I got the question how I would describe the movement I once was a member in!
If I should describe the organization in a few word, what would I say that it is a totalitarian and despotic political cult with a dualistic, conspiratorical worldview where everything is divided into good and evil, and it has a pseudoreligious method of work, where it is claimed that the "final days are near" and only the members can save humanity... if they only obey the leader of the cult, i.e. Lyndon LaRouche!
Thus I would describe it. But it is not enough. It wont still explain all the puzzeling facts about the movement. Such as how to reconcile its fascist and cult-like views with its non-racist methods.
I recently heard about a model that makes it easier to understand LaRouche and his movement, the so called "threedimensional model".
The threedimensional model
Many are puzzled by the movement LaRouche has created. It is not similar to anything else and all attempts to compare it to similar movements fail.
Some Swedish authors, that have written about the modern fascism, believe that all totalitarian movements can be described by looking at three different things, the so called three dimensional model. The essay by Mattias Gardell in this anthology is one example of this. (The anthology "Brunt", red. Deland and Westin, 2007! http://www.bokforlagetatlas.se/index.php?sid=2&pid=16&showtitle=291 )
(The three dimensions are described in my words, a bit simplified.)
1) They are either leftwing or rightwing extremists, or move back and forth on this scale... (The division between left and right is not absolute, because some movements, like the one LaRouche founded, can have elements of both left and right. The Strasserists were a kind of leftwing nazis. Mussolini started his political work as leftwing and were later rightwing.)
2) They are either centralized or decentralized, (I.e. they have a strong leader, and is perhaps run as a cult) or they are run very autonomously with individuals and groups working for themselves without leadership. They might have a political ideology where the worldview of the leader/leaders are absolute truth too, and where there is a demand that all members stick to that truth and no opposition is allowed, or they dont have this ideology.
3) They are either racist and perhaps for a culturally and/or religiously homogenous society, or they are for a racially, culturally and religiously pluralistic society. (Nationalists or globalists...)
Some others add a fourth dimension, I would agree on that:
4) They are pro violence or not violent.
Gardell writes this about Lyndon LaRouche and his Swedish organization, EAP in the anthology "Brunt" (page 59): "Many view LaRouche as bizarre. This threedimensional model shows that LaRouce, even if the position he has in the model is not so common, can be understood as a rightwingcentralist of a fascist kind, but with global ambitions and a pluralistic orientation and membership, i.e. multiethnical and from many religions."
("För många framstår LaRouche som bisarr. Den tredimensionella modellen visar att LaRouche, även om hans positionering är ovanlig, kan förstås som en högercentralist av fascistiskt snitt men med globala ambitioner och pluralistisk - mångetnisk, mångreligiös - orientering och medlemskår!")
There is much truth in this model and it helps to explain a phenomena like the LaRouchemovement and Lyndon LaRouche, even if I disagree somewhat with the description of LaRouche as rightwing, it is actually both leftwing and rightwing at the same time!
Lets therefore clairfy it a bit!
My version of the model
This is a description in my words, of some examples that can illustrate this model, but with a corrected view of LaRouche and with the fourth dimension added... (And I am comparing LaRouche to other groups.)
The LaRouchemovement is not left or right in the normal sense. It is very centralized, so much that it is a cult. It is nonhomogenous and pluralistic and it is non violent.
The nazis in the 30s in Germany can be describes as rightwing, very centralized, so much that it too was a cult. It was extremely homogenous and nonpluralistic and very violent.
In the same way leftists can be described. The RAF in the 70s can be described as leftwing, very centralized, so much that it too was a cult. Somewhat nonhomogenous and somewhat pluralistic and very violent.
The LEFTIST militant "green"anarchists of today (Like Animal Liberaltion Front) can be described as leftwing, very decentralized, nonhomogenous and pluralistic and selectively violent.
We need to be precise when describing the global movement of Lyndon LaRouche. The threedimensional model, or perhaps even a fourdimensional one, can help describing what it is.
And it helps to explain why some fascist movements, like LaRouches, can be for a multhiethnical society, with people of all races, cultures and creeds.