This might be pertinent to the relationship between theory and practice.
Charles
^^^^^
"Not only has universal anarchy broken out among the reformers, but also
every individual must admit to himself that he has no precise idea about
what ought to happen. However, this very defect turns to the advantage of
the new movement, for it means that we do not anticipate the world with our
dogmas but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of
the old. Hitherto philosophers have left the keys to all riddles in their
desks, and the stupid, uninitiated world had only to wait around for the
roasted pigeons of absolute science to fly into its open mouth. Philosophy
has now become secularized and the most striking proof of this can be seen
in the way that philosophical consciousness has joined battle not only
outwardly, but inwardly too. If we have no business with the construction of
the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt
about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the
existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own
discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be. . . .
Reason has always existed, but not always in a rational form. Hence the
critic can take his cue from every existing form of theoretical and
practical consciousness and from this ideal and final goal implicit in the
actual forms of existing reality he can deduce a true reality. . . .
Nothing prevents us, therefore, from lining our criticism with a criticism
of politics, from taking sides in politics, i.e., from entering into real
struggles and identifying ourselves with them. This does not mean that we
shall confront the world with new doctrinaire principles and proclaim: Here
is the truth, on your knees before it! It means that we shall develop for
the world new principles from the existing principles of the world. We shall
not say: Abandon your struggles, they are mere folly; let us provide you
with true campaign-slogans. Instead, we shall simply show the world why it
is struggling, and consciousness of this is a thing it must acquire whether
it wishes or not.
The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of
its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in
explaining its own actions to it. Like Feuerbach's critique of religion, our
whole aim can only be to translate religious and political problems into
their self-conscious human form.
Our programme must be: the reform of consciousness not through dogmas but by
analyzing mystical consciousness obscure to itself, whether it appear in
religious or political form. It will then become plain that the world has
long since dreamed of something of which it needs only to become conscious
for it to possess it in reality. . . ."
Karl Marx, Letter to Arnold Ruge (Sept. 1843),
Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February 1844
^^^^^^^^^
It's probably better to think of this in terms of the unity of theory and
practice creating a community, rather than that the practice and _not_
theory ( religious or atheist)make a community or create a community.
The Europeans in the west part of Canada who "practiced" together did so on
the basis of some shared values, i.e. theory. So, there would have been no
community creating practice without some common or shared theory in the
first place. The church communties' originating practices were based in
shared ideas of some type. The thing gets to be like the chicken and the
egg, so it is best not to try to give priority or special place to either
practice or theory.
There's no such thing as any people anywhere just suddenly engaging in some
practice without any theory in their heads. Their theory may be modified by
their practice, and so in this sense their practice creates theory, but
their practice may confirm their previously held theory, i.e. not change it.
The other idea is that theory is a guide to practice, not a dogmatic
playbook , like lines in a theatrical play or in a dogmatic ritual. The
theory must be open to modification based on practice.
Theory also provides the goals and aims of practice. Aimless activity is not
practice.
My only concern about "frontier" communities' solidarity is that their
originating practice and struggle was aimed at goals which were highly
antagonistic to the indigenous peoples of the "frontier". The Christian
theory and practice had a racist concept of Indians, etc. Can a community
based on such theory and practice really be the basis for progressive
politics today ?
Charles
* From: paul phillips
I think I see what Carrol is getting at. It was not the church that created
the community, but the shared values and collective action in organizing the
church etc. that created the community. This, however, points to one of the
difficulties in modern urban society. There are few such collective
institutions that create community.
This is not entirely true, of course. We just retired to a small town
in British Columbia where we very rapidly made friends and enjoyed a
community by joining a couple of choirs. Music and the arts also have the
ability to create shared values -- i.e. a community.
Paul P
Carrol Cox wrote:
paul phillips wrote:
I think I disagree quite profoundly with Carrol on this.
The centre of most communities in the 'frontier' west of Canada was the
local church and school.
The center is not the community. What _formed_ the community was the
shared action of forming the physical community on the 'frontier.' The
historical accident of the Roman Empire was responsible for the "center" to
be a xtian church rather than some other such institution. Your post
complements rather than contradicts mine.
Carrol
