Radicalization of and polarization through the eco-movement: Ecoliberalism or Ecodictatorship

Radicalization of and polarization through the eco-movement: Ecoliberalism or Ecodictatorship

The ecological movement is radicalizing in very short time. What began with harmless and peaceful pupils demonstrations has now become a civil disobedience movement. Extinction Rebellion blocks the shopping malls, airports and streets of the inner cities of London and Berlin. A leader of Extinction Rebellion said that democracy might not solve the problems and that one would has to think about an ecodictatorship.

Bernd Ulrich, author of the book „Everything changes – the age of ecology in a full-page article“ Green is beautiful, but makes a lot of work „, in which he formulates twelve theses, argues in another direction.

If traditional liberalism does not turn into an ecociberalism, an eco-dictatorship would emerge because of necessities and a state of emergency. However, it would not be the result of ecological ideologists, but environmental disasters. which will bring the ecodictatorship as a last resort.


„In the past, the ecos were moralistic, today  the eco-opponents are. Those who pollute more than others do not love freedom but their feudal privileges. Twelve theses on the climate debate. (…)

10. The ecodictatorship  is not caused by ecologists

The idea that an eco-dictatorship emerges because some ecologists have come up with this, or because there is totalitarianism in them, dates back to the 20th century. And is naive. If at some point there should be a green emergency state, then because the climate crisis has become so dramatic that it can no longer be brought under control otherwise. The eco-dictatorship was not due to a political victory of the ecologists, but their defeats and the aggressive assassination of their critics, not from ecological ideology, but from ecological omissions.

11. Freedom and matter

Outdated liberalism generally struggles with matter because it is inconvenient for it that freedom is not just a question of rights and markets, but also of material prerequisites, which are often unequal. Deeply alien to this late-liberal thinking is the very idea that one can literally consume freedom by misusing it. That’s exactly what global warming is all about. Every single gram of carbon dioxide that is expelled too much today means that in just a few years‘ time you will have to save even more – whatever the cost. If this does not happen, then the global warming itself will lead societies into a thicket of constraints, up to emergency states, which, viewed from the side of freedom, means that the number of real choices decreases, fault tolerance disappears, the realm of necessity takes power. In view of this, it is of course no longer liberal to insist on traditional polluting privileges, but feudal „.

The present liberalism is therefore only a new feudalism, which produces by a new ecological liberalism, which also advocates state intervention, an ecological new bourgeoisie and replaced it, in order to prevent an ecodictatroship. Ulrich does not yet advocate a green Jacobinism, green terreur and guillotine, so that the ecoliberal bourgeoisie will eliminate the feudalist, traditional-liberal, reactionary aristocracy. If it did not come to that, the constraints, ie climatic disasters, would probably lead to a state of emergency and a green colored dictatorship. There is something true about these considerations.

Western military officials also have emergency plans as a result of rising sea levels and increasing environmental disasters, as well as peak oil in the drawer. On the occasion of Helmut Schmidt’s death was also repeatedly pointed out that it was he who enforced the use of the Bundeswehr and allied military inside the German state during the Hamburg stormflod disatser despite constitutional concerns, which earned him the reputation of the crisis manager and pragmatist. Helmut Schmidt thus became the unintentional mastermind of a military mission now recognized in the US and especially the UK under the label of the Sea Level Rise (SLR) – the military as the central crisis organizationtio manage natrual disatsters with rising ocean levels along  the largest and most populated port cities and population centers along the inland rivers as a result of climate change.

What is not discussed at all the climate summits, is when climate change can no longer be avoided, which institutions can manage this. Foresighted the military themselves bring themselves in the discussion. Meanwhile, there is also the tendency that Bundeswehr and other military leaders, most notably the US and British military, are coming to see themselves as future crisis managers. For this purpose, two important studies were commissioned from the German Armed Forces, which justify an intervention by the Bundeswehr in terms of domestic policy as well as foreign policy. On the one hand, the peak oil study, which describes what would happen if our oil-based society were to erode due to a lack of resources: The Bundeswehr would have to secure internal order as well as new sources of energy abroad. Second, a study that sees an increased role of the Bundeswehr as a result of environmental crises, especially when coastal cities are flooded as a result of rising ocean levels and other environmental crises and  refugee flows. It is also a mistake of the eco-movement to discuss only the prevention of climate change or its limitation, but also not the civil protection and the financing of the associated institutions and infrastructure, if the climate change is not slowed down as hoped.

The danger lies always in the fact that in the face of crises the state of emergency can be explained quickly and the military could play its own and no longer subordinate role, perhaps also with right-wing groups building a new authoritarian dictatorship under the pretext of „practical constraints“ This should always be kept in mind when frivolous commentators want to question the Constitution and want to give the military a central role. In the future, even an eco-military coup would be conceivable in which the military as a regulatory force reclaims the political role to solve environmental disasters.

Over the next few months, however, the overarching ecological debate is likely to be overshadowed by a new refugee and migration debate, as well as by the emerging recession, as well as a new economic policy debate. The Greens will try to present the energy, transport and the New Green Deal as a solution, the other parties, especially the AfD, to present the green policy as a deindustrialization policy and a new Morgenthau plan , which threatens to abolish Germany and its industry.

But there are also possible countermovements. The yellow jackets in France are the result of an increase in the gasoline tax. In Ecuador, there has now been a state crisis after the government of Lenin Morano complied with the IMF program and cut subsidies for gasoline. The government had to relocate its seat of government for security reasons as a result of the enormous protests. Similar protests are to be expected in Germany and other countries if the government or the eco-movement is too radical on the issue of CO2 taxation.

Green Party leader Robert Habeck has now distanced himself from Extinction Rebellion in an interview on WELT TV. As long as the Hambach Forestry or Castor Transports are concerned, the actions remain limited, RWE and the nuclear industry were the victims, but now the action forms of Extinction Rebellion threaten to plunge entire cities into chaos, which also affects the general population and may not cause solidarization effects, but just the opposite. The eco-movement is then questionable, which in turn can cost the Greens in the absence of distancing themselves from Extiction Rebellion also votes. Habeck also seems not feel well in the face of the radicalization of the ecological movement .So much “Apo” you want to bring back to Parliament. Overall, however, a further radicalization and polarization is to be expected.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.