Asurvey of socio-political models and movements based on ecocentric ethics — left biocentrism, bioregionalism, global eco-village movement, post-historical primitivism, and the “coerced” biocentrism of Pentii Linkola — reveals that all these models share a common vision of an anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, and decentralized (self-sustained) society, while conventional political modes to this time have mainly been based on centralised, authoritarian, human structures—Monarchies, Empires, Republics—all designed to serve human needs. With the growing complexity and interdependence of ecosystems in the entire planet, these social organizations pose a grave threat to human beings, to the environment, and to non-human species. Incorrect decisions made at the top of the human power structure can easily propagate, augment their impact, and affect a great number of humans as well as animals of the non-human world. Decentralisation of power and “local” solutions seem to offer the only remedies that can avert us from imminent global destruction.

Left biocentrism

According to David Orton3, an originator of left biocentrism, this socio-political model has descended from several parallel anti-capitalist and anti-industrial movements in green politics and environmental activism, with the aim of marrying deep ecology and left perspective:

• “deep green theory” of Richard Sylvan14
• “socialist biocentrism” Helga Hoffman and David Orton2, 3
• “ecologism” of Andrew Dobson16;
• “radical ecocentrism” of Andrew McLaughlin15;
• “revolutionary ecology” of Judi Bari13;
• “green fundamentalism” of Rudolf Bahro12.

In fact, left biocentrism can be viewed as a left political wing of deep ecology4. The later, however, is known more as a philosophy of ecocentric ethics14. The “left” means that biocentrists try to weave ecoethics with the class issues and social justice, but do not hold them above biocentrism, or ecocentrism (like the left parties). At present, this direction is being developed within the international discussion group, comprising activists, philosophers, scientists, poets and ecologists. The group was initiated in the 90s by a Canadian writer-activist David Orton.3 The group has an on-line theoretical journal Dandelion Times1 and links with other left-wing “green” organisations.

Bioregionalism

Bioregionalism is a political, cultural, and environmental system based on naturally-defined areas called bioregions, or ecoregions18. Bioregions are defined through physical and environmental features, including watershed boundaries and soil and terrain characteristics. Bioregionalism stresses that the determination of a bioregion is also a cultural phenomenon, and emphasizes local populations, knowledge, and solutions19 The term appears to have originated in work by Peter Berg and Raymond Dasmann in the early 1970s.20

The bioregionalist perspective opposes a homogeneous economy and consumer culture with its lack of stewardship towards the environment. This perspective seeks to:

• Ensure that political boundaries match ecological boundaries.21
• Highlight the unique ecology of the bioregion.7
• Encourage consumption of local foods where possible.
• Encourage the use of local materials where possible.
• Encourage the cultivation of native plants of the region.
• Encourage sustainability in harmony with the bioregion.22

So far, bioregionalism has spread primarily in North America. Since 1984 there have been bi-annual gatherings of bioregionalists23 that have given rise to national level Green Parties.

Global eco-villages

Today, the number of eco-villages in the world exceeds 10 000. They all are interconnected in the Global Ecovillage Network.6, 24 Eco-villages are the small communities (20 to 500 members) with tight social connections, united by common ecological and spiritual interests. These communities could be rural, urban, usually low-tech, depending on circumstances and the intentions of their members. For example, Ökodorf Seiben Linden  is a rural community in Eastern Germany with a minimum energy consumption. Eco-village “Los Angeles” is a small region in Los Angeles. Village Sasardi  is hidden in the tropical rain forest in northern Columbia. The world’s oldest (since 1962) Findhorn eco-village is located at the northern extremity of Scotland. They all have deep respect for nature and are striving to build self-sustainable communities with a minimal ecological footprint. Many eco-villages serve as a learning ground for those who seek to radically change their life ways.

Post-historical primitivism

This (theoretical) model is based on the works of Paul Shepard. According to Fred Bender,9, 10 Shepard recommends that we need to recover pre-history and reconnect to mythos (sacred story), ancestors, and nonhuman Others. He believes that history’s real lesson is that it is no guide to the future, because it is a declaration of independence from the deep past and its peoples, living or dead, and from the natural state of our being. Despite these deep-rooted prejudices, we must study primal peoples (who are not primitive in any defensible sense of the term) so we can begin to think about living ecologically in post-historic and post-industrial ways. Contrary to the deep-rooted prejudices, we must study aboriginal people, in order to learn how to live ecologically in post-historical and post-industrial times. Other deep ecologists, particularly, Jerry Mander11 also develops this theory.

The radical biocentrism of Pentti Linkola

Radical biocentrist Pentti Linkola stands at some distance from the aforementioned models, as his model is based on a coerced radical reduction of population, rejection of technologies and consumerist economy. His programme, elaborated mainly for his native Finland, despite its radicalism, does not differ in essence from other decentralist models.17 The only significant difference is that Linkola envisages the introduction of an authoritative government as the most radical solution for the transition of society and conservation of life (he does not have illusion about the voluntary transition to the new way of life). Linkola’s programme has 205 points and evokes admiration from some and severe critique from the others. Nonetheless, we can’t render Linkola a “fascist” because he speaks against nationalism or any expansion of a nation, or race, to the detriment of all others – which is the major feature of fascism.

Conclusion

To prevent the global catastrophe, provoked by an excessive anthropogenic pressure, deep change in individual consciousness is needed. But that is not enough. We need to radically change the social structures. Some ecocentric ideologues are sceptical as to voluntary transition of the large masses, let alone “the golden billion”, to the ecocentric society. The issue of the permissibility of a coerced transition remains open.

About the author

Viktor Ivanovitch Postnikov is a Russian-born independent scientist (DSc.) who lives in Kiev, Ukraine. A prolific poetry translator, he has also translated books on both eastern philosophies and deep ecology, and written many essays on Russian anarchism and eco-poetry for journals and other publications.

References

1. http://dandeliontimes.net/category/left-biocentrism/

2. http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/

3. David Orton – My Path to Left Biocentrism: Pt.1- The Theory http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/GW63-Path.html

4. David Greenfield –The Left in Left Biocentrism http://dandeliontimes.net/2008/07/the-left-in-left-biocentrism/

5. Bill Metcalf – Sustainable Communal Living Around the Globe, Diggers and Dreamers 00/01, p.5 -19.

6. Albert Bates, Ecovillages – What Have We Learned? – Communities Magazine, issue #117.

7. V.Postnikov – Ecocentric Ukraine Project – a sketch http://www.proza.ru/2009/01/13/716 (In Russian).

8. V.Postnikov – Russian Roots: From Populism to Radical Ecology, Anarchist Studies, Volume 12, N.1, 2004.

9. Frederic Bender (2003). The Culture of Extinction: Toward a Philosophy of Deep Ecology. Amherst, NY: Humanity.

10. Frederic Bender, On the Importance of Paul Shepard’s Call for Post-Historic Primitivism and Palaeolithic Counter-Revolution against Modernity, The Trumpeter, Volume 23, Number 3 (2007)

11. Jerry Mander, In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1991.

12. David Orton, Rudolf Bahro (1935 – 1997): A tribute, Socialist Studies Bulletin_ No. 50 (Oct.-Dec. 1997).

13. Judi Bari, Revolutionary Ecology. http://www.judibari.org/revolutionary-ecology.html

14. Patrick Curry, Deep Ecology and Left Biocentrism: An Introduction,
http://dandeliontimes.net/2008/08/deep-ecology-and-left-biocentrism-an-introduction/

15. Andrew McLaughlin – Regarding Nature: Industrialism and Deep Ecology (Albany, State University New York Press, 1993.)

16. Andrew Dobson, Green Political Thought: An Introduction  (London: Harper Collins      Academic, 1990). A book review by David Orton http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Ecologism.html

17. Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? http://www.evfit.com/linkola_CLP.htm

18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioregionalism

19. Don Alexander, Bioregionalism: The Need For a Firmer Theoretical Foundation, Trumpeter, v.13.3, 1996.

20. Berg, Peter and Raymond Dasmann, “Reinhabiting California,” The Ecologist 7, no. 10 (1977)

21. Davidson, S. (2007) The Troubled Marriage of Deep Ecology and Bioregionalism, Environmental Values, vol. 16(3): 313-332

22. Bastedo, Jamie. Shield Country: The Life and Times of the Oldest Piece of the Planet, Red Deer Press, 1994.

23. North American Bioregional Congress website http://biocongress.org/

24. http://gen.ecovillage.org/index.html

We begin with “we.” How do we perceive and understand ourselves? For most of human history the question made little sense. We were of course members of an extended family, a community, a clan, a tribe. We had no independent social identity other than that conferred on us by our own community. Only quite late in this history did social differentiation, economic specialisation, and ethnic mixing bring about an alternative identity, that of a unique individual.

The development of capitalism has, among its multitude of ills, alienated us from our extended families, our community, our work, the products of our work, our houses, our recreation—indeed, almost everything with which we once felt naturally intimate and integrated. In their place capitalism offers its captive members the ever-greater material consumption of (alienated) goods and services. Under these conditions, the ideology of the unique, supreme individual, especially as sovereign consumer, has swept all before it.

Left-biocentrists know better. The natural world is everywhere organised into overlapping communities of families, species, ensembles of species, ecosystems. Alienation is impossible—can there be any special value for an individual of a species? Nature celebrates mothers, fathers, offspring, leaders and followers, but not one would survive long if stripped of its community. Intimacy, connectedness, and community are Nature’s organising principles, just as they were, over eons past, for us.

Return to communities

I suggest that for left-biocentrists, the ultimate social goal is the turn or return of our human species to social and ecological communities as our primary form of organisation. This is not nostalgia for the past, as these will be voluntary communities. The replacing of capitalism then becomes a necessary means to this end, an intermediate goal. For these reasons I often think of our social program as “Communitarianism,” even while regretting its historical associations and unnecessary length. I will continue to use it here, but with the hope that left-biocentric comrades and colleagues will soon discover a more serendipitous word.

We have not yet finished with “we.” Having set the goal, we turn to agency. What forces change history? Natural geological and environmental forces change history. Man-made environmental destruction changes history. Social and economic development changes history, as does population growth and movement. Conscious social movements change history (even if less than we would like). However, what has clearly brought about the most profound changes in recent centuries has been the engagement of whole social formations, i.e. castes and classes, in the pursuit of their perceived self-interest. We may note that religious, cultural, and household upheaval has often accompanied this class controversy; to touch any part of the social order is to touch it everywhere.

It is a given that our communitarian revolution, if it is to succeed, must be welcomed by the great majority of the people as a whole; thus it follows that the agents of this revolution, in general, must be those broad social formations whom it directly benefits. Although a tough-minded examination has yet to be made, I believe that class will prove to be a useful analytical category, as will race, gender, status in family, religious practice, perhaps sexual self-restraint, and other factors still to be identified.

Identify common themes

In trying to engage as many of our fellow citizens as seems reasonable, we need to identify common themes that resonate widely. In my variegated experience, frustration of aspiration, alienation from any community, lack of spiritual touchstones, and sickness at heart at ever-greater consumption and debt are all widely experienced and deeply felt. What links them together is the condition of perceived powerlessness, that we are on our knees before a vast omnipotent machine. It is here that we activists can show the opposite to be true: through organisation, solidarity, and flexing our collective strength, we can overcome most of these social and personal ills.

Our revolutionary voice, then, is strongest if attuned to our agency. We should speak broadly as “we the powerless soon to be powerful” or “we the little people soon to be big.” At specific times in specific places we may speak as “we the workers,” “we the unemployed,” “we the harijans” and so forth. What dedicated communitarians must not do is to speak as a group of advanced thinkers above or ahead of the rest of us, as many Marxists did for six futile generations. The intelligentsia are, on the whole, also powerless and often marginalised. At the risk of igniting a firestorm, I believe that those left-biocentrist activists who think of themselves as intellectuals—somehow apart from us workers—perhaps they are not many—have a duty to remake themselves and their self-view to become workers like the rest of us.

This is not to say that we working people can leave ourselves unchanged! I believe if we looked more closely at the “freedom” and “choice” being sold to us, we would see that these are meaningless. What we seek at a deep level is in fact community and connectedness, and we will sooner or later have to alter our lives accordingly.

Tom Holzinger
Serowe, Botswana

Author’s note: I have tentatively put forward an ultimate social goal of voluntary ecological communities and, as the principal agency for this transformation, a self-aware social struggle based on shared powerlessness and alienation. It is up to Dandelion Times readers to criticise, correct, and enrich these views. In the meantime I will do my best to prepare the other half of my thesis, Conviviality not consumption, in which I will try to treat political questions such as organising a global Movement, evangelising the unconverted, strategic non-violence, spirituality, relations with reformists, and other contentious topics. If everything goes well, these will soon be collective pieces, and we will write “we” with great satisfaction!

About the author

Tom Holzinger grew up in America, fled to Botswana during the Vietnam War, raised his family in Montréal, and now lives in Serowe, Botswana. He has been aware of the deficiencies of classical social theory since becoming radicalised as a teenager. Tom believes that a communitarian theory of social change must replace industrial capitalism for humanity to reintegrate into the natural world.

The Roots of Deep Ecology

Left Biocentrism grew out of Deep Ecology, which itself was rooted in the growing environmental awareness and struggles of the 1970s. Its roots are thus in activism, not academia. In 1973, however, the Norwegian activist and philosopher Arne Naess tried to articulate the theory of deep ecological practice. (Interestingly, in the same year Richard Routley, later Richard Sylvan together with Val Plumwood, initiated the field of environmental ethics with another influential paper, Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental Ethic?)

Naess began with an important distinction between shallow environmentalism and deep ecology. He pointed out that the former is anthropocentric, or human-centered. In a human-centric view, non-human nature has only ‘instrumental value.’ That is, it has value only insofar as it is useful to human beings or for their purposes. Deep ecology, Naess stated, is in contrast ecocentric; it recognizes the ‘intrinsic value’ of the entire natural world. That insight became the first of eight Platform Principles which Naess, together with Bill Devall and George Sessions, later formulated as the theoretical basis of Deep Ecology.

As well as the different focus, the Platform Principles advocate respecting the richness and diversity of the Earth’s life-forms and argue that human beings have no right to diminish and exploit these for trivial or selfish reasons. But that is just what is happening, so the principles also specify our obligation to reduce our impact on the Earth, particularly through a lower population, less consumption, and more appreciation of the overall quality of life as distinct from economic standard of living.

All Life on Earth

Although the principles make no explicit mention of it, the Earth is clearly the ultimate context for natural value and all life-forms. The term ‘biocentric’ is often used in this connection, although a better one (because more accurate) would be ‘ecocentric’, since inorganic elements are also integral to life. There are fruitful overlaps in this worldview with the work of Aldo Leopold on ‘thinking like a mountain’ (as opposed, in Sylvan’s words, to “thinking like like a cash register”). Both Naess and Leopold were major influences on the Earth First! movement.

Naess and Sessions also formulated an example of a Deep Ecological theory they called Ecosophy T, with two further principles. These are Self-realization and biocentric egalitarianism. Unfortunately, these two ideas have somewhat overshadowed the original ones, and there are problems with both. The emphasis on supposedly one great Self — certainly the most obvious interpretation — obscures the vital importance of relations of all kinds between different kinds of beings, and whose flourishing requires those differences to be appreciated and respected. (Ecofeminists have been acute critics on this point.) Secondly, biospheric egalitarianism seems to ask us to treat every species, without exception or attention to context, as of equal value. That assumes, implausibly, that value is parcelled out in equal units per species. It is also very difficult, if not impossible, to fully practice. Finally, the language of ‘Self’ sits oddly with Buddhism, by which Naess claims to have been influenced.

[Editor’s note] This point is contentious. Some Left-Biocentrists do not interpret Self-realisation as one great Self, but believe that Naess and Sessions simply were encouraging people to go beyond the ego; also that biocentric egalitarianism refers to the intrinsic value of all species as part of the web of Life (see Suzanne Duarte and Victor, below).

A much more promising recent offshoot of Deep Ecology and, to some extent, of Left Biocentrism, has been the Earth Manifesto developed by Stan Rowe and Ted Mosquin, and published in 2004. (Rowe also produced his own revised short-list of the DE Platform Principles.)

From The Green Web

Left Biocentrism began with the work of David Orton, growing out of his website Green Web, which combines Deep Ecology with an equally serious commitment to social justice and activism including, sometimes, politics. Members of the Left Bio online discussion group agreed a number of points in 1998 that have remained its basis. Other major early influences include Rudolph Bahro, Richard Sylvan and Judi Bari. The political philosophies of members of the Left Bio list include social democratic, liberal (in the Millsian sense), anarchist and most forms of socialist, as well as feminist orientations.

Left Biocentrists believe that any positive ecological change must address collective social and political structures as much as personal, psychological and spiritual ones. Indeed, we see the deep connections between the two approaches. Ecological spirituality, for example, involves reverence for the Earth and the life-forms we share it with, not just for one’s supposedly own private soul. Conversely, political action will ultimately fail without an emotional and, in this sense, spiritual recognition of the Earth’’s intrinsic value. We only fight to save what, or who, we love.

From the perspective of Left Biocentrism, the greatest danger to ecological sanity — in addition to gross human over-population — is capitalism. That is, capitalist methods not only of production but also consumption as a ‘lifestyle,’ and the worship of so-called market forces as a model for every aspect of life. But traditional socialism is equally anthropocentric, and therefore ultimately no solution. (The attitude to ecology of the current governments of Brazil and Venezuala — perhaps as close to socialist as electorally possible — is more evidence of this fact, as is the perennial trumping of ecological issues by that of jobs, whether unionized or not.) Thus although commodity capitalism, having much more power, is many times more destructive, both it and socialism are variants of industrialism.

Lethal industrialism

It is the inability and/or unwillingness of industrialism to recognise the ultimate value of the Earth, upon which we all utterly depend for life, that makes it so lethal. Or rather, that plus its immense power to materially enforce its ecocidal values and views. (Philosophically speaking, Left Biocentrism tries hard to be even-handedly idealist and materialist.) For this reason, while Left Biocentrists respect the traditional concerns of the Left — gender, class and race — they are keenly aware that these all remain within the human ambit, and we forget their ecological context at our peril.

And not just our peril! Anthropocentrism in action is currently driving the sixth great mass extinction of life on Earth. Exactly like a bloated and mercenary ruling class or master race, one species among millions is consuming nearly half the energy upon which all depend, enslaving those few it finds useful or tasty, and exterminating (both directly and indirectly) literally masses of others. Furthermore, this is not just something the rich North and West does. Although industrial farming, husbandry and fishing are the worst offenders, the bush-meat industry and trade in wild animal parts, too — themselves driven by profit more than simply survival — are murderously callous. The ongoing destruction of wild habitat also takes place at all social levels, as does the consumption of industrially-produced meat.

Hitherto, from a mainstream perspective, Left Biocentrism has seemed like a romantic or idealistic dream. We certainly don’t disown idealism, but in the context of ecocrisis, however, what is increasingly apparent is its realism. Specific policy implications cannot be covered here, but the most important include:

• recognizing the Earth as a commons, both spiritual and material, which is categorically not for sale (privatisation, commodification, etc.);
• replacing ownership as presently defined with usufruct (the right of use, conditional upon the fulfilment of appropriate responsibilities);
• replacing profit maximization with profit satisisation (sufficiency); and
• replacing growth for growth’s sake (“the ideology of the cancer cell,” in Edward Abbey’s words) with genuine sustainability based on the intention to be able to satisfy the needs of all concerned (and not only humans), indefinitely.

Yet such steps, vital though they are, cannot themselves replace taking personal responsibility for one’’s effects upon all the others one affects. The individual and the collective are both important; indeed, they are inseparable.

In short, to quote David Orton, what is needed is “solidarity with all life, not just human life.” Or as Richard Sylvan put it, “the ecological community forms the ethical community.” The only sane and hopeful context for human social justice is justice for all life on Earth. But it also follows, however unpalatably for many, that when and where ecological justice conflicts with social justice — as does and will continue to happen — the latter must give way.

The recognition of these truths is what makes Left Biocentrism distinctive. As such, in the present circumstances, we feel it has a lot to offer.

Many deep ecologists, and ecological thinkers in general, have over the years declared that the politics of ecology transcend the traditional categories of left and right. In the early 1980′s the slogan, “We are neither left nor right but forward” became a popular cliché of some Green political parties and movement groups. There were those in the mix who referred to themselves as biocentrists or ecocentrists, who also described their position in one way or another as being beyond Left and Right, or neither Left nor Right. By putting the word ‘Left’ in front of biocentrism, we are bucking the trend among Deep Ecologists, and clearly indicating that there is more to be said about the social aspects of Deep Ecology.

The Left-Right Spectrum

Before examining what we mean by the Left in Left-biocentrism, it will be useful to examine what is meant politically by Left and Right, and what is meant by calling oneself neither Left nor Right. Left and right is a spatial metaphor, and as a metaphor, it is not perfect. It is, however, the primary metaphor that we have, to describe something very profound. Left and Right emerged as a political metaphor from the seating arrangement in the French National Assembly at the time of the French Revolution. The more radical parties were seated to the left of the Speaker, with the more conservative groups seated to the right. This choice of seating arrangement may have emerged out of a deeper, more ancient sense of the right hand representing power, respectability, and the establishment, and the left hand representing non-respectability, those outside the establishment, the great unwashed.

Left and right is a spatial metaphor, and as a metaphor, it is not perfect. Over the past two hundred years, both the Left and the Right have had many political incarnations, and have been interpreted by both their respective advocates and their critics as meaning many things. Because the Right has tended to be the social group in power, the mistakes of the Left been used to taint the definition of the entire Left. The Left-Right spectrum is, however, the primary political metaphor that we have, and it describes something quite profound. Broadly speaking, we can divide the Left-Right spectrum into five distinct sections. They are the:

• Far Right
• Centre-Right
• Centre
• Centre-Left, and
• Far Left.

The far right signifies forms of domination which pre-date the industrial capitalist era: patriarchy, the military state, feudalism, monarchy and aristocracy, religious fundamentalism, racial supremacy, and so forth. These forms pre-date capitalism and, though they still exist today, tend to have their grounding in situations that pre-date the modern industrial era.

The centre-right signifies the predominant secular capitalist society in which we live. Its primary form of oppression is that of class power, but it will make use of forms of domination from the far right, (such as patriarchy or racism), when it serves its purposes.

The centre generally accepts the capitalist system with all its oppressive qualities, but tries to moderate capitalist realities, ever so slightly, with such liberal individualist instruments as elections, charters of rights and freedoms, moderate environmental legislation and half-hearted attempts at corporate accountability. The centre also tends to stress the role of the individual, and personal change, in bringing about social and environmental improvement.

The centre-left tries to go a few steps further than the centre in countering the raw oppressive nature of capitalism. The centre-left would include historical movements for “a social safety net ”, adequate social assistance programs, pensions, progressive labour legislation, minimum wages, universal healthcare, and so forth, as well as moderate moves toward government ownership and consumer and worker cooperatives. The centre-left accepts the existence of capitalism, but tries to counter-balance capitalist power with such popular initiatives as mentioned above.

The far left signifies those sections of the Left which go beyond trying to reform capitalism, to advocating the overthrow or replacement of capitalism with some type of worker or community-owned, classless, egalitarian, cooperative system. The far left should not be thought of as being synonymous with state centralism or the Leninist and Stalinist tradition. The strand that includes Lenin and his successors is only one strand of the far left. The far left also includes socialist anarchism, revolutionary syndicalism, and more decentralist Marxists like William Morris. What all strands of the far left have in common is a revolutionary anti-capitalism and a vision of a just, egalitarian post-capitalist world.

Based on the above definitions, where you stand on the Left-Right spectrum signifies where you stand in relation to the capitalist and pre-capitalist power systems. Are you part of the problem (far right or centre-right)? Are you bargaining with the power system (centre or centre-left)? Or are you working for a world beyond the power system (far left)?

Not ‘Neither Left Nor Right’

The idea that ecology, and an ecological politics, is “Neither Left nor Right” seems to come from two different starting points: one somewhat valid, and one very much over-simplified.

The first starting point acknowledges, correctly, that both the corporate agenda and the working class movements opposing it, are essentially human-centred and require the increased exploitation of the Earth in order to accomplish their goals. All of the main stream forms of social democracy as well as Marxism and anarchism, have assumed that humanity could keep on using the Earth at an unsustainable rate. It does not follow, however, that a truly Green alternative must exist, on neither the left nor right, but in some newly-imagined, mystical centre.

The second starting point for the “Neither Left nor Right” slogan, is a simplistic idea that associates the Right with big business and pro-capitalist militarism, and associates the Left with large centralized state ownership and state planning. Since some ecologists in the 1970′s came to identify with decentralism, and such concepts as “Small is Beautiful,” some came to see this decentralist alternative as being neither Left nor Right, but a centrist ‘foreward.’ This stereotypic definition of the Left obviously does not include some of the Left’s greatest thinkers, who often envisioned a future in very decentralist terms.

Whether or not this was the original intent, one of the effects of the “Neither Left nor Right ” slogan was the increasing tendency to gloss over questions of class power, and other related forms of domination, in human society. The belief was increasingly expressed that everyone — bankers and beggars, company presidents and peasants — could walk along together and help build a new ecological world, without any conflict or inequality between them. While it can be argued to a point that from an ecological perspective we are all in the same planetary boat, it is also true that the capitalist class and the labouring classes will be effected to vastly different degrees by any ecological crisis or even by ecologically-sound technological change, and that these different classes will certainly tend to view ecological issues differently.

It may even come to pass that the top three to five percent of human society will find a way to survive a planetary ecocide, perhaps in steel-domed cities, while they allow the rest of humanity to die a slow and painful death outside. Whatever your prognosis, it should be clear that ecology cannot move forward without a strong analysis of class oppression. As a friend of mine once commented, “Neither Left nor Right” is a dangerous slogan to have, regardless of its original intent.

The Left in Left-biocentrism

Having examined the political meaning of Left and Right, and the inadequacies of a “Neither Left nor Right ” slogan, it is time to turn more directly to the question of the meaning of Left in Left-biocentrism.

If we define all the strands of the far left as having in common a revolutionary anti-capitalism and a vision of an egalitarian post-capitalist society, then Left-biocentrism can certainly fit into this space. However, Left-biocentrism differs from most forms of Marxism and anarchism in that it does not place the worker or the labouring classes at the centre of the picture, either when envisioning the new society or the means of getting there. Instead, it attempts to place the entire ecosphere at the centre, and is primarily concerned with human beings not as workers, but as Earth-dwellers. Left-biocentrism understands the capitalist system and the other faces of the right (patriarchy, militarism, colonialism, racial oppression, religious fundamentalism, etc.) as oppressing both human beings and the Earth. But it is particularly concerned with the way these systems exploit other species and destroy the Earth’s ecosystems.

For Left-biocentrists, the battle is not capital versus labour, but private power versus bio-community. Left-biocentrists reject capitalism and the other forms of oppression mentioned above, envisioning a world both of equity and cooperation among human beings, as well as deep ecological awareness and well-being. The models of worker, producer and consumer cooperatives, and community-based self-governance that have come primarily from the more decentralist and communitarian strands of the Left, are seen as being helpful in discerning possible models for a new ecocentric society. It is also understood that, moving to such a society will require confronting the corporate and capitalist state power structures in ways not unlike how some of the better grass roots movements of the Left have confronted capitalist power over the years. Movements such as the Spanish workers’ revolution of 1936, the Cuban Revolution from 1959 onward, the Nicaraguan Revolution from 1979 to 1990, and the Chiapas resistance from 1994 to the present, may have much to tell us about how to organize and retain a grass roots resistance to tyranny and empire.

‘Left’ for good reasons

In short, we are Left-biocentrists rather than simply biocentrists, for several key reasons:

• We understand that the capitalist class power system, and other forms of oppression are real, and that they are an impediment to building a just and ecological society;
• We understand that capitalism must be replaced by systems of social organization which allow human beings to live well within the boundaries of ecological balance;
• We look to models of human equity, cooperation and mutual aid, to provide the building blocks of a possible new ecological society; and
• We believe that it is not enough to simply think and theorize about a biocentric future, but that biocentrism must be a vibrant and relevant political movement that confronts the power system and creates viable alternatives.

In acknowledging that the Left-Right spatial metaphor is still relevant, but that there is a whole new set of questions we must confront around humanity’s relationship with the rest of the ecosphere, it is probably most useful to think in terms of a two dimensional spectrum, with a Left-Right axis representing equity versus empire within the human species, and an up-and-down axis representing anthropocentrism versus ecocentrism in how humanity relates to Nature and the Earth. In this two-dimensional spectrum, different perspectives, policies, historical periods and cultures can be measured and compared in a more complex way, than on a one dimensional Left-Right axis.

Left-biocentrism is a result of acknowledging the importance of both the pursuit of human equity and the pursuit of ecology, and that one is not possible without the other. In the light of all we have come to know, the Left in Left-biocentrism seems both appropriate and necessary. While it is true that there is no justice on a dead planet, it is also true that there probably isn’t much of a living ecological future without a Deep Ecology that embraces social justice.

Dave Greenfield is an activist and thinker from Saskatchewan who has been involved in peace, ecology and social justice concerns since the mid 1980s. His analysis of the reality of corporate and state power and its role in human oppression and ecological destruction has led him to combine non-violent, social anarchist philosophy with deep ecology to tackle the ecological implications of living on a finite planet.

Other posts by David Greenfield

• Nine Shades of Green