Engaging LaRouche activists

[maya]

I have met some very energetic activists unfortunately tied to the Lyndon LaRouche cult that I would like to see get involved in leftist struggles.But trying to engage them politically is.. difficult. Their politics seem very muddled and cult-of-personality based.Has anyone had success engaging a LaRouchite activist? Stay the hell away?

[New Tet]

I have met some very energetic activists unfortunately tied to the Lyndon LaRouche cult that I would like to see get involved in leftist struggles.But trying to engage them politically is.. difficult. Their politics seem very muddled and cult-of-personality based.Has anyone had success engaging a LaRouchite activist?Stay the hell away?

Why waste your time with proto-Fascists?

[maya]

Why waste your time with proto-Fascists?
Are they really proto-fascist? The few I have talked with have had leftish views on a number of things (anti-war, anti-bailout) but go off the deep end when they start on about larouche's economic theories. And fewer proto-fascists in the world has to be a good thing.
BTW I'm not talking about working with the group, but trying to get activists away from it

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. Don't engage with them.

They are probably just trying to recruit you for one thing. Second, it really is a cult. They tell students to drop out and cut ties with family and go on retreats where people are moralized into submission.

They have no real political principles as far as I can tell, they try and find people who are angry at the way things are and then they engage them on whatever issue is angering their target. When the big anti-war protests were happening, they were anti-war. Now they go around with posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache at tea-party protests.

Also they have crazy beliefs such as all music other than European music from the middle ages and enlightenment are "too sensual" and degenerate. They believe the Queen of England causes a large portion of the problems in the US and that marxist groups in league with MI5 and the Queen are trying to kill LaRouche.

Last, LaRouche is a paranoid proto-fascist. Google "operation mop-up" and read about how LaRouche when he was still somewat connected to leftist groups tried to beat other groups on the new left physically to establish his own dominence over the new left. A lot of groups were doing crazy things at that point due to disorientation brought on by the decline of the 60s and 70s movements, but LaRouche really puts the rest to shame.

[maya]

1. Don't engage with them.

They are probably just trying to recruit you for one thing. Second, it really is a cult. They tell students to drop out and cut ties with family and go on retreats where people are moralized into submission.

They have no real political principles as far as I can tell, they try and find people who are angry at the way things are and then they engage them on whatever issue is angering their target. When the big anti-war protests were happening, they were anti-war. Now they go around with posters of Obama with a Hitler mustache at tea-party protests.

Also they have crazy beliefs such as all music other than European music from the middle ages and enlightenment are "too sensual" and degenerate. They believe the Queen of England causes a large portion of the problems in the US and that marxist groups in league with MI5 and the Queen are trying to kill LaRouche.

Last, LaRouche is a paranoid proto-fascist. Google "operation mop-up" and read about how LaRouche when he was still somewat connected to leftist groups tried to beat other groups on the new left physically to establish his own dominence over the new left. A lot of groups were doing crazy things at that point due to disorientation brought on by the decline of the 60s and 70s movements, but LaRouche really puts the rest to shame.

Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware just how unhinged they really are. On a personal level it is such a loss to real political movements, as some of their activists seem genuinely commited.

Will avoid from now on.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Definitely too bad that sincere people are diverted into this kind of thing. When I first became politically active, I saw them tabling about the Iraq war and I spoke with them. They sounded normal and sincere but then they told me that Vietnam was a "good war". I had already exchanged info with them and they called me constantly and guilt-tripped me about coming to events even after I said I wasn't interested. I read up about them and was surprised about all the controversy.

There are other political groups I don't agree with but normally I would tell people to just read their materials and decide for themselves - the LaRouche people are my main exception, don't get involved. If you think you can win one of their members, that would be great, but I have a feeling that their members get a lot of guilt-tripping and peer-pressure from other members.

[RED DAVE]

I remember LaRouche when he was calling himself Lyn Marcus and was on the fringes of the Trotskyist movement. We knew each other very slightly, and it always seemed to me that he was trying to convince me, and any other person who would listen to him, that we were privy to of a secret body of knowledge together. My opinion of him then was this was one bright, arrogant sonofa*****, without the slightest ability to engage in self-criticism. The arrogance, combined with an absolute set of bizarre beliefs, tells us what we need to know about these people

As LaRouche and his schmucks moved to the right, his/their arrogance increased. Operation-Mop Up was a joke. They tried to push a couple of CPers around. Eventually, they raided a meeting of some other group, the Spartacists I think (I'm going from memory here), and they got their heads handed to them. I remember once sitting at an IS meeting where a bunch of us had one-foot lengths of telephone cable, waiting, hoping actually, that they would show up. :D

When you try to debate or even just talk with these people you have to ask yourself what kind of asshole would believe this stuff in the first place and join a group like that?

RED DAVE

[Patchd]

There is also the case of Jeremiah Duggan;

"Jeremiah Duggan died in highly suspicious circumstances on the 27th March, 2003 in Wiesbaden, Germany. He was 22 years old. He decided to attend what he thought was an anti-war conference held by the Schiller Institute. This is a front group for the Lyndon LaRouche political organisation."

There's some more information about the LaRouche cult on this site too:
http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/NEW/larouche.htm

[RHIZOMES]

I seriously can't wrap my head around the Lyndon LaRouche movement at all.

No matter how hard I try.

It's one of the two things that my brain just refuses to comprehend. The other being postmodernist academic theory. They are the most bizarre political group I have ever heard of, and the fact they ever got more than 5 followers is completely beyond me.

[Dimentio]

I seriously can't wrap my head around the Lyndon LaRouche movement at all.

No matter how hard I try.

It's one of the two things that my brain just refuses to comprehend. The other being postmodernist academic theory. They are the most bizarre political group I have ever heard of, and the fact they ever got more than 5 followers is completely beyond me.

There are more bizarre political movements. Like emergentism...

[RHIZOMES]

There are more bizarre political movements. Like emergentism...

Nah not even close. At least that one was consistent. The LaRouche movement went from the far left to a crypto-fascist movement, has had some of the most bizarre election proposals ever, their members were given combat training, they beat up/terrorized a bunch of people on the US far left for no real coherent reason at all... what else...

See that's the thing i can't get past, the sheer SCOPE of the bizarreness of it all. I've probably only covered 1/4th of their weirdness there.

[RED DAVE]

This link is pretty accurate as far as I know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche#Early_life

You can't make this shit up!

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Nah not even close. At least that one was consistent. The LaRouche movement went from the far left to a crypto-fascist movement, has had some of the most bizarre election proposals ever, their members were given combat training, they beat up/terrorized a bunch of people on the US far left for no real coherent reason at all... what else...

See that's the thing i can't get past, the sheer SCOPE of the bizarreness of it all. I've probably only covered 1/4th of their weirdness there.

LaRouche was just a less successful variation of Mussolini.

This is the real stuff :lol:

http://emergentor.blogspot.com/2007/12/emergentism-messianic-doctrine-of.html

[Floyce White]

LaRouche got money from somewhere to pay local TV stations to preempt the network feed and run in prime time an hour-long monologue around 1983. The show was called "Henry Kissinger: Soviet Agent of Influence."

I remember watching it on Dallas' ABC affiliate. It ran several times.

Yes, LaRouche used the name Lynn Marcus to join the US SWP as an at-large member around 1972. He was expelled after a couple of years. Thus, he was never trained as a Marxist cadre, he was never integrated into their organization, and his membership never helped to define American Trotskyism.

But then, anyone who got their hands on the anti-Barnes "Carlton College" literature surely drew parallels to the Khmer Rouge. It's not as if American Trotskyism ever was anything more than a cult, either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

My advice is: Stay clear of this group! They have formidable internet security and can hack computers at will.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's not as if American Trotskyism ever was anything more than a cult, either.So, small in numbers = cult? Then I guess every single revolutionary group currently operating is a cult.:rolleyes:

If you mean insular and sectarian - while there have been American Trotskyist groups who have been cultish, there have also been outward operating political groups.

[Floyce White]

While I'm always ready to engage in a semantical discussion, I think it's fairly obvious that a "sect" is not necessarily a "cult," but that a "cult" must always be a "sect."

In order to become massive, any group would have to be extremely tolerant of variations in expressed views. US revolutionary-socialist groups of the late 20th Century were extremely intolerant of variation from their official lines. Thus, they had policies and practices that ensured that they would remain tiny groups of like-minded adherents. Anyone could argue that smallness mimics cultishness, but that's just avoiding the needed criticism of their intolerance of anything but the "leadership's" views.

The question is thus reduced to: is cultishness more or less the same as cultness? I would say so. What's the point of arguing that cultishness is more or less the same as openness? No point at all.

The more-tolerant practices were held by the least-revolutionary/most-reformist groups, such as the CP-USA, The Guardian clubs, etc. Of course, the whole point of radical leftism was to shunt rebellious workers into the mainstream of leftism/liberalism, so the less-radical groups were naturally less cultish and more baby kissing and hand shaking and vote getting. Win Jesse win? Win Ralph win? What's the point calling yourself "revolutionary" under such slogans?

Workers get recruited to petty-bourgeois, radical-leftist groups in order to coopt their rebelliousness, and in order to be foot soldiers in their bosses' and landlords' causes. Workers are divided against each other by being divided into mutually-hostile cults that are virtual clones of one another. Again, I see no point in arguing that the isolation of worker-activists is not the isolation of worker-activists.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sorry, your point?

[Floyce White]

That kind of comeback shows that you're not ready to debate me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That kind of comeback shows that you're not ready to debate me.:D
Whatever big man, I was being sincere. Your post was full of doublespeak and it wasn't clear to me what your point was. I guess I'm dumb, I was simply asking for a clarification. (But after that condescending elitist response of yours I wish I had said something insulting).

Your post seems to suggest that every group of people is a cult. This is not the connotation most people have of cults. Like-minded adherents? Well that is any group from an anarchist affinity group to a Marxist reading circle to Moonies and so that definition is useless.

All I originally wanted from you was: A cult is... and therefore...

Your circular post followed by hostility when I questioned it leads me to believe that your real answer is:
A cult is... any group I don't agree with
and therefore... American Trotskyism has always been a cult because I'm a sectarian who likes making sweeping generalizations.

[maya]

Thanks to everyone for the insight. It seems they have a reasonably successful electoral front going in Australia, but everywhere else they stay out of politics entirely and just focus on bringing in the cash.

BTW the way he writes his 'executive summaries' he must think he is already ruler of the world! He is surpassed only by L. Ron Hubbard for ego. :)

[RHIZOMES]

Yes, LaRouche used the name Lynn Marcus to join the US SWP as an at-large member around 1972.

It was actually 1949.

[Floyce White]

Yes that's right. He was expelled in 1966.

Gravedigger, don't be so touchy. It is apparent from my post that I assert that top-down enforcement of "the line" is the origin of cultness in leftist groups. If you think otherwise, say so, but don't whine about how you "don't understand" a clear post.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes that's right. He was expelled in 1966.

Gravedigger, don't be so touchy. It is apparent from my post that I assert that top-down enforcement of "the line" is the origin of cultness in leftist groups. If you think otherwise, say so, but don't whine about how you "don't understand" a clear post.

Whose whining? I asked: "What's your point"? That's about as clear a post as I've ever read here, but you responded with condescension.

So if following a top-down party line is the definition of a cult, I repeat, your definition is useless. The Republican and Democratic parties, corporations, recreational sports teams would be cults along with every trade union in existence and yet the Manson family and other groups of non-top down religious wackos (or ones without a set religious philosophy to hold adherents to) would not be a cult!

I think for most people the connotation of a cult is a insular group that coerces its members with false promises or information. I believe you are aware of this connotation as well and that is why you want to dismiss other groups and traditions as "cults" despite a wide range of ideas and practices of the people you describe as a cult.

[A.R.Amistad]

I once saw a picture of the Larouche fascists marching down a street with the most offensive sign ever. It said "Global Warming: about as real as your girlfriend's orgasm." That's just wrong on two different levels. :rolleyes:

[Wanted Man]

I once saw a picture of the Larouche fascists marching down a street with the most offensive sign ever. It said "Global Warming: about as real as your girlfriend's orgasm." That's just wrong on two different levels. :rolleyes:

We have a very nice word for that sort of thing: projection.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I once saw a picture of the Larouche fascists marching down a street with the most offensive sign ever. It said "Global Warming: about as real as your girlfriend's orgasm." That's just wrong on two different levels. :rolleyes:

At UC Berkeley in 2004, they made a big sign with a picture of Bush saying: "I'm an asshole" and a picture of Kerry saying: "I'm a pussy". Real deep politics there.

The best ever interaction I ever overheard regarding LaRouche activists was a crosspurposes debate where the LaRouchie was trying to explain how a graph in one of their pamphlets proved LaRouche was correct while the other person tried in vein to explain that a graph without any variables is just a useless drawing that couldn't represent anything.

[Floyce White]

Gravedigger: "...you want to dismiss other groups and traditions as 'cults'..."

US radical leftism dismissed itself. For me to figuratively dismiss it--is proper, since history already decided the issue.

Gravedigger: "So if following a top-down party line is the definition of a cult, I repeat, your definition is useless."

Straw man. The issue is cultishness as cultness. Degree of toleration of non-party-line expression is a crucial element.

Gravedigger: "The Republican and Democratic parties, corporations, recreational sports teams would be cults along with every trade union in existence..."

Ridicule by mischaracterization of my opinion as being nihilistic.

Gravedigger: "I think for most people the connotation of a cult is a insular group that coerces its members with false promises or information."

Not the best line of argumentation that you could have pursued. Some cults just prey on the lonely without coercion, but with true promises of acceptance and inclusion.

Mass economic coercion causes (as you put it) "wacko" behavior to be common social currency. Mass mental illness from social stresses further exacerbates and is exacerbated by antisocial behavior. Why should cultishness and cultness exist only as some "fringe element" of "extremists?" It shouldn't. Over time, capitalism should have worked cultness into social relations as a way to further divide the working class.

What US radical leftists typically call "sectarianism" should rightly be called "cultness." To call healthy, productive party building "nonsectarian" is oxymoronic. The words "sect," "sectarian," and "sectarianism" are thus converted into euphemisms. This is incidental, reinforcing evidence that shows a special set of in-group terms (that one would expect to find in a cult).