Imagine a world of absolutes of black and white. A world where a
self-proclaimed group of people have discovered the truth, and have
discovered that this truth is hidden from us by a powerful and
frightening super-elite who are able to manipulate and control the
actions of tens of millions of people and to get the media, the courts,
the police and the "state" to do their bidding, seemingly without any
serious effort. Imagine that, supposedly, those who are in the "know"
but who turn against the powers that be, or those who innocently come
across knowledge that they should not have had, are killed off. Imagine
that this tiny overclass is responsible for what ails the world. They
rig elections, assassinate leaders, pull off "inside jobs" etc.
A world where, presumably, if the people only understood this truth,
could only grasp at this light in the midst of the dark night, they
could discover how things really work, and then, apparently, do
something about it.
Imagine this and you have entered into the realm of the conspiracy theory and conspiracy thinking.
From Sandy Hook to 9-11, from JFK to RFK, from the New World Order
to the Zionist Occupied Government. From Masons to Rosicrucians. The
narrative is always basically the same, the details matter less than
you might think.
The world is governed by hidden and tremendously powerful forces
that, to varying degrees depending on the theory, control everything or
almost everything. They are capable of making anyone do their bidding,
and notions of democracy, an independent judiciary and political
class, are simply illusions held by the "sheep" that are the bulk of
the population.
These ideas, these "theories" of society, are becoming increasingly
widespread with the advent of the Internet and with the consolidation
of neo-liberalism. They are permeating and effecting our political
discourse. They are also, in one form or another, held by many of those
who are on the "left" and they are a larger part of the "left"
narrative than they have been, outside of the paranoid delusions of
Communist regimes and their sycophants, since the modern left came into
existence.
The purpose of this piece is not to attempt, at all, to debunk this
or that specific conspiracy theory. That has been done elsewhere. It
has also, for reasons we will return to, had little effect.
All grand conspiracy theories are equally and obviously false once
subjected to any objective and reasoned analysis (1). What renders
this not obvious to those that hold them is the flawed narrative
through which they construct their vision of the world and the way it
works. Conspiracy theories are broadly and profoundly damaging to
society as a whole. They are even more damaging to the basic socialist
idea itself. They take systemic and real issues and transform them into
sensationalistic and ultimately liberal fantasies about "dark
forces". They provide the illusion that nothing could have been done to
stop the "conspiracy" and that, therefore, "we" are not responsible. In
doing so, oddly, they also let the liberal democratic system off the
hook for social ills, as they basically claim that this system does not
really exist.
Further, in an era where labour, both at home and internationally,
the peoples of the Third World, and the very fabric of life on Earth
itself due to accelerating climate change, are threatened by
deregulated global state capitalism, these notions and theories do not
at all confront the real problems that lie at the heart of our economic
system; problems which are not a conspiracy, they are the basis of our
economy.
When it comes to conspiracy thinking and the way it frames the
world, no way of thinking could actually be further from the "truth".
The fallacies of neo-conspiracy thinking
Conspiracy theories, or what I think could be termed neo-conspiracy
thinking, in that it takes an ages old interpretation of how the system
supposedly is structured and simply updates it to a modern context and
modern events, manifests itself in several ways, all of which are
interconnected. (2)
While notions influenced by conspiracy thinking sometimes infiltrate
more minor elements of political discourse (3), the better known, and
more obvious manifestations of it are centered around specific events
such as the 9-11 attacks, the JFK assassination, the Sandy Hook
shootings, and so on. Theories around these alleged conspiracies are
usually way points to the greater narrative that the theorist or
"movement" sees as the motives behind the event.
The grand conspiracy narrative is the destination point. These are
actually thinly disguised ideologies that claim that the "people" are
being oppressed and duped by a relatively tiny cabal that is the real,
hidden force behind the complex, disturbing and bewildering tapestry of
events and tragedies that is life and society in modernity. This
cabal, and it really does not matter who the cabal is, the theories are
all essentially identical anyway, "perverts" democracy, the nation,
the economy, the constitution, the "race" or whatever it is that the
theorist feels is being destroyed.
Related to these very focused notions of specific evil overlords are
ideologies that appear and claim to have a broader analytic framework,
but whose analysis is so mechanistic and simplistic that they are de
facto conspiracy theories. All fascist and neo-fascist ideas are like
this, with their talk of "vested interests", the Jews, the Federal
Reserve, etc. So too are crass pseudo-"Marxist" narratives or
narratives like the notion of the 1 percent (4) that see the state and
its structures as some kind of direct arm of the capitalist class and
whose concept of how modern society functions seems as if they live in
the Moscow of Ivan the Terrible.
In other words, these ideas necessitate a belief in a set of
specific "bad guys" whose exposure and overthrow is, presumably, the
goal.This is not, at all, how society is actually structured, works or
can be changed, a point to which we will return.
In addition, one of the primary and central mythologies of the
movements and theories is that no one will listen and that, due to a
media blackout (the media is always a key player in conspiracy
theories, and all the major figures and outlets of the media have to be
seen as tools of those "really" running things in order for the
theories to "work" at all) their voices are not being heard. A
corollary to this is the notion that if only they were allowed to get
the message out, and if only they could expose the "secret" knowledge
that they have acquired and accumulated, this would prove that they are
right, and everything would change.
Given how widespread belief in conspiracies of one type or another
is in North America right now, and given that actual majorities of the
population believe in part, or in total, in many specific conspiracies,
this is obviously not true. It is, however, an essential component of
the conspiracist belief system as part of the appeal is the notion that
you "know" truths that others don't and that those who question you or
feel that your claims do not warrant discussion (and only people
without a real understanding of concepts of science, history and
sociology think that all ideas are of potentially equal merit) are
either in on it or have been fooled. To paraphrase the tag-line of the
paranoid conspiracy theory driven TV series of the 90's, the X-Files,
people "want to believe". It serves a psychological need.
This ties into the dependence of these ideas and theories on
credulity. The lack of media coverage is seen as "proof" of what they
are saying. Surely, if the media was not in on it they would at least
be willing to look at their "claims". This has a satisfyingly
democratic ring to it and appeals to those who think that everyone's
ideas, no matter how absurd, should be heard. (5)
It is also indicative of how their "evidence" is presented in
general. Their theories do not depend on evidence at all. Because the
powerful can manipulate everything, in some cases tiny bits of proof
are taken as "smoking guns" even when they are massively outweighed by
the rest of the evidence, and sometimes the very lack of evidence is
actually seen as evidence!
As Steven Novella wrote on the
Skepticblog:
The world is a complex and chaotic place, and our ability to make
sense of it all is limited by comparison. We like, however, to have a
sense of control, so we look for patterns and ways to predict what will
happen in this chaotic world. Superstitions are one way to deal with
the chaos, and conspiracy theories are another. They are both forms of
pattern seeking behavior. The illusion of pattern that leads to the
illusion of understanding and therefore control is psychologically
appealing. But it is all a neuropsychological illusion.
Rigorous logic and empirical methods need to be applied to let us
distinguish real patterns from fake or coincidental ones. Conspiracy
thinking is the opposite of rigorous logic. It employs conspiracy logic,
which can turn any evidence against a conspiracy or lack of evidence
for a conspiracy into evidence for the conspiracy. Conspiracy thinking
is a closed mental feedback loop. There is no way out from within the
conspiracy mindset itself.
This is why these ideas, theories and ideological narratives are
tremendously resilient versus overwhelming evidence to contradict them.
While debunking specific conspiracy claims, and pointing out their
absurdity, is still worthwhile as it may prevent people from entering
into the mental feedback loop to begin with, it is of only limited
effect upon not only those who are already within the mindset, but also
against the broader spread of conspiracy thinking socially.
The confusion of the systemic with the "system"
Liberal democratic society, with its illusions of equality of
opportunity and its deeply ingrained notion (especially within the
North American context) of the power of the individual as an
independent agent, has always had problems with a real understanding of
class and the nature of systemic oppression.
In so far as most North Americans acknowledge that there are
institutional limits and obstacles to individual achievement they most
often acknowledge this through narratives that consist of the
individual being "screwed" by the "system" in some way, whether it is
through bureaucracy, taxes, by-laws, the courts, the police, etc.
North Americans, therefore, are prone to talk about obstacles to the
individual, often in a very libertarian way that sees the individual
as outside of the system and in struggle against it, as opposed to
acknowledging that all individuals live within the same context, that
this context is very complex, and that, socially, there is no escape
from it.
When Marx famously wrote of how "the generations of the dead weigh
like a nightmare upon the brains of the living", this was what he
meant. People "make their own history, but they do not make it as they
please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but
under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the
past".
We act as independent agents within a context, a context that is not
of our choosing, and a context that both informs and limits our
actions.
This is not a system per se, and it does not directly "govern" our
actions or force them. Nor does it directly govern the actions of the
courts, media, police, and so on. Rather it frames them.
Systemic injustices of class, sexism, racism and colonialism are
very real, and terribly violent and oppressive. That they are real is
easily demonstrable. However they are not "controlled" by anyone, nor
do they have some committee of the state that tells everyone what to
do. They are woven into the fabric of society itself. They are
hegemonic in the same way that neo-liberal ideology has become.
To some degree or another they influence the actions of all citizens
and movements and turning the tide against them involves not simply
working together to overcome social institutions of oppression and
power, but also to overcome these ideas within ourselves. It is not a
battle against an "other" it is a battle against our own society and
our own collectively inherited ideas and institutions. This is what has
made it such an historically difficult struggle (6).
In addition, class itself in North America is more complex than it
has ever been. The traditional proletariat no longer constitutes
anywhere near a majority of the population, and notions of the working
and middle classes have become hopelessly entwined in our political
discourse. There is no worker's movement that bears any meaningful
class or social relationship to the worker's movements of fifty years
ago, and the left has not only to struggle against misconceptions of
who is or is not "working class" and who thinks they are or are not
"middle class", it also has to struggle against the elevation of the
individual to a pedestal of philosophical predominance socially.
Conspiracy theories and thinking, as well as mechanistic visions of
society, inhibit real efforts to understand the amazingly diverse,
contradictory and overlapping strands of various social forces and
oppressions. They also obscure the reasons why people seem so often to
act against their own apparent social interests.
By seeking to place the individual (whether described as such, or as
a part of an enlightened or historically destined group) in an
external, almost Atlas Shrugged style battle against the Prometheus of
the "state" or the "ruling class" or "vested interests", whatever
it/they might be, these ideas are inherently individualistic,
alienating and dis-empowering.
It is not at all surprising that these notions have become more
widespread with the consolidation of neo-liberalism as a hegemonic
ideology, as pillars of community and collectivity have not only been
dismantled, they have been vilified. As all mainstream political
parties now embrace neo-liberalism, these parties have also aided in
creating a sense of personal dis-empowerment among many citizens as
well as in the seeming futility of the political process, parliamentary
or otherwise.
Why conspiracy theories are harmful to the left
When confronted by conspiracy theories there is a temptation, as Noam Chomsky has done, to point out the obvious.
So what? Even if the theories are true, which Chomsky thinks is absurd, who cares? What difference would it make?
And, of course, he is correct.
If you believe, as a majority of the population of the United States
does, that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy, even if this was
conclusively proven tomorrow, what difference would it make?
Fifty years later, and given that most of the Oliver Stone myths
about how "progressive" he was (the president who was behind the Bay of
Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis) are obviously false, who cares?
The 9-11 Truthers face the same problem. Bush is no longer
president. Obama has won two terms and has carried on the "War on
Terror" with equal vigour. Not only does it no longer matter if 9-11
was an "inside job", if it was revealed to be so, what would this
accomplish? Electing another Democratic president who will continue to
do what his predecessors did?
To a degree, however, this misses the point, especially when it
comes to the impact of these theories on leftist and socialist
movements and ideas.
These theories propose that, even if it is not the Bushes or the
long dead people who supposedly engineered the assassination of
Kennedy, there is someone who is controlling it all. There is some
group of people who need to be thrown out or eliminated, and once they
are, the system, society, civilization, the nation, or what have you,
will "work" and, presumably, freedom and justice of some kind will
reign.
This is entirely analogous to medieval notions that if you kill the "bad" king, then a "good" king will make it all better.
But this is false.
Leftism and socialist thought is about ending systemic injustice
through a long and difficult struggle to shift the consciousness of
everyone away from the systems of oppression that permeate our
discourse and social interaction. It is about fundamentally altering
class relations. It is about changing a social order, a task that
requires mass collective democratic action and that sees individual
action only in the context of a long-term collective democratic
struggle.
There is no "good" king or leader. All the kings or leaders within
the context of neo-liberalism and capitalism, to one degree or another,
are bad.
Conspiracy theories and neo-conspiracy thinking undermine the fight
against systemic injustice and towards socialist ideas. They do so by
making that struggle about a specific event, group-of-people or
simplistically constructed overclass/ruling class. They do so by
replacing concepts of systemic injustice with reductionist myths about
"the system". They do so by creating narratives that make mass popular
action and building a long term alternative to capitalism and systemic
injustice seemingly irrelevant and meaningless and instead lay emphasis
on the actions of individuals or small groups of individuals in the
"know" acting against equally small groups of people who are the
"enemy". This is the antithesis of constructive, democratic mass
anti-capitalist political parties and movements.
In the end, we cannot defeat capitalism, social stratification, racism and sexism by getting rid of "bad people".
There are no short cuts.
We can only do it by changing people's consciousness and society as a whole.
(1) For clarification, one of the methods that conspiracy theorists
use to sow doubt and confuse is to point out that, historically,
countless conspiracies have occurred. This is obviously true. They
exist today as well. There are criminal conspiracies to do any number
of things, and these sometimes involve governments and elected
officials. They also involve groups like the CIA and FBI which have,
without any doubt, engaged in illegal and secret conduct. For reasons
the article will make clear, however, this has nothing to do with the
notion of a society and a power elite that is a product of and that
depends upon a conspiracy to exist. These two notions are qualitatively
different.
Further, while acknowledging that conspiracies have historically
existed, the difference between studying actual conspiracies and what
conspiracy thinking represents is that the conspiracy theories filter
events within the context of a broader overarching grand conspiracy, as
opposed to understanding them within the context of broad societal
structural and systemic factors.
(2) Often critiques of conspiracy thinking descend into debates
about whether they are more often right or left-wing or whether they
are more likely to flow out of a left or right analysis. Jonathan Kay's
otherwise excellent book,
Among the Truthers, for example, is
derailed by his totally unnecessary insistence that the left is more
to "blame". This is an ultimately uninteresting debate, because in
reality they are neither. Left or right conspiracy thinkers and
theories have far more in common than do genuine left and right
ideologies, and they overlap to such a degree that they function as
wings of a worldview entirely separate from mainstream notions of
ideology at all.
(3) An example of how these notions, even in a minor context, can
stand rational thinking on its head can be found in those who felt that
Thomas Mulcair, leader of the federal NDP, had been "bought" by the
Israel lobby due to the fact that he received a handful of relatively
minor donations from some prominent figures within it and because his
riding has a sizable alleged pro-Israel voting block. They saw him as an
external threat to the NDP who was under the influence of external
forces. They never considered the far more likely notion that these
donors donated because of Mulcair's already existing beliefs, and that
Mulcair, who had been brought into the party in a leadership role by
Layton, was a leadership contender not because of external forces, but
due to forces entirely internal to the NDP that had been shifting the
party for decades. Mulcair was a symptom, a part of a process, as
opposed to the sole or even primary agent of this process. Otherwise, he
would not have won the leadership.
(4) I realize that it is highly controversial to describe the 1
Percent slogan of the Occupy movement as a crass narrative or a
conspiracy theory, though in every meaningful sense, if taken
literally, it is. I have written about this before, and critiqued the
slogan in a piece published on
Rabble early last year.
For those who have and who will claim that the slogan is just a
rhetorical tool one only need point out that all such reductionist
ideas are rhetorical flourishes. That does not make them any less false
and nor does it change that fact that many in the movement or who are
supportive of it will see it as the literal truth. A slogan that is
basically false as a theory of society is not in the long-term
interests of a genuine democratic movement.
(5) As Issac Asimov once said "There is a cult of ignorance in the
United States, and there always has been. The strain of
anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through
our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge.""
(6)
The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology, as part of its
definition of social and systemic oppression puts it this way: "
Relationships between groups and relationships between groups and social
categories, should not be confused with the oppressive behavior of
individuals. A white man may not himself actively participate in
oppressive behavior directed at blacks or women, for example, but he
nonetheless benefits from the general oppression of blacks and women
simply because he is a white man. In this sense, all members of dominant
and subordinate categories participate in social oppression regardless
of their individual attitudes or behavior. Social oppression becomes
institutionalized when its enforcement is so of social life that it is
not easily identified as oppression and does not require conscious
prejudice or overt acts of discrimination."
