{"id":23941,"date":"2020-05-10T23:38:02","date_gmt":"2020-05-11T03:38:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/theredphoenixapl.org\/?p=23941"},"modified":"2020-05-10T23:38:02","modified_gmt":"2020-05-11T03:38:02","slug":"democratic-way-morocco-for-a-broad-dialog-among-marxist-miltants-as-a-necessary-step-on-the-road-to-building-a-party-of-the-moroccan-working-class","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redphoenix.news\/es\/2020\/05\/democratic-way-morocco-for-a-broad-dialog-among-marxist-miltants-as-a-necessary-step-on-the-road-to-building-a-party-of-the-moroccan-working-class\/","title":{"rendered":"Democratic Way (Morocco): “For a Broad Dialog Among Marxist Miltants, As a Necessary Step on the Road to Building a Party of the Moroccan Working Class"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Theoretical preamble<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When Marxists engage in dialogue, they do so for change, not just for interpretation or understanding. In order for the dialogue <\/span>among<\/span> Marxists to set this goal, <\/span>one must have as an orientation<\/span> an essential question if answered, the practice will have progressed and they will have obtained tangible results in achieving the desired revolutionary change.<\/span><\/p>\n

We must start from the fact that this dialogue is built on a material basis and is the result of the historical experience of the Marxist left in Morocco and throughout the world. This observation consists in the fact that the Marxist movement was able to answer two essential questions: a response which we consider as allowing the construction and <\/span>planning<\/span> of the future starting from the present. The two questions were those raised by the world communist movement since its creation by the great theoreticians Marx and Engels. The contribution was <\/span>added to<\/span> by the practical and healthy formulation of Lenin, the third proletarian teacher armed with Marxism and engaged in the accomplishment of the tasks of the socialist revolution.<\/span><\/p>\n

The first question was whether the socialist revolution is on the agenda of the proletariat in all countries or whether its objective conditions have not yet been met?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The answer came from the founding teachings with foresight and without ambiguity or hesitation. This included the response in a document that has become one of the most important works of the world communist movement and is the <\/span>Manifesto of the Communist Party<\/span><\/i>. It is the first proletarian program emerging to accomplish the revolution and to take power after defeating the bourgeoisie. This was confirmed by the revolution of the Paris Commune, as the first experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<\/span><\/p>\n

In carrying out the tasks of the revolution, and in response to the above question, the communist movement has had multiple experiences with a diversity of contexts, realities of social structures and historical accumulations of the working class in all parts of the capitalist world. These experiences were subject to an objective evaluation and there were many lessons that Lenin formulated and have converged on the <\/span>fundamental<\/span> question for which the answers were a <\/span>motor<\/span> to take qualitative and giant steps in history of the world communist movement. The question was actually made up of two parts: where to <\/span>begin<\/span>? And what <\/span>is to be done<\/span>?<\/span><\/p>\n

The reasons which justified these questions were linked to the demands of the struggle for the social democratic movement which had just emerged in a society <\/span>coming from<\/span> feudal society joining the ranks of the capitalist states that is Russia. Lenin, accompanied by a handful of activists, answered this complex question. The answer was able to put the Communist Manifesto to the test and reality with a creative methodology taking into account the nature of Russian society and the emergence of a stage in which capitalism went from its competitive stage to the stage of monopoly and the domination of finance capital, that is to say to the stage of imperialism and the division of the world. The response generated a new type of communist movement, the components of which were built by a new type of communist parties, <\/span>which are the communist parties<\/span> those<\/span> aligned with the Leninist conception of their structure and program based on the realization of the socialist revolution, and its construction in one country or in a few countries on the basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a new democracy at the service of the workers and its strategic allies, the peasants and all the laboring classes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Today, the characteristic of the general situation is the aggravation of the crisis of the capitalist system. It sinks capitalism into its march towards its decadence and its fall, and with it the ruin of the environment, the earth and the destruction of the future of humanity.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, globalized capitalism dominated by finance is experiencing a crisis whose extent can be compared to that of the two great crises of 1870 and 1929. This crisis can be explained by three series of internal contradictions which are the origin of deep dysfunctions of the contemporary economic system.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First, there is a growing divorce between the globalized economic space and the political space, which remains limited to the territory of the nation state. Globalized capitalism would need new forms of regulation and governance that the main international organizations have failed to bring about. Created in the aftermath of the Second World War, and dominated by the <\/span>first<\/span> industrialized countries, these organizations have failed to adapt to the new geopolitical configuration created by the rise of the emerging countries, in particular the B.R.I.C.S. (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).<\/span><\/p>\n

Excess role of finance<\/span> capital<\/span> is the second source of vulnerability for contemporary capitalism. The exorbitant <\/span>role played<\/span> by the financial markets is the source of recurrent instability, as shown by the multiplication of financial crises since the beginnings of financial globalization in the last quarter of the 20th century (the impacts of the coronavirus crisis <\/span>did not<\/span> is only one of the visible symptoms). In addition, the domination of financial players, foremost among them the shareholders, has led to a distortion of the sharing of income and wealth, which has become increasingly unequal. The relative impoverishment of the middle classes in the advanced countries has greatly contributed to the over-indebtedness of households, which is at the origin of the international financial crisis which began in the United States in 2007. <\/span>Finance<\/span> capital<\/span> has thus <\/span>intensified<\/span> inequalities and instability, which are the two great plagues.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequently, the socialist revolution has become inevitable, like the specter prophesied by Marx and Engels, in order to save humanity from the dark destiny that capitalism has for it. To achieve this revolution, the Marxist-Leninist militants find themselves forced to answer the following central question: how to move forward? They ask this question while recalling the historical and theoretical responses and the achievements of the world proletariat through the three pioneering experiences, despite the limits of their achievements and their relative failures: the Revolution of the Paris Commune, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Chinese Revolution<\/span><\/p>\n

To answer this question, there must be a minimum of materialist structure (the structural time <\/span>according to<\/span> Mahdi Amel) and <\/span>ideological<\/span> structure<\/span> (the time of intellectual production <\/span>according to<\/span> Marx) and of the political and ideological line. The question is for activists involved in the militant working class movement in their positions. Without these <\/span>principles<\/span>, discussion or dialogue will be separated from reality; it will be a contemplative, interested theory whose results are hypothetical.<\/span><\/p>\n

To deepen this dialogue in order to answer the question: how to move forward?, it is necessary to clarify the theoretical orientation, <\/span>which directs<\/span> the process of progress and the movement in struggle, then we <\/span>will<\/span> review what will be the syntheses of the dialogue.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

2- In response to a question: how to move forward?\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Here, we approach the theory of contradiction and the question of the <\/span>priority<\/span> of the contradictions, then <\/span>we<\/span> define <\/span>this priority<\/span> in the list as we see <\/span>it<\/span>, and whose answer is considered to be at the heart of political and ideological orientation within world communist movement today on the one hand; and on the other hand, in the light of these answers, we will approach the current state of the social movement and the problems of the fronts and demands which create the conditions for the self-transformation of the objective political crisis into a revolutionary crisis in the Leninist sense.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

First: the theory of contradiction and the question of the <\/span>priority <\/span>of the contradictions, then the matrix of basic contradictions:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Before detailing the nature of the contradictions, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of the concept of contradiction (1).<\/span><\/p>\n

This concept occupies a fundamental position in our practical life as activists involved in the process of societal change according to what we understand of the laws of class struggle that are unfolding before our eyes. When we examine the contradiction carried by the class struggle, we perceive a paradox happening in the case of the distinction between the abstract theoretical concept of contradiction and its <\/span>embodiment<\/span> in <\/span>reality<\/span>; it <\/span>is<\/span> transformed<\/span> from<\/span> abstract theoretical <\/span>adiabatic<\/span> perceptions to <\/span>its proof in<\/span> the <\/span>complexity<\/span> of reality. In this <\/span>comparison<\/span> with<\/span> reality, it becomes a realistic concept immersed in specificities, and it is constructed by a <\/span>jumble<\/span> of <\/span>heavy<\/span> battles which almost hide the features of its face, and it is difficult to recognize its nature and to diagnose its veracity. In its amalgamation with the rest of the contradiction emerging in the arena of the class struggle, the spirit is in torment and in a metaphorical wandering <\/span>like those of cats that wander at night:<\/span> they are all black.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It gets worse when these contradictions are considered static, do not change and are not affected by the impact of history. This explains the turmoil and the inability to determine the nature of these contradictions and <\/span>then one has<\/span> the difficulty of providing mechanical evaluations devoid of dialectical meaning \u2013 to resolve them because all the typologies of contradictions are amalgamated into spaghetti, <\/span>the one<\/span> in the others; it is therefore difficult to deconstruct and organize them.<\/span><\/p>\n

What is the most effective and surest way to diagnose scientific contradiction and not fall into the trap of the mechanical method of dealing with contradictions?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In our opinion, <\/span>there is<\/span> one of the most effective methods <\/span>is<\/span> that of organized work and collective thinking. When we <\/span>look collectively<\/span> at the contradictions and their effects on reality, <\/span>our<\/span> vision is vigilant and capable of better grasping this reality of the contradictions, and <\/span>one\u2019s<\/span> attention is paid to the complexity of the situation, in particular when it is exposed <\/span>to it<\/span> in its movement and its dynamism and not frozen without movement. One of the advantages of this collective work which seeks to <\/span>make the ideas<\/span> mature through organized debate is that it leads to deducing the action from these contradictions and how to resolve them, and therefore to fixing practical action using the principles of democratic centralism, as a principle of solving problems. By this, we endow ourselves with the greatest guarantees of obtaining a more effective and rewarding plan than that fixed by a single person. This is why it is always preferable for us when possible <\/span>to have <\/span>organized teamwork.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To corroborate this organized and structuring collective reflection, and to provide it with elements of knowledge and theories, I would like to present some ideas on the question of contradiction as I see it in our practice of struggle.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

All the theoretical research that has been conducted on the question of contradiction confirms that this concept, in addition to being a global concept for all aspects of life and of our world, is also of a special nature in its content and in its multiple forms. In this presentation we distinguish three types of contradictions:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n