Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is more of a LaRouch propaganda piece than a NPOV encyclopedia article. It's probably somewhat inevitable, unfortunatly, because the people who have the interest and general knowledge to write this article are going to be LaRouche supporters and their "unbiased" view will disproportionatly feature facts which are emphasised among LaRouche supporters. Particularly egregious POV violations seem to be the "conspiracy" amongst academia against LaRouche and the final paragraph which places a huge emphasis on a motley crew of b-grade political figures who have written in support of LaRouche. In fact the whole criminal record seems to be obviously presenting one side of the story. Also, the whole "Straussians" thing strikes me as self-congratulatory drivel. I have made some minor NPOV edits but I don't know the situation enough, and I don't think I would be able to find unbiased information, so there's no way I can make more substantial modifications. Psychobabble

This draft article is ancient history now, a sideshow to the massive edit wars over the Lyndon LaRouche article (which ultimately became 5 articles.) The edit wars came to what is hopefully a permanent resolution 11 days ago, with a a set of articles with which no one is completely happy, but which may conform to NPOV policy. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:04, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hehehe, my bad. This is still linked from the 1984 election page. Psychobabble

---

I've moved the article to Lyndon LaRouche/draft, so that we can discuss it in this space. john k 05:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Random thoughts as I read:

While LaRouche's philosophical/historical musings should be in the article somewhere, they should certainly not be before his biography. john k 05:09, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The reason that he has both supporters and detractors, is his ideas. Deemphasize them, and you simply mystify the whole story. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Immanuel Kant, Baruch Spinoza, Friedrich Nietzsche. I'd add that the ideas you discuss in this section are not "the reason he has detractors." As far as I am aware, LaRouche's detractors aren't particularly interested in these quasi-philosophical ideas at all, and are more interested in his political and economic thought.

The section you refer to is his economic thought -- it is what differentiates him from the Marxists and the Laissez-Faire types. Although I agree that more could be said on the American System stuff, and FDR.

I must confess, that I drew a blank on your reference to Kant, Spinoza and Nietzsche. Relevance?--Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look at the articles. They first discuss the person's life, and then their theories. john k 19:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ach, so!--Herschelkrustofsky 00:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This has now been changed, as per your suggestion.--Herschelkrustofsky 07:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This bit is ridiculous:

On December 2 of that year, LaRouche had what was to be his first, and only, public encounter with a representative of the academic establishment: a debate at New York's Queens College with a leading Keynesian, Professor Abba Lerner. Afterward, Lerner's closest political associate, Professor Sidney Hook, avowed: Yes, LaRouche had defeated Lerner in the debate, but LaRouche would pay a price for that success.

Firstly, something like this would have to be sourced. Secondly, it's probably not significant even if it is true. john k 05:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The significance of the debate (beyond what was said during the debate, which I could include, but didn't in an attempt to keep the article concise), was the message delivered by Hook, which I take to mean, "I represent the Establishment, and from this point on, we're freezing you out." It is a precursor to the Rosenfeld editorial.--Herschelkrustofsky 12:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is your source that any of this even occurred? What makes you think that the "Establishment" would have accepted the leader of a Trotskyist sect, anyway? And this whole incident is presented in an entirely contextless way. I have no idea what's going on here. john k 14:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between non-"acceptance", and being made a non-person. You might want to look at what the U.S. Government, in coordination with the "private sector", did to Paul Robeson. It's a similar case to the LaRouche case.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But again, you have yet to demonstrate that this even occurred, or that Hooks even said that. Even if Sidney Hooks said something, it is not as though one man speaks for the entire academy. john k 19:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given that your document on Operation Mop-Up doesn't actually refute the idea that violence was initiated by the NCLC, and since every reputable source (Village Voice, Washington Post, etc.) says that it was called "Operation Mop-Up" (and, as far as I can gather, this is what it was called in LaRouche's own newsletter), the account of it in the draft is simply ridiculous. john k 05:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neither side's story is conclusive. I have no personal knowledge of this episode, but it strikes me as strange that with all the apparent fisticuffs, there were no arrests, and apparently no police reports. So on the one hand, a bunch of anecdotes in hostile press organs, and on the other hand, an FOIA release that looks like COINTELPRO. I say, put out all the evidence and let the reader be the jury. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The FOIA release is from a document created long after Operation Mop-Up had been started. At any rate, New Solidarity itself talked about Operation Mop-Up, and LaRouche said himself that he wanted to break up the CP through violence, essentially. That he is embarrassed by this now doesn't mean that it didn't happen. john k 14:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The only quotes I've seen that purport to be New Solidarity come from Berlet. And the FOIA release suggests a COINTELPRO operation within the CPUSA that had been ongoing for some time. Again, I don't find any of this conclusive.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Washington Post series quotes from New Solidarity as well. Surely back issues could be found somewhere to resolve this. john k 19:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The quote from Stephen Rosenfeld is completely out of context and seems to come out of nowhere. Why is this a significant piece of information? john k 05:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, you have no sense of irony. The Post is one of the senior establishment press organs, and that editorial, coming when it did, was pretty much a clarion call for the press to circle their wagons and make damn sure that there would be no objective reporting on LaRouche, only "attack journalism" -- and I submit that that is pretty much your attitude. --Herschelkrustofsky 11:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Irony? Rosenfeld's article, as far as I can gather, discussed LaRouche's alleged thuggery with regard to the Operation Mop-Up stuff (and perhaps other things), and said that the whole organization was just thuggery, and didn't deserve to be discussed. Whether this is right or wrong, I find it hard to see how one op-ed columnist (that is to say, someone who was not speaking for the newspaper, but only for himself) can be said to represent the declaration of how the entire journalistic profession would treat LaRouche. Rosenfeld is a single journalist, and taking out of context a tiny part of one of his columns and exaggerating that into some kind of conspiracy against LaRouche is ridiculous. john k 14:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then call Rosenfeld's article "prophetic", if you prefer, because the press certainly proceeded to do precisely what he proposed.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Huh? In 1985, the Washington Post itself had a lenthy series of articles about LaRouche, which Andy's already cited... john k 19:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rosenfeld doesn't say Don't cover LaRouche; he says, Don't cover LaRouche unless you can call him duplicitous and violence prone with fascistic proclivities. Another way of putting would be, Don't cover LaRouche, cover the Straw Man. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, that only works if you believe that to call him duplicitous and violence prone with fascistic proclivities is a straw man. Certainly most everyone who's actually looked into the topic without being a LaRouchite seems to have come to this conclusion. Which is why you have to resort to conspiracy theorizing in the first place. john k 08:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This seems to be the crux of the argument: "Certainly most everyone who's actually looked into the topic without being a LaRouchite seems to have come to this conclusion." How on earth would you know what "Certainly most everyone who's actually looked into the topic without being a LaRouchite" thinks about this? Answer: your blind confidence in the honesty of the American media. Now, you may turn this around on me, and say that I have blind confidence in the honesty of LaRouche (actually, I do know him personally, so my confidence would not be entirely blind). But ultimately, this is a political question, not a technical fine point of wikipedia editing.

Bear with me for a moment, John. Imagine that you live outside the U.S., and that you are responsible for the fate of, say, a small third world nation (I use this analogy, because I have had the opportunity, twice, to discuss the U.S. with Prime Ministers of such countries). It would very likely be the case that you would regard the U.S. as a dangerous, out-of-control superpower: preventive war, torture of detainees, support for predatory financiers, disregard for the U.N., etc. -- and also, that you would see the American Press, particularly the Establish press like the Washington Post, as an instrument for all the policies that could potentially threaten your nation -- no different, really, than Pravda or Isvestia during the days of the Soviet Union. LaRouche, on the other hand, represents the policies of the U.S. when it used to be benevolent, a potential friend (remember now, I'm asking you to step outside yourself, and try to think like this hypothetical person, not unlike the ones that signed the exoneration ads for LaRouche)-- and LaRouche has demonstrated that he is real McCoy, precisely because he was willing to go to prison for his beliefs (and take my word for it -- he was given other options). I am trying to make a point, here, about certain assumptions that you may possibly have about the credibility of the Post and other "mainstream" press. I have no idea whether I am succeeding. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for the statement that LaRouche LaRouche developed particularly close relationships with the President of Mexico, José Lopez Portillo, and the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi? Certainly he appears to have met with them. How does this constitute a "particularly close relationship"? john k 05:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the case of Gandhi, he met with her five times before she was killed, which means more than just a courtesy call. And with Lopez Portillo, the relationship remained close over a period of 20 years -- a few years before Lopez Portillo died, he held a public meeting with LaRouche's wife, and issued a public statement that "The world must listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche." I didn't put that in the article out of concern for your feelings ;-)

--Herschelkrustofsky 11:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. Not as though Mrs. Gandhi is a particularly well-respected figure (I know nothing of Lopez Portillo) john k 14:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After Lopez Portillo nationalized the banks, he was called every name in the book. It has been my experience, from 30 years of politics-watching, that whenever anyone does something worthy of admiration, they get demonized -- in Gandhi's case, she made the Non-Aligned Movement into a forceful opponent of the IMF austerity policies, and made India self-sufficient in food. Sometimes the demonization ends after death: for example, after Martin Luther King was killed, the press stopped calling him a communist.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi also abrogated democracy in India and instituted forced sterilization programs. Every Indian I know has nothing but ill to say of her. john k 19:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, we've established that you don't like Gene McCarthy (my boyhood hero), you don't like Ramsay Clark, and you don't like Indira Gandhi. Just out of curiosity, whom do you admire? --Herschelkrustofsky 00:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I sort of admire Gene McCarthy, although I think he was always a bit too self-righteous for my taste, and went rather off the deep end at some point in the 70s. I'm sure I admire lots of people - give some time to think about it. john k 08:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Were you actually alive in the 70s? --Herschelkrustofsky 13:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed not. I was born in 1980. But I know of him just as I know of, say Napoleon or Franklin Roosevelt and can express an opinion about them...by reading books. john k 15:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good heavens, if I win this argument, you're young enough to join the LaRouche Youth Movement. It beats the hell out of being bored to death by Kerry, or as the L.A. Times op-ed said on Sunday, "A Lighter Shade of Bush."

--Herschelkrustofsky 20:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The next paragraph is just paranoid conspiracy-mongering. On what basis are these claims made? john k 05:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That section (the John Train meetings) is the most interesting part of the story. I mean, doesn't it intrigue you just a bit, that you have sitting together in one room, High Times veterans King and Berlet, representatives of the John Birch Society, the ADL, people from the intelligence community, right wing moneybags Mellon Scaife, and people from the press ranging from wild-eyed left to wild-eyed right, to gilded Establishment? This goes way beyond "strange bedfellows."

The most comprehensive source for the reports on these meetings was an interview with "Chip" Berlet, in which he was fairly loquacious (it must have been something of a thrill for him). When Dennis King was deposed, he answered every question by saying he "could not recall." However, the most legally air-tight source is sworn testimony by Mira Lansky Boland of the ADL, delivered in what is called a "2255" hearing, May 24, 1990 in Commonwealth Court in Roanoke, Va --Herschelkrustofsky 11:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looking over the whole article, it's not as bad as it might be. And there's probably some useful information to be extracted. But the frequent paranoid conspiracy-mongering has got to go. As has the self-congratulatory blather. This reads like LaRouche's own account of his life. While obviously the article should provide LaRouche's own self-presentation as a component, this is simply not sufficient for an article. john k 05:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As to my "very limited interest," well, you've got me there. I do enjoy a good argument, and I've exerted myself to the point of considerable interest. john k 19:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference between non-"acceptance", and being made a non-person. You might want to look at what the U.S. Government, in coordination with the "private sector", did to Paul Robeson. It's a similar case to the LaRouche case.--Herschelkrustofsky 14:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to compare LaRouche to Robeson you would have to show us that LaRouche has his passport revoked. Given his international travels this seems to have never occured. Certainly if the state were as concerned about LaRouche as you claim they would have at least revoked his passport as they did with Robeson and a number of other Communists. As for the lack of convictions in Operation Mop-Up you have to know something about the left and the fact that communists, Trotskyists and anarchists are loathe to use the "state" to prosecute others "on the left" (which LaRouche obstensibly was at that time) or even anyone - look at the case of the Greensboro Massacre in 1979 where five members of the Communist Workers Party were *shot* and *killed* by the KKK in broad daylight yet the CWP refused to cooperate with the cops in the prosecution of the KKK members . In the 1970s there are occassions in Canada and the US where Maoists and Trotskyists used baseball bats against each other but police were never called in, charges never laid etc. Also, to be frank, the police don't tend to be very concerned about leftists beating each other up. AndyL 21:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the case of LaRouche, they didn't revoke his passport, but rather they put him in federal prison, which I daresay is even more restrictive. The similarity, however, lies more in the subtle forms of exclusion; there was an airtight environment around Robeson where he could not obtain employment anywhere in the U.S.. He actually gave a concert in the U.K. via telephone. This could not have been done by the U.S. government alone; there had to be complicity by the "private sector." Forgive me if this sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Regarding the issue of whether communists, Trotskyists and anarchists are loathe to use the "state" to prosecute others "on the left", you are right, of course. But the "state" has no problem whatsoever using communists, Trotskyists and anarchists -- that is what COINTELPRO was all about. It is not just that the police don't tend to be very concerned about leftists beating each other up -- they actively encourage it, which is what appears to be going on with the FBI airtel. I don't think I would be out of line, however, in saying that considerably more resources have been expended to persecute LaRouche, than to persecute the various communists, Trotskyists and anarchists, a fact that has not gone unnoticed in the rest of the world.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You talk of a campaign against LaRouche in the 1970s but he was not imprisoned until, when, the late 1980s? You also completely ignore the charges involved. Is there no evidence to back up the charges of fraud?AndyL 02:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The tactics of the campaign evolved over time. As far as the charges, they are in the article -- I could elaborate more, if you like. Very simply, the gov't placed two LaRouche-controlled publishing companies in involuntary bankruptcy. Trustees were placed in control of these companies, and the trustees immediately stopped all repayment of loans. Then LaRouche and others were charged with a conspiracy to not repay the loans, and the Judge ruled that the defense could not mention, or in any way allude to the involuntary bankruptcy. The bankruptcy was overturned on appeal, but the conspiracy charges -- a separate case -- were never heard at any level of the appeals process. Is that sufficiently clear? This case will one day be in the history books -- but probably not while LaRouche is alive. --Herschelkrustofsky 03:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)