[Marxism] Cockburn on 9/11 conspiracy nuts/ you guys are the nuts , not us

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David P.


Okay, this is certainly a good point; however, I still doubt that it will
make a huge difference. Such a revelation would strengthen the Democrats,
but most likely they would carry on with imperialist
policies, only with a slightly different tone. I think a study of Bill
Clinton's foreign policy demonstrates that.

^^^^
CB: I'm not sure that demonstrations, letters to the editor, email
discussions, anti-war pamphlets and all the rest of the "Marxist" tactics we
use against the war are making a huge difference either. 

And I don't really agree (with others ; you didn't say this) that exposing
state plots is not a Marxist tactic. Marxists are open to all kinds of
tactics. We are not dogmatic in that regard. Just because Lenin and Marx
didn't do it (and I'm not sure they didn't expose state plots) , doesn't
mean it's not a "Marxist" tactic ( see Mark Lause's endless blather about
not treating Marx and Lenin like saintly models) .

^^^^^^^

Moreover, the Iraq situation is such a mess, it's hard to see how any
outcome in the immediate future is going to benefit the Iraqi working
people, and the world's working people, even if the US leaves. Not only will
the problem of civil war remain, but I'm also fairly certain the US military
bases in Iraq will remain as bases for projecting imperialist power in the
region, even if there is some "official" withdrawal from engagement in Iraq.

^^^^^^^
CB: Well,yea, but still opposing the U.S. wars is a major plank in the
current world working class program, even though it's a really rough row to
hoe.  Things were still a mess after the Bolsheviks pulled Russia out of
WWI, but it was one of the greatest moves in history. If we have a fullblown
revolution in the U.S. tomorrow, things will still be quite a mess.

^^^^^^^
.CB:> By the way, Cockburn's only discussing the most extreme ("nuttiest")
case of
> the U.S. planning the whole thing or no planes involved as opposed U.S.
> spies finding out about an "al Q" plot in advance, but not stopping it ( a
> completely non-nutty theory) is dirty pool here.

^^^^^

Good point. Nevertheless, I personally still think that it's a waste of time
searching for conspiracies, as opposed to explaining to people how
capitalism works; or explaining why, whether or not there is a conspiracy,
imperialist wars are bound to occur. If it wasn't this conflict, surely it
would be some other one.

^^^^
CB: We can do both. They aren't mutually exclusive. 

Also, I don't find too many people interested in long discussions about how
capitalism works; or , actually, many of them pretty much agree with me on
how capitalism works. Now that we've discussed that with them , what now ?
They don't immediately jump up and join the revolution. Usually, it makes
sense to talk about more concrete current events at some point. I find the
average person more likely to be into discussing current events ( if that)
than abstract aspects of capitalism. And, further, it generally seems to
make more sense to discuss the concrete, current events first, and then use
the current event to segue into a more general discussion. At any rate, I
can see no reason to _confine_ ourselves to only discussion of high
generalization and theory with everyday people. And then they have something
concrete to protest and work against. What do you _do_ against the general
and abstract features of imperialism you descibe except oppose its concrete
expressions, such as state plots and wars ?

Also, it's not really necessary to search for conspiracies. A lot of them
are obvious to anybody who thinks about the inconsistencies etc. that are
reported in even the big news. As I say, isn't it obvious from the monopoly
media reports that Bush, Powell, et al lied about the W'sMD in Iraq ? Yet,
opinion polls show an astonishing number of Americans still fall for that.
It doesn't hurt our cause at all to take the time to change some people's
minds about that fact. 

^^^^

^^^^^

Even if a particular conspiracy is the immediate cause, we need to
explain the systemic and essential causes of continued imperialist
conflict, and why neither bourgeois party is able to adopt a foreign policy
that will put an end to imperialist conflicts. We must show that imperialist
conflicts are not particular traits of an individual administration and its
conspiracies, but rather occur due to the objective dynamics of the global
capitalist system.

^^^^^^
CB: With the vast majority of people, first you will have to discuss some
concrete cases before they are open to the above generalizations and
abstractions. Before "explaining" that imperialist states need war generally
, you will have to "explain" to a lot of people that "Middle Eastern
Terrorists" didn't start all of this _in this particular case_; the U.S.
terrorist state did. That's not going to be an easy task. Only after people
are persuaded that the U.S. is the shitstarter in this particular case,
including that 9/11 was a _retaliation_ for U.S. aggression in the Middle
East, will they be open to a more general explanation as to why the U.S.
does military invasions regularly ( i.e. your explanation of the nature of
imperialist states above).

> ^^^^^^^
> What interests me is, what about our society makes conspiracy theories
> - especially those ones which are obviously false - objectively
> necessary in this day and age. What is it about the structure of the
> individual psyche, that causes them to gravitate to conspiracy
> theories in order to make sense of their lives and the world?
>
> ^^^^^
> CB: Well, gee, _wasn't_ there in fact a conspiracy among Bush, Powell et
al.
> to lie about Iraq having W'sMD ? Just as one example.

As far as discussing possible conspiracies, I think we need to
distinguish between ordinary political lies - ie. "there are weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq", and the more ridiculous types of
assertions about faking the moon landing, the Illuminati, and UFO
abductions.

^^^^^
CB; Let me say that any person who tries to connect faked moon landings, the
Illuminati and UFO abductions speculations to  9/11 plot speculation is a
serious slanderer and dirty arguer. I would be tempted to punch them in the
mouth if I was in their presence. That's one of the biggest lies or stupid
arguing tactics I have ever seen. Not one discussion of 9/11 plots that I
have seen has said anything about any of these. WHAT THE FUCK ARE Y0U
TALKING ABOUT ?! 

I'm going to have to start comparing "9/11 plot censors" to Holocaust
deniers or something. Comparing 9/11 plot theories to UFO theories is so out
to lunch, if I had a list , I'd put somebody on suspension for even saying
it.  9/11 plot hypotheses speculate about whether very earthly human state
actors acted in the typical manner of state actors in this particular case.

^^^^^ 

The fact that political leaders might lie about things, is not
surprising to anyone. But I was referring to the more spectacular
types of conspiracy theories, which from anecdotal experience seem to have a
surprising pull on a lot of seemingly rational people.

^^^^
CB: Spectacularity is not the characteristic that makes a state plot
implausible.  The assassination of Kennedy was very spectacular, but it was
as state actors' plot. I'd say the lie about W'sMD in Iraq was pretty
spectacular, since its getting tens of thousands killed and wounded. U.S.
connections to Saddam Hussein ( reports he was a U.S. property from the time
he assassinated his way into office; there are pictures of Rumsfeld smiling
and shaking hands with him when he was a U.S. ally) and bin Laden ( CIA
property as a terrorist fighter in Afghanistan) are very spectacular and
"complex" facts.

In fact, one of the most spectacular aspects of the whole situation is that
the Bush and bin Laden families are in business together. Hello ! If you put
that in a novel, it would be said to be obvious fiction. Yet it is an
uncontroverted _fact_,as far as I can tell. Has anyone denied that ? That's
arch-spectacular. Then what about the bin Laden family being flown out of
New York at the time of 9/11 ?! Michael Moore puts it in a film , and
everybody acts like it's not spectacular.

Couldn't the Bushes and Saudi Arabians have the motive of reaping big oil
profits from oil prices going up due to war ? A plain , old vulgar
materialist explanation ? Not the whole capitalist class , but U.S. and
Saudi "royalty" sitting on top of the world laughing their asses off at the
rest of us;  with the "black sheep" of the bin Laden family as double agent.
That's plausible given all the reports that have been made right in our
faces ! Not one of the facts above is from "conspiracy theorists" , but
rather was reported in the big media.

There are lot of indications that the Bush regime acts as the agent of a
relatively small sector of the bourgeoisie, especially oil; and he seems to
say "fuck you" to some pretty big sectors ,like auto.

It is not the Marxist position that every big act of the bourgeois state
represents some perfect balance of all the interests of the different
sectors of the big bourgeoisie. At times, the bourgeois state can be
dominated by one sector or group , and act against the interests of other
sectors. 

It seems likely to me that Nazism involved ,in part, some sectors of
imperialism violently expropriating some other big bourgeoisie. Henry Ford,
big burgher, was fairly explicit about all that. He wrote a book on it.
Evidently, Hitler quoted him on it. That's spectacular.

This 9/11 situation abounds with spectacular complexities that are ,if not
proven , supported by probable cause and substantial evidence, not
speculative.

Comments about "seemingly rational people" are lowdown _ad hominem_. As far
as I'm concerned the one's whose rationality is in question here are those
obsessed with censoring speculation about a U.S. plot angle to the 9/11
event, even though those obsessed people are "seemingly rational" ,
otherwise.  You guys are the "nuts" ,not us.

^^^^^^^

The popularity of extreme conspiracy theories demonstrate that many
individuals are unable to explain how the world works in rational
terms. 

^^^^

CB: The Marxist explanation of capitalism is not that it's rational. The
world of capitalism is _not_ rational.

^^^^^^

A big part of this, is that the workings of world capitalism,
in all its complexity, are very abstract, and very difficult for the
individual to grasp as a whole. (After all, Das Kapital is not exactly an
easy read, and today there are many new complexities to consider that did
not exist when Marx wrote that work ... )

^^^^
CB: Marx showed that capitalism is full of contradictions, not that it is
rational. Capitalist contradictions create a world in which exactly
spectacularly irrational things like twisted state plots are common place.
I'd say denying this is more the state of mind that cannot accept the
complexity of actual capitalism.  As Andrew Austin said, after the Nazi
capitalist state, no one should doubt the possibility of any twisted ,
complex plot or conspiracy in a capitalist state.

The frequency of spectacular conspiracy theory is imagination reflecting
actuality, because in fact there _are_  spectacular state-hatched plots. The
entire job of the C.I.A. , NSA et al is to hatch plots, some of them
"spectacular" , although , of course not spectacular in the sense that they
are not meant to be "seen".

Not questioning the official story is what reflects inhibition of sustained
critical engagement. 

^^^^^

The polularity of the spectacular conspiracies is also, no doubt, an
indictment of our educational systems and mass media forms that
typically inhibit sustained critical engagement.

~Cyborg K




________________________________________________
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