Theory is science. It has to keep up with the evolving nature of capitalism.
While fascism was invented to defeat communism in response to the Bolshevik Revolution, the fact is that left wing theory until this day still has no definite answer to fascism - the most vicious form of capitalism.
Lenin saw the rise of fascism late in his life but did not live long enough to observe the true destructive force of fascism. Stalin spent the rest of his life rebuilding a country where tens of millions were sacrificed in the fight against fascism. Same with Mao having to deal with the Japanese and the KMT fascists, where millions and millions were killed in the process.
The post-war European left turned their backs on the Soviet Union and chose class collaborationism with capital in the form of social democracy, which directly caused the rise of far right nationalism in the present day, to which they have no answer for.
The post-war US perfected the brutality of fascism in the form of Jakarta Method, which was then enacted across the Third World where tens of millions were murdered and tortured in the name of anti-communism. The destructive nature of fascism lingers to this very day in many places across the Global South.
More than one hundred years since fascists first took power in Italy, the left still has no answer for it. How to defeat it without getting millions of people killed in the process. That should tell you the state of left wing theoretical development we are in today, and how much work needs to be done while time is about to run out.
Completely agree about the need for theory to evolve with material changes.
Science needs to advance, but does it follow that every individual leftist needs to be preoccupied with theory, with becoming a scientist? For every Lenin there were millions of average people trusting in the party line that he and the Bolsheviks produced. Most Russian revolutionaries, of whom only a fraction were serious party members, likely did not have a strong grasp of theory outside of their own experience.
Western leftists (myself included) have to combat their latent liberalism, one form of which is a belief in the “marketplace of ideas.” This belief is the basis of electoralism, which as most lefitsts understand theoretically, is ineffectual in practice. Yet with so much emphasis on perfecting science, one has to wonder if the Western left has actually internalized the truth that the best idea does not inevitably win, that progress doesn’t follow inevitably from worsening material conditions.
We could have a perfect theoretical understanding of capitalism and it would not matter until the left has politically organized in such a way as to put that theory into practice. There are enough theorizers/philosophers/“scientists” on the left and not enough direct action and organizing.
Reading the abstract theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao — it is too easy to forget the context in which those writings happen. Many believe that Marx invented communism, but his actual result was consolidating an otherwise disorganized proletarian movement under a single theoretical basis.
The manifesto itself was written intentionally watered down on some points so as to receive buy-in from various socialist factions. The intellectual disagreements between the factions worked themselves out because the correctness of this or that idea was demonstrated in practice. Engels wrote in his 1888 preface to the manifesto,
Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes in the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to men’ s minds the insufficiency of their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight into the true conditions for working-class emancipation. And Marx was right. The International, on its breaking in 1874, left the workers quite different men from what it found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in Germany, were dying out, and even the conservative English trade unions, though most of them had long since severed their connection with the International, were gradually advancing towards that point at which, last year at Swansea, their president [W. Bevan] could say in their name: “Continental socialism has lost its terror for us.” In fact, the principles of the Manifesto had made considerable headway among the working men of all countries.
Leftist theory does need to advance, but not through contemplation alone. It needs to be tested in practice. And I think that is what JT is saying here, that theoretical correctness is secondary to direct action.
What you need is called praxis - practice guided by theory.
The scientific nature of Marxism necessarily implies that its theory will be carried out and tested in the real world. However, without a theoretical foundation, practice is as good as shooting in the dark. It’s like wanting to build a plane but never bothering to pick up a physics textbook to study the foundational principles in the first place. Yes, you can try to re-invent the wheel that took several centuries of collective effort, but it’s going to take a very long time before you even get close to a starting point.
It is no coincidence that all socialist governments that have succeeded in their revolutions and survived the ensuing counter-revolutions are all Marxist-Leninist.
Theory is science. It has to keep up with the evolving nature of capitalism.
While fascism was invented to defeat communism in response to the Bolshevik Revolution, the fact is that left wing theory until this day still has no definite answer to fascism - the most vicious form of capitalism.
Lenin saw the rise of fascism late in his life but did not live long enough to observe the true destructive force of fascism. Stalin spent the rest of his life rebuilding a country where tens of millions were sacrificed in the fight against fascism. Same with Mao having to deal with the Japanese and the KMT fascists, where millions and millions were killed in the process.
The post-war European left turned their backs on the Soviet Union and chose class collaborationism with capital in the form of social democracy, which directly caused the rise of far right nationalism in the present day, to which they have no answer for.
The post-war US perfected the brutality of fascism in the form of Jakarta Method, which was then enacted across the Third World where tens of millions were murdered and tortured in the name of anti-communism. The destructive nature of fascism lingers to this very day in many places across the Global South.
More than one hundred years since fascists first took power in Italy, the left still has no answer for it. How to defeat it without getting millions of people killed in the process. That should tell you the state of left wing theoretical development we are in today, and how much work needs to be done while time is about to run out.
Completely agree about the need for theory to evolve with material changes.
Science needs to advance, but does it follow that every individual leftist needs to be preoccupied with theory, with becoming a scientist? For every Lenin there were millions of average people trusting in the party line that he and the Bolsheviks produced. Most Russian revolutionaries, of whom only a fraction were serious party members, likely did not have a strong grasp of theory outside of their own experience.
Western leftists (myself included) have to combat their latent liberalism, one form of which is a belief in the “marketplace of ideas.” This belief is the basis of electoralism, which as most lefitsts understand theoretically, is ineffectual in practice. Yet with so much emphasis on perfecting science, one has to wonder if the Western left has actually internalized the truth that the best idea does not inevitably win, that progress doesn’t follow inevitably from worsening material conditions.
We could have a perfect theoretical understanding of capitalism and it would not matter until the left has politically organized in such a way as to put that theory into practice. There are enough theorizers/philosophers/“scientists” on the left and not enough direct action and organizing.
Reading the abstract theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao — it is too easy to forget the context in which those writings happen. Many believe that Marx invented communism, but his actual result was consolidating an otherwise disorganized proletarian movement under a single theoretical basis.
The manifesto itself was written intentionally watered down on some points so as to receive buy-in from various socialist factions. The intellectual disagreements between the factions worked themselves out because the correctness of this or that idea was demonstrated in practice. Engels wrote in his 1888 preface to the manifesto,
Leftist theory does need to advance, but not through contemplation alone. It needs to be tested in practice. And I think that is what JT is saying here, that theoretical correctness is secondary to direct action.
What you need is called praxis - practice guided by theory.
The scientific nature of Marxism necessarily implies that its theory will be carried out and tested in the real world. However, without a theoretical foundation, practice is as good as shooting in the dark. It’s like wanting to build a plane but never bothering to pick up a physics textbook to study the foundational principles in the first place. Yes, you can try to re-invent the wheel that took several centuries of collective effort, but it’s going to take a very long time before you even get close to a starting point.
It is no coincidence that all socialist governments that have succeeded in their revolutions and survived the ensuing counter-revolutions are all Marxist-Leninist.