Subject: Re: Lyndon LaRouche & the Liberty L

From: [email-masked] (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 08:53:13 GMT

In an article here
dated Wed Aug 26 00:12:00 1992
NLG Civil Liberties Committee <[email-masked]>
(Chip Berlet) writes:

>Folks, try some intelligent analysis. Any large academic study of fascism
>will give a far more complex definition than authoritarian repression by
>a government. The major academic work on Liberty Lobby by Mintz, for example,
>discusses at great length the fascist tendencies of the group and the role
>it plays in bridging the neo-Nazi right and the reactionary right. The major
>error you folks are making about fascism, is that it is widely recognized that
>there is a dramatic difference between fascism as a political movement, with itspopulist and pseudo-radical appeals to the middle and working class, and the
>brutul form it takes when it gains state power.

Well, I can't speak about the Liberty Lobby, but there is a problem applying
this principle to LaRouche. To maintain a fascist government, it is necessary
to have available a gang of thugs organized to carry out the fascist 
program. Now Larouche's organizing perspective has always leaned toward 
"cadre building" at the expense of "base building", probably because of his
long standing belief that at the point of the capitalist breakdown crisis,
the base would essentially build itself, while the existence of a trained
cadre of leaders would be essential in directing the development ferment 
AWAY from its potential for fascism. Thus, anybody who is in significant
contact with the organization will be viewed as potential cadre, and will 
be treated to major doses of the underlying philosophy of the organization.
In this environment, it is virtually impossible for an organization to 
pretend to be one thing while in fact being another. You CANNOT train your
cadre to an in-depth understanding of the need for a high standard of 
living for working people, and then expect to use them to administer
fascist austerity when state power is seized. You cannot train them to
love and celebrate the poet Schiller's stirring defense of the 
"inalienable rights of man" and then expect them to follow you in 
tearing up the Constitution. (Contrast this to David Duke, a fascist by
anybody's standards, who has no cadre to speak of, and creates his base 
through manipulation of his media image. Duke has no philosophical depth,
and nobody follows him because they are intellectually convinced of the
rightness of his ideals. That is the kind of stuff fascist movements are
actually made of.) There is a lot of LaRouche's program that progressives
would be expected to criticize and oppose, and I would love to see a debate
on the pros and cons of what LaRouche actually wants to accomplish. But to
imply that he's doing some kind of ideological "bait and switch" simply
doesn't hold water. If you want to know how LaRouche thinks, READ LAROUCHE!

>  Please read Hannah Arendt on "The Origins of Totalitarianism" and her
>careful discusion of Fascism as a political movement: it sounds just like the
>appeals of LaRouche and Liberty Lobby: no surpise, both are fascist movements.
>Please recall that as movements, fascism in Italy and Germnany attacked the
>regimes in power as corrupt, and promised to represent the average person
>against the elites.
 
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time for serious reading. Perhaps you 
could summarize Arendt's main points for those of us who are in the same
boat. From what you say here, it would appear that this analysis of fascism
focuses on political STYLE rather than CONTENT. I think this is incorrect. 
LaRouche has stated repeatedly that the content of a fascist program
consists of the imposition of austerity, thus slashing the living standards
of the working class, in response to a financial crisis. LaRouche has 
consistently denounced fascist austerity and proposed to resolve the financial
crisis through debt reorganization combined with massive amounts of new credit
to be invested in infrastructure and high technology capital goods. This 
would allow the workers to prosper, not suffer. The content of this program
is not only NOT FASCIST, it is explicitly ANTI-FASCIST. If you wish to 
present a different view as to the content of a fascist program, or to 
argue that in fact fascism is defined by style, not content, I would be
interested to hear it.

> Sorry suckers, you're falling for the con again. I would have thought
>thinking folks would not make the same error twice...at least not in
>the same century.
>  I will post a lengthier discussion I co-wrote on LaRouche in a new
>topic.

It's certainly lengthy. I hope to be able to read it and eventually
respond to at least some of the points raised.

>  And please do some reading in a real library, not just issues of
>LaRouchian and Liberty Lobby screed.

But don't imagine you know what LaRouche's program or philosophy actually
is until you have read it "from the horse's mouth". Media coverage of
LaRouche's program is abysmal.

>George Seldes, author of "Sawdust Caesar," first biography of Il Dulce:
>"This guy LaRouche is pushing the same line as the Italian Fascists, it's
>Italian Fascist Economic theory...anyone can see that."
>   (Interview with Seldes at age 96 at his home in Vermont, 1986)

Did he identify what the content of that line was?

>-Chip Berlet
Steve Crocker

>Sued twice by LaRouche for calling him a fascist...LaRouche lost both cases.
>One was a jury trial...they did their homework...why don't you?

What was their homework assignment - reading Dennis King's book? Or 
perhaps a reprint of "The Want to Take Your Drugs Away?"
<oops>
"They want..."

---

From: [email-masked] (A T Furman)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 08:47:48 PDT

>LaRouche's program is abysmal.

If you don't believe this, check out Time Magazine sometime in January
of this year, in which LaRouche was referred to as a "wild-eyed
libertarian".  This is a Big Lie in the Hitler style, kind of like
calling Rush Limbaugh a "wild-eyed feminist".

Since LaRouche is operating within the Democratic Party--and
successfully, too--it figures that The Media, with its pro-Democratic
bias, would want to disown him, so they spread the urban legend that
LaRouche is a libertarian.  This is the equivalent, for the libertarian
movement, of the "blood libel" (get a book on Antisemitism and look it
up in the index).

LaRouche is an even more rabid Prohibitionist than Bush (although
Gingrich would give him a run for his money); libertarians advocate
the total end of drug prohibition.  LaRouche is an even more rabid
protectionist than Buchanan and the Democrats; libertarians advocate
the complete AND UNILATERAL end of all trade barriers (LaRouche has
actually traveled overseas and told groups of workers there to lobby
for trade barriers to keep out AMERICAN goods!).  LaRouche yearns to
get his hands on the controls of the inflation machine (Federal
Reserve) created by the Repbulicrats; libertarians think the Fed is
a total crock.  LaRouche advocates concentration camps ("quarantine")
for AIDS victims; as for the libertarian opinion of this idea, every
curse you have ever heard is hereby included by reference.

LaRouche is thus ideologically much closer to the reigning Repblicrat
Party than to libertarianism.  He advocates massive State intervention
into the economy, and massive violation of individual rights of privacy.
That is close enough to Fascism for me.

I would not mind more accurate coverage of LaRouche, if only to stop
this idiotic rumor about how the creep is a libertarian.

    Alan T. Furman         | VOTE LIBERTARIAN!!  Marrou/Lord in 92!!
---------------------------+----------------------------------------
  [email-masked]  |   (800)682-1776 for more information

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:40:50 GMT

candidate defend against one charge after the other.  I want to say some-
thing in defense of LL's candidacy, against various charges I've read here,
but it should be emphasized that LL has a program of economic development,
that it's highly detailed, and (this is important with reference to some of
the charges) it includes the underdeveloped countries in its scope.
     It should be noted that LL's vice presidential running mate is the Rev.
James Bevel, a noted civil rights participant from the days of the struggles
in Birmingham, Alabama. Other noted civil rights people are in the organization
The organization (NCLC) has a long history of running black candidates for
local, state, and national office. This matter of public record ought be held
against the charges of "KKK-affiliation".
     There are numerous Jewish people in the organization, some at extremely
high levels. I know of at least one rabbi affiliated with the organization.
These facts should be held against the charge of "Neo-Nazi".
     Last, LL vociferously denounced both the invasions of Panama, and the war
against Iraq. Portraits of him as a "rabid right-winger" ought be measured
against this, and similar stands he has taken (I know Buchanan also opposed
the Iraq escapade, but other than that his stances have been obviouly pro
military involvement).
     It is not my place to speculate as to why well-intentioned people make
such charges, but it should be placed up front that LL has had a longtime
opposition to the drug-culture, whereas in the past aspects of the "new left"
have at times been sympathetic to this culture (I know this firsthand,
having lived in Ann Arbor in the 60s). Early oppositions are sometimes hard
to overcome.

---

From: [email-masked] (Blue Rage)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:36:18 GMT

>against the charges of "KKK-affiliation".

	Larouche  is a known opportunist.  He would affiliate with
anyone.  Dennis King's book on him pretty clearly indicates that
LaRouche intelligence gathering operations peddled to whoever they could
gain from.

>These facts should be held against the charge of "Neo-Nazi".

	Fascists don't have to be anti-semitic.
	
>the Iraq escapade, but other than that his stances have been obviouly pro

	So Buchanan is now all there is to the far right?  Plenty of
conservatives oppose military intervention for a variety of reasons.
LaRouche's fascism can be isolationist and still be fascist, ie rabid
or far right.

>having lived in Ann Arbor in the 60s). Early oppositions are sometimes hard

	How about the fact that LaRouche enjoyed having his cronies
attack decrepit old members of the Communist Party with bats?  To hell
with the drug culture insinuations, LaRouche has been a negative and
divisive presence in whatever part of American politics he's reared his
head in.  He is a selfserving fascist who twists in the political wind
and stinks the place up.

-- 
Michael Hall    [email-masked]
"If you're not revolting against work, you're working
against revolt." - Bob Black