I wrote:
>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:
You mean to understand conspiracies? Or to understand the people who theorize about them?
I meant in general. Psychology was the wrong non-Marxist theory to choose, since it doesn't seem very useful for understanding conspiracy theories.[*] But some other non-Marxian theory might do the trick. In the past, I used a standard economic analysis of the need for any organization -- if it is to be successful -- to have a continual flow of more or less accurate information and for the system of motivation to serve the organization's goals. These issues are especially important for a secret enterprise. I don't see this theory as especially Marxist, but it doesn't conflict with Marxism either. [*] I chose psychology because there's little or no overlap between it and classical Marxism. (They might be synthesized, as Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, et al, tried to do.) -- 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
