From: "Marvin Gandall"
Actually, you're right. Describing historical acts as "conspiracies", even when they involve groups furtively meeting to commit illegal acts, almost always has a political purpose and leads to sloppy thinking. For example, the French, Bolshevik and other revolutions are routinely described by right-wing historians as "conspiracies" because they necessarily involved underground activity aimed at the violent and therefore "illegal" overthrown of oppressive regimes. Yet the only way to understand these revolutions, whatever course they later took, is that they were profoundly democratic events. So I hereby resolve not to use the term again.
^^^^^^ CB: Yes. You will decide for yourself what words you use or don't use.
My main thing will be criticizing people who play into this use of "conspiracy theory" to refer to discussion of alternative explanations from that of the official monopoly media version of various big news stories. ^^^^^
But counterposing to this notion that one of the "standard forms of operation" of capitalism and other oppresssive systems through the millenenia is "small groups of people getting together planning and doing stuff" is even more devoid of content.
^^^^ CB: Not if you subscribe to the concept of the state I'm putting forth.
Here's some "content" , more concreteness and relevance in this discussion. The 2004 presidential election was subject to severe irregularities making a mockery of Justin's "liberal proceduralism". In Florida, the racist prevention of a large number of Black votes, and the various actions by state officials and the U.S. Supreme Court was "stuff" of the type I'm talking about.
And a system of officials capable of doing that are capable of fixing a key poll, as we are discussing here.
Now you have "content"
^^^^^^
This is what everyone, oppressors and oppressed alike, do on a daily basis in all spheres of activity. And often they don't even plan; they respond intuitively and spontaneously in light of how they perceive their interests.
^^^^^ CB: Yes, people do a lot of stuff without planning. However, Presidential and other High Bureaucratic operatives plan a lot. Some things they do "thinking on their feet". For example, "they" probably couldn't anticipate that the last election would all come down to Florida. They had to react quickly , without planning , when it did.
^^^^^^
So let me recast my response to your earlier post: Do I think representatives of the Republican party, the media, and the polling companies got together to "do stuff" to the Democrats by manufacturing data showing Bush way ahead? I doubt it for the reasons I mentioned, but can't prove a negative.
^^^^ CB: What completely puzzles me is all these Left people who doubt this type of thing. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't in this particular instance. But they do this type of thing all the time. The system is full of corruption. It would be quite normal for them to do that type of thing. Witness they stole the actual election the last time. Doesn't that tell you that fixing one poll report is not a lot for them to do ?
^^^^^^
From what I can gather, including from this list, the Time and Newsweek polls may have been flawed, but on technical grounds. Do you have any evidence of any key sectors of the ruling class initiating a coordinated plan through this medium to demoralize the Democratic base and sink the Kerry campaign?
^^^^ CB: If you mean like the Watergate security guard witnessing them directly, no. All of my evidence on any and all national political matters is major, public reports , like suddenly after the race has been close for a long time, Bush surges ahead. That's my evidence; it's suspicious. But I say it as email suspicion, responding to a post by Michaeal L , I think, as something he said seemed a similar thought. I have to go back and look.
^^^^^^^
Do you think evidence is important?
^^^^ CB: We can discuss evidence, if you want. I have a sort of developed idea of it because it is a category in law.
My comment earlier was well within the standards of evidence used to support numerous statements on email. Yes, there is evidence from which one could infer something is fishy with that poll: Suddenly after a close race, Bush is way ahead. That raises a "reasonable suspicion" which is enough for a police officer to stop and frisk someone, as an evidentiary analogy.
More later. Lets discuss evidence.
You don't have to have beyond a reasonable doubt evidence to speculate about government wrong doing.
My they always do this type of stuff is backed up by an enormous history of concrete examples - Watergate, Contragate, the 2004 elections, MLK assassination, COINTELPRO, on and on and on. You as someone on the left should know this . It is a mystery why you would to fail to fill in what the "stuff" concretely has been all these many years, the stuff from the past that gives rise to reasonable suspicions TODAY. It is standard operating procedure, and there is overwhelming evidence of this. That it happens in general and frequently _is_ beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is your understanding of evidence ?
^^^^^
Or is the assertion sufficient because oppressors always do this kind of stuff? Maybe this is the source of the complaint about sweeping and unsubstantiated left-wing "conspiracy theories" -- complaints which emanate not only from outside, but also from within the left. The term may be faulty, but the substance of the complaint seems to have some validity.
Marv Gandall ------------------------------------