LaRouche makes the Left uncomfortable because his far-left economic policy makes it clear just how little difference there is between fascism and communism in practice when it comes to economics. He shares the common derivation from Marx and Engels, ending up with something resembling many elements from the 25-point National Socialist plan, but cloaked in egalitarian-sounding socialist rhetoric.
I mean, the academic Left in the humanities has spent two generations focused in part on distilling philosophical differences between especially Nazism and the various “benevolent socialisms”, concluding that the fundamental elements justifying the placement of fascism and communism on opposite ends of the political dichotomy are somehow militarism and nationalism (skillfully explaining away the militaristic and nationalist tendencies of communist governments as not truly representative of Marxist ideals, and/or manifestations of collective action ascribed in error by bourgeois/reactionary to nativism/nationalism, but more accurately seen as embodiments of local solidarity meant to protect the incubatory socialist state from the capitalist and other unsavory influences of domestic anti-revolutionaries).
-—”LaRouche makes the Left uncomfortable because his far-left economic policy makes it clear just how little difference there is between fascism and communism in practice when it comes to economics. He shares the common derivation from Marx and Engels, ending up with something resembling many elements from the 25-point National Socialist plan, but cloaked in egalitarian-sounding socialist rhetoric.”
Agreed, but what I don’t understand is why Larouche is so irritated by Obeyme’s socialized medicine (I went to Larouche website and listened to his video). Obeyme’s plan would seem to fit with Larouche’s values..
Can anyone clarify?