Lancaster University academic, John Foster: “Forcefully transformative government… would have to be authoritarian…” “…if [Dr] Bendell wants to send GH [the Green House UK thinktank] an argued objection to what I said in my piece, GH will publish it along with a response from me. This is too important an issue not to encourage responsible debate on it.”
The following in an edited excerpt from the chapter “resisting the fake green globalists” in the book “Breaking Together: a freedom-loving response to collapse.” I am sharing it here in response to the Green House think tank supporting the views of the academic John Foster, which I quote further below. They invited a more substantive dialogue than possible on twitter. That seems appropriate as the thinktank claims to be “leading the development of green thinking in the UK” and has influential people on its board. The concepts I mention in this excerpt, and the evidence for them, are argued in detail elsewhere in the book, which is currently available as paperback/hardback/kindle, and will be available as a free epub download from The Schumacher Institute (TSI) from July 10th 2023 (as TSI always notes, these views are the author’s not the institute’s).
Subscribe / Support / Study / Essays
—
During my decades in environmental work, I often discussed with people whether democracy was an impediment to protecting the environment. That had even been one of the essay questions in my final exam for my Geography degree at the University of Cambridge. As I became more aware of how much we have all been manipulated and coerced by capitalism, and what I describe as Imperial Modernity, I realised that we do not even know what we might have decided in truly democratic systems, with widespread informed participation in all aspects of our lives.[i] Unfortunately, many of my fellow environmentalists haven’t developed their ideas in similar ways. Instead, when facing the terrifying data on the environment, and with politics trending in the opposite direction, they have become more misanthropic and authoritarian. I have witnessed how, if people don’t understand that it is our lack of freedom that has forced such destruction, then they can adopt a negative view of human nature. If the story that ‘strong leaders’ can force positive changes is not seen as part of our indoctrination to live in modern hierarchical societies, then we can adopt an authoritarian view as if that is common sense (as I explain in detail in the chapter on the ‘freedom to know’ in Breaking Together).
Observing the draconian responses of governments to Covid, some environmentalists are ignoring how stupid, counterproductive and illegitimate those responses were, to regard them as a model for action on the climate crisis. In the introduction of Breaking Together I provide examples of environmentalists expressing that sentiment. Meanwhile, some scholars who perceive societies to be crumbling in the ways I describe in the book are expressing authoritarian strategies. For instance, philosopher John Foster writes of his wish for a “vanguard elite” who “knowing the hard truth of our situation and determined to live in it, accept the accompanying grim responsibility of taking power by whatever means they can, without waiting for any sort of majority endorsement and even overriding strong majority reluctance, in order to prevent what horrors can still be prevented. But in thus acting out of and on behalf of human wholeness they stand in, at this desperate juncture and with a thoroughly non-quantified kind of representativeness, for the whole of humanity. That is their warrant and legitimation for wielding whatever institutional force they can command, and indeed whatever force beyond that turns out to be called for.” He explains that his faith in humanity is a faith in such a “vanguard elite” existing. He considers that our climate predicament means that “politics must shift decisively from the democratic to the therapeutic” whereby the public are regarded as addicted to consumption, rather than sovereign people being manipulated and oppressed.[ii] He hopes that initiatives of professionals like ‘the Moderate Flank’ could lead to a smaller group emerging with such a sense of purpose—something we might dub a ‘Stalinist Flank’.[iii]
Despite nods towards socialist concerns, one of the immediate problems with authoritarian strategies is that they can encourage seeking alignment with the elites that are using the ecological situation to pursue self-enriching initiatives which do not work well and can be counterproductive. One example has been carbon trading, which has generated profits for polluting companies without any significant impacts on emissions.[iv] Since the market for carbon offsets was formalised by the UN in 2021, that will increase the rate of large land acquisitions leading to forest monocultures with poor environmental outcomes.[v] An example of what can go wrong was in New Zealand, where ‘carbon farming’ approaches to forest management led to far more damage during a cyclone.[vi] Another example of corporate profiteering from the crisis was embedded within the so-called Inflation Reduction Act in the USA, when it provided huge sums of public money to dubious projects like Direct Air Capture machines (critiqued in Chapter 5 of Breaking Together). After a huge investment in public relations and lobbying by these industries, similar policies are being put in place elsewhere. The industry interests related to responding to climate change now amount to trillions of dollars, and consequently many professionals risk becoming ‘climate users’ rather than climate defenders (climate users are professionals who leverage climate concern for their own wealth, status, influence and self-esteem).[vii]
Another problem from aligning with elites in pursuit of the levers of power, is that it distances oneself from the realities and concerns of ordinary people, including the working class. The draconian policies adopted in relation to farmers created a massive political backlash in both Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, as mentioned in the introduction of Breaking Together. The mass protests and electoral rebellion against compulsory purchase of farming land by the government provided an important reality check for people who think litigation will be the silver bullet to drive change without democratic consent. Both situations were either ignored or defended at the time by all high-profile Western environmentalists who I know of. The common factor behind all of the responses I’ve listed in the last two paragraphs is the influence of elites. As just the millionaires of the world alone will use up 72% of the remaining carbon budget identified by the IPCC as “safe,”[viii] it is important to reject the hypocritical leadership of elites on the environment. Therefore, it is useful to resist all the kinds of policies I have just described, alongside promoting alternatives that give power to people to regenerate their environments and prepare for greater disruptions to their societies— something I define and describe in my book as an ‘ecolibertarian approach’.
The most obvious unaccountable approach to responding to the environmental situation would be simply to raise prices so much that people could not afford to consume. In Chapter 2 on the monetary system, I explained how central bankers knowingly caused the conditions for persistent higher inflation with policies they erroneously claimed were due to the pandemic. I have no information on whether making people poorer is part of a plan of some central bankers, whether for environmental reasons or any other. But an ecolibertarian approach demands accountability for their behaviour and seeks to reclaim both banks and monetary systems for the people as part of a wider agenda of democratising a system that has caused such damage in the first place (as chronicled in Chapter 10).[ix]
Both the editors of the mainstream media and the new US-based ‘censorship industrial complex’ are organising against more radical perspectives on the environmental situation. Mass media are framing any critique of establishment climatology as ‘conspiracy theory’, despite the extensive science for such a view (as outlined in Chapter 5 on the climate). Fact-checking websites claim that articles about environmental thresholds being crossed are false, and platforms like Facebook ‘visibility filter’ both the content and those people or groups that share it. That was condemned by some top climatologists, but has persisted anyway, indicating the non-scientific motivation for the censorship.[x] In a more sinister turn, the state-funded think tanks working on security issues and internet censorship have been seeking to connect our quite normal expectation of further societal disruption and breakdown with violent extremism, despite a lack of both psychological theory and evidence for that view. One think tank with influence on British government policy argued that groups like the non-violent Extinction Rebellion should be considered domestic extremists and the full anti-terrorist powers of the state used against them. As I was mentioned throughout their report as being an inspiration for XR, it felt rather surreal, especially as I have constantly criticised anyone for even suggesting more violent activism might be acceptable.[xi] Various other state-funded organisations, in the US in particular, have been working hard to frame critiques of capitalism and its role in ongoing societal strife as aligned with efforts to overthrow capitalism, or to accelerate its demise, and connect that with violent individuals.[xii] Like most people who recognise the inevitable or unfolding collapse of modern societies, I am merely chronicling the demise and exploring what to do about that, and seeking neither to overthrow nor accelerate its demise. It is due to these sinister developments by powerful corporations and state agencies that rhetoric from scholars like John Foster that a ‘vanguard elite’ should take power and enforce changes on society is not only wrong in principle but also likely to be tactically unhelpful.
—
Another reason that authoritarian sentiments from environmental scholars are unhelpful is because they distract us from the need to challenge the corrupt merger of corporate and state power, on a range of issues, and thus build coalitions that seek to reclaim our power to live in more right relationship with each other and nature.
—
Despite the damage to public support for environmental action due to the wrong-headed and self-serving policies of elites, some environmental leaders have been doing their ideological work. They do that by demonising protestors, so undermining our ability to organise against the systemic problem of corporate power behind the myriad problems. The obvious examples are the lies spread about critics of policies on Covid, farming and war. The lies include that the protestors are all racists, far right, or working for a foreign power, or are being duped by such people. This means people protesting about one issue don’t realise that their views of protestors on other issues have been negatively shaped by mass media, and so they don’t team up in their common fight against corporate power—rendering them ineffective.[xiii] Some commentators even go as far as describing peaceful protestors against instances of the overreach of corporate or state power as being fascists. It is a somewhat odd accusation, given that fascism describes the political approach that invites public hatred towards people who critique the policies of an amalgam of state and private power.[xiv] There is a long history of demonising people for what you yourself are doing or planning to do.[xv] Which is why some of us are becoming nervous seeing leading environmental commentators label anyone they disagree with as succumbing to fascism. One way that ecolibertarians can respond is with vigilance from critical wisdom. When there are negative framings of protestors in the media, or in meetings, we can ask what is the evidence for such opinions, and whose interests are threatened by the common cause that might exist?
One aspect of the ideological work being done to remove objection to authoritarianism in general, and likely eco-authoritarianism in particular, is to reframe what we mean by freedom. It is likely that attempts to ditch our moral commitment to personal freedom will be central to the future of eco-authoritarianism. We see that harmful reframing attempted when we are told that our freedom is no longer our right, which should only ever be curbed by processes that are accountable to us (and everyone) if we are negatively affecting others. It also happens when we are told that our freedom is dependent on us having the right intentions and effects, where what is ‘right’ is determined by some unspecified authority. Reframing freedom, so it is a privilege offered to us if we have the right views, is something that all ecolibertarians should reject. The reason for this should be obvious, after a few years of the corporate manipulation of worried people to harmfully co-police everyone with misinformed moral sentiments.
—
When hearing such arguments between people who are active on the environmental crisis, some people argue that we should avoid division and recognize we are on the same side. They could not be more wrong – and even dangerous – to hold such a perspective, as it encourages by-standing of the masses to the antecedents of violence. History is replete with instances of the authoritarian elements in oppositional movements gaining power, or doing deals with incumbent power, to then oppress and murder the proponents of more grassroots democratic ways of organizing communities. I recommend anyone dismissing arguments with eco-authoritarians as ‘unhelpful’ or ‘personal’ or ‘factional’ to ask themselves what kind of society they are wishing to preserve during the worsening environmental crisis. Perhaps they are themselves proto-authoritarian, and simply not admitting that to themselves, or publicly. As such, their concern for the environment would not be an excuse for a panicked expression of ideas that have been inculcated in us by living within hierarchical societies than distort human psychology. Perhaps a field trip to a mass grave of constructive anarchists from the Spanish Civil War would help shift people out of the self-serving cowardice of by-standing arguments with authoritarians.
—
What might a freedom-loving environmentalism promote and defend? A variety of ideas are shared in Breaking Together and you can hear the introduction for free here. Outside of the mainstream media and the established environmental groups and magazines, the discussion of what such a politics involves is already growing, as illustrated by articles in Brave New Europe, Children’s Health Defense, and LowImpact, as well as newsletters such as that of Pat Kane and Tom Greco.
What do you think? I invite discussion within the Deep Adaptation LinkedIn group. You can also view the initial exchanges on twitter. I await the response from John Foster, and more importantly, those who have official positions with Green House thinktank and more influence within environmental politics.
—
The above text is an edited excerpt from Chapter 13 of Breaking Together. Listen to the Introduction to get a sense of the full arguments of the book. In the UK, order the book in paperback from Good Works (16.99 GBP, with proceeds to The Schumacher Institute). Order the kindle ($8.88) or hardback via Amazon in your country. More purchase options coming soon, as well a free epub (subscribe to jembendell.com to receive notification of these).
Donate to keep Jem writing / Read his book Breaking Together / Read Jem’s key ideas on collapse / Subscribe to this blog / Study with Jem / Browse his latest posts / Read the Scholars’ Warning / Visit the Deep Adaptation Forum / Receive Jem’s Biannual Bulletin / Receive the Deep Adaptation Review / Watch some of Jem’s talks / Find Emotional Support / Jem’s actual views on Covid
[i] This is explored in depth in Chapters 2 and 10 of Breaking Together.
[ii] Reyes, O. & Gilbertson, T. (2010). Carbon trading: how it works and why it fails. Soundings, 45, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.3898/136266210792307050
[iii] He previously wrote similar ideas in another article on the Green House website. The Climate Majority: Apathy and Action in the Age of Nationalism (greenhousethinktank.org) https://www.greenhousethinktank.org/the-climate-majority/
[iv] Morgan, J. (2021). Cop26’s worst outcome would be giving the green light to carbon offsetting | Jennifer Morgan. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/03/cop26-carbon-offsetting-greenwashing-paris-agreement
[v] Kelly, R. (2023). Groundswell NZ says overseas carbon farmers need to be included in slash review. Stuff.co.nz. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131324200/groundswell-nz-says-overseas-carbon-farmers-need-to-be-included-in-slash-review
[vi] Bendell, J. (2022). Don’t be a climate user – an essay on climate science communication. Jembendell.com. https://jembendell.com/2022/08/03/dont-be-a-climate-user-an-essay-on-climate-science-communication
[vii] Gossling, S. & Humpe, A. (2023). Millionaire spending incompatible with 1.5 °C ambitions. Cleaner Production Letters, 4, 100027. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666791622000252
[viii] Arnsperger, C.; Bendell, J. & Slater, M. (2021). Monetary adaptation to planetary emergency: addressing the monetary growth imperative. Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS) Occasional Papers Volume 8. University of Cumbria, Ambleside, UK. http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/5993/
[ix] Knorr, W. & Steffen, W. (2020). Fact Checking the Climate Crisis: Franzen vs. Facebook on False News. IFLAS – Initiative for Leadership and Sustainability. http://iflas.blogspot.com/2020/02/fact-checking-climate-crisis-franzen-vs.html
[x] Bendell, J. (2021). As non-violence is non-negotiable we must have tough conversations. Jembendell.com. https://jembendell.com/2021/02/13/as-non-violence-is-non-negotiable-we-must-have-tough-conversations/
[xi] One organisation that is publishing reports and articles to make arguments to justify authoritarian action online and offline is the GNET – Global Network on Extremism and Technology (gnet-research.org). For instance, they carry articles suggesting that a belief in ‘doomsday’ approaching is a coherent terrorist motivation behind mass murder by those who might be mentally ill and grasping at any explanation. Rather than focusing on a dark incomprehensible future ‘end’ or ‘judgement day,’ this book explains that we are already within an era of collapse and that we can find pro-social ways of responding to that, which reflects the true nature of a huge and growing community. Unfortunately content like the following indicates that there may soon be efforts to censor and criminalise us as extremists for a peace-loving nature-loving and freedom-loving outlooks: Boughali, K. (2023). Frank James: The New York Subway Shooter’s Radical Discourse on Social Media. Global Network on Extremism & Technology. https://gnet-research.org/2023/03/20/frank-james-the-new-york-subway-shooters-radical-discourse-on-social-media/
[xii] Bendell, J. (2021). Uniting in Love and Rage against Corporate Power. Jembendell.com. https://jembendell.com/2021/12/24/uniting-in-love-and-rage-against-corporate-power/
[xiii] I recommend my summary of the sociology and psychology on the rise of fascism and what it suggests for us today in my psychology paper: Bendell, J. (2021). Psychological insights on discussing societal disruption and collapse. Ata: Journal of psychotherapy Aotearoa New Zealand. 25(1). https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/ata/article/view/187
[xiv] Typically, the discursive efforts to describe an opponent as, first, a coherent opponent, with the negative characteristics one is allocating to them, and then as a real threat, are subsequently followed up with the actions of lone nuts, agent provocateurs, or outright false flag attacks, that can be blamed on those opponents. Then the force of the state is used, via institutions, to suppress the views and people they want suppressed. An example of this in recent times might be from India where the BJP party accused its opponents, particularly left-wing activists and intellectuals, of being violent and ‘anti-national’, while themselves promoting a right-wing nationalism and intolerance, which then inspired acts of violence. (Ganguly, S. & Menon, R. (2018). Democracy à la Modi. The National Interest, 153, 12-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26557438). Observing the outputs from GNET in the coming years, and those that work with them or report based on their content, will demonstrate this process of the development of tyranny in response to the unfolding collapse of modern societies.
[xv] I realised just how powerful that can be when one famous climate scientist told me he would withdraw from the Scholars’ Warning initiative partly because he disagreed with the views on gender of a colleague of mine. That is why I spent a whole chapter on outlining the importance of critical wisdom and how to develop it.
Prof Jem Bendell 
[…] Why we must ALL challenge authoritarian views in green politics […]
[…] being caused by the new wave of scepticism. First, it is splitting opposition to the corporate and authoritarian control of our lives. Second, it is enabling electoral victories for politicians who opportunistically use […]