[Marxism] Conspiracies

["Eli Stephens" <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As a general rule, focussing on "conspiracy theories" does detract from
keeping attention focussed on capitalism and imperialism. Of that there is
no doubt. The current vogue of conspiracy theories about 9-11 are a classic
case in point. What are the salient points to be made about the 9-11
attacks? That the hatred which inspired them comes directly from America's
imperialist foreign policy, and that even the very people who were
responsible were a direct creation of that policy ("blowback"). Instead of
talking about that, what do you hear people talking about? The temperature
of burning jet fuel and the melting temperature of steel, and how the twin
towers weren't brought down by the planes that hit them. Poppycock.

But this does not mean that conspiracies don't exist, and that any mention
of them is "false and reactionary", as suggested by the Militant! Capitalism
and imperialism obey certain laws, but that doesn't mean that the future is
preordained, even without the participation of the working class. Different
sections of the ruling class have different interests, over and above their
common interests. And even people (sections of the ruling class OR sections
of the working class) with totally common interests still may embrace
different strategies or tactics for achieving their aims (viz. Republicans
vs. Democrats as a generality). And different sections of one class or
another may indeed engage in classic "conspiracies" to see that their
particular strategy is adopted.

A conspiracy theory is not "reactionary"; it is either true or false (or
more likely some shade in between). Telling the truth is never a mistake.
What is a mistake is to focus on certain aspects of the truth (like
conspiracy theories, even true ones) to the exclusion of pointing the finger
at the ultimate source of the problem - capitalism and imperialism.

Incidentally, it is also a mistake to commit the sin of guilt by
association, to imply (as has been implied here) that Nader is wrong to give
an interview to Pat Buchanan (criticism of what he SAID in that interview is
of course valid), or to imply that what Karen Kwiatkowski has to say is
wrong because she chooses to give an interview to a Lyndon LaRouche
publication (even if she was a FOLLOWER of LaRouche, which I don't believe
she is, that wouldn't make what she had to say wrong - incidentally, judging
by her treatment on Antiwar.com, my guess is that she's more of a
liberatarian).

And, finally, what if it were true that "some U.S. officials who are Jewish
are engaged in a conspiracy on behalf of Israel"? Would saying so make one
anti-Semitic? No, it would make one a teller of the truth. Is it beyond
conceivability that this could be true?  Some say it can't be true because
Israel is really just a U.S. surrogate in the Middle East. But surely, while
it is that, it is MORE than that as well, with its own interests as well,
and surely there could be SOME members of the U.S. ruling class who want to
see Israel's needs met even at the expense of U.S. needs; not everyone is
completely loyal to their own class in their own country! Or, perhaps they
think that pushing a more pro-Israel (is that possible?) agenda forward is
simply a BETTER way to assure the long-term needs of the U.S. ruling class.
Whatever their thinking, surely it IS possible that "some U.S. officials who
are Jewish [and, by the way, some who are NOT] are engaged in a conspiracy
on behalf of Israel"? Calling proponents of such a theory "classic
anti-Semites" is simply a way to engage in name calling and avoid discussing
the truth of the allegations.

_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism