Re: Further Notes on Theory/Practice (Was Questioning the desire...)

[Jorn Andersen <ccc6639@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, that you've been in my "to be answered box" for a week
- but you were not forgotten...

Carrol Cox wrote:

>     I suspect there is no real argument between Jorn and me; it is merely
> a matter of what, in a specific situation, to emphasize.

On the general level yes. And I also think your two examples
are quite good - although to the last one about kneading bread:
Actually my mother taught me to knead the bread by showing and
telling me what to do and not to do.

This was theory, I think you'll agree. But you're right that
at some time practice was first and continues to play an
important role as in your example role. Bycycling IMO is
another example (Remember?). And I also think that
socialism is not *only* about putting theory in command.
Socialism will - because of its liberating content -
also tend to strengthen very much the innovative
aspect of human action. (Just a tortuous way to say,
that under socialism free humans will do everything
better :-)

There are however projects that can't be fulfilled
*succesfully* without theory in command.

Modern technology is more or less "applied theory" of sorts.
Take a car, a computer, telephone networks etc. None of these
things can be produced without theory in command.

You could argue that they each consist of separate "acts"
that have "at some time" had practice come first. I would
argue then that there's some amount of "quantity turning
into quality" involved - so it's not a valid argument.

And now we get closer to my more specific point: Socialist
revolution. It is my opinion that for a socialist
revolution to *succeed* it is crucial that theory is "put
in command".
If we consider it from the view of a theorist of social
science we would find out:

Yes, the idea of socialism (in modern sense: workers power)
did not spring from Marx's mind, but had roots in real
workers' real struggles in the real world.

Yes, the Paris Commune had to teach Marx and Engels about
the role of the state, - and 1905 Lenin and Trotsky about
workers' councils. And 1917 compared to Germany showed us
the necessity of a bolshevik party, I would add.

But if you see it from a Marxist point of view, i.e.
>from the point of view that investigates the
conditions for this revolution to succeed, I think
you would argue 100% for the primacy of theory.

The reason for putting "theory in command" is twofold:
1. In a revolutionary situation (Russia from February to
October, Germany from 1918-23 etc.) the struggle goes
up and down. If in such a situation not the (from the
outset) socialist minority is able to win the majority
of workers to go for their own power and not only
for a number of reforms then the revolution will
loose.

This I think is theory in command: A conscious will
and an outline of the project is necessary for it
to win. This theory is based on reflections from
earlier practice, but in putting up world revolution
as a conscious goal, the large number of elements
in Marxist theory is synthesized at a higher level.

I mean: We haven't had a world revolution yet, so
we can't know it will work - it's pure theory. In
reality what Marx himself defined as his central
thesis' will not be proved right unless we succeed.
(So if we are really interested in Marxist theory,
we will have to try it out.)
Or: We can't "stumble" to socialism.

2. The other reason for putting theory in command
today is that our practical experiences has shown
that the before mentioned party (at least the core
or "scaffold" of it) has to be built before the
revolutionary situation if it should stand a
chance to win the majority over from Social
Democratic or Nationalist etc. ideas.

So not only is the revolutionary proces a question
of putting theory in command but so should today's
practice be. I think this is the main argument to
be taken with people who want to change the world:
That they won't change the world with either theory
or practice alone *nor* with any mix of them, *but
only* by putting their action under command of
their theory. Socialism only comes about with
conscious action - by "putting ideas into action".

This is not an argument for mechanic action - on the
contrary it's an argument for continuous political
debate about how to act, what did we learn etc.

I think this is enough for now. Well, just one more
point. Lenin argued very well *after* October, that
one element in their revolution was different: The
uprising itself. All the preparations, the winning
of majority (in- and outside the party) for the
uprising was a very conscious act (although with a
high degree of practical sensibility - like kneading
the bread). But the uprising itself was a pure
"acting it out". He used the term of "treating the
insurrection as an art".

So you are right that sometimes we stress theory,
other times practice - but if we shall win, it makes
a hell of a difference, when we do what :-)

Of course you are right about your last example that
wrong theory doesn't help much.


Yours

Jorn Andersen

IS
Denmark



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---