Why Conspiracy Theories?

[john eden]

Like on here we often try and persuade people into our ways of thinking. Nobody is here seriously campaigning to make being gay illegal though or to curtail women’s rights. Or wildly accusing our workplaces of being paedo bases.

 

[luka]

Not following there John. Can you say it again more slowly?

 

[john eden]

Well if the Jehovahs Witnesses come round for a chat that is mildly annoying but ok.

If they change the law to stop everyone having blood transfusions that is really not OK.

 

[luka]

Oh ok. But my point was when we are deciding whether to label someone a nutter the fervour of the belief and they're willingness to act as though it were true is the main thing. More than the actual content of the belief

 

[john eden]

Same is true of conspiracy theories. It’s all just mildly irritating until someone shows up with a gun at a pizza restaurant.

 

[john eden]

Oh ok. But my point was when we are deciding whether to label someone a nutter the fervour of the belief and they're willingness to act as though it were true is the main thing. More than the actual content of the belief

Well OK but probably the content is relevant in terms of the effect on society. Like an intense belief in the power of Jungle is less of a problem than an intense belief in paedogeddon.

 

[john eden]

Also as far as I can remember sociopaths don’t necessarily have any coherent beliefs at all and they are whacko.

 

[luka]

Well OK but probably the content is relevant in terms of the effect on society. Like an intense belief in the power of Jungle is less of a problem than an intense belief in paedogeddon.

That's a different argument about a different topic though. I think Bob Marley is better than the Beatles.

 

[luka]

Also as far as I can remember sociopaths don’t necessarily have any coherent beliefs at all and they are whacko.

What have sociopaths got to do with anything! John, you're on the beers! You can't hide it from the lads, we know you too well.

 

[john eden]

If only. I’m just saying that the content of the belief can be relevant.

 

[luka]

It is relevant of course it is. I'm just making a point about another thing.

 

[thirdform]

You lot are unreal . Modern capitalism is only possible because of the extreme competence and expertise of large organisations

yes, but, paradoxically, capitalism is at its most disorganised when it is organised. You need to be more dialectical... unity of opposites. Here's Paul Mattick putting it in concrete terms

In the light of today, nineteenth century capitalism appears to have been an ‘undeveloped’ capitalism, not fully emancipated from its feudalistic past. Capitalism, challenging not exploitation but only the monopolistic position of a particular form of exploitation, could truly unfold itself ‘within the shell’ of the old society. Its revolutionary actions were aimed at governmental control merely in order to break through feudalism’s restrictive borders and to secure capitalistic liberties. The capitalists were thoroughly occupied with and satisfied by their extension of world trade, their creation of the proletariat and industry and their accumulation of capital. ’Economic freedom’ was their chief concern and as long as the state supported their exploitative social position, the state’s composition and separateness were none of their concern. The relative independence of the state was not a main characteristic of capitalism, however, but merely an expression of capitalistic growth within incomplete capitalistic conditions. The further development of capitalism implied the capitalisation of the state.

The atomisation of society requires an all-encompassing state organisation. The socialists and Bolsheviks considered capitalist society inefficiently organised with regard to production and exchange and in other, extra-economic respects. The emphasis on organisation was emphasis on social control. Socialism was to be first of all the rational organisation of the whole of society. And an efficiently organised society excludes, of course, unforeseen activities capable of issuing into spontaneous occurrences. The spontaneous element in society was to disappear with the planning of production and the centralistically-determined distribution of goods. Not only the Bolsheviks, but the fascists, too, spoke of spontaneity only so long as their power was not absolute. When all existing social layers submitted to their authority, they became society’s most thorough organisers. And it was precisely this organising activity that they designated with the term socialism.
The contradiction between class structure and productive forces remains, however, and therewith the inescapability of crisis and war. Although the inactivated masses can no longer resist totalitarianism in traditional organised fashion, and although they have not evolved new weapons and forms of action adequate to the new tasks, the contradictions of the social class structure remain unresolved. While giving temporary security, the terroristic authoritarian system also reflects the increasing insecurity of totalitarian capitalism. The defence of the status quo violates the status quo by releasing new, uncontrolled, or uncontrollable activities. The most powerful controls over men are really weak when compared with the tremendous contradictions that rend the world today. Though all contradictions now oppose one organisation, capitalist society was never so badly organised as it is now when it is completely organised.

Spontaneity and Organisation by Paul Mattick 1949

www.marxists.org

 

[blissblogger]

There's nothing you can do.

 

[blissblogger]

thanks for the tips!

my mum mentioned that article in the Observer, but i gather it's not much cop then?

yeah I think that's probably right, no point in striking a stern, judgmental tone, tempting as it is - or getting into the weeds with facts and details

a more "hmm, but don't you think maybe" tone...

i have to write a reply email today, can't leave it much longer

that Hofstadter book's been on my must-read list for ages

 

[thirdform]

Same is true of conspiracy theories. It’s all just mildly irritating until someone shows up with a gun at a pizza restaurant.

I dunno about that. The idea that UK labourism will lead to a removal of disability cuts and social housing is more deluded than any q-anon shit, as heinous as that rubbish is.

Yet, it is still a respectful opinion to have, even though in essence it is sanctioned murder.

 

[luka]

There's an extent to which it don't even matter. Most of my cousins are like that and they get on with their lives. Ones a successful academic. Mad, but providing you can compartmentalise it it's usually not too disruptive.

 

[blissblogger]

There's an extent to which it don't even matter. Most of my cousins are like that and they get on with their lives. Ones a successful academic. Mad, but providing you can compartmentalise it it's usually not too disruptive.

well, in a way, it's probably highly enjoyable for her, plunging into this conspiracy netherworld. makes life more exciting. exercises the brain. the world seems stranger, more interesting.

unless she's really anxious all the time about dark malevolent forces.

what's odd is that she's a passionate Green who can literally weep about the state of the environment and too much car use - so why would she care if fracking-mad, open-up-the-Arctic-for-drillling, climate-crisis-denying Trump got cheated out of an election?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Environmentalism is a socially acceptable conspiracy theory half the time.

 

[shiels]

As I’ve said before I’m in a similar position to blissblogger with a couple of people fairly close to me

I sometimes take an emotional view on it and trace their radical change in outlook to loss of trust and connection and almost see their relation to conspiracy like substance abuse, addiction... the substance being toxic info in this case. They get high off it, it’s an anaesthetic, it in some way simplifies the world and their problems

 

[luka]

We all know at least one person who has caught the bug by now. It's a modern epidemic.