/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

From everything I’ve read, he was literally just a cult leader with all the baggage that comes with that.

Larouche movment is a cult with a very sketchy history of entryism. Is not proprer nazbolism. The closest (in my opinion not even close, he's straight up part of it) we have these days is Maupin Caleb.
They are like left wing mormons effectivley.

a boomer version of Haz but more competent and coherent

not worth worrying about these days

>>689458
The most active thread of the day is a larouchite psyop >>689141 . It's not that I worry but those cultists are bothersome.

>>689441
He was originally a member of the Socialist Workers Party, a Trot group, before forming a megalomaniacal cult called the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) which was a faction of the SDS, and which later split off from that and bloomed into his LaRouche umbrella outfit.

The ideology was a big mish-mash, but if you've followed Haz and the Infracels, it's pretty similar in substance: an essentially conservative workerism and economism that put itself against "race obsessed" leftists (in those days, the civil rights movement and third-world liberation struggles). Also the LaRouchites were very serious about presenting themselves as "mature" as opposed to the "degenerates" in the New Left who listened to Bob Dylan instead of Beethoven. And if you disagree with LaRouche, you have incipient sexual impotency, in the pay of the CIA, and part of a plot to conceal the world from the knowledge that humanity needs to save the world from nuclear war or a fascist takeover.

Things got worse when the LaRouchite organization declared a violent campaign known as "Operation Mop-Up" against left-wing groups including the CPUSA which involved physical attacks – in those days targeted against "Stalinism" although Trotskyism for LaRouche was "controlled opposition," which led to the once-in-a-generation episode where everyone else on the left united against them. They were also anti-Soviet and buddied up to Ronald Reagan and the conservative Republicans in the 80s, with LaRouche running as a spoiler candidate in the 1980 election with his fire aimed at Jimmy Carter.

Another thing about the LaRouchites is that I think they have often appealed to educated people. Their initial cadre were mostly grad students including Ivy Leaguers. They're not stupid and they're not even necessarily wrong about a lot of things they say, but it's still a weird and cranky right-wing producerist political cult with a whiff of fascism to it.

>The NCLC changed their politics to argue for American nationalism, arguing for what they called “Hamiltonian” economics. LaRouche was witnessing the rise of financialization and de-industrialization in the core economies, which saw him change his ideology to one which promoted capitalist development of heavy infrastructure through a mixed economy. This was a worldview that saw productive capital as a positive for the economy and finance capital as unproductive, the two counterposed to each other in a “good vs. evil” way. This view of capitalism was shared by earlier fascist thinkers and would inspire LaRouche to become increasingly antisemitic. LaRouche, after his complete alienation from the left, took a producerist turn, trying to form a sort of American populism “beyond left and right” while still maintaining the inevitably of a grand breakdown crisis that would destroy America. In a 1977 interview, Costas Axio, NCLC chief of staff for New York, said of his organization:

<“We are socialist, but first we must establish an industrialist capitalist republic and rid this country of the Rockefeller anti-industrial, antitechnology monetarist dictatorship of today.”

>One can trace an almost logical path in his transformation from a bizarre heterodox Trotskyist to a developmentalist “Hamiltonian” producerism. The 1970s were an incredibly difficult period for the labor movement, where the capitalist class abandoned the post-war compromise that instituted a sort of Fordist stability to the workforce. This stability was being undermined by transformations in capitalism, as financialization and de-industrialization saw the size of the industrial workforce decrease and the rise of a service sector and informal economy, creating the period we live in now that is called “neoliberalism.” Either way, LaRouche witnessed what many theorists called “the death of proletariat,” and while clearly the proletariat did not die, it was undergoing a period of messy recomposition. This recomposition threw LaRouche’s whole vision of revolution out the window. LaRouche imagined that a intensifying capitalist crisis would lead to increasing quantities of mass strikes, which would eventually form workers councils out of strike committees that formed to coordinate the strikes. This strategy relied heavily on a conception that the strength of the proletariat was its ability to withdraw its labor power. Hence de-industrialization robbed the proletariat of its strength, meaning for LaRouche that the rational response was to fight for a reindustrialization of the United States.

[…]

>If LaRouche was a critic of capitalism, in the end, he preferred the “good productive capitalism” of Fordism to the world of financial de-industrialization as a lesser evil. It would soon go from a lesser evil to the focus of LaRouche’s ideology. LaRouche would drop the Luxemburgism (while still using her theories of crisis to the end) and focus on his pro-industrial corporatism, members of his organization becoming “patriots” instead of “comrades.” Now American nationalism was needed to mobilize the masses for the new industrial revolution. While one can find irrationalism in the pre-Mop Up NCLC, what was essentially a turn to the right and endorsement of nationalism made conspiracy theories flourish.

>LaRouche’s conspiracy obsession can be understood through the mystified way he understood de-industrialization, financialization, and the growth of the service sector. Despite his massive knowledge of economics, LaRouche was shocked at how the 70s ended with Reagan and Thatcher instead of the apocalyptic breakdown crisis he forecasted. He could only see the changes in capitalism as the product of some irrational outside force, not the dynamics of capitalism itself. The inability of LaRouche to explain the turn of events within his own system of thoughts rationality saw him turn to irrationality, developing conspiracy theories about AIDS, Jews, the Queen of England, the Soviet Union, Puerto Ricans — the list goes on and is sure to offend any sensibly minded person. LaRouche would proclaim that “to conspire is human” while also arguing his theories were more highbrow than the “populist” conspiracy theories of the John Birch Society. LaRouche wasn’t merely a simpleminded anti-Communist peddling in fear but developed a whole worldview where history comes down to a battle between followers of Plato’s ideology and Aristotle’s ideology. Platonists value idealism and utopia, whereas followers of Aristotle were crude sensationalists and empiricists. The bourgeois and proletariat as the grand rivals of history were now replaced by classical philosophers. Through this worldview, LaRouche was able to develop a whole universe of knowledge for his followers, an “insider’s views” on what really going on. This was the attraction of LaRouche to his followers that remains to this day.
https://cosmonaut.blog/2019/03/19/larouche-a-warning-for-us-all/

The last thing that is the most obscure is the connection between LaRouche and intelligence agencies. What I think went down is they were very good at collecting information on other groups on both the radical left and right – they infiltrated their people all over the place and would gather info and then shop it to police agencies, kinda like a private intelligence company. So, today, you'll see LaRouche people being very pro-China, pro-Russia and also pro-U.S. (essentially) while flattering the far right and also running as Democrats in uncontested primary elections. Like they're like triple agents. But at least in terms of their relations with governments and intelligence agencies, none of those guys are stupid so I'd reckon the LaRouchites fill the role of being like a backchannel that's instrumentally useful for different players in various ways.

>>689441
>Redpill me on Larouche, because from what little ive heard, he seems to be a pseudo fascist red browner of some kind. Is he really that bad? Why does his name carry so much stigma and infamy?
LaRouche people are mostly based
I mean they're not Marxists but they're
-anti-imperialist
-really into building infrastructure
-against Malthusianism
-want joint projects with China etc.

People often point to them because they were riddled with FBI informants…. But so were most of the Communist and Trotskyite parties at that time

End of the day they aren't Marxists nor communists but I still rate them higher than Trots/anarchists/succdems/conservatives or liberals

>>689688
Well 99% of people these days will have no idea who we're talking about. In the 1980s it was more of a thing in the public consciousness.

I remember seeing them once tabling outside the post office and I thought they were just right-wing kooks (from a distance). And a friend who went to school at the University of Chicago recalled them leaving leaflets in the classrooms about the British monarchy. Law school is calling.

>>689688
If you think an ex trotskyiste who degenerated into some cultist neocon crazy capitalist is better than anarchists and actual trotskyists you're beyond help. I don't think you understand what Marxism is.

>>689721
Imperialism is the primary contradiction and usually social-fascists like anarchists and trots support or are blind to color revolutions.

>>689727
>Imperialism is the primary contradiction
Idpol but with countries

>>689727
>social-fascists
Concept abandoned a 100 years ago

>>689701
This "right left" distinction is bizarre and I don't agree with it
As if political ideologies are a sliding scale and a Social Democrat (for instance) can possibly slide toward being a socialist then a communist is wrong
German social democrats were shooting German communists (Rosa and Liebknecht and then the Blutmai massacre in 1929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blutmai

Hungarian Social-democrats towed the line so well with the Horthyite fascists they were allowed to remain in power (many sucdem parties were banned in Europe 1930s) and they even did propaganda to invade Soviet Union
>If you think an ex trotskyiste who degenerated into some cultist neocon crazy capitalist is better than anarchists and actual trotskyists you're beyond help. I don't think you understand what Marxism is.
It says more about the low level I view trots and anarchists at than any "esteemed respect" for the LaRouche cultists
>neocon crazy capitalist is better than anarchists and actual trotskyists you're beyond help
LaRouchites today are firmly antiimperialist. They literally run around screaming their head off about not going to war with China and that "we should be helping build the Belt and Road initiative"

I mean this is pathetic - but that's still a marked improvement from the trots and anarchists that repeat State department and CIA propaganda against any country US imperialism is about to attack (see anarchists/trots support of reactionaries in Hong kong/Belarus/Libya/Syria/China etc.)

>>689727
LaRouche opposed the Soviet Union and supported Reagan though. He was into the "Star Wars" missile defense program and advocated for a big arms buildup.

>>689627
>producerist
Marx also praised capitalism for improving the means of production.

>>689740
>As if political ideologies are a sliding scale and a Social Democrat (for instance) can possibly slide toward being a socialist then a communist is wrong … German social democrats were shooting German communists (Rosa and Liebknecht and then the Blutmai massacre in 1929
That's true. But the Nazi Party came to power by absorbing the right-wing and centrist parties while the Communist Party and SPD were split – even though if they had joined forces they could've taken them on and possibly stopped them. Part of that was due to bad blood from German social democrats shooting communists, and then the "social fascism" theory advanced by communists afterwards. But the communist camp changed strategy after that to advocate for a popular front with social democrats.

This still informs much left strategy today. Fight the liberals when they're in power, but close ranks if the alternative is enabling a right-wing victory. And then over time, as more and more people are (correctly) disgusted by the liberals, build the force for a popular left coalition that includes communists within it, which is pretty much what happened exactly in Chile.

>LaRouchites today are firmly antiimperialist.
They're also incredibly fringe and marginal.

>>689757
>Marx also praised capitalism for improving the means of production.
Marx was never prescriptive and updated his own ideas throughout his lifetime. There's a kind of dogmatism here which sees class as a static system and fails to account for contradictory developments, or tries to apply predetermined strictures generally to all situations… which leads to the kind of dark, pessimistic and crank-ass conspiratorial worldview which the LaRouchites have. Your consciousness and practice must reflect REALITY not how you think things "should" be.

Like, I think LaRouchite dysfunction works kinda like this:

>Step 1:
Adopt idealistic and schematic view of class struggle that automatically brings revolution

>Step 2:
History doesn't work out that way

>Step 3:
Disregard changing circumstances and have a psychotic break and begin ranting about Satan and other metaphysical concepts while demanding we reset the economy back to where it was to fit the original schema because you were never actually wrong

>>689772
>Marx was never prescriptive and updated his own ideas throughout his lifetime
Sure but you are just contradicting Marx, you are not updating anything. Productivism is a progressive force, because it improves the means of production. That enables people to get more stuff done in less time, that gives regular people more wealth and more leisure time. The only reason to oppose that is because you're a reactionary that wants austerity.
>conspiratorial worldview
Well we live in a class society and the ruling classes do conspire to maintain said class society, so a unilateral dismissal of all conspiratorial thinking is refuted. I don't know anything about Larouche's conspiracy theories, but his project to build a lot of trains and bridges all over the world seem nice. Maybe we should incorporate that project into socialism.

>>689791
>That enables people to get more stuff done in less time, that gives regular people more wealth and more leisure time.
How do capitalists compensate for the falling rate of profit in your national-capitalist producerist economy? They're going to throw people on the street, force them to work longer hours, or raise the price of goods and force people to take out more and more debt to pay for the goods they're producing and which are taken from them by the capitalists who own everything.

>>689791
>I don't know anything about Larouche's conspiracy theories, but his project to build a lot of trains and bridges all over the world seem nice. Maybe we should incorporate that project into socialism.
So LaRouche invented trains and bridges. What a genius!

>>689772
>even though if they had joined forces they could've taken them on and possibly stopped them.
Succdems will do what succdems do.
prop up fascists because they think they can be steered and controlled into bringing out a stick to beat the people with and then safely closed back up when the concept of proletarian revolution is in retreat
SuccDems will never side with communists - they'll go over to fascism everytime. Look at every conflict ever in the 20th century. Or do I need to go and find those propaganda posters the Hungarian Succdems were putting out to invade the Soviet Union?
>then the "social fascism" theory advanced by communists afterwards.
Ah yes, the SuccDems were massacring communists but the badblood was due to the Communists putting forward social-fascism theory in response (completely correct)
> But the communist camp changed strategy after that to advocate for a popular front with social democrats.
And to what end? The Social democrats collaborated with nazis all over Europe
It was correct
>This still informs much left strategy today.
The left today is retarded and it's "strategy" has worked out so well in the last 100 years
Socialism only won in places where the dictatorship of the proletariat waged a long, bloody and consistent attack on succdems
>Fight the liberals when they're in power, but close ranks if the alternative is enabling a right-wing victory
And how has this gone for the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
And honestly, after the victory of Trump in 2016 and his debasing of American capitalism and liberal democracy this obviously is not correct anymore.
The ShitLibs want to unify USA (under imperialism and subjugatio of other peoples) whilst the rightoids in USA will probably balkanise USA
>They're also incredibly fringe and marginal.
Yeah agreed. It's weird leftypol talks about them so much

>>689795
>compensate for the falling rate of profit
the only solution to the falling rate of profit is to switch to socialism, the profit rate will also fall if there is no productivism, so you might as well do productivism until you switch to socialism.

>>689798
Larouche's contribution was to organize the expansion of transit systems as a big mega-project, it's not a bad idea because it forces you to solve all the political and technical compatibility issues in the planning phases instead of doing it later with dodgy hacks and slap on fixes.

>>689812
Larouche never had any political power, he didn't contribute to anything, megaprojects were invented thousands of years ago

>>689860
I don't know what you're hung up on. I just think his "world bridge" project is a decent idea. It's just an engineering sensibility to seek motion with low friction.

>>689627
Interesting how LaRouche's migration from left to right mirrors the OG Italian fascists and "national syndicalists" in a lot of ways. It always seems to start as a rejection of particular aspects that are common to the left as a whole, and a tactical use of certain right deviations for political gain, only for these to be magnified to eclipse any actual leftist ideas the movement originally had. I can definitely see why some people think that Maupin and the CPI may be going down this same path, though they certainly haven't gotten there yet, and I don't think the tactical use of nationalism or criticism of some leftist tendencies necessarily leads there.

>>690006
LaRouche has little in common with Italian fascism, he's just a weird socdem
Maupin and the CPI have again little in common with either LaRouche or Italian fascism

Are you a third-position-something-or-other, because they also have that retarded horse shoe tendency to equate leftists with rightists, with equally unconvincing political over-stretching.

>>690019
>LaRouche has little in common with Italian fascism
He clearly does in terms of his evolution from left to right, his emphasis on nationalism which eventually overtakes any supposed commitment to socialism, his deployment of physical violence against leftists, etc. Keep in mind that fascism didn't emerge in its mature form from day one, it underwent a transformation from an eclectic movement with leftist elements into a purely reactionary force. The original fascist program included shit like land reform, the expansion of voting rights, nationalization of major industries, the abolition of the Italian monarchy, etc., all of which disappeared when they prioritized anti-communism and aligned themselves with capital. You describe LaRouche as a "weird socdem," but that description also applies to the fascists in their earliest days.
>because they also have that retarded horse shoe tendency to equate leftists with rightists
I'm not "equating leftists and rightists". I'm talking about originally quasi-leftist movements which transformed into right wing ones.

>>689721
people were meming about Larouche for ages, now were getting unironic larouchites, just like what happened with nazbol memes

>>690049
>He clearly does in terms of his evolution from left to right
political compass direction brain makes my eyes roll back into my skull

I'm not a "larouchite" so it doesn't really matter to me, but you are embarrassing your self by equating him with fascism. How about you do self criticism to get rid of that mental habit of doing horseshoe theory. Start with realizing that you are in denial about it.

The only political tendency that you can compare to fascism is neo-liberalism, because they both have privatization and money printing for military expansion in common. Fascism is also linked to financial capital seeking imperial expansion, and neo-liberalism has a tendency to link it self to imperial financial capital as well, so fascists and Neo-liberals share some key policies. To the extend that LaRouch seems to have allied him self with capital, it's un-financialized non-imperial industrial capital. That's what soc-dems have done too, so that's the most likely political affiliation you can make.

>>690069
(1)

>When Reagan came to power in 1980, LaRouche saw an opportunity for his particular brand of now far-right crankery, and eagerly affiliated himself with the Republican right. He was a major backer of the “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative, an advocate of the most draconian responses to the AIDS crisis, and a Cold Warrior of the most bellicose variety.

>In this last guise, LaRouche prosecuted a particular vendetta against Henry Kissinger, whose comparatively mild posture towards the USSR, along with his Jewish background, marked him for special attention. LaRouche’s group came to some prominence in the early 1980s after some of his followers, pamphleteering in the Newark airport, came upon Kissinger and his wife, and accosted him, shouting “Is it true that you sleep with young boys at the Carlyle Hotel?”

>The Reagan administration was evidently willing to overlook these and other peccadilloes on LaRouche’s part, as evidence of high-level contact between administration figures and the group is plentiful in these years. As Dennis King, LaRouche’s most assiduous chronicler, points out in his invaluable biography, the group’s Executive International Review secured interviews in 1981 with

<Agriculture Secretary John Block, Defense Under Secretary Richard DeLauer, Commerce Under Secretary Lionel Olmer, Treasury Under Secretary Norman Ture, Assistant Attorney General Lowell Jensen, and the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Murray Weidenbaum [as well as] Senator Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), a friend of the President, and Senator John Tower (R.-Tex.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

>Pentagon officials spoke at LaRouche group rallies, and higher-ups in the organization became frequent guests of the National Security Council.
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/02/the-utterly-bizarre-life-of-lyndon-larouche

(2)

>An informational stand was set up near the post office in Hawley, Nov. 27, to defend the vigorous claims of President Donald Trump and the GOP, that there was widespread election fraud favoring Joseph Biden, who has been declared as President-Elect.

>They represented the LaRouche PAC, an organization that has outlasted the death in 2019, of perennial presidential Democratic candidate Lyndon LaRouche.
https://www.tricountyindependent.com/story/news/2020/12/02/larouche-pac-defends-president-trumps-election-claims-cites-coup/6450026002/

(3)

>President Donald Trump, his son Don Jr., and far-right conservatives attacked Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after a speaker at her town hall meeting Thursday night went on a bizarre rant about how eating babies is the only solution to the climate crisis.

>But it turns out the stunt was staged by what is now a far-right pro-Trump conspiracy group that compares climate change activism to “genocide.”

>After the video went viral, a group called LaRouche PAC — which is affiliated with people with a long history of peddling unfounded conspiracy theories that has now turned pro-Trump — took credit for planting the woman at the town hall meeting in an attempt to “troll” Ocasio-Cortez and mock the climate change crisis.

>The fringe group, founded by conspiracy theorist Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., who died earlier this year, believes climate change is a hoax and compares carbon dioxide reduction policies to “genocide.”

>“LaRouchePAC trolls AOC, AOC doesn't rule out eating babies,” the group said on Twitter.

>>689627
>running as a spoiler candidate
Politically bigoted nonsense. While it is correct to say that our shitty voting methods produce the phenomenon of "vote splitting", the idea of a spoiler is garbage. Either every candidate is a spoiler for every other candidate or none of them are.

>>690006
The corkscrew also seems to come from the quixotic ultra-left in LaRouche's case and the early national syndicalists who thought the social democrats in their day weren't radical enough, with some elements therein becoming influenced by social Darwinism and the "fin de siecle" theory of social degeneration.

I think the "Trot-to-neocon" pipeline is a similar thing in LaRouche's case, although he's too weird to be considered a neocon in an ideological sense, he went from Trot to a full-throated Reagan supporter.

I also came across an article from Louis Proyect, who was a particularly cranky Trot, about Sam Marcy, the founder of the WWP (which is the organization that Maupin was part of), and Proyect describes Marcy's ultra-leftism as deriving from having spent years in the movement and then the Vietnam War happened, so it seemed like it was time to "go for broke." And sometimes when that strategy hits a wall, cult-like leaders of leftist sects can lurch in the opposite direction, which is what LaRouche did, making a fascist pitch to the capitalist class.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/american_left/marcy.htm

I also came across a photo taken by Maupin's LaRouchePAC friend of the organization picketing the New York Times with Trump supporters – one of which is Jovi Val, a particularly nutball neo-Nazi (there's also a photo of him getting egged… including for the lols). I don't even know if he knew who this dude was, but it's indicative to me of the people they end up marching alongside in the end.

>>690136
It was a very clear strategy as LaRouche ran as an anti-Carter candidate from an extravagantly baroque "left" position while embracing Reagan after he won, and he was rewarded with a relationship in turn.

From an antifascist blog. This article also mentions their relationship with KKK leader Roy Frankhouser – a LaRouche "security consultant" – who was a long-time FBI informant (and who had boasted about arrested 142 times… never seemed to go to prison though), which is also more data on the organization's use as an intelligence cutout.

>Under his 1981 “draft constitution” for Canada, which detailed his vision for how to organize a state, people who espoused “irrationalist hedonism”—basically, any beliefs or practices he considered dangerous, such as homosexuality, laissez faire economics, or rock music—would have no political voice. Yet LaRouche’s drive to reshape society went far beyond political exclusion. Evil oligarchic influence, he declared, must be rooted out of every sphere of society and culture, from economics to mathematical formulas, from technological development to the pitch used to set musical scales.

>Unlike most U.S far rightists, LaRouche was familiar with leftist theory and political culture, having spent over twenty years in the Trotskyist movement and the student left, and he was more effective than most far rightists at delivering his message to people across the political spectrum. He appeared several times on The Alex Jones Show, a right-wing conspiracist radio program with millions of listeners, but his propaganda also repeatedly reached left-leaning audiences, largely with the help of intermediaries such as the Christic Institute, Michel Chossudovsky’s Global Research, and former LaRouche network members William Engdahl and Webster Tarpley, all of whom have given a leftish gloss to LaRouche-originated anti-elite conspiracy theories. As recently as 2016, Helga Zepp-LaRouche (wife of Lyndon and founder of the network's Schiller Institute) was listed on the program of the Left Forum in New York City. Dennis Speed of LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review spoke at the 2015 Left Forum.

>LaRouche was also better than most U.S. far rightists at forging ties with people in power. In the late 1970s and early 80s, as Dennis King noted, LaRouche recognized that the post-Watergate crackdown on government abuses made his outfit useful to intelligence agencies interested in outsourcing some of their spying and dirty tricks operations, and that positioning himself as a hawkish Democrat made him interesting to Reagan officials. (In this respect, he may not have looked that different at first glance from the early neoconservatives—some of whom also had a Trotskyist past.)

[…]

>LaRouche’s trajectory set him apart from white nationalists, who put race firmly at the center of their politics. In the 1970s, the LaRouchites vilified black and indigenous people in overtly racist terms, and allied themselves with white supremacists such as Ku Klux Klan leaders Roy Frankhauser and Robert Miles. By the 1990s, however, LaRouche organizations welcomed people of color as members and celebrated civil rights movement veterans—and LaRouche supporters—James Bevel and Amelia Boynton Robinson as heroes. LaRouchites declared African American spiritual music to be “the basis for an American Classical culture”—a worthy counterpart to the European classical culture they constantly celebrated. Sometimes LaRouche reverted to open racism—for example referring to Barack Obama repeatedly as a “monkey”—but the overall effect anticipated the Proud Boys’ racially inclusive “Western chauvinism” much more than the white exclusivism of Richard Spencer or The Daily Stormer.

>LaRouche’s antisemitism followed a similar pattern. He began scapegoating Jews in the 1970s at the suggestion of the Liberty Lobby’s Willis Carto, and his conspiracism was deeply rooted in anti-Jewish themes—such as the false dichotomy between “evil” finance capital and “good” industrial capital, and the emphasis on Anglophobia (derived from 19th-century claims that that the Rothschild banking family controlled Britain). But in stark contrast to neonazis, LaRouche included Jews among his supporters and top lieutenants. And over time he became increasingly careful and sophisticated in deflecting the charge of antisemitism, for example by denouncing opponents as “Nazis” and by portraying Jews as tools or dupes rather than as the top wire-pullers.
https://threewayfight.blogspot.com/2019/03/meditations-on-dead-fascist.html

>>690069
>Fascism is also linked to financial capital seeking imperial expansion, and neo-liberalism has a tendency to link it self to imperial financial capital as well, so fascists and Neo-liberals share some key policies. To the extend that LaRouch seems to have allied him self with capital, it's un-financialized non-imperial industrial capital.
Read my post again Anon. Fascism is not and never has been a static phenomenon, it evolves over time depending on local conditions. What is common to all forms of fascism however are quasi-leftist, social democratic tendencies which are strongest in its earliest days, but which are typically purged as it seeks a path to state power through alliance with the monopoly bourgeoisie. This comes from the petty bourgeois mass basis of fascist movements, which exists in contradiction with both the proletariat and monopoly bourgeoisie, but which must always align itself with the latter to take power, purging its "leftist" elements in the process. The Strasserites are the most obvious example, but if you actually look you can find analogous factions everywhere. That's how fascism takes on its "mature" form that you are describing, in its immature form it actually resembles LaRouche in the ways that I described. I'm not engaging in horseshoe theory, this is literally the orthodox ML view. Read pic related.

>>690140
Apparently if the USSR had nuked storeshittistahn Reagan wouldn't have authorised a return strike viewing it as pointless

Pity Gorbachev didn't heed Posadas' call

There actually was a big split in the LaRouche movement very recently. It's over Trump. LaRouchePac has basically embraced the policy of opportunistically tailing the Trump movement. Whereas LaRouche Org which is headed by LaRouche's wife, is more into the Belt and Road Initiative, is Pro-China, and is anti-imperialist.

>>690906
Critical support for Helga Zepp-LaRouche on this one. Which faction is Daniel Burke in?

>>690862
I ordered a copy of that recently. Looking forward to it.

>>690957
LaRouche Org/Helga faction

Anyone know what the connection is between LaRouche and Friedrich Schiller? I kept running across LaRouche and the (apparently) LaRouchite-run Schiller Institute some time ago, when I was reading Schiller's philosophical works. My guess was that it related to Beethoven's appropriation of one of Schiller's poem for his 9th, but I don't really know.

>>690151
Whoever wrote that is a retard
>the false dichotomy between “evil” finance capital and “good” industrial capital
There is massive difference between the 2.
Financial capital is ficticious capital which is parasitic by design - a rentier economy dependant on other subjugated nations and creating a class of labour aristocrats in the imperial nation.(Read Imperialism by Lenin or capital vol2 regarding "rentier" economies)
>“good” industrial capital
A real example of good industrial capital is China. China is actually producing and building things all over the globe instead of retards in US screaming about stock markets reaching the moon because the FED printed 40% of every dollar ever created in 2020/2021
Industrial capital is a million times more preferable from a socialists standpoint - the workers are engaged in actual production, real things are created, the means of production is a tangible thing that can still be seized etc.
Compare this to imperialist economies that don't produce anything of any worth and just move money from one account to the next
>emphasis on Anglophobia
Anglos are the most reactionary set of people on the globe. Why shouldn't people emphasise anglophobia?
>derived from 19th-century claims that that the Rothschild banking family controlled Britain
The rothschilds are one of the most reactionary families to exist and have exerted an incredible amount of influence on western societies.
FYI are the PCF (french communist party) antisemitic because they put out anti-rothschilds posters?
Are the bourgeoisie not actually people with names, faces and addresses but an amorphous, faceless mass?
>But in stark contrast to neonazis, LaRouche included Jews among his supporters and top lieutenants.
lmao "in stark contract to neonazis, LaRouche included jews among his top supported and top lieutenants"
I'll let you mull on that sentence for a moment.

I've not actually done much research into LaRouche - it seemed like a fed honey pot and conspiracy subreddit rolled into one. But that "antifascist" blog probably thinks Trump is a fascist

>>691088
>Why shouldn't people emphasise anglophobia?
Because Anglos being reactionary has nothing to do with the fact that they're Anglos and everything to do with material conditions. You might as well justify antisemitism by saying that Jews are reactionary due to their overrepresentation in finance and media, their support for Zionism, etc. Socialism is never an excuse for ethnic hatred or national chauvinism of any kind.
>Are the bourgeoisie not actually people with names, faces and addresses but an amorphous, faceless mass?
Again, the problem is systemic, focusing on individuals or families is a red herring. The issue is not any particular capitalist, it is capitalism. The Rothschilds are a red herring with a particular association with antisemitism, and any "socialist" who seems to zero in on them specifically instead of maintaining a systemic critique should be scrutinized.