[Marxism] Marxist characterzation of U.S. Confederacy as " conspiracy"

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis Proyect

>Today the bourgeois media would call Marx and Engels "conspiracy
theorists".
>
>CB

Nobody denies that there are conspiracies. To conspire means to make secret
plans. Capitalist rule is characterized by secret planning. The real issue
is whether the CIA or some other rogue elements plotted to kill JFK, fly
planes into the Pentagon/WTC, etc.

^^^
CB: A mon avis, with respect to the killing of JFK, the real issue is 1) a
split in the U.S. imperialist ruling class at that time. It should be
discussed by Marxists in looking at history in that way. 2)The split was
over relations with the SU at that time, which is also an important issue
for Marxists looking at history, especially the history of the class
struggle foremostly expressed in the Cold War at that time. Splits in the
ruling class are always of interest to Marxists, Leninists. Can't get much
more of a split than one section killing a leader of another section of the
bourgeoisie.

 NB: it was important because Kennedy _was_ an imperialist, not because he
was a good guy. The incident demonstrates the U.S. "democratic" bourgeoisie
in fullblown gangster mode, something we want everybody to see, since they
plausibly deny it most of the time.

As to the Pentagon/WTC, the thing is still being examined. The JFK stuff
germinated in people's minds for years. For our movement, it is important to
let that examination by Marxists go on, and not to discourage it by
denigrating it with the bourgeois media term "conspiracy theory". Every
Marxist doesn't have to do it. We have specialization, division of labor.
But some Marxists should not be discouraging other Marxists from doing it,
criticizing those who take the time and energy to do such annoying work.
It's icky work , but somebody has got to do it. I'm not into it myself, but
I would never discourage those who do it , again "Marxistly". I thank them ,
in fact ; and find myself having to defend them from the currently
fashionable "conspiracy theory" censorship.
^^^^^^

 Furthermore, conspiracy theorists who operate in such areas are typically
content to raise all sorts of questions
rather than provide answers.

^^^^
CB; I wouldn't say paint all socalled conspiracy theorists with the same
brush. Be skeptical about them too, but don't discourage same in general,
and especially don't disturb those with a Marxist orientation, especially !

This is not an area where we should expect quick answers, for the obvious
reason that by definition the "conspirators" are secret. These are political
"whodunnits". We should expect a predominance of questions not answers in
these early stages of investigation. But even some questions and references
to inconsistency in the official story are sufficient to develop skepticism
in some people.

^^^^^^^

 It really doesn't advance our movement to question whether the WTC could
have been brought down by jet plane fuel or
not.

^^^^^
CB: I'd say it is important to our movement to encourage a general
skepticism about the official establishment stories about all main, dramatic
current events, including 9/11. The specific issue of whether the WTC could
have been brought down by jet plane fuel or not is not the only angle that
the official 9/11 story should be questioned.

Any complicity by the U.S. Spook System whatsoever , even "letting it happen
, but not being involved in the planning", et al., should be considered,
because such, if demonstrated adequately, would expose the currently
specific arch-mendacity of the bourgeois state power ( which is continually
present in same). This has to be proved over and over again as the
succeeding U.S. generations "forget" the big Uncle Sam dastardly deeds of
the past. Patriotic-induced amnesia is politically congenital in the U.S.
population.

It is important to demonstrate that the U.S. state is capable of same even
if they don't do it everytime somebody suspects it.

^^^^^^

 Our time and energy is better spent on trying to provide a historical
materialist analysis of radical Islam, US geopolitical goals in Central
Asia, etc. These research areas are addressed by statistics such as
investment patterns, policy statements by the State Department, etc. In
other words, information that is readily available but that is sorely in
need of interpretation.

^^^^
CB: This is why I provided an article by Marx and Engels discussing
conspiracy: to demonstrate that the inventors of historical materialism
evidently considered mention of some conspiracies as within the purview of
historical materialist analysis, not just statistical studies of investment
patterns, etc. Historical materialist analysis includes both of these types
of discussion, and we should not confine ourselves to only the one type of
analysis. To leave the field of current events drama to the bourgeoisie is
Marxist negligence. Marx and Engels did not follow that practice ( See
article posted)

Policy statements by the State Department have to be taken with a skeptical
grain of salt , of course, as with official stories in the bourgeois media
of dramatic current events like 9/11. These official stories must not be
left to monopolize the field of mass attention and discussion, in my
opinion.


--



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism