Lenin: The Importance of Theoretical Struggle
Posted by Mike E on April 12, 2011
“Engels recognizes, not two forms of the great struggle of [communism], as is the fashion among us, but three, placing the theoretical struggle on a par with the first two.”
The following is excerpted from What is To Be Done?, where Lenin digs into the nature of communist work.
At the time (1901) when this work was written, the communist movement was still called “Social-Democracy.” That is the term used below.
by V.I. Lenin
We can judge from that how tactless Rabocheye Dyelo is when, with an air of triumph, it quotes Marx’s statement:
“Every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programmes.”
To repeat these words in a period of theoretical disorder is like wishing mourners at a funeral many happy returns of the day.
Moreover, these words of Marx are taken from his letter on the Gotha Programme, in which he sharply condemns eclecticism in the formulation of principles. If you must unite, Marx wrote to the party leaders, then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make theoretical “concessions”. This was Marx’s idea, and yet there are people among us who seek-in his name to belittle the significance of theory!
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.
This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.
Learning from earlier theory is not a mechanical or fundamentalist process.
Yet, for Russian Social-Democrats the importance of theory is enhanced by three other circumstances, which are often forgotten: first, by the fact that our Party is only in process of formation, its features are only just becoming defined, and it has as yet far from settled accounts with the other trends of revolutionary thought that threaten to divert the movement from the correct path. On the contrary, precisely the very recent past was marked by a revival of non-Social-Democratic revolutionary trends (an eventuation regarding which Axelrod long ago warned the Economists). Under these circumstances, what at first sight appears to be an “unimportant” error may lead to most deplorable consequences, and only short-sighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous.
The fate of Russian Social-Democracy for very many years to come may depend on the strengthening of one or the other “shade”.
Secondly, the Social-Democratic movement is in its very essence an international movement. This means, not only that we must combat national chauvinism, but that an incipient movement in a young country can be successful only if it makes use of the experiences of other countries. In order to make use of these experiences it is not enough merely to be acquainted with them, or simply to copy out the latest resolutions. What is required is the ability to treat these experiences critically and to test them independently.
He who realises how enormously the modern working-class movement has grown and branched out will understand what a reserve of theoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary) experience is required to carry out this task.
Thirdly, the national tasks of Russian Social-Democracy are such as have never confronted any other socialist party in the world. We shall have occasion further on to deal with the political and organisational duties which the task of emancipating the whole people from the yoke of autocracy imposes upon us. At this point, we wish to state only that the role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory. To have a concrete understanding of what this means, let the reader recall such predecessors of Russian Social Democracy as Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, and the brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of the seventies; let him ponder over the world significance which Russian literature is now acquiring; let him. . . but be that enough!
Let us quote what Engels said in 1874 concerning the significance of theory in the Social-Democratic movement. Engels recognizes, not two forms of the great struggle of Social Democracy (political and economic), as is the fashion among us, but three, placing the theoretical struggle on a par with the first two. His recommendations to the German working-class movement, which had become strong, practically and politically, are so instructive from the standpoint of present-day problems and controversies, that we hope the reader will not be vexed with us for quoting a long passage from his prefatory note to Der deutsche Bauernkrieg,[11] which has long become a great bibliographical rarity:
“The German workers have two important advantages over those of the rest of Europe. First, they belong to the most theoretical people of Europe; and they have retained that sense of theory which the so-called ’educated’ classes of Germany have almost completely lost. Without German philosophy, which preceded it, particularly that of Hegel, German scientific socialism – the only scientific socialism that has ever existed – would never have come into being. Without a sense of theory among the workers, this scientific socialism would never have entered their flesh and blood as much as is the case. What an immeasurable advantage this is may be seen, on the one hand, from the indifference towards all theory, which is one of the main reasons why the English working-class movement crawls along so slowly in spite of the splendid organisation of the individual unions; on the other hand, from the mischief and confusion wrought by Proudhonism, in its original form, among the French and Belgians, and, in the form further caricatured by Bakunin, among the Spaniards and Italians.
“The second advantage is that, chronologically speaking, the Germans were about the last to come into the workers’ movement. Just as German theoretical socialism will never forget that it rests on the shoulders of Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen – three men who, in spite of all their fantastic notions and all their utopianism, have their place among the most eminent thinkers of all times, and whose genius anticipated innumerable things, the correctness of which is now being scientifically proved by us – so the practical workers’ movement in Germany ought never to forget that it has developed on the shoulders of the English and French movements, that it was able simply to utilise their dearly bought experience, and could now avoid their mistakes, which in their time were mostly unavoidable. Without the precedent of the English trade unions and French workers’ political struggles, without the gigantic impulse given especially by the Paris Commune, where would we be now?
“It must be said to the credit of the German workers that they have exploited the advantages of their situation with rare understanding. For the first time since a workers’ movement has existed, the struggle is being conducted pursuant to its three sides – the. theoretical, the political, and the practical-economic (resistance to the capitalists) – in harmony and in its interconnections, and in a systematic way. It is precisely in this, as it were, concentric attack, that the strength and invincibility of the German movement lies.
“Due to this advantageous situation, on the one hand, and to the insular peculiarities of the English and the forcible suppression of the French movement, on the other, the German workers have for the moment been placed in the vanguard of the proletarian struggle. How long events will allow them to occupy this post of honour cannot be foretold. But let us hope that as long as they occupy it, they will fill it fittingly. This demands redoubled efforts in every field of struggle and agitation. In particular, it will be the duty of the leaders to gain an ever clearer insight into all theoretical questions, to free themselves more and more from the influence of traditional phrases inherited from the old world outlook, and constantly to keep in mind that socialism, since it has become a science, demands that it be pursued as a science, i.e., that it be studied. The task will be to spread with increased zeal among the masses of the workers the ever more clarified understanding thus acquired, to knit together ever more firmly the organisation both of the party and of the trade unions….
“If the German workers progress in this way, they will not. be marching exactly at the head of the movement – it is not at all in the interest of this movement that the workers of any particular country should march at its head – but they will occupy an honourable place in the battle line; and they will stand armed for battle when either unexpectedly grave trials or momentous events demand of them increased courage, increased determination and energy.”[23]
Engels’s words proved prophetic. Within a few years the German workers were subjected to unexpectedly grave trials in the form of the Exceptional Law Against the Socialists. And they met those trials armed for battle and succeeded in emerging from them victorious.
The Russian proletariat will have to undergo trials immeasurably graver; it will have to fight a monster compared with which an antisocialist law in a constitutional country seems but a dwarf. History has now confronted us with an immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks confronting the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. And we have the right to count upon acquiring this honourable title, already earned by our predecessors, the revolutionaries of the seventies, if we succeed in inspiring our movement, which is a thousand times broader and deeper, with the same devoted determination and vigour.
Tell No Lies said
Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.
This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.
That is the money quote that speaks most directly to our present condition. The widespread hostility towards theoretical struggle in many ostensibly progressive circles today (in unions, community based organizations, etc…) must be understood precisely in terms of its relationship to “the fashionable preaching of opportunism” and the “infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity.” These are precisely the forms that capitalist ideology takes when it reproduces itself within popular movements and on the left and the opposition to and impatience with theoretical discussions and debate that intrudes every single time we attempt to have them are essentially the defense mechanisms of capitalist “common sense” inculcated in all of us by our socialization in this society.
Thomas said
But what kind of theory, and toward what ends? Are we to think that this is Lenin’s endorsement of non-participation in the other two important realms of struggle? Or, are we committed, following Mao, to the idea that the three must be seen as an integrated whole–the creation of theory flowing from political/economic (also military/cultural/social) struggle and then returning to it that it might sharpen it, make it more effective? Theory is of course not an ends in itself, but part of a larger means for revolution. To the extent that there exists a great number of people who are labeled “anti-intellectual” because they eschew theoretical discussion, there also exist a great number of people, typically men, who are of the totally opposite persuasion, and can only forever talk about theory, and have a record of failed or nonexistent practice connected to whatever their d’jour philosopher says. We should take Lenin’s maxim very seriously: that they are all of equal value.
celticfire said
Thomas,
There are many sisters that are engaging in theory as you know, and they are not only “forever talking about theory.” That is simply not true, nor is it for the brothers. It is a willful mischaracterization of what is being done.
What those of us who advocate theory and its understanding and advancement past set historical appraisals and assumptions is that there is an anti-intellectual discourse that is deeply rooted in American pragmatism that shuns theoretical work, sees it as unimportant and unequal with “action” (ie: the “narrowest forms of practical activity”).
Trade union work for example – how many radical organizers will be forced to door knock for Obama next year, even if they don’t want to? Doesn’t this situation require some thinking and questioning, and deep examination? Why should we passively accept the current political situation as the only possible one?
Great questions and very important ones. The day to day struggle that exist with the help of institutionalized “movements” exist primarily to sway communities from exploring other options. Radical and revolutionary minded people become bureaucratic administrators of these ‘movements’.
While larger questions, really strategic questions about power, social revolution and building a revolutionary movement (and not another isolated “issue” movement stuck in reformism) is shoved aside. We are saying this will not due: we are prioritizing revolution as the issue.
But I know from other discussions that you find my lack of clarity frustrating, because this isn’t the Catholic church for revolutionaries: there are many many questions on the table, and answers that remain to be discovered. In other words there is theoretical work to do, and there exists no pre-chewed “answers” to hand out. The work needs to be done.
I usually come across two kinds of revolutionaries that scoff at theoretical work: 1) The ones that lean towards reformist projects, working with Democrats, and tail the people, the other 2) are the “actionista” anarchists that believe that they (and their 12 friends) are the “people” and their actions reflect the will of the “people.” Neither, I believe are correct.
Without a sense of where we are going and how we intend to get there, we will be duped at every turn of the corner. The Nepali Maoists (who have for years engaged in principled and serious theoretical investigations, especially looking at previously existing socialism) have used their theoretical insights to guide them, and they have accomplished a great deal.
You may sacrifice theory all you like comrade, but the fact is that this site is growing as is interest in the Khukuri site – not in leaps for sure, but it is growing none the less. Shouldn’t we as communists strive for the mass democratization of theory? To make it accessible, popular in ways that provoke important discussions? I think we should.
As for Mao, didn’t he spend a lot of time doing theoretical work as well? Are his reports and analysis not of any value? Is On Practice and On Contradiction worthless to current movements?
You have repeatedly asserted that those of us who advocate the engagement and advancement of theoretical work neglect a praxis. But I have demonstrated time and time again how this is untrue – almost all of us have participated in struggles and continue to. The difference for us is that we do not see this as the ends, but we insist that consciousness remains to be developed among communists, but also and importantly among the people – a consciousness that exceeds the “narrowest political activity” that currently exists.
Kasama has initiated discussions to broad as to investigate how we as communists define and operate around concepts such as “truth“. It has offered investigations as to how advanced elements fuse with a revolutionary core, and debated where communists beginnings come from.
I believe these things are very valuable. I am sorry if you find them not useful in your day-to-day struggle.
Thomas said
I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of my opinion at all, Patrick, and as a rereading of my couple of clear sentences might indicate I’m not talking about you; indeed, I didn’t speak a word of Kasama, or its members, but rather an actually existing body of armchair revolutionaries who are seeking the perfect roadmap to the perfect revolution in their perfectly comfortable studies. And I think that lots and lots of these types of people are male; anyway, in my experience–as I clearly said–they are. Maybe not in yours.
In any case I never once suggested that theory wasn’t important, but that it should be connected to the real world practice of figuring out a method, a program, and an organization, and draw on the summation not just of historical knowledge but also of the lived experience of those making revolution. Mao’s deep investigations and reports were drawn from his contemporary experience, not the reported experience of other people in other places in other times abstracted by intellectuals (in the First World, no less!). On Practice and On Contradiction aren’t some theoretical work he did outside of practice, but rather very much so the opposite. So that’s why I asked: “Shouldn’t we follow Mao’s method here?” And, shouldn’t we?
Here is what I am asserting: that we need theoretical work that is tied to the real world practice of revolutionaries, and practice that comes from that theoretical work, and so on. To bring Kasama into it for just a moment, I’d say there’s a lot about the need for theoretical work here, but such passion is not evoked when it comes to the need for practice connected to such theory, and practice that informs it. (We should avoid the strawperson of: “Isn’t investigation practice? Well isn’t huh? Isn’t it? Isn’t it?” Of course it is, but whether what Kasama upholds as a method of “investigation”–monthlong trips to countries in the middle of protracted revolutions, etc.–I could speak less to.) So I am saying we need to be passionate about that dialectical relationship and the facilitation thereof, integrating our theoretical work with our practical work.
That’s just all to say: a revolution is not going to be figured out on a flip-chart, but it’s also not going to be figured out in an essay.
(Your argument becomes pathetically trite with your assertion that I can sacrifice theory all I like, as if I do, and as if you have ever investigated my practice. You haven’t, of course, and so again I’m tempted to ask that we follow Mao, but this time something else he said–what’s that about investigation and speaking, again?
To the extent that my characterization of some sections of “the Left” offended you as if it were about you and rang as untrue, one could say just the same about the whole sections of activists who you similarly denigrate as anti-intellectual, conservatizinng and therefore counterrevolutionary, etc. I think both of those are true characterizations of some sections of activists–or, should I use scare quotes here?–”movement” people. I also think that it is a very complicated thing altogether to try and pen anyone whose practical work is more visible than their theoretical work as being anti-intellectual (and vice versa), especially when there is seemingly such a narrow idea of what theoretical work is. If we think that the latest book is not the most valuable use of our time, we are shunned, without ever being asked what else it is we might be reading.)