I agree with this, except for the last point about the IH of the market. I think conspiracy theory is more like the "hidden hand" theory, since both involve conscious volition by the conspirators. The IH, on the other hand, is more a matter of the difference between intentions and results, i.e., the unplanned results of purposeful action: businesses are greedy and nasty, but competition makes them serve consumers anyway (in the right-wing interpretation of Adam Smith). The IH theory does not have to be positive, however. Marx had a version of the IH: capitalists seek profits by any means necessary, but the rate of profit falls.
> And of course 'limited' conspiracies are a dime a dozen under capitalism. E.g., : recent posts on either pen-l or lbo about the water for irrigation in the central valley of california; assignment of shelf-space for products in supermarkets; letting of construction contracts by municipal governments; decisions of zoning committees. <
I don't think "limited" conspiracies should be called conspiracy theories, though their validity does shore up the basis for believing in true conspiracy theories. These limited "conspiracies" are simply a matter of "special-interest" lobbying and bribery behind closed doors. (These were a dime a dozen in Chicago when I was growing up near there.) The true conspiracy theories involved centralized conspiracies that have their fingers in a large number of events and other phenomena. They typically try to explain world-historical events (e.g., the Kennedy assassinations) solely by reference to a small group of plotters (the "secret team," etc.) These theories also emphasize a single line of causation from the elite to the event, rather than seeing the concrete historical process as overdetermined. -- Jim Devine / Bust Big Brother Bush! "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." -- Gertrude Stein
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm