PROMETHEAN CITY BUILDERS VS FINANCE CAPITAL MALTHUSIANS: MULTIPOLARISTS VS THE ANGLO-AMERICAN EMPIRE

Part I Who are Some Western Supporters of Multipolarists?

Orientation

Most of us realize there is a major tectonic shift in the world economy from West to East. The multipolar nations are basing their economies on investing in developing the productive forces of science and technology and to better human life. The Belt and Road Initiative is a good example. The West, on the other hand, has made its profits on finance capital and military capitalism. The US defense industry arms the whole world. This economy is in steep decline.

In addition, politically in Mordor (The United States), there is no New Deal liberal party, let alone any significant socialist party. The political ideology of the Anglo-American Empire is centrism. [Currently also described as corporate-liberal imperialism, "globalist", and also "WOKE imperialism".—Ed] If the forces of The Enlightenment are the West – New Deal liberals and socialists – and wanted to join the movement towards a multipolar world what would its guiding principles look like? Where on the political spectrum would it locate itself?

Since Lyndon LaRouche is someone instrumental in developing an economic policy for multipolarists Russia and India, he might have something to teach the West. To become Western multipolarists, to become Promethean city builders, we must recognize that finance and military capitalists are our enemy. At the same time, we must realize that finance capitalists of the Anglo-American Empire combined with the CIA have shaped a fake opposition to itself in the New Left. Among other things, this article will expose the ways the New Left has served finance capital and the Rockefellers.

My claims for this two-part article are that:

1. In order to join with Multipolarists of the East, forces to the left of the Democratic Party must reorganize their worldview along the lines of The Enlightenment and become city-builders.
2. Lyndon LaRouche and some of the sympathetic organizations such as Rising Tide Foundation are good representations of what a multipolar policy world would look like in the West
3. The political philosophy of the Anglo-American Empire and finance capitalism is centrism and it must be opposed.
4. The forces of Promethean City Builders must dispense with the linear political spectrum and create a new political spectrum which expresses its hopes.
5. For the past 70 years, the anti-communist forces of the Anglo-American empire have shaped a fake opposition, the romantic New Left to oppose the continuation and development of the Enlightenment, the American system and a communist movement.

Part I of this article deals with the first two claims and Part II addresses the last three.

The Western World is Cracking Up

Internationally

If your analytical vision penetrates beyond the surface – the sanctions, the build-up of military bases and the vast financial profits made – the Anglo-American empire is fracturing. Its finance capitalists have nothing to offer the world that can compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It promises the world nothing but weapons to fight wars. As China’s diplomats mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Mordor’splans for dividing West Asia are fracturing. As more and more countries line up to join BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa’s the alternative to the IMF), and the World Bank, Mordor’s allies dwindle. Meanwhile its European “coalition of the willing”, vassals for 80 years, are starting to stir. While some rulers quietly accept the leadership of Mordor, other countries, formerly the heart of the almost defunct European Union, are poking their heads above ground – as in France’s Macron statement in Beijing – and making noises about European autonomy. However, these rulers are also being pushed by the anti-war and anti-NATO elements on both left and right to stop wasting their resources on Ukraine.

Domestically

As Yankeedom engages in several wars at once internationally, domestically it is falling apart. The federal state stands helpless as regions of the country face ecological disasters and extreme cold, heat and tornadoes. Its trains cannot stay on the tracks and its roads and bridges rot from neglect. In a recent survey released by the US army, recruiters say most eligible young men and women cannot pass the physical because they are either overweight or have drug problems. The public education system is so beleaguered that a high school degree is no longer required to teach high school. Rather than invest in the physical or human infrastructures, finance capitalists cannibalize those infrastructures while they make profits on derivatives and stock options which produce no real social goods. As many of you know, there is none better than political economist Michael Hudson at pointing this out. A recent survey indicated that half the American population thinks there will be a civil war and/or secession in two years.

Tectonic Plates Shift Eastward

Like tectonic shifts, the real-world economy is shifting eastward towards China, Russia, Iran and to a lesser extent, India. South American counties are lining up to join the multipolar world, including Argentina and Brazil. In Africa, leaders are trading with the Chinese who are building railroads. Recently Russia has forgiven billions of dollars in debt. Even Mexico, along with 30 other countries, right under the nose of Mordor has applied to BRICS. What are the differences between the Anglo -American empire and the multipolar world of the East? See my table below:

Table A  The international World Divide

The Place of Lyndon LaRouche in the Multipolar World

Tribute to LaRouche by Russian economist Sergei Glazyev

In a recent article, the major Russian economist Sergei Glazyev sent a message of appreciation to the Schiller Institute on what would have been the 100^th birthday of Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche anticipated a disastrous end if finance capital policies continued. Further, he helped Russia to turn around after it was decimated by the neoliberal policies of Boris Yeltsin. I am emphasizing in the quotes below what I think is most important about Glazyev’s tribute:

“Already 30 years ago, and perhaps even earlier, Lyndon LaRouche drew attention to the fact that the inflation of financial bubbles, including derivatives bubbles, and the creation of financial pyramid schemes would inevitably bring about the collapse of the world financial system. And he proposed to adopt timely measures to avert that collapse.

Back then he proposed that, instead of pumping up financial bubbles, the world reserve currency emitter-countries, together with their partners and other countries, should invest in building global infrastructure, which would reduce the cost of trade, increase the efficiency of international economic ties, and, overall, contribute to raising connectivity worldwide. [This is precisely China’s and Russia’s policy.] So, he viewed the process of globalization as a process of expanding cooperation among countries, rather than attempts by some countries to exploit others.

As for the liberal globalization that today is leading to the collapse of the world financial system, LaRouche criticized it. He proposed a different model of globalization, based on the principles of physical economy in The Truth of Man and Nature. In particular, the famous project, which he and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, put forward for international discussion – the so-called Eurasian Land Bridge. This is a splendid and interesting project, which now, after many years, has begun to be implemented through the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, which we support through linking it with the Eurasian Economic Union.

LaRouche’s voice was heard very well. We remember him. In practically all the major countries in the world today that are developing successfully – above all India and China – there are partisans of LaRouche. They have used his thoughts and ideas for creating economic miracles. It is the principles of Physical Economy championed by LaRouche that today underlie the Chinese economic miracles and are there in the foundations of India’s economic development policy. The supporters of LaRouche in those countries exist in a fruitful, very positive and constructive influence on economic policy-shaping in these leading nations of the new world economic paradigm.”

LaRouche is hard to pigeonhole politically (stopped 6-7-23)

I have been around leftist movements for over 50 years. During that time, I have watched the socialist left call LaRouche a paranoid fascist and his organization a cult. It has never been easy to think or speak about him in a dialectical manner not only because the anticommunist left demonizes him, but because his followers are often uncritical of him, at least in public. Trying to find a biography of him that is objective is about as easy as looking for an objective biography of the occultist, Gurdjieff. The choices seem to be either as a cynic or true believer. Yet today some of those who have been influenced by LaRouche such as Rising Tide Foundation,have some valuable things to say. As I mentioned, LaRouche’s ideas connect nicely with the new international political configuration that is happening of creating a multipolar world. Lastly, his influence is felt in the left-right strategic alliances that are occurring in Germany and just beginning in the United States. (In the Antiwar rally 2/19/23 and in friendly debates among LaRoucheans, communists and right libertarians.)

Shifts, turns and reversals

Some of you know that LaRouche started out as a Marxist. Under the pen name of Lyn Marcus, he wrote an extraordinary book called Dialectical Economics, which I read twice and on which I took extensive notes. Since I was never an insider of the LaRouche movement, I am unable to track the changes in his political direction in depth in the early 1980s. I know he abandoned Marxism and developed what seemed to me an idealist theory of history, championing Plato. In the 1980s and 1990s he sometimes aligned himself with right-wing movements although it is difficult to see how his own economic system was, as is claimed by leftists, to be fascist.

Defender of western civilization and the Enlightenment

Why do the anarchists and social democrats hate LaRouche? First because he was an unapologetic defender of Western civilization while much of the left became skeptical of these values. Secondly, LaRouche believed that the pattern of social evolution can be claimed to have been progress at a time when the anarchists were championing hunter and gathering societies. Thirdly, the LaRouche movement stood for The Enlightenment against the Romanticism of the New left. He was opposed to most everything the New Left stood for – identity politics, experimental sex, rock music, zero growth and Malthusian population control. With some qualifications, I agree with his criticisms.

Developing the productive forces and moving from necessity to freedom

What LaRouche and his followers are for in at least one aspect is Marxism. They want to develop the productive forces. They strive for a life which shrinks the relationship between freedom and necessity. This means less necessary work and more time for creative thinking and implementation on the productive technologies, including nuclear power. For them, in Marxist terms, the productive forces are industrial capital. The enemy of industrial capitalism is finance capital or slave capitalism which is based on the premise of people learning to do with less (austerity).

Defending the nation-state

Today Laroucheans align themselves the forces of the nation-state building against the forces of globalization, which is supranationalism on the one hand and subnational regionalism on the other. Liberal globalism subordinates nation-states to the free trade dogma of the Anglo-American empire. Any nation-state that elects a leader who wants to develop an autonomous national economic policy will automatically be labelled a tyrannical strong man, and “abuser of human rights”, the new hobby-horse defamatory claim.

Criticisms of LaRouche from a Marxist perspective

Historical struggle is presented as a dualistic process

When LaRouche talks about history, he refers to two forces, the British system and the American system. It seems that the British empire is painted as negative all the way down the line, including assassinations and horrible international machinations to control the world. It would be more dialectical if there were some productive activities the British did to show complexity. That doesn’t mean the British Empire is not guilty of atrocities. It’s also a matter of knowledge that all ruling classes are guilty of this, not just the British. On the other hand, those who support the American system are presented as having no faults. This kind of extreme dualism is one of the reasons I lost interest in LaRouche over the years.

There doesn’t seem to be room for unintended consequences in history

History is presented as if there are no untended consequences. I have not found instances where the clashes between of industrial and finance capital ever produces  any historical results which were not planned. History seems to be the result of the victory of either of these two forces. There is nothing left over or in between. There are no messes. I do not find any instances in which the clash of these two forces resulted in circumstances that were not planned by either. I don’t think either of the protagonists are so powerful that either’s victor simply imposed their will on history. Marx said  humans make history but not as they pleased.

Where is the working class?

LaRouche is very good at locating the class struggles within the ruling classes in both Britain and the United States. However, there have been well over two hundred years of working class struggles in the US between workers and capitalists in cities and farmers and bankers in rural areas. As a Marxist I believe the working class produces most of the wealth of society.  Not mentioning the working class leaves out the overwhelming majority of the population. LaRouche’s analysis would be much richer if the horizontal struggle between the major political actors at the top (American system and British system) were joined by a vertical depiction of the relationship between these elites and the working classes of each country.

How does the existence of almost 200 years of the socialist movement fit into the evolution of the American system?

By roughly the 1870s, socialism and its leaders were serious competitors against both the English supporters of the South and the industrial capitalists of the North. This movement involved thousands of people, yet there is no mention of them. There is no stance taken for or against Marx or Engels or any of their American followers. This is a glaring historical omission.

Is there a capitalist system?

It is very clear that LaRouche advocated for industrial capitalism which means the real economy over finance capitalism. But this contrast is not rooted in the history of capitalism. Marx described how capitalism evolved from barter to the first money forms to the famous emergence money being invested in commodities in order to make more money. LaRouche seems to be arguing for a reversal of the historical movement of capitalism from industrial to financial and then back to industrial. But how would that process be rooted in the already existing history of capitalism in social evolution?  A renaissance in the flowering of the real economy seems to be the result of volunteerism on the part of LaRouche and his followers. It is not grounded in the history of capitalism.

Is there a crisis in capitalism?

Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any theory of a capitalist crisis. On page 15 of Michael Roberts’ book The Long Depression, he identifies both Marxist and non-Marxist theories of crisis. On the Marxist side, there is everything from the tendency of the rate of profit to fall to Rosa Luxemburg’s and David Harvey’s theory of underconsumption. When LaRouche wrote his book Dialectical Economics in the late 1970s he had a theory of capitalist crisis somewhat like Rosa Luxemburg’s theory. But my understanding is that when LaRouche left Marxism, he left his theory buried in that book.

Defense of Platonism and Christianity

According to George Johnson in Architects of Fear from Wikipedia:

According to George Johnson, LaRouche saw history as a battle between Platonists, who believe in absolute truth, and Aristotelians, who rely on empirical data. Johnson characterizes LaRouche’s views as follows: the Platonists include figures such as Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibniz. LaRouche believed that many of the world’s ills result from the dominance of Aristotelianism as embraced by the empirical philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, leading to a culture that favors the empirical over the metaphysical, embraces moral relativism, and seeks to keep the general population uninformed, LaRouche argued, whereas the Aristotelians use psychotherapy, drugs, rock music, jazz, environmentalism, and quantum theory to bring about a new Dark Age in which the world will be ruled by oligarchs. what matters is the Platonic versus Aristotelian outlook.

Lastly, LaRouche unapologetically accepts Platonic Christianity as an evolutionary advance from the polytheism and animism of pre-Christian times. He ignores the entire history of the misery Protestant and Catholic rulers have visited on their own populations with original sin, hatred of the body and fear of hell for starters. Neither does it seem to matter to LaRouche that both Protestants and Catholics persecuted thousands of pagans throughout history.

From LaRouche to the Rising Tide Foundation and the American System

Thanks to the Greanville PostI learned of the work of Matthew Ehret and Cynthia Chung and their Rising Tide Foundation. Influenced by LaRouche, they have excellent lectures, not only on geopolitics but also the arts and the history of science. Matthew Ehret has written a four-volume history of the United States and Cynthia Chung has written a great book called The Empire On Which the Black Sun Never Set. I’d like to share with you some highlights from Volume I of his book.

Clash of the two America’s – the Unfinished Symphony

History of industrial capitalism vs slave and finance capital in the United States

In Volume I of the Unfinished Symphony, Matthew Ehret divides the ruling factions in the United States into two groups: those who supported the British Empire and those who sided with the American system. Contrary to what most of us think, the British Empire was never really kicked out of the United States after the Revolutionary War. The US South continued to be involved with the British slave trade and many resisted fighting in the Revolutionary War.

The British Empire was dead-set against the United States becoming an industrial competitor to Great Britain. They wanted to maintain the US as a dependent country producing commercial agriculture (mostly cotton) for their textile mills. In their efforts to keep the United States under their thumb, the British were against the US establishing tariffs and protecting their industry to build canals and railroads. The British supported “free trade” and opposed Hamilton’s call for a national bank which invested in infrastructure projects. The British also supported the decentralization of banks. Doing the bidding of the British (whether consciously or not) Andrew Jackson cut out infrastructural projects and supported the spread of multiple species of currency which undermined longstanding economic projects.

The leading Americans who stood up for industrialization were Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and in the 19th century, Abraham Lincoln. The forces of slave capital and finance capital supported the development of Wall Street, the City of London and later, the Bank of Manhattan. The British supported the South’s plea for states’ rights since that weakened the federal governments’ quest to centralize power which was necessary to build a strong nation-state.

As might be expected, the major theoretician of the British system of laissez-faire (let the markets rule) capitalism was Adam Smith. The economists of the American system were Franz List and Harry C. Carey. Believe it or not, there were some Americans who did not look East to Europe for a political vision. Rather, they looked to Russia and China as civilizations worth emulating. They included Charles Sumner, William Seward, William Gilpin and Asa Whitney. They toyed with building a trans-Siberian railroad. Seward purchased Alaska in the hopes of linking it to Russia via a railroad while William Gilpin wanted to build a world land bridge uniting the whole world. He was influenced by the great Alexander von Humboldt. The British deep state forces were embedded in the US Canadian United Empire Loyalists; Eastern establishment families and in Virginian slave-owning aristocrats, including Albert Pike who later was involved with the Ku Klux Klan.

In the case of Russia, the friendly outreach of Gilpin was rewarded. Most people do not know that during the Civil War, Czarist Russia came to the aid of forces of the Union when the British attempted to invade during the Civil War. The Russian Navy blocked the British land invasion on both the East and the West coasts of the United States.

Table B summarizes the relation of the American system against the British empire.

                             Table B American System vs the British Empire

Why are we discussing Rising Tide Foundation? Because it provides a necessary correction to the leftist trashing of all the Founding Fathers and shows there was a very progressive side to some of them. It also describes an American system which is consistent with the multipolar vision of China, Russia and the countries with BRICS.

Conclusion

I began this article using a contrast between the declining Anglo-American empire of the West and the rising Multipolar world of the East. Secondly, I identified Lyndon LaRouche as someone instrumental in developing an economic policy for Russia and India. Yet LaRouche also championed Western values of the Enlightenment, the importance of developing the productive forces of society and defending the nation-state against globalization. LaRouche argued that his ideas about developing the productive forces in Russia and India were also alive and kicking in the United States in what he called “the American system”. I then offered six reservations to his orientation from a Marxist perspective.

Finally, I brought in the work of the Rising Tide foundation and of Matthew Ehret in a book called The Clash of the Two Americas: Volume I: The Unfinished Sympathy. I presented how Matthew’s work demonstrated that there was a progressive tendency among the Founding Fathers and how the American system in the United States is connected to  a multipolar world in the East.

But where do LaRouche and Rising Tide stand on the linear political spectrum? Leftists have called LaRouche a fascist. I commented briefly that this was a ridiculous characterization. Yet who are the allies of the so-called American system, and where are they on the political spectrum? Finally, what is the relationship between LaRouche and the New Left on the political spectrum? We will learn their values are diametrically opposed because the New Left itself was shaped by the arch enemies of LaRouche and Rising Tide – finance capitalists, the Rockefellers and the CIA. We will see in Part II that the linear political spectrum itself is the problem.

About the author

Bruce Lerro has taught for 25 years as an adjunct college professor of psychology at Golden Gate University, Dominican University and Diablo Valley College. He has applied a Vygotskian socio-historical perspective to his four books: From Earth-Spirits to Sky-Gods: the Socio-ecological Origins of Monotheism, Individualism and Hyper-Abstract Reasoning Power in Eden: The Emergence of Gender Hierarchies in the Ancient World Co-Authored with Christopher Chase-Dunn Social Change: Globalization from the Stone Age to the Present and Lucifer's Labyrinth: Individualism, Hyper-Abstract Thinking and the Process of Becoming Civilized He is also a representational artist specializing in pen-and-ink drawings. Bruce is a libertarian communist and lives in Olympia WA.