The majority fails to understand the fundamental nature of theory. The fusion view of theory, by tying the theoretical agenda so closely to the questions posed by the spontaneous struggle of the working class, both exemplifies this problem and hinders its correct resolution.
First, all theory is abstract. Any theory is, in fact, an ideal generalization (abstraction) from immediate experience (perception). Theory also operates on different levels of abstraction. For example, the ideas that cadre might develop from the immediate experience of say, a given factory setting in which the cadre is involved in, or, of a particular instance or event occurring within the spontaneous economic struggle within that factory, are examples of what could be called the first, or primary level of theoretical abstraction. The next, or secondary level abstraction might involve the combination of a number of examples of such primary abstraction into a more generalized abstraction concerning, let us say, the level of class consciousness among workers in a particular industry. A third or tertiary level of abstraction might involve the utilization of a number of such secondary generalizations in conjunction with a theory of the specific features of the contemporary monopoly bourgeoisie in the U.S., so as to give a more complete, all-sided class analysis of the forces promoting or hindering the development of class consciousness within the working class. Obviously, this process of increasing levels of abstraction does not stop with “practical questions,” strictly speaking, but goes on to the most abstract philosophical levels, such as theory of knowledge, etc. (Note: the terms primary, secondary, etc. as regards levels of theoretical abstraction should not be construed as judgments as to the value of each level for communist theory. In fact, the value of any theory, at whatever level of abstraction, can only be understood in terms of its relationship to a complex theoretical whole, i.e., communist theory as a theoretical system. In the next section, I will discuss the criterion of practice in theoretical validation).
As noted above, communist theory, in addition to being abstract, is also an ideational whole, a theoretical system of concepts. First of all, when we test a given theory in practice (or, in other words, intervene in a certain way in the spontaneous struggle), the results of that testing are evaluated not only in terms of the particular theory or line being tested, but also in terms of the theoretical system as a whole. But perhaps more importantly, the results of theory testing must first be interpreted before they can be properly evaluated. This process of interpretation is a complex theoretical problem in itself and cannot be avoided. This is so for a number of reasons.
First of all, the results of testing theory are frequently ambiguous. This relates both to the qualitative development of cadre, the degree of fusion of the communists in the region where the test or intervention is occurring, etc. as well as the degree of development of the working class in the region, its class and political consciousness, etc. After all, when we intervene in the spontaneous struggle, when we attempt to implement a portion of our political line (i.e., test our theory), it is obvious that the points noted above, objectively limit the character of that intervention and the results obtained. When cadre are underdeveloped, when the level of fusion is low, the implementation of line or theory testing will necessarily be hesitant, unclear, and contradictory in general. Correspondingly, when the level of class and political consciousness of the working class is low, its response to our intervention will tend to be fragmentary, tentative, and contradictory. Hence, the results of our attempt to test our theory will more often than not be unclear. Therefore, when we ask: has our intervention in the struggle moved the struggle forward? Has it set the struggle back? Our ability to answer these questions will involve a complex process of interpretation. Our ability to do this correctly, in turn, depends upon the level of development of our theory.
In addition, the general nature of human social reality makes the question of interpretation doubly pertinent. Unlike theory testing in the natural sciences, where the theorist controls most or all of the variables in the experiment, such a degree of control is not available to the M-L. The “variables” in our “experiments” are frequently under the control of antagonistic classes, institutions, etc. Even regarding the “variable” that we presumably exercise the most influence upon, the working class, no where do we exert this type of control (nor would we wish to). Also, human social formations are considerably less determinate phenomena than those associated with say, a chemical laboratory. Intrinsically, then, communist theory testing necessarily tends to be ambiguous. Once again, this reiterates the key aspect of interpretation and the high level of theoretical development necessary for this.
What then, is the relationship between theory and practice? In general, Marxists say that theory is both the guide to practice and is validated within that practice. That is, communists intervene in the spontaneous struggle of the working class, put forward a line of action and attempt to lead the working class forward in the direction that the line suggests. However, the fact that the working class follows communist leadership in a given instance, or even that the line put forward is in fact implemented successfully in that instance, does not, in and of itself, constitute validation of the theory behind the line. For example, we have to ask ourselves has our intervention, in fact, led the struggle forward in the correct direction? We have to understand that our very intervention in a given situation changes that situation; however slightly, our intervention changes the balance of forces in that given situation, alters the ensemble of elements that go to make that situation, and so on. In fact, we must make a complex dialectical judgment and evaluation of the total situation before we can say whether our line and theory has been validated. We make this judgment by bringing to bear on the question our entire theoretical system, as a system, even though we may not consciously articulate every aspect of that system in relation to a specific question.
In addition, we do not judge that our line has been validated simply on the basis of the empirical facts or results of our interventions (e.g. the number of workers who follow our line, whether that line “accomplishes” its specific goal, etc.). An essential part of any theoretical validation involves the logical consistency of the aspect of our theory being tested in relation to the theoretical system as a whole, as well as its (the systems) relation to the ensemble of elements that go to make up the situation (or instance) in which the original intervention occurs. By the same token, we must also judge the level of abstraction being tested, the centrality of the theory to the system as a whole (though this may change for a variety of reasons) and so on.
We should also realize that many aspects of our theoretical system cannot, strictly speaking, be tested at all, or at least only under very unique circumstances. For example, the logical keystone of communist theory, Marx’s theory of value, cannot be tested in practice, at least in the sense that the majority understands testing. The law of value can be indirectly observed operating in society at large, and very logical reasons given for upholding the theory. Yet the theory is not obvious, nor can it be said to have been irrefutably proven. For Marxists, it has been validated strictly on logical grounds in that it is the theory that best explains a wide array of contradictory social phenomena. Yet this is the very foundation of Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production, its form of motion, etc. In fact, this theory is one of the fundamental elements that gives M-L theory its internal coherency.
Other fundamental aspects of the system, such as the seizure of power and the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, can only be tested in unique circumstances, namely, during a revolutionary crisis. Yet, these theories are in fact the guiding beacons of our practice and theoretical production during all periods. Each and every intervention we make in the spontaneous struggle has these formulations in mind. All we can do in this regard is to draw what we hope are the appropriate analogies and lessons from successful revolutions in other countries and historical periods.
What I have written above can by no means be considered an exhaustive purview of the question of theory. Yet it should be abundantly clear that the constituent elements of theory and its relationship to practice is inordinately complex. To reduce this question to a petty empiricism/workerism combined a preoccupation with the narrowest form of practical activity, as the majority does, is clearly inadequate.
In a certain sense theory is always primary (though theoretical production may be primary or secondary in a given period) in that it is both a guide to our practical work and the means by which we judge and validate the content of that work. To down-play the role of theory, to mystify and muddle the process of theoretical production before the eyes of the working class, is to commit a crime against the U.S. revolution. Our trend cannot afford such nonsense.