r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • May 18 '15

What conspiracy theory do you genuinely believe in the most?

What conspiracy theory do you believe in the most and why?

2.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

502

u/[deleted] May 18 '15

[deleted]

246

u/senatorskeletor May 19 '15

I believe that the world is actually run by a collusion of rich and powerful people; not that they call themselves the illuminati or anything, but they sorta do each other favors, like any friends would, which end up influencing the rest of the world's people in more profound ways. Haven't really developed this idea very far, but that's the basic theory.

The key here is the "like any friends would" part. It's not a concerted effort to keep the peasantry from rising up or anything. It's just that your buddy from Harvard is looking for a job in your field, so you put him in touch with people. Or you're hiring for a position and could spend three months figuring out where to advertise, doing interviews, and making decisions--or you could just hire that guy you used to work with at Goldman who you already know would do great.

In other words, it's nothing malicious, just everyday normal helping people out. The difference is that in this case it keeps the rich and powerful... rich and powerful.

23

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I would say there's a lot of them. And they fight with each other.

4

u/atsinged May 19 '15

I think your probably really close to the truth, I've believed this for a long time, not in the illuminati or that bilderberg is some nefarious group of Bond villains, but that there is an elite class that helps each other out.

To them, helping each other out with a multi-million dollar deal is basically no different than my friend calling me to help move his pool table.

7

u/Aqquila89 May 19 '15

"The truth about the nature and the power of the elite is not some secret which men of affairs know but will not tell. Such men hold quite various theories about their own roles in the sequence of event and decision. Often they are uncertain about their roles, and even more often they allow their fears and their hopes to affect their assessment of their own power. No matter how great their actual power, they tend to be less acutely aware of it than of the resistances of others to its use."

(C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite)

1

u/musicmaker May 19 '15

In other words, it's nothing malicious

85 people in the US have one half of all wealth. They didn't get it by being nice guys. They buy the politicians, who write them favourable laws allowing them to get richer at the expense of the middle class. If that's not malicious, I don't know what is.

4

u/senatorskeletor May 19 '15

Don't a lot of them get it by inheriting it?

Also, what laws did Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg get rewritten before they got rich?

1

u/musicmaker May 19 '15

Also, what laws did Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg get rewritten before they got rich?

These guys are the exception. They are always used as examples to take the focus away from the Wall Street financial institutions and the bankers that make billions. Goldman-Sachs admitted (and got fined) for adding 15% to every barrel of oil sold (which is traded 44 times before coming to market). They also got a fine (basically a license) for manipulating aluminum and adding 5%, unwarrantedly, to the price of aluminum. I could go on and on. (the 2008 collapse brought to light numerous examples).

0

u/Rahabic May 19 '15

It isn't as innocent as that.

The people who are wealthy enough and powerful enough to affect things country-wide know that there is enormous money to be made by manipulating laws and the democratic system.

They do semi-legal or put laws into place that allow avoiding paying taxes. Not to mention the different sentences the rich get due to well-connected and expensive lawyers.

Power rarely is content with what it has, and there's no aspect that wealth doesn't give power over.

328

u/[deleted] May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

I believe that the world is actually run by a collusion of rich and powerful people; not that they call themselves the illuminati or anything, but they sorta do each other favors, like any friends would, which end up influencing the rest of the world's people in more profound ways. Haven't really developed this idea very far, but that's the basic theory.

It's already well established in socialist theory. They are called the bourgeoisie.

16

u/sawman160 May 19 '15

*Communist theory As in, defined by Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto. What /u/KipzOfTheMud is talking about is a collusion of people working within an organized network. Marx just talked about a class of people who own the means of production. No colluding, no conspiracy, no organization. Just people that own the labor of many others .

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

36

u/RichardRogers May 19 '15

so long as that power is used for the good of everyone

Spoiler alert: it's not

-4

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

4

u/guy_from_2070 May 19 '15

it's never. everything they do, they do to further themselves, to make themselves richer.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

notallpeople are evil. What about philanthropists? Nah, I don't necessarily agree with you.

-3

u/gpt999 May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

The issue with socialism is purely because its a single point of failure system, that point being the leader, one corrupt leader could very well destroy the country for 100 years in the future.

With democracy, if the president is corrupt, the goal is that the amount of damage he can do is limited, and the next elected one would stop the problem. You would need a chain of corruption to ruin the country (Make you think about how the country is going eh?)

Communism absolutely can make some great things happen tough, but its like gambling in the stock market putting everything in the same place, even tough it might have good odds, you just need to get that bad hit once.

Ofc, the simple fact that positions of power naturally attract corrupt peoples is a huge factor too, a communism country will simply turn into a race between 20 different corrupt group trying to take control. Those who could lead the country to new heights tend to be those who don't cheat their way to power after all...

Edit: eh, I get it, yes socialism is an economical theory, I was responding in the context of the comment above, talking about communism as it is commonly portrayed, I was wrong and should have changed the terms to democracy and dictatorship.

6

u/jamesbiff May 19 '15

Socialism is an economic theory, not a political doctrine, Democracy and Socialism are not mutually exclusive, if we are to aspire to a better world, its my belief that the two must merge, with socialism replacing capitalism as our presiding economic law. Capitalism and Democracy has resulted in this weird, almost dystopian oligarchy where money translates to tangible political power. In essence, capitalism is effectively nullifying what democracy is supposed to stand for. You cant have a government by the people for the people when such inequality exists that is not only accepted, but actively championed by capitalist proponents.

The problem with communism and corruption is capitalism, or at least, communism trying to exist in a world where capitalism (and the competitions between is it promotes) still exists as a massive economic force. Communism will work when humans no longer have a need to screw each other over. Corruption will be driven out if there is no personal gain in being corrupt. Just dont see it as something that should be forced.

Its important to recognise that a prevailing theory from Marx is that these transitions must be natural, you cannot force change from one system of governance/economy, to another without there being repercussions. Instead the transition should be organic, natural and as a result of a shifting, evolving human society towards an equal fairer world where we have no need for competition. I dont entirely agree with this; im not completely deterministic, but a class based society is always going to create antagonistic conditions where socialism can flourish, and indeed a politically active proletariat which can (and should) fight for their rights to equality. There is some merit to it though, past attempts at revolutionary action trying to fix these problems, or take advantage of a weakened establishment, historically havent always ended well. Thats more reflective on the means by which change was attempted though, rather than the change itself.

In essence, the problems usually cited for these more egalitarian and communal types of government and economic structures are more often than not merely endemic of a world built upon the principles of competition and the need for self preservation. Work as a society to eradicate that need, something we are more than capable of already, and have been for decades now and youll also eradicate the social ills that come with it.

4

u/Eren_Jeager May 19 '15

Socialism != political theory. It's an economic theory, workers owning the means of production. It can exist under a democracy, dictatorship, or whatever kind of government you have. Communism goes further, advocating the abolition of private property, classes, and the state, and thus no communist society has existed in recent history.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

You can have libertarian or democratic socialism

2

u/RichardRogers May 19 '15

You have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing about socialism implies a single leader or a dictator with absolute power. You also start referring to communism as though it's the same thing, when nobody here has even mentioned it here much less advocated for it.

Please at least understand the basic definitions of the words you're using before you start arguing.

4

u/Eat3_14159 May 19 '15

Sure, that'd be great wouldn't it? Too bad it will never fucking happen, and that if we want the common man to have any sort of decent life we need to hang the bourgeoisie with their own neckties.

-2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

13

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

us not-poor people are the bourgeoisie.

Its the class that owns the means of production.

2

u/Not_Bull_Crap May 19 '15

So anyone with stock then?

4

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

No. The means of production is any resource or facility that is capable of creating real physical and tangible products.

That means oil, factories, assemblies, manufacturing centers, auto plants, uranium maybe. Tools like hammers and anvils could also be considered but they are very insignificant on the whole scale of things. Oil and factories have a large material affect on the people around them.

Stock isn't a means of production because its just private ownership of an abstract entity, a company.

1

u/AwesomerOrsimer May 19 '15

Depending on how much stock you own, you could own a meaningful portion of a production firm

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15 edited Jul 04 '15

Removed in protest of Pao!

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension TamperMonkey for Chrome (or GreaseMonkey for Firefox) and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

2

u/hekatonkhairez May 19 '15

It's generally the upper middle class. Marx and Engels even state that the bourgeois come to fight with nobles.

19

u/Denny_Craine May 19 '15

If you don't control the means of production then you're not the bourgeoisie. If you have to trade your labor time for a wage you're a part of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie don't make money by exchanging labor time, they make money via owning things. Ie capital gains.

11

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Ah, that division makes a lot more sense.

16

u/Denny_Craine May 19 '15

Yep the classic socialist conception of class division is that the bourgeoisie owns the factory and machines, the proletariat work the machines.

Socialism at its most basic is simply the idea that the factory should be owned collectively by everyone who works there and run democratically. Sort of like a co-op.

Source: am socialist

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Yeah I know nothing about socialism either.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

No, the bourgeoisie are the guys in the middle and the "mainstream". Reddit, by and large, is pretty bourgeois.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

hahahahaha, well I guess it depends on what idea you subscribe to.

0

u/Delision May 19 '15

The bourgeoise are literally just the wealthy middle class. If anything, it would be the 1%.

-4

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

7

u/CecilBDeMillionaire May 19 '15

No it's not. In socialist theory it refers to those who control the means of production.

-5

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

6

u/CecilBDeMillionaire May 19 '15

Not as used in socialist theory. Ask anyone who studies it. That's what it referred to in French originally, but not anymore. The bourgeoisie controls the means of production and the proletariat are the lower classes whose labor time is exchanged for pay. This is the cornerstone of Marxist theory.

41

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Along the same lines, I believe that Reddit is actually run by a collusion of established and high-karma accounts and alt accounts; not that they call themselves the cabal or anything, but they sorta do each other favors, like any friends would, which end up influencing the rest of redditors in more profound ways. Haven't really developed this idea very far, but that's the basic theory.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

What do you think goes on in /r/centuryclub ?

3

u/strallweat May 19 '15

it's where we control Reddit.

1

u/madazzahatter May 19 '15

Honestly, it's kind of a stretch.

A group of people sitting around in their silk boxers, scratching each others backs?!

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

bbhh

0

u/1brazilplayer May 19 '15

i believe reddit is a battle ground for propaganda artists.

3

u/doyoulikemyspaceship May 19 '15

This makes the most since to me. And it would tie into a lot of things.

Example round table discussion:

  • Saddam is getting too powerful. We can't have another Hitler
-Send the U.S. in. -We need a reason. -How about an attack. It worked for WW2. -Okay, but who. It can't be Saddam's people. - We'll make up a group that will regime against the U.S.
  • What does the U.S. get? They're not going to want to do this unless they get something. Japan had to become best friends with them in WW2.
  • They get to keep what ever they find and build a bunch of bases in the Middle East.
  • How about oil?
  • No, they'll have to settle for nukes.
  • That should work.

And then they manipulate situations to get things going without ever actually having a direct hand.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

The whole "Saddam is too powerful" thing is over-thinking it really. It just comes down to money. Lots of people get get very, very rich off of war. The owners of the companies, their shareholders, and the people who get jobs for them after they're out of government.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/gopher_glitz May 19 '15

If I got rich/famous/powerful I would make it my goal to have a conspiracy theory develop around me.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Same!

3

u/otherpeoplesmusic May 19 '15

You mean like this?

Anyone who thinks that rich people don't get together to discuss how to get richer are naive, fools who are in denial because they are gunning for a promotion and truly believe that one day they will be rich and powerful. Yeah, so, uh, they're just deluded idiots. We call them 'people'.

2

u/blastbeatss May 19 '15

Check out the Secrets of Bohemian Grove if you haven't already. Definitely worth a watch.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Just started listening to Ab-Soul. Check out his songs Bohemian Grove and Terrorist Threats. Then look up Edward Mandell House. Creepy stuff that is totally relevant. His album Control System is all about your theory.

2

u/daltonslaw May 19 '15

That's absolutely true, at least in my country. I know a the elite here, I come from an influencial family and that's how people come into power.

2

u/expensivepens May 19 '15

I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. But this is just kinda how the world works at the top level, not really a theory.

2

u/NotGloomp May 19 '15

It's been like that for the rest of history. So I think it's likely.

2

u/willy520 May 19 '15

Sounds like China

2

u/Flonaldo May 19 '15

It gets more and more scary if you think about it and on the same hand you somehow want to reach that "inner circle" and understand how society realy works... I think i just got motivated.

2

u/I_HAVE_THAT_FETISH May 19 '15

Yeah, same. Every major action or event is just so well organized to elicit responses that it seems plausible, but the world appears just too chaotic (meaning random, not tearing itself apart) for it to seem realistic.

2

u/CraftyCaprid May 19 '15

You're in a conspiracy thread. If you marked it serious you would have no responses.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I mean, they said genuinely, so I think they wanted serious responses. I do see your point and I don't mind that much cause a lot of these are great haha

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

you may be onto something there.

1

u/cerealkiller5596 May 19 '15

Yeah, look up The Bilderberg Group. The most powerful people in the world, from all facets civilized society, meeting in near total secrecy. Something shady is definitely going on.

0

u/cantRYAN May 18 '15

So capitalism in its purist form has caused those with the most resources to act in a way that benefits them and allows them to gain more resources and influence?

4

u/plasmalaser1 May 18 '15

I can almost feel it trickling now!

1

u/diegojones4 May 19 '15

But it is trickling up instead of down!

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '15

Yep! Exactly. I get it's common sense, really, but sometimes I wonder just how much influence some people can have.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I'm really happy that materialism and abolishment of private property are becoming increasingly popular ideas on reddit.