The collapse of the American empire would benefit almost every other country. I am starting to feel that since I live in America I should want to accelerate the collapse (or make sure one happens if things start to go back to business as usual). Can someone tell me why this is a bad idea so that I don’t make a mistake here.
Don’t stop there. Also get organized and put the theory into practice. You cannot develop one without the other. As Mao puts it “knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice”
Nah, I dont think that is a great idea. As lenin said: there is no revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory. People have lives. They need to put regular reading into their day, not running around in “leftist” circlejerks. I speak from experience.
But then youre absolutely right. Once a strong theoretical core is set, it is time to act. Were talking weeks, not years.
I think that learning theory without something to apply it to is essentially useless. And that is something I learned from experience as well. I was studying theory for about a year without any organizing experience, repeatedly telling myself “okay, once I understand this stuff, I’ll start organizing.” But I didn’t really understand it because I had very little to relate it to. It wasn’t until I started organizing and studying simultaneously that things really clicked
Again, turning to Mao, “The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice.” Lenin also says “Practice is higher than theoretical knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality.”
The Marxist Theory of Knowledge holds that rational knowledge depends upon perceptual knowledge, and that perceptual knowledge must be developed into rational knowledge. That is to say, knowledge begins with practical experience and must be deepened with theory. Then it must once again be practically applied.
To put the Mao quote I used earlier into full context: “From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important, and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin’s statement, ‘Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.’ But Marxism emphasizes the importance of theory precisely and only because it can guide action. If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance. Knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice.”
I know you’re saying you should start applying it within a couple weeks, and applying it is certainly the most important part. But it is a major error to discredit the fact that knowledge must begin with practice, with perception, with matter. The first step of knowledge is and must be coming into contact with the very things you’re trying to change through practice. How can you understand the challenges of organizing without experiencing them? How can you understand what is an ultra-left or rightist error in your specific conditions without witnessing the effects of those incorrect theories? How can you meet the masses where they are at without meeting the masses? You can’t. Not in any reliable sense. The rational is only reliable insofar as its basis in the perceptual. Theory can only progress our knowledge if it is being used to elevate our perceptive knowledge, to rationalize it
I think we are digging in on nonissues now.
I’m right and you’re right too but we can’t agree on it.
I really enjoyed reading your text.
I think we agree that both praxis and theory are generally necessary, but we do have a disagreement about where knowledge begins and that’s no small matter. Knowledge beginning with experience is the materialism of the theory of knowledge. To reject that rational knowledge must be developed from perceptual knowledge is to give in to idealist thought
There is a reason Mao and Lenin and other revolutionaries bothered to discuss these things, and a reason we should as well. Criticism and self-criticism are vital, and as you said yourself “you need to accept being wrong as a Marxist.”
I’ll grant you that reading theory independently of practice gave me a little bit of a leg up. But compared to my comrades who jumped into organizing around the time I started studying? I’m still wet behind the ears
I’d also like to question why your first reaction to the notion of getting organized and putting theory into practice was to say that people shouldn’t be “running around in ‘leftist’ circlejerks.” Is that what you think organizing is? Do you have organizing experience? I wasn’t referring to a reformist party or a glorified newsstand/book club. I joined a revolutionary socialist organization, and they encouraged me to join a mass org that they had a unit in. A mass org that mobilizes the masses to take direct action to create real change; elaborating upon the conditions furnished by the lives of the working class to steadily improve the organization and preparedness of the masses. The only task worthy of a revolutionary, according to Lenin
If you took a moment and read a couple of my comments and posts you would know that I have experience in organizing. Many years in fact. The reason I stress this is because a lot of people actually organize everyday, just for the wrong reasons.
And accepting to be wrong does not mean accepting to be treated with arrogance, which is what this here is turning into.
Instead of boring down on a point like this, a good marxist would start asking questions which are not condescending. Like “what is your opinion on” or “how do you propose”.
So, as I said. I’m right and you’re right, just at different areas and from different viewpoints.
And leftist circlejerks is what I call deviationist/ultra groups, maoists one of the most annoying. They are totally obsessed with being right, yet are completely wrong in their execution.