Lyndon LaRouche (8 September 1922 – 12 February 2019), was an American economist, and political activist who founded various political organizations under the umbrella of what was termed the LaRouche Movement, and the Schiller Institute, founded by his spouse, Helga-Zepp-LaRouche.

 

The LaRouche Outlook: Between the British and US Economic Models    BY Tamer Mansour

 

A prominent American who does not look like an American in his views 

His name rose to worldwide recognition in the mid-70s, and throughout the 80s of the last century, and he was considered one of the most prominent and controversial political thinkers in the United States and beyond, as his school of thought in politics, economics, history, and culture, were almost always at odds with the dominant political status quo in America, and defied the norms and practices of the ruling establishment.

This experience has sparked the flame of his lifelong ethical commitment to the political struggle and quest for a new “Just World Economic Order” 

What made his views even more contentious around the world, is his ardent support for the war on global drug cartels, as well as the banks and international financial institutions that stood behind this illegal trade.

He founded a global political movement, popular among the youth between the ages of 18-25, which had branched presence and supporters across the United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe, and Australia. His passionate and ceaseless support for nations seeking full independence and sovereignty over their economies, internal political affairs, and geopolitical decisions, and the right of the people to seek comprehensive agricultural, industrial, and technological developments, without external boundaries or interferences.

LaRouche is no stranger to the Russians. On 14th October 1993, LaRouche’s name was proposed by a prominent Russian academic, namely Professor Taras Vasilievich Muranivsky of the Russian State University for the Humanities, to be elected as a member of the International Ecological Academy of Russia, or “Academy of 100”. A proposal that was strongly supported by Bencion Fleischmann, Professor of Mathematics in the Russian capital.

LaRouche’s integrity and insight 

His best-selling book titled “You Wish to Learn All About Economics?”, published by the Schiller Institute, was the first LaRouche book to be translated into the Russian language. And when he was imprisoned in the US for authoring the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) policy, and leading a global campaign against the predatory lending practices of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), more than 12 Russian elected politicians and activists signed appeals for the release of Lyndon LaRouche.

Lyndon was highly regarded across the Middle East and the Arab World as well, due to his principled stances against Israeli and American policies in the region throughout the decades, which he considered they contradict the traditional American foreign policy approach in his view.

Even during his academic studies between 1948-1952, LaRouche was very clairvoyant and definitive regarding the political deep roots of the conflict between two classes of societies. Those whose individual interests are perfectly aligned and reliant on the national economy of their countries, such as farmers, manufacturers, and blue-collar workers on one hand. And the interests of the oligarchies, looting the nation out of its people’s wealth through usurious financial practices, government patronage, and favorable treatment because of political campaign funding and lobbying for oligarchy-friendly legislations, etc.

In this regard, LaRouche highlighted the prime importance of the American Revolution and it’s the Federal Constitution. His view was that despite the roots of the US Revolution, emanating from the origins of the 15th Century European Renaissance Era heritage.

Still, North America represented a geographical and strategic severance from Europe. A continent then ruled by an alliance between the aristocratic feudalist class of landowners, and the oligarchic financial class. On this last point, the Metternich-Castlereagh Alliance, announced during the 1815 Vienna Congress, represents a case-in-point worthy of deep study and research. An Alliance Henry Kissinger dedicated an entire book for, under the title “A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812–1822”

Under that European modus-operandi, North European nations were seeking independence and freedom from that oligarchic-feudal system, and the founding of independent constitutional republics away from traditional historical European ruling regimes.

However, LaRouche saw these “modern” European nation-states, as quasi-republics, seeking change through parliamentary reforms, yet, this was occurring within nations still ruled from the top by the same oligarchic financial interests, such as in Britain. On the contrary, the Federal Republic of the United States emerged in 1789, as a truly free and constitutional nation, ruled by a presidential system.

Worth noting here, that this initially “free” nation’s political and geopolitical decisions, were heavily criticized for decades by LaRouche et alia, for practices and policies that serve special corporate, oligarchic, and financial interests, increasingly eating away the basis of such a “free”, “constitutional” and “presidential” political system.

LaRouche saw that the economic system the US built upon its financial might during the 19th century, was distinctly American in nature, as opposed to the then-fading British “free” trade system, which followed the theories of Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith, as many believe.

However, based on the American economic model, initially described as “protectionist”, rather than carrying the mantra of “free trade”, the government is responsible for the financial, monetary, and fiscal policies.

One has to question here, does the “federal” government practice this responsibility in reality? Is the Federal Reserve Bank, even “federal”?

The government, according to the original American economic model, is supposed to be the main credit issuer, through the “national” bank/s, to leverage the economic infrastructure development. To enable farmers and industrialists to practice their liberal professions and businesses under the protection of the state, where their “national” production means and output would be secure.

Does this model sound like it has been kept intact since then?

While private banks and their Big Brother, patron and ally, the “Federal” Reserve, were not supposed to have that big of a role in policymaking, except for facilitating access to credit, for those who need it, as they pursue the development of agriculture, industry and trade. Where there is supposedly no place for speculative loan-sharking, financial usury, or money laundering.

Does it seem like these great promises of the American model were kept, at all?

LaRouche had this vision and deep analytical abilities since his early academic years, and his years of military service in post-World War India, let him witness with his own eyes, the horrors of poverty and injustice, imposed upon Indians under the colonial yoke of the British Empire.

This experience has sparked the flame of his lifelong ethical commitment to the political struggle and quest for a new “Just World Economic Order”. A young American soldier who saw the necessity of giving these people of the “Third World”, their absolute rights of national sovereignty, independence, and development of their educational and economic systems, through fair access to the most advanced technologies.

LaRouche’s quarrel with the British Commonwealth policies and practices around the world, was perfectly aligned with the quarrel of US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt over the same issues, against British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, throughout the World War II era.

Lyndon LaRouche’s opposition to unfair policies of world powers, whether it was the British Empire, or his own country, was the reason behind his national and international prominence. As he never abandoned his positioning, against the fans of the antiquated British economic and political model. As well as, Britain’s allies and followers of its “mutated” imperial approach within the United States, such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the like.

So, did the American model really sever itself from the British prototype? Or did it just mutate into another form of the same “oligarchic” model?

To be continued… 

 

https://journal-neo.su/2025/04/02/the-larouche-outlook-between-the-british-and-us-economic-models/

 

MEANWHILE:

Thomas Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina on June 30, 1930.

As his father passed away prior to his birth, and his mother, a housemaid, had 4 children already, he was adopted and raised by his great aunt and her 2 grown daughters.

When he was 9 years old his family moved to Harlem, New York in search of better opportunity.

After dropping out of the prestigious Stuveysant High School for family reasons, he was drafted into the military in 1951 and served as a photographer in the Marine Corps during the Korean War.

On returning from military duty, he began attending night classes at Howard University, where he was encouraged to apply to Harvard.

In 1959, he graduated magnua cum laude from Harvard. The following year, he received his masters degree from Columbia University.

“Sowell cares about people. He believes that compassionate policy requires dispassionate analysis.”— Walter Williams

Despite studying under Milton Friedman and George Stigler, in 1961 Sowell considered himself a Marxist. It was his internship with the US Department of Labor in the summer of 1961 and his observations of the inefficiencies and perverse incentives within government that eventually dissuaded him from Marxism.

In 1968 he earned his PhD in Economics from the University of Chicago.

From 1963-1978, he held teaching positions in economics at various institutions including Rutgers, Howard, Cornell, Brandeis, UCLA, and Amherst College.

Since 1972, Sowell has published 56 books, over 70 essays, and more than 30 books reviews

In 1980, he was awarded the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, where he continues his writings and work to this day.

https://sowell.org/about

 

Thomas Sowell’s political views are characterized by his advocacy for classical liberal economics and his critical examination of government intervention. Sowell has researched and spoken on the unintended consequences of policies such as affirmative action and minimum wage laws, emphasizing the importance of individual responsibility and free-market mechanisms in promoting economic prosperity.

https://conservatism.net/thomas-sowell/

Sowell’s economic philosophy stands firmly on the bedrock of free-market capitalism. He vehemently champions the power of the market and argues against excessive governmental intervention in the economy. You see, in Sowell’s view, the economy is like a wild stallion—it runs best when it runs free.

One of Sowell’s standout theories is his critique of the so-called ‘trickle-down theory.’ While this theory is often attributed to conservative economists, Sowell insists it’s an imaginary concept. He views wealth not as a fixed pie to be divided but something to be created. In other words, he emphasizes that the economy can grow, thus benefiting everyone without wealth having to ‘trickle down’ from the rich to the poor.

Sowell is also renowned for his thoughts on ‘racial economics.’ He dares to challenge the idea that economic disparities between racial and ethnic groups are solely a result of discrimination. Instead, he points to a variety of other factors, like culture and human capital, that can create such differences.

Then there’s his concept of ‘visions.’ Sowell separates people into two broad categories based on their socio-economic beliefs—the ‘constrained’ and the ‘unconstrained’ vision. The folks in the constrained camp, like Sowell himself, believe in the limitations of human nature and the value of existing social institutions. On the other hand, those in the unconstrained camp believe in human perfectibility and the need to actively intervene to improve society.

Sowell’s economic philosophy, while distinct and sometimes controversial, offers a fresh lens to view and understand the world of economics. It’s a stark departure from mainstream thought, but like a breath of fresh air, it stirs the pot, ignites conversations, and forces us to question and rethink established norms. Now, isn’t that something?

https://julienflorkin.com/personalities/thomas-sowell/

 

SEE NANCY PELOSI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayOiPkvKBw

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.