Cui bono and induced neurosis

The recent campaign spearheaded by public media (read this post on the issue by Naky Soto), and private pollster Hinterlaces, arguing that long lines in supermarket are not the result of scarcity due to failed economic policies but to a form of neurosis “induced” by the enemies of the revolution, follows a form of cui bono argument:

“He who stands to benefit from the crime, has committed the crime”

This form of reasoning is typical of many police stories and conspiracy theories (Popper thought it was a basic tool of conspiracy theorizing.) When combined with the pop-psychology jargon deployed by Hinterlaces or Telesur, and faulty causation, it produces the curious result of actually blaming the opposition for the lines outside supermarkets.  

The line of the “neurosis” argument basically runs in two variations:

1) There is really no scarcity of basic products, but the opposition spreads rumors via social media that supermarkets are out of products. People then “neurotically” go and line up (Ingrid Navarro Leonett.)

2) There is scarcity, but it has been exacerbated and used by the opposition thus creating the neurotic behaviors of people lining up to buy stuff they don’t really need (Erick Navarro.)

Both arguments conclude that the lines could lead to protests and argue that the opposition would stand to benefit from those protests. Therefore there is no question that the opposition holds ultimate responsibility for the lines and the “neurosis” they generate.