs to take his well-thought-out plan over to the Discovery channel people and have them make a game show out of it. I'm sure they'll love his ideas.

  • Mr Whipple||

    From the lined article:

    One well-known example of the authoritarian turn in environmentalism is James Lovelock,

    What's that? Love cock?

  • Mr Whipple||

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

    Blogging without a first cup [after an entire pot] of coffee is not recommended.

  • Apple||

    The Adbusters folks will never understand that most of us know how advertising works and are not only fine with it, we actually enjoy it. We like funny commercials, we like Mad Men, we like going to antiques shops and finding old Coke memorabilia, when we go to Times Square we want to see the flashing lights and 30 foot high Gap (or whatever) ads. But I guess that's just more proof that we're all mindless tele-zombies who need to be liberated.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    At the same time, some of us (and that's good enough for me) can reject, avoid, and/or ignore advertising when it suits us. Back when I had a DVR, I would just fast forward through that shit. I bought a car, not based on some bullshit commercial, but on my own conclusions by reviewing 3rd party assessments. I listen to music only pimple rage-filled nerds enjoy, not the dick-stiffening/cunt-moistening fluff peddled by Katy Perry and Lady GaGa. However, screwing with any of the stuff I don't buy or care about, could easily make the stuff I do buy/care about more expensive. Without Katy Perry type crap, the music industry might not have had the capital to invest in Rush, Yes, Old Metallica, Anal Cunt, Iron Maiden and the like.

    Most importantly, who gives a shit? If you don't like coke for throwing itself out there, DON'T BUY COKE PRODUCTS. Don't force them(with guns at the end of a long line of legal paperwork) to make their drinks "healthier" or their advertising less "intrusive". That only makes their product more expensive and costs people jobs. Of course the anti-civilation nuts don't really care about money and people in the end anyway, so this argument goes nowhere with them.

  • Fluffy||

    the dick-stiffening/cunt-moistening fluff

    You say this like this is a bad thing.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Means and Ends, Fluff. Means and Ends.

  • Ted S.||

    we like Mad Men

    No we don't.

  • tony'n'chad||

    Three cheers for the eco-gulags!

  • Number 2||

    "Only by silencing the consumerist forces..."

    Consumerist forces?? Silencing them??

    Suddenly, a woman who considers auto-eroticism to be a lustful sin seems to be a paragon of sanity by comparison.

  • Upgrayyed||

    The consumerist forces
    Are the same that burn crosses

  • Yonemoto||

    give her a break. A woman like her is clearly not sympathetic to the needs of those of us who are significantly less attractive. Also, someone needs to tell her that Onan's sin was in disobeying god (to not diddle his sister-in-law), not in spilling the seed.

  • Tony||

    The atmosphere burning off and Earth turning into Venus is a greater threat than totalitarianism. If you jerks continue to be stupid ostriches with respect to this topic, you deserve the boot of authority up your asses.

  • fish||

    This has to be the legendary Fake Tony. Real Tony isn't even this silly!

  • ||

    When the parody and the parodied are the same thing, it really doesn't matter.

  • ||

    Ummm...if the atmosphere burns off we CAN'T turn into Venus--Venus problem is that it has so much atmosphere--I think fish is right. Tony is thick, but not this thick

  • Tony||

    You're right, that was incorrect of me. Venus's atmosphere is the result of a runaway greenhouse effect. We still don't want to turn into Venus, and you're still better off with the boot of authority up your ass than you would be living on Venus.

  • fish||

    I'm sorry Tony...you're right...it's the Venusians fault...those Obama hatin consumerist alien bastards!

  • Venusian from 2245||

    Speak for yourself. I went to Venus to escape the Earth tyranny.

  • slurpman||

    Mmmm, boots and asses...

    *slurp*

  • Tony in jack boots||

    Hip, hip, hooray for the eco-gulags. Our death camps will use environmentally-friendly gasses.

  • Kolohe||

    I think someone got his Tony and his Max mixed up.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The atmosphere is not going to burn off, Tony. Quit using typical eco-freak scare tactics to get your point across.

    Besides, weren't you liberals worried that Bush was going to turn America into a totalitarian state? (Yeah, he might've been cool with that idea, but he didn't do it. But your party is just as capable.)

  • Tony||

    Because deniers would never engage in scare tactics!

    A one-world totalitarian government led by Al Gore is totally reasonable possibility.

  • Yonemoto||

    You forgot the aliens. Someday we will be a suzerainty of a one-galaxy federation.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    How do you propose we stop the Indians and Chinese without military force and the inevtiable totalitarian dictatorship required to subjugate them to your will? You think they want to give up air conditioning, plentiful food, clothing, and automobiles any more than Americans? Is World War 3 justifiable, because there is hardly any time left(perpetually) to wait for the pathetic free market to handle this before our eventual eco-geddon according to peddlers of such fears?

  • Spoonman.||

    Hi. I'm a real, live, earth scientist. You're a moron.

  • Colin||

    I wonder if the guards at the Discovery Channel have photographs of Linkola.

  • ||

    The thing about Linkola is, if you really believe what the eno-nutters say, you have absolutely no basis at all for opposing his full-on Pol Pot style eco-totalitarianism.

  • Ray Pew||

    And White's "democratic" environmentalism is nothing more than baby steps toward Linkola's regime. A central authority that can "suppress consumerist forces" (read 'economy') is fascist/socialist system.

  • DBN||

    That's a bit like saying if you really agree with the pro-life position, you have absolutely no basis at all for opposing violence against physicians performing abortions.

    Yeah, I know. I went there.

  • Thomas Friedman||

    That's what I've been telling you silly.

  • fish||

    I really wish it was you you fat pantload so the Reason.com commentariat could dress you down properly!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Moral appeals to reduce consumption work as well as moral appeals to reduce premarital sex among the under-18 crowd.

  • ||

    marshalling the strength of humanity

    Nice word choice. Mashalling has -literally- no denotation or connotation to authoritarianism, militarism, leading horses to waterism...oh. wait

  • ||

    Oh, believe me, when I Marshalled the wife last night there was authoritarianism, militarism, a horse and some water.

  • waffles||

    you really shouldn't call your wife a horse

  • Anonymous Crank||

    Scratch an eco-fiend, find a fascist. The end result of their lofty ideals ends with mass murder and death. Every time I hear one of these loons speak, I have a burning urger to buy ammunition. I suppose they won't burn us in their ecogulags however, just starve and work us to death. After all, Auschwitz must have had a TERRIBLE carbon footprint.

  • Chad||

    I'm all for this kind of future.

  • Number 2||

    Can I place my "carbon footprint" on Micah White's butt?

  • Choad||

    Humans are the world's most valuable resource. They make for good fertilizer and beast of burden.

  • Rebecca Bloomwood ||

    As leader of the Consumerist Forces, I hereby serve notice on the Micah White's of the world that we Consumerists will not surrender without a fight! Our credit cards are ready! Woe to the fool that stands between us and our shopping!

  • ||

    That's a bit like saying if you really agree with the pro-life position, you have absolutely no basis at all for opposing violence against physicians performing abortions.

    Not at all. A pro-lifer can say that abortion is murder, and that it should be prosecuted as such, but that people should not go all vigilante on abortion providers for the same reason that they shouldn't break into jails and lynch the inmates.

    Eco-nutters, though, are saying that unless we do what they say, billions will die and the earth will become a wasteland. Once you accept that as the alternative to immediate and radical change, any steps to achieve that change are justifiable.

  • cynical||

    "One well-known example of the authoritarian turn in environmentalism is James Lovelock"

    I'd say, one well-known example of the theocratic turn in environmentalism is James Lovelock, since he popularized the idea that the Earth is a metaorganism that gives a shit about its own survival, even calling it Gaia.

    I'm not saying someone can't abuse hybrid mystical/pseudoscientific bullshit to create a cult, but they should do it for the right reasons -- to make a shitload of money off of gullible, wealthy celebrities and their followers.

  • Oswald Mosley||

    Democratic, anti-fascist environmentalism means marshalling the strength of humanity to suppress corporations. Only by silencing the consumerist forces will both climate catastrophe and ecological tyranny be averted.

    This is the purpose of corporatism -- to suppress the power of industries and business corporations. It is the Liberal

    As things stand at present, there is nothing to prevent the electorate, supposedly all-wise, from electing a Parliament composed entirely of sugar brokers. Each might be an excellent candidate for whatever Party he chose to represent. He might well be affluent, genial and docile; a firm supporter of charity bazaars, a pillar of local football elevens, a regular contributor to the Party funds of his constituency. If, with all this, he kisses babies with a pretty grace, and promises reforms enough to impress the electors, he may well find himself in Parliament. If enough sugar brokers did it, there is no reason at all why the whole of Parliament should not be sugar brokers: but this would scarcely fit them for the task of discussing a Bill dealing with the complexities of unemployment administration in a northern industrial town.

    In the corporate state, every industry is represented in Parliament by its owners and managers, employees, and consumers, making every industry, business corporation, labourer, and consumer equal.

  • Oswald Mosley||

    Correction:

    This is the purpose of corporatism -- to suppress the power of industries and business corporations. It is the Liberal democracies that enhance the power of industries and business.

  • ||

    The one thing we can count on is that when his "Green Shirts" come to take us to the gulag, they will show up in big SUVs and green helicopters. The leaders of this movement must be alert and on top of things all the time, so they will also be housed in large mansions with central heating and air conditioning. Evil consumer goods need to be disposed of so we can also assume they will be delivered to the leader's mansions for appropriate destruction.

  • TokyoTom||

    What's most remarkable, Ron, is that you and your commenters all refused the opportunity to explore ANY common ground.

    Why are so-many so-called libertarians so enamored with statist corporations and the very non-libertarian and risk-shifting grant of limited liability?

    http://mises.org/Community/blo.....ility.aspx

    Tom

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement