The author of this article, “An alternative to the new wave of ecofascism”, Micah White, is rightly horrified by the ideas of Pentti Linkola. Note that the url of that link, which seems supportive of Linkola although I do not know if it is his own, describes him as an ecofascist. The page of quotations seems to back up that description fairly well, and it will not come as a surprise to readers of this blog that Mr Linkola advocates that we learn alike from “the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades.”
It is sad, then, that Micah White’s own article, though certainly expressing nicer opinions than Mr Linkola’s, itself advocates the suppression of speech that Mr White does not like. Emphasis added in the following quotes:
The future of environmentalism is in liberating humanity from the compulsion to consume. Rampant, earth-destroying consumption is the norm in the west largely because our imaginations are pillaged by any corporation with an advertising budget. From birth, we are assaulted by thousands of commercial messages each day whose single mantra is “buy”. Silencing this refrain is the revolutionary alternative to ecological fascism. It is a revolution which is already budding and is marked by three synergetic campaigns: the criminalisation of advertising, the revocation of corporate power and the downshifting of the global economy.
and
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.
It would be remiss of me not to plug the excellent Environmentalism Is Fascism website. Lots of analysis and history for anti-greens to enjoy.
But I think it must be said that while this chap is more forthright than most people, his ideas are nothing remarkable. The astonishingly dumb belief that capitalism is some kind of conspiracy, that we are all victims of a false consciousness called “consumerism”, that we would all be better off poor, and so on, is enormously widespread in our society; indeed it is now the default moral position in polite society. To say “acquiring more stuff is good” is a revolutionary statement which is likely to provoke an embarrassed silence at the average middle class dinner table. I normally follow it with, “I’ll get me coat”.
It can be found in people purporting to follow every political ideal, even among (purported) Libertarians. Of more well known ones, an obvious example is Kevin Carson, who trots out a libertarian rhetoric inspired version of anti-capitalism. Apparently big business is evil, and only exists because of State support, who tricked us into consumerism by building roads. Or some such twaddle.
I may as well say again that all this is clear proof (IMV) that our enemy are not marxists. Marxism is a pro-production philosophy based on the idea that central planned industry will produce more tractors than inefficient capitalism. Our enemy are the Letchworth Socialists who pottered around their garden cities in their sandals dreaming of a back-to-nature simple life. This is bourgeois utopianism, not the workers’ revolution and, with such a heritage, it inevitably converges on fascism.
Still reads like fascism, just a smiling polite version.
Their faith in a coming ecopocalypse is still rather frightening. It is no wonder they wish to drop their green mask and reveal the red tyrant at heart in order to git-r-done. They are frightened like little children who believe it is their fault their parents are getting a divorce.
If White opposes envirofascism, he has a bloody funny way of showing it.
What does the criminalisation of advertising even mean, anyway? (Apart from the end of the Guardian, of course.) Would I get banged up for telling people I prefer Pepsi to Coke, or what?
White’s definition of “fascism” is corporatist-centered. Being a communist, he obviously feels that eliminating the fascism from the environmental movement requires a communist revolution.
Eliminating adverts will remove the ability of the consumer to make informed decisions. The excellent darwinian market system which weeds out many bad products (though not all) in favor of some of the better will cease to exist.
Micah White suffers the disease of hanging onto a kernel of an idea, regardless of it’s wider consequences.
Does advertising condition? Sure. Does it condition everybody the same way? No. Those who do get conditioned make poor choices. Sure. Do they all? No. So does one have a point about the endless adverts that are out there? Yes. Is using Force the answer? No.
Simply put every amalgamation man has ever tossed together for himself is pulling from the same source of humanity – the critical, the gullible, the intelligent, the stupid. Any attempt to boil the roiling pool of humanity down to some simple do’s and don’t’s by a truncating blade only causes more problems. People assume that their unleashing of Force is what is necessary to avoid the Hell they have imagined for themselves only to unleash a true Hell of a different kind.
The social plans are all different, the social planners are all alike. Put this bozo to work being a docent at Kolyma.
Yeah, as if Stalin didn’t have some advertising geniuses working for him in the west.
If we adopt Whites advertising ban, then we can classify all socialist/communist propaganda as advertising and thusly use White’s police state to dismantle socialist and communist organizations.
The future of environmentalism is in liberating humanity from the compulsion to consume.
With a bullet!!!!
Was Mao a great environmentalist or what?
Ecological tyranny is our certain and unavoidable future. Most likely in my lifetime…
I reject that.
I’ve got a better idea. It’s coming. Soon, soon.
I believe in free speach. So, watch what you say about that, too.
The political world (in exception to the real one) is in the ploy of “equality”; taking it’s stand in the shadow of The Great Equalizer (death). The pragmatism of politics is to take well-backed interests (wants) over
observed necessities.
The world’s oldest profession is marketing. In the house of ill repute, socialism is an uglier hooker.
No, not sure at all. I have long been of the view that advertising is vastly over rated, indeed I think the majority of advertising is like flushing a company’s money down the toilet.
The only truly monumental success of advertising has been convincing so many credulous businessmen for so long that they need to pour huge resources into… advertising.
As the US businessman John Wanamaker reportedly said, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”
Advertising has worked best on me when it simply told me that products and services existed, when I didn’t know before. Specific film adverts have led me to the cinema to watch that film, for instance.
But don’t think I’ve changed brands because of advertising since childhood.
But as I’m sure I don’t need to say here but will anyway because I like sounding off, if people want to spend their money that way, that’s their business, and if other people want to buy things because of a funny ad that’s their business too.
“Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.” (Linkola, as per link)
This guy is barking mad. No, it’s worse: he’s Prince Charles mad. As soon as Liz pops her clogs and the Order of the Tampon is instituted, this one´s likely one of the first honoraries.
Perry, i can point to one industry that survives solely because of advertising- the perfume business! Would people pay oodles for scented water, if they weren’t told and assured constantly by celebrities and beauties, that it works? I don’t think the ‘benefits’, if they have any, are self-evident! (Otherwise, they’d use ordinary people in their commercials!)
Nuke, you may be right, but not in my case: I love perfume, but buy it solely on scent.
I don’t think all advertising is a waste of money, and it also depends on what exactly is meant by advertising. Things such as PR and brand awareness can be very effective, while at the other end of the sophistication/cost scale, basic things like fliers promoting a special are also very useful. Of course, different things work for different people, but that is true with any product – and advertising is just another product.
Nuke, perfume is an aesthetic product. It doesn’t have a “use”. There’s no “need” for it. But that’s true of oodles of product. Nobody needs nice curtains or nice clothes either. We could all get by fine with regulation plain curtains and a mao suit. Doesn’t mean we’ve been tricked into liking nice decor or fashion by some advertisers’ conspiracy.
Some of these characters are more careful in concealing the extent of the repression they favour, but in some ways we should be glad at their candor. It makes them easier to beat.
The economist Deepak Lal has argued that these extreme Greens will be a driving force in many social/economic conflicts in coming years. I think he’s right.
“Only by silencing the consumerist forces will … ecological tyranny be averted”
Translation: it’s essential to implement my kind of tyranny, in case the other people’s kind get there first.
Same old same old.
More noble savage crapola.