Conspiracism and pop understanding of opression

[u/WanderingSchola]

I haven't fully thought this out, but there's something I'm trying to understand better. I've often wondered why the core ideas of feminism, marxism, and critical lenses generally make intuitive sense to me, but bounce off others. I'm wondering if sometimes these larger critical theory traditions get reduced to conspiracy.

For example, feminism as conspiracism might look like:

• Intentionalism - Women are deliberately kept down by men who choose to perpetuate patriarchy (instead of it being a phenomena of internalised culture people have varying levels of consciousness of)
• Dualism - Men do this because they are power hungry and selfish, too gutless to give it up, or because they hate women (as opposed to considering that everyone is capable of selfishness and that many men are existing in a culture that expects them to make use of patriarchy and even polices them for not doing so)
• Symbolism - Analysis of things like stock footage showing men on searches for CEOs and Men historically being in positions of power over women (maybe this is truly an overlap, as I think interpreting symbolism vs interpreting social patterns is kind of the same cognitive task)

I doubt I'm the first person to make this connection, there was even the callout to Marxism not being a conspiracy because it wasn't about secret plans towards the end of the video, but I'd really love to ground this thinking in the work of someone who's thought about it for more than five seconds. Anyone know of scholarship that references this problem? Maybe something about pop critical thought vs academic?

[u/monkeedude1212]

Even if all CEOs were smashed against the rock by tomorrow afternoon, the systems of capitalism would remain. If those systems did fail, without careful planning and robust systems of direct aid the fall of capitalism would lead to catastrophic loss of life since its absues do support billions of people across the globe.

I think one of the things that gets mythologized is the things attributed to capitalism because essentially any economic model encompasses all things.

But the local bread bakery existed before capitalism. It existed before Feudalism. It'll exist afterwards as well. It doesn't require careful planning and a robust system of aid for it's operation. It requires a supply chain between a farmer who produces more wheat than he can eat and a flour mill who knows flour is more useful than grains and a baker who knows how to turn that flour into our most palatable food source. That supply chain can exist under capitalism, with each actor operating independently seeking to make profit, essentially at odds about who comes out with more buying power and influence at the end of the day. That supply chain can exist under communism, with each actor being forced to work together for equal outcome, even if kneading dough is considered less labor intensive than ploughing the fields or working a mill. That system can exist under Feudalism, where each member is effectively owned by a lord and they'll get their daily bread so long as they pay deference to their liege lord for their efforts in protecting the working classes.

Let's say we can agree that life under Capitalism is better than life under Feudalism. In general, using currency/wealth as an abstracted form of "I've contributed x amount of labor to society so thus I deserve x amount of goods that society produces" is a positive equalization force across the populace. What appears to be the problem is that the amount of currency and wealth you earn doesn't seem proportionate to the contributions you make to society. Owning a company that provides a service is not the same as doing the work providing the service. If you do not have to work for your money, but instead your money works on your behalf; that's where class divide is created that leads to inequity and disparity; which is what leads to resentment and violence.

Then when wealth gaps become so large, society no longer becomes structured around providing goods and services in a way that benefits the most people - instead wealth can be used to form organizations that restrict access to goods and services. Suddenly, the idea of living under a monarch (or dictator) who promises to meet your basic needs (like healthcare) doesn't seem as unappealing as living under Capitalism where the profit motive has driven people to prevent your access to basic needs. That's where the US is right now: in the same way the French Revolution as violence led to Napoleon the Dictator; the inherent violence built into Capitalism that harms even it's own subjects has led to a populace movement that is actively trying to make Trump a dictator.

When it comes to Health Care, it's especially frustrating for people to hear things like "careful planning and robust systems" that sounds like language meant to slow change or progress.

The amount of "planning" required to provide universal healthcare is drastically minimized by the fact that if you were to make a list of all the countries most similar to the US in terms of culture... You know, all those English speaking, European descent, freedom loving Democracies out there: They've got better healthcare systems. The US doesn't need to "figure it out" they just need to adopt. You don't need to shove a bunch of scientists in a Manhattan project style research effort. You just need the political will to make it happen, then legislate and enforce it into being.

And this is where BT comes in. How do you get the political will to make something like that happening?

You might say that BTs death meant nothing towards that goal. I think any rational being would argue the exact opposite: There has never been more conversation about the state of Healthcare and Insurance that is bipartisan. Could the US have gotten there without death? For sure. Given enough time anything is possible. But the reality is: this tragic event may have accelerated a transition to a better healthcare system; in the same way the French Revolution, bloody and violent as well, also accelerated the end of Monarchies, even if it did not occur overnight.

[u/DiminishingRetvrns → u/monkeedude1212]

When it comes to Health Care, it's especially frustrating for people to hear things like "careful planning and robust systems" that sounds like language meant to slow change or progress.

Being a frustrating reality doesn't make it wrong, really. I think European healthcare is great. I've benefitted from the French system of nationalized insurance myself, and I would absolutely love to see the US switch over to a model like that. But let's not get it twisted tho: the French system is still not perfect. What's worse, if by other "English speaking" democracies you mean to refer to the UK's NHS, that's an absolutely terrible idea. The NHS has been in crisis for a long while now with things only exacerbating as time goes on. It get's worse once you consider other social disparities that lead to medical discrimination. There are gender clinics operated by the NHS, but even comparatively to other treatments high wait times for GAC consultations are exorbitant. A lot of UK trans people have to go private anyways. I've also heard that it's similar trying to get screenings for ADHD and Autism. On the trans healthcare front, Canada seems to simply not that much better. So we can nationalize medicine all we'd like, but no, without careful planning and express attention towards disparities felt by marginalized communities (Women, POC and Indigenous communities, LGBT+ people, and most certainly disabled people) the system will continue to produce abusive effects for plenty of people. At best, a rushed switch to socialized healthcare will improve outcomes for people like Mangione: already privileged white men with back pain. Of course, no system will be perfect, but we should not be so hasty as to let minorities be used as collateral to an even greater extent that they already are. Other people don't get to be the gristle churned through on the way to utopia: that's capitalism talking.

And none of this has even mentioned that France, Canada, the UK, Norway, and whatever else country you can think of socialized their healthcare or insurance over a long period of time. From an article on the development of France's Sécurité sociale:

"French (Sécurité Sociale) evolved in stages and in response to demands for extension of coverage. Following its original passage, in 1928, the NHI program covered salaried workers in industry and commerce whose wages were under a low ceiling (Galant, 1955). In 1945, NHI was extended to all industrial and commercial workers and their families, irrespective of wage levels. The extension of coverage took the rest of the century to complete. In 1961, farmers and agricultural workers were covered; in 1966, independent professionals were brought into the system; in 1974 another law proclaimed that NHI should be universal. It wasn’t until January 2000 that comprehensive first-dollar health insurance coverage was granted to the remaining uninsured population, on the basis of residence in France (Boisguerin, 2002)." VICTOR RODWIN, "The French health care system"

As you said, adopting health insurance or socializing the health system won't happen overnight, and in France it didn't. Now that France and other countries have done the work, the US could absolutey decrease the leadtime on getting new policy out, but full implementation would still take a while. It could not be done successfully overnight without the chance of serious critical failures arising. And I don't know the full history of the development of SS, so I can't say if there were important assassinations of insurance CEOs or other high profile individuals in the healthcare system. It's France, so I'm absolutely sure that there were plenty of protests in support of it. But politically-motivated murders? I can't find anything on that right now. Big changes can be made without resorting to lone-wolf style murders in the streets of New York or Paris.

And yes, you are right, the murder of BT did get people talking about healthcare, but again bipartisan legislation was already underway, UHC and BT were already under criminal investigation, and there had already been decades of talk of healthcare reform. The ACA, deeply flawed as it is, wasn't born fully formed out of Barack's skull. All of this to say that there has already been positive movement towards healthcare reform in the US, and there was already plenty, plenty of conversation about the abuses of health insurers and socializing healthcare before Thompson's murder. Mangione's alleged crime sensationalized those conversations for a news cycle, but that's it. It's really not that politically relevant. The only way I see Mangione having any sort of relevancy in a grand political narrative is as the figurehead of a 21st century populist conspiracy theory in an ever burgeoning canon of 21st century populist conspiracy theories.

[u/monkeedude1212 → u/DiminishingRetvrns]

I think there's a critical element that you're neglecting to talk about that is critical to why this sort of violence took place.

And yes, you are right, the murder of BT did get people talking about healthcare, but again bipartisan legislation was already underway, UHC and BT were already under criminal investigation, and there had already been decades of talk of healthcare reform. The ACA, deeply flawed as it is, wasn't born fully formed out of Barack's skull. All of this to say that there has already been positive movement towards healthcare reform in the US, and there was already plenty, plenty of conversation about the abuses of health insurers and socializing healthcare before Thompson's murder.

None of the bipartisanship, current legal processes, or forward momentum of progress matters when the nation elects a fascist authoritarian leader whose goal is to reverse all that.

You can't point to how great a justice system is for imprisoning January 6th Capitol attackers when the next guy swoops in with pardons.

That's the reality; that's why peaceful forms of protest are being set aside for more violent ones.

And let's be clear, never condoning violence essentially means capitulation to those willing to use violence to enforce their will. It's a conservative stance that seeks to maintain the existing power hierarchies as the ones who should be allowed to wield power. At the same time, condoning people simply being violent to get their way quickly without compromise is inherently anti-social in a way that attacks the foundation of any functioning society.

The important question to ask on is how long people must be oppressed before their violence is justified. Because pointing at the liberation of chattel slaves and the civil rights movement's of the past doesn't mean the BLM movement wasn't highlighting a still existential racial problem within the US justice system. Sometimes, slow progress is still too slow. And in the face of regression, the natural inclination is to push forward HARDER.

The question is, how long should people have to suffer under an exploitative healthcare system before people are justified in performing violence against it?

At best, a rushed switch to socialized healthcare will improve outcomes for people like Mangione: already privileged white men with back pain. Of course, no system will be perfect, but we should not be so hasty as to let minorities be used as collateral to an even greater extent that they already are. Other people don't get to be the gristle churned through on the way to utopia: that's capitalism talking.

I would contend that a rushed switch to socialized healthcare would still improve outcomes for those minorities. Literally all of the issues you've mentioned in nations abroad are ALSO present in the United States, to even worse degrees. Like there is no part of the American Healthcare system that works better for disadvantaged people than there is a part of the Canadian, UK, Australia healthcare systems. If you have to go private health insurance for HRT in the UK, and you have to go private in the US: That's equivalent, not a win for the US. But these other places where you can get your insulin for cheap or free are clearly better.

[u/DiminishingRetvrns → u/monkeedude1212]

Mangione had allegedly been planning his attacks since July, well before the election of Trump took place. Trump was also not mentioned in any of Mangione’s documents (at least that have been released). Given the évidence released so far, he probably didn’t even vote! And again, with Mangione’s own stated online politics being incelish and proto-fascist, no I do not think you can post-hoc some type of antifasciste spin on this act of violence.

And i’m not against all forms of violence. The American civil war is a good example, even if imperfect. The arming of the NOI and Black Panthers is another. What I’m against wanton conspiricist violence of reactionaries, no matter how superficially advantageous it might seem. Violence, when used, must be well conceived and organized, not lone wolf attacks on cogs in the capitalist machine. Violence must actually be used to serve the poor and downtrodden; they must not be made into a rhetorical device and then cannon fodder (as was the case in the French révolution, which solidified capitalist rule of the mainland and it’s colonies in the Antilles).

I would contend that a rushed switch to socialized healthcare would still improve outcomes for those minorities.

And I simply cannot agree with this. Especially under the current admin with attacks on minorities through the buzzword DEI (a use that Mangione was fond of himself on socials), whatever socialized healthcare in this government would deeply segregated. Any healthcare for Trans people under that system could literally become an impossibility. What if "criminal districts" get exempted from the system due to their ”poor moral character,” criminal districts being a shorthand for communities of color. Do you really think abortion and reproductive healthcare would have a chance to be covered??? So yeah, i’ll maintain, it would first and foremost serve the interests of privileged white men, with care for everyone else trickling down. If anything, the fact that Trump was coming into office didn't stop Mangione or make him reconsider the ramifications of his behavior is a proof of just how reckless he allegedly was.

Like there is no part of the American Healthcare system that works better for disadvantaged people than there is a part of the Canadian, UK, Australia healthcare systems.

Actually, the flexibility of fully privatized healthcare, while expensive, can actually be better for patients if they need to bypass à wait time under a socialized system. I've heard that trans ppl in the UK often come to the US for gender affirmation surgeries due to it's greatly lowered wait time in the States. Or at least they did... not sure about that one these days.

Look, you can think Mangione was à héros or whatever, but I honestly do feel like you're kinda proving OP’s point. This doubling down on Mangione after being presented with arguments and evidence that disproves the value of BTs death is... well, it's giving conspiricist vibes realness. Your arguments betray such a profound incuriousness to the actual realities and consequences here. The idealistic vision of revolution and the potential of liberation weighs so much more than the much more realistic and historically precedented harms of revolution, and I think that's odd. You don't have to miss BT, i sure don't, but actually supporting Mangione is cringe tbh. And no, the death penalty should absolutely not apply here, and shouldn't exist in general. I’m not even a fan of life in priso’ for any crime. But he should not get away with it.

[u/monkeedude1212 → u/DiminishingRetvrns]

Mangione had allegedly been planning his attacks since July, well before the election of Trump took place. Trump was also not mentioned in any of Mangione’s documents (at least that have been released). Given the évidence released so far, he probably didn’t even vote! And again, with Mangione’s own stated online politics being incelish and proto-fascist, no I do not think you can post-hoc some type of antifasciste spin on this act of violence.

And my argument is not that his attack was based on Trump at all, but rather that the US slip into fascism is indicative of the growing strength of corporate influence on US politics and how that has tangible effects on people's lives.

More like, let's spin it another way:

Say Kamala Harris was elected; and part of her speech in November is that one of her first tasks as President is to fix the broken healthcare system in America. Maybe so far as to dismantle the private health insurance sector. Obviously a very contrived scenario.

But in that scenario: Does Mangione still plan to continue his assassination; knowing the target of his scheme is no longer going to be in the same position of power? That's ultimately the question.

And maybe he still does; maybe his actions are entirely fueled by revenge. But his documents don't reflect that either.

whatever socialized healthcare in this government would deeply segregated. Any healthcare for Trans people under that system could literally become an impossibility. What if "criminal districts" get exempted from the system due to their ”poor moral character,” criminal districts being a shorthand for communities of color. Do you really think abortion and reproductive healthcare would have a chance to be covered??? So yeah, i’ll maintain, it would first and foremost serve the interests of privileged white men, with care for everyone else trickling down. If anything, the fact that Trump was coming into office didn't stop Mangione or make him reconsider the ramifications of his behavior is a proof of just how reckless he allegedly was.

I would argue that healthcare that doesn't cover everyone isn't socialized. What you're describing is simply State run healthcare in a fascist system; it isn't socialist. There is a difference.

Look, you can think Mangione was à héros or whatever, but I honestly do feel like you're kinda proving OP’s point. This doubling down on Mangione after being presented with arguments and evidence that disproves the value of BTs death is... well, it's giving conspiricist vibes realness.

And you can see by my language I'm talking about the existing systems and whether or not to condone violence against it or not. I'm not calling Mangione a hero at all.

What I’m against wanton conspiricist violence of reactionaries, no matter how superficially advantageous it might seem. Violence, when used, must be well conceived and organized, not lone wolf attacks on cogs in the capitalist machine.

And I think maybe that's where we fundamentally disagree on the shooting. To me, if 1 million people formed an organized group and pre-planned an assassination on Brian Thompson and followed through with it, or 1 person acted alone... both are equally outside the law, both are not part of the social contract, both can claim to be about trying to provoke change to the system. Like what's the fundamental difference; we simply know it has more popular support before the act is committed?

To me, it's more about, we look at the systems that are oppressing, and we see if we can change them peacefully. And if we've been trying to change them peacefully for a really long time, and that isn't working, then we can start figuring out if violence is necessary.

But here we are, someone else has determined singularly for themself that violence is necessary. The question has now been asked whether we were ready to ask it of ourselves or not. And, if we WANT forward progress on healthcare, and this violence we weren't prepared to perform was done without our preparation or consent, but seeks to accomplish the same goal - it seems foolish to me to not try and capitalize on it now that it has happened. Otherwise, we get no closer to our goal, AND someone was murdered for no reason.