[DG]
Re the debate about conspiracy theories, whistleblowers and sharp,
suspicious probing are essential to the people's immune system against
conspiratorial attacks on their interests. The most effective
immunosuppressant is the gibe "here we go again -- another conspiracy
theory nut".
If fortunes worth zillions of dollars can be protected and extended by
their
owners conspiring together, and using the influence that gigabucks can
buy,
it takes a very vivid imagination indeed to believe that they wouldn't
do
so. Of course part of any such operation is to use some of this power
and
influence to sow the notion that "conspiracy theories" are nut-case
stuff,
and take advantage of the innate goodwill and trusting nature of honest
people, to con us into being diffident about suggesting they're up to
anything.
[AL]
If one has a fortune worth zillions of dollars why on earth would one
need a conspiracy to extend and protect it? Why not just rely on the
same SOCIAL RELATIONS that enabled one to accumulate it in the first
place? If people have enough innate goodwill and a sufficiently trusting
nature to be willing to work for wages as employees to enrich people
with zillions of dollars (and little choice but to do so since they do
not own the necessary means of production to avoid working for them),
what need is there to "con" them? Every day in every newspaper they
publish page after page of financial reports on their accumulated
wealth. It takes a vivid imagination to believe that they are not up to
precisely what they admit to being up to - running the world because
they OWN it - not because of any "conspiracy".
[DG]
Conspiracies are like the mechanisms of chemical reaction. You can know
that sure as hell something is causing what you observe. You can know
with
absolute certainty that there is a driving force, and measure it
(ultimately
entropy increase related to system plus surroundings, for the
affictionados). You know there is a mechanism. But you'll never know
precisely in all detail what the mechanism is -- as precise mechanism is
always no more than a theory, not an observation. The more precisely
you
try to define a mechanism the more easily your proposal is falsified.
That
is the "conspiracy theory" trap, and if you are deaf to falsifications
you
are no longer a purveyor of truth.
[AL]
Something is causing what anybody can easily observe - the obvious fact
that most of us "only work here" and somebody else runs the place. Most
workers know that. They have at least a rudimentary understanding that
the reason they cannot run the places where they work is because
somebody else owns them. They do not have much understanding that there
is anything they could do about that. Instead of clarifying that obvious
mechanism and pointing the way towards overcoming it, conspiracy
theories help CONCEAL it by suggesting that there is some "other"
(difficult to comprehend) mechanism at work. The precise details of that
"other" driving force can never be made explicit without exposing the
theory to falsification, but people should absorb themselves in
speculation about "mysterious" mechanisms, instead of focussing on the
vivid reality right before their eyes that they do not own the place but
"only work here".
The driving force of capitalism is wage labor and ownership of capital.
The mechanism has been clearly understood for more than a century. It is
tempting to believe (though easily falsifiable) that conspiracy
theorists are deliberately encouraged by the owners of capital to
obscure that obvious explanation for the nature of the world we live in.
[DG]
However, you can show with certainty what _can't_ be the mechanism --
using
a falsification precedure first proposed as central to scientific method
by
Karl Popper -- and you can make a series of educated guesses about
mechanism
(or about reality in any set of circumstances) which enjoy increasing
predictive validity. If none of that were so we wouldn't even still be
in
the trees: the other animals would have had us for dinner.
[AL]
I predict that if one class owns the means of production and another
class works for it in exchange for wages, the first class will rule
society and the second will be oppressed until such time as the second
class overthrows the rule of the first and takes away it's ownership of
the means of production. The second part of that prediction has yet to
be verified but the first is blindingly obvious. Can you falsify it? If
not, why do you need other "mechanisms" to explain what is going on in
the world?
[DG]
The Port Arthur conspircay theory lacks credibility, not because it is a
conspiracy theory but because it posits a **particular** conspiracy for
which there is no evidence and which does not bear examination in the
light
of known facts about the event.
It is extremely difficult to rebut convincingly the theory that the
remarkable
universality of the globalisation-privatisation-deregualtion paradigm,
and
the existence of so many career paths for pursuing it and so few for
bucking
it, is driven by the interests of those that it pays the most -- and
that
there are numerous conscious actions to ensure that the universality
stays
that way.
[AL]
It is extremely difficult to rebut convincingly the theory that in any
society that has a ruling class the ideas of that class will be the
ruling ideas. That is not a "conspiracy theory" it is just plain obvious
- whoever is running things has to have some framework of ideas within
which they do so, and those ideas must be widely accepted or they would
not be able to run things.
In particular it is obvious that a ruling class will be uncomfortable
about widespread gun ownership in a period of developing economic crisis
and will seize on any opportunity, such as a massacre to promote tighter
gun laws. Absurd theories about a conspiracy having organized the
massacre simply distract attention from that obvious point. Likewise
theories that globalization etc is the result of conscious actions to
implant ideas in peoples minds rather resulting from the natural
development and promotion of economic interests distracts attention from
the nature of those interests.
[DG]
It is also extremely difficult to falsify the idea that such
actions (like MAI negotiations 1995-1997) would be kept behind closed
doors. And that,
ladees and jemmen, is (tatatata) a conspiracy theory! Much more
credible
than any theory of random accumulation of ignorant dogma among the
world's economists, journos, officials and careerist pollies.
[AL]
It is very easy to falsify the idea that promotion of globalization etc
arises from conspiracies behind closed doors. It quite obviously arises
from underlying economic forces that are making national boundaries to
capital flow an increasingly irrelevant nuisance.
The extremely public promotion of MAI and opposition to MAI is obviously
not just happening behind closed doors.
The world's economists, journos, officials and careerist pollies are
indeed full of ignorant dogma - as are most of their even more ignorant
opponents. But at least those who ignorantly and dogmatically support
the "latest" dogmas of "economic rationalism" have some minimal
comprehension that they live in a society ruled by capitalist market
forces (which they accept and support). Their opponents seem to lack
even that level of comprehension. They seem to honestly and sincerely
believe that the globalized world market is just some kind of imaginary
"theory" that can be wished away by convincing people not to believe
that is how the world has developed. Instead of concrete proposals
either for developing world capitalism or overthrowing it (or both) they
pretend it simply doesn't exist and that economic policy can be
formulated by people who quite literally know nothing whatever about how
capitalist economies actually work.
"You may be more knowledgeable than I" they whine to "the world's
economists, journos, officials and careerist pollies", but "I at least
am kinder".
Accusing them of "ignorant dogma" may sound like the opposite of
acknowledging that they know more about it than you do, but when coupled
with no analysis whatever, it is simply confirmation that one has been
reduced to abuse rather than argument. Those who want the economy to
treat people more "kindly" simply claim that those who know it can't be
done by THIS (capitalist) economy are guilty of "ignorant dogma" because
the "kinder" people KNOW that they have absolutely no idea how it could
be done, but wish it were otherwise and blame the ideas of their
opponents for the realities of the world they can only complain about
but not change.
[DG]
Australia's two-party (or three-party) sham fits perfectly in the
general
notion in the second paragraph of this email.
Dion Giles
Fremantle
[AL]
If you are saying that the two party system serves the interests of
people with zillions of bucks and is promoted by them, fine. That also
happens to be true of the PR systems used in Europe.
The idea that Parliaments work in the interests of the ruling class is
hardly new. Far from being conspiratorial about it, this idea is
explained very clearly by supporters of that class such as Walter
Bagehot in his book on "The English Constitution" accepted as a classic
textbook by people framing the Australian Constitution and in
Constitutional debates ever since.
If you are saying that the particular two-party sham(bles) in Australia
is consciously defended by people who benefit from it, fine.
But if you are saying that we can best undermine their interests by
trying to convince people that there is a conspiracy involved, instead
of simply pointing out that our interests are diametrically opposed to
theirs, you have not offered any argument in support of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information and archives goto http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
