Thought and social construction 

Thought and social construction: 

The symposium held at the Pine Club will undoubtedly yield positive results. However, it should be said that some discussions require clarification, particularly those speeches launched during the discussions to prove or point to the superior character of Marxist thought; thus, by making that claim, they lose their objective value.

A socialist with a global background does not go this far, and never claims that socialism can be presented as objective science, such as chemistry, for example , can be presented .

Marx himself, on the other hand, explained the characteristics of his method in approximately these words: “Philosophers have so far interpreted the world, but we want to transform it . ”

Socialism can only be viewed as a science within this framework, that is, insofar as social technology requires it to realize a new idea.

His interpretation of the world through his two axioms: dialectical materialism and historical materialism, includes from the beginning a metaphysical approach, which in other aspects led to great suffering, like the suffering that befell the scientist when he wanted to renew, within the Marxist interpretation, some of the phenomena of his theory, in physical astronomy, in his book (The World – Life – Mind) .

But the symposium, on the other hand, retained a fertile connection.

I particularly like President Boumediene’s speech, which raised more than one topic for consideration. While there were reasons why I discussed the economic aspects of the conference in my last article,

I think it is useful to talk in this article about the problem of ideas raised by this symposium.

Let us first read this passage from the speech:

“Our society, like other socialist societies, suffers from a disconnect between thought and politics, and this allows for fruitful dialogue and reform through lively discussions.

Hence the traditional mutual fear between the thinker and the politician.

Through the frankness of its speaker, it is clear that President Boumediene wanted to highlight an obvious deficiency, especially in the political aspect. However, we must acknowledge that Dr. Khaldi, in his brief statement, placed the appropriate weight on the other side of the scale when he spoke about “the pen movers . “

Thus, the issue has become clear to us in its serious dimensions. We must give it the importance it deserves from a social perspective.

Marxism, which claimed to have followed in the footsteps of the Hegelian method, inherited from that method the magnificent mechanism of dialectics, particularly the principle of which it has every right to be proud: there is a philosophical future for the world and a future for the world of philosophy.

This principle, then, has established a specific and reciprocal link between organized ideas and social events.

This means that the continuous interconnection and effective cohesion between the two meanings of philosophy (ideas) and the world (insofar as it represents social reality) is necessary at every moment, and this marriage is itself a measure of the level of a civilization.

It follows that anything that leads to a reduction or further obfuscation of ideas and events must be closely monitored and carefully observed. These considerations are what always dictate to us and determine our position regarding the institution of “…,” which can only further obscure the connection we are discussing here.

On the other hand, it is not helpful to build here a discussion about the priority of the future of world philosophy, or the future of the world of philosophy, which is the main disagreement between Marx and Hegel.

Let us leave this problem aside, and consider matters from a merely sociological point of view, and see that every historical regularity is but an abbreviation of that double danger defined by the principle which we are attempting to analyse.

Marxism, for example: It is a system of ideas that saw the light of day in the social reality of Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It represents the hour of a philosophical future for a world.

But if we look at the present, we see the other side: the future of the world of philosophy, which appeared to us throughout the twentieth century; and in the social reality of some socialist countries in their current stage of development.

This is just one example, but the event is more general. We see it prominently in the development of Western society based on its Christian origins.

He summarized it for us in particular in the continuity of revolutions when he said, “From the Bible to the social contract, books (ideas) make revolutions . ”

There is, in fact, a dialectical relationship between ideas and social and political events at all stages of history.

What concerns us here is the impact of the discontinuity between ideas and social events on the development of a society, and the causes of this discontinuity. This is the problem posed by President Boumediene.

We must focus our attention on such a secession in Algeria and take political action into account, as it has become a field for some officials who practice politics as a profession, rather than live it as a struggle.

But we must admit that the fear of ideas did not originate in our country. Socrates observed it in Athenian society when he spoke of those who called themselves “eloquent” in table-room discourse.

He made a distinction between the dialecticians who search for a correct idea (the era did not require searching for an effective idea) and those who resort to verbal embellishments, or who specialize in anecdotes in which the narrator does not need an idea, or a truth to include it, or a means of work.

But Socrates was ignorant of colonialism, while our era that knows it has also made a distinction between the writer who writes only to please himself or others, and the writer whom Dr. Khalidi called “the one who moves with the pen . ”

We should leave the first to the justice of the literary court. It seems to us that a Moroccan writer, Professor Abdullah Laroui, has devoted an important study to the subject, announcing the imminent publication of a magazine by Maspero Publications.

(Move the pen) On the contrary, it concerns us because its condition concerns the sociologist.

In fact, our ideas are not only made by the “eloquent” who speak with contempt (and sometimes with emotion) , but also by the “active . ”

The former enter the cycle of ideas in a systematic way. The Harkis, on the other hand, insinuate false ideas that have nothing to do with the life, feelings, or travails of the Algerian people.

The two groups work together to reduce all necessary communication between (the philosophical future of a world) and (the future of the world of philosophy) .

They are curtains that separate ideas from social events, especially in the political arena. Sometimes, without realizing it, they form barriers, expertly crafted to cut off any connection that might isolate ideas and make dialogue between politicians and intellectuals impossible, as President Boumediene put it.

It is perhaps not possible to talk here about all the other procedures used, and all the barriers that were put in place to make this dialogue, for example, impossible.

Suffice it to say that while we know something about the stubborn intellectual struggle that unites the major powers that claim global control, we know nothing about the powerful character of the intellectual struggle that colonialism unleashes in the countries from which it emerged, after it colonized them.

The peoples of the Third World are involved in this, whether they are aware of it or not. We know, for example, how colonialism saps our economic capacity when our raw materials go into recession, competing with them by offering synthetic products on the market as an alternative .

We also know that he does this for a specific purpose, which is to disrupt our social structure.