Louis, I agree with you. But I see no reason why we can't bring in other theoretical frameworks, such as from psychology.
On 10/6/06, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jim Devine wrote: >I don't think conspiracy theories are always wrong. The CIA couldn't >do its stuff without conspiring secretly. (Sorry for the redundant >phrase.) Some conspiracies actually happen, such as the >destabilization of Allende's government, the Iran-Contra affair, and >the secret war between the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia, on >the one hand, and people around Osama bin Laden, on the other. (The >last is "Bush's conspiracy theory" that Paul refers to.) Look, here's the problem. Marxism does not have the proper tools to uncover conspiracies. Marxism is consumed with the examination of economic data which are usually openly accessible. When Lenin wrote "Imperialism, latest stage of capitalism", he analyzed the assets of financial corporations of the sort that you can find on the Internet. He did not try to penetrate the inner secrets of the German military high command. 99 percent of the 9/11 conspiracy theory "research" is involved with speculations about the behavior of steel under heat, the outline of a jet plane flying into the Pentagon, etc. What this has to do with the body of work associated with Marxism is anybody's guess. -- www.marxmail.org
-- Jim Devine / "it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be." -- KM
