LaRouche believed he was (philosophically) a "Leibnizian/Platonist"
This page (see below) comes from DIALECTICAL ECONOMICS, An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy; written by Lyn Marcus/LaRouche (D.C. HEATH AND COMPANY, Lexington, Massachusetts - Toronto - London, 1975)
In his first biography, he said:
"The most crucial phase of his own development (LaRouche, note) had been realized between his twelfth and sixteenth year. During that period, he set out to resolve which of all the known philosophers he had been perusing should be his choice. Ordering these in calendar sequence, he proceeded, rejecting Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, Rousseau, in favor of, first Descartes, and then preferring Leibniz to Descartes. Continuing from Leibniz (The Monadology and the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence chiefly) he continued to Immanuel Kant, and spent about two years with The Critique of Pure Reason." (2)
This contradicts again what he published in his DIALECTICAL ECONOMICS.
In fact, LaRouche even attacked... the neo-Platonists!:
"The neo-Platonists locate the primary, continuous principle of reality as self-movement-self-moving continuous substance; however, they are unable to represent this substance in any form but linear extension." (DIALECTICAL ECONOMICS, Ibid., p 455)
LaRouche, as a "Leibnizian" (or Platonist), is yet another MYTH.
Since LaRouche has a special talent to re-write History (including his), we can provide - as a laroucheplanet exclusivity - a Letter of G.W. Leibniz... mentioning Lyndon LaRouche! Have fun ;-)
1. MY EARLY ENCOUNTER WITH LEIBNIZ: On Monadology by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.; EIR, January 22, 2008.