From Class to Conspiracy
This piece investigates the growing trend of 'lazy Marxism', being the propensity to invest serious amounts of time researching conspiracy theories rather than building working class power.
This piece is meant as a response to an emergent trend I have recognized in some leftist circles to substitute a Marxist analysis for parapolitics. The themes I wish to struggle with include the lack of active participation in making socialism a real force, the supplementation of communist theory with conspiracy theory, the continued alienation these interests bring with them which damage our ability to develop a popular movement, and the need to return to studying.
During my time on Twitter I saw a propensity for left-wing personas to engage in “parapolitics”, otherwise recognized as the purified term for conspiracy theories. Parapolitics can be recognized as an attempt to professionalize or legitimize the research and findings conducted by people attempting to unveil an agenda coordinated by those in power. My intention in delving into parapolitics is not necessarily that it is bad or incorrect to engage with, but that it distorts a necessary class analysis and denies a macro-framework of capitalism in exchange for a micro-analysis of bad actors participating in the greater system of oppression. Rarely is there a class analysis actually demanded in these studies, and often they flirt with right-wing ideologies and positions that take from our superior conception of the larger machinations capital. But before furthering this line of thinking, let us examine who and what we’re engaging with.
Parapolitical researchers include authors such as Nick Bryant, Tom O’Neil, Wendy S. Painting, and David McGowan; podcasts like Ghost Stories for the End of the World, Subliminal Jihad, and The Return of the Repressed.; and online personalities or collectives, including Caitlin Johnstone, Moon of Alabama, Whitney Webb, and @gumby4christ. Most of these people, books, collectives, websites, etc. are not problematic on the Left. In fact, probably a large proportion of standard positions from the Left come from, or are impacted by, people within their immediate or tangential orbits (save for more fringe or less notable products/producers).
Of the authors mentioned above, few of their works deal at all capitalism. For example, Nick Bryant is most notable for his work on the “Franklin Scandal”, a high-level child trafficking ring, and his ownership and exposing of Jeffery Epstein’s “black book”, being the address book of co-conspirators participating in his coordinated child trafficking ring. Similarly, O’Neil, Painting, and McGowan follow different tracks in their respective research on the Manson Family, Timothy McVeigh, and serial killers in general, all positing a relationship between brain-washing, government pawns, and cover-ups. As such, the closest that these authors seem to get to discussing capitalism are found in Bryant’s research on Epstein, mostly due to the nature of his transnational network of exploitation.
One may wonder, is there an angle to be explored here that meaningfully considers capitalism’s larger workings, at all? Often, often not, but my position is not to direct creators’ work toward what I consider to be of the utmost importance, but to instead analyze how these stories and theories act to misdirect attention and energies from class politics and into the land of conspiracy.
Take, for example, the first four episodes from The Return of the Repressed. The lead researcher, Marcus, delves into the history of Jonestown, at times lending support to Jim Jones’ project, at times qualifying this support, and at times, positing somewhat uncomfortable ideas. The crux of the series is that the so-called Jonestown Massacre was actually an american military massacre and that the Jones-project was a multi-racial mass movement for justice with many flaws. This is an interesting story, but what is their larger point?
From the sex trafficking rings to high-level cover-ups, to Manchurian candidates and Satanists, little of this furthers our mission. I’m not opposed to indulgences, people can do what they want. What I am opposed to is going too far down the rabbit hole, to the extent that we alienate ourselves from the masses.
It is true that at least in the american context, the masses tend to be quite susceptible to slop. This last decade has given us PizzaGate, Frazzledrip, QAnon, and even more bizarre theories such as Roko’s basilisk. Ludacris concepts have captured the popular imaginary and produced a people that are unable to determine fact from fiction, which in addition to producing the MAGA Cult, has also moved a significant number of ‘independents’ into the far-right fringes, to the extent that they cannot comprehend concepts like historical or dialectical materialism. Their beliefs have been appropriated by social media algorithms and Youtube “documentaries”. They have become our enemies. And while the far right for a long time has held control over the conspiracy theory crowd, there’s also been a left-wing contingency that has entertained things that are difficult to disprove, but equally difficult to demonstrate. What’s different, though, is that the left has at least been able to operate with a conception of capitalism as a driving force.
For example, C. Wright Mills put forth The Power Elite, which was based in reality. His argument is that there are three institutions that dominate a nation-state: State security forces, economic conglomerates, and political players. Mills examines the historical development of this power elite in the united states, specifically the near-hereditary nature of graduates from Ivy League universities and those from wealthier backgrounds. This is further taken up by the post-Left, once president of the SDS, professor Carl Ogelsby, under a more conspiratorial framework, in his books The Yankee and Cowboy War, which posits a deep state conflict between Atlantic elites (“Yankees”) and oil barons from the South-West (“Cowboys”) resulted in the assassination of JFK, and other historically relevant happenings between then and the mid-1970s.
My point in acknowledging these works is not that they’re accurate but that they demonstrate the existence of a left conspiracy belt which has long existed in the united states. So the development of such parapolitical researchers should not be considered an aberration but instead the continuity of a long existent, though popularly dormant, school of thought. I also want to acknowledge that both Mills and Ogelsby were academics first, and accountable to mass movements secondarily. Ogelsby developed his interest in JFK, et al. only after formally exiting the organized left. The trajectory that we find followers of these theories on now, though, is not post-Movement but peri-Movement, popular solely due to the flattening effect of the internet. These content creators, researchers, academics, and podcasters exist “around” the Movement, and thus influence it without participating in its activities. In fact, these people are often quite critical of the Movement, though not necessarily unfairly.
As a divergence, I think what is unique about the Left, and the reason we cannot replicate the cult-ish behaviors, tactics, and concepts of the Right, is the natural tendency toward debate, the allegiance to dialectics and materialism, and therefore naturally anti-egoist theorizations and praxis. We cannot create a left-wing Joe Rogan, because we are critical actors. Sectarianism is the deformed convergence of this tendency in addition to an eagerness to be involved in political processes.
That said, the issues we’re presented with are not symptomatic of sectarianism (though it may be relevant within currents) but alienation from, and an inability to relate to, the Movement at large. I believe that the propensity to seriously engage in this work results is both a limitation and de-activation (in the best case) and detachment and severance from ( in the worst case) the Movement. (I suppose I should define “the Movement” (and should have articles ago). To me, the Movement is a thing that exists in perpetuity without ownership. It is “the Left”, the fruit of our labor that is unscrupulously bitter and unable to ripen until we meaningfully take control of it.)
I believe this disconnection actually results in interest in conspiracy. It may breed a deformed community, but it’s a result of the lack of true community. If you’re not mobilizing people, not politicking, not building power, then the natural urge to creatively address the issues of society are not negated, they simply take place in isolation from the masses. In the best case scenario, you have a bizarre reading club; in the mid-case scenario, you have an active group chat; in the worst case scenario, you are captured by mental illness - an active festering of the burden of making sense of the unsenseable. Effectively, the ability to build communism has been supplemented by conspiracy, and the dedication is no longer to power, but to awareness. It’s like a personal advocacy campaign, rather than a “base building” campaign, which is essential to victory.
The flattening effect of the internet, though, still grants you a voice to be heard. It’s difficult (though certainly possible) to be truly alone with internet access. As a consequence, these conceptions of society’s machinations are still able to proliferate, whether or not there is a popular belief in their legitimacy from the beginning. Still, this permeation demands a distancing from the political and ostensibly powerful center. The whole of the Left, as with the Right, is impacted by this process. For example, during Trump’s first term, it was not rare for him to make ‘winks and nods’ at the fringes of his support base. As these concepts relate to the Movement, whether or not true, their believability has an impact on communist/communizing activities.
On the one hand, we are dealing with anti-materialist “lazy Marxism” which is taking hold of the popular imagination, since anyone can be a Marxist, and on the other hand we have Marxist organizations struggle to build an identity independent of these individuals that have a representational influence over the “brand” of Marxism. Communism is already ‘fringe’ in its Western orientation. To struggle with unorganized (or disorganizing) “leftists” that accrue popularity via the ‘hot take’ economy means to struggle against egoist elements within the existing communication streams. Whether immediately apparent or not, we are always implicated by the existence of parapolitical researchers within our midst. While we need not cast the whole lot aside, it’s worthwhile to fully examine their perspectives and positions that are public.
My recommendation to those who have bought in but are Marxist in orientation is to take a step back, consider the things you’re sharing, and ask yourself how this furthers our movement for collective justice. Examine the existing political landscape and questions is this necessarily the thing to be engaging with at this particular junction in history? And if that’s not satisfactory, do the same from the perspective of a neighbor. What could you be doing, with them, to change the state of things? And if you’re in a party, or an organization, or a political club, and especially if you’re not, why aren’t you investing your time in that? We have a world to win, and we’re actively losing!