Re: [Marxism] Why Does Fahrenheit 9/11 Pursue Conspiracy Theory?

["hans wallin" <hanswallin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jurriaan Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Marxmail List" <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 8:17 AM
Subject: [Marxism] Why Does Fahrenheit 9/11 Pursue Conspiracy Theory?


> Why did the chicken cross the road ? Yoshie wrote:
>
> "Fahrenheit 9/11, a fascinating populist work of art, at times falls for
> conspiracy theory, not because Moore doesn't know any better, but because
he
> has skeletons in the closet -- not his own skeletons, but the Democratic
> Party's."
>
> Quick observation in advance of seeing the film (it's not yet screening
> here) - I think Michael Moore is quite correct in claiming that there
really
> are conspiracies. Adam Smith already noted that conspiracies were inherent
> to capitalism, as monopolists colluded to rig the market in their favour.
> The problem with conspiracy "theories" however is to know where the
> conspiracies begin, and where they end. That is exactly why conspiracies
get
> to be "theorised" in the first place.
>
> Conspiracy "theories" as explanation of political motive reduce everything
> to personalities and actions of individuals. While this provides an easily
> understood message, it abstracts from the force-field of power and the
> conflicting social forces within which dastardly plots are contrived, and
> which confer common interests, regardless of the attitudes particular
> individuals may have. In turn, this easily results in a false explanation
of
> real motive, because part of that motive is ignored, while other motives
are
> falsely imputed. As Marx noted, people make their own history, but not
under
> conditions they have chosen. The puzzle that then remains is, how is it
> possible that "stupid white men" can perpetrate such conspiracies as
Michael
> Moore describes ?
>
> Normally I think you can say that in politics "the function gives rise to
> the organ". There is a task that needs to be performed which corresponds
to
> class or group interests, and human material is selected of which the
elite
> has confidence that it can perform the task, and which contingently best
> satisfies a set of criteria or prerequisites for the wielding of power.
>
> I recall how, as a student, a sociologist showed me about "interlocking
> boards of directors" of corporations and their ties to the polity. And it
> was true, there really were all these connections, and you could trace
them
> all out in a sort of squiggly spiderweb diagram.
>
> The point however was that if you systematically continued the exercise,
and
> traced out all the links between all the directors, all the politicians
and
> all the public servants, you just reached the conclusion that everybody
was
> connected to everybody else. In which case, by seeking to explain
> everything, through tracing out all the links between individuals and
their
> actions, you ended up explaining nothing.
>
> The utility of providing proof of a definite conspiracy is that it
> highlights lack of integrity and hypocrisy in politics, and shows public
> gullibility up for what it is. There may be no such thing as an honest
> politician, but there is such a thing as a principled politician. The
> conspiracy proves that he is not principled.
>
> According to classic Kantian-type morality, a moral rule is supposed to
> apply equally to all moral actors under the same conditions. But in a
> class-divided society such a universal human morality flounders on the
> shoals of sectional class interests and competition. Characteristic of
> ideology is then, that it seeks to portray these sectional interests as
> common human interests, but it is here that the war-mongers have recently
> failed very disastrously.
>
> The real problem of the military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq is
that
> they were not only conducted with the aid of political bribery and in
> blatant violation of international law, but also on blatantly false
> pretenses and with false justifications - marking another step in the
moral
> decline of the bourgeois classes and their crisis of political leadership.
> Christianist verbiage increasingly substitutes for principles which are
> rationally argued for. Nevertheless people still seek for an explanation,
> and that is what Michael Moore taps into.
>
> If "post-modernity" is the grand theory that there are no more grand
> theories, this means effectively a denial of any objective basis for
> ascertaining the relationship between individuals and society, an
objective
> causal relationship between the particular and the general. In addition,
the
> creative destruction wreaked by the Internet makes it seem as though much
> depends on which individual said/did what to whom.
>
> In which case, we can predict an increase of beliefs in conspiracy
theories.
> But that is just one step in a process whereby new realities force out old
> political mentalities which can no longer reconcile the irreconcilable.
>
> Jurriaan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
> The problem is always,that it may be possible to prove that there were a
conspiracy,but it can never be proved
that there was no conpiracy,because the conspirators may have eradiated all
traces
                                                                       Hans



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