"Having (understandably!) been chided about too often too quick indulgence in speculative conspiracy mongering, a poster to this List..."
Chomsky's analysis below (which in some respects also applies to some of his own positions) applies to the (very unfortunate) tendency of lbo'ers to dismiss as 'conspiratorial' or 'conspiracy theory' any ideas that deviate from mainstream conventional wisdom. Henwood has even gone so far to aver, against the tide of recent evidence to contrary (which is being discussed elsewhere in this thread - WMDs etc) that he (and by extension most lbo-ers) latch on to the 'official story' because 'most of the time, it is true'. I'd like to think it would be redundant to recite the many instances in history, especially post-WWII history when the 'official story' is a big lie. (e.g. the reasons why the US invaded Iraq).
Joe W. ___________________________________
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19900907.htm
CHOMSKY: That's one of the devices by which power defends itself -- by calling any critical analysis of institutions a conspiracy theory. If you call it by that name, then somehow you don't have to pay attention to it. Edward Herman and I, in our recent book, Manufacturing Consent, go into this ploy. What we discuss in that book is simply the institutional factors that essentially set parameters for reporting and interpretation in the ideological institutions. Now, to call that a conspiracy theory is a little bit like saying that, when General Motors tries to increase its market share, it's engaged in a conspiracy. It's not. I mean, part of the structure of corporate capitalism is that the players in the game try to increase profits and market shares; in fact, if they didn't, they would no longer be players in the game. Any economist knows this. And it's not conspiracy theory to point that out; it's just taken for granted. If someone were to say, "Oh, no, that's a conspiracy," people would laugh.
Well, exactly the same is true when you discuss the more complex array of institutional factors that determine such things as what happens in the media. It's precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory. In fact, as you mentioned before, I generally tend to downplay the role of individuals -- they're replaceable pieces. So, it's exactly the opposite of conspiracy theory. It's normal institutional analysis -- the kind of analysis you do automatically when you're trying to understand how the world works. And to call it conspiracy theory is simply part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works.
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/