History or theory?

[Weezer]

What do you think is more important to argue over: history or theory? I'm not going to make a big post here, I'm simply wondering what my fellow comrades think is more important.

[A.R.Amistad]

why does one have to be given primacy over the other? Why can't history inform theory, and theory help in understanding history?

[StoneFrog]

I feel most socialists live to much in the past and lack the initiative to develop new theories for modern time. If we look here on revleft most the time its people arguing over this and that in history, instead we should be making history.

[Nachie]

Why can't we talk about shit that actually affects my life and the lives of people we know?

[9]

@OP: "history or theory" is a false dichotomy. They are interconnected.

[9]

Amistad sort of beat me to it, actually.

[Optiow]

I prefer to use history as a basis for anything I do, as I am liable to get confused with theory after a while.

History tells us what we have done wrong, and how we can fix that. If we do not look at the USSR and Chine etc, how will we properly discover the best way for communism to work? History is a good way to look on past communists and look at what they have done and analyze it (even compare it to the theory if you wish).

However, we must not dwell on history, as that will lead to nowhere. Just look at it, judge what went wrong, and work on it from there.

[∞]

history is merely a theory, is it not my friend?

[InuyashaKnight]

Both

[9]

I feel most socialists live to much in the past and lack the initiative to develop new theories for modern time. If we look here on revleft most the time its people arguing over this and that in history, instead we should be making history.

History is made by class struggle, not dedicated cliques of individuals who change the world by sheer force of will. I agree with some of what you're saying, in the sense that I think there is a need to transcend the Soviet Union - for Marxist theory to better account for more recent developments and to address the present in a more comprehensive (and relatable) way. But I also think any serious developments in this direction can only really occur as the result of a growing class struggle.

[ComradeOm]

Why can't we talk about shit that actually affects my life and the lives of people we know? Its rare that I get a chance to quote Brinton but I can only agree with the below sentiment:


Without a clear understanding of objectives and of the forces (including ideological forces) impeding advance - in short without a sense of history - the revolutionary struggle tends to become 'all movement and no direction'. Without clear perspectives, revolutionaries tend to fall into traps - or be diverted into blind alleys - which, with a little knowledge of their own past, they could easily have avoided

This is particularly true for Marxists and others who put any stock in class analysis. Class is not as objective as we would like - people do not come with their class stamped on foreheads - and its through history that we observe how classes act in certain circumstances and what their interests truly are. Its this historical perspective that informs us that social revolution is necessary

[Optiow]

history is merely a theory, is it not my friend?
History has happened, theory has not happened.

[AK]

Vote for all 4 options :lol:

[A.R.Amistad]

History has happened, theory has not happened.

Sounds like Karl Popper :thumbdown:

[el_chavista]

What do you think is more important to argue over: history or theory?...
Isn't Marxism a theory of history? http://aporrealos.com/forum/images/smiles/102.gif