"At the beginning of Bullshit Jobs David Graeber briefly introduces what he calls “anti-conspiracy theory,” which I always found to be an intriguing formulation. Anti-conspiracy theory is not the opposite of conspiracy theory; it does not assert that conspiracies do not exist, or that powerful elites do not shape outcomes. It deals with a different way that they can shape outcomes. While a conspiracy theory might posit that a group of actors got together in secret to plan something specific, anti-conspiracy theory claims that powerful forces have made everything impossible except for a small range of outcomes. When problems appear for the rich and powerful, Graeber writes, “the rich and powerful will step in and do something about the matter.” What you end up seeing in the real world, as a result of this dynamic, is whatever can make it through the gauntlet. Maybe elites were hoping for one particular outcome; maybe they don’t care what happens at all, as long as their interests are not threatened. You might also call it negative conspiracy theory, since it deals with the things that do not occur."
Absolutely. The decimation of a domestic Marxist alternative within the US is kind of the meta-conspiracy -- it was about foreclosing possibilities, those possibilities so numerous it's pointless to try to list them all. Imagine had there been an eco-socialist alternative to liberal environmentalism in the seventies: we could have actually derailed global warming. The original sin and the biggest crime of the Boomer generation was the decimation of truly left alternatives in the imperial core. And this was their overt, exoteric goal: all the covert action and conspiracies perpetrated during the Cold War were done under this public justification, accepted by the American people: to destroy communism. The only political force that could have saved us. A profound tragedy.
If you want to learn more about how the US and world left that refused to properly stand against American imperialism was promoted while the radical alternatives were censored and repressed, I highly recommend Gabriel Rockhill's lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLZTYlPXkk&t
Love this post. I see a lot of this "both sides-ing" of today's issues among some US leftists. It also becomes tiresome listening to people's purity tests for supporting various leftist/anti imperialist governments (Cuba for example). While no government is perfect, abandoning solidarity for the sake of purity tests can undermine broader efforts against imperialism. Thanks for sharing as always, Vincent <3
I remember well being part of a small group of antiwar protesters in Toronto in 1968 or 9.
We were the "victory for the North" splinter group, determined to go and make our presence felt at the US consulate, which had been made off-limits by agreement between the protest organizers and the police.
When the police started swinging their truncheons and smashing heads, a couple of us ran from the consulate to the main stage where the rest of the marchers were gathered to hear speeches from celebrities of various kinds- entertainment, politics, money.
When we asked them to ask for doctors to head over to the consulate to help the smashed heads, we were manhandled off the stage.
The N American "left", except for tiny slivers of actual dissidents, is made up of liberals of one variety or another cosplaying "left" for whatever reason, usually a fashion choice, sometimes careerist.
The contemporary subtext of this piece is really powerful. This piece combined with the analysis in If We Burn regarding the tendency of Western spectators to project an ideological disposition on foreign movements they support reveals an interesting contradiction in our politics: We demand purity from foreign movements while lacking the wherewithal to actually scrutinize or interpret them.
What an interesting -- and accurate -- concept.
"At the beginning of Bullshit Jobs David Graeber briefly introduces what he calls “anti-conspiracy theory,” which I always found to be an intriguing formulation. Anti-conspiracy theory is not the opposite of conspiracy theory; it does not assert that conspiracies do not exist, or that powerful elites do not shape outcomes. It deals with a different way that they can shape outcomes. While a conspiracy theory might posit that a group of actors got together in secret to plan something specific, anti-conspiracy theory claims that powerful forces have made everything impossible except for a small range of outcomes. When problems appear for the rich and powerful, Graeber writes, “the rich and powerful will step in and do something about the matter.” What you end up seeing in the real world, as a result of this dynamic, is whatever can make it through the gauntlet. Maybe elites were hoping for one particular outcome; maybe they don’t care what happens at all, as long as their interests are not threatened. You might also call it negative conspiracy theory, since it deals with the things that do not occur."
Absolutely. The decimation of a domestic Marxist alternative within the US is kind of the meta-conspiracy -- it was about foreclosing possibilities, those possibilities so numerous it's pointless to try to list them all. Imagine had there been an eco-socialist alternative to liberal environmentalism in the seventies: we could have actually derailed global warming. The original sin and the biggest crime of the Boomer generation was the decimation of truly left alternatives in the imperial core. And this was their overt, exoteric goal: all the covert action and conspiracies perpetrated during the Cold War were done under this public justification, accepted by the American people: to destroy communism. The only political force that could have saved us. A profound tragedy.
If you want to learn more about how the US and world left that refused to properly stand against American imperialism was promoted while the radical alternatives were censored and repressed, I highly recommend Gabriel Rockhill's lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLZTYlPXkk&t
Love this post. I see a lot of this "both sides-ing" of today's issues among some US leftists. It also becomes tiresome listening to people's purity tests for supporting various leftist/anti imperialist governments (Cuba for example). While no government is perfect, abandoning solidarity for the sake of purity tests can undermine broader efforts against imperialism. Thanks for sharing as always, Vincent <3
The flip side is the modern PSL position: that every single tin-pot dictatorship, as long as it’s anti-US, is “revolutionary.”
I remember well being part of a small group of antiwar protesters in Toronto in 1968 or 9.
We were the "victory for the North" splinter group, determined to go and make our presence felt at the US consulate, which had been made off-limits by agreement between the protest organizers and the police.
When the police started swinging their truncheons and smashing heads, a couple of us ran from the consulate to the main stage where the rest of the marchers were gathered to hear speeches from celebrities of various kinds- entertainment, politics, money.
When we asked them to ask for doctors to head over to the consulate to help the smashed heads, we were manhandled off the stage.
The N American "left", except for tiny slivers of actual dissidents, is made up of liberals of one variety or another cosplaying "left" for whatever reason, usually a fashion choice, sometimes careerist.
True then, true now.
The contemporary subtext of this piece is really powerful. This piece combined with the analysis in If We Burn regarding the tendency of Western spectators to project an ideological disposition on foreign movements they support reveals an interesting contradiction in our politics: We demand purity from foreign movements while lacking the wherewithal to actually scrutinize or interpret them.
Left anti-communism: An Infantile Disorder