When we look at history, when we see that life is matter in movement, then it is inevitable that we can see a contradiction between the search by each life of its own preservation and the necessity to put its own life in danger in the struggle for progress.

On one side, the general trend of revolution pushes the individual to action. On the other side, the individual is already living, he has a family, he has friends, a love relationship can have begun, kids are maybe already there, etc.

There is so a great tension between the life of an individual which is propelled in one direction, with a culture of its own, individual making project for the future, and the necessity of the revolution.

Of course, genuine revolutionaries are aware of this and all their life is managed so to conform to the necessity of the revolution: this the principle of the professional revolutionaries, like Lenin formulated it.

So, we have to raise the question of the adequacy of one individual's life and its duty. This is a contradiction. We can see it easily in the process of construction and development of the Communist Party; we can see how people fail, because they are not able to transform themselves. This is also what Gonzalo meant with the question of necessity and historical chance for what makes an individual act like this or like that.

There is a tension between the tendency of the individuals to see in communism the only path for progress in general, and their tendency for self-protection, which must go, if not transformed, in direction of the illusory protection by the past, the reaction, when in fact transformation can't be avoided.

Therefore, the Communist Party must always elevate its level, so that individuals can directly see that their own development is linked with the progress of communism. No life can be improved in a sense that goes against communism.

And life following the general tendency to communism can only progress, gaining elements for its advance in the cultural fields, finding the positive elements in society, its own life, being able to stay authentic, etc.

So, to sum up, a part of matter can't anyway go in a direction opposed to the general movement of matter; it is the principle of the universe in onion. All the layers of the universe are in transformation.

Here how the great Maoist of Afghanistan, Akram Yari, explains to us this contradiction:

“…the basic principle of an individual’s life is in a superficial manner, nothing more than keeping owns material existence till death, but the situation of life, meaningfully, its social manner, conducts the survival and perpetuity of an individual towards transforming to a contradiction: from one side, material survival is the basis for being alive, but from other aspect, giving sacrifices in favor of the class, is the necessary initiative for individual growth and development of human society.

Individual’s perpetuity is a cause of station and is a passive agent, but sacrifice for the [working] class is a dynamic and active agent.”

The grandiose understanding by Akram Yari shows us here that there a passive aspect, and a dynamic aspect, which means that the main aspect is the general aspect, not the individual aspect. It means that the trend which wins is the dynamic aspect.

This is dialectical: as the individual is a component of matter in general, if the system moves, it moves also. And if the individual understands that, he can accompany the general movement of matter. Indeed, he carries then the thought.

And that is why Akram Yari explains that:

“It crucial for a better existence and for a better life, to give sacrifice, because, it is only in this from work, in the frame work of sacrificing for the sake of class, being fully pledged in favor of the class, and neglecting one’s own interest, and being in favor of the class that leads to a better life. It is then possible for an individual to wage a struggle for guaranteeing his/her real eternity.”

This looks like poetry for people not used to the laws of dialectical materialism. But if we look at Engels, didn't he win his “eternity” by helping Karl Marx and the foundation of Marxism, instead of only “living” as a bourgeois as he could have done?

Basically, this is the question touching every individual: should it try “self-protection”, which can only be an illusion as the past is always weaker, or should it dare the new, which is weak but always stronger, and conform to the general movement of matter in transformation?

We all know people that faced a choice, and that followed the opportunist line, instead of the revolutionary one, for a reason of comfort, exactly like somebody can pretend to negate its own love, because it is not in adequacy with its own bourgeois career project.

But let's conclude with this masterful lesson of Akram Yari on dialectics, here about the nature of revolutionary politics:

“What form takes the principal work in struggling for the emancipation of the humans in a class society? That form of work, which is really effective in liberation and emancipation of humans. This form of working is a revolutionary politics.

It means that the revolutionary politics of interests of the class at whole, while in progress, and within progression, can break the chains of bondage of the humans {from oppression} and it leads the human beings towards emancipation and liberation. This is the reason why politics is prior to all issues.

This means political aid is the most non-private thing and most unbiased one that an individual can offer to other ones. But all knows that in a class society, there is nothing unbiased, so the politics also cannot be unbiased, and cannot be found unbiased in a class society.

But what is the political bias? Political bias, it is itself a contradiction: from one aspect, it contains all private biases and {represents} each of them, and from another aspect, political bias does not reflect private and personal bias.

Political bias is an image, is an abstraction and contains too much parts of personal or private biases, and contemporarily, does not represent private bias of any individual, and does not fulfill any private bias.

As is the revolutionary proletarian politics the negation of private bias each individual of the class, at the same time, it is the abstracted form and the integration of the whole biases of the individuals [/members] of a class.”

How useful are the lessons of Akram Yari, carried by the Organization of the Workers of Afghanistan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, principally Maoist)!