Rarely do I feel the need to write polemical letters, but after reading Ray F’s "In Defense of Conspiracy Theories," I found myself confounded. On one hand, I agree with comrade Ray’s call “to incorporate bourgeois criminality into our political indictment” and his assertion that criminality and intentionality must be incorporated into our analysis. In this sense, we need not fear investigating conspiracies, influence campaigns, or other clandestine means of power. Furthermore, there is sociological merit in the claim that if the Left cedes the "counter-history" space, the Right will fill it. When people feel lied to by mainstream institutions, it is natural to seek alternative explanations. If the Left provides no framework for understanding events like the Epstein scandal or state surveillance, people may adopt the "ethno-nationalistic mysticism" Ray F. warns about.

On the other hand, it is vital that we do not provide pseudo-answers just to fill a narrative gap when we do not—and often cannot—know the specific reasons for the events at hand. Ray F. alludes to conspiracies regarding the JFK assassination, yet it is unclear to me that even if we reject the conclusions of the Warren Report, we have a materially substantive answer as to what actually happened or who committed the crime. More importantly, it is unclear what such an answer would reveal about socialism beyond general societal corruption. While we should not fear investigating specific actors, we cannot offer the "pat" answers that conspiracy theorists do. To offer a "political indictment" or "connect these actors," a socialist organization must possess rigorous evidence. The problem with many "hidden histories" is that the evidence is, by definition, hidden or ambiguous.

Comrade Ray F. says, “If socialists do not offer a political indictment of these high crimes... then we leave that counter-history space open.” This seems like a simple enough mandate, but it is a far more complex claim than it appears.

Ray F.’s claim relies on the sociological idea of the "open field," which suggests the human need for explanation is so strong that people will not accept "we don't know" or "random coincidence" as an answer to major events. This may be sociologically true, but we must remember that conspiracy theorists offer speculation as answers. Scientists and materialists must accept that we cannot offer hard answers without hard evidence. We must have an explanation for why we don't know, but this line of thinking can tempt us into arguing from an absence of evidence simply to counter a right-wing narrative.

While it is true that most modern socialist theory is "structuralist"—arguing that capitalism is a self-driving system of incentives where "bad actors" only matter on the margin—it is also true that in periods of elite decomposition, plots become more common. Yet, it is not "mere economism" to point out that this decomposition is still driven by factors larger than individual criminality. Let’s look at Ray F.’s own example from Marx’s The Class Struggles in France:

Since the finance aristocracy made the laws... the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere... to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others... The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures, is nothing but the rebirth of the lumpenproletariat on the heights of bourgeois society.

While finance capital has far more control over production today than in the 19th century, one must be careful not to read this solely as an indictment of criminality. Firstly, Marx is distinguishing between Industrial Capital (extracting surplus value through production) and Finance Capital (extracting wealth through speculation, debt, and state manipulation). The latter is inherently tied to the state and formed the basis of the structural analysis of imperialism from Bukharin to Lenin.

By calling the finance aristocracy the "rebirth of the lumpenproletariat," Marx is arguing they occupy a specific functional position in the social hierarchy. They are "parasitic" because they do not organize production; they merely circulate existing value. Their "unbridled appetites" are the cultural expression of a class with no long-term interest in the stability of the productive economy. This is a structural argument as much as it is one about criminality.

Marx notes that this group "made the laws" and "had command of all organized public authorities." This isn't just a "conspiracy" of friends; it’s a description of State Credit. The finance aristocracy requires the state to be in debt to profit from interest and speculation. Therefore, the "capture" of the state is a structural requirement for their mode of capital accumulation.

Lastly, the "clash" between the finance aristocracy and bourgeois law highlights a contradiction within the ruling class. The industrial bourgeoisie needs the "rule of law" and stable contracts to run factories; the financial bourgeoisie thrives on the "gambling" that breaks those laws. This is a structural tension between different types of capital, not a personality conflict.

Marx acknowledges that "the law is only made in the breach," which does correspond to the need to answer conspiracy theorists. Conspiracies exist, and we acknowledge them structurally. Yet, note what Marx does not do: he does not “name names” without evidence. He limits his naming to obvious, known actors like Napoleon III, and even then, his accusations are carefully context-bound. His explanations are grounded in larger structures. This lacks the narrative "satisfaction" of speculating about Freemasons or whatever Candace Owens is currently blathering about, but it remains scientific.

Ray F. asserts that "anti-conspiracy" thought is a type of "economism." There is ambiguity here: is it "anti-conspiracy" to limit one’s commentary to what can be known? If so, I disagree with him. The intentionality of the class is still structurally limited. While systems do not run themselves and "agency" exists, structures set the field of play.

Our comrade highlights a genuine "collapse of belief" in corporate news. This breakdown of trust and the resulting "linguistic innovations" (e.g., "algospeak") are significant social trends because of the resulting and natural paranoia. However, another epistemological problem emerges: if you validate the method of conspiracy thinking (universal skepticism of all official sources), it becomes impossible to build a unified movement. A movement built on "questioning everything" struggles to "do anything," as members eventually turn that skepticism toward their own organizations.

Regarding the CIA’s promotion of "Western Marxism" or the Okhrana’s use of revisionist theories, we should study these interventions. However, we would be foolish to suggest these actions were the primary cause of the Second International’s failure or the Sino-Soviet split. As Scott Patrick wrote in his review of Gabriel Rockhill’s work:

The deflection from organizational inadequacies runs deeper... The CIA did not force the CPUSA to purge itself... These choices had material causes rooted in class composition, organizational culture, and strategic confusion.

The issue is not a binary choice for or against "conspiracy." Conspiracies happen within and because of structures. But we must not abandon scientific thinking just to provide a "counter-theory" to the Right.

If socialists begin "connecting dots" without proof, they risk losing scientific credibility and descending into the very "mysticism" they oppose. We risk falling into pure moralism or "Great Man" theories that actually spare the mechanisms of capital by blaming a few "corrupt individuals." Furthermore, the working class acting for itself cannot look like the capitalist class acting for itself; our goals of class abolition are fundamentally different from their goals of sectional infighting.

The ambiguities around the socialist relationship to para-political and clandestine organizing cannot be solved by merely defending or condemning "conspiracy theories." In truth, both “conspiracy theory,” “voluntarism,” and “economism” can be utilized as thought-stopping cliches—labels we throw at ideas or situations we dislike to avoid engaging with their material reality. The primary problem in this debate is not which "ism" one subscribes to, but a devotion to scientific thinking that sees individual agency as real, yet constrained and incentivized by the structures of the mode of production.

In short, to comrade Ray F., I would say: investigate away, but ensure your evidence for every claim made is backed up rigorously and properly limited. It may not be as "sexy," but the strategic gambit of abandoning scientific rigor is a threat to the socialist project.

Sincerely,

C. Derick Varn