| Revision as of 17:38, 4 April 2004 editWmahan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,281 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:00, 5 April 2004 edit undoVaketer (talk | contribs)17 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| * "LaRouche separates himself from classical fascism and totalitarianism on the one hand, but to also create a theory which is consistent with the premise of fascism since function dictates form; LaRouche requires the same function from his theory as classical fascism has, and so this dictates the form." | * "LaRouche separates himself from classical fascism and totalitarianism on the one hand, but to also create a theory which is consistent with the premise of fascism since function dictates form; LaRouche requires the same function from his theory as classical fascism has, and so this dictates the form." | ||
| What does this mean? I don't think this adds anything to the arguments that LaRouche is a fascist. ] 17:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) | What does this mean? I don't think this adds anything to the arguments that LaRouche is a fascist. ] 17:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| Lar's theories are absurdly complicated, but he says over and over again that he's opposed to fascism, so if he's accused of fascism then we have to show how his overall philosophy contradicts his statements. Anything we can put down in this article to make sense of Lar's philosophies is a good thing, in my book, because it's really easy to get lost in them. I don't understand your confusion. This is basically responding to a possible argument that Lar's philosophies aren't based on traditional fascist philosophers and therefore can't be fascist. There was a whole other section below this...IMO this article has too many opinions, too many maybes, too many people editing it in contradictory ways. it's a morass. wiki is a failed concept. ] | |||
Revision as of 10:00, 5 April 2004
Yes, I think that if someone is openly espousing some of these extremist positions, it's fair to say he's been called a fascist by many. Don't water it down. JG
---
{{Source}} is deprecated. Please use a more specific template. See the documentation for a list of suggested templates.
I'm not sure this is really relevant to the article but I had the surprise this evening of seeing billboards promoting Larouche's campaign for presidency in my very own street! _R_ 02:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Erm... maybe you won't find this so surprising unless I tell you that I live in Paris (yes, the original one, in France) !
I have been removing a lot of the stuff about fascism, because I think the point of this article should be to describe the man, his life, and his ideals, not to classify them. To that end, citations and 'further readings' would be much appreciated. DanKeshet 23:08, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand a lot of what LaRouche says; he emailed me once, after I asked him to simply and concisely outline his political agenda; but he didn't do that. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Discussion of fascism are actually quite helpful in understanding LaRouche Andylehrer 01:38, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
--- 172.197.219.19 I think the fact that Larouche's organization is cult-like is the most important fact that anyone should know. Larouche's philosophies are interesting, and should be dealt with, but the only reason they are important is because of his impact on people's lives, both in the present and the past. This is an organization that convinces people to drop out of college and pretty much not visit their friends any more because they believe that disaster is imminent (and they must work every day to change the course of history). Put aside whatever ideals the group espouses; the way it uses people and attempts to completely change their world views is what makes this group evil. Members are of course convinced that they truly believe in these ideals, that Larouche is a genius, that his prophecies are always accurate, etc.; regardless of whether many of Larouche's ideas are accurate or not, the group is a threat to free thought because of the implicit control it has over its members. I speak from some experience
Moved from the "Accusations of fascism" section of the article:
- "When people judge political movements, some look at proclamations and theory, not at actions, while others pay close attention to actions and not to theory or statements. Many do not take the necessary step of comparing words to actions. The LaRouche organization is primarily recruited out of the personality types associated with political cults; leaders (intellectuals, talkers) and followers (believers, listeners). LaRouche's approach to the intellectuals has been to invent a theory and method which would captivate their minds and set them upon a course of thinking and viewing the world which can only confirm the statements and ideas of LaRouche."
This seems to be irrelevant and pov speculation about people's motives and the personality types of LaRouche's followers.
- "However, after the rise of Hitler and the alliance with Nazi Germany, the Fascists and Mussolini were compelled to adopt Germany's racial hygiene laws and help with the Holocaust."
I don't think this is relevant.
- "LaRouche separates himself from classical fascism and totalitarianism on the one hand, but to also create a theory which is consistent with the premise of fascism since function dictates form; LaRouche requires the same function from his theory as classical fascism has, and so this dictates the form."
What does this mean? I don't think this adds anything to the arguments that LaRouche is a fascist. Wmahan 17:38, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Lar's theories are absurdly complicated, but he says over and over again that he's opposed to fascism, so if he's accused of fascism then we have to show how his overall philosophy contradicts his statements. Anything we can put down in this article to make sense of Lar's philosophies is a good thing, in my book, because it's really easy to get lost in them. I don't understand your confusion. This is basically responding to a possible argument that Lar's philosophies aren't based on traditional fascist philosophers and therefore can't be fascist. There was a whole other section below this...IMO this article has too many opinions, too many maybes, too many people editing it in contradictory ways. it's a morass. wiki is a failed concept. Vaketer