Understanding the Ideology of the Earth Liberation Front

[abbielives!]

Understanding the Ideology of the Earth Liberation Front

Sean Parson

Most attempts at researching the ELF have failed to address the complexity and diversity of its members’ ideology. Part of this failure rests in the fact that social scientists have spent little effort studying the radical environmental movement on the whole; and the majority of this research has dealt with either Earth First!, Greenpeace or the Sea Shepard – three organizations that embrace variants of biocentrism and/or deep ecology. By only focusing on the deep ecological influence, social scientists have neglected the historic role of social ecology and the contemporary affect of anti-civilizational thought on the radical environmental movement. This academic mischaracterization has produced an image of the radical environmental movement as under the hegemonic sway of deep ecology – a view of the movement that is not shared among activists. What is required, then, is academic research that better accounts for the ideological position of anti-civilizational thought within the current radical environmental movement, and more importantly for this essay, with those who promote the ELF.

While the heightened influence of the philosophy of social ecology and of green anarchism, in particular, on ELF communiqués seems clear upon their analysis, of the few studies that seek to specifically analyze the ELF, all have more specifically dealt with the historical, ethical, and organizational components of the organization and in doing so all contend that the ELF is deep ecological in its outlook (Taylor, 1998; Leader and Probst, 2003; Long, 2004; Somma, 2005; Vanderheiden, 2005; Liddick, 2006). This paper attempts to patch a hole in the current research by analyzing the ideology of the ELF as stated in key communiqués as I move towards an explanation of how the ELF differs from previous environmental movements. By analyzing ELF communiqués between 1996 and 2003, a complex and multi-variant group ideology emerges, one that I argue shifts away from the deep ecology perspective of EF! in favor of its own unique perspective of “revolutionary environmentalism.” This revolutionary environmentalism, I maintain, incorporates components of deep ecology, social ecology, and increasingly over the last decade, green anarchist thought.



http://greentheoryandpraxis.ecopedagogy.org/index.php/journal/article/view/50

[MarxSchmarx]

Whatever.

Parson's critique does not withstand a closer examination. For instance, Parson utterly fails to reconcile the fact that the overwhelming majority of ELF/ALF fools come from a bourgeois, white, first-world background.

This omission of the class struggle, a key component of Bookchin's critique of this kind of environmental mysticism, belies Parson's claim to transcend a narrow, nihilistic understanding of these kinds of bourgeois shenanigans.

Unfortunatley, once again I must conclude that this is the kind of paper that writes about what people want to hear, whether than what is the case. Has the influence of "deep ecology" been over-stated? Sure. Do the clowns in the ELF/ALF type non-movements think they are advancing the class struggle, as well as freeing their cuddly breatheren? Probably.

But to argue that these clowns have a class-struggle basis to what they do is dubious at best. If so, why aren't more people from the working class, rather than the children of well-off professionals, engaged in things like freeing cows from their farms?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that those of us who work for a living - those of us who have nothing to sell but our labor, regard the exploitation of man by man, rather than the exploitation of beast by man, to be a far greater, pressing concern. It is the luxury of the bourgeoisie to be concerned about the exploitation of animals (why not plants or viruses?) by man.

Faced with such sociological and empirical questions, I cannot help but think that Parson's approach is far more idealistic than materialist. As such, we on the left should regard it with serious trepidation at best.

At the end of the day, Parson fails to convincingly demonstrate the link between anti-capitalist "environmentalism" on the one hand and the class struggle on the other hand. He attempts to forge this link by critiquing the focus on "deep ecology", but neglects too many aspects of the ELF/ALF movement as it exists - in particular, their reckless tactics that endanger the livelihood of working families, the background of those that take up the cause of the ELF/ALF, and their unique ability to invite ready prosecution and a strong response from the state.

None of these are conducive to the class-struggle.

Worse, even if Parson's managed to demonstrate that these idiots are well within the anti-capitalist framework, a reaction to capitalism is not what our movement is about.

We are about creating, for the first time in history, a classless society where human liberation becomes possible. Our vision is one of the sisterhood of man. Mere anti-capitalism is shared by the medievalists and the ecclesiastics, and, yes, the douchebags in the ELF/ALF-type movements. The left has a grander vision. These rich kids aren't about our movement.

[abbielives!]

first of all of the people who have been arrested they were evenly split along middle/working class backgrounds, this means that there is working class support for the ELF. Second conflating the ELF and the ALF just won't do they are separate groups with distinct idealogies as demonstrated in the essay.

[Invincible Summer]

I must admit that I'm an ELF/ALF sympathizer, although if one of them tells me that animals are more important than humans (ie. a revolution is secondary to animal rights) then they can just fuck off.

Although I'm a vegan, I do understand how AR is petty-bourgeois and that's why I don't consider veganism or AR activism to be "revolutionary." They're nice things that are definitely important, and it's good for people to be bringing awareness over these issues, but I just wish the ELF/ALF wouldn't put animals above humans.

[MarxSchmarx]

the people who have been arrested they were evenly split along middle/working class backgrounds, this means that there is working class support for the ELF.

First of all, even if this were the case, Parson fails to raise it. Second, of course there are individuals from the working class involved in the ELF/ALF movement. But so too are there bourgeois members of the Communist Party.

This doesn't mean that the working class as a whole cares as much about animal welfare as the middle and upper-classes. I think the very fact that in a society where a majority of people are "working class", the fact that only a half of those arrested were working class suggests a middle class/bourgeois bias towards these movement.


Second conflating the ELF and the ALF just won't do they are separate groups with distinct idealogies as demonstrated in the essay.

Oh yes it will.

First, as Parson correctly notes, the ELF's guiding principles borrow heavily from the ALF (p.52). Second, the ELF considers "animal liberation" to be one among many of it's objectives (p.58,63)

Moreover, Parson himself lumps the ELF/ALF in discussing the historical context and impact of Operation Backfire, as in:


Before 9/11 the ELF and ALF combined for an
average of an action every 2.3 days, which has since lessened to one every 4.7 days (Somma,2005)


It even appears that Operation Backfire, the FBI campaign against the ELF and ALF,
may have backfired in eradicating environmental militants.


Pg. 64


The organizational structures of the ELF (e.g., leaderless, decentralized cells), and its
guiding principles, were borrowed from the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), an organization
known for successfully liberating animals from vivisection laboratories and factory farms. p.52

[JimmyJazz]

Although I'm a vegan, I do understand how AR is petty-bourgeois


Petty-bourgeois

1) The class of small proprietors (for example, owners of small stores), and general handicrafts people of various types.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm

[Vanguard1917]

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that those of us who work for a living - those of us who have nothing to sell but our labor, regard the exploitation of man by man, rather than the exploitation of beast by man, to be a far greater, pressing concern.


You're right, but what rational basis is there for the latter representing a 'concern' at all? What's problematic about it?

[Invincible Summer]

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/e.htm

Well I've seen the term "petty bourgeois" used in reference to actions that are not revolutionary in nature (such as AR, "ethical shopping," "Adbusting," etc), but perceived as such by the participants.

What would be the correct term then? "Lifestylism" seemed to me to be the more accurate term, but somewhere else on this forum someone defined "lifestylism" as simply a term to insult people that you don't agree with, as opposed to someone who believes a certain lifestyle is revolutionary which is how I perceive it.

[MarxSchmarx]

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that those of us who work for a living - those of us who have nothing to sell but our labor, regard the exploitation of man by man, rather than the exploitation of beast by man, to be a far greater, pressing concern.You're right, but what rational basis is there for the latter representing a 'concern' at all? What's problematic about it? Touché, sir. Touché.