^^^^ CB; For Marx, in the Second Thesis on F, practice is the test of theory , so I'd think in that sense , practice would have to follow theory, i.e. we don't always start with practice in following the ideas of historical materialism. It may a bit like the chicken and the egg, an ongoing reciprocal feedback loop.
Then we have Marx's comment that , when an idea grips masses, it becomes a material force. Here again, theory ( the idea) precedes practice.
Then Lenin famously says, "Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement "( that is action, practice), which states straight out that revolutionary theory must preceed revolutionary practice.
Marx says that the difference between the labor of humans and that of spiders is that humans plan the work ( practice) in their heads before doing the work, i.e. practicing.
Lenin emphasizes the need to build class consciousness, which is theory, in order to have effective class struggle, that is practice. (Of course, for a party member , building it is practice; see below)
Engels insists that Marxism is not a dogma , but a guide to action. How can it guide action if it follows action ?
All these classic Marxist suggestions on the issue seem to contradict your notion that practice _always_ precedes theory.
Then there's the issue that a lot of revolutionary party members' practice is in the form of words. ( See my "Activist Materialism and the "End" of Philosophy). So, your distinction between words and action in the sense of social revolutionary practice is problematic. Our practice is speaking or writing words, as on a soap box , on televison or radio, in party newspapers, on email, at plantgate, Wallstreet, city hall. Andie's words are an important aspect of his practice.
This importance of words means to me, in disagreement with you and Doug, that it is important to fight over words in revolutionary PRACTICE. Or fighting over words is an important aspect of revolutionary practice. The ,what, 100 plus volumes of the Collected Words of Marx, Engels and Lenin is the or a major aspect of their practice. Predominantly mental workers' practice tends to be related to mental labors or in mental labors , speech and writing, words.
Advocacy of Hayekian et al ideas on this list is part of practice.
However, I have to say, if everybody was like andie ,we'd probably have socialism, because I don't really think andie is a liberal at heart. I think he's like a CPUSAer going into the FDR administration, wearing a liberal hat because Marxists ( andie is still a Marxist at heart) pursue socialism by any and all means necessary and sufficient at the concrete moment. And somebody has got to read through Posner and all these jokers. Since andie reads everything, why not him ? I tussle with andie so tough because he is one of ours Ssshhhhhhhh. I shouldn't say that outside the Underground Railroad meeting . I'll blow his cover.
Oh yea,I'd say Rawlsian liberal-socialism is sublated by historical materialist political theory. The CPUSA now boosters "Bill of Rights Socialism" which includes andie's Rawlsian core principles preserved, but overcome with the new Constitutional Amendment 28 for a Right to a Decent Living , job ,income, "life" in the European sense ( See my " For a Constitutional Amendment for a Right to a Job or Income" Guildpractitioner, oh I'll send you a copy if you want) and other materialist rights principles. Aptheker ( and others) emphasize the difference between negative freedom and positive freedom. Abstract liberal rights are hollow without the material ability to exercise them. I don't have freedom of speech if my boss can fire me for what I say. So, FDR"s advocacy of Four (new for the USA)Freedoms, including freedom from want, shows the success of the CPUSA policy of Pop Front with those liberals then. Relationship with the Democratic Party in the US is a tactical, not strategic issue. Gotta be flexible ,not dogmatic about it, though I think your anti-ABB line is best right now ,though Manning Marable is not all wrong in arguing for inside/outside tactic. The materialist critique of the liberal idealist political principles is that before you can have free speech you must eat and have your physical needs met. Meeting material necessity is a premise for all other Bill of Right freedoms. Freedom is mastery of necessity. But we retain all the progressive bourgeois or liberal principles. Marxism is sublated liberalism, but it is a qualitative leap out of liberalism , so I'm not ecclectic on the issue.
P.S. I really like my formulation: That exploited and oppressed people inevitably struggle against their exploitation and oppression means that communism is possible.
^^^^^
Justin's practice (overlooking the digression in to ABB, which he shares with the CPUSA*) has been rather consistently in harmony with the practice one would expect, _under present conditions_, of a committed socialist.
Carrol
*Hence, any condemnation of Justin's practice is doubly a condemnation of the CP.