MARXISTS often time on 'theory'. Why not use the effort for more practical tasks? Given that Marxist does take a lot of effort and time that is a very reasonable question ask.
The answer however he gestion hone the question begin to change things in the world is posed not in theoretical but in practical terms. Even a single country such as Britain has more than fifty million people in it. A society on the scale of the world has thousands millions. Societies on these scale OCCause single individuals but only because 0I vast forces within them.
To change society you have to effect these enormous economic, social and ponucal developments. Above all you have to KNOW which torces pushing in the direction vou want to go and which go in the opposite direcTherefore which LIVIN forces you must oppose and try to weaken and destroy. Marxist politics is precisely the study of these questons.
Once this is NOCO then becomes rather clear what Marxand theories are. They are simply a method of put. ting into words, more precisely into ideas, the basic forces in society so that they can be understood.
theories are, Marx PUL *nothing but that Haena reflected in mind of men' (sic). We will take ar example to show more exactly what this means.
One of the most used of Marxist terms is 'the stater Marxism affirms une interests or a particula. class. The is neutral. A capitalist state cannot be taken over and reformed by the working class. Such a state must be smashed. Let us consider A very real argument over this 'theoretical' question of the state in fact 1970-73. A took in Chile in At that time a government Salvador Allende and his supporters knew lal army opposed their elecBut thev believed that in Chile, a country La long mustory of democratic governments, the armed forces could be forced to accept the vote of the people.
Opposing this view were the revolutionary They precisely said that the state is a class state. The army will never accept a socialist, or in Chile left wing, cover Hell This was debate about the state. Was the state neutral, or could be pressurised to it a class state which would defend the interests of the capitalist class against the working class?
But 'the state' was iust a reflection of a reality. The state in Chile, ever the count all enormous force. It was made up of an army tens of thousands soldiers, hundreds of tanks and aircraft.
In addition to the army were the police. They were backed up by a judicial system, and an enormos civil service. All these tac Cosc Collacl employers and right wire politicians. The 'theoretical' argument about the state was in fact a very practical one. How would these enormously powerful military forces act in real life? Would the remain neutral and on the sidelines or not?
The answer of course is only too well and tragically known. In September 1973 the Chilean army over.
slaughtered thousands workers. It banned all the organisations of Chilean working class. cut living standards almost half. It installed a bloody and ruthless dictatorship which exists to this day. The argument Chile was indeed theoretical. But for that reason it was also deeply practical. was about how enormous social forces would act. It was literally and death question for tens and hundreds thousands of people. The fact the answer was wrong meant one of the greatest disasters in the histor Marxist ideas and theories
----- pull-quotes -----
'every state defends that