From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 13:25:48 EDT
Hi Phil and Michael W: No, I'm not going to talk about the London bombings here. I'm not really in a position to expand on this subject at the present time (I am in a public library in Boothbay Harbor) but I find that the _general_ question of how Marxists have historically reacted to charges of conspiracy (by the state, especially) to be of interest. The prevailing attitude seems to have been: a) "show me the proof!" I.e. scepticism. Underlying this attitude may be the liberal bourgeois conception: "innocent until proven guilty". But, is this a proper stance to take towards the state, especially in the context of so many historical experiences where the state has launched various intrigues and conspiracies for war, repression, etc.? b) in general, historical events occur for necessary reasons tied to the "logic of capital". I.e. there is a stance that wishes to eliminate the accidental and subjective factors in order to show that capitalism is by its very nature exploitive, etc.. That is, the intuition seems to be that conspiracies have no basic and systemic role in reproducing capitalism. Yet, even if this were true, isn't it important to differentiate between what we believe happens _in general_ from what happens in a _particular_ case? I.e. particular conspiracies could be important in grasping conjunctural developments. If one were to compare anarchist thought to Marxian, then I think that the former is much more receptive to charges of conspiracy by the state and capital. Yet, shouldn't we recognize that conspiracies can and have played important roles in triggering actions by the state? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 29 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT