Mao
Zedong - Annotated by the Satanic RedsAugust
1937 Scanned from Four Essays on Philosophy. 1968
Foreign Languages Press Edition. [Edited
by the Satanic Reds, including text from a printed version of this, and with annotations
using Satanic references and Satanic lingo for what Mao is saying enclosed in
brackets, and also with underlined emphasis added in places.] [See
"All Things" and "Dark Force: Asat, Sat,
and Tan" – Tani. See also Dominique Lecourt, "Proletarian Science?"
Chapter "Appendix: Bodganov." Consider that what Mao is saying is considered
so mystical that the West can’t grasp it!] CONTENTS:
- The Two World Outlooks [Zoos-Eros versus Thanatos]
- The
Universality of Contradiction [Macrocosm]
- The
Particularity of Contradiction [Microcosm]
- The
Principal Contradiction and the Principal Aspect of a Contradiction [About Change]
- The
Identity and Struggle of the Aspects of a Contradiction [Yin-Yang [ Defined]
- The
Place of Antagonism in Contradiction [Political]
- Conclusion
The
law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites,
is the basic law of materialist dialectics. Lenin said, "Dialectics in the
proper sense is the study of contradiction in the very essence of objects."(1)
Lenin often called this law the essence of dialectics; he also called it the kernel
of dialectics.(2) In studying this law, therefore, we cannot but touch upon a
variety of questions, upon a number of philosophical problems. If we can become
clear on all these problems, we shall arrive at a fundamental understanding of
materialist dialectics. The problems are: the two world outlooks, the universality
of contradiction, the particularity of contradiction, the principal contradiction
and the principal aspect of a contradiction, the identity and struggle of the
aspects of a contradiction, and the place of antagonism in contradiction. The
criticism to which the idealism of the Deborin school(3) has been subjected in
Soviet philosophical circles in recent years has aroused great interest among
us. Deborin's idealism has exerted a very bad influence in the Chinese Communist
Party, and it cannot be said that the dogmatist thinking in our Party is unrelated
to the approach of that school. Our present study of philosophy should therefore
have the eradication of dogmatist thinking as its main objective. I.
THE TWO WORLD OUTLOOKS ["Zoös/Eros versus Thanatos"] Throughout
the history of human knowledge, there have been two conceptions concerning the
law of development of the universe, the metaphysical conception [Creation]
and the dialectical conception [Emanation], which form two opposing world outlooks.
Lenin said: "The two basic (or two possible? or two historically observable?)
conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase,
as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity
into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation)."(4) Here
Lenin was referring to these two different world outlooks. In
China another name for metaphysics is hsuan-hsueh. For a long period in
history whether in China or in Europe, this way of thinking, which is part and
parcel of the idealist world outlook, occupied a dominant position in human thought.
In Europe, the materialism of the bourgeoisie in its early days was also metaphysical
[the "Cult of Reason"]. As the social economy of many European countries
advanced to the stage of highly developed capitalism, as the forces of production,
the class struggle and the sciences developed to a level unprecedented in history,
and as the industrial proletariat became the greatest motive force in historical
development, there arose the Marxist world outlook of materialist dialectics.
Then, in addition to open and barefaced reactionary idealism, vulgar evolutionism
emerged among the bourgeoisie to oppose materialist dialectics. The
metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist world outlook sees things as isolated,
static and one-sided. It regards all things in the universe, their forms and
their species, as eternally isolated from one another and immutable [klippoth!].
Such change as there is can only be an increase or decrease in quantity or a change
of place [outer change]. Moreover, the cause of such an increase or decrease
or change of place is not inside things but outside them, that is,
the motive force is external [!]. Metaphysicians hold that all the different
kinds of things in the universe and all their characteristics have been the same
ever since they first came into being [Creation dogma]. All subsequent changes
have simply been increases or decreases in quantity. They contend that a thing
can only keep on repeating itself as the same kind of thing and cannot change
into anything different [= stasis!]. In their opinion, capitalist exploitation,
capitalist competition, the individualist ideology of capitalist society, and
so on, can all be found in ancient slave society, or even in primitive society,
and will exist for ever unchanged. They ascribe the causes of social development
to factors external to society, such as geography and climate. They search in
an over-simplified [chrestian] way outside a thing for the
causes of its development, and they deny the theory of materialist dialectics
which holds that development arises from the contradictions inside a thing.
Consequently they can explain neither the qualitative diversity of things,
nor the phenomenon of one quality changing into another [evolution!]. In Europe,
this mode of thinking existed as mechanical materialism in the 17th and 18th centuries
and as vulgar evolutionism at the end of the 19th and the beginning of
the 20th centuries. In China there was the metaphysical thinking exemplified in
the saying "Heaven changeth not, likewise the Tao changeth not",(5)
and it was supported [misused] by the decadent feudal ruling classes for
a long time. Mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism, which were imported
from Europe in the last hundred years, are supported by the bourgeoisie. As
opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world [of the world]
outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development
of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations
with other things; in other words, the development of things should be seen
as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each
thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the
things around it [!! – interwoven and dynamically interactive!]. The fundamental
cause of the development of a thing is not external but internal; it lies
in the contradictoriness within the thing. There is internal contradiction
in every single thing, hence its motion and development. Contradictoriness
within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while
its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes.
Thus materialist dialectics effectively combats the theory of external causes,
or of an external motive force [= god], advanced by metaphysical mechanical materialism
and vulgar evolutionism. It is evident that purely external causes can
only give rise to mechanical motion, that is, to changes in scale or quantity,
but cannot explain why things differ qualitatively in thousands of ways
and why one thing changes into another. As a matter of fact, even mechanical
motion under external force occurs through the internal contradictoriness of things.
Simple growth in plants and animals, their quantitative development, is likewise
chiefly the result of their internal contradictions. Similarly, social development
is due chiefly not to external but to internal causes. Countries with almost the
same geographical and climatic conditions display great diversity and unevenness
in their development. Moreover, great social changes may take place in one and
the same country although its geography and climate remain unchanged. Imperialist
Russia changed into the socialist Soviet Union, and feudal Japan, which had locked
its doors against the world, changed into imperialist Japan, although no change
occurred in the geography and climate of either country. Long dominated by feudalism,
China has undergone great changes in the last hundred years and is now changing
in the direction of a new China, liberated and free, and yet no change has occurred
in her geography and climate. Changes do take place in the geography and climate
of the earth as a whole and in every part of it, but they are insignificant when
compared with changes in society; geographical and climatic changes manifest themselves
in terms of tens of thousands of years, while social changes manifest themselves
in thousands, hundreds or tens of years, and even in a few years or months in
times of revolution. According to materialist dialectics, changes in nature are
due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in nature. Changes
in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in
society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations
of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between
the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes
society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society
by the new. Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It
holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes
are the basis of change, and that external causes become operative through
internal causes. In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but
no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different
basis. There is constant interaction between the peoples of different countries.
In the era of capitalism, and especially in the era of imperialism and proletarian
revolution, the interaction and mutual impact of different countries in the political,
economic and cultural spheres are extremely great. The October Socialist Revolution
ushered in a new epoch in world history as well as in Russian history. It exerted
influence on internal changes in the other countries in the world and, similarly
and in a particularly profound way, on internal changes in China. These changes,
however, were effected through the inner laws of development of these countries,
China included. In battle, one army is victorious and the other is defeated; both
the victory and the defeat are determined by internal causes. The one is victorious
either because it is strong or because of its competent generalship, the other
is vanquished either because it is weak or because of its incompetent generalship;
it is through internal causes that external causes become operative. In China
in 1927, the defeat of the proletariat by the big bourgeoisie came about through
the opportunism then to be found within the Chinese proletariat itself (inside
the Chinese Communist Party). When we liquidated this opportunism, the Chinese
revolution resumed its advance. Later, the Chinese revolution again suffered severe
setbacks at the hands of the enemy, because adventurism had risen within our Party.
When we liquidated this adventurism, our cause advanced once again. Thus it can
be seen that to lead the revolution to victory, a political party must depend
on the correctness of its own political line and the solidity of its own organization. The
dialectical world outlook emerged in ancient times both in China and in Europe.
Ancient dialectics, however, had a somewhat spontaneous and naive character; in
the social and historical conditions then prevailing, it was not yet able to form
a theoretical system, hence it could not fully explain the world and was supplanted
by metaphysics. The famous German philosopher Hegel, who lived in the late 18th
and early 19th centuries, made most important contributions to dialectics, but
his dialectics was idealist. It was not until Marx and Engels, the great protagonists
of the proletarian movement, had synthesized the positive achievements in the
history of human knowledge and, in particular, critically absorbed the rational
elements of Hegelian dialectics and created the great theory of dialectical and
historical materialism that an unprecedented revolution occurred in the history
of human knowledge. This theory was further developed by Lenin and Stalin. As
soon as it spread to China, it wrought tremendous changes in the world of Chinese
thought. This dialectical world outlook teaches
us primarily how to observe and analyse the movement of opposites in different
things and, on the basis of such analysis, to indicate the methods for resolving
contradictions. It is therefore most important for us to understand the law of
contradiction in things in a concrete way. II.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF CONTRADICTION ["Macrocosm"] For
convenience of exposition, I shall deal first with the universality of contradiction
and then proceed to the particularity of contradiction. The reason is that the
universality of contradiction can be explained more briefly, for it has been widely
recognized ever since the materialist- dialectical world outlook was discovered
and materialist dialectics applied with outstanding success to analyzing many
aspects of human history and natural history and to changing many aspects of society
and nature (as in the Soviet Union) by the great creators and continuers
of Marxism - Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin [but by Pythagoreans, Tantriks, and
Platonists FIRST!]; whereas the particularity of contradiction is still
not clearly understood by many comrades, and especially by the dogmatists. They
do not understand that it is precisely in the particularity of contradiction that
the universality of contradiction resides. Nor do they understand how important
is the study of the particularity of contradiction in the concrete things confronting
us for guiding the course of revolutionary practice. Therefore, it is necessary
to stress the study of the particularity of contradiction and to explain it at
adequate length. For this reason, in our analysis of the law of contradiction
in things, we shall first analyse the universality of contradiction, then place
special stress on analysing the particularity of contradiction, and finally return
to the universality of contradiction. The universality
or absoluteness of contradiction has a twofold meaning. One is that contradiction
exists in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the
process of development of each thing a movement of opposites exists from beginning
to end. Engels said, "Motion itself is a
contradiction."(6) Lenin defined the law of the unity of opposites as "the
recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies
in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society)".(7)
Are these ideas correct? Yes, they are. The interdependence of the contradictory
aspects present in all things and the struggle between these aspects determine
the life of all things and push their development forward. There is nothing that
does not contain contradiction, without contradiction nothing would exist
[!]. Contradiction is the basis of the simple
forms of motion (for instance, mechanical motion) and still more so of the complex
forms of motion. Engels explained the universality
of contradiction as follows: "If simple mechanical change of place contains
a contradiction, this is even more true of the higher forms of motion of matter,
and especially of organic life and its development. ... Iife consists precisely
and primarily in this--that a being is at each moment itself
and yet something else [push/pull, Sat/Asat, coagula/solve]. Life is therefore
also a contradiction which is present in things and processes themselves, and
which constantly originates and resolves itself; and as soon as the contradiction
ceases, life, too, comes to an end, and death steps in. We likewise saw that also
in the sphere of thought we could not escape contradictions, and that for example
the contradiction between man's inherently unlimited capacity for knowledge and
its actual presence only in men who are externally limited and possess limited
cognition finds its solution in what is - at least practically, for us
- an endless succession of generations, in infinite progress." "...one
of the basic principles of higher mathematics is the contradiction that in certain
circumstances straight lines and curves may be the same. ..."But even lower
mathematics teems with contradictions.(8)" Lenin
illustrated the universality of contradiction as follows: In mathematics: + and
-. Differential and integral In mechanics: action and reaction. In physics: positive
and negative electricity. In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms.
In social science: the class struggle.(9) In war,
offence and defence, advance and retreat, victory and defeat are all mutually
contradictory phenomena. One cannot exist without the other. The two aspects are
at once in conflict and in interdependence [NOT dualism],
and this constitutes the totality of a war, pushes its development forward and
solves its problems. Every difference in men's
concepts should be regarded as reflecting an objective contradiction. Objective
contradictions are reflected in subjective thinking, and this process constitutes
the contradictory movement of concepts, pushes forward the development of thought,
and ceaselessly solves problems in man's thinking. Opposition
and struggle between ideas of different kinds constantly occur within the Party;
this is a reflection within the Party of contradictions between classes and between
the new and the old in society. If there were no contradictions in the Party and
no ideological struggles to resolve them the Party's life would come to an end. Thus
it is already clear that contradiction exists universally and in all processes,
whether in the simple or in the complex forms of motion, whether in objective
phenomena or ideological phenomena. But does contradiction also exist at the initial
stage of each process? [Yes: birth is a death sentence!] Is there a movement of
opposites from beginning to end in the process of development of every single
thing? [Yes! Bang-Crunch!] As can be seen from
the articles written by Soviet philosophers criticizing it, the Deborin school
maintains that contradiction appears not at the inception of a process but only
when it has developed to a certain stage [WRONG]. If this were the case,
then the cause of the development of the process before that stage would be external
and not internal. Deborin thus reverts to the metaphysical theories of external
causality and of mechanism. Applying this view in the analysis of concrete problems,
the Deborin school sees only differences but not contradictions between the kulaks
and the peasants* in general under existing conditions in the Soviet Union,
thus entirely agreeing with Bukharin.(10) In analysing the French Revolution,
it holds that before the Revolution there were likewise only differences but not
contradictions within the Third Estate, which was composed of the workers,
the peasants and the bourgeoisie* [*No – with both, 2 different RACES
were involved!]. These views of the Deborin school are anti-Marxist. This school
does not understand that each and every difference already contains contradiction
and that difference itself is contradiction. Labour and capital have been in contradiction
ever since the two classes came into being, only at first the contradiction had
not yet become intense. Even under the social conditions existing in the Soviet
Union, there is a difference between workers and peasants and this very difference
is a contradiction, although, unlike the contradiction between labour and capital,
it will not become intensified into antagonism or assume the form of class struggle;
the workers and the peasants have established a firm alliance in the course
of socialist construction and are gradually resolving this contradiction in the
course of the advance from socialism to communism. The question is one of different
kinds of contradiction, not of the presence or absence of contradiction. Contradiction
is universal and absolute, it is present in the process of development of all
things and permeates every process from beginning to end. What
is meant by the emergence of a new process? The old unity with its constituent
opposites yields to a new unity with its constituent opposites, whereupon
a new process emerges to replace the old. The old process ends and the new one
begins. The new process contains new contradictions and begins its own history
of the development of contradictions. As Lenin
pointed out, Marx in his Capital gave a model analysis of this movement
of opposites which runs through the process of development of things from beginning
to end. This is the method that must be employed in studying the development of
all things [!]. Lenin, too, employed this method correctly and adhered
to it in all his writings. "In his Capital, Marx first analyses the
simplest, most ordinary and fundamental, most common and everydayrelation of bourgeois
(commodity) society, a relation encountered billions of times, viz. the exchange
of commodities. In this very simple phenomenon (in this "cell" of bourgeois
society) analysis reveals all the contradictions (or the germs ofall the contradictions)
of modern society The subsequent exposition shows us the development (both growthand
movement) of these contradictions and of this society in the E [summation] of
its individual parts from its beginning to its end." Lenin
added, "Such must also be the method of exposition (or study) of dialectics
in general."(11) Chinese Communists must learn this method; only then will
they be able correctly to analyse the history and the present state of the Chinese
revolution and infer its future. [They were the wrong people.] III.
THE PARTICULARITY OF CONTRADICTION ["Microcosm"] Contradiction
[read SAT-ASAT!] is present in the process of development of all things;
it permeates the process of development of each thing from beginning
to end. This is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction which we
have discussed above. Now let us discuss the particularity and relativity of contradiction. This
problem should be studied on several levels. First,
the contradiction in each form of motion of matter has its particularity. Man's
knowledge of matter is knowledge of its forms of motion, because there is nothing
in this world except matter in motion and this motion must assume certain
forms [Phew! – (matter + energy are equivalent)]. In considering each
form of motion of matter, we must observe the points which it has in common with
other forms of motion. But what is especially important and necessary, constituting
as it does the foundation of our knowledge of a thing, is to observe what is particular
to this form of motion of matter, namely, to observe the qualitative difference
between this form of motion and other forms. Only when we have done so can we
distinguish between things. Every form of motion contains within itself
its own particular contradiction. This particular
contradiction constitutes the particular essence which distinguishes one thing
from another. It is the internal cause or, as it may be called, the basis for
the immense variety of things in the world. There are many forms of motion in
nature, mechanical motion, sound, light, heat, electricity, dissociation, combination
and so on. All these forms are interdependent [and dependant on SPACE-time],
but in its essence each is different from the others. The particular essence of
each form of motion is determined by its own particular contradiction. This holds
true not only for nature but also for social and ideological phenomena. Every
form of society, every form of ideology, has its own particular contradiction
and particular essence. The sciences are differentiated
precisely on the basis of the particular contradictions inherent in their respective
objects of study. Thus the contradiction peculiar to a certain field of phenomena
constitutes the object of study for a specific branch of science. For example,
positive and negative numbers in mathematics; action and reaction in mechanics;
positive and negative electricity in physics; dissociation and combination in
chemistry; forces of production and relations of production, classes and class
struggle, in social science; offence and defence in military science; idealism
and materialism, the metaphysical outlook and the dialectical outlook, in philosophy;
and so on--all these are the objects of study of different branches of science
precisely because each branch has its own particular contradiction and particular
essence. Of course, unless we understand the universality of contradiction, we
have no way of discovering the universal cause or universal basis for the movement
or development of things; however, unless we study the particularity of contradiction,
we have no way of determining the particular essence of a thing which differentiates
it from other things, no way of discovering the particular cause or particular
basis for the movement or development of a thing, and no way of distinguishing
one thing from another or of demarcating the fields of science. As
regards the sequence in the movement of man's knowledge, there is always a gradual
growth from the knowledge of individual and particular things to the knowledge
of things in general. Only after man knows the particular essence of many
different things can he proceed to generalization and know the common
essence of things. When man attains the knowledge of this common essence, he uses
it as a guide and proceeds to study various concrete things which have not yet
been studied, or studied thoroughly, and to discover the particular essence of
each; only thus is he able to supplement, enrich and develop his knowledge of
their common essence and prevent such knowledge from withering or petrifying.
These are the two processes of cognition: one, from the particular to the general,
and the other, from the general to the particular. Thus cognition always moves
in cycles and (so long as scientific method is strictly adhered to) each cycle
advances human knowledge a step higher and so makes it more and more profound.
Where our dogmatists err on this question is that, on the one hand, they do not
understand that we have to study the particularity of contradiction and know the
particular essence of individual things before we can adequately know the universality
of contradiction and the common essence of things, and that, on the other hand,
they do not understand that after knowing the common essence of things, we must
go further and study the concrete things that have not yet been thoroughly
studied or have only just emerged. Our dogmatists are lazy-bones. They
refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things, they regard general
truths as emerging out of the void, they turn them into purely abstract
unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence
by which man comes to know truth [klippoth!]. Nor do they understand the interconnection
of the two processes in cognition-- from the particular to the general and then
from the general to the particular. They understand nothing of the Marxist theory
of knowledge. [They understand nothing: PERIOD!] It
is necessary not only to study the particular contradiction and the essence determined
thereby of every great system of the forms of motion of matter, but also to study
the particular contradiction and the essence of each process in the long course
of development of each form of motion of matter. In every form of motion, each
process of development which is real (and not imaginary) is qualitatively different.
Our study must emphasize and start from this point. Qualitatively
different contradictions can only be resolved by qualitatively different methods.
For instance, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is
resolved by the method of socialist revolution; the contradiction between the
great masses of the people and the feudal system is resolved by the method of
democratic revolution; the contradiction between the colonies and imperialism
is resolved by the method of national revolutionary war; the contradiction between
the working class and the peasant class in socialist society is resolved by the
method of collectivization and mechanization in agriculture; contradiction within
the Communist Party is resolved by the method of criticism and self-criticism;
the contradiction between society and nature is resolved by the method of developing
the productive forces. Processes change, old processes and old contradictions
disappear, new processes and new contradictions emerge, and the methods of resolving
contradictions differ accordingly. In Russia, there was a fundamental difference
between the contradiction resolved by the February Revolution and the contradiction
resolved by the October Revolution, as well as between the methods used to resolve
them. The principle of using different methods to resolve different contradictions
is one which Marxist-Leninists must strictly observe. The dogmatists do not observe
this principle; they do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds
of revolution and so do not understand that different methods should be used to
resolve different contradictions; on the contrary, they invariably adopt what
they imagine to be an unalterable formula and arbitrarily apply it everywhere,
which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what could
have been done well. In order to reveal the particularity
of the contradictions in any process in the development of a thing, in their totality
or interconnections, that is, in order to reveal the essence of the process, it
is necessary to reveal the particularity of the two aspects of each of the contradictions
in that process; otherwise it will be impossible to discover the essence of the
process. This likewise requires the utmost attention in our study. There
are many contradictions in the course of development of any major thing. For instance,
in the course of China's bourgeois- democratic revolution, where the conditions
are exceedingly complex, there exist the contradiction between all the oppressed
classes in Chinese society and imperialism, the contradiction between the great
masses of the people and feudalism, the contradiction between the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie, the contradiction between the peasantry and the urban petty
bourgeoisie on the one hand and the bourgeoisie on the other, the contradiction
between the various reactionary ruling groups, and so on. These contradictions
cannot be treated in the same way since each has its own particularity; moreover,
the two aspects of each contradiction cannot be treated in the same way since
each aspect has its own characteristics. We who are engaged in the Chinese revolution
should not only understand the particularity of these contradictions in their
totality, that is, in their interconnections, but should also study the two aspects
of each contradiction as the only means of understanding the totality.
When we speak of understanding each aspect of a contradiction, we mean understanding
what specific position each aspect occupies, what concrete forms it assumes in
its interdependence and in its contradiction with its opposite, and what
concrete methods are employed in the struggle with its opposite, when the two
are both interdependent and in contradiction, and also after the
interdependence breaks down. It is of great importance to study these problems.
Lenin meant just this when he said that the most essential thing in Marxism, the
living soul of Marxism, is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions.(12) Our
dogmatists have violated Lenin's teachings; they never use their brains to analyse
anything concretely, and in their writings and speeches they always use stereotypes
devoid of content, thereby creating a very bad style of work in our Party. In
studying a problem, we must shun subjectivity, onesidedness and superficiality.
To be subjective means not to look at problems objectively, that is, not to use
the materialist viewpoint in looking at problems. I have discussed this in my
essay "On Practice". To be one-sided means not to look at problems all-
sidedly, for example, to understand only China but not Japan, only the Communist
Party but not the Kuomintang, only the proletariat but not the bourgeoisie, only
the peasants but not the landlords, only the favourable conditions but not the
difficult ones, only the past but not the future, only individual parts but not
the whole, only the defects but not the achievements, only the plaintiff's case
but not the defendant's, only secret revolutionary work but not open revolutionary
work, and so on. In a word, it means not to understand the characteristics of
both aspects of a contradiction. This is what we mean by looking at a problem
one-sidedly. Or it may be called seeing the part but not the whole, seeing the
trees but not the forest. That way it is impossible to find the method for resolving
a contradiction, it is impossible to accomplish the tasks of the revolution, to
carry out assignments well or to develop inner-Party ideological struggle correctly.
When Sun Wu Tzu [Yin tactics] said in discussing military science, "Know
the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger
of defeat",(13) he was referring to the two sides in a battle. Wei Cheng(14)
of the Tang Dynasty also understood the error of one-sidedness when he said, "Listen
to both sides and you will be enlightened, heed only one side and you will be
benighted." But our comrades often look at problems one-sidedly, and so they
often run into snags. In the novel Shui Hu Chuan, Sung Chiang thrice attacked
Chu Village.(15) Twice he was defeated because he was ignorant of the local conditions
and used the wrong method. Later he changed his method, first he investigated
the situation, and he familiarized himself with the maze of roads, then he broke
up the alliance between the Li, Hu and Chu Villages and sent his men in disguise
into the enemy camp to lie in wait, using a stratagem similar to that of the Trojan
Horse [Athens] in the foreign story. And on the third occasion he won. There
are many examples of materialist dialectics in Shui Hu Chuan, of which
the episode of the three attacks on Chu Village is one of the best. Lenin said:
... in order really to know an object we must embrace, study, all its sides,
all connections and "mediations". We shall never achieve this completely,
but the demand for all-sidedness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity.(16)
We should remember his words. To be superficial means to consider neither the
characteristics of a contradiction in its totality nor the characteristics of
each of its aspects; it means to deny the necessity for probing deeply into a
thing and minutely studying the characteristics of its contradiction, but instead
merely to look from afar and, after glimpsing the rough outline, immediately to
try to resolve the contradiction (to answer a question, settle a dispute, handle
work, or direct a military operation). This way of doing things is bound to lead
to trouble. The reason the dogmatist and empiricist comrades in China have made
mistakes lies precisely in their subjectivist, one-sided and superficial way of
looking at things. To be one-sided and superficial is at the same time to be subjective.
For all objective things are actually interconnected and are governed by inner
laws, but instead of undertaking the task of reflecting things as they really
are some people only look at things one-sidedly or superficially and know neither
their interconnections nor their inner laws. and so their method is subjectivist.
[He is not referring to subjective aesthetic things like "I
like that song" – he means a lopsided navel-gazing "take sides"
view.] Not only does the whole process of the
movement of opposites in the development of a thing, both in their interconnections
and in each of the aspects, have particular features to which we must give attention,
but each stage in the process has its particular features to which we must give
attention The fundamental contradiction in the
process of development of a thing and the essence of the process determined by
this fundamental contradiction will not disappear until the process is completed;
but in a lengthy process the conditions usually differ at each stage. The reason
is that, although the nature of the fundamental contradiction in the process of
development of a thing and the essence of the process remain unchanged, the fundamental
contradiction becomes more and more intensified as it passes from one stage to
another in the lengthy process. In addition, among the numerous major and minor
contradictions which are determined or influenced by the fundamental contradiction,
some become intensified, some are temporarily or partially resolved or mitigated,
and some new ones emerge; hence the process is marked by stages. If people do
not pay attention to the stages in the process of development of a thing, they
cannot deal with it's contradictions properly. For
instance, when the capitalism of the era of free competition developed into imperialism,
there was no change in the class nature of the two classes in fundamental contradiction,
namely, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or in the capitalist essence of society;
however, the contradiction between these two classes became intensified, the contradiction
between monopoly and non- monopoly capital emerged, the contradiction between
the colonial powers and the colonies became intensified, the contradiction among
the capitalist countries resulting from their uneven development manifested itself
with particular sharpness, and thus there arose the special stage of capitalism,
the stage of imperialism. Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and
proletarian revolution precisely because Lenin and Stalin have correctly explained
these contradictions and correctly formulated the theory and tactics of the proletarian
revolution for their resolution. ///1 [From here he uses his own historical analogies
and Chinese situations, up to ///2] Take the process
of China's bourgeois democratic revolution, which began with the Revolution of
1911;(17) it, too, has several distinct stages. In particular, the revolution
in its period of bourgeois leadership and the revolution in its period of proletarian
leadership represent two vastly different historical stages. In other words, proletarian
leadership has fundamentally changed the whole face of the revolution, has brought
about a new alignment of classes, given rise to a tremendous upsurge in the peasant
revolution, imparted thoroughness to the revolution against imperialism and feudalism,
created the possibility of the transition from the democratic revolution to the
socialist revolution, and so on None of these was possible in the period when
the revolution was under bourgeois leadership. Although no change has taken place
in the nature of the fundamental contradiction in the process as a whole,i.e.,
in the anti- imperialist, anti-feudal, democratic-revolutionary nature of the
process (the opposite of which is its semi-colonial and semi- feudal nature),
nonetheless this process has passed through several stages of development in the
course of more than twenty years- during this time many great events have taken
place--the failure of the Revolution of 1911 and the establishment of the regime
of the Northern warlords, the formation of the first national united front and
the revolution of 1924-27,(18) the break-up of the united front and the desertion
of the bourgeoisie to the side of the counter-revolution, the wars among the new
warlords, the Agrarian Revolutionary War,(19) the establishment of the second
national united front and the War of Resistance Against Japan. These stages are
marked by particular features such as the intensification of certain contradictions
(e.g., the Agrarian Revolutionary War and the Japanese invasion of the four northeastern
provinces(20)), the partial or temporary resolution of other contradictions (e.g.,
the destruction of the Northern warlords and our confiscation of the land of the
landlords), and the emergence of yet other contradictions (e.g., the conflicts
among the new warlords, and the landlords' recapture of the land after the loss
of our revolutionary base areas in the south). In
studying the particularities of the contradictions at each stage in the process
of development of a thing, we must not only observe them in their interconnections
or their totality, we must also examine the two aspects of each contradiction.
For instance, consider the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Take one aspect,
the Kuomintang. In the period of the first united front, the Kuomintang carried
out Sun Yat-sen's Three Great Policies of alliance withRussia, co-operation with
the Communist Party, and assistance to the peasants and workers; hence it was
revolutionary and vigorous, it was an alliance of various classes for the democratic
revolution. After I927, however, the Kuomintang changed into its opposite and
became a reactionary bloc of the landlords and big bourgeoisie. After the Sian
Incident(21) in December 1936, it began another change in the direction of ending
the civil war and co-operating with the Communist Party for joint opposition to
Japanese imperialism. Such have been the particular features of the Kuomintang
in the three stages. Of course, these features have arisen from a variety of causes.
Now take the other aspect, the Chinese Communist Party. In the period of the first
united front, the Chinese Communist Party was in its infancy, it courageously
led the revolution of 1924-27 but revealed its immaturity in its understanding
of the character, the tasks and the methods of the revolution, and consequently
it became possible for Chen Tu-hsiuism,(22) which appeared during the latter part
of this revolution, to assert itself and bring about the defeat of the revolution.
After 1927, the Communist Party courageously led the Agrarian Revolutionary War
and created the revolutionary army and revolutionary base areas; however, it committed
adventurist errors which brought about very great losses both to the army and
to the base areas. Since 1935 the Party has corrected these errors and has been
leading the new united front for resistance to Japan; this great struggle is now
developing. At the present stage, the Communist Party is a Party that has gone
through the test of two revolutions and acquired a wealth of experience. Such
have been the particular features of the Chinese Communist Party in the three
stages. These features, too, have arisen from a variety of causes. Without studying
both these sets of features we cannot understand the particular relations between
the two parties during the various stages of their development, namely, the establishment
of a united front, the break-up of the united front, and the establishment of
another united front. What is even more fundamental for the study of the particular
features of the two parties is the examination of the class basis of the two parties
and the resultant contradictions which have arisen between each party and other
forces atdifferent periods. For instance, in the period of its first co-operation
with the Communist Party, the Kuomintang stood in contradiction to foreign imperialism
and was therefore anti-imperialist; on the other hand, it stood in contradiction
to the great masses of the people within the country--although in words it promised
many benefits to the working people, in fact it gave them little or nothing. In
the period when it carried on the anti-Communist war, the Kuomintang collaborated
with imperialism and feudalism against the great masses of the people and wiped
out all the gains they had won in the revolution, and thereby intensified its
contradictions with them. In the present period of the anti-Japanese war, the
Kuomintang stands in contradiction to Japanese imperialism and wants co-operation
with the Communist Party, without however relaxing its struggle against the Communist
Party and the people or its oppression of them. As for the Communist Party, it
has always, in every period, stood with the great masses of the people against
imperialism and feudalism, but in the present period of the anti-Japanese war,
it has adopted a moderate policy towards the Kuomintang and the domestic feudal
forces because the Kuomintang has expressed itself in favour of resisting Japan.
The above circumstances have resulted now in alliance between the two parties
and now in struggle between them, and even during the periods of alliance there
has been a complicated state of simultaneous alliance and struggle. If we do not
study the particular features of both aspects of the contradiction, we shall fail
to understand not only the relations of each party with the other forces, but
also the relations between the two parties. ///2 It
can thus be seen that in studying the particularity of any kind of contradiction--the
contradiction in each form of motion of matter, the contradiction in each of its
processes of development, the two aspects of the contradiction in each process,
the contradiction at each stage of a process, and the two aspects of the contradiction
at each stage--in studying the particularity of all these contradictions, we must
not be subjective and arbitrary but must analyse it concretely. Without concrete
analysis there can be no knowledge of the particularity of any contradiction.
We must always remember Lenin's words, the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Marx
and Engels were the first to provide us with excellent models of such concrete
analysis. When Marx and Engels applied the law of contradiction in things
to the study of the socio-historical process, they discovered the contradiction
between the productive forces and the relations of production, they discovered
the contradiction between the exploiting and exploited classes and also the resultant
contradiction between the economic base and it's superstructure (politics, ideology,
etc.), and they discovered how these contradictions inevitably lead to different
kinds of social revolution in different kinds of class society. When
Marx applied this law to the study of the economic structure of capitalist society,
he discovered that the basic contradiction of this society is the contradiction
between the social character of production and the private character
of ownership. This contradiction manifests itself in the contradiction between
the organized character of production in individual enterprises and the anarchic
character of production in society as a whole [YES]. In terms of
class relations, it manifests itself in the contradiction between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat. [YES – and what is HAS to lead into!] Because
the range of things is vast and there is no limit to their development, what is
universal in one context becomes particular in another. Conversely, what is particular
in one context becomes universal in another. The contradiction in the capitalist
system between the social character of production and the private ownership of
the means of production is common to all countries where capitalism exists and
develops; as far as capitalism is concerned, this constitutes the universality
of contradiction. But this contradiction of capitalism belongs only to a certain
historical stage in the general development of class society; as far as the contradiction
between the productive forces and the relations of production in class society
as a w hole is concerned, it constitutes the particularity of contradiction. However,
in the course of dissecting the particularity of all these contradictions in capitalist
society, Marx gave a still more profound, more adequate and more complete elucidation
of the universality of the contradiction between the productive forces and the
relations of production in class society in general. Since
the particular is united with the universal and since
the universality as well as the particularity of contradiction is inherent
in everything, universality residing in particularity, we should, when
studying an object, try to discover both the particular and the
universal and their interconnection, to discover both particularity
and universality and also their interconnection within the object itself,
and to discover the interconnections of this object with the many objects
outside it. When Stalin explained the historical roots of Leninism in his
famous work, The Foundations of Leninism, he analysed the international
situation in which Leninism arose, analysed those contradictions of capitalism
which reached their culmination under imperialism, and showed how these contradictions
made proletarian revolution a matter for immediate action and created favourable
conditions for a direct onslaught on capitalism. What is more, he analysed the
reasons why Russia became the cradle of Leninism, why tsarist Russia became the
focus of all the contradictions of imperialism, and why it was possible for the
Russian proletariat to become the vanguard of the international revolutionary
proletariat. Thus, Stalin analysed the universality of contradiction in imperialism,
showing why Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian
revolution and at the same time analysed the particularity of tsarist Russian
imperialism within this general contradiction, showing why Russia became the birthplace
of the theory and tactics of proletarian revolution and how the universality of
contradiction is contained in this particularity. Stalin's analysis provides us
with a model for understanding the particularity and the universality of contradiction
and their interconnection. On the question of
using dialectics in the study of objective phenomena, Marx and Engels,
and likewise Lenin and Stalin, always enjoin people not to be in any way subjective
and arbitrary but, from the concrete conditions in the actual objective
movement of these phenomena, to discover their concrete contradictions,
the concrete position of each aspect of [i.e., within] every contradiction
and the concrete interrelations of the contradictions [Now Comrades, go
out and apply this … ! ?!]. Our dogmatists do not have this attitude in study
and therefore can never get anything right. We must take warning from their failure
and learn to acquire this attitude, which is the only correct one in study. The
relationship between the universality [macro] and the particularity [micro] of
contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual
character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in
and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes,
thinking--all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything.
This is a universal truth [!] for all times and all countries, which admits
of no exception. Hence the general character, the absoluteness of contradiction
[!]. But this general character is contained in every individual character; without
individual character there can be no general character. If all individual character
were removed, what general character would remain? [None.] It is because each
contradiction is particular that individual character arises. All individual character
exists conditionally and temporarily, and hence is relative.
[! This is Tantra!] This truth concerning general
and individual character, concerning absoluteness and relativity, is the
quintessence of the problem of contradiction in things; failure
to understand it is tantamount to abandoning dialectics. IV.
THE PRINCIPAL CONTRADICTION AND THE PRINCIPAL ASPECT OF A CONTRADICTION There
are still two points in the problem of the particularity of contradiction which
must be singled out for analysis, namely, the principal contradiction and the
principal aspect of a contradiction. There are
many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and
one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence
and development determine or influence the existence and development of
the other contradictions. For instance, in capitalist
society the two forces in contradiction, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,
form the principal contradiction. The other contradictions, such as those between
the remnant feudal class and the bourgeoisie, between the peasant petty bourgeoisie
and the bourgeoisie, between the proletariat and the peasant petty bourgeoisie,
between the non- monopoly capitalists and the monopoly capitalists, between bourgeois
democracy and bourgeois fascism, among the capitalist countries and between imperialism
and the colonies, are all determined or influenced by this principal contradiction. In
a semi-colonial country such as China, the relationship between the principal
contradiction and the non-principal contradictions presents a complicated picture. When
imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various
classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against
imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country
concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among
the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction,
between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily
relegated to a secondary and subordinate position. So it was in China in the Opium
War of 1840,(23) the Sino-Japanese War of I894(24) and the Yi Ho Tuan War of 1900,
and so it is now in the present Sino-Japanese War. But
in another situation, the contradictions change position. When imperialism carries
on its oppression not by war, but by milder means--political, economic and cultural--the
ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two
form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people. At such
a time, the masses often resort to civil war against the alliance of imperialism
and the feudal classes, while imperialism often employs indirect methods rather
than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semi-colonial countries
to oppress the people, and thus the internal contradictions become particularly
3 sharp. This is what happened in China in the Revolutionary War of 1911, the
Revolutionary War of I924-27, and the ten years of Agrarian Revolutionary War
after I927. Wars among the various reactionary ruling groups in the semi-colonial
countries,e.g., the wars among the warlords in China, fall into the same category.
When a revolutionary civil war develops to the
point of threatening the very existence of imperialism and its running dogs, the
domestic reactionaries, imperialism often adopts other methods in order to maintain
its rule; it either tries to split the revolutionary front from within or sends
armed forces to help the domestic reactionaries directly. At such a time, foreign
imperialism and domestic reaction stand quite openly at one pole while the masses
of the people stand at the other pole, thus forming the principal contradiction
which determines or influences the development of the other contradictions. The
assistance given by various capitalist countries [USA, France, and England] to
the Russian reactionaries after the October Revolution is an example of armed
intervention. Chiang Kai-shek's betrayal in 1927 is an example of splitting the
revolutionary front. But whatever happens, there
is no doubt at all that at every stage in the development of a process, there
is only one principal contradiction which plays the leading role. Hence,
if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the
principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest
occupy a secondary and subordinate position. Therefore, in studying any complex
process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort
to finding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped,
all problems can be readily solved. This is the method Marx taught us in his study
of capitalist society. Likewise Lenin and Stalin taught us this method when they
studied imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism and when they studied
the Soviet economy. There are thousands of scholars and men of action who do not
understand it, and the result is that, lost in a fog, they are unable to get to
the heart of a problem and naturally cannot find a way to resolve its contradictions. As
we have said, one must not treat all the contradictions in a process as being
equal but must distinguish between the principal and the secondary contradictions,
and pay special attention to grasping the principal one. But, in any given contradiction,
whether principal or secondary, should the two contradictory aspects be treated
as equal? Again, no. In any contradiction the development of the contradictory
aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however
only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory
aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is
the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is
determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which
has gained the dominant position. But this situation
is not static; the principal and the non- principal aspects of a contradiction
transform themselves into each other and the nature of the thing changes accordingly.
In a given process or at a given stage in the development of a contradiction,
A is the principal aspect and B is the non- principal aspect; at another stage
or in another process the roles are reversed--a change determined by the extent
of the increase or decrease in the force of each aspect in its struggle against
the other in the course of the development of a thing. We
often speak of "the new superseding the old". The supersession of the
old by the new is a general, eternal and inviolable law of the universe. The
transformation of one thing into another, through leaps of different forms in
accordance with its essence and external conditions - this is the process
of the new superseding the old. In each thing there is contradiction between its
new and its old aspects, and this gives rise to a series of struggles with many
twists and turns. As a result of these struggles, the new aspect changes from
being minor to being major and rises to predominance, while the old aspect
changes from being major to being minor and gradually dies out [e.g.: our
own presently useless primate behaviors!]. And the moment the new aspect
gains dominance over the old, the old thing changes qualitatively into
a new thing. It can thus be seen that the nature of a thing is mainly determined
by the principal aspect of the contradiction, the aspect which has gained predominance.
When the principal aspect which has gained predominance changes, the nature
of a thing changes accordingly. In capitalist
society, capitalism has changed its position from being a subordinate force in
the old feudal era to being the dominant force, and the nature of society has
accordingly changed from feudal to capitalist. In the new, capitalist era, the
feudal forces changed from their former dominant position to a subordinate one,
gradually dying out. Such was the case, for example, in Britain and France. With
the development of the productive forces, the bourgeoisie changes from being a
new class playing a progressive role to being an old class playing a reactionary
role, until it is finally overthrown by the proletariat and becomes a class deprived
of privately owned means of production and stripped of power, when it, too, gradually
dies out. The proletariat, which is much more numerous than the bourgeoisie
and grows simultaneously with it but under its rule, is a new force which,
initially subordinate to the bourgeoisie, gradually gains strength, becomes
an independent class playing the leading role in history, and finally seizes political
power and becomes the ruling class. Thereupon the nature of society changes
and the old capitalist society becomes the new socialist society [or another capitalist
one]. This is the path already taken by the Soviet Union, a path that all other
countries will inevitably take. Look at China,
for instance. Imperialism occupies the principal position in the contradiction
in which China has been reduced to a semi-colony, it oppresses the Chinese people,
and China has been changed from an independent country into a semi-colonial one.
But this state of affairs will inevitably change; in the struggle between the
two sides, the power of the Chinese people which is growing under the leadership
of the proletariat will inevitably change China from a semi-colony into an independent
country, whereas imperialism will be overthrown and old China will inevitably
change into New China. The change of old China
into New China also involves a change in the relation between the old feudal forces
and the new popular forces within the country. The old feudal landlord class will
be overthrown, and from being the ruler it will change into being the ruled; and
this class, too, will gradually die out. From being the ruled the people, led
by the proletariat, will become the rulers. Thereupon, the nature of Chinese society
will change and the old, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society will change into
a new democratic society. Instances of such reciprocal
transformation are found in our past experience. The Ching Dynasty which ruled
China for nearly three hundred years was overthrown in the Revolution of 1911,
and the revolutionary Tung Meng Hui under Sun Yat-sen's leadership was
victorious for a time. In the Revolutionary War of l924-27, the revolutionary
forces of the Communist-Kuomintang alliance in the south changed from being weak
to being strong and won victory in the Northern Expedition, while the Northern
warlords who once ruled the roost were overthrown. In 1927, the people's forces
led by the Communist Party were greatly reduced numerically under the attacks
of Kuomintang reaction, but with the elimination of opportunism within their ranks
they gradually grew again. In the revolutionary base areas under Communist leadership,
the peasants have been transformed from being the ruled to being the rulers, while
the landlords have undergone a reverse transformation. It is always so in the
world, the new displacing the old, the old being superseded by the new, the old
being eliminated to make way for the new, and the new emerging out of the old
[and switching places…]. At certain times
in the revolutionary struggle, the difficulties outweighthe favourable conditions
and so constitute the principal aspect of the contradiction and the favourable
conditions constitute the secondary aspect. But through their efforts the revolutionaries
can overcome the difficulties step by step and open up a favourable new situation;
thus a difficult situation yields place to a favourable one. This is what happened
after the failure of the revolution in China in and during the Long March of the
Chinese Red Army. In the present Sino-Japanese War, China is again in a difficult
position, but we can change this and fundamentally transform the situation as
between China and Japan. Conversely, favourable conditions can be transformed
into difficulty if the revolutionaries make mistakes. Thus the victory of the
revolution of l924-27 turned into defeat. The revolutionary base areas which grew
up in the southern provinces after 1927 had all suffered defeat by 1934. When
we engage in study, the same holds good for the contradiction in the passage from
ignorance to knowledge. At the very beginning of our study of Marxism, our ignorance
of or scanty acquaintance with Marxism stands in contradiction to knowledge of
Marxism. But by assiduous study ignorance can be transformed into knowledge, scanty
knowledge into substantial knowledge, and blindness in the application of Marxism
into mastery of its application. Some people think
that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction
between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive
forces are the principal aspect; in the contradiction between theory and practice,
practice is the principal aspect- in the contradiction between the economic base
and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect; and there is
no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception,
not the dialectical materialist conception. True, the productive forces, practice
and the economic base generally play the principal and decisive role; whoever
denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain
conditions, such aspects as the relations of production, theory and the superstructure
in turn manifest themselves in the principal and decisive role. When it is impossible
for the productive forces to develop without a change in the relations of production,
then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive
role. The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory plays the principal and
decisive role in those times of which Lenin said, "Without revolutionary
theory there can be no revolutionary movement." When a task, no matter which
has to be performed, but there is as yet no guiding line method, plan or policy,
the principal and decisive thing is to decide on a guiding line, method, plan
or policy. When the superstructure (politics, culture, etc.) obstructs the development
of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive.
Are we going against materialism when we say this? No. The reason is that while
we recognize that in the general development of history the material determines
the mental and social being determines social consciousness, we also--and indeed
must--recognize the reaction of mental on material things, of social consciousness
on social being and of the superstructure on the economic base. This does not
go against materialism; on the contrary, it avoids mechanical materialism and
firmly upholds dialectical materialism. In studying
the particularity of contradiction, unless we examine these two facets--the principal
and the non-principal contradictions in a process, and the principal and the non-
principal aspects of a contradiction--that is, unless we examine the distinctive
character of these two facets of contradiction, we shall get bogged down in abstractions,
be unable to understand contradiction concretely and consequently be unable to
find the correct method of resolving it. The distinctive character or particularity
of these two facets of contradiction represents the unevenness of the forces that
are in contradiction. Nothing in this world develops absolutely evenly; we must
oppose the theory of even development or the theory of equilibrium. Moreover,
it is these concrete features of a contradiction and the changes in the principal
and non-principal aspects of a contradiction in the course of its development
that manifest the force of the new superseding the old. The study of the various
states of unevenness in contradictions, of the principal and non-principal contradictions
and of the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction constitutes
an essential method by which a revolutionary political party correctly determines
its strategic and tactical policies both in political and in military affairs.
All Communists must give it attention. V. THE
IDENTITY AND STRUGGLE OF THE ASPECTS OF A CONTRADICTION When
we understand the universality and the particularity of contradiction, we must
proceed to study the problem of the identity and struggle of the aspects of a
contradiction. Identity, unity, coincidence,
interpenetration, interpermeation, interdependence (or mutual dependence for existence) interconnection
or mutual co-operation--all these different terms mean the same thing and refer
to the following two points: first, the existence of each of the two aspects of
a contradiction in the process of the development of a thing presupposes the existence
of the other aspect, and both aspects coexist in a single entity;
second, in given conditions each of the two contradictory aspects transforms
itself into its opposite. Thisis the meaning of identity. [[ - yin/yang] Lenin
said: Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how
they happen to be (how they become)identical - under what conditions
they are identical transforming themselves into one another,--why the human
mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid but as living, conditional,
mobile, transforming themselves into one another.(25) [i.e., moving,
flowing.] What does this passage mean? The
contradictory aspects in every process exclude each other, struggle with each
other and are in opposition to each other. Without exception, they are contained
in the process of development of all things [e.g.: life contains death, and
aging towards death CAUSES living] and in all human thought. A simple process
contains only a single pair of opposites, while a complex process contains more.
And in turn, the pairs of opposites are in contradiction to one another. That
is how all things in the objective world and all human thought are constituted
and how they are set in motion. This being
so, there is an utter lack of identity or unity. How then can one speak of identity
or unity? The fact is that no contradictory aspect
can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses
the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory
aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? Without
life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without
"above", there would be no "below"; without "below",
there would be no "above". Without misfortune, there would be no good
fortune, without good fortune, there would be no misfortune. Without facility,
there would be no difficulty; without difficulty, there would be no facility.
Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants,
there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat;
without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression
of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semi-
colonies, there would be no imperialist oppression of nations. It is so with all
opposites; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other,
and on the other they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating and
interdependent, and this character is described as identity. In given conditions,
all contradictory aspects possess the character of non-identity and hence are
described as being in contradiction. But they also possess the character of identity
and hence are interconnected. This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics
studies "how opposites can be . . . identical." How then
can they be identical? Because each is the condition for the other's existence.
This is the first meaning of identity. But is
it enough to say merely that each of the contradictory aspects is the condition
for the other's existence, that there is identity between them and that consequently
they can coexist in a single entity? No, it is not. The matter does not end with
their dependence on each other for their existence; what is more important is
their transformation into each other. That is to say, in given conditions,
each of the contradictory aspects within a thing transforms itself into its opposite,
changes its position to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of the
identity of contradiction. Why is there identity
here, too? You see, by means of revolution the proletariat, at one time the ruled,
is transformed into the ruler, while the bourgeoisie, the erstwhile ruler, is
transformed into the ruled and changes its position to that originally occupied
by its opposite. This has already taken place in the Soviet Union, as it will
take place throughout the world. If there were no interconnection and identity
of opposites in given conditions, how could such a change take place? The
Kuomintang, which played a certain positive role at a certain stage in modern
Chinese history, became a counterrevolutionary party after 1927 because of its
inherent class nature and because of imperialist blandishments (these being the
conditions); but it has been compelled to agree to resist Japan because of the
sharpening of the contradiction between China and Japan and because of the Communist
Party's policy of the united front (these being the conditions). Things in contradiction
change into one another, and herein lies a definite identity. Our
agrarian revolution has been a process in which the landlord class owning the
land is transformed into a class that has lost its land, while the peasants who
once lost their land are transformed into small holders who have acquired land,
and it will be such a process once again. In given conditions having and not having,
acquiring and losing, are interconnected; there is identity of the two sides.
Under socialism, private peasant ownership is transformed into the public ownership
of socialist agriculture; this has already taken place in the Soviet Union, as
it will take place everywhere else. There is a bridge leading from private property
to public property, which in philosophy is called identity, ortransformation into
each other, or interpenetration. To consolidate
the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the people is in fact
to prepare the conditions for abolishing this dictatorship and advancing to the
higher stage when all state systems are eliminated. To establish and build the
Communist Party is in fact to prepare the conditions for the elimination of the
Communist Party and all political parties. To build a revolutionary army under
the leadership of the Communist Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in
fact to prepare the conditions for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites
are at the same time complementary. War and peace,
as everybody knows, transform themselves into each other. War is transformed into
peace, for instance, the First World War was transformed into the post-war peace,
and the civil war in China has now stopped, giving place to internal peace. Peace
is transformed into war; for instance, the Kuomintang- Communist co-operation
was transformed into war in 1927, and today's situation of world peace may be
transformed into a second world war. Why is this so? Because in class society
such contradictory things as war and peace have an identity in given conditions. All
contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they coexist in a single
entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform
themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.
This is what Lenin meant when he discussed "how they happen to be (how they
become) identical - under what conditions they are identical, transforming
themselves into one another". Why is it that
"the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living,
conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another"? Because that
is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity
of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional,
mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory
aspect transforms itself into its opposite. Reflected in man's thinking this becomes
the Marxist world outlook of materialist dialectics. It is only the reactionary
ruling classes of the past and present and the metaphysicians in their service
who regard opposites not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves
into one another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere
to delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule. The
task of Communists is to expose the fallacies of the reactionaries and metaphysicians,
to propagate the dialectics inherent in things, and so accelerate the transformation
of things and achieve the goal of revolution. In
speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring
to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of
opposites into one another. There are innumerable transformations in mythology,
for instance, Kua Fu's race with the sun in Shan Hai Ching,(26) Yi's shooting
down of nine suns in Huai Nan Tzu,(27) the Monkey King's seventy-two metamorphoses
in Hsi Yu Chi,(28) the numerous episodes of ghosts and foxes metamorphosed
into human beings in the Strange Tales of Liao Chai,(29) etc. But these
legendary transformations of opposites are not concrete changes reflecting concrete
contradictions. They are naive, imaginary, subjectively conceived transformations
conjured up in men's minds by innumerable real and complex transformations of
opposites into one another. Marx said, "All mythology masters and dominates
and shapes the forces of nature in and through the imagination; hence it
disappears as soon as man gains mastery over the forces of nature."(30)[!]
The myriads of changes in mythology (and also in nursery tales) delight people
because they imaginatively picture man's conquest of the forces of nature, and
the best myths possess "eternal charm", as Marx put it; but myths are
not built out of the concrete contradictions existing in given conditions and
therefore are not a scientific reflection of reality. That is to say, in myths
or nursery tales the aspects constituting a contradiction have only an imaginary
identity, not a concrete identity. The scientific reflection of the identity in
real transformations is Marxist dialectics. [i.e., COS!] Why
can an egg but not a stone be transformed into a chicken? Why is there identity
between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why canhuman beings give
birth only to human beings and not to anything else? The sole reason is that the
identity of opposites exists only in necessary given conditions. Without these
necessary given conditions there can be no identity whatsoever. Why
is it that in Russia in 1917 the bourgeois-democratic February Revolution was
directly linked with the proletarian socialist October Revolution, while in France
the bourgeois revolution was not directly linked with a socialist revolution and
the Paris Commune of 1871(31) ended in failure? Why is it, on the other hand,
that the nomadic system of Mongolia and Central Asia has been directly linked
with socialism [!]? Why is it that the Chinese revolution can avoid a capitalist
future and be directly linked with socialism without taking the old historical
road of the Western countries, without passing through a period of bourgeois dictatorship?
[It is passing through one NOW!] The sole reason is the concrete conditions
of the time. When certain necessary conditions are present, certain contradictions
arise in the process of development of things and, moreover, the opposites contained
in them are interdependent and become transformed into one another; otherwise
none of this would be possible. Such is the problem
of identity. What then is struggle? And what is the relation between identity
and struggle? Lenin said: "The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action)
of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of
mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute."(32) What
does this passage mean? All processes have a beginning
and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy
of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation
of one process into another is absolute. There
are two states of motion in all things, that of relative rest and that of conspicuous
change [!]. Both are caused by the struggle between the two contradictory
elements contained in a thing. When the thing is in the first state of motion,
it is undergoing only quantitative and not qualitative [parsimony]
change and consequently presents the outward appearance of being at rest. When
the thing is in the second state of motion, the quantitative change of the first
state has already reached a culminating point and gives rise to the dissolution
of the thing as an entity and thereupon a qualitative change ensues [diversity],
hence the appearance of a conspicuous change. Such unity, solidarity, combination,
harmony, balance, stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity,
attraction, etc., as we see in daily life, are all the appearances of things
in the state of quantitative change. On the other hand, the dissolution
of unity, that is, the destruction of this solidarity, combination, harmony, balance,
stalemate, deadlock, rest, constancy, equilibrium, solidity and attraction, and
the change of each into its opposite are all the appearances of things in the
state of qualitative change [Yes!], the transformation of one process into
another. Things are constantly transforming themselves from the first into the
second state of motion; the struggle of opposites goes on in both states but the
contradiction is resolved through the second state. That is why we say that the
unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative [!], while the
struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute. When
we said above that two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can
transform themselves into each other because there is identity between them, we
were speaking of conditionally, that is to say, in given conditions two contradictory
things can be united and can transform themselves into each other, but in the
absence of these conditions, they cannot constitute a contradiction, cannot coexist
in the same entity and cannot transform themselves into one another. It is because
the identity of opposites obtains only in given conditions that we have said identity
is conditional and relative. We may add that the struggle between opposites permeates
a process from beginning to end and makes one process transform itself into another,
that it is ubiquitous, and that struggle is therefore unconditional and absolute.
[TAO] The combination of conditional,
relative identity and unconditional, absolute struggle constitutes the movement
of opposites in all things. We Chinese often say,
"Things that oppose each other also complement each other."(33) That
is, things opposed to each other have identity. This saying is dialectical and
contrary to metaphysics. "Oppose each other" refers to the mutual exclusion
or the struggle of two contradictory aspects. "Complement each other"
means that in given conditions the two contradictory aspects unite and achieve
identity. Yet struggle is inherent in identity and without struggle there can
be no identity. In identity there is struggle,
in particularity there is universality, and in individuality there is generality.
To quote Lenin, "… there is an absolute in
the relative."(34) [PHEW!] VI.
THE PLACE OF ANTAGONISM IN CONTRADICTION The question
of the struggle of opposites includes the question of what is antagonism. Our
answer is that antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of
the struggle of opposites. In human history, antagonism
between classes exists as a particular manifestation of the struggle of opposites.
Consider the contradiction between the exploiting and the exploited classes. Such
contradictory classes coexist for a long time in the same society, be it slave
society, feudal society or capitalist society, and they struggle with each other;
but it is not until the contradiction between the two classes develops to a certain
stage that it assumes the form of open antagonism and develops into revolution.
The same holds for the transformation of peace into war in class society. Before
it explodes, a bomb is a single entity in which opposites coexist in given conditions.
The explosion takes place only when a new condition, ignition, is present. An
analogous situation arises in all those natural phenomena which finally assume
the form of open conflict to resolve old contradictions and produce new things. It
is highly important to grasp this fact. It enables us to understand that revolutions
and revolutionary wars are inevitable in class society and that without
them, it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow
the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win
political power. Communists must expose the deceitful propaganda of the reactionaries,
such as the assertion that social revolution is unnecessary and impossible. They
must firmly uphold the Marxist-Leninist theory of social revolution and enable
the people to understand that social revolution is not on]y entirely necessary
but also entirely practicable, and that the whole history of mankind and the triumph
of the Soviet Union have confirmed this scientific truth. [Also birth of USA!] However,
we must make a concrete study of the circumstances of each specific struggle of
opposites and should not arbitrarily apply the formula discussed above to everything.
Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving
contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences
in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by
open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of
things, some contradictions which were originally non-antagonistic develop into
antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into
non-antagonistic ones. As already mentioned, so
long as classes exist, contradictions between correct and incorrect ideas in the
Communist Party are reflections within the Party of class contradictions. At first,
with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves
as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow
and become antagonistic. The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
shows us that the contradictions between the correct thinking of Lenin and Stalin
and the fallacious thinking of Trotsky,(35) Bukharin and others did not at first
manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but that later they did develop into
antagonism. There are similar cases in the history of the Chinese Communist Party.
At first the contradictions between the correct thinking of many of our Party
comrades and the fallacious thinking of Chen Tu-hsiu, Chang Kuo-tao and others
also did not manifest themselves in an antagonistic form, but later they did develop
into antagonism. At present the contradiction between correct and incorrect thinking
in our Party does not manifest itself in an antagonistic form, and if comrades
who have committed mistakes can correct them, it will not develop into antagonism.
Therefore, the Party must on the one hand wage a serious struggle against erroneous
thinking, and on the other give the comrades who have committed errors ample opportunity
to wake up. This being the case, excessive struggle is obviously inappropriate.
But if the people who have committed errors persist in them and aggravate them,
there is the possibility that this contradiction will develop into antagonism. Economically,
the contradiction between town and country is an extremely antagonistic one both
in capitalist society, where under the rule of the bourgeoisie the towns ruthlessly
plunder the countryside, and in the Kuomintang areas in China, where under the
rule of foreign imperialism and the Chinese big comprador bourgeoisie the towns
most rapaciously plunder the countryside. But in a socialist country and in our
revolutionary base areas, this antagonistic contradiction has changed into one
that is non- antagonistic; and when communist society is reached it will be abolished. Lenin
said, "Antagonism and contradiction are not at all one and the same. Under
socialism, the first will disappear, the second will remain."(36) That is
to say, antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites;
the formula of antagonism cannot be arbitrarily applied everywhere. VII.
CONCLUSION We may now say a few words to sum up.
The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites,
is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the
fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook.
It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. According
to dialectical materialism, contradiction is present in all processes of objectively
existing things and of subjective thought and permeates all these processes from
beginning to end; this is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction.
Each contradiction and each of its aspects have their respective characteristics;
this is the particularity and relativity of contradiction. In given conditions,
opposites possess identity, and consequently can coexist in a single entity and
can transform themselves into each other; this again is the particularity and
relativity of contradiction. But the struggle of opposites is ceaseless, it goes
on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves
into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming
themselves into one another; this again is the universality and absoluteness of
contradiction. In studying the particularity and relativity of contradiction,
we must give attention to the distinction between the principal contradiction
and the non-principal contradictions and to the distinction between the principal
aspect and the non-principal aspect of a contradiction; in studying the universality
of contradiction and the struggle of opposites in contradiction, we must give
attention to the distinction between the different forms of struggle. Otherwise
we shall make mistakes. If, through study, we achieve a real understanding of
the essentials explained above, we shall be able to demolish dogmatist ideas which
are contrary to the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and detrimental to our
revolutionary cause, and our comrades with practical experience will be able to
organize their experience into principles and avoid repeating empiricist errors.
These are a few simple conclusions from our study of the law of contradiction. NOTES 1.
From Lenin's notes on "The Eleatic School" in Hegel's Lectures on
The History of Philosophy Vol. I. See V. I. Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel'sLectures
on the History of Philosophy" (1915),Collected Works Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958,
Vol. XXXVIII, p. 249. 2. In his essay "On
the Question of Dialectics" (1915), Lenin said, "The splitting in two
of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts (see the quotation
from Philo on Heraclitus at the beginning of Section 3 'On Cognition' in Lassalle's
book on Heraclitus) is theessence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal,
if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics." (Collected
Works. Russ. ed. Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 357.) In his "Conspectus
of Hegel'sThe Science of Logic" (September-December 1914), he said, "In
brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This
grasps the kernel of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development."
(Ibid. p. 215.) 3. Deborin (1881-1963), a Soviet
philosopher, was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. In 1930 philosophical
circles in the Soviet Union began to criticize the Deborin school and pointed
out that its errors in separating theory from practice and philosophy from politics
were idealist in nature. 4. V. I. Lenin, "On
the Question of Dialectics",Collected Works Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol.
XXXVIII, p. 358. 5. A saying of Tung Chung-shu
(179-104 B.C.), a well-known exponent of Confucianism in the Han Dynasty. 6.
Frederick Engels, "Dialectics. Quantity and Quality",Anti- Duhring,
(1877-78), Eng. ed., FLPH, Moscow, 1959, p. 166. 7.
V. I. Lenin, "On the Question of Dialectics ',Collected Works Russ. ed.,
Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 357-58. 8. Frederick
Engels,op. cit. pp. 166-67. 9. V. I. Lenin, "On
the Question of Dialectics",Collected Works. Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol.
XXXVIII, p. 357. 10. Bukharin (1888-1938) headed
an anti-Leninist faction in the Russian revolutionary movement. Later he joined
a traitorous group, was expelled from the Party in 1937, and sentenced to death
by the Soviet Supreme Court in 1938. Here Comrade Mao Tse-tung criticized the
erroneous view, which had long been advocated by Bukharin, of covering up class
contradictions and substituting class collaboration for class struggle. In the
years 1928-29 when the Soviet Union was preparing for the all-round collectivization
of agriculture, Bukharin pressed his erroneous view more openly than ever, endeavouring
to cover up the class contradiction between the rich peasants and the poor and
middle peasants and to oppose resolute struggle against the rich peasants. He
also maintained the fallacy that the working class could form an alliance with
the rich peasants who could "grow into socialism peacefully". 11.
V. I. Lenin, "On the Question of Dialectics",Collected Works Russ. ed.,
Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 358-59. 12. See
V. I. Lenin, " 'Communism' " June 12, 1920), in which Lenin, criticizing
the leader of the Hungarian Communist Party Bela Kun, said that he "gives
up the most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism, the concrete
analysis of concrete conditions" (Collected Works Russ. ed., Moscow, 1950,
Vol. XXXI, p. 143.) 13. Sun Wu Tzu, or Sun Wu,
also known as Sun Tzu, was a famous Chinese soldier and military scientist in
the 5th century B.C., who wrote,Sun Tzu, a treatise on war containing thirteen
chapters. This quotation is from Chapter 3, "The Strategy of Attack". 14.
Wei Cheng (A.D. 580-643) was a statesman and historian of the Tang Dynasty. 15.Shui
Hu Chuan (Heroes of the Marshes) a famous 14th century Chinese novel, describes
a peasant war towards the end of the Northern Sung Dynasty. Chu Village was in
the vicinity of Liangshanpo, where Sung Chiang, leader of the peasant uprising
and hero of the novel established his base. Chu Chao-feng, the head of this village,
was a despotic landlord. 16. V. I. Lenin, "Once
Again on the Trade Unions, the Present Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and
Bukharin" (January 1921),Selected Works Eng. ed., International Publishers,
New York, 1943, Vol. IX, p. 66. 17. The Revolution
of 1911 was the bourgeois revolution which overthrew the autocratic regime of
the Ching Dynasty. On October 10 of that year, a section of the Ching Dynasty's
New Army who were under revolutionary influence staged an uprising in Wuchang,
Hupeh Province. The existing bourgeois and petty-bourgeois revolutionary societies
and the broad masses of the workers, peasants and soldiers responded enthusiastically,
and very soon the rule of the Ching Dynasty crumbled. In January 1912, the Provisional
Government of the Republic of China was set up in Nanking, with Sun Yat-sen as
the Provisional President. Thus China's feudal monarchic system which had lasted
for more than two thousand years was brought to an end. The idea of a democratic
republic had entered deep in the hearts of the people. But the bourgeoisie which
led the revolution was strongly conciliationist in nature. It did not mobilize
the peasant masses on an extensive scale to crush the feudal rule of the landlord
class in thc countryside, but instead handed state power over to the Northern
warlord Yuan Shih-kai under imperialist and feudal pressure. As a result, the
revolution ended in defeat. 18. The revolution
of 1924-27, also known as the First Revolutionary Civil War, was an anti-imperialist
and anti-feudal revolutionary struggle, whose main content was the Northern Expedition
carried out on the basis of co-operation between the Chinese Communist Party and
the Kuomintang. After consolidating its revolutionary base areas in Kwangtung
Province, the revolutionary army which was established jointly by the two parties
started its northward expedition against the imperialist- nurtured Northern warlords
in July 1926 and won the warm support of the broad masses of workers and peasants.
It occupied most of the provinces along the Yangtse and Yellow Rivers in the second
half of 1926 and the first half of 1927. While the revolution was forging ahead
successfully, the reactionary cliques within thc Kuomintang headed by Chiang Kai-shek
and by Wang Ching-wei (both representing the interests of the comprador and landlord
classes) staged two counter-revolutionary coups d'etat with the support of imperialism,
the first in April 1927 and the second in July. The Rightist ideas then to be
found in the Chinese Communist Party, which were represented by Chen Tu-hsiu,
developed into a capitulationist line, so that the Party and the people were not
in a position to organize effective resistance to the surprise attacks launched
by the Kuomintang reactionary cliques, and the revolution suffered defeat. 19.
The Agrarian Revolutionary War was the revolutionary struggle of the Chinese people
waged under the leadership of the Communist Party from 1927 to 1937, and its main
content consisted of the establishment and development of Red political power,
the spread of the agrarian revolution and armed resistance to the rule of Kuomintang
reaction. This revolutionary war is also known as the Second Revolutionary Civil
War. 20. The "four northeastern provinces"
were then Liaoning, Kirin, Heilungkiang and Jehol, which correspond to the present
Liaoning, Kirin and Heilungkiang Provinces, the northeastern part of Hopei Province
north of the Great Wall and the eastern part of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous
Region. After the September 18th Incident which took place in 1931, the Japanese
invaders occupied Liaoning, Kirin and Heilungkiang and later, in 1933, seized
Jehol. 21. Under the influence of the Chinese
Red Army and the people's anti-Japanese movement, the Kuomintang's Northeastern
Army headed by Chang Hsueh-liang and the Kuomintang's 17th Route Army headed by
Yang Hu-cheng accepted the policy of the anti-Japanese national united front proposed
by the Communist Party of China, and demanded that Chiang Kai-shek should unite
with the Communist Party to resist Japan. Chiang Kai-shek not only refused but
became still more perverse and stepped up his military preparations for the "suppression
of the Communists" and repressed the students' anti-Japanese movement in
Sian. On December 12, 1936 Chang Hsueh- liang and Yang Hu-cheng staged the Sian
Incident and arrested Chiang Kai-shek. After the occurrence of the incident, the
Chinese Communist Party expressed firm support for Chang Hsueh-liang's and Yang
Hu-cheng's patriotic action, and at the same time held that the incident should
be settled on the basis of unity and resistance to Japan. On December 25 Chiang
Kai-shek was compelled to accept the terms of unity with the Communist Party against
Japan, and he was then set free and returned to Nanking. 22.
Chen Tu-hsiu was a radical democrat around the time of the May 4th Movement. Later,
under the influence of the October Socialist Revolution he became one of the founders
of the Chinese Communist Party. For six years after the founding of the Party
he held the leading position in the Central Committee. His thinking had long been
strongly Rightist. In the latter part of the 1924-27 revolution, it developed
into a line of capitulationism. The capitulationists represented by Chen Tu-hsiu
"voluntarily gave up the Party's leadership of the peasant masses urban petty
bourgeoisie and middle bourgeoisie, and in particular gave up the Party's leadership
of the armed forces, thus causing the defeat of the revolution". ("The
Present Situation and Our Tasks",Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung Eng, ed.,
FLP, Peking, 1961, Vol. IV, p. 171.) After the defeat of 1927 Chen Tu-hsiu and
a handful of other capitulationists lost faith in the future of the revolution
and became liquidationists. They took a reactionary Trotskyite stand and formed
a small anti-Party group together with the Trotskyites. Consequently Chen Tu-hsiu
was expelled from the Party in November l929, He died in 1942. 23.
For many decades, beginning with the end of the 18th century, Britain exported
an increasing quantity of opium to China. This traffic not only subjected the
Chinese people to drugging but also plundered China of her silver. It aroused
fierce opposition in China. In 1840, under the pretext of safeguarding its trade
with China, Britain launched armed aggression against her. The Chinese troops
led by Lin Tse-hsu put up resistance, and the people in Canton spontaneously organized
the "Quell-the-British Corps", which dealt serious blows to the British
forces of aggression. In 1842, however, the corrupt Ching regime signed the Treaty
of Nanking with the British aggressor. This treaty provided for the payment of
indemnities and the cession of Hongkong to Britain, and stipulated that Shanghai,
Foochow, Amoy, Ningpo and Canton were to be opened to British trade and that tariff
rates for British goods imported into China were to be jointly fixed by China
and Britain. 24. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894
was started by Japanese imperialism for the purpose of invading Korea and China.
Many Chinese soldiers and some patriotic generals put up a heroic fight. But China
suffered defeat because of the corruption of the Ching government and its failure
to prepare resistance. In 1895 the Ching government concluded the shameful Treaty
of Shimonoseki with Japan. 25. From Lenin's notes
on "Determinateness (Quality)" in Hegel's The Science of Logic
Book I, Section I. V. I. Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of
Logic" Collected Works Russ. ed.. Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII,
pp. 97-98. 26.Shan Hai Ching (Book of Mountains and Seas) was written in the era
of the Warring States (403-221 B.C.). In one of its fables Kua Fu, a superman,
pursued and overtook the sun. But he died of thirst, whereupon his staff was transformed
into the forest of Teng. 27. Yi is one of the
legendary heroes of ancient China, famous for his archery. According to a legend
inHuai Nan Tzu compiled in the 2nd century B.C., there were ten suns in the sky
in the days of Emperor Yao. To put an end to the damage to vegetation caused by
these scorching suns, Emperor Yao ordered Yi to shoot them down. In another legend
recorded by Wang Yi (2nd century A.D.), the archer is said to have shot down nine
of the ten suns. 28.Hsi Yu Chi (Pilgrimage to the West) is a 16th century novel,
the hero of which is the monkey god Sun Wu-kung. He could miraculously change
at will into seventy-two different shapes, such as a bird, a tree and a stone.
29. The Strange Tales of Liao Chai written by Pu Sung-ling in the 17th century,
is a well-known collection of 431 tales, mostly about ghosts and fox spirits. 30.
Karl Marx, "Introduction to the Critique oi Political Economy",A Contribution
to the Critique of Political Economy, Eng. ed. Chicago, 1904, Pp. 310-11. 31.
The Paris Commune was the first proletarian organ of state power in world history.
On March 18, 1871, the French proletariat launched an uprising in Paris and seized
power. Led by the proletariat, the Paris Commune was founded on March 28 through
election. It was the first revolutionary attempt of the proletariat to smash the
bourgeois state machinery and an unprecedented feat to substitute proletarian
state power for the bourgeois state power which had been overthrown. Not being
mature enough at the time, the French proletariat failed to unite with its ally,
the peasant masses, was too lenient to the counter- revolution and did not launch
resolute military attacks in good time. Thus the counter-revolution could unhurriedly
muster its routed forces, make a comeback and perpetrate a savage massacre of
the people who took part in the uprising. The Paris Commune fell on May 28. 32.
V. I. Lenin, "On the Question of Dialectics",Collected Works Russ. ed.,
Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 358. 33. The saying
"Things that oppose each other also complement each other" first appeared
in theHistory of the Earlier Han Dynasty by Pan Ku, a celebrated historian in
the 1st century A.D. It has long been a popular saying. 34.
V. I. Lenin, "On the Question of Dialectics",Collected Works Russ. ed.,
Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII, p. 358, 35. Trotsky
(1879-1940) headed an anti-Leninist faction in the Russian revolutionary movement
and later degenerated and joined the gang of counter-revolution, He was expelled
from the Party by the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1927, banished by the Soviet
government in 1928 and deprived of Soviet nationality in 1932. 36.
V. I. Lenin, "Remarks on N. I. Bukharin'sEconomics of the Transitional Period"Selected
Works, Russ. ed., Moscow- Leningrad, 1931, Vol. XI. p. 357. This essay on philosophy
was written by Comrade Mao Tse-tung after his essay "On Practice" and
with the same object of overcoming the serious error of dogmatist thinking to
be found in the Party at the time. Originally delivered as lectures at the Anti-Japanese
Military |
