In the second half of 1920, after the Communist's massacre by Kuomintang, Mao Zedong not only to move to Hunan but also did some sort of empirical research. Mao did "sort of go down" to determine the social conditions of China. Based on the study, list of social groups (Mao called it a class) that could be a friend or foe in the struggle for China liberation based on Marxist theory was made.
For Mao, heartache because the Kuomintang betrayal did not necessarily lead him to go to a traditional healer, or perhaps asking whether constellations of the communists was so unlucky so they could be deceived by the Kuomintang tactics, or whether the emblem on their flag was not in accordance with feng shui or anything. No. Mao also not re-memorizing Manifesto quotations and sought guidance from the master then preaching about the weakness of faith. Mao just wanted to know what kind of social structures at hand in the struggle, about those who in the future revolution could be counterparty and who could be friends, with investigating it directly on the existing conditions. And Mao searching for it in the Chinese social reality, not in England in the nineteenth century, nor in Russia.
Mao was considering the practice of empirical research was as important as the practice of organizing the resistance. Marx himself taught that empirical research was not only to build a solid foundation for the theory, but also as a way of banging theory to reality and to test how sturdy it was in practice.
Perhaps the lovers or haters think Marx teaches a kind of dogmatism. Erroneous! Please read it again in 1872 Preface. Marx said that, indeed, the general principles which would be published in Communist Manifesto (which saying that the production base which created the political and ideological communities and throughout history was the history of class struggles) still applied equally, same as when the first Manifesto published in 1848, but "the application of the principle in practice would depend on historical terms".
Marx did not hesitate to say that "programs (in the Manifesto) here and there has become obsolete" by the passage of time. Marx did not hesitate to say "even in outline it is still appropriate, but in practice is outdated" and "the working class can't simply take over the existing state machine and use it for their own purposes". So, let alone to glorify his past writings. Marx expressly said, "This Manifesto is a document of history, not a cookbook for dispensing revolution."
How could Marx come to this conclusion? On March 1848, a few weeks after the Manifesto was published, the revolution broke out in Paris and the European countries from Germany to Italy. Not more than a year, the storm of revolution swept away from Europe. Working class militia slaughtered or dispersed. Engels himself -- who had become artillery lieutenant of militia workers -- had to go through rural France to avoid pursuit by the troops. Figures of revolution, including Marx and Engels had to evacuate if they did not want to be punished or die. In 1850 until 1852, a revolution occurred again in France. In 1870, the legendary Paris Commune established, but its lifespan was just two months. Everything failed. Bourgeois returned to power. Hundreds of thousands of communists slaughtered. Marx became an outcast, without citizenship. Marx got a conclusion in 1872 preface to the Manifesto from his historical investigations on this revolution. Marx wrote at least two treatises, Eighteen Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and Class War in France in 1870. Engels also did the same thing in the treatise of Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany and the Peasant War in Germany, coupled with their studies on the Paris Commune.
From the empirical-historical research, Marx came to the conclusion that the reality was often too stubborn to be changed by the will of theory and theoretical. In theory, the story should not be like this, but like that. Yes, theoretically, maybe it's true . But we must remember that the strength of theory lies in the abstraction. Theory relies on the reality that has been stripped its actual contexts. Reality becomes merely an abstract object, an object regardless of place and time frame. Like squeezing the fruit, in every abstraction, there must be something missing. If you do not get rid of the things with ceteris paribus law or "all the different considered irrelevant", then it is not an abstraction, but the description.
Although the theory has flaws, but the practice still need a theory. Without abstraction, we will get stuck in the empirical and actual realm of the temporary and changeable reality. Indeed there is oppression and exploitation which is clearly visible in front of us. There's expulsion of population for the sake of cement factories expansion, acquisition of farmers' land for the sake of mining, the arrest of women who were demonstrating to resist eviction, or cuts in allowance and low wage contracts in the factories. All of this is still part of our life's reality under democracy and capitalism. Nothing wrong with this assumption. We must participate in the fight against this kind of oppression.
This presumption becomes wrong when we judge it is the only reality that is called oppression, and resistance to all visible current events is the only form of resistance. Why it is wrong? Because when the oppression is not directly in front of us, when exploitation is not as clear as spoliation on the roadside, we assume it is no more oppression. If so, we become easily carried away by the images that make our mind calm, because by naked eye, there is no more oppression. All issues are considered completed when they -- who were previously regarded as oppressors -- comes with smile, face to face and talk politely, and bring CSR funds to build toilets or ECD. Then we can clean up the banner, close our coordination meeting notes, and take a coffee break while continuing daily life.
In the era of social media such as now, when all should be photographed in order to be uploaded to the Internet and displayed, assuming that the only reality is what is experienced directly as this is becoming the norm. But not all of reality can be photographed and uploaded on facebook, instagram, or twitter. The reality is not only what is absorbed by sensory; nor just what we experienced personally. There is a reality behind the visible and can only be captured with a thorough investigation of reality that goes beyond the momentary appearance. The reality is that the structure and tendencies that investigations not only requires the collection of empirical data, but also the framework of rational thinking which can uncover behind the real thing. How can we look at social class for which can be perceived by the senses is only people and their behavior? How can we see the the invisible oppression and exploitation for what can be perceived by the senses is simply the absence of police, as well as the propriety of corporate representatives, for example?
Indeed, one of Marxism's cornerstone is the spirit of perseverance against all oppression and exploitation. Previous socialist movement also firm about this. But passion alone is not enough to help us to dismantle oppression and exploitation. Indeed, capitalism is oppressive and exploitative system. But oppression and capitalist exploitation does not always manifest in the form of coarse visible, such as land grabbing guarded by police or dismissal without benefits. Capitalism is not exhausted explained by the actions of people directly benefited by it like this. Capitalism is a system, a structural reality that will not be immediately obvious when we just glare at its daily practice. What is revealed only a small part, the actual empirical realm of capitalism which is often deceptive. There is another realm that must be investigated beyond the day-to-day practice. Equalizing the realm of the visible with the actual reality is not only degrading human evolution (to the level of ape), but also makes the spirit of resistance becomes easily fooled by the splendor of "development". Capitalism will not collapse when George Soros later will die or when wages rise. Capitalism will stay fit, as long as the structure of wage-labor relations remains a cornerstone of the economic system's operation. That's why Marxism, unlike other forms of socialism, also equipped its spirit of resistance to the theory, or exactly on science. With knowledge means to call back the capacity for abstract thinking in its operations. Marx said, if its appearance was similar to its reality, then all science became redundant. Science is needed because the realm of its appearance is not the same as its reality.
With knowledge also means that we must continue to go back to reality, purify ourselves from dogma, honest and disciplined in the search for truth. In the knowledge we should not hesitate to correct what ever concluded previously. Thus we can approach the truth. Nothing is instant in knowledge and struggle. Knowledge and movement, theory and practice, is like winning and losing in the struggle against capitalism.
Marx once said in the Manifesto, "The victory, especially the defeat, surely teaches us about the ineffectiveness many kinds of "quack medicine", as well as preparing the way to get a more complete view about the liberation condition of working class."
But, of course, all of this will be valid if we throw away the notion or acceptance of Marxism as a sect.
***
[CZ-lacalifusa071015]
If you're just an old widower, poor, homeless, no one will care about you, even if you die of cold in this season. Though it can be, you have a pretty good-looking face, a pretty healthy penis, (Uh, you do not sell yourself become a gigolo, maybe? Do not you do know that in this day and age, your penis could feed your stomach? The worms in your stomach, in your gut will be very happy and dancing with delicious food. They look healthy and plump. Lalalalili. Hey, I'm not cynical. I do not like cynical. You know me. I'm just asking.) and maybe you're good at math, can understand the meaning of poetry, ... and well, ... it's just you're rumpled dog-eared and musty smell. Then you die miserable without notice. (Goodbye. Do not be sad. I'm going to write about you.)
