The role of revolutionary theory

One of the most important questions facing revolutionaries is the relationship between theory and the actual activity of revolution. It is clear that our role is not to "lead" the working class or dispense sacred knowledge to the ignorant, but barring this how can communists and anarchists bring the revolution any closer? How does developing an understanding of capitalism, class struggle, etc actually contribute to the struggle? In previous revolutionary situations have the workers taken up the ideas of revolutionary thinkers? Is the task of theory to make workers conscious of their own power, and transform the class struggle (which is undertaken more or less unconsciously of the fact that it has the potential to overthrow the present society) into consciously anti-capitalist activity?

I'm sure a lot has been written on this, so please post links to the relevant texts as well as your thoughts.

When there's been a high level of class struggle, this has often been accompanied by an increase in the popularity of revolutionary ideas - both in terms of membership of revolutionary groups (by this I include anything which calls itself revolutionary rather than groups I'd personally consider to have revolutionary along anarchist/communist lines - i.e. Trot/Maoist groups) and in self-education about revolutionary history and theory. Spain is an obvious example - the CNT grew massively (and also receded quickly) at various points between 1918 and 1936. Various left groups have had either positive or negative influence in struggles since then (Situs in France, various groups in Portugal (mostly negative), Italy '69 etc.)

I don't think it's possible for pro-revolutionaries to kick-start anything, that tends towards voluntarism (and burn-out). However once something has started, then pro-revolutionaries can intervene and try to tip the balance in certain directions by arguing for particular tactics, methods of controlling our own struggles etc. and trying to expose groups and individuals who want to take things over and send them in the wrong direction.
The issue of what pro-revolutionary groups can and can't do was discussed here, but it didn't really deal with the development of theory specifically. http://libcom.org/forums/thought/revolutionary-organisation.

Yeah that was an omission.

I agree with this to an extent, except at a certain point struggles need to be opened up to other groups of workers in other workplaces and/or in the surrounding area - and assemblies will also need to happen outside the workplace (not as venue necessarily, but in terms of moving away from the idea of the 'firm', corporatism etc. towards the class in general). While you can't do that on behalf of any particular group of workers, I think those arguments can be made by people not directly involved - hence us doing Dispatch, Tea Break - although in those cases it's been a mixture of people directly involved and people who aren't, which is a bit different, and probably as far as I'd go in current circumstances.

I reckon there are 'natural' limits on the size of pro-revolutionary organisations at the moment as we've discussed at length elsewhere - although I also think those limits are several orders of magnitude higher than the actual size of existing organisations, in the UK at least.

Yeah catch thats all fair enough but still what I said applies when assemblies move outside the workplace - 'we' should not seek to artificially 'insert' ourselves into assemblies that we would not be involved in as workers in struggle. That is if no-one of our particualr pro-revolutionary disposition is involved in a particular assembly in a workplace/area because they do not belong to that workplace/area then we don't parachute in. We can of course talk to other workers about our ideas but showing up and trying to get places on committees or 'run' assemblies in the manner that other organisations/parties would is what I am opposed to here.

As for those 'natural' limits, yes you are I suspect spot on - on both counts.

This basically sums up as well why I believe that we have to start building a (pro)revolutionary labour movement now, one based in working class areas as well as workplaces
- sounds to me a pretext for the opportunist campaigning of the leftist sect - lacking strategic insight and an inability to conduct long range serious precision in sectors which could change the situation re morale within the workers movement

I don't think it's possible for pro-revolutionaries to kick-start anything, that tends towards voluntarism (and burn-out)
- it is possible to assist workers to set up their own workers organisations - the rank and file movement in the NSW BLF (Builders labourers Federation) in NSW Australia which pursued the famous green bans in the early 1970's didn't just form "sponatenously" by militant workers - the communist party (CPA) played a very important role in helping it get going (kickstarting it!) in the 1950's - bringing a nucleus of militants who were CPA members together, printing their journal "the hoist" etc -( see Paul True's pamphlet "Rolling the Right")
in the NSW Govt Bus Industry the ASN together with others helped get a rank and file movement going in that sector since 2002 - bringing militants together and helping them produce leaflets, run campaigns, etc
see "anarcho-syndicalism:catalyst for workers self organisation" on the archive section of our web page www.rebelworker.org
- for the relatively smallish groups of today in many countries do this work - sustained precision work has to be conducted - you can't follow the way of the sect with all its aimless/opportunist activity and recruitment obsession and usually politically correct "navel gazing" - and you have to have worked out via your historical studies and your own workplace experience that it makes strategic sense say re steps toward establishing mass syndicalist unionism

Does it indeed ? Or are you just looking to start a row out of nothing asn? What I said there in no way stands in contradiction to what you have said later in your post, although I'm sure I could start a nonsense row about one or other aspect of it. In fact what I was saying earlier was basically in opposition to behaving just like the opportunist leftist sect you've used as an insult against me.

Oh, "long range serious precision" what by the way? Seriously I am all for working strategically but I am opposed to what the yanks/IWW call salting if that is part of your long term precision work.

We cannot.

Then what's the point of having a group? Also, I'm not sure this is the best approach as opposed to saying openly that you're a member of group such-and-such, we think we should do this.

Edit: And how does not acting as a group fit in with producing papers like Dispatch or Tea Break?

OK, but a revolution without a lived heritage (c.f. Levellers, Diggers etc.) is a revolution that is either asking people to subscribe simply to a theory having tasted and seen nothing, or coercing people into it.

We need to see ourselves as victims of wage slavery, sure. But, having accepted that, if we think the proposed alternative is a pipedream we'll prefer slavery.

Every anarchist book written for a popular audience has to begin by defining what anarchism isn't, usually violence and chaos. But because the only praxis most people see is anarchists fighting against something, the danger is a misperception that the alternative is purely theoretical.

Pockets of anarchy are not an end in themselves, but they might incarnate the argument. No?

Right, I don't know what pockets of anarchy are exactly but I'll attempt as response based on what I think you might mean. 'Pockets of anarchy' are an impossibility within a global capitalist system. We can however organise in a certain way and build a broad movement that seeks in terms of its organisation (not as in grouplet) to work in a manner compatible with anarchist principles and methods.

What though if the vast majority of your assembly also happen to be in a (pro)revolutionary union? Y' see here I think is where me and catch part ways but then it might just be in the way we choose to define a union (if I can remember a discussion from loooong ago)

I've deleted off-topic shite between bobby, revol and boul.

Salting has been the topic of some serious criticism over the years, which I unfortunately no longer have to hand.

Basically it amounts to people who identify politically going into a particular industry to 'organise' it. Also it smacks of a certain evangelical approach, its not that you took a job because you needed it and rely on it to support a family, its that you took it to 'organise' an area that your organisation has identified as strategic. If it fucks up they (the salters) are usually better placed to move on than the other workers in that industry.

So essentially my problem is the relationship to the job and the limits in relating to the interests of those working there and the 'salter'. One is bread and butter - the other is seeking the growth of their own organisation. Most wobs I've met (only a few mind, but wobs are the only people I've ever heard seriously proposing salting) who have advocated salting or have claimed to have been involved in salting over the years seem to have been little more than college kids slumming it with the workers for a few years. Hearts in the right places n' all but at the end of the day they've never seemed to have as much to lose (or gain) as the workers they are (like good shepherds) trying to organise.

And we don't need good shepherds we need more black sheep

I think this, from a Pannekoek letter to Socialisme ou barbarie is relevant and and well said to the question of theory and militant action :
"It’s possible that you will now ask: Within the framework of this orientation what purpose does a party or a group serve, and what are its tasks? We can be sure that our group won’t succeed in commanding the working masses in their revolutionary action: besides us there are a half-dozen or more groups or parties who call themselves revolutionary, but who all differ in their programs and ideas, and compared to the great Socialist Party, these are nothing but Lilliputians. Within the framework of the discussion in issue number 10 of your review it was correctly asserted that our task is essentially theoretical: to find and indicate, through study and discussion, the best path of action for the working class. Nevertheless, the education based on this should not be intended solely for members of a group or party, but the masses of the working class. It will be up to them to decide the best way to act in their factory meetings and their Councils. But in order for them to decide in the best way possible they must be enlightened by well-considered advice coming from the greatest number of people possible. Consequently, a group that proclaims that the autonomous action of the working class is the principal form of the socialist revolution will consider that its primary task is to go talk to the workers, for example by means of popular tracts that will clarify the ideas of the workers by explaining the important changes in society, and the need for the workers to lead themselves in all their actions, including in future productive labor."

It was just an open question comrade with no hidde agenda

i think we have to get out in the streets and start taking creative approaches to everyday life instead of blathering on pretending to be experts in theory. like i've said before you don't need a bunch of fuckin words to understand how fucked up things are and to want to do something, and it's very likely that most workers who've been influenced by radical ideas have gotten that influence from seeing people in real everyday life talk about those ideas in a way that connects them to what's happening, and not from just reading books or seeking out ideas randomly. there's lots of fun to be had out in the real world, it's very limiting to post on forums about how radical we are and develop our critique here because bouncing ideas off eachother will never be as fruitful as bouncing them off the people in the streets...
"our task is essentially theoretical: to find and indicate, through study and discussion, the best path of action for the working class"
this is bullshit. our task is to live life as fully as we can. the big problem with marxoid crap is that its followers try to apply what they conceive of as their leader's theory to interpret facts, instead of using the facts to improve the theory.
theory has to come from practice, not the other way around...