>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/14/06 11:56 AM >>> I think we should be clearer about what kind of conspiracies we are Talking about. They all involve cabals within the government that carry out some monstrous attack that are made to appear as if they were perpetrated by sworn enemies of the country. The assassination of JFK, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the Battleship Maine all fall into this category. In addition, you get conspiracy theories about "secret teams" that are operating without the knowledge and or approval of elected officials. That's where the Christic Institute and Oliver North come into play. Generally speaking, all this involves a non-Marxist understanding of how history takes place. Instead of class forces in conflict, you have a variant on the "great man" theory of history. If any major Marxist thinker of the past 150 years ever got involved in this kind of thing, I am not aware of that. I am rather fond of Michael Parenti's writings, but don't consider him a major Marxist theoretician. His obsession with the JFK assassination always took him down a notch in my estimation.
^^^^ CB: It is possible to do Marxist analysis and discuss conspiracy theories. There's no necessary contradiction between discussing class struggle as motive force of history and exposing specific ruling class nfariousness as a way of trying to get people to question the system. The obvious Warren Commission coverup played a role in causing many youth eventually to question the whole system. For some , like me, it was part of the road to becoming a Marxist. Many people do not have an idea how vicious their government can be. They trust the establishment. It is obvious that learning that forces in the government assassinated the President or in some way participated in terrorism has potential for causing people to question the whole system. OBVIOUS ! Ignoring this weakens the anti-conspiracy "theorists" arguments very much, especially when none of you address this point. The obsession problem is with those who keep squawking "conspiracy theory" when somebody questions whether the official conspiracy theory version of 9-11 is the truth. Also, questioning the official conspiracy theory of 9-11 in no way implies that one has a theory that conspiracies or big men make history. That's a non-sequitur Most people who discuss it aren't putting it forth as a theory of history anyway; thus the term conspiracy "theory" is inaccurate to the extent "theory" is meant to imply they are putting forth a theory of history . I have a Marxist theory of history, but completely in consonance with that I am open to the left investigations , such as Paul Zarembka's, of holes in the official story, because , for one thing, we want to know what actually happened, but also, as I say, it may be a first step in opening some people's eyes to the systemic problems. In other words, exposing ruling class conspiracies can play a role in practice. It is ridiculous to go around saying "don't talk about a 9-11 plot because it will cause people to misunderstand how history works." Just because some who investigate for conspiracies are not Marxists in their overall approach doesn't mean they can't be sources of political education for the working class.
