this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
40 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22768 readers
319 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/18507000

The more I look into this stuff, the more confused I get.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Here's a good piece on LaRouchites.

It is true that LaRouchites do not fit into the typical archetype we usually associate with a far-right wingers: someone who is very socially conservative, ultrareligious, ultranationalist, anti-science, and is highly neoliberal and pro-free market capitalism. But in reality LaRouchites fit into all of these boxes, except for one: they are not neoliberals. This might seem like a minor distinction, but it puts them pretty heavily at odds with most right-wingers, and has been the bridge that has allowed them to build some left-wing support as well.

Liberals tend to place vague “principles” above real-world material development, and care very little about real economic growth. In fact, they often praise the destruction of entire countries if it means these vague principles can be met. Take, for example, the dissolution of the USSR, or the destruction of Libya — both were humanitarian disasters that led to a complete collapse in living standards and the economy, but are praised by liberals as necessities because these countries were violating sacred laws of “individual freedom” and liberal “democracy.”

LaRouchites, on the other hand, drastically differ from the typical liberal in that they actually place economic development first-and-foremost. (Kind of… We will get into more detail on this in a second.) But the point is, the fact they reject neoliberal principles of “individual freedom” and support state intervention for the purpose of material development has put them at odds with typical liberals and, at times, even aligned them with Marxists.

...

Sometimes, on some issues, LaRouchites might be allies of Marxists. But I must make it very clear that LaRouchites are incredibly reactionary. In many ways, I would compare LaRouchites to the Strasserites in Nazi Germany. The Strasserites were part of the Nazi party, and they were just as anti-Semitic as all the other Nazis, but differed on economic issues, with Otto Strasser proposing democratizing the economy directly to Hitler.

Does this mean that the Strassersites were allies of Marxists? No. Their ideology was incredibly contradictory. They allied with fascists on pretty much every issue but the nationalization of industry, and so they worked with the fascists to get the fascists into power. The moment the fascists got into power, they purged them in the Night of the Long Knives. Gregor Strasser was killed, Otto Strasser fled the country.

[–] sleeplessone@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

I've finally gotten around to reading this article. It both cleared some things up and made me more confused. Like...

He touched his shirt, pointed at my water bottle — “In this capitalist system, everything, including relations between people, is inhuman. Only when we socialize the means of production, are human relations possible. Only then, can human reason guide society.”

It was then that I understood his materialist outlook as similar to that of an eschatologist (end-times fundamentalist).

Man’s salvation does not derive from man. It is imparted to man by an external force, (for him, a materialist reality apprehensible by sense-certainty).

This view depends upon at least two axioms.

  1. The universe is entropic (ruled by Satan).
  2. Man’s nature is inherently bad, but he can be saved through the struggle against Satan’s evil world (through the sacrificial violence of class conflict)

These axioms allow for what Malthusianism will not permit, viz. that man’s increases in productivity be acknowledged & be considered good.

It allows for the existence of Reason—as an eternally distant condition, which nevertheless may come at any time (the Rapture).

Statements dreamed by the utterly deranged.