^^^^^^^ CB; Actually, in the Preface to the International edition of _What is To Be Done_, the Leninist theorist there emphasizes that Lenin was known for "concrete analysis of the concrete situation." So, contra your claim here, the CP Leninists do not treat the sentence in question as scripture. You are spreading a tired old anti-Leninist lie, that Leninists (except Lenin) are dogmatists.
Not suprisingly, Lenin's theory in WITBD argues contradictorily, both for anti-opportunist attention to theory (without rev theory) and famously for concrete analysis of the concrete situation. Theory is important for political strategies. Concrete analysis is important for tactics, political tactics. Lenin argues against liberal influence in the Social Democracy , betrayal of Marxist principles (theory) in the petit bourgeois liberals taking over the workers' political program, leaving the workers to deal only with "economic" issues or trade unionism pure and simple. Lenin says workers must be involved in more than shop floor issues. They must be involved in politics, not leaving politics to the petit bourgeois liberals and predominantly mental laborers and leisurers.
An example of Lenin's concrete analysis of the concrete situation is his argument against total "freedom of criticism" , which was a liberal notion that anybody in the party could criticise any party decision at any time, i.e. a non-democratic centralist rule or lack of rule. In the abstract, in theory, anybody should have total freedom of "speech" and criticism. In the concrete situation, the need for unity as a basis for effective _action_ , practice, tactics dictated that everyone discipline themselves to follow a party decision , once it had been made. Freedom of criticism up until a decision is made by the majority. democratic centralism. Sort of like what's in all parties. Not really unusually "dictatorial" or anything.
It is in _Leftwing Communism: an Infantile Disorder_ that Lenin argues full throat against treating theory as Holy Scripture, failure to make any tactical compromises, dogmatic adherence to theory, failure to make alliances even with bourgeois parties and trends in certain concrete situations. This was pertinent after Lenin's death in the struggle against fascism. Interestingly, in Leftwing Communism, Lenin also touches on conclusions from the Russian Revolution which have significance beyond Russia, i.e. theory.
^^^^^
CC: Here I suggest the word should closely correspond to its usage in the 'hard' sciences. A Theory of Gravity applies to the whole universe, regardless of time and place. A social theory, if one exists, will of course have less reach, but nevertheless ought to hold over some extensive period of time and across national borders
CB: Engels outlines the difference between physical science theory and social science theory in _Ludwig Feuerbach_ the chapter labelled "Marx". Social phenomenon have humans with free will, and this makes some difference, but , of course, "men make their own history, but not just as they please". The science of human history is based in the necessary connections , as with all science.
Marx's discussions of scientific theory , i.e. what Lenin refers to as revolutionary theory, are all over _Capital_ , especially the prefaces, not just the Critique of Political Economy. It is to deny the obvious to claim that Marx doesn't discuss all of capitalism(s) in _Capital_. Excuse my French , but it is complete nonsense to claim that Marx (and Lenin) did not claim that there is scientific theory of history , particularly of capitalist history and scientific "laws of motion" of capitalism. First you ignore _The Manifesto of the Communist Party_ with its theory of class struggles and the movement of history. Marx affirms his adherence to _The Manifesto_ in the penultimate chapter of _Capital_ I http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm. He discusses the tranformation "out of" feudalism, and "out of " capitalism
Then in _Capital_ , what do you think the "laws" are that Marx refers to repeatedly - "Absolute law of capitalist accumulation, Law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to fall, "laws of motion", abstraction substituting for experiment, etc. - but scientific laws. He says in one preface the beginning of every _science_ is difficult or some such
"Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty. That which concerns more especially the analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of value, I have, as much as it was possible, popularised..."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm
CC: The concept of Revolutionary Theory (not, I think, actually held by Lenin himself but created for their political purposes by Stalin and Trotsky)
^^^^ CB; This would be hard to sustain given Lenin famously said without rev theory , there can be no rev movement. All that means is there can be movement , but it won't be revolutionary if it is not guided by the Marxist theory of capitalism, the class struggle, the role of the proletariat, etc. That's rev theory to Lenin. In a concrete circumstance , like 1905, the immediate task was overthrowing czarist absolutism in alliance with liberals, not socialism. That was the concrete tactical struggle. But it fit in the larger revolutionary theory.
The idea that Lenin didn't have theory and revolutionary theory is to confuse yourself with Lenin. You might be correct and Lenin wrong, but you and Lenin don't have the same idea on this issue
I can't see much or find any books either