Development of revolutionary theory

[xprol]

"Does the development of revolutionary theory "count" as "revolutionary practice"?"

Is anyone arguing that the universal historical struggle for better theory about everything, is not a constant revolutionary struggle to 'dominate' and change nature including ourselves in alienated class society?

The process and outcome is only 'determined' by necessity.

[redstar2000]

It's unfortunately fairly common in "left" circles to make a distinction between "activists" and "theoreticians"...with a kind of implication that the "activists" are "out there doing stuff" while the "theoreticians" are "sitting at a desk" just "scribbling away" in complete isolation from the real world.

This schemata is itself, of course, isolated from the real world. Activists do, on occasion at least, think and write about "theory" and theoreticians have been known to tentatively venture "into the streets" now and then.

The truth of the matter is that you really can't think up any kind of sensible revolutionary theory without reference to the history of practical struggle.

And what is often overlooked is that "practical struggle" never proceeds in the "complete absence" of theory...but what happens all too often is that the "theory" is not conscious.

One fellow had a good way of making this point: Do you have ideas or do ideas have you?

If you "are active" but haven't really thought through what you're doing and why, then there are unconscious theoretical assumptions that you're "operating on"...and they may not be true! :o

If you're operating on theoretical assumptions that aren't true, the outcome of your efforts is highly unlikely to be successful. :(

I suppose in a "perfect world", everyone would have significant understanding of revolutionary theory and be deeply immersed in practical struggle.

But we humans, alas, are imperfect and circumstances vary widely, making such an "ideal" well...idealistic.

What I would suggest, instead, is a more limited approach.

We should not criticize a "theoretician" for being a "theoretician"...but for bad theory.

Likewise, we should not criticize someone for being "just" an "activist"...but for bad practice.

Nor should we, of course, play "status games" with one another. Neither the "theoretician" nor the "practical activist" are "inherently superior" to one another.

You see that sort of thing on this board now and then: "you're just an armchair theoretician" and "you're just a mindless activist".

What we should really concentrate on is good theory and good practice.

The two are a lot more closely related than many people realize. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Theory and practice are inseparable. Theory is developed through pratice and practice is developed through theory. You cannot have correct theory unless that theory is engaged with practice; and you cannot have correct practice unless that practice is engaged with the theory developed through engagement with practice.

Sounds like a riddle but that's the best way i can put it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:15 PM
Theory and practice are inseparable. Theory is developed through pratice and practice is developed through theory. You cannot have correct theory unless that theory is engaged with practice; and you cannot have correct practice unless that practice is engaged with the theory developed through engagement with practice.

Sounds like a riddle but that's the best way i can put it.
A riddle indeed!

I've been told that everyone must be "multi-tasking" these days...but I can't help being skeptical about the outcome.

I've never been able to do two things at once...how about you? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Lamanov]

I'm sure that this text would explain it so much better than I could in any way. It's also one of the most important texts written in the whole history of philosophy, and it's worth of detailed studdy.

Theses on Feuerbach:

1

The main defect of all hitherto-existing materialism — that of Feuerbach included — is that the Object [der Gegenstand], actuality, sensuousness, are conceived only in the form of the object [Objekts], or of contemplation [Anschauung], but not as human sensuous activity, practice [Praxis], not subjectively. Hence it happened that the active side, in opposition to materialism, was developed by idealism — but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects [Objekte], differentiated from thought-objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective [gegenständliche] activity. In The Essence of Christianity [Das Wesen des Christenthums], he therefore regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and defined only in its dirty-Jewish form of appearance [Erscheinungsform]. Hence he does not grasp the significance of ‘revolutionary’, of ‘practical-critical’, activity.

2

The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness [Diesseitigkeit] of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

3

The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

4

Feuerbach starts off from the fact of religious self-estrangement [Selbstentfremdung], of the duplication of the world into a religious, imaginary world, and a secular [weltliche] one. His work consists in resolving the religious world into its secular basis. He overlooks the fact that after completing this work, the chief thing still remains to be done. For the fact that the secular basis lifts off from itself and establishes itself in the clouds as an independent realm can only be explained by the inner strife and intrinsic contradictoriness of this secular basis. The latter must itself be understood in its contradiction and then, by the removal of the contradiction, revolutionised. Thus, for instance, once the earthly family is discovered to be the secret of the holy family, the former must itself be annihilated [vernichtet] theoretically and practically.

5

Feuerbach, not satisfied with abstract thinking, wants sensuous contemplation [Anschauung]; but he does not conceive sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity.

6

Feuerbach resolves the essence of religion into the essence of man [menschliche Wesen = ‘human nature’]. But the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of the social relations. Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence is hence obliged:
1. To abstract from the historical process and to define the religious sentiment regarded by itself, and to presuppose an abstract — isolated - human individual.
2. The essence therefore can by him only be regarded as ‘species’, as an inner ‘dumb’ generality which unites many individuals only in a natural way.

7

Feuerbach consequently does not see that the ‘religious sentiment’ is itself a social product, and that the abstract individual that he analyses belongs in reality to a particular social form.

8

All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.

9

The highest point reached by contemplative [anschauende] materialism, that is, materialism which does not comprehend sensuousness as practical activity, is the contemplation of single individuals and of civil society .

[b]10

The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society or social humanity.

11

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

[xprol]

"The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society or social humanity.

11

Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. " Yes, Indeed ;)

Has anyone here been to meetings where the 'activists', desperate to get on with the business of producing a leaflet will spend lots of time discussing, what color it should be, whether it should be printed on both sides, lots of words or few, were it should be distributed, who should do the work etc,etc. What 'theory' that actually goes into the leaflet is usually reduced to what could what be written on a wall, placard, banner or shouted as a chanted slogan. But whether it is accurate or reflects the highest point of revolutionary understanding at any given time is positively discouraged with cries of "next business", "take a collection", "lets have a vote", do anything expert what the best 'practical' examples of revolutionary communism advocated, and spent their entire lives doing i.e. DEVELOPING REVOLUTIONARY THEORY. And what has been the 'practical' outcome of this 'practice'? A 'revolutionary' movement without agreed perspectives and so factional and ineffective we really need to coin a new word to adequately describe it.

The Soviet Union for example, wasn't lacking leaflets, equipment or people ready to do and die against capitalism, it was lacking correct revolutionary theory. The same applies everywhere now as then. The best practice (I say) is to clime out of the sectarian bolt holes and hammer out a perspective in opposition to the growing $ crisis and its WW III consequences. Anyone else up for it?

[More Fire for the People]

"... man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society."
The development of revolutionary theory is directly tied to revolutionary praxis. The philosophy of revolution grows originates from human practical activity. Without acting, we cannot correct our methods. No hypothesis can be rejected or accepted until it has been tested. We take what we know about history and science and apply to the current situation.

[xprol]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 10 2006, 10:07 PM
"... man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society."
The development of revolutionary theory is directly tied to revolutionary praxis. The philosophy of revolution grows originates from human practical activity. Without acting, we cannot correct our methods. No hypothesis can be rejected or accepted until it has been tested. We take what we know about history and science and apply to the current situation."
"... man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society."
The development of revolutionary theory is directly tied to revolutionary praxis. The philosophy of revolution grows originates from human practical activity. Without acting, we cannot correct our methods. No hypothesis can be rejected or accepted until it has been tested. We take what we know about history and science and apply to the current situation."


Good stuff,

'Acting' can be breathing, walking, listening, thinking, talking and writing. (fighting) This is now the most important self conscious ACTION, "practical activity" we can chose or be compelled, out of necessity, to do. Explaining that the $ crisis is driving the planet into WW III and that the only remedy is our conscious resistance against an economically and philosophically bankrupt system, is in our interest, is the best practice.