In the interview published as part of the Terra America series on Lyndon LaRouche, prominent Russian historian Andrei Fursov took on the likes of fascist Obama aide Cass Sunstein for their use of "conspiracy theory" against Lyndon LaRouche. The section of the Fursov interview dealing with this question (the full interview has now been reprinted in Zavtra) is worth noting.
Asked by interviewer Benediktov about why no U.S. intellectuals would be interviewed on LaRouche, Fursov gave several reasons. First, he characterized the "intellectual community" in the USA as a "tightly controlled" community, worse than the Soviet era. Second, he said that LaRouche raises "very acute and timely issues" which "contradict modern Western theories of history and political science" and the "generally accepted ideology and agenda." Third, he noted that LaRouche has developed a system, with a "solid factual basis for his ideas," which makes it difficult to challenge.
Fursov notes that he himself considers "the large part" of LaRouche's conclusions to be true. To be specific:
"What does LaRouche tell us? Simple things: that the real power is secret power, and that many secrets of our time go back to the turn of the 15th-16th centuries; that there are certain supranational organizations, which guide the historical process or, at minimum direct it. LaRouche absolutely correctly identifies the role of Venice and the East India Company in the development of the modern world and its ruling groups."
As to the claim that LaRouche is a "fascist," Fursov says of course he's not. That's simply a way to avoid discussion. "Accusing LaRouche of fascism for the sole reason that he criticizes the 'democratic,' but actually liberal-totalitarian, system of the West is absolutely groundless and politically motivated, rather than having anything to do with scientific analysis."
As to the charge that LaRouche is a conspiracy theorist, Fursov explains that the charge is meant to "denote primitive, or deliberately primitivized, schemes for explaining historical events in terms of the secret and usually malicious actions of certain forces... The idea is that these should not be taken seriously." Of course, "it is the case that a well-organized group, controlling a lot of finances, political powers, and means of influencing what people know, may have more clout than masses of people or an entire country. Just read John Perkins' 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.'"
In response to the specific question about LaRouche's attacks on Britain as an "evil genius of the world," Fursov says two explanations are usually given. One is that LaRouche's analysis is realistic and historical, the other that it is super-conspiratorial. "According to the former, to which I adhere, LaRouche, while somewhat demonizing England/Great Britain, is stating historical reality. According to the latter, what LaRouche does compromises and renders marginal any attempts at serious research on the actual role of the British ruling classes and their secret organization, and the British Crown, in the world today, because such work can be labelled 'LaRouchism.' I see this as a wrong and politically motivated viewpoint. The writings of LaRouche himself, especially if you remove the emotional element, give a quite adequate reflection of reality, drawing attention to sides and mechanism of it, which conventional, not to mention 'bought and paid for' science don't touch."