What exactly is an eco-fascist?

Two recent articles highlight an understandable concern in the mainstream media about the rise of “eco-fascism”: first in Harper’s Bazaar, The Eco-Fascists Are Coming; second in the New York Times, White Supremacy Goes Green. The term “eco-fascist” appeared on the radar of many folks when the lunatic shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand — who murdered 51 innocent Muslims — described himself as such in his manifesto. But is the term “eco-fascist” always being used wisely?

The Harper’s Bazaar article has the sub-headline of “When Republicans eventually stop denying climate change, they’ll start doing something much worse,” and spends a good deal of time discussing Trump’s climate denial and environmental failures, and how he is basically letting people die because of his climate policies and inaction. This is a fair point to make. The article then discusses “lifeboat ethics” as an example of fascism in an ecological context, which argues that there will not be room for everyone on the lifeboat of environmental survival. The argument seems to be that Trump is a fascist, he doesn’t care about anyone, and when the Republicans finally accept climate change they will become eco-fascists. The term “eco-fascist” is not actually discussed in the article and is used only once: in the article title.

The New York Times article shows how those on the far right have co-opted various environmental tropes to further their political agenda, and notes how the ecological movement has shared some territory with the far right in the past. The article is not so interested in the term “eco-fascist,” rather the strategy of white supremacists mobilizing ecological issues. However, the article then alludes to these white supremacists seeking “openings for authoritarianism,” suggesting that authoritarianism is inevitably fascist. The article also does its bit to bring Trump and Fox News into the discussion, tainting them by fascist association.

What both these articles demonstrate is a certain slippage in the use of the term “eco-fascist” and “far right.” Fascism is never adequately defined, and consequently other issues — such as authoritarianism, party political point scoring, or any uncomfortable discussions — are collapsed into this term. Denouncing someone as “eco-fascist” can then be easily used to shut down good faith conversations about challenging solutions to the environmental crisis rather than engaging with them in equally good faith.

Let’s try and get a bit of consensus on the terms “fascist” and “eco-fascist” so that such good faith conversations are not so easily derailed. In his widely-cited book, The Anatomy of Fascism, Robert Paxton defines fascism like this:

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

It is not so easy to find a widely-cited definition of “eco-fascist,” with much of the discussion existing in opinion-based journalism, which has all of the problems discussed above. However, here is a definition from Bron Taylor’s well-respected The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature:

we may define “ecofascism” as a totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being and glory of the “land,” understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states. The land acquires mystical properties as the sacred source and absolute measure for all things. Polluting the land, either by toxins or by admitting the wrong kind of immigrants, not only threatens the state’s stability and security, but also affronts the sacred natural order itself. Even though the web of life supposedly admits of no hierarchies, ecofascism requires leaders who enforce “natural” principles against selfish (hence, unnatural) individuals and peoples. Militarism, expansionism, and possibly racism are required to defend the land — Fatherland, Mother Earth, Gaia — from those who disrespect the land, including both industrialized countries and overpopulated “developing” nations.

When people are inclined to denounce others with the term “eco-fascist,” it should really be done with regard to such definitions. Does the proposed solution or movement tick the majority — if not all — of the boxes from the above definitions in either practice or aspiration? If no, then it is likely that the term is being misapplied. In this context, authoritarianism cannot be considered fascist unless it is applied in a very specific way that ticks the majority of the boxes in the above definitions. The same can be said for difficult discussions about population and immigration: if these issues are viewed via a lens of sustainability rather than racial or national supremacy, they cannot honestly be described as fascist.

Ultimately, misapplying the term “eco-fascist” results in two related dangers. First, when progressives try and shut down discussions by denouncing someone as an eco-fascist, they also shut down the possible solutions proposed in those discussions. Now, it might be that those proposed solutions were only ever a thin veil for some unsavory racist agenda, in which case they would have been exposed as such as the discussions unfolded. But it might equally be that progressives paint themselves into a corner, closing themselves off to what in time will be shown to be the only viable political and scientific solutions available to course-correct the environmental crisis.

This leads to a second danger. If people see that genuine potential solutions are being shut down by progressives through the overuse of the term “eco-fascist,” they may be inclined to have more sympathy for the one group of people who are open to having those discussions: genuine eco-fascists. As such, it is possible that “radicalization” could happen not so much because of how issues are represented by the Right, rather how they are misrepresented by the Left.

If you find yourself triggered by this discussion and are worried that it sounds too much like opening a door to the far right, please take a moment. Challenge your assumptions. Think strategically rather than emotionally.