A review of "Lyndon LaRouche: Fascism Restyled For the New Millennium"
This is a pamphlet published by the Freedom Socialist
Party (FSP), a Trotskyist-feminist group based in Seattle. Its magazine Freedom
Socialist carries the subtitle "Voice of Revolutionary Feminism". The
pamphlet attacks notorious conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, arguing that
his movement is fascist. While I disagree with FSP's dogmatic Trotskyism, I do
consider the pamphlet to be somewhat useful, if read together with more lengthy
critical treatments of LaRouche. The classical study is still Dennis King's
“Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism”. King is, I think, a
conservative Democrat.
Since the FSP are feminists, they place special emphasis on LaRouche's bizarre misogyny and homophobia, claiming that his embrace of fascism may have been connected to a deep-seated fear of the feminist movement. I admit that this is an interesting angle on the problem. Another possibility, of course, is that LaRouche really is nuts! His misogynist and homophobic statements go way beyond the political. Some of his statements must be read to be believed. But then, the personal and the political might be difficult to disentangle in this case.
FSP also emphasize LaRouche's attempts to build alliances with union leaders, most notably in the Teamsters. The LaRouchians supported the Mafia-infested union bureaucracy, while attempting to disrupt the anti-corruption opposition around Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). The LaRouchians are also trying to build alliances with Black leaders, including persistent attempts to woo the Nation of Islam. While most of the pamphlet deal with LaRouchian activities in the United States, some material on Australia have been included, too. The FSP are worried that the LaRouche Movement might recruit progressively-inclined youth, due to its seemingly “leftist” opposition to free trade, Wall Street, Israel or the Iraqi War. One aspect not mentioned is the pro-Russian stance of LaRouche, perhaps because it wasn't all that interesting when the pamphlet was published. Today, of course, it is.
Personally, I don't think the label “fascist” on the LaRouche Movement is particularly useful (although I admit that it's not impossible either – after all, “fascism” can be defined in different ways). Since the LaRouchians support mass immigration and international cooperation, recruit Blacks and Hispanics, and keep aloof of popular fascist demagogues such as Buchanan or Duke, I don't think they can create a fascist-style mass movement. They are better seen as a bizarre cult, a kind of pseudo-political version of Scientology. I also suspect that the FSP overstate the influence of LaRouche. The fact that his movement so quickly fell out of favor with the Reagan administration shows that LaRouche wasn't seen as a particularly close or valuable asset by the Republican top brass or the intelligence community.
Finally, FSP's analysis of fascism is problematic, fascism having nothing to do with “free enterprise”. Nor is it true that the Nazis super-exploited the German working class – on the contrary, they attempted to incorporate it into the Nazi project by creating a welfare state (Jewish and foreign workers were, of course, super-exploited but not German ones). To the FSP, LaRouche's eclectic and confused philosophy proves his fascism, since no true fascist ideology supposedly exists, fascism being above all an attempt by the bourgeoisie to smash the labor movement. While fascist ideology frequently *is* contradictory, it simply isn't true that fascism doesn’t have any ideology at all. For instance, classical fascism was nationalist, protectionist and opposed to “free enterprise”, while promoting modernization through the state and (usually) imperialist expansion abroad. It also attempted to incorporate the people, including sections of the peasantry and the workers, into its project. Ironically, LaRouche's quasi-socialist view of the economy is closer to classical fascism than to contemporary U.S. conservatism (which is usually libertarian on economic issues), but the FSP doesn't see this, since to them, all “fascists” simply must be for “free enterprise”.
That being said, I nevertheless regard FSP's pamphlet as an interesting addition to my private anti-LaRouchian library, and therefore give it three stars.
Since the FSP are feminists, they place special emphasis on LaRouche's bizarre misogyny and homophobia, claiming that his embrace of fascism may have been connected to a deep-seated fear of the feminist movement. I admit that this is an interesting angle on the problem. Another possibility, of course, is that LaRouche really is nuts! His misogynist and homophobic statements go way beyond the political. Some of his statements must be read to be believed. But then, the personal and the political might be difficult to disentangle in this case.
FSP also emphasize LaRouche's attempts to build alliances with union leaders, most notably in the Teamsters. The LaRouchians supported the Mafia-infested union bureaucracy, while attempting to disrupt the anti-corruption opposition around Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU). The LaRouchians are also trying to build alliances with Black leaders, including persistent attempts to woo the Nation of Islam. While most of the pamphlet deal with LaRouchian activities in the United States, some material on Australia have been included, too. The FSP are worried that the LaRouche Movement might recruit progressively-inclined youth, due to its seemingly “leftist” opposition to free trade, Wall Street, Israel or the Iraqi War. One aspect not mentioned is the pro-Russian stance of LaRouche, perhaps because it wasn't all that interesting when the pamphlet was published. Today, of course, it is.
Personally, I don't think the label “fascist” on the LaRouche Movement is particularly useful (although I admit that it's not impossible either – after all, “fascism” can be defined in different ways). Since the LaRouchians support mass immigration and international cooperation, recruit Blacks and Hispanics, and keep aloof of popular fascist demagogues such as Buchanan or Duke, I don't think they can create a fascist-style mass movement. They are better seen as a bizarre cult, a kind of pseudo-political version of Scientology. I also suspect that the FSP overstate the influence of LaRouche. The fact that his movement so quickly fell out of favor with the Reagan administration shows that LaRouche wasn't seen as a particularly close or valuable asset by the Republican top brass or the intelligence community.
Finally, FSP's analysis of fascism is problematic, fascism having nothing to do with “free enterprise”. Nor is it true that the Nazis super-exploited the German working class – on the contrary, they attempted to incorporate it into the Nazi project by creating a welfare state (Jewish and foreign workers were, of course, super-exploited but not German ones). To the FSP, LaRouche's eclectic and confused philosophy proves his fascism, since no true fascist ideology supposedly exists, fascism being above all an attempt by the bourgeoisie to smash the labor movement. While fascist ideology frequently *is* contradictory, it simply isn't true that fascism doesn’t have any ideology at all. For instance, classical fascism was nationalist, protectionist and opposed to “free enterprise”, while promoting modernization through the state and (usually) imperialist expansion abroad. It also attempted to incorporate the people, including sections of the peasantry and the workers, into its project. Ironically, LaRouche's quasi-socialist view of the economy is closer to classical fascism than to contemporary U.S. conservatism (which is usually libertarian on economic issues), but the FSP doesn't see this, since to them, all “fascists” simply must be for “free enterprise”.
That being said, I nevertheless regard FSP's pamphlet as an interesting addition to my private anti-LaRouchian library, and therefore give it three stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment