This dialogue appears in the July 27, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

During the discussion period following Lyndon LaRouche's June 28, 2001 lecture to the Lebedev Institute of Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (FIAN), many of the scientists in the 150-person audience had questions for Mr. LaRouche. In an effort to communicate with as many people as possible, in the time available, he made his answers particularly short and pithy.

Professor Shelepin: Here we have a coherent body of knowledge, which Lyndon LaRouche has developed. Now, questions—but, please be very concise.

Q: Tell me please, what place or role you assign, within physical economy, to the improvement of social and economic forms of development?

LaRouche: Essentially, what I've said, in terms of education. An economist must not be trained as they're trained now. That's important. An economist must do what all of us have done, who are serious about studying science. You must not merely study the textbook to learn the formula, or look up the table in the tables at the back of the book, or the indexes. You must re-experience the great discoveries of principle of mankind as if you were discovering them afresh yourself.

Imagine all these crazy spy-people who think that you can steal secrets. You can't steal secrets; you have to earn them. That is, important secrets. If you start to steal, you'll probably get rubbish that somebody left in the ashcan in the back of their house. You may know cases like this, but I know of cases like this, where people, spy agencies, went to great lengths to steal secret documents, but they didn't know what they meant! When you put things down on paper, discoveries on paper, you don't have to tell yourself how you connected them. These are merely notes. It's like somebody trying to steal the ideas of Beethoven by reading a piano score.

If people understand physical economy, it is not to be taught as people think about teaching economics. The basis for physical economy is studying world history in the way I've described it. If you become educated in the way I've described, with a cognitive education, reliving the ideas, or discoveries, of people before, and you're sharing discoveries with people with whom you're working, or trying to share a discovery—for example: If you're a scientist, you're running a laboratory, you make a discovery. You have a design-engineering team work and help develop the apparatus. You prove the apparatus. Now what do you do? You go and try to explain, make this clear to people who have to use the apparatus to understand what it is. What you do, is you make a team of your people. The scientists and the people they work with become a cooperative team. They work together and they think together. That's the way physical economy has to be practiced.

Q: What is it that could lead to the reduction of the Earth's population to 1 billion, and what is your forecast of the chances of this happening?

LaRouche: Well, as I said, in ten years of this continuing process, we would get into a process which would, within a generation or two, lead to that kind of collapse of population levels. The percentile of people who actually produce, and the effectiveness of their production, is less, on a planetary basis, than it's been in the past 30 years.

Q: Do you believe that there can be one single model of an optimized economy, for all the countries in the world? Or, is it rather the case that, depending on the geographical variation among nations, each country has its own optimal economic model?

LaRouche: I think that problem doesn't exist. A different problem exists. What you need, is you need the sovereign nation-state, which I've explained in a great number of writings—why you can not do without the sovereign nation-state. What you get, because of the geographic conditions, you get a division of labor among nations. For example, today, say between Russia and China: China has some high technology. It doesn't have enough. Through the mediation of Western Europe and Russia, China can get the additional technology it needs for its development. That is a case of different geographic areas, different problems. The two groups of nations can cooperate to mutual advantage.

Q: First of all, I would like to welcome Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche to Russia, and secondly, to wish this Democratic Party candidate for the Year 2004 Presidential election, success. I hope that the United States will refute the Russian proverb which says, "If you have strength, you don't need any brains."

I would like to ask a question, taking advantage of Mr. LaRouche's tremendous erudition. The tendency for a reduction of the anthropogenic load [on the planet], in connection with population reduction, is chiefly taking place because the United States of America wills it to take place, in order to ensure its own ecological security. Wouldn't it be better to try find alternative ways to solve the energy problems, which have broken out in California and elsewhere in the United States, for example? How can this be solved? [Translator restates the question: In other words, isn't the U.S. trying to solve its economic problems by wiping out other populations?]

LaRouche: No, it isn't. The United States is not. You've got an Anglo-American group which is trying to reduce the world's population, in order to have the kind of world they want. It's deliberate. If you stop them, we can reverse the whole problem.

Q: Everybody knows there are two parts of humanity—the producing part, and those who consume. And we are aware, that the consuming part exerts control, over the producing part. Do you have indications that inside the creative, producing part, there is some organized force that could mobilize the efforts of that part?

LaRouche: Yes. Absolutely. We're organizing it, because it exists potentially. The problem is a lack of leadership to bring—. You see, many people would play that role. But, if they don't have the quality of leadership, they won't do it. A fuller answer to that would take at least two hours.

Q: In this book [So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?], which you inscribed to me on April 27, 1994, there was not one word about the teachings of Vernadsky. From this, I have concluded that a certain progress has been achieved. In this connection, I have a question. In Vernadsky's teachings on the biosphere, and also at the basis of physical economy, there is the concept that the three elements of the biosphere—the abiotic, the biotic, and the social—are closely interconnected, and differ in how they function, in their energetic function, first and foremost. What do you think is the fundamental characteristic of the energy function in the social element, at the present time?

LaRouche: No, the point is that the attempt to come up with "energy," is something which Vernadsky himself was very suspicious of. What he pointed to, is that apparently weak forces actually can dominate what seem to be strong forces. And so, therefore, you're dealing with a question of organization in the universe, not energy as such. Energy is a result; it is an effect, it is not a cause.

Q (follow-up): May I make this more precise? The characteristic of the social element is to be found in labor activity, the energetic effect of which, is that energy is accumulated with an efficiency of greater than 100%.

LaRouche: No, it doesn't work that way. It has the effect of that, but it is not a form of energy. It has the effect of energy. But, try to measure the mass of a thought.

Q: The main burden on the Earth's resources is created by the Golden Billion, not the rest of the population. Maybe the thing to do would be to reduce the population size of this Golden Billion. [Laughter, applause.]

LaRouche: Put them to useful work! [Even more applause.]

Q: What is your attitude toward the expansion of the "anti-globalist" movement in the world, if you could please characterize it? And, are you working with some anti-globalist organizations?

LaRouche: No. The "anti-globalist" movement, worldwide, is headed by Teddy Goldsmith, who's a very evil fellow. He's using it, to disrupt the very cause he pretends to defend, as in the case of Brazil. He organized a conference, which was an attempt to globalize Brazil, in the name of anti-globalization.

I think that Vladimir Putin is a great anti-globalizer, because he's actually taking concrete steps to bring cooperation among sovereign nation-states.

Q: Many of those present became acquainted with you from your book, which was published in Russian translation in 1992-93. In this book, the economist Friedrich List, whom you assess positively, has a great role. Has your attitude to this economist changed, during the past ten years?

LaRouche: Yes, List is extremely important. He's not the most important figure, but he played a very significant historic role in Europe, especially in Germany, and also in Russia, in the history of Russia.

Q: The ideas on education, which you discussed here today, that is, teaching the technological history of mankind, rather than just the history of wars and coups—the teaching of that which is fundamental, cognitive, and scientific. Have they been organized? That is, are there any works on this, which would deserve to be translated into Russian?

LaRouche: Not much, currently. You have a long history of this in the United States. It started in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in the Seventeenth Century, and it continued, but it was always limited. The best exposition of this method, is the writings of Friedrich Schiller and of Wilhelm von Humboldt, on the question of Classical humanist method. What I said, is no different; it's expanded over what they did, but it's the same thing. ...

Q: In your other written material, you include Marx as a monetarist. Why?

LaRouche: Because Marx adopted, with some changes, the British school of Bentham, which is Adam Smith, etc., as the founders of modern scientific political economy—which is not true. Modern scientific political economy was founded by Leibniz, long before Adam Smith was born, between the years of 1671 and 1716. The founding of physical economy by Leibniz, was the first theory of modern economy. And Marx made a number of mistakes, which have been passed on to the socialist movement, as a result of this misunderstanding of the history of political economy. To understand Marx, you have to look at him as working within the intellectual tradition he adopted, and working against the British economy, but within that system.

Q: My question concerns what critical ideas in physical economy, are connected with Riemann's habilitation dissertation of 1854. I read your book carefully, and I read Riemann's paper, but I don't understand what idea from that paper, applies in physical economy.

LaRouche: The idea is that there are no principles in geometry, except those which are derived from experiment. No a priori principles, no sense of the absoluteness of space, time, and matter. It's called a pure synthetic geometry, by Riemann himself.

Q: Thank you for discussing physical economy in the Institute of Physics. I have two questions, about Reason.... Is it possible that in the future, Science and Reason will become a single, universal ideology, a single, universal methodology? My second question, is about the possibility of establishing a world association of scientists for the enlightenment of mankind, in order to create on the planet the reign of Reason.

LaRouche: [Answering the first question.] Yes, in a sense. The key question, which has to be faced, is what is the conception of man? If you take the work of Vernadsky, what leaps out from the pages on his conception of the noösphere, is: What is the conception of man? Man, the actor who produces this effect. Individual man. And therefore, the question of man, and of man's relation to man, is a fundamental question of Reason. I would say that all these questions on Reason are answered by saying: What is the nature of man? What is the relationship of man to man? Physics, and everything else, comes from that.

[To the second question.] The only thing you can do in that direction, is you must have a scientific quality of education of people, and then they will automatically deal with one another on that basis. Kill superstition!

Q: You mentioned Mendeleyev. Are you aware that Mendeleyev was no less a partisan of protectionism, than List, and that he was one of the most active organizers and practical economists in Russia?

LaRouche: Yes, that's true.

Q: Does physical economy recognize markets, and money, as an instrument of economy?

LaRouche: It's a bad child that has to be controlled.

Q: Do you think it is possible to create a physical model of society, without the religious element?

LaRouche: Not exactly. You have to define your terms, when you ask me that question. The term has to be defined precisely. For me, the question of whether man is made in the image of God, as a matter of human knowledge, comes from one's definition of man.

Now, I believe man is made in the image of God. But, how do we know what God is? It's the same noetic principle, which is referred to by Vernadsky. This great power of the universe, which we share. So, religion for me is recognizing that one is a child of God—and behaving accordingly.

Q: I've heard you speak before, about corridors of development. What corridors do you see, now, from the West to the East?

LaRouche: We have what we've laid out in this book on the Land-Bridge. It's all in there. The details are there, so I hope that someone would get you a copy of that Land-Bridge report, because it's all in there. I'd only add one thing: I think this is what President Putin is helping to pave the way to do.

Q: Were the principles of physical economy implemented, anywhere, at any time, in the governance of an economy? Can it be said that in the Stalin period, when the industrialization of our country was carried out, the principles of physical econony were used in directing those processes?

LaRouche: Yes, and no. If you look at the process of production, there are certain principles of the process of production. There were several times when the Soviet Union engaged in a science-driver program. I do not believe, however, in a certain kind of science in concentration camps.

Q (follow-up): This institute, FIAN, was founded in 1936.

LaRouche: Yes. But, the point is that if you're going to implement a science-driver program, you have to follow the principles of physical economy—whatever else that a society is doing. All good physical economy programs, are science-driver programs. It's otherwise called progress.

Shelepin: In conclusion, we shall have two or three short speeches.

Prof. D. Chernavsky: I would like, on behalf of the staff of the Institute of Physics of the Academy of Sciences, where you are a much-desired guest, again to thank you again for the honor, and for this seminar. Moreover, I would like to say that you are a very daring person. You decided to discuss questions of physics, in the Institute of Physics, before an audience of physicists.

Physics is not really the well-ordered, logical science it may seem to be from the outside. Those who work in physics, from the inside, know that there are many problems in physics. This becomes especially clear, when attempts are made to apply physics to biology, or vice versa; or, when there are attempts to solve, jointly, problems such as: How did life arise from non-living matter? How did cognition arise? People at FIAN are working precisely on this, and not entirely without success.

When we apply physics to economics, more problems arise. And indeed, the development of physics and synergetics with a non-linear approach is closely related to biology, sociology, and economics. And, we here are all working on this.

Therefore, your audacity is justified. You may consider that here, both here in the hall, and at the Institute, your followers are working on the creation of physical economy. And I am certain, that this will be very fruitful for science, and—which is the main thing—very important, stunningly important not only for Russia, but for the world. We thank you, once again.

Shelepin: I give the floor to Tatyana Ivanovna Koryagina, who represents the Schiller Institute, the LaRouche movement, in our country.

Tatyana Koryagina: [For technical reasons, Dr. Koryagina's remarks are given here as a transcript of the simultaneous translation, which abridged them. She spelled out her economic and political forecast in testimony before the State Duma the next day. See EIR, July 20.] I am very glad that Lyndon and his wife were able to attend this seminar—especially his wife, this outstanding woman. People knew about LaRouche in the Soviet Union, and now in Russia, but I would like to say just a few words about him.

Lyndon LaRouche has been a candidate for President several times, and will be again for the Democratic Party in 2004. Having met him in person, you can see more clearly why, after his previous campaigns, he landed in prison, thanks to the efforts of Henry Kissinger and certain other organizations. I think that the contrast of Lyndon LaRouche with Reagan, and now even more so, with certain other idiots, gives us a sense of the level of knowledge which LaRouche represents, also as a Presidential candidate. Imagine if he had been a candidate for the Russian Presidency, in comparison with Yeltsin! Now we have the younger Bush, who may even be more stupid than Yeltsin.

Tomorrow there will be parliamentary hearings on the world financial system. And here we should say that LaRouche has carried out a revolution in the ability of masses of Americans to understand what's going on in the economy.

Just now Professor Chernavsky said that physics is not a well-ordered science. My colleague, Yegor Gaidar, thinks that economics is a well-ordered science.

You have to understand, that the destruction of the world economy, of virtually all the economies in the world, is being accomplished not by a stupid policy, but by a very clever, liberal policy. This is a policy not of creating, but of destroying. The liberal theory confirms the notion of the Golden Billion; it is designed for a small elite layer. The question is whether the public, the population of the world, can resist and defeat this small layer of the international oligarchy, as well as the domestic oligarchy. Because, in fact, all the money that has been invested in stocks, and so forth, is going to be devalued and wiped out. Even a wealthy country like the United States is faced with the collapse of health care and education.

So, the task is to pull people together into a united effort, to combat this evil policy. Otherwise, you get a complete, worldwide deluge. ...

We are carrying out further forecasts on the process of defaults, and we anticipate big events in August-September-October. If we look at the wave, which spread from Asia in 1997, to Russia, and so forth, the next big explosion we expect in the United States. The banking system, the currency system.

Voices from the hall: Who says this?

Koryagina: There are various forecasts. I am presenting my vision of how things will develop.... These were the same prognoses that were correct, about what would happen with the devaluation of the ruble.

Lyndon LaRouche is now trying, and has already done a lot, to explain in the United States, and to the rest of the world, what is happening.... He has shown that the dollar is not actually a functioning currency, but a piece of paper backed up by nothing.

Not long ago, there was an interview with [George] Soros in a leading financial publication. He used the image, that when he talks about the inevitable crash, people say: What are you talking about, people are still buying things, aren't they? He said, "The orchestra has stopped playing, but they're still dancing."

The American population is completely uninformed about what's actually going on. LaRouche goes to the roots of the problem, which is very important. Therefore, on behalf of the Schiller Institute movement in Russia, I wish him good health, and all the best. And I wish him success in going into the Duma, at the hearings, and straightening out our parliamentarians and government.

Shelepin: Our agenda has come to an end. I would like to thank Lyndon LaRouche for his very interesting speech.