To a greater or lesser extent, the population is aware of the need to preserve the environment. As much as it is difficult for us to recognize it, human beings continue to depend on nature and as we spoil it we dig our own grave.
Environmentalism has attempted to approve restrictions on environmental exploitation and pollution, especially to prevent large multinationals from destroying nature and endangering the health and survival of everyone.
Some environmental sectors have crossed the line of respect for other people, putting the preservation of the environment ahead of social well-being, reaching what has been considered ecofascism Let’s take a closer look at what this term refers to.
Defining what ecofascism is is not an easy task since as a movement by itself it does not have much consistency. This term is a neologism that was originally used as an insult rather than to describe those positions that could be considered a combination of fascism and environmentalism.
In its strictest political sense, we can understand ecofascism as any ecological ideology or position in which, in one way or another, aspects of fascism are introduced. In essence, we would understand by ecofascism any ecological current in which environmental integrity is put first before the well-being and rights of people or certain groups
An ecofascist regime would be a totalitarian regime in which exhaustive control of natural resources is applied, with the intention of preserving the environment. Among the laws that could be approved in this regime we would have the total prohibition of forest clearing, fishing in rivers and lakes, the emission of gases in industry or any measure that had the clear intention of avoiding any minimal damage to nature, even if this meant depriving its citizens of rights, such as food or housing.
We have an example of a recognized ecofascist in the case of Pentti Linkola This Finnish ornithologist and environmentalist identified himself as an ecofascist and showed his admiration for the National Socialist regime on issues of environmental protection. Linkola was a totalitarian deep ecologist who advocated a strong and centralized ecological dictatorship, with harsh measures of population control to prevent it from growing too much and applying exemplary punishments to those who violated environmental conservation laws.
Another use that has been made of the term “ecofascism” is to refer to those radical environmental movements that have taken positions partially or openly aligned with neo-fascism, or that are similar in fascist ideas. This use of the term is used more as an external categorization by political scientists, academically referring to nationalist, extreme right or xenophobic movements that have incorporated some measure of environmental preservation into their discourse and ideological ideology.
Ecofascism in history
Although we currently associate environmentalism with more progressive movements, located on the left and the extreme left, it is worth saying that ecofascism, understood as environmentalism within fascism, is something that has a long history.
In fact, the obsession with uniting nature with the idea of nation can be found in 19th century Germany, when The idea of “Blut und Boden” (“Blood and Earth”) emerged, which related the ancestry of people with the land they inhabited making this notion one of the main features of Nazism.
The nation, something fundamental in all fascism, in ecofascism is related to the nature that it must protect with all its strength. This admiration of nature was a constant theme in the Nazi Party, in turn taken from the Wagnerian German romanticism from which his nationalism was inspired.
The Nazi Party took a lot into consideration everything related to the environment and agricultural life. The German National Socialist movement gave nature great importance in the fascist project for national regeneration.
The movement located the birth of the German nation in the ancient pagan Germanic peoples, respectful and linked to nature, highlighting the need to respect Germany’s nature. In fact, the Hitler Youth despised modernity and idealized agrarian life.
Taking this into account, it is not surprising that Germany under Hitler’s regime was at the forefront of conservationism, founding the first legally protected wildlife reserves and recognizing in its legislation animals and nature as subjects of law rather than objects. In fact, the Nazi Party received a lot of support from German environmentalists and conservationists, although this support faded when the Second World War began, since weapons production was urgent.
Although the case of Germany was not the only exception, it should be noted that fascism, understood in its most classic sense, cared little about nature. Most European fascisms were more interested in using industrial production as a tool of national unity rather than stopping to think about the need to protect the environment.
The other exception was Romania, where the Iron Guard This fascist organization, composed of the Romanian peasantry, saw in capitalism and the Jews the elements that were destroying the Romanian nation, its Orthodox Christian culture and its agrarian lands. This movement advocated the preservation of the traditional countryside against modernization and the creation of industrial cities.
Ultra-right and environmentalism today
Normally, 21st century environmentalism is associated with left-wing and ultra-left movements. Environmentalism is seen as a movement opposed to capitalism and, especially, liberalism. Environmentalists, in most cases, want the environment to be preserved to guarantee access to resources for all people, preventing large organizations from massively exploiting resources, leaving practically nothing to the inhabitants who live in the area.
Although for a long time the anti-environmental right and environmentalist left binomial had remained relatively intact, in recent decades environmentalism has transcended the limits of the political spectrum and There are many far-right politicians who have shown concern about nature mixing this concern with his nationalism, identitarianism and fascism.
Although there are still examples of far-right politicians, such as Jair Bolsonaro or Donald Trump, who are very opposed to ideas such as climate change or limiting environmental exploitation, other politicians on the same side of the political spectrum have done just the opposite. It should be said that it is curious how these two politicians, especially Bolsonaro, have seen the fight against climate change as the new cultural Marxism, considering it the communist threat of the 21st century.
We have an example of an apparently environmentalist far-right in the case of Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Rally. It is funny to think that her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, even mocked those who believed in global warming, saying that it even had its good points since it prevented us from freezing, while his daughter has been a defender of the climate, promoting environmental protection from multinationals and immigrants.
Many European far-right have compared the societies of their countries with ecosystems According to their mentality, both ecosystems and societies are governed by implicit laws that, if not respected and external agents allowed to enter, make them sick. If in ecosystems what destabilizes them are foreign species, in European societies it is people from other continents. Based on the idea that each town takes the nature of its region as its basis, introducing people from other regions is a biological attack.
It should be said that many of the speeches of the far-right in favor of the environment are not sincere, which is why they could not be considered truly eco-fascist. The fact that they talk about protecting nature or avoiding climate change has more to do with an interest in getting more votes by joining the wave of environmentalism, given the great concern and sensitivity for environmental problems today.
Ecofascism as an insult
As we mentioned, the word “ecofascism” has its origins being used as an insult. The most liberal right-wing sectors, protectors of big industry and environmental exploitation, on more than one occasion have seen environmental conservation proposals as an attack on their freedoms Placing restrictions on forest logging, open ocean fishing or asking for CO2 emissions to be reduced translates into loss of profits for many companies.
Environmentalism, in its most general sense, is the defense of the environment. As in any broad ideology, there are different currents that propose proposals that can range from mild to truly radical. On more than one occasion, environmentalism has accused the problem of global warming, deforestation and damage to nature to the capitalist production system and the ultra-liberal ideology, which defends that companies give free rein to any form of environmental exploitation.
To discredit any measure to control the exploitation of the countryside, businessmen and related people have called environmentalists on more than one occasion from ecofascists. It is not that they believe that environmentalists are fascists, but that they intend to associate fascism, probably the worst ideology in history, with the movement in defense of nature, causing them to be seen as the threat instead of the solution.
Extreme conservatism and ecofascism
As we said, ecofascism has been used in political debates as a disqualifier for environmental proposals that imply restrictions on the exploitation of natural resources. However, taking its more theoretical meaning, it refers to political movements, to a greater or lesser extent fascist, that have made the environment one of their main concerns, the most notable cases being the Nazi Party, the Iron Guard or the Finnish Pentti Linkola.
However, There are some environmental organizations that, caring more about the environment than about people’s health, have come close to eco-fascism A clear example of this are the organizations that are against the cultivation of GMOs, claiming that they can destroy the environment, cause unknown diseases or put an end to traditional cultivation, despite everything indicating that it would be quite the opposite.
With transgenic crops, plants can be grown that require fewer resources than traditional crops, in addition to having more nutrients than their organic counterparts, such as golden rice. The cultivation of these vegetables would reduce hunger in the world by being able to be planted in regions with few natural resources, in addition to reducing the prevalence of diseases associated with malnutrition.
Another example of ecofascist thinking associated with extreme conservatism does not come from environmental organizations specifically but rather from society in general. With the COVID-19 health crisis, environmentalists who have rejoiced in the pandemic have come to the fore. On the one hand, thanks to the confinements applied in several countries, CO2 emissions have been reduced because transport has not been used as much, and on the other they have been happy about the virus because it has helped reduce the world population.
This view of the COVID-19 pandemic is clearly eco-fascist because, to begin with, It implies being happy that there has been a reduction in pollution by limiting basic human rights, while in second place is the fact of not empathizing with the families of the thousands of people who died due to the virus. The irony of this is that with the pandemic the amount of plastics in the sea has increased, thanks to the uncontrolled use of masks and hygienic gloves.
By citing this article, you acknowledge the original source and allow readers to access the full content.
This article has been reviewed by our editorial team at PsychologyFor to ensure accuracy, clarity, and adherence to evidence-based research. The content is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional mental health advice.
