Discussion

On the Revolutionary Theory and Practice of Leninism - Part 4: The Importance of Theory

As has already been pointed out, Leninism restored the link between theory and practice which had been severed by the opportunists of the day. Put another way, Leninism upholds the principle that practical experience must be constantly summed up and raised to the level of theory, which in turn acts as a guide to further practice.

Opportunism distorts the relationship between theory and practice in one of two ways. The first way is to place theory in the primary position and insist that practice must serve theory and not the other way around. Theory becomes a set of pseudo-religious dogmas, a set of universal values, which remain fixed in space and time. Marxism is reduced to an historical oddity, to a subject of constant interpretation and reinterpretation, not for the purpose of guiding present practice, but merely as an academic exercise. Used in this way theory is stripped of its revolutionary essence and, rather than serving as a unifying factor, becomes a point of differentiation and division. A system of ideas replaces practice as the primary basis of unity and anyone who disagrees with one or more ideas in this system is branded a heretic and a traitor. This kind of opportunism forms the basis for sectarianism of various kinds.

The second way in which opportunism distorts the relationship between theory and practice is to elevate practice, or what is sometimes called "action", to the primary position, while denying any role for revolutionary theory. This form of opportunism bows to the spontaneity of the movement and reduces political discussion to questions of tactics and logistics. It exaggerates the significance of the trade union movement and attempts to reduce the demands of the movement to "realistic" and "realizable" demands which are acceptable to capitalism and do nothing to undermine its foundations. In its extreme form, this type of opportunism goes so far as to deny the value of organization and revolutionary leadership, opposing to them a nebulous concept of autonomous "democracy" and "networking". Regardless of how it expresses itself, this form of opportunism opposes giving the spontaneous movement a politically conscious, planned character and opposes the necessity of building those revolutionary institutions which the working class needs in order to wage a successful fight against a much more powerful enemy.

These types of opportunism are not confined to any particular ideological tendency, nor are they mutually exclusive. It is not unusual to see groups, organizations and parties which consider themselves to be revolutionary adopting both types of opportunism simultaneously. On the one hand, they raise some aspect of theory to the level of principle and use this to divide the movement, dismissing as counter-revolutionary all those who refuse to accept this "theory" as an article of faith. However, in their day-to-day practice these same groups tail behind the movement, bow to spontaneity and refuse to raise their own practical experience to the level of theory. So, while in the past these two forms of opportunism have been described as "left" and "right" opportunism, respectively, in reality they are more often than not combined in the same package, united in opposition to any actual revolutionary movements existing in the society.

Strictly speaking, neither theory nor practice can be raised in the abstract to the primary position, nor relegated to a subordinate position. Theory and practice constitute a dialectical whole and at any particular period in time either could occupy the position of most importance. At the same time, the sole goal of both theory and practice must be the revolutionary transformation of society from capitalism to socialism.

Theory constitutes the generalized experience of the working-class movement, the movement for socialism and communism, in all countries. Theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, while practice gropes in the dark if it is not illuminated by revolutionary theory. Theory gives the movement coherence, confidence, orientation and an understanding of the internal relationships and contradictions underlying day-to-day events. Theory enables revolutionaries not only to analyze how and in what direction various class forces are moving at the present time, but also to predict how and in what direction they will move in the near future, as well. On many occasions, Lenin repeated his well-known thesis that: "Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement."

Leninism arose in the course of a vicious struggle, not only against imperialism, but against all forms of opportunism which sought to blunt the struggle against imperialism. Lenin's contributions to Marxist theory fall into three main categories: 1) economic theory - the theory of imperialism; 2) the theory of proletarian revolution in the era of imperialism; and, 3) organizational theory - the theory of democratic centralism. In future parts of this series, Modern Communism will examine these specific contributions by Lenin to the revolutionary theory of Marxism.