CONSPIRACY AND
CONSPIRACY THEORY IN THE AGE OF TRUMP. Conspiracies do exist, though not of the
sort that Alex Jones of Infowars and his ilk talk about. There was a
conspiracy, for instance, to assassinate JFK. Capitalist rule on a day by day
basis, however, counts on more subtle mechanisms. The issue of conspiracies and
conspiracy theory has important implications and has been raised in the debate
over Marxist theories on the state, such as in the Miliband-Poulantzas debate.
The following is a book review essay of mine published by Science and Society. It's on the
book “Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theory in the Age of Trump” by Daniel
Hellinger” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).
Conspiracism in the Age
of Neoliberalism
by Steve Ellner
Published in Science
and Society Vol. 84, No. 4, October 2020, 536–545
Outlandish conspiracy
theories fabricated by the far right have generated distrust in the federal
government per se as well as racism, anti-Semitism and ethnic phobias. At the
same time, however, far-right news outlets such as Fox News and Breitbart News
use the term as a pejorative to dismiss and mock the denunciations formulated
by liberals and leftists regarding the role of big money in politics. The
conspiracy theory tag has even been attached (by the New York Times,
among others) to books which question the veracity of the Warren Commission
report on the Kennedy assassination, despite the fact that a majority in the
U.S. agree with their thesis. Within the left, the conspiracy theory label has also
been employed, as occurred in the debate over Marxist theories of the state
initiated by Ralph Miliband and Nicos Poulantzas in the 1970s. The degree to
which conspiracy theory is relevant to that debate partly depends on the way
the term is defined, as will be discussed in this essay.
In the book under review,
Daniel Hellinger points out that conspiracy theories have spiked over the last
two decades, not only among right-wing zealots on the margins but rational analysts
such as Paul Krugman, who nevertheless deny that their arguments can be
characterized as such. Indeed, Hellinger demonstrates that conspiracy theory is
more than just right-wing babble. The wider scope that he brings to the
discussion of conspiracy theory and conspiratorial actions is facilitated by a
broader definition of the phenomenon than what is usually formulated. Whereas
most analysts define conspiracy as involving the nefarious, secretive and
illegal actions of a relatively small group, Hellinger denies that it excludes
legal activity.
In
a more general sense, the heightened use of conspiracy theory compels those on
the left to examine definitions and make distinctions between “rational skepticism”
(such as the questioning of the Warren Report - Runciman, 2016) and irrational
thinking consisting of implausible conspiracy theories. Indeed, as one article
in Jacobin points out, those who dismiss the “rational skeptics” as
conspiracy theorists often “seem as prone to conspiratorial thinking as any adolescent dabbling in memes” (Mills,
2018). In addition to vindicating serious “conspiracy theory,” Hellinger sheds
light on Marxist analysis of how capitalism works in the age of globalization,
as discussed in the latter half of this article.
Debunking the Myth of Conspiracy Theory as
Tantamount to Paranoia
Richard Hofstadter, in
his landmark The Paranoid Style in American Politics published in 1964, traced
populist movements throughout U.S. history which he claimed were characterized
by irrational behavior and were often underpinned by conspiracy theories. Since
then, as Hellinger shows, it is Hofstadter’s assumptions regarding the deviant
behavior of conspiracy theorists and their followers that have “most informed
students” (45) of the subject. Hellinger reviews numerous subsequent writings that
claim conspiracy theory “is for losers” (19) and induces “conspiracy panic” (38-73)
and points out that the topic has been meticulously explored “in the subfield
of political psychology” (13), which dwells on its pathological nature. Even for
much of the left, conspiracy theory is “regarded as a form of ‘false
consciousness’ that holds the oppressed class back from seeing the root of
their exploitation in capitalism” (3).
Hellinger notes, however,
that conspiracy theory is not always irrational. He then asks “If conspiracies
exist, why do so many studies devoted to ‘conspiracy theory’ seek to deny their
importance as political activities, or sometimes even their existence?” (47). In
effect, Hellinger disputes the demonization of conspiracy theory just as
Ernesto Laclau argued against the demonization of populism.[1] The pejorative use of both
concepts opened the doors for pro-establishment writers to dismiss the
seriousness of the arguments of progressive movements, leaders and writers –
from Juan Domingo Perón and Hugo Chávez, in the case of populism, to writers
exposing the influence of lobbies, in the case of conspiracy theory.
One of Hellinger’s main
observations is that both conspiracy theorizing and “conspiracy”-type activity
have soared over the last two decades, along with the
pervasiveness of secret operations in the political sphere. He points
out that conspiracy theory has been promoted not only by far-right lunatics
like Alex Jones, but by members of the elite. Actually, Hofstadter also showed that
ruling elites were the instigators of conspiracy theories from the Salem Witch
Trials to the McCarthy-era witch hunts, as well as the claims about Bilderberg
Group world domination formulated by far-right Republicans who supported the presidential
nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Nevertheless, there has been a
quantitative leap in conspiracy theorizing over the recent past “across the
political spectrum (not just on the right)” (p. 56). Never before has a U.S.
president actively promoted conspiracy theories as does Trump, while Democratic
Party leaders have indulged in the same, as in the case of Russiagate (Kovalik,
2017).
As part of his broad
focus on conspiracy theory and conspiratorial activity, Hellinger discusses in
the chapter “Dark Money and Trumpism,” the “complicated networks” (p. 186) that
facilitate the anonymous campaign contributions of powerful economic interests.
For Hellinger, the “deliberate secretive nature” (p. 195) of this money flow is
a key component of conspiratorial activity. He adds that the efforts to
maintain the secrecy is sometimes overlooked (see also Mayer, 2016, 281,
305-311).[2] The Koch brothers, for
instance, “have gone to great lengths to hide this [type of] operation, to
misrepresent it as philanthropy” (215). Another reason why surreptitious
activity along these lines is conspiratorial is that it is part “a long-term
strategy to impact educational and cultural institutions” (186) as well as the nation’s
Supreme Court.
Whether legal activity
can be considered conspiratorial lies at the center of Hellinger’s attempt to redefine
the phenomenon.[3]
Hellinger makes reference to well-documented evidence of conspiracies of an
illegal nature that right wingers and centrists brushed off as “conspiracy
theory.” One of his examples is the role of the Nicaraguan Contras and the CIA
in introducing crack cocaine in Los Angeles (Webb, 1998) that the establishment
media dismissed, at least initially, as conspiracy theory. Unlike this case, it
is not always clear whether dark money in politics, which Hellinger also labels
conspiratorial, is legal, semi-legal or illegal. For Hellinger, the Koch
brothers’ injection of hundreds of millions of dollars into politics is conspiratorial
but “thanks to Citizens United, their political activity is not illegal, [even
though]… it is deceptive and unethical” (195) and has a “sinister, corrupting impact on democracy” (186).
Conspiracy Theory: Instrumentalism
and Structural Marxism
Hellinger relates the
increased prominence of conspiracy theory to “the global rise of neoliberal
capitalism” (24) and “serious problems with liberal democracy” (26). He argues that conspiracy theories are nurtured by the
tensions generated by globalization, specifically by “demands that the United
States act in the interest of the global capitalism, not in defense… of the
national economic interests” (148). Hellinger fails, however, to
elaborate on the relationship between neoliberalism and increased acceptance of
conspiracy theories. Examination of the relationship between the neoliberal
model of capitalism (the structure) and conspiracy theory (“superstructure”)
provides an insight into the issue. As David
Harvey (2005, 70-86) points out, neoliberalism in recent decades has taken on
the form of a political project based, not so much on laissez faire economics,
as on the tightening of links between powerful business groups and policy
makers, particularly in the area of economic decision making. The
increasingly cozy relationship between government and business groups,
sometimes referred to as “crony capitalism,” impacts people’s thinking.[4] Crony capitalism breeds distrust
toward the state, and with it an unbending belief in conspiracy-type theories among
people across the political spectrum, though it is most visible on the far
right.
Hellinger’s arguments that
conspiracy theory has become increasingly relevant in recent decades and that
the use of the term as a pejorative is intentionally deceptive raise important
issues related to the instrumentalist theory of the state. Instrumental Marxism and its main proponent Ralph Miliband
argued that under capitalism the state’s actions and its very nature were the
product of the direct input of the bourgeoisie. Nicos Poulantzas defended a
contrasting theory in which the capitalist structure and not the actions of
individual capitalists is the determinant factor.[5]
In its emphasis on the tangible
links between capitalists and the state, instrumentalism was criticized for
being based on personalism (by Poulantzas, among others) and for promoting conspiracy
theory (Baltzell,
1969, 412). Detractors of instrumentalism including Marxists accused Miliband’s
seminal The State in Capitalist Society (1969) of containing an
important element of conspiracy theory (Boyle, 1985, 723n119; Tietze, 2012). Non-Marxist
instrumentalists C. Wright Mills, G. and William Domhoff adamantly denied that instrumentalism
had anything in common with conspiracy theory (Sigler, 1966, 39; Gillam, 1975,
496; Domhoff, 1990, 69, 187; Mills, 2018).[6] Domhoff critiqued
conspiracy theory on grounds that it exaggerated the qualities it assigned to
the conspiratorial elite: its homogeneity, competence, utmost secrecy, the success
of its operations, and small numbers (Domhoff, 2005; see also Mills, 2018).
The issue of
heterogeneity versus homogeneity is at the heart of the discussion over the connection
between instrumentalist theory of the state and conspiracy theory. But rather
than focus on the “conspiratorial elite” as Domhoff does, it is necessary to
look at the ruling class as a whole. Under normal circumstances the bourgeoisie
is beset with internal tensions (thus its heterogeneity), as virtually all
Marxists recognize. Fractions of the ruling class secretly “conspire” on a
regular basis to advance their interests. Instrumentalists, however, unlike
right-wing conspiracy theorists, do not believe that these class fractions as
such aspire to achieve world domination as part of a grand scheme.
On the other hand,
Miliband’s The State in Capitalist Society demonstrated the cohesiveness
and commonality of the capitalist class. In doing so it debunked the notion
defended by pluralists like Robert Dahl (1961) that elite factions are in an
ongoing state of sharp rivalry and competition with little to unify them,
characteristics which are alleged to be the essence of U.S. democracy (Miliband
1969, 44-48). Ruling class cohesiveness is compatible with another form of
conspiratorial activity, referred to by one media expert as “high conspiracy,”
in which the ruling class and its intellectual servants know what to do in any
given situation with no need to receive anything other than occasional tacit
instructions (to be discussed below).
As a skeptic of
conspiracy theory, Domhoff also minimized the secret nature of groups, such as
the Council on Foreign Relations, that have been considered conspiratorial as
well as the existence of a “shadow government” (what today is pejoratively called
the “deep state”) that carries out illegal actions (Domhoff, 2005). Miliband,
for his part, was far less skeptical about conspiracy theory and questioned the
empirical basis of arguments that dismiss it (Miliband, 1982, 79-83). In
essence, Miliband’s position is in line with one of Hellinger’s central, though
implicit, points: For those attempting to counter pro-system writers who cry
out conspiracy theory in order to discredit writings that expose the
machinations of members of the ruling class, it is more effective to reject the
pejorative connotations of the term than to deny its applicability altogether.
Indeed, one may ask, what’s wrong with using the word conspire?[7]
Another issue raised by
Hellinger that is relevant to the instrumentalist theory of the state is the
relationship between conspiracy theory and neoliberalism. Hellinger’s
discussion of big money in politics in the form of the Koch brothers’ campaign
contributions would appear to be the way the capitalist system has always
worked in democratic settings. The new element, however, associated with the
age of neoliberalism is that with Citizens United and similar rulings and the
emergence of Super PACS, politics has become flooded with dark money, which is anonymous
and semi-anonymous but not necessarily illegal. Furthermore, Citizens United
along with other developments, such as the weakening of the political influence
of the labor movement, take the United States to the border of crony capitalism
with its intricate nexus between capitalists and the political elite. These
characteristics of U.S. capitalism in the neoliberal age enhance the appeal of
conspiracy theory at the same time that they strengthen the cogency of the
instrumentalist theory of the state with its emphasis on the direct political
input of the capitalist class.
Final Reflections on Conspiracy Theory from a Marxist
Perspective
Preposterous conspiracy
theories formulated by Alex Jones and other right-wingers involve small numbers
of individuals who carry out horrendous actions. The scapegoating of small
groups (Jewish bankers, for instance) by conspiracy theorists who put forward a
world view serve as substitutes for class analysis and for that reason (and
others) is adamantly rejected by Marxists. Conspiracy theories of a more
feasible type also envision decisions coming from elite groups but do not view
these actions as part of a larger scheme to achieve world domination.
Explicit
commands are largely absent from the dynamic involving the normal reproduction
of ideas. Throughout the book, Hellinger refers to Michel Foucault’s concept of
the “regime of truth,” which distinguishes between acceptable and unacceptable
ideas, or “the boundary of acceptable discourse” (32). In what some media
experts have called “high conspiracy,” “news agendas are tightly framed by more
hidden forces” (Eldridge, 1995, 9) on highly strategic topics, but in most
cases there is leeway. Rather than receiving orders of what to do and say from
their superiors, journalists, teachers and politicians are instructed what to
eschew, sometimes explicitly but usually by inference. Take, for instance,
progressive schoolteachers. If they want to keep their job, they have to know the
limits of what they can teach. Hints regarding those limits may be conveyed by
the school principal – as opposed to the laying out of a particular line that
must be articulated. The boundaries between what is acceptable and unacceptable
or taboo are constantly changing, often as a result of
pressure from popular movements. In addition, there are degrees of
unacceptableness.[8]
An example is the principled rejection of racism and misogyny which until the
1960s was largely outside the regime of truth in the United States and
elsewhere. The boundaries have changed as Hollywood and TV networks now produce
thousands of movies and shows about the injustices against women and African
Americans in the present and throughout history. In contrast, little is said
about the victims of McCarthyism and other forms of anti-communism. In a
liberal democracy (unlike in a totalitarian state), “liberty” means, in effect,
that the realm of truth is extensive, and that writers and artists have much to
explore and choose from.
Marxism, and specifically
Gramscian Marxism, provides insights into the political decision-making
process, which serve as an alternative to conspiracy theory. The bourgeoisie as
a whole is more cohesive and assertive than what is envisioned by conspiracy
theory adherents who believe in the dominant role played by small elite groups,
such as the Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group. The bourgeoisie’s worldview is
molded and reinforced by participation in exclusive social and political spaces
and interactions ranging from forums to social clubs, as examined in much
literature going back to C. Wright Mill’s The Power Elite. This common
set of class beliefs obviates the need for explicit instructions to come from
above, even while at times signals originate from diverse elite-dominated
sources that tacitly indicate a given political line and slogans to follow. The
distinction between this position and that of conspiracy theory is illustrated
by the controversy around the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) on the formulation of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. While
conspiracy theory would allege that AIPAC dictates U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East, a Marxist view would point out that AIPAC’s positions largely
coincide with those of more powerful interests, such as the oil and arms
industries, along with the ruling class in general.[9]
The discussion of
conspiracy theory also helps frame issues regarding the political behavior of
the middle class (or the petty bourgeoisie, as opposed to the working class). A
simplistic conspiracy theory take coming from the left would argue that the
thinking of the middle class as a whole is the product of the viewpoints put
forward by the commercial media which has become highly centralized. In
essence, a few people at the top are molding the thinking of the entire
population, and the middle class in particular, whose thinking largely
coincides with that of the bourgeoisie. A Gramscian outlook would provide
different explanations and lead to different conclusions. Objective material
interests help explain the positions assumed by the middle class, while its fears,
anxieties and aspirations are also the result of its relations to the means of
production and its location in society. The convictions and prejudices of the
middle class would appear to be too ingrained and ardently defended to be
passed off as the product of sheer manipulation by the media. The process in
which a revolutionary movement achieves hegemony is much more complicated and
drawn out than just gaining control of the media and other institutional opinion
makers.
Some conspiratorial
situations involve small groups acting in secretive and nefarious ways on
behalf of the ruling class. Even in these cases, however, the “conspiratorial
group” often does not plan an action but rather “lets it happen.” Hellinger
claims that it is “highly unlikely” that “the Bush administration allowed or
made 9/11 happen” (60). There are, however, degrees of “letting it happen”
which Hellinger fails to explore. Top members of the Bush administration evidently
had some knowledge that something was being planned but simply failed to
prioritize counter-terrorist measures (Clarke, 2004, 243-244, 256) partly due
to their belief that a terrorist attack of some nature would be politically beneficial.
Other writers have put forward plausible “let it happen” accounts of the role
of the secret service in the JFK assassination (Prouty, 1992, 291-94) as well
as the role of the police in the assassination of Malcolm X (Marable, 2011; see
also Netflix’s “Who Killed Malcolm X”).[10]
In short, Hellinger’s
book frames issues which are of great relevance for leftist, and specifically
Marxist, analysis in the age of neoliberalism. The right profits from propagating
fantasy-like conspiratorial tales which reinforce its worldview, while champions
of the status quo use the term conspiracy theory to denigrate those who document
the machinations of the ruling elite. For these reasons it is necessary to put
forward a well-formulated analysis of both conspiracy theory and conspiratorial
activity, and not dismiss the topic as the exclusive preserve of the right.
REFERENCES
Amin,
Samir. 2019. “The New Imperialist Structure.” Monthly Review 71 (3):
32-45.
Baltzell,
E. Digby. 1969. Review of The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power
of Money Today by Ferdinand Lundberg. American Sociological Review, 34: 3 (June),
411-412.
Berg, Kati
Tusinski. 2012. “The Ethics of Lobbying: Testing an Ethical Framework for
Advocacy in Public Relations.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 12: 2
(April-June), 97–114.
Boyle, James. 1985. “The
Politics of Reason: Critical Legal Theory and Local Social Thought.” University
of Pennsylvania Law Review 133 no. 4 (April): 686-780.
Chomsky, Noam. 2006. “The
Israel Lobby?” ZNET (March 28). https://chomsky.info/20060328/
Clarke, Richard A. 2004. Against
All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror. New York: Free Press.
Dahl, Robert 1961. Who
Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Domhoff, William G. 1990.
The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is Made in America. New York:
Aldine de Gruyter.
________.2005. “There are
no Conspiracies” (March). http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/10/126.html
Eldridge,
John. 1995. “Introduction: That Was the World that was.” Pp. 1-26 in Eldridge
(ed.), Glasgow Media Group Reader, Volume 1: News Content, Language and Visuals.
London: Routledge.
Ellner,
Steve. 2017. “Implications of Marxist State Theory and How They Play Out in
Venezuela.” Historical Materialism 25:2, 29-62.
Gillam,
Richard. 1975. “C. Wright Mills and the Politics of Truth: The Power Elite
Revisited.” American
Quarterly 27: 4 (October), 461-479.
Harvey,
David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kovalik,
Dan. 2017. The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have
Conspired to Vilify Russia. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
Laclau, Ernesto. 2005. On
Populist Reason. New York: Verso.
Lundberg, Ferdinand. 1968
The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today. New
York: Lyle Stuart.
Marable, Manning. 2011. Malcolm
X: A Life of Reinvention. New York: Viking Press.
Mayer, Jane. 2016. Dark
Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical
Right. New York: Anchor Books.
Miliband, Ralph. 1969. The
State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books.
_________.1982. Capitalist
Democracy in Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mills, Tom. 2018. “Can
the Ruling Class Speak?” Jacobin. (October 14). https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/ruling-class-elites-conspiracies-antisemitism-marxism
Prouty, L. Fletcher [the
inspiration for “Mr. X” in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK]. 1992. JFK: The CIA,
Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. New York: Carol
Publishing Group.
Runciman, David. 2016
“Are Conspiracy Theories Bad for Democracy?” (February 10). Public lecture
sponsored by London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.lse.ac.uk/lse-player?id=3373
Sigler, Jay A. 1966. “The Political Philosophy of C.
Wright Mills.” Science & Society 30: 1 (Winter), 32-49.
Tietze, Tad. 2012. “Bourne, Assange and the Politics of
Conspiracy” (September 10). Overland: Progressive Culture since 1954. https://overland.org.au/2012/09/bourne-assange-the-politics-of-conspiracy/
Webb, Gary. 1998. Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the
Crack Cocaine Explosion.
FOOTNOTES
[1]
Laclau’s
central thesis is that the salient features of populist strategies are both the
polarization and head-on confrontations that their rhetoric sets in motion
(referred to as the “politics of antagonism”) and the efforts to unite people
with distinct interests, values and demands (the “politics of equivalence”).
According to Laclau, the politics of equivalence is what politics is all about
(Laclau, 2005).
[2]
One
example of a writer who plays down the secret dimension embodied in conspiracy
theory is sociologist William Domhoff , to be discussed below. In addition,
pro-system writers who defend the activity of “interest groups” in the form of
lobbying, ignore the secrete nature of much of their activity (Berg, 2012,
111-13).
[3]
Hellinger discusses various features of conspiracies and adds
that they are “illegal…or unethical” (23).
[4]
Samir
Amin (2019: 34) points out that application of the term “crony capitalism”
should not be reserved to South East Asia and Latin America as it also
characterizes the economy of the U.S. and Europe. He adds “in its current
behavior this ruling class is quite close to that of the mafia.”
[5]
Elsewhere, I have argued that the two Marxist schools of thinking
on the state are not incompatible and that the term “in the last instance” to
refer to the exclusively fundamental role played by one of the two dynamics (instrumentalist
or structural) is misleading (Ellner, 2017, 57-58; for a different version of
the article see https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13386).
[6]
Another
non-Marxist instrumentalist, Ferdinand Lundberg, also rejected the idea of
“unabashed exponents of the conspiracy theory [that] all history is a
conspiracy,” but recognized the occurrence of “single conspiracies” (Lundberg,
1968, 273).
[7]
In
writing these words and reflecting on the loaded nature of the term, I recall a
political incident in which I was personally involved in New Haven. At the time
of the Chicago trial of the so-called “Conspiracy 7,” demonstrations were held
throughout the United States in early 1970 that were called “conspiracy”
protests. By employing the term and claiming to be involved in a “conspiracy,”
anti-war activists were mocking the establishment’s use of the word for the
purpose of maligning leading members of the movement.
[8]
Thus,
for example, the reaction of the corporate media to Bernie Sanders’ presidential
campaigns demonstrates that for the ruling class, advocacy of “democratic
socialism” is more acceptable than anti-imperialism, which no Democratic Party
leader dares voice support for.
[9]
See Noam Chomsky’s critique of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who argued in The
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that AIPAC defends its own particular
interests and positions and that its influence in Washington far exceeds that
of other lobbies (Chomsky, 2006).
[10]
The
public debate in the U.S. over whether President Trump’s coded and overtly racist
remarks have contributed to hate crimes carried out by white supremacists sheds
light on the issue. There are degrees to which those responsible for this type
of atrocity are removed from its execution as well as degrees of intentionality.
Those who dismiss any discussion along these lines as “conspiracy theory”
ignore the phenomenon’s complexity.
FOOTNOTES
[1]
Laclau’s
central thesis is that the salient features of populist strategies are both the
polarization and head-on confrontations that their rhetoric sets in motion
(referred to as the “politics of antagonism”) and the efforts to unite people
with distinct interests, values and demands (the “politics of equivalence”).
According to Laclau, the politics of equivalence is what politics is all about
(Laclau, 2005).
[1]
One
example of a writer who plays down the secret dimension embodied in conspiracy
theory is sociologist William Domhoff , to be discussed below. In addition,
pro-system writers who defend the activity of “interest groups” in the form of
lobbying, ignore the secrete nature of much of their activity (Berg, 2012,
111-13).
[1]
Hellinger discusses various features of conspiracies and adds
that they are “illegal…or unethical” (23).
[1]
Samir
Amin (2019: 34) points out that application of the term “crony capitalism”
should not be reserved to South East Asia and Latin America as it also
characterizes the economy of the U.S. and Europe. He adds “in its current
behavior this ruling class is quite close to that of the mafia.”
[1]
Elsewhere, I have argued that the two Marxist schools of thinking
on the state are not incompatible and that the term “in the last instance” to
refer to the exclusively fundamental role played by one of the two dynamics (instrumentalist
or structural) is misleading (Ellner, 2017, 57-58; for a different version of
the article see https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13386).
[1]
Another
non-Marxist instrumentalist, Ferdinand Lundberg, also rejected the idea of
“unabashed exponents of the conspiracy theory [that] all history is a
conspiracy,” but recognized the occurrence of “single conspiracies” (Lundberg,
1968, 273).
[1]
In
writing these words and reflecting on the loaded nature of the term, I recall a
political incident in which I was personally involved in New Haven. At the time
of the Chicago trial of the so-called “Conspiracy 7,” demonstrations were held
throughout the United States in early 1970 that were called “conspiracy”
protests. By employing the term and claiming to be involved in a “conspiracy,”
anti-war activists were mocking the establishment’s use of the word for the
purpose of maligning leading members of the movement.
[1]
Thus,
for example, the reaction of the corporate media to Bernie Sanders’ presidential
campaigns demonstrates that for the ruling class, advocacy of “democratic
socialism” is more acceptable than anti-imperialism, which no Democratic Party
leader dares voice support for.
[1]
See Noam Chomsky’s critique of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt who argued in The
Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that AIPAC defends its own particular
interests and positions and that its influence in Washington far exceeds that
of other lobbies (Chomsky, 2006).
[1]
The
public debate in the U.S. over whether President Trump’s coded and overtly racist
remarks have contributed to hate crimes carried out by white supremacists sheds
light on the issue. There are degrees to which those responsible for this type
of atrocity are removed from its execution as well as degrees of intentionality.
Those who dismiss any discussion along these lines as “conspiracy theory”
ignore the phenomenon’s complexity.
Author
Identification: Steve Ellner is an Associate Managing
Editor of Latin American Perspectives. His latest book is his edited Latin
America’s Pink Tide: Breakthroughs and Shortcomings (Rowman &
Littlefield, 2020).
