It is crucial to grasp the correct stand on the relationship between theory and practice. It lies at the heart of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought.
In the work by Lenin previously cited, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, the role of practice in the development of knowledge is discussed. Lenin makes clear that, “All knowledge comes from experience, from sensation, from perception.” (Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, p. l42) This experience, sensation, perception is given to humanity through interaction with the external world. Practice is the beginning of knowledge and from the many experiences gathered from human practice the proletariat develops theoretical knowledge, knowledge on a higher, more concentrated, more universal level that unravels the inner essence of things.
With ideas developed from practice, man returns to practice to verify the correctness or incorrectness of these ideas. Lenin quotes Engels: “The result of our action proves the conformity of our perceptions with the objective nature of the things perceived.” (Ibid., p. 155)
He furthermore states, “The criterion of practice . . . distinguishes illusion from reality.” (Ibid., p. 157) When the results of practice conform to expectations, the correctness of the original perceptions is verified. In this way man comes to develop a correct understanding of the real world. There is no other way to develop correct ideas, and prove their objective validity.
Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify and develop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop it into rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and actively guide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objective world. Practice, knowledge, again practice, and again knowledge. This form repeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content of practice and knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of the dialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing. (Mao Tsetung, “On Practice,” Selected Readings, pp. 81-82)
It is because the relationship between theory and practice forms the crux of the theory of knowledge that we devoted particular attention to this question in our party building paper. The dialectical unity of the contradictory aspects of theory and practice must always be upheld.
We point out in our paper that the creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory is the principal aspect between theory and practice. Based on Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought, the communist movement at this time needs to develop the general line for our revolutionary movement, to lay the basis for our communist party. The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory is an active struggle and is not equivalent to just “book study” alone or the rehash of Marxist quotes taken out of context.
In the present period of the communist movement, theoretical work lags far behind the tremendously rich practice that has been accumulated by the working and oppressed peoples in this country. Empiricism is a great danger. Therefore, the requirement of our movement is to integrate MLMTT with the concrete conditions and practice of the U.S. revolution to develop the basis to unite and form a new communist party. This is not an easy task, for the essence of MLMTT must be learned in order to develop a concrete grasp of concrete conditions. And thus when we put forth that the creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory is principal in the contradiction between theory and practice at this time, it means communists must pay special attention to theoretical tasks, while practice must be particularly concentrated to maximize the theoretical lessons that we can draw from our practice. The summarization of current practice as well as the theory and practice of past revolutionary people in the U.S. and internationally provides extraordinary material for furthering the theoretical work. The experience of the international communist movement, especially of the movement against modern revisionism, can provide valuable sources from which we can draw. While our movement has certain historical burdens (as a young, immature movement with strong influences of revisionism and Trotskyism, etc.) we are also in a very good position in that we have the experiences and theory of the anti-revisionist battle waged by the Chinese Communist Party and the Communist Party of Albania, as well as past and current practice to draw from in our theoretical work.
This is why belittling the importance of theoretical struggle as the RU does, or turning the theoretical struggle into scholasticism and idealism as WV does, in order to replace MLMTT with their own system, damages the development of correct theory to guide our revolution. In essence, both WV and the RU deny Marxist-Leninist theory from guiding practice and in this sense have unity.
Consistent with WV’s attempt to transform MLMTT into “absolute truth” and their attempt to deny that all knowledge originates in experience is WV’s incorrect understanding of theory, the struggle to develop theoretical truths (the theoretical struggle), and practice.
These errors are evident in WV’s distorted interpretation of Lenin’s What Is To Be Done?
The study of Lenin’s What Is To Be Done? has become widespread in the communist movement in this country during the past couple of years. This very good development has brought out many lessons on the struggle against bowing in worship of spontaneity and economism, on the question of the role of the conscious factor in revolution, and others. In the midst of this development, WV has put forward distortions of some of Lenin’s most important lessons in this work, just as they did with Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.
In What Is To Be Done? Lenin speaks of the great importance of recognizing the theoretical struggle, and proves that its significance had long been recognized in the Marxist movement. Lenin quotes Engels to point out the importance of putting the theoretical struggle alongside the political and economic struggles.
Engels recognizes not two forms of the great struggle of Social Democracy (political and economic), as is the fashion among us, but three, placing on a par with the first two the theoretical struggle. (Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, pp. 29-30, emphasis in original)
Thus, Engels sums up the significance of the German workers’ heritage of theoretical struggle:
It must be said to the credit of the German workers that they have used the advantages of their situation with rare understanding. For the first time since the working class movement has existed, the struggle is being waged in a planned way from its three coordinated and interconnected sides, the theoretical, the political and the practical-economic (resistance to the capitalists). It is precisely in this, as it were, concentric attack, that the strength and invincibility of the German movement lies. (Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 31)
In no way does Lenin ever counterpose the theoretical tasks to the practical tasks, but in fact sees them as a dialectical unity that supplement each other. It is for this reason that Lenin advocated that the imposing tasks of Russian Social Democracy had to be tackled by increasing their activity in all spheres of practical and theoretical work, especially the theoretical since it had been neglected. Lenin never advocated liquidating their practical work or separating theory from practice, as is consistently implied by WV in their article on the RU.
Let us look at how WV distorts Lenin on the question of combatting opportunism:
To build a new communist movement with a vigorous and solid basis, we must recall the words and spirit of Lenin when he wrote of the urgent needs of the movement after its rupture with the Legal Marxists and “the task of those who desired to oppose opportunism, in deeds and not merely in words”: “First of all, they should have made efforts to resume the theoretical work (emphasis added). As we stated earlier, ours is a part of a new international and anti-revisionist communist movement, with many features similar to those of the period between the Second and Third Internationals. As then, the programs of the new Communist Parties must develop out of relentless struggle against renegade revisionist and opportunist lines of all shades, a struggle that must be especially fierce and protracted in the land of imperialism, where the material ground for such revisionism is especially fertile. (WV #2, p. 19)
The main thrust of WV’s own passage is that the way to combat opportunism is to resume exclusively theoretical work separated from the all-round struggle. By their own emphasis and omission from Lenin’s original, WV uses Lenin’s quote to reinforce their own abstract view of how revisionism and opportunism are to be combatted in our movement.
Lenin’s original passage, from which WV lifts one line, describes the particular manifestations of opportunism in Russia and the history of the Russian revolutionary movement. For a brief period, the revolutionary Social Democrats formed an alliance with the “legal Marxists” (bourgeois democrats) which subsequently broke up. The consequence of this rupture was that the revolutionaries were deprived of access to publish in the widespread “legal Marxist” literature and in addition, Lenin observed that the “legal Marxists” were in turn uniting with the Economists. This unholy alliance possessed a great “fear of publicity” as Lenin says, and desired not to engage in ideological struggle. It is in this context that Lenin states:
The question now arises: such being the peculiar features of Russian “criticism” and Russian Bernsteinism, what should have been the tasks of those who desired to oppose opportunism in deeds and not merely in words? First of all, they should have made efforts to resume the theoretical work that the period of “legal Marxism” had only just begun, and that has now again fallen on the shoulders of the illegal workers. Without such work the successful growth of the movement was impossible. Secondly, they should have actively combatted legal “criticism” that was greatly corrupting people’s minds. Thirdly, they should have actively opposed confusion and vacillation in the practical movement, exposing and repudiating every conscious or unconscious attempt to degrade our program and tactics. (Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, pp. 22-23)
Thus, Lenin saw that the battle against Russian opportunism was a complex and all-sided struggle that had to take place on all levels. The theoretical tasks were clearly brought out in relationship to sharply battling opportunism in deeds on all levels.
It is evident from this that WV takes only what they want from Lenin, and consequently they blatantly violate precisely the point Lenin makes in this passage from which their one-line quote was taken: that opportunism must be opposed in all its theoretical and practical manifestations.
By defining theoretical work as preceding the ability of communists to engage in all-rounded struggle against opportunism, WV ensures that its theoretical understanding of opportunism is not based in reality and cannot be correct, for it is not based on the actual living struggle against opportunism. Thus, while WV declares its violent opposition to opportunism in the abstract, it’s no wonder WV is unable to struggle against opportunism in the concrete because their line and practice are divorced from MLMTT. They have failed to struggle against the RU’s opportunist line on the national question and trade union question, and in their own mass work, people throughout the country are noting WV’s consistent conciliation with the social welfare agencies, centrists, and trade union bureaucrats.
WV’s idealist and therefore useless understanding of the nature of theory is further reflected in their view of combatting revisionism and building an anti-revisionist communist party, views which actually lead to ensuring that revisionism will not be defeated.
WV establishes its position that the source of revisionism is a lack or weakness in theory, as exemplified by the CPUSA and PLP:
Its [CPUSA] main weakness, which proved to be fatal, was its weak theoretical base. This lingers on in many of the older comrades who have come over to the Marxist-Leninist movement, who operate on pragmatic rules of thumb and gut feelings for the class. The CP even tolerated Khruschev and eventually got lost in the swamp of revisionism. (WV #2, p. 19)
One thing revealed by the failures of the POC and the PLP is the serious theoretical weakness of the US communist movement.(WV #2, p. 26)
The danger of WV’s above pronouncements is that they divert attention away from the actual reality of the revisionism of the CPUSA and others, who replaced Marxist-Leninist theory with revisionist theory. They became revisionist not because of a lack of theory in the abstract, but because of certain incorrect policies, perspectives, lines and “theories” adopted over the years. The CP came to tolerate Khruschev not because they had no road map to steer them away from the swamp, but rather the CP had already started towards a revisionist path based on their own incorrect “road map.” They tolerated Khruschev because Khruschev endorsed the very same policies and “theory” the CP advocated.
Pronouncing as WV does that the main weakness of the CP and PLP was a weakness in “theory” in the abstract denies the great task of repudiating the revisionist theories they have actually developed in opposition to MLMTT and to comprehend the ideological roots of their revisionism. Revisionism is not a matter of lacking mental fortification (lacking “theoreticalness”) but rather, it is an international phenomenon with historical roots and a definite class base, which must be fully accounted for in the struggle against it. The particular battle against revisionism in the U.S. must appreciate the particular national characteristics of revisionism in this country in order to clearly discern the deviations that have been made on such fundamental questions as the national question, the state, imperial ism, the trade unions, etc. And because WV adopts an abstract view of the source of revisionism in the U.S., in order to combat revisionism, WV adopt an equally abstract and empty set of “anti-revisionist premises” (these being MLMTT, anti-pragmatism, anti-bourgeois democracy, anti-centrism and anti-chauvinism–see WV Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 26-36). WV states:
the revisionist political line will not simply repeat itself. The lines of the Communist movement in the U.S. in 1975 are not and cannot be the same as the particular lines in Russia in 1900 or in China in the 1920’s. They will always appear in a more sophisticated and will take on more disguised forms. Wrong political lines are like cockroaches and germs, they mutate. The communist movement, therefore, is less vulnerable to old diseases such as old dual-unionism, economism, etc. We are more vulnerable to new diseases and new germs–mutations of the old diseases. That’s why, in order to combat it, we need more than knowledge of the past but most importantly, the basis, the premises which are at the root of these diseases, and not understanding the ideological task, we are not vaccinated against new germs and new diseases. That’s why we are putting forth a set of anti-revisionist premises, rather than simply a set of political positions on current events. (WV Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 26, emphasis in original)
Having a firmer and stronger grasp of these theoretical premises is the only safeguard against degeneration, the only guarantee to detect shades and forms of revisionism, defeat its particular manifestations and repudiate it as an integral whole. (WV Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 27)
First, we believe these quotes reflect even further WV’s idealism and metaphysics–analyzing that revisionism and opportunism are plagues, diseases that attack the communist movement from without. Consequently, according to WV, to prevent revisionism we must vaccinate ourselves against revisionism by adopting a set of general assertions developed by WV. Such view of providing an anti-revisionist basis for the new party is deceptive, and fosters illusions that revisionism is so easily comprehended in its essence and overcome in real life.
As dialectical materialists we know that contradiction exists within the very essence of things, so that a revolutionary line develops only out of struggle against counter-revolutionary or revisionist line. A revolutionary line develops only out of struggle against revisionist lines in real life, not in the abstract. Instead, WV’s anti-revisionist premises reduce the anti-revisionist struggle to one of formulating abstract declarations and fails to deal with the actual uncovering of the particular deviations, concrete exposure, education, repudiation and smashing of revisionist lines.[1]
The revolutionary movement cannot be innoculated and made immune to revisionism, for combatting revisionism must be done over every issue in the actual struggle to answer the theoretical and practical questions posed by the proletarian revolution.
And finally WV is forced to recognize this truth, that combatting revisionism must be made a concrete struggle. After going through so many pages of abstract proclamations, after declaring that their “anti-revisionist premises” are the “only safeguard against degeneration,” “the only guarantee to detect shades and forms of revisionism, defeat its particular manifestations and repudiate it as an integral whole,” they conclude their article by admitting:
There is no way to absolutely guarantee that the party will not degenerate into revisionism. The four premises[2] that we are suggesting are merely the ones that we can see so far. But the whole point is not to try to work out some magic guarantee. It is to use Marxism-Leninism as a science to raise our vigilence about revisionism and to bring the conscious element to the forefront. (WV Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 31)
A fine time to admit the truth! After several thousand words, WV finally admits that we cannot be made “immune” to the germs of revisionism. What then was the purpose of their entire article? “To use Marxism-Leninism as a science to raise our vigilence,” they say! This pronouncement is entirely consistent with WV’s attempt to make MLMTT an “absolute” and ossified (and useless) authority. By declaring that MLMTT’s purpose is to raise our “vigilence” in fact denies the universal significance of MLMTT and that part of our struggle against revisionism requires constant striving to adhere to and apply the basic principles of MLMTT.
WV’s “anti-revisionist premises” are useless in one sense, but in another sense WV’s premises actually are part and parcel of WV’s attempt to substitute for MLMTT their own idealist “theoretical system.” According to WV, MLMTT is insufficient or inadequate to combat revisionism and lead the revolution, we need new ”theoretical premises” to guide our work today.[3] That is what WV really means when it says,
That’s why, in order to combat it (revisionism), we need more than knowledge of the past but most importantly, the basis, the premises which are at the root of these diseases, and not understanding the ideological task, we are not vaccinated against new germs and diseases. That’s why we are putting forth a set of anti-revisionist premises, rather than simply a set of political positions on current events. (WV Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 26, emphasis in original)
WV goes on,
Having a firmer and stronger grasp of these theoretical premises (WV’s anti-revisionist premises) is the only safeguard against degeneration, the only guarantee to detect shades and forms of revisionism, defeat its particular manifestation and repudiate it as an integral whole. (WV Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 27, emphasis added)
How do we combat revisionism? We say by firmly adhering to MLMTT, applying it to our concrete situation and exposing and defeating theoretically and in practice revisionism’s deviation from the living essence of MLMTT and its objective damage to the cause of the proletariat. WV, however, does not think MLMTT is sufficient “theoretical premises” for combatting revisionism but that we need WV’s (or add and make your own premises we assume) new “theoretical premises” to combat revisionism. Only one theory is the theory of the working class–this is MLMTT.
The communist movement must strive to make the ideology of the proletariat MLMTT, the very basis for all that we think and do and in this way we use MLMTT to combat revisionism, and to be our guide to solve the many problems of the proletarian revolution in the U.S.
Along with WV’s erroneous understanding of theory is its erroneous understanding of practice. WV does not talk much about “practice,” but does define it as participating in spontaneous struggles and as useful for the recruitment of advanced elements from these struggles. For WV, practice has no relationship to Marxist-Leninist theory. In fact, they raise the erroneous formulation that “practice” is a “secondary task” to theory. Seemingly upholding the principal and decisive role of theory in this period of great struggle to develop the general line for our revolutionary movement to lay the basis for the new communist party, WV counterposes theory against practice and negates both. Here, in their own words, is their general view and attitude toward practice.
Our revolutionary practice in spontaneous struggles is our secondary task in this period. However, it must not be neglected. We must begin to transform our world outlook, for as Chairman Mao has written: “This change of world outlook is something fundamental.” And only through revolutionary practice in the thick of struggle and studying the stand of Marxism Leninism can that be done. (WV #2, p. 29)
Revolutionary practice is the basis for long term proletariat victory. But it would be nothing except eclecticism to confuse the long term need of the movement with the immediate need of the movement for direction and orientation. Revolutionary theory should not be counter-posed to the need for revolutionary practice–as opportunists often do. (Ibid.)
Firstly, WV promotes a self-cultivationist view of practice, relegating practice to “transforming our world outlook,” as in the main point of the first quote. It is incorrect to speak of transforming one’s world outlook divorced from providing revolutionary leadership to the masses, and from the struggle to change objective reality. In contrast, we believe it is necessary to view revolutionary practice as something fundamental, both in regard to the development and implementation of theory and in the transformation of individuals’ world view. But with regard to the transformation of individuals, we must struggle to see that the revolutionary transformation of objective reality is principal to the remolding of a particular individual’s world outlook. The only revolutionary purpose for remolding one’s world outlook is to be able to transform the society, to make revolution. Placing the remolding of the individual as the aim of practice in fact guarantees that the remolding will not take place, for as with Liu Shao-Chi’s “self-cultivation,” self is placed first, before the interests of the revolution.
Secondly, WV concentrates on developing their own ”theory” divorced from a scientific understanding of concrete conditions. This means that in practice they are only able to arrive at superficial and tailist “plans” for the mass movement, because their “theories” do not coincide with reality. They do not base their work on MLMTT. It is for this reason that so many people who are familiar with WV’s actual practice observe that WV is consistently tailist and economist, that they are unable to transform spontaneous struggles into conscious ones.
Our view is that communist practice must attempt to transform spontaneous movements into class conscious struggles, and it is the questions, problems and contradictions that arise in the process of this transformation that must be taken up as part of Marxist-Leninist theoretical work. It is from this understanding of the relationship of theory to practice that communists must develop concrete theoretical and practical understanding of such questions as revisionism, the national question, the trade union question, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and so forth. This view is based on the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge–that communists develop a solid grasp, knowledge of the concrete conditions of society through trying to change the conditions of society, i.e., transforming spontaneous struggles into class conscious struggles by bringing revolutionary ideas to the masses and in the course of this propagating Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought to the advanced elements of the class and constantly raising experiences and understanding to meet the great theoretical demands of our movement. Practice must enrich theory while the developing theory must guide practice. By not following this path, one would wind up like WV: with stagnant theory and tailist practice.
Thirdly, we entirely agree with WV that it is opportunist to counterpose theory and practice. One of the principal characteristics of opportunists is this counterposing, and it is precisely this counterposing which is so wrong with WV’s entire outlook. It is erroneous to place “theory” and “practice” as principal and secondary tasks[4] or to say that “practice is the basis for long term proletarian victory,” but that theory is the “immediate need.” These statements automatically counterpose the two. Theory and practice must form a unity in the task of party building or of armed struggle. But to place “theory” as a task in opposition to “practice” is a misleading muddle.
Fourthly, WV believes that theory is principal in the relationship between theory and practice at this time. In such statements as “practice in spontaneous struggles is our secondary task in this period,” in their counterposing of the long term role of practice as opposed to ”the immediate need of the movement for direction and orientation”(theory), and in the following excerpt from WV’s writings, WV in essence destroys the significance of taking up the theoretical tasks in this period. WV states:
Lenin thus identifies periods of ideological and political disunity in which theoretical work is the principal need, (“Those times of which Lenin said, ’Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary practice.’ On Contradiction, Mao) and periods characterized by ideological unity which makes broad practical work possible. (WV #2, p. 25, emphasis added)
WV changes the word “movement” from Mao’s and Lenin’s original quote to the word “practice,” and therefore says that we can see thinking and doing, theory and practice, mechanically; that is, since theoretical tasks are primary in this period, theory must be acquired before proceeding to the’ stage of revolutionary practice, and that theory and practice are mutually exclusive or opposing “tasks.”
But what did Lenin really say:
Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. (Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 28, emphasis added)
Lenin’s statement in no way says that theory and practice are opposing tasks, nor that they are disconnected and acquired one after the other. Rather, Lenin is saying that without the guiding role of correct revolutionary theory, the revolutionary movement cannot move forward. The importance of theory is fully expressed in Lenin’s statement. Stalin, too, stressed the indissoluble connection between theory and practice in order that they should be understood in their inter-relationship and not counter-posed.
Theory is the experience of the working-class movement in all countries taken in its general aspect. Of course, theory becomes purposeless if it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropes in the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory. But theory can become a tremendous force in the working-class movement if it is built up in indissoluble connection with revolutionary practice; for theory, and theory alone, can give the movement confidence, the power of orientation, and an understanding of the inner relation of surrounding events; for it, and it alone, can help practice to realise not only how and in which direction classes are moving at the present time, but also how and in which direction they will move in the near future. None other than Lenin uttered and repeated scores of times the well known thesis that: “Without a revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.” (Stalin, Foundations of Leninism, p. 22)
In regard to which aspect is principal, it is practice which is generally principal, for practice is the basis of all revolutionary theory. But as we pointed out in our party building paper, the communist movement at this time needs to develop the general line for our revolutionary movement to lay the basis for our communist party.
But this theoretical work must be based on MLMTT. In their elevation of the importance of theory, WV is actually elevating their own system and using phrases and words of MLMTT to mask their distortions. It is in the face of such a contradiction that we must struggle to arrive at the essence of WV’s errors, and not cease our analysis at what seems to be.
As with all the other examples we have given previously in this paper, when it comes time for WV to try to find a Marxist quote to back up their incorrect views, they have rewritten what Marxist-Leninists such as Lenin and Mao really said. They have turned them on their heads. WV does not rest content with counterposing theory and practice, which itself is a violation of Marxism-Leninism, but must try to give the impression that Mao and Lenin do, too. Social practice in the real world is not the basis for WV’s “theory,” rendering their “new” ideas unsound, incorrect, and unable to provide revolutionary direction to the movement. Such “theory” of WV therefore cannot fulfill the recognized need at this time for revolutionary theory. Only MLMTT can provide this direction, because only MLMTT reflects the dialectical relation between theory and practice, and is thus a science based on real life.
[1] Because WV’s premises are so vague WV itself cannot even apply them to practice and thus consistently winds up ideologically and practically conciliating with revisionists, centrists and reformists.
[2] WV added the anti-revisionist premise of “anti-chauvinism” as an afterthought in the insert sheet to WV Vol. 2, No. 1. They now have five such premises.
[3] This is not to say we oppose having more concrete analysis of concrete conditions, or that we should not grasp the particularities in the American situation. In fact we feel that our party building position makes clear the importance of making MLMTT a living science and the importance of developing our theoretical work. However, a set of premises including MLMTT, anti-bourgeois democracy, anti-pragmatism, anti-centrism, anti-chauvinism, is neither new nor unique nor “specific” to the U.S. Even though WV calls MLMTT the “premises of the premises” (whatever that means) it is clear that they are constructing a mish-mash. To understand more concretely the danger of this “new” formulation of WV’s we should turn to what WV says are “old diseases” and thereby not as applicable to the U.S. revolutionary movement today. WV considers the U.S. communist movement “less vulnerable to old diseases such as old dual-unionism, economism, etc.” WV is trying to reduce certain fundamental aspects of MLMTT such as the importance of constantly struggling against economism to the level of “old diseases” which the American revolutionary movement can avoid by simply learning some history. This is a clever way of reducing the significance of one of the key dangers which we have to be extremely conscious in combatting in words and deeds. WV’s attempt to minimize the danger of economism in the movement today is dangerous rewriting of MLMTT and also serves as an attempt to cover their own economism.
[4] Practice can never be a secondary “task”–this is a butchering of dialectics. Neither can “theory” be a “task.” Practice is human activity in the real world, which may include the theoretical struggle in concrete situations, the military struggle, the economic struggle, etc. These are forms of practice, and whatever we define as particular forms of practice are political tasks. Tasks are forms of practice. Thus to say that ”practice is a secondary task is a muddle. Theory is the experience of the working class gained in its practice and taken in its general aspect. Theory is subsequently transformed into its opposite when it is practiced, just as practice is transformed into its opposite when it is summed up to the general theoretical level.