so, outside of that rarified circle of scholarship, i'm curious how these ideas are conceived otherwise.
there's a lot of complaining that the theorists don't *do* anything, or that what they write about is too arcane for people to understand or for it to be useful to anything. max likes to bitch ever so often about this, as others have here on the list.
on the other side, there's a lot of complaining that there's to much thoughtless action. In the FHP article, for instance, the complaint is that demos against the war used slogans such as "no blood for oil" which, to the authors, represented an action (protest) directed by bad theory. FH&P felt that the assessments people made about why there was a war were wrong and that, had they had better assessments about what caused the war, they would come up with better slogans and, perhaps?, a different political practice.
As FH&P point out, of course, it's not that there is no theory going on. It is rather that there is bad leftist theory going on. Etc. So, even here, the complaint about lack of theory isn't really about the lack of theory, but about the lack of the correct theory.
At any rate, just curious what people think it is.
At 06:41 AM 1/26/2012, Carrol Cox wrote:
>Tahir Wood: "To say that theory and practice are two different things is not
>to say that you can have one ENTIRELY without the other."
>
>You have to keep your focus in a context. I don't need Einstein's Theory of
>General Relativity to perform all sorts of tasks. You do not have to 'check'
>the theory of gravity to conclude that you need to be careful whete you set
>that piece of rare china. Theory at this level has NO (direct) link to most
>human practice.
>
>Suppose Marx's critique, as construed (say) by Postone is correct.
>
>Does anyone need to consult that theory to work out a particular campaign in
>a mass struggle? NO.
>
>Does one have to consult that Theory to be opposed to capitalism? Obviously
>No. There is no link between the theory and anti-capitalist practice.
>
>So what you say here is empty at most levels of theory. Most of those who
>turn out for local rallies or demos don't first consult a theory, then say,
>according to this theory I should go to the demo today. In fact, try to drag
>theory in here and you will end in a hopelesds muddle.
>
>We are talking about both theory and practice here at a high level of
>abstraction, and they do not connect. There is a good deal of thought, a
>good deal of careful abstraction, involved in identifying the relation of
>theory and practice at any given context. Blunt statements like yours don't
>help.
>
>Carrol
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)