“Read theory.”
We say this all the time. It’s basically an expression, isn’t it? It can be advise, bragging, scorn, mockery. It’s all become a bit ephemeral.
That’s not to say that people shouldn’t read theory. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. Even so, isn’t it a bit silly to suggest, even implicitly, that being a Marxist or communist boils down to a familiarity with the source material? If that’s not book worship, I don’t know what is.
I understand that this is, on some level, an accusation. I am suggesting that many of our communities are caught up in a somewhat liberal, idealist mindset. We all have an ideology, a set of opinions about the world which we express and propagate at the expense of our competitors. Can we seriously deny this is what we are doing?
If Marxism-Leninism is a science, there must be some technical aspect. What are we supposed to do in the world? How do we do it? And how do we know if it’s working?
Theory, and along with it, a crystallizing of what your core motives are (supporting the working class, supporting the colonized and siding with their liberation efforts) seem important for grounding your ideology in more than empathy (where a lot of everyday liberals end up). I mean, empathy is critical. There is a reason The Black Panther Party did their breakfast program for kids and that much of organizing begins with building material support networks locally. But if all you have is empathy and no theory, you get a lot of this sort of, “People should be nicer to each other. How? Idk, we’ll raise them to be nicer and put ‘be nice’ posters everywhere I guess. Or maybe we’ll throw some money at charity without examining the power dynamics that go into such structures.”
Theory helps us understand power dynamics, which is something that basic empathy doesn’t do. This is something liberals can be a bit shy about at times. “You mean you want to take that power stuff extremely seriously? That’s kind of scary.” One class’s interests over another. Caste divides and how those inform interests. Why it is that someone who can readily agree with you on one issue with little effort can come to such different conclusions on another issue, some of which is a difference in their position in class or caste.
Then there is dialectics, which at least in western imperial core discourse (I can’t speak for elsewhere) may need a lot more attention, with regards to making it more easy to understand and learn about. I’ve grappled with it some, but I still feel like I don’t quite understand the extent of what is being said there. However, what seems evident to me from the amount I have grappled with it is that it is perhaps the most important component of theory and a component that you are not likely to find in the imperialist educational systems much at all. Understanding the nature of contradictions and how they interact together seems the most fundamentally grounded away from idealism; you are looking in and examining how things develop and how to grapple with those developments, rather than simply trying to impose an external ideal through sheer force of will. Not to be confused with incrementalist electoralism under imperialism, which is more like saying, “Never do anything too disruptive.” Dialectics recognizes that the contradictions will sometimes lead to, sometimes must lead to, very disruptive developments.
I feel like I’m only brushing the surface of these points, but I offer them as something to consider for “why theory” and what value there is to be had in it, along with what practice can look like.