This discussion of conflict theorists vs mistake theorists reminds me of conspiracy theorists: by this I specifically mean those who go out of their way to look

This discussion of conflict theorists vs mistake theorists reminds me of conspiracy theorists: by this I specifically mean those who go out of their way to look for a conspiracy where the evidence is rather thin. But there appears to be less criticism of the opposite of this, those coincidence theorists who go out of their way to find a coincidence where the evidence of collusion is too great to ignore. I suspect that nobody is wholly one or the other: one who believes in conspiracies between the US state and the wealthy to manufacture wars seems somewhat unlikely to believe in communists-in-every-level-of-government conspiracy theories. Nobody could reasonably argue that the organisation of workers into unions involved no cooperation, yet we become labelled as conspiracy theorists, stereotyped and dismissed completely if we refuse to believe that events, which were incredibly convenient for the moneyed few, involved no cooperation in the face of evidence to the contrary. The problem with past events is that they are always subject to some interpretation. There are events in distant history that are still a matter of contention and which scholars, with no political preference for a particular individual, can agree upon. With the deep politicisation of much of the international events of the last 100 years and the amount that remains to gain by exploiting them, it may well be that the dust never settles.