[Marxism] Why the Russia-Trump Collusion Conspiracy Theory Isn’t Catching On

Mark Lause markalause at gmail.com
Fri Jul 27 06:09:35 MDT 2018


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-cyber/u-s-indictments-show-technical-evidence-for-russian-hacking-accusations-idUSKBN1K32X1


On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:12 AM, Michael Marking via Marxism <
marxism at lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote:

> ********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *****************************************************************
>
>
> Yes! Where’s the real evidence?
>
> Crossing a thread line here, I agree with Louis Proyect, who wrote on
> Friday 2018.07.20, “Frankly, I don't care if Russia helped Trump get
> elected or not.” Nor am I convinced that a Clinton victory would have
> made much difference.
>
> Trump has performed a great service to the leadership and backers of
> both parties: he has provided a highly effective distraction. While
> various supporters and opponents have vociferously made their views
> known – and garnered a lot of media coverage in the process – the
> main event, the looting of the main body of the people, has gone or
> continued pretty much unnoticed in the press and among the people in
> the street. It’s all about tweets and abuse of expense accounts and
> Russian collusion, and not about the deeper story. Yes, Trump represents
> the ruling class, in the same way that a clown represents a circus. It
> doesn’t matter whether he does it intentionally or knowingly or not, but
> he does it anyway. He’s a great distraction.
>
> This whole matter of Russian collusion and the purloined DNC files
> serves as a good example, as a part of the distraction. Whether the
> collusion issue matters or not in the grand scheme of things, it has
> resulted in the insanity of just about everyone. Maybe I’m missing
> something here, so someone help me, but where is the evidence for any
> version of this story? I looked at the indictment: it has allegations,
> but no evidence. I looked at the DNI report: the same story. The gold
> standard for forensic evidence would be Clinton’s server, but, as Trump
> asked, where is it? (I doubt if Trump really comprehends the
> significance of his own question here.) Destruction of evidence is a
> crime, too, but does anyone care? I’m certainly not defending Trump
> here, but I don’t believe any statements by anyone from the FBI, CIA,
> NSA, or anyone else in the so-called intelligence community, nor do I
> have any confidence in whatever Putin or just about anyone else says.
> This whole thing is just a big show.
>
> When I tell someone I can’t accept the official version of this or that
> story (the JFK assassination, the 2001 WTC demolition, and so on), and
> people ask me what really happened, I almost always have to answer, “I
> don’t know, but the official story doesn’t work, it isn’t consistent
> with the facts”. But people have an extremely difficult time accepting
> that. It’s as if people demand an answer, even a wrong one, and refuse
> to be put into a position of ignorance. They’d rather be wrong than
> ignorant.
>
> I’m new to this Marxism thing. Somehow, until the last two years, I’d
> never been exposed to it. But it works well for my minimalist approach
> to certainty. It doesn’t matter if Putin helped Trump or if Wikileaks
> got the DNC files from any specific person or what really was behind
> any gas attack in Syria: the class analysis subsumes these things. It
> has been a little like reading Einstein’s General Theory: it encompasses
> the Special Theory, which generalizes Newton’s laws, and so on. It makes
> predictions which can be tested. It’s not complete, as we still don’t
> have a grand theory of everything, but it’s up the ladder.
>
> Of course, I get sucked into these ancillary questions, too. It’s fun,
> I’m a sucker for unsolved puzzles, and I like a good story and
> appreciate entertainment. Meanwhile, as Michelle Wolf pointed out at the
> White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the folks in Flint still don’t have
> clean drinking water. And, I might add, they’re still dying and
> otherwise suffering all over the world.
>
> I’m not asking anyone to drop these topics. As I said, I enjoy them.
> I’ve stopped reading some “news” sites since I began reading this list:
> it’s a great source of links to news and more.
>
> So I ask all you old-timers, in all humility, what have I been missing?
> Where is the real evidence that Julian Assange was or wasn’t duped,
> that he colluded or participated? While I’d find it hard to swallow a
> line that the Russian state didn’t fool around with computers and
> opinions and engaged in propagandizing, is there any real evidence that
> the DNC files ended up in the hands of Wikileaks because of the Russians
> and not because of an insider’s leak? Is there any real evidence that
> Assange knew one way or the other? As far as I can see, we (the
> outsiders?) don’t really know anything for sure. That’s pretty
> remarkable, in itself. In fact, that’s probably more interesting than
> the truth behind the revelation of the files. Just as, the truth behind
> the lack of a real, independent investigation into the 2001 WTC event is
> probably just as interesting as, if not more so than, the event itself.
> It’s one thing to commit a crime, and another thing – usually more
> difficult – to avoid discovery.
>
> It’s possible to create a lot of contradictory stories, many credible to
> varying degrees, when we have no unimpeachable facts. That seems to be
> where we are.
>
> I imagine that the lack, itself, of our knowledge probably says more
> about the class and other social structure than do the details of the
> events. In a very real way, the control of access to facts says a lot
> about who’s really in power. Yes, it’s consistent with our supposed
> class structure. And, unlike whether Assange did this or Trump did that,
> we don’t have to speculate: we know that we don’t know.
>
> The extreme compartmentalization of knowledge in the world is a new
> thing, I think. Back in the Nineteenth Century, the capitalists
> discussed openly how to create a world safe from the “predations” of the
> proletariat, they and their allies wrote books and no one cared who read
> them: they had power and they felt safe. Now there is secrecy, and
> apocalypse carries the death penalty or worse. Am I wrong, or when was
> this first recognized?
>
> Did Marx, or does Marxism, say anything about knowledge, or lack of it,
> among the proletariat, and how it would relate to revolution? It seems
> that holding strong opinions without conclusive evidence results in
> avoidable division. What that was or is said, applies to the current
> information and disinformation wars?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/
> options/marxism/markalause%40gmail.com



More information about the Marxism mailing list