Lyndon LaRouches økonomisk udviklingsvidenskab i anledning af 3 årsdagen for sin død

It’s also the case that everything we do on behalf of disseminating LaRouche’s work on economics impacts the battle we are at this moment waging for solutions to the existential world crisis. LaRouche’s work on economic forecasting was not about betting on the outcome of events, as has become epidemic in today’s culture; but rather, towards pointing mankind in the direction of what he named “successful survival” from one generation to the next.

In 2005, LaRouche stated in an EIR feature entitled “From Kant to Riemann: The Shape of Empty Space”:

“The ability to predict, or, better said, forecast the physical outcome of man’s behavior, is a subject of a higher, more rigorous form of psychology, and of the social psychology of the sovereign individual mind. This idea of”predicting,” as is the presently customary intention expressed by the use of the word, implies a profoundly incompetent view of man’s role and capabilities within organization of the universe. At best, we can foresee certain important consequences of our decisions, or lack of decision. At best, we can foresee the nature of our obligation to warn our fellows, and to act ourselves in ways which correspond to the problem which we can foresee as probable, even almost certain….

“All attempted prediction, or forecast, of social phenomena, such as economic developments, is essentially … a subject of what might be termed the science of physical psychology: mankind’s relative power of mind within, and over, what is regarded as the physical universe. Therefore, we must think of physical psychology as the kernel of the social psychology of the truly sane individual mind.”

So here we already have presentation of the idea of the individual mind. That individual’s relationship to all of humanity, and of humanity’s relationship to the totality of the universe. This is the domain of real economics, as underlined by Helga’s organizing of the Thursday debate, which involved high-level Russian and U.S. officials grappling with how to end the genocide in Afghanistan and launch an economic development strategy that can help to turn the world at large away from general war. This is exactly the battleground on which Lyn’s discoveries in economics are breaking new ground. In fighting for his approach to economics, we are addressing the development of humanity by addressing the mindset of the individuals who lead society and who are thereby defending the sacred of every individual to develop their God-given creative potential.

When LaRouche began to found a movement around his ideas, roughly in the period from 1968-71, he rapidly came to identified as the most fierce critic and opponent of the academic schools of economics, all of which—both left-wing and right-wing—were advocates of what they called monetarism. That is, all the university economics in the United States and most of the trans-Atlantic world, typified by names such as Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago, or John Maynard Keynes of the London School of Economics, had become under British imperial influence, a cult which fixated on the circulation of money and the fluctuation of money prices as the source of economic activity and the root of some kind of mysterious growth.

LaRouche was fierce in his denunciation of this ideology, which he rigorously demonstrated was a justification for imperial policies of genocide, both globally and within the United States itself. In countering this British game with his work on scientific physical economy in the 1970s, LaRouche triggered a rediscovery of the American System of economics, a name originally adopted in the 19th Century to contrast the American method of Hamilton, Quincy Adams, Lincoln, etc. to the British imperial system. The American System, having been developed from the threads of progress created by the European Renaissance through Kepler, through Leibniz, to the discoveries in economic policy design led by Alexander Hamilton. After the World Wars I and II, nearly all knowledge of the American System of economics, which combined concepts of physical economy to the idea of sovereign credit—which is not the same thing as money—had been buried in propaganda about the U.S. special relationship to Britain and habits of consumerism that horribly corrupted the U.S. political leadership.

Through the influence of the military-industrial complex, and the effects of Kennedy assassinations of the 1960s, not just the memory, but the impulse to think in terms of the principles of physical economy had virtually disappeared. LaRouche did not simply revive past knowledge; he developed the cutting edge of a new fundamental discovery in economic forecasting, which is the preparation for economic development and design. Which cut at the very core of the imperial design which uses fetishes about money and popular opinion to lower the level of mental functioning of thinking within populations. The power of LaRouche’s criticism of monetarism rose from this groundbreaking work on economic forecasting.

As he often highlighted, Lyn’s fundamental breakthrough in developing a method of economic forecasting occurred in the period of 1948-52. His relentless work to that end included intensive study of areas of knowledge ignored by so-called economists. That is, LaRouche connected his work on physical economy and how it is planned in such a way as to succeed in practice, he connected this work to studies of Classical art—that is, music, poetry, and painting, which all address the functional level of the human mind. And as Helga always emphasizes, of human emotions. As well as investigating a form of mathematics developed by the 19th Century scientist Bernhard Riemann, which had served as a companion to Riemann’s work in physics. If there are two people who Lyndon frequently spoke of as critical to his fundamental discovery in economics, most mentioned were the composer Ludwig von Beethoven, who we will discuss in detail in the future, and the other was the physicist Bernhard Riemann.

Riemann’s breakthroughs in economics had emerged as one of the stunning effects of a rebirth of a cultural renaissance that centered around the German-speaking area of Europe during the same time as the American Revolution. Riemann’s outlook on mathematics as the companion to scientific advances in man’s knowledge of the physical universe, was a break with the imperial outlook of the imperial system’s chief ideologues—characters such as Sir Isaac Newton or John Locke and David Hume. For LaRouche, work on physical economy and the ability of mankind to consciously create expanding economies that can support and improve the living standards of growing populations, Riemann’s approach to complex physical processes was invaluable. In fact, an economy is a complex physical process, bringing together a vast array of different components that if they interact, are also continuously changing. How, in fact, can this process be measured to see if it is going in the right direction? This is an old question in astrophysics and even in engineering, which is a serious question. How do you measure something which is moving and changing as you are working with it?

The financial centers have always insisted that this problem, as it relates to what is called economy, should be left to the magic of the marketplace. The imperial monetarists have always argued that to know through science and technology how to increase the output or the productivity of the economy is merely a question of wishful thinking. And the greatest problem economies face is that there are too many people. This is a very old idea that there are too many people. The root of this very sick idea is also very old. It goes back to ancient times, but still grips the corridors of universities and media with all kinds of exotic and mystical explanations tossed in. Most recently, the carbon hoax in order to sell this cultural insanity.

In forming his political movement, LaRouche countered that it was time to discard this genocidal ideology, and to get serious about mastering the principles of scientific and technological progress which pave the way for physical growth of the economy and increases in prosperity for all. Riemann was an invaluable companion in the fight LaRouche launched, and we will look in a moment to an example of how their work came together.

LaRouche became famous in the period from 1968 to 1971 because he was the only economist in the United States who forecast that real estate speculation, the lack of investment in capital goods, the neglect of so-called Third World economies, and interference from the Bank of England were leading to a collapse of the U.S. dollar. When Nixon devalued the dollar in May of 1971, and then ended the fixed exchange rate system known as Bretton Woods on August 15th of that year, overnight LaRouche became the center of tremendous controversy and our organization exploded in recruitment. An earlier 1956-7 forecast of a serious U.S. recession triggered by the postwar consumer credit bubble, including in automobile purchases, had been proven accurate, had gotten LaRouche into political trouble, but was less well known. The two forecasts—1956 and 1968-71—convinced LaRouche that his method of economic analysis worked, and was a vital approach that had to be disseminated for the survival of mankind.

Around 1975, LaRouche’s work became renowned internationally as he launched an international campaign to replace the monetarist and genocidal policies of the International Monetary Fund with the founding of an International Development Bank. Dozens of underdeveloped nations around the world backed LaRouche in this endeavor.

In the 1980s, while working with the Reagan administration in the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, a spin-off of his work on physical economy, LaRouche commissioned associates to produce a sequence of reports demonstrating the effectiveness of what he named the LaRouche-Riemann economic forecasting method. LaRouche’s ability to recognize the potential for war avoidance in the development of defensive high-energy laser devices was a spin-off of his recognition of the importance of Riemann’s work. During this time in 1982, LaRouche produced a two-part article entitled, “What Is an Economic Shockwave?” It was published in the Executive Intelligence Review and examined the implications for economic policymaking of Bernhard Riemann’s discoveries relative to what were called “hydro-dynamic shockwaves.” Physical shockwaves are complex processes which can be seen in something as ordinary as a crest at the top of an ocean wave; but which Riemann recognized were relevant to many more physical processes. Riemann hypothesized that such examinations of shockwaves would lead potentially to discoveries in the atomic domain, which was still completely invisible in his lifetime. Riemann’s ideas on this matter arose before the work on the atom by such people as Albert Einstein and Max Planck. And his hypotheses were proven later to be right. For example, in an 1859 paper, Riemann anticipated that mankind would come to recognize the importance of sonic booms as an example of such simple shockwaves, such as that we see in the ocean. He outlined that concept before air flight, before man could fly in airplanes, which much later proved that he had been right when the airplanes were developed. Because the phenomenon he suggested, he had been able to discern and think about because it was already audible in thunder, but had never been explained.

In 1982, LaRouche wrote:

“In explaining sonic booms to children, for example, we point out that as an object moves through the atmosphere near the speed of sound, the air becomes very much like water in one respect; it become a relatively incompressible medium, relative to the movement of the body. We say, that as a result, the air behaves, in some significant respects as a hydrodynamic medium, generating the shock-wave we identify as the sonic boom cause by a supersonic aircraft’s flight or a supersonic bullet’s trajectory.

“So far, the whole matter might seem quite straightforward. Therefore, why should there have been any controversy among physicists concerning the conclusions projected by Riemann’s 1859 paper, in which the generation of such ‘sonic booms’ was first analyzed and predicted?

“During the 1890s, Lord Rayleigh, Bertrand Russell, and others insisted that Riemann’s physics was absurd. Rayleigh, in particular, insisted that ‘sonic booms’ could not exist. The reason for that hullabaloo is, that if Riemann’s physics is correct, if sonic booms are generated in such a fashion, then there exists a fundamental absurdity in the kinds of mathematical physics associated with figures such as Descartes, Newton, etc…. In other words, the kind of physics Riemann brought to bear upon his 1859 ‘shock-wave’ paper implies a different kind of universe than the Newton-Cauchy-Maxwell school insists to exist. The organization of the universe if not Newtonian, but is, rather hydrodynamic.