Karl Marx, Conspiracy Theorist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- In this episode, I address the charge that Karl Marx is a conspiracy theorist.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.p...
I can´t help but think that putting Karl Marx' thinking alongside things like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" represents a total misconception.
Marx was in no way trying to establish the sinister workings of a congregation of capitalists. His goal was "merely" to show that once you embarked on the capitalist vessel, certain 'laws' concerning society would come into force.
Perhaps the most fundamental one reads, "The aim of a rich man is to STAY rich, wherefore he must by all possible means seek to annihilate all contenders."
Not because the capitalist has a lowly mindset - it's quite simply his JOB in a capitalist society, if he wishes to stay a capitalist, that is.
There's also the fact that many conspiracy theories usually frame those that conspire against others as being outside the system, as an external force corrupting the system of because of their "evil nature". Marx makes it very clear that capitalists are themselves within the system like everyone else and also affected by ideology and the demands of capitalist society just like workers. He does not see them as having an innately evil essence that drives them to corrupt the status quo. They are acting based on the broader socio-economic forces of capitalist society
But how is that in any way an interesting statement? The fact that a certain type of economy has certain effects on society is obvious. And that "fundamental law" that capitalism means stay rich and be better than the competition (maybe at one point the goal was 'annihilate' but in most markets that does not seem to be the case today), but that's... not a conspiratorial statement, that's just... capitalism, everyone knows that, that's the whole point. If you want to stay rich, you have to STAY better than the competition, you can't let them overtake you, you have to actually keep developing your product or whatever it is you're doing. I don't even see the problem in this.
If he said there's an active, conscious, intentional conspiracy to keep workers' wages down, then that's an interesting, significant statement.
@@viljamtheninja "If he said there´s an active...."
Well, who is the "he" that you are referring to? Is it Karl Marx or is it our friend from "Theory & Philosophy"?
Anyways. I' m trying to discuss whether Marx was in fact a conspiracy theorist. I think he was not.
Why would it be "an interesting statement" if Marx had held the opinion that there is in fact "an active, conscious, intentional conspiracy to keep workers´ wages down"?
In my eyes this would actually make a dumbass out of Karl Marx.
You seem to have taken a liking to conspiracy theories. Am I right about this, and do you realize that Karl Popper´s claim that Marx was a conspiracy theorist was made to turn old Karl into yet another... well, 'dumbass'?
I am of course happy to see that it is no news to you that "a certain type of economy has certain effects on society..."
But you do realize, don´t you, that if you adhere to just that Marxian train of thought there is in fact no need for fascinating reveries about some clan of secret world manipulators who has decided the shape of the world as we know it (including workers' wages)
?
@@viljamtheninja would make for a nice Dan Brown flick
yup. coercive laws of competition. it’s the same with people thinking their behaviours are a result of psychological traits like evil or greed (well lowkey yeah but not entirely) and not how the objectives of the system literally compel capitalists to constantly accumulate and expand, otherwise someone else would put them out of competition.
Smith did say that "The ruling classes seldom congregate other than to conspire against the masses"
Just wanted to add on a side note, Marx had this rather shameful work called "Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th Century" which is pretty much a conspiracy theory shitpost about European politics
Marx as a conspiracy theorist!!! The latest in Capital's arsenal against the proletariat...
You clearly did not finish the video LOL
"The latest"
This is NOT a new discussion.
@Ohm Shiva They are a product of the system their greed creates.
@@solgato5186 you’re not greedy though right?
You are just demonstrating conspiratorial thinking, validating the video's core argument🤭
It would difficult to argue that there hasn't been a conspiracy to undermine Marx's work since it came into existence.
One can never even consider questioning religion without the faithful getting offended
@@kingmj87 yes, theology, the driving force of communism. Liberalism is a brain melting disease, and just as im on the verge of hope, "maybe not all liberals are idiоts" a guy like you shows up to ruin my day.
This was actually interesting af.
Occult Features of Anarchism by Erica Lagalisse is a great starting point for anyone interested in the history of conspiracy theory among socialists
I just read that one! Have you heard of another book called Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture by Arthur Evans? I'm trying to connect the ideas between those two texts and also Silvia Federici's book Caliban and the Witch, about capital's primitive accumulation of female bodies (i.e., entrapment of people into gendered peripheries of the skin) is key to the current stage of social reproduction. I'm new to Marxism and I have no formal education in humanities, so I'm treating the journey to understand all of this more like reading a disconnected horror mystery novel. David McNally's book Monsters of the Market sparked that idea for me.
Thank you
Conspiracy theorist is not a derogatory term its basic reality... Anybody who doesn't think this is the case is sleepwalking through the world.
There are conspiracy theories, conspiracy facts and conspiracy theses. Flath earth is a conspiracy thesis, and quite the flat one (badum tsss), the US control of global media is a conspiracy theory, and its actions, the war in Nicaragua, Iraq, Vietnam, the actions of Blackrock, Exon, General Electric, lobbying, market manipulation, those are conspiracy facts. No Marxist thinks anything in contradiction with science, so the general notion of conspiracy theory does not apply.
Marx has nothing to do with conspiracy theory, period. Anything on that line of thought is a joke.
Conspiracy theorist, racist, antisemite, and nationalist. He wasn't a good person in the slightest. He made some worthy criticisms of Capitalism (that plenty of others were and have also made across nations and time). That's about it.
His whole system does the exact opposite of what it aims to do, every time, without fail. And conversations about communism in theory will never hold as much weight as conversations about communism by application. Major failure. And it's led to several genocides, one of which was the largest genocide in documented history (also known as Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward").
Mmm... not good with definition of conspiracy theory. Your definition seemed to go in two directions. 1) disenfrancis. 2) not supported or in agreement with official orthodoxy.
Why not stick with conspiracy of landlord's idea, or assigning cause to an idea where an organization may not exist.
EXCELLENT analysis, presentation, matey.
Captain "Long John" Sinclair.
Appreciate this talk, thank you David. I'm in general agreement, which is a relief. Hopefully we can hear the dissertation someday!
"Neither Smith's nor Marx's theories of capitalism are conspiracy theories, but there might be some elements of conspiracy theorizing by these guys, to some degree accurate or inaccurate, as may be" is how I summarize David's summary.
As David outlined, Adam Smith attributes the shortcomings of capitalism to bad apples (who may also spoil the barrel) whereas Marx details how the inherent contradictions of capitalism will constrain even the most saintly capitalist by, eg, "the external coercive force of competition" for profit. I don't think Smith's reporting is at all inaccurate, but his attribution is in error. Also, I don't see Marx's supporting footnotes as being either in error or central to his theory. They are rather convergent evidence for it, field observation if you will, of those closest to the operations of capital. Qualitative social research.
"A freemasonry of capital" does not mean that capitalists are Freemasons and that they conspire through Masonic lodges, etc. They would have coordinated their opinions and actions informally through their own elite private clubs where they could associate daily, play games, dine, read the periodical and trade publications, and even stay overnight. From Wikipedia: "Historian Robert Morris proposed that clubs were "part of the power nexus of capitalism, and essential to the continuity of elite dominance of society."
The conspiratorial behavior (anti-competitive, antidemocratic, or illegal) engendered by capitalism is plain for all to see today, just as it was for Smith and Marx. Members of the capitalist elite are frequently charged (or not) with illegal behavior such as price fixing or insider trading, which are conspiratorial by David's definition. Concerning the mundane reality of capitalist relations (as David called it), there is no need to theorize -- as Adam Smith rightly states!
But Adam Smith was, in a very important way, a true conspiracy theorist:
"The invisible hand" of Adam Smith was not the infallibility of the free market, as most now believe. Smith had realized that a corrective force was necessary to prevent *capital* (not trade) from operating destructively. He therefore hypothesized an inborn moral sense that would guide investors -- "as if by an invisible hand" -- toward investment decisions that would benefit a domestic common good. The bad apple capitalists are the ones who ignore this invisible hand, and they are the ones who cause social harm (by allocating capital toward greater profit rather than greater good).
But in the sense that Smith wrongly attributes the destructive operations of capital to secret cabals of immoral capitalists (as most people in capitalist economies still do today!!!!), he really is a conspiracy theorist. Adam Smith propagated the notion that capitalism is fine as is, and that its problems are created by something outside, and antithetical, to it. A good slice of pro-capitalist populists on the web blame either Jewish conspiracies or progressive public policy for the shortcomings of capitalism, just as they have since the end of the 19th C.
Say, aren't I ashamed to pontificate like this? Thanks again to David for clarifying Popper's popperism, I used to practically worship the guy! Maybe back when the social contract was being somewhat upheld (apparently -- for white people) he was credible, but not anymore. His philosophy of science is still OK, maybe?
Thanks again David. Really appreciate it when you try to treat Marx's theory fairly.
This was great
This depends on A) Pretending that things that do happen aren't so. and B) Missing the forest for a handful of trees.
On A - let's start with your Adam Smith example. We have recent historical examples of exactly what Smith alleges. Apple, Intel, Google, and Adobe settled a lawsuit for nearly half a billion dollars that alleged conspiratorial practices in wage suppression. You can also find a Reuters article entitled: "Corporate power keeps U.S. wages 20% lower than they should be-White House" from March 17 of this year which includes a mention of wage suppression via collusion. There is no conspiracy theory in that claim, it is simple fact.
on B - To read Marx and focus on silly asides about freemasons instead of the core of his analytical work is to ignore that one of the most important lessons of Marx's model is that there is no one at the wheel. Society is not steered by great men in hushed cabals - or, at the very least, "great men" in hushed cabals are no more the captains of the ship than any other person. There is no puppeteer. There are only material incentives, structures of power and production, and the eternal conflict of class warfare. To suggest that Marx is a conspiracy theorist is to create an invalidity of his broader work in favor of asides placed in footnotes.
Hi Dave. You click baited me! So, I now make you suffer through my comment. :) Not that you didn't already address this somewhat, but thought I'd chime in nonetheless. Isn't there is a difference between a 'conspiracy theory' and a theory of conspiracies? Maybe not an utterly principled difference, but I know it when I see it. Besides evidence (which is obviously crucial in important respects), I imagine the explanatory power of the theory is also something that has to be considered (something Popper also misses about psychoanalysis, as it happens). The Bourgeoisie as the owners of the means of production (and the structural class relations and interests it implies) has way more explanatory power than the Bilderberg group (or whatever cabal you want to put in its place). Also, there is a danger of misunderstanding Marx's rhetorical register in _Capital_ which punctuates the analytical portions of the text. Sometimes there were literal historical conspiracies that were of interest to him as case studies (for example, in the privatization of the commons), sometimes he uses the language of conspiracy to drive home his main points even if these should only be understood euphemistically. He often uses theological tropes to the same effect, but clearly doesn't believe in teachings of the church.
Yes, especially the latter third of your comment. CTs can be real effective at stimulating revolt. Now to separate good from bad revolt 🤔. PS popper bores me
3:25 there was in Italy, called Propaganda Due.
Dope video! Can''t wait for more conspiracy theory stuff! Such a huge phenomenon bubbling in today's society touching on our communication technologies, economies, politics, and more. Great stuff!
Conspiracy theory is just popular political term, empty of theoretic content. Baudrillard on the other hand did know something about hyperreality. But even he is too short, if we want to understand the problems of how science gets to the "fact". We should more deeply study methodology.
Double entry accounting is 700 years old but capitalists and socialists cannot think of advocating mandatory accounting/finance in the schools.
Search Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for "and account" and see what he said about education. He used the word 'education' Eighty Times.
Too much Marx worship. We can take from his works what we find useful and true without acting like he’s infallible. Too much “what did marx mean by this?!” As a way to find truths of the world, and not just truths about marx
Come up with your own critique. Turns out that the dialectical materialist perspective is the correct form of analysis of our world.
It is not engaging in Marx worship to make clear what he means and says. Only by doing so can anyone actually determine that which is useful and that which is not. The "poststructuralists" do not start by dismissing Marx as conspiracy theory, they start by understanding him and critiquing those parts of his model that have not been predictive and extending those parts of his model that they find predictive. Without understanding Marx, one cannot hope to judge his work.
Unimpressed with this argument.
"Conspiracy theory" is a loaded term and should be restricted to cases where it's clearly applicable.
The accusation is typically used in propaganda against dissidents, as you imply here. It's a bad idea to encourage this usage.
❤❤❤
Proper analytic word is first to question master-signifiers as is "conspiracy theorist". I am sure that question, if Marx was conspiracy theorist, is popular, but it is not serious. Popper could never talked about conspiracy theory, but about falsifiability. So, fist watch: Truth or Trust? - Yannis Stavrakakis.
Modern philosophy of science abandoned Popper´s characterization of science as valid
@@brunods4560 even modern science abandoned it. Now they don't even try to falsify anything, the wishful thinking combined with hierarchical system is too strong.
@@jankan4027 a very emotive opinion?
@@brunods4560 I mean, I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty certain that the falsification theory still stands as a pretty central theory of science. Unless you're talking a branch of science that is entirely unrelated with the actual sciences.
@@jankan4027 You're... just a big old word salad generator, aren't you?
Cool topic! Thanks for sharing!
Ask yourself why are philosophers afraid of being called conspiracy theorist or madman? We are here dealing with fear of madness. What would psychoanalysis tell us about that? Reflect your own choice of words! Don't just take it and automatically repeat the symptoms!
Love the video as always, very cool stuff !! The stuff you said at the end reminds of whether conspiratorial thinking is an essential component of understanding relations of power or like a part of a broader epistemological “mood” that captures the current moment? And to what extent the malaise and disenchantment that engenders conspiratorial thinking is helpful or harmful. I’m thinking about how Susan Lepstelters “The Resonance of Unseen Things” (2016) like captures the sometimes reactionary sensibility that undergirds certain strands of american conspiracies but also simultaneously reveals conspiracy as a critical epistemological resource in understanding what power has hidden from view. I totally recommend that book if you’ve not read it yet! It really helped me apprehend the character of contemporary conspiratorial discourses at large today (transphobia, panic around “groomers”, QAnon).
I suggest you a video. Watch this short video for results on intelligence and the self that even philosophy and psychology professors haven't achieved yet. The name of the video is WHAT IS TABULA RASA? WHAT IS IQ INTELLIGENCE? WHAT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THEM?
Dogmatic Marxian would still say; go read marx, 😂
Yes, reading is dogma. Lets trust the liberals instead.
You have magician hands : )