CC>>Another way of putting this, is that they assumed there to be a direct relationship between theory and praactice: abstract theory could dictate detailed tactics in all situatios. (Assuming a direct relation of theory to practice is, I think, the most useful definition of "dogmatism.")
That is probably true in the more rigorous physical sciences. It is true for _some_ cooking_: There are many items for which you can go to the cookbook (theory) and followiing it directly will come out with the same results everytime. But this is not true, for example, in kneading bread: there is no way theory (a manual) can dictate to you this process, since it has to be known in the fingers, so to speak, rather than merely in the brain. The ability to judge the relevance or irrelevance of theory (recipes) in various contects is as vital in politics as in cooking!<< It seems to me that the limit of 'abstract' theory is centered on this reality: that a theory is a representation, and a representation can never be the thing or process or action or set of actions it represents. Even when it is, like so many 'theories' we might discuss here, a representation of a representation. A different way of looking at this issue might be: there are the theories we espouse, state in high-blown language, and use to excoriate others with (this or that person is not a good Marxist, not a true revolutionary, a Stalinist, a Trot, etc.). And there are the theories-in-action that might be used to characterize and analyze the actions of a group running a government, possibly even a revolutionary one, or at least a political party with a potential path to power. Again, this too would be an abstract representation. However, we would hope that somehow our formulation of that theory-in-action would capture what makes these actions 'coherent'and conceivable as something coherent. This might be a metatheory, and the actual theory-in-action might be the ideology of the group actually wielding power and engaging in politics with access to power. The US is caught up in the middle of any theorizing, but alas it isn't because of a political process or societal transformation in any revolutionary sense that I would agree with. Rather, we find theories-in-action worth studying where there is RESISTANCE to the American center--that would be places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza. This is not to say that we are witnessing inevitably successful revolutions in these places or amongst these groups. And this is not to say theorizing these phenomena in a setting like this is anything other than a communication on the margins. Rather, in our marginal communications we might be able to gleem the potential for revolution in such places and admidst such movements as Hezbollah, Sadrists, Chavism, etc. Nor is this to say that within the US itself there is no potential for social and political revolution. I conjecture however that conditions and activities of the present make it very unlikely anytime soon. I could be completely wrong about that. I am just making that as an observation of how I perceive and interpret conditions in the US right now. CJ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
