Contradiction Theory（1）

The law of contradictions—also known as the law of the unity of opposites—is the fundamental law of dialectical materialism. Lenin stated, “In its true sense, dialectics is the study of the contradictions inherent in the essence of its objects.” He often referred to this law as the essence of dialectics or the core of dialectical philosophy. Thus, when we study this law, we must address various aspects and numerous philosophical questions. If we clarify these questions, we fundamentally understand dialectical materialism. These questions include: the two worldviews; the universality of contradictions; the specificity of contradictions; the primary contradiction and its main aspects; the unity and struggle of contradictions; the status of opposition within contradictions.

Recently, the Soviet philosophical community has critiqued the idealism of the Deborin school, which has intrigued us greatly. The idealism of Deborin has had a detrimental impact within the Chinese Communist Party, and it cannot be said that the dogmatic thought in our party is unrelated to the style of this school. Therefore, our current philosophical research should aim to eliminate dogmatic thought as a primary goal.

Two Worldviews

In the history of human cognition, there have traditionally been two perspectives on the laws governing the development of the universe: one metaphysical and the other dialectical, forming two opposing worldviews. Lenin noted, "The two basic viewpoints (or two possible ones, or two commonly found ones in history) on development (evolution) are: (1) that development is a matter of reduction and increase, of repetition; (2) that development is the unity of opposites (the unity of entities splitting into two mutually exclusive opposites, which are also interrelated)." This precisely outlines the two differing worldviews.

Metaphysics, also known as mysticism, has historically represented an idealistic worldview in both China and Europe, dominating people's thoughts for a long time. In Europe, early bourgeois materialism also fell under metaphysics. As many countries in Europe moved into a phase of highly developed capitalism, production forces, class struggle, and science achieved unprecedented levels, the industrial proletariat emerged as the greatest driving force of historical development, leading to the rise of Marxist dialectical materialism. Consequently, alongside the openly reactionary idealism of the bourgeoisie, a vulgar evolutionism arose to counter dialectical materialism.

The so-called metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist worldview views everything in the world—its forms and classifications—as eternally isolated and unchanging. Any perceived changes are merely quantitative increases or reductions and mere relocations. The causes of these changes, according to metaphysicists, lie outside the entities themselves, driven by external forces. They believe that the various characteristics of different entities have been so from their inception, with later changes perceived only as quantitative expansions or contractions. In their view, one entity can only regenerate into the same type rather than transform into a different one. Metaphysicists argue that capitalist exploitation, competition, and individualism in capitalist society can also be traced back to ancient slave societies, asserting their perpetual existence. When discussing the causes of social development, they cite external geographical and climatic conditions, seeking development causes externally rather than acknowledging the internal contradictions that dialectical materialism emphasizes. Consequently, they fail to explain the qualitative diversity of things and the phenomenon of one quality transforming into another. This thought manifested in Europe as mechanical materialism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and evolved into vulgar evolutionism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In China, the so-called “the heavens do not change, nor does the Dao” reflects a longstanding metaphysical ideology supported by a decaying feudal ruling class. In the past century, the influx of European mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism has also been upheld by the bourgeoisie.

In contrast to the metaphysical worldview, the dialectical materialist perspective stresses investigating development from the internal relations of entities, understanding progress as necessary self-motion, and recognizing that each entity's motion is interconnected with and influenced by surrounding entities. The fundamental cause of development lies not externally but internally, based on contradictions inherent within entities. Such contradictions exist within all entities, provoking their motion and development. The interconnectedness and influence between entities provide secondary causes. Thus, dialectical materialism robustly opposes the external causation and passive theories of metaphysical mechanical materialism and vulgar evolutionism. It is clear that purely external causes can only induce mechanical motions—changes in scale or quantity—without explaining the qualitative diversity and interchanges among entities. In fact, even mechanically driven motions must be mediated through the internal contradictions of entities. The simple growth in plants and animals and the increase in quantity are primarily the results of internal contradictions. Similarly, societal evolution is principally driven by internal rather than external causes. Many countries, under similar geographical and climatic conditions, exhibit substantial developmental differences and imbalances. Even within the same nation, societal transitions can be significant without any geographical or climatic changes. The transformation of Tsarist Russia into the socialist Soviet Union, and the feudal isolationism of Japan into its imperialistic state, occurred without changes in geography or climate. China, long dominated by feudalism, has undergone significant transformations in the past century, moving towards a new liberated China, with its geography and climate remaining unchanged. While Earth's geography and climate also shift, these changes appear minor compared to social changes, which can manifest over thousands, hundreds, or even just years or months (during revolutionary periods). From the perspective of dialectical materialism, natural changes primarily result from evolving internal contradictions, while social changes emerge chiefly from internal societal contradictions—contradictions between productive forces and relations, class contradictions, and old versus new contradictions. These contradictions propel social advancement and facilitate the metabolic exchange between old and new social systems.

Does dialectical materialism negate external causes? Not at all. Dialectical materialism acknowledges that external causes represent conditions for change, while internal causes provide the basis for transformation, with external factors acting through internal mechanisms. For instance, a chicken egg requires suitable temperature conditions to develop into a chick, but this same temperature cannot transform a stone into a chick, as the underlying bases of the two are different. Interactions between people among nations are constants. During the capitalist era, especially amid imperialism and the proletarian revolution, the political, economic, and cultural influences between nations have been profound. The October Socialist Revolution not only initiated a new epoch in Russian history but also created a new epoch in world history, impacting internal changes across various countries, particularly in China. Yet these changes arose through the internal regulatory mechanisms of the countries and within China itself. In conflicts between two armies, one wins and one loses, so outcomes depend on internal factors. The victor may be strong or strategically adept, while the loser may be weak or command poorly; thus, external influences act through internal dynamics. In 1927, the defeat of the Chinese proletariat by the Chinese big bourgeoisie resulted from opportunism within the Chinese proletariat (specifically within the Chinese Communist Party). When we reevaluated this opportunism, the Chinese revolution resumed its progression. Later, when the Chinese revolution faced severe setbacks due to adventurism within our Party, addressing this adventurism allowed our cause to advance yet again. This suggests that to guide a revolution to victory, a political party must rely on the correctness of its political line and the consolidation of its organization.

The dialectical worldview has existed since ancient times in China and Europe. However, ancient dialectics, arising under spontaneous and simplistic conditions, lacked comprehensive theoretical frameworks and hence couldn’t fully explain the universe, leading to its replacement by metaphysics. Prominent German philosophers like Hegel, active at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, made significant contributions to dialectical methodology, though his approach was idealist. It was only with the comprehensive synthesis of the positive achievements of human cognitive history by great figures like Marx and Engels—especially their critical integration of the rational aspects of Hegel’s dialectics—that the revolutionary hypothesis of dialectical materialism and historical materialism surfaced in the history of human cognition. This theory dramatically transformed the landscape of thought in China once it was introduced.

This dialectical worldview primarily teaches individuals to observe and analyze the movements of various contradictions and to identify methods for resolving these contradictions based on such analyses. Therefore, understanding the law of contradictions is fundamentally crucial for us.

Universality of Contradictions

For convenience of narration, I will first discuss the universality of contradictions, followed by their specificity. This is because the great creators and inheritors of Marxism—Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin—discovered the worldview of dialectical materialism and have applied it in many aspects of the analysis of human history and natural history. They have achieved great success in social and natural transformations (such as in the Soviet Union). The universality of contradictions has been accepted by many, thus requiring minimal explanation. In contrast, the issue of the specificity of contradictions still confuses many comrades, particularly dogmatists. They do not understand that the universality of contradictions is inherent in their specificity and are unaware of the significant implications that understanding the specific contradictions of current issues has for guiding revolutionary practice. Consequently, the issue of the specificity of contradictions should be studied in depth and sufficiently elaborated upon. Therefore, when analyzing the law of contradictions, we will first address the issue of universality before focusing more intently on specificity, ultimately returning to the universality of contradictions.

The question of the universality or absoluteness of contradictions has two aspects. Firstly, contradictions exist in the development of all things; secondly, in the development of each thing, there is a continuous movement of contradictions.

Engels stated, “Movement itself is contradiction.” Lenin defined the law of the unity of opposites as "acknowledging (discovering) that all phenomena and processes in the natural world (including both the spiritual and the social) contain contradictory, mutually exclusive, and opposing tendencies." Are these assertions correct? Yes. The interdependence and struggle of contradictions inherent in all things determine their vitality and propel their development. There is no thing that does not contain contradictions; without contradictions, there would be no world.

Contradiction is the basis for both simple forms of motion (such as mechanical movement) and complex forms of motion.

Engels explained the universality of contradictions: “If simple mechanical movement itself contains contradictions, then the higher forms of material motion, particularly organic life and its development, will contain even more contradictions. Life fundamentally involves organisms being at every moment themselves while simultaneously being something else. Thus, life consists of contradictions that continuously generate and resolve themselves within the objects and processes. When these contradictions cease, life itself ceases, leading to death. Similarly, within the realm of thought, we also cannot avoid contradictions. For instance, the contradiction between the infinite cognitive abilities of humans and the limits imposed on that cognitive capacity by specific individuals exists within the endless—at least for us, virtually infinite—series of generations, resolving itself within an infinite forward movement.”

“One of the principal foundations of higher mathematics is contradiction… even elementary mathematics is filled with contradictions.”

Lenin also elaborated on the universality of contradictions, stating, "In mathematics, there are positives and negatives, differentiation and integration. In mechanics, there are action and reaction. In physics, there are positive and negative electricity. In chemistry, there are the combination and decomposition of atoms. In social sciences, there is class struggle."

The tactics of attack and defense, advance and retreat, victory and defeat in war are all contradictory phenomena. The loss of one side implies the non-existence of the other. The two sides struggle yet are interconnected, forming the totality of war, advancing the conflict, and resolving its issues.

Every difference in human concepts should be seen as a reflection of objective contradictions. Objective contradictions reflect in subjective thought, creating the contradictory movement of concepts that pushes forward the development of thought, continually resolving intellectual challenges.

The presence of opposing thoughts within the party is a regular occurrence, reflecting the class contradictions in society and the contradictions between new and old matters within the party. Without contradictions and the ideological struggle to resolve them, the life of the party ceases.

From this, it is evident that whether in simple or complex forms of motion, whether concerning objective phenomena or mental phenomena, contradictions universally exist. It has been clarified that contradictions are present in all processes. However, does every process begin with existing contradictions? Does each thing’s developmental process involve a continuous movement of contradictions?

Articles critiquing the Deborin school from the Soviet philosophical community indicate that they hold the view that contradictions do not emerge at the outset of a process but only after it has reached a certain stage of development. Thus, prior to that point, the causes of development are said to arise from external rather than internal factors. This leads Deborin to revert to the metaphysical notions of external causation and mechanism. Using this perspective in concrete analyses, they see only differences between rich and general farmers in Soviet conditions without recognizing contradictions, completely agreeing with Bukharin’s views. In analyzing the French Revolution, they believed that before the revolution, the third estate composed of workers and peasants included only differences without contradictions. Such views by the Deborin school are anti-Marxist. They fail to realize that every difference in the world inherently contains contradictions; differences are contradictions. From the moment the labor and capital classes emerge, they are in mutual contradiction, merely not yet intensified. Even under Soviet conditions, there are differences between workers and peasants, and these differences are contradictions. They simply do not escalate into antagonisms or take the form of class struggle, differing from contradictions between labor and capital. They form a solid alliance in socialist construction and gradually resolve these contradictions as society transitions from socialism to communism. This concerns the distinctiveness of contradictions, not their existence. Contradictions are universal and absolute, existing throughout the entire development process of things and pervading all processes.

What constitutes the emergence of a new process? The old unity and its opposing components yield to a new unity and its opposing components, resulting in the emergence of a new process that replaces the old. The old process concludes, and the new process begins. The new process contains new contradictions and initiates its own history of contradictory development.

Lenin pointed out that Marx modeled this analysis in "Capital" regarding the continuous contradictory movement inherent in the development of things. This is a necessary methodology for studying any developmental process. Lenin himself correctly applied this approach throughout his works.

"In 'Capital,' Marx first analyzes the simplest, most ordinary, fundamental, and commonly encountered relationships within bourgeois society (commodity society)—the exchange of commodities. This analysis reveals all the contradictions of modern society (as well as the seeds of all contradictions) within this simplest phenomenon—the ‘cell’ of bourgeois society. The subsequent narrative demonstrates the developmental trajectory (both growth and movement) of these contradictions and the totality of various components of this society from start to finish."

After stating this, Lenin continued, "This should be the method of general dialectics for narration (and research)."

Members of the Chinese Communist Party must learn this method to accurately analyze the history and current state of the Chinese revolution and draw conclusions about its future.

Specificity of Contradictions

Contradictions exist throughout the developmental processes of all things, and they permeate every aspect of these processes. This is the universality and absoluteness of contradictions that has been discussed previously. Now, let’s explore the specificity and relativity of contradictions.

This issue should be examined from several perspectives.

Different Forms of Material Motion

First, all contradictions in various forms of material motion possess specificity. Human understanding of matter relates to the forms of motion of matter itself, as everything in the world is comprised of moving matter. Different forms of movement must be analyzed for both their commonalities and their distinctive characteristics. Notably, what forms the foundation of our understanding is recognizing these unique attributes, distinguishing one phenomenon from another. Each form of movement embodies particular contradictions within itself, which constitute its unique essence, the inherent cause for the vast diversity of things in the world.

In nature, numerous forms of motion exist, such as mechanical movements, sound, light, heat, electrical currents, chemical reactions, and combinations. All these forms of material motion are interdependent yet inherently distinct. The unique essence of each form of motion is dictated by its specific contradictions. This situation not only prevails in nature but also in social and ideological phenomena. Each social form and thought form has its own specific contradictions and unique essence.

Scientific Distinctions

The differentiation in scientific research arises from the inherent contradictions of the objects under study. Therefore, the exploration of a specific contradiction unique to a certain field constitutes the subject of that scientific discipline. For example, in mathematics, the distinction between positive and negative numbers; in mechanics, action and reaction; in physics, positive and negative electricity; in chemistry, decomposition and synthesis; in social sciences, the relationship between productive forces and relations, as well as class struggles; in military studies, attack and defense; in philosophy, idealism and materialism, metaphysics and dialectical views all represent specific contradictions with unique essences, forming the basis of different scientific inquiries.

Certainly, if one does not recognize the universality of contradictions, it is impossible to discover the general causes or reasons behind the motion and development of phenomena. However, without studying the specificity of contradictions, one cannot determine the unique essence that differentiates one phenomenon from another, nor can one identify the specific causes or reasons underlying developmental processes. This also hampers the ability to discern phenomena, preventing distinctions in scientific research fields.

Human Cognition Process

The order of human cognitive movement progresses from an understanding of particular and specific phenomena to a broader comprehension of general concepts. People generally first recognize the unique essence of various different phenomena before proceeding to generalize their common essence. Once individuals understand this common essence, they can use it as a guide to continue researching specific, often unexplored or less-studied phenomena, in order to uncover their unique essences. This approach enriches and develops the understanding of the common essence, preventing it from becoming a dry and static notion.

This process entails two movements of understanding: one from the specific to the general and the other from the general back to the specific. Human understanding operates as a cyclical process, and each cycle (when adhering strictly to scientific methods) has the potential to elevate human cognition, deepening understanding continuously. Our dogmatists err in that they do not grasp the necessity of studying the specificity of contradictions to fully understand their universality and the common essence of various phenomena. They also fail to recognize that after grasping the common essence, further investigation of newly appearing or underexplored specific phenomena is crucial. Dogmatists tend to shirk hard work on concrete investigations, viewing universal truths as abstract formulas that emerge out of thin air, completely ignoring and distorting the normal order of discovering truths in human cognition. They do not comprehend the interconnection between the two cognitive processes—moving from the specific to the general and then back again—demonstrating their misunderstanding of Marxist epistemology.

Importance of Specific Contradictions

It is essential to examine not only the specific contradictions and their designated essences within each large system of material motion but also to study the specific contradictions and essences during every process of development of each form of motion. Each actual development process in any form of motion is qualitatively distinct. Our research must emphasize this point and start from it.

Different qualitative contradictions can only be resolved through methods that are correspondingly distinct. For instance, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is resolved using methods of socialist revolution; the contradiction between the masses and feudalism is addressed through democratic revolution; the contradiction between colonies and imperialism is confronted via national revolutionary war; in a socialist society, the contradiction between the working class and the peasantry requires agricultural collectivization and mechanization as solutions; contradictions within the Communist Party should be resolved through criticism and self-criticism; and contradictions between society and nature may be addressed through the development of productive forces. As processes change, old processes and contradictions dissolve while new ones emerge, necessitating different methods of resolution.

The contradictions addressed by the February and October Revolutions in Russia, along with the methods used to resolve them, are fundamentally distinct. It is a principle that Marxist-Leninists must strictly adhere to: different contradictions require different methods of resolution. Dogmatists fail to adhere to this principle, misunderstanding the differences in revolutionary situations and consequently the necessity for varied approaches to resolve differing contradictions. They apply a one-size-fits-all formula indiscriminately, which can lead to setbacks in revolution or worsen initially successful endeavors.

To articulate the uniqueness of contradictions within the developmental processes of phenomena as a whole and in their interconnections—unveiling the essence of these processes—it is imperative to expose the specificities of contradictions in each aspect. Otherwise, revealing the essence of the processes becomes impossible, and this is something we must pay particular attention to during our research.

Specificity of Contradictions in the Development of Large Entities

A significant phenomenon or entity contains numerous contradictions throughout its developmental process. For instance, during the Chinese bourgeois democratic revolution, there exist contradictions between various oppressed classes in Chinese society and imperialism, contradictions between the masses and the feudal system, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between peasants and the urban petty bourgeoisie, and contradictions among various reactionary ruling groups. The situation is highly complex. Each of these contradictions has its own specificity and should not be viewed uniformly. Furthermore, each aspect of every contradiction possesses unique characteristics that also warrant individual consideration.

As those engaged in the Chinese revolution, we must not only grasp the overall interconnectedness of these contradictions but also realize their specificities. Understanding the various aspects of contradictions means analyzing what distinct position each side occupies, the specific forms they take in their interdependent yet contradictory relationships, and the methods each side employs in their struggles with one another after these interdependencies break down. Studying these issues is crucial. Lenin stated that the essence of Marxism—the living soul of Marxism—lies in the specific analysis of concrete situations. This admonition underscores the importance of detailed analysis. However, our dogmatists often ignore Lenin's guidance, failing to analyze things concretely and instead resorting to vague, formulaic discussions that have fostered a detrimental culture within our Party.

The Dangers of Subjectivity, One-Sidedness, and Superficiality

In tackling problems, we must avoid subjectivity, one-sidedness, and superficiality. Subjectivity refers to the failure to view problems objectively, meaning not applying a materialist perspective to examine issues. I have addressed this in my article "On Practice." One-sidedness means failing to comprehend the full scope of a problem. For example, understanding only the Chinese perspective without considering the Japanese viewpoint, or only the Communist side without acknowledging the Kuomintang, or just the proletariat's stance without recognizing that of the bourgeoisie, or focusing solely on peasants while disregarding landlords—all illustrate one-sided views.

Superficiality manifests as neglecting both the overall nature of contradictions and the characteristics of each side. It involves an insistence on merely observing and superficially understanding a contradiction without thoroughly exploring the intricate aspects necessary to address it, whether that means resolving issues, answering questions, managing tasks, or commanding military operations. Such approaches inevitably lead to problems. Sun Tzu emphasized, “Know your enemy and know yourself, and you will never lose in a hundred battles.” This refers to both sides in a conflict. Wei Zheng from the Tang Dynasty stated, “Hearing all sides makes one clear; believing one side alone makes things dark.” Our comrades frequently approach problems with one-sided views, which often leads to failure.

An example includes Song Jiang's three attacks on Zhu Jia Zhuang in "Water Margin," where his initial two defeats stemmed from misunderstanding the situation and employing ineffective strategies. Eventually, he adapted his tactics by conducting thorough reconnaissance, allowing him to dismantle alliances and ultimately achieve victory in his third attempt. This episode serves as a prime illustration of dialectical materialism.

Lenin stated: "To truly understand an object, one must grasp and study all its aspects, all connections, and the 'medium' involved." While we may not fully achieve this, striving for comprehensiveness can help prevent errors and rigidity. We should heed his advice.

The Importance of Understanding Developmental Stages

Moreover, it is essential to observe not only the interconnectedness of contradictions during the entire course of development but also the specifics at various stages of that development. The fundamental contradiction that defines the essence of a process will not disappear until the process concludes. However, different stages within a long developmental process often exhibit unique characteristics due to the nature of the fundamental contradiction's expression.

Although the essence of the fundamental contradiction does not change, its manifestation may evolve, often intensifying over time. Various smaller contradictions that are influenced by or associated with the fundamental contradiction also exhibit differing intensities—some may escalate, others may be temporarily or partially resolved, while some may re-emerge. This creates a sense of phase within the process. If people overlook the phases of development within contradictions, they might struggle to manage them appropriately.

For example, the transition from free competition capitalism to imperialism did not alter the intrinsic nature of the two fundamentally opposing classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—nor the essence of capitalist society itself. However, the contradictions between these two classes intensified, producing new contradictions between monopolistic and free capital, as well as heightened conflicts between colonial powers and colonies. The acute contradictions arising from the imbalances in the development of various capitalist countries created a unique phase known as imperialism.

Leninism emerged during the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution because Lenin and Stalin accurately diagnosed these contradictions and developed the revolutionary theory and strategy necessary for addressing them.

Applying this framework to the process of the Chinese bourgeois democratic revolution that began with the Xinhai Revolution, we encounter several specific stages. Notably, the phase under bourgeois leadership differs significantly from that under proletarian leadership. Due to the latter's guidance, the nature of the revolution transformed fundamentally, altering class relations, mobilizing the peasantry, and potentially transitioning from democratic to socialist revolution—changes that were impossible under bourgeois leadership.

Even though the intrinsic nature of the fundamental contradictions and the democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism remained unchanged, the lengthy timeline saw shifts, including the failure of the Xinhai Revolution, the dominance of warlords, the establishment of the first United Front, the revolution from 1924 to 1927, the disintegration of this front, the bourgeois reaction, new warlord conflicts, the land reform revolution, and the second United Front during the Anti-Japanese War. Throughout 20 years and several developmental stages, contradictions intensified in some areas (e.g., during the land reform and Japanese invasion of Northeast China), partially or temporarily resolved in others (e.g., the downfall of warlords and requisitioned landlord property), and re-emerged in new forms (e.g., battles among new warlords and land reclamation following the loss of revolutionary bases in the south).

Thus, analyzing the specificity of contradictions in various developmental stages not only requires viewing their interconnectedness and overall implications but also demands an examination of all aspects of contradictions at each stage.

For example, consider the two political parties in China: the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. During the First United Front period, the Kuomintang implemented Sun Yat-sen's three major policies: uniting with the Soviet Union, cooperating with the Communists, and supporting the working class and peasants. As a result, it emerged as a revolutionary and dynamic force, forming a coalition for the democratic revolution among various classes. However, post-1927, the Kuomintang shifted towards becoming a reactionary group aligned with landlords and the bourgeoisie. Following the Xi'an Incident in December 1936, it began to pivot once again, aiming to halt the civil war and unite with the Communist Party against Japanese imperialism. This illustrates three distinct stages in the Kuomintang's evolution, each shaped by various factors.

In contrast, during the First United Front period, the Communist Party was still in its infancy. It heroically led the revolution from 1924 to 1927 but exhibited a certain immaturity in its understanding of the nature, tasks, and methods of the revolution. This led to the rise of Chen Duxiu's errors, causing setbacks during the latter part of the revolution. After 1927, it valiantly led the land reform revolution, establishing revolutionary armies and bases, but it also made adventurist mistakes that resulted in significant losses. By 1935, it corrected these errors and took the lead in the newly formed Anti-Japanese United Front, and this great struggle is currently ongoing. At this stage, the Communist Party stood as a matured party, having undergone tests through two revolutions. These characteristics were shaped by diverse factors.

Failing to study these specificities prevents an understanding of the unique interrelations between the two parties across their developmental phases: the establishment of the united front, its subsequent collapse, and the formation of another united front. To comprehensively analyze the characteristics of both parties, it is crucial to investigate their class bases and the contradictions formed in different periods.

For instance, during its first collaboration with the Communists, the Kuomintang faced contradictions with foreign imperialists as it opposed imperialism. However, it also had contradictions with the domestic masses; although it verbally promised many benefits to the working class, in practice, it delivered little to none. During its anti-communist campaign, the Kuomintang cooperated with imperialism and feudalism against the people, negating all the gains that the masses had fought for during the revolution, thus intensifying the contradictions with the populace.

Currently, during the Anti-Japanese period, there are contradictions between the Kuomintang and Japanese imperialism; while it seeks to unite with the Communists, it simultaneously continues its struggle against the Communists and the domestic populace. The Communist Party, regardless of the period, stands with the masses against both imperialism and feudalism. However, during the Anti-Japanese period, as the Kuomintang expresses a stance against Japan, the Communists adopt a more conciliatory approach towards the Kuomintang and domestic feudal forces.

These dynamics may lead to either cooperation or conflict between the two parties, and even during unification, complex scenarios of both cooperation and struggle emerge. Without studying the characteristics of these contradictions, we cannot comprehend the relationships between the two parties and the broader context.

The Significance of Concrete Analysis

It is clear that, regardless of the type of contradiction being analyzed—whether it be contradictions among various forms of material motion, the contradictions within individual movements during their development, the various aspects of contradictions within broader processes, or the specific characteristics of contradictions existing at each stage of development—our approach must avoid arbitrary subjectivity. We must conduct concrete analysis. Without such specific examination, we cannot adequately understand any contradictions. We must constantly remember Lenin's advice: conduct specific analyses of concrete phenomena.

This concrete analysis was first well established by Marx and Engels. When applying the law of contradictions to the study of social history, they identified the contradictions between productive forces and relations, the conflicts between exploiters and the exploited, and the inherent contradictions between the economic base and the political and ideological superstructures arising from these conflicts. They demonstrated how these contradictions inevitably lead to various social revolutions across different class societies.

For instance, when examining the economic structure of capitalist societies, Marx revealed that the fundamental contradiction lies between the social nature of production and the private ownership of the means of production. This contradiction manifests in the disparity between organized production within individual enterprises and the disorganization of production in society as a whole, with class conflict arising between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

Due to the vast scope of phenomena and the infinite nature of their development, what is universal in one context may become specific in another, and vice versa. The contradiction between socialized production and private ownership of means of production inherent in capitalism is a universal characteristic shared by all countries with capitalist systems; for capitalism, this denotes the universality of contradictions. Conversely, this contradiction represents a specific characteristic of class society at a certain historical stage when discussing the broader dynamics of productive forces and relations.

After Marx dissected the particularities of contradictions within capitalist society, he further elucidated the generality of contradictions in class societies, particularly in terms of the relationship between productive forces and relations.

Since specific entities are interconnected with universal ones, and since each entity contains not only the specifics of contradictions but also their universal aspects, we must uncover these two dimensions and their interconnection when studying a given phenomenon. In his renowned work "On the Foundations of Leninism," Stalin analyzed the historical roots of Leninism by examining the international context that produced it. He dissected the extreme contradictions within capitalism under imperialism, elucidating how these contradictions created conditions favorable for the direct practice of proletarian revolution.

Moreover, he explored why Russia became the birthplace of Leninism, identifying the Russian Empire as a convergence point for all imperialist contradictions and explaining how the Russian proletariat could become the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. Through this analysis, Stalin elucidated both the universality of imperialist contradictions and the specific characteristics of Russian imperialism, thereby illustrating Russia's role as the home of revolutionary theory and strategy. Such a comprehensive analysis serves as an ideal model for understanding both the specificity and universality of contradictions and their interrelations.

Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin and Stalin, always guided people not to bring any subjective arbitrariness into the application of dialectics in the study of objective phenomena. Instead, one must look at the specific contradictions within these phenomena, the specific positions of each aspect of the contradictions, and the specific interrelations of these contradictions based on the concrete conditions contained within the actual movement. Our doctrinaires lack this research attitude, which results in their ineffectiveness. We must learn from the failure of dogmatism and adopt this research attitude; there is no other method of study.

The relationship between the universality and specificity of contradictions is the relationship between the commonality and individuality of contradictions. The commonality signifies that contradictions exist in all processes and run throughout the entirety of these processes; contradictions are motion, they are things, they are processes, and they are thoughts. To deny the contradictions of things is to deny everything. This is a universal principle that holds true across all times and cultures. Hence, it is common and absolute. However, this commonality is contained within every individuality; without individuality, there can be no commonality. If all individuality is removed, what commonality remains? Each contradiction is unique, thus leading to individuality. All individualities exist conditionally and temporarily, making them relative.

This principle of commonality and individuality, absolute and relative, is the essence of the question of contradictions in things. Not understanding it is equivalent to abandoning dialectics.

Major Contradictions and Aspects of Major Contradictions

In the discussion of the specificity of contradictions, there are two situations that must be particularly analyzed: major contradictions and aspects of major contradictions. In the development of complex phenomena, many contradictions exist, among which one is the primary contradiction, as its existence and development dictate or influence the existence and development of other contradictions.

For example, in capitalist society, the conflicting forces of the proletariat and bourgeoisie represent the primary contradiction. Other contradictory forces, such as the remnants of the feudal class versus the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie versus the bourgeoisie, the proletariat versus the petty bourgeoisie, the freedom-loving bourgeoisie versus the monopoly bourgeoisie, the contradiction between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois fascism, the contradictions among capitalist countries, the contradictions between imperialism and colonies, along with numerous other contradictions, are all governed and influenced by this primary contradiction.

In semi-colonial countries like China, the relationship between the primary contradictions and secondary contradictions presents a complex situation. When imperialism conducts wars of aggression against such countries, the various classes within these nations can temporarily unite, excluding a few traitors, to wage a national war against imperialism. In this case, the contradiction between imperialism and these countries becomes the primary contradiction, while all internal class contradictions (including the primary contradiction between feudalism and the masses) temporarily take a secondary and subordinated position. Events such as the Opium War of 1840, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894, the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, and the current Sino-Japanese War illustrate this situation.

However, in another scenario, the position of contradictions changes. When imperialism exerts pressure through political, economic, cultural, and other relatively mild forms rather than through warfare, the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries may capitulate to imperialism, forming an alliance to jointly oppress the masses. In such cases, the masses often take the form of domestic conflict to oppose the alliance of imperialism and the feudal class, while imperialism tends to support the reactionaries in the semi-colonial countries indirectly, showing the acute nature of internal contradictions. The Xinhai Revolution, the revolutionary wars from 1924 to 1927, and the land reform wars after 1927 all exemplify this scenario. Additionally, the internal wars among various reactionary ruling groups, such as the warlord conflicts in China, also belong to this category.

As domestic revolutionary wars develop to fundamentally threaten the existence of imperialism and its domestic reactionary allies, imperialism often resorts to methods other than those mentioned above to maintain its control, either by splitting the revolutionary front from within or by directly sending troops to support the domestic reactionaries. At this point, foreign imperialism and domestic reactionaries openly stand on one extreme, while the masses stand on the opposite extreme, forming a primary contradiction that dictates or influences the development status of other contradictions. An example of armed intervention is the support provided by various capitalist countries to the Russian reactionaries after the October Revolution. The betrayal by Chiang Kai-shek in 1927 serves as an example of splitting the revolutionary front.

Nevertheless, throughout the various stages of developmental processes, there is undoubtedly always one primary contradiction playing a leading role.

From this, it’s clear that if a process contains multiple contradictions, one of them must be the primary one, performing a leading and decisive role, while the others remain secondary or subordinate. Therefore, in researching any process that exhibits complex contradictions, it is essential to identify its primary contradiction. Once this major contradiction is grasped, all issues become solvable. This approach is what Marx taught us in the study of capitalist society. Lenin and Stalin also advocated this methodology while studying the crises of imperialism and capitalism as well as the Soviet economy. Countless scholars and practitioners who fail to understand this method find themselves lost, unable to pinpoint the center or discover solutions to contradictions.

It is imperative not to treat all contradictions equally within a process. They must be distinguished as primary and secondary, emphasizing the identification of the primary contradiction, as mentioned above. However, among all contradictions, whether primary or secondary, can the opposing aspects be seen as equal? They cannot. Regardless of any contradiction, the development of its various aspects is unbalanced. Sometimes it may appear that both sides are evenly matched, but this is only a temporary and relative condition; the fundamental state is one of imbalance. Among the opposing aspects of any contradiction, there must always be one that is primary and another that is secondary. The primary aspect is the one that plays a dominant role in the contradiction. The nature of things is primarily determined by the dominant aspect of the primary contradiction.

However, this situation is not fixed; the primary and secondary aspects of contradictions mutually transform. The nature of things changes accordingly. At a certain stage of contradiction development, the primary aspect may belong to one side, while the secondary aspect belongs to the other. In another stage of development, their positions may reverse, depending on the fluctuation of the strengths of the opposing sides in the ongoing struggle.

We often refer to the phrase "metabolism." Metabolism is a universal, ever-unresisting law in the universe. According to the inherent nature and conditions of things, through various forms of leaps, one thing transforms into another; this is the process of metabolism. Every thing contains its internal contradictions between the old and new aspects, forming a series of intricate struggles. As a result of this struggle, the new aspect grows larger and ascends to a dominant position, while the old aspect diminishes and gradually heads towards extinction. Once the new aspect acquires dominance over the old aspect, the nature of the old thing changes to that of the new one. Thus, it can be seen that the nature of things is primarily determined by the dominant aspect of the primary contradiction. When the primary aspect of the dominant contradiction changes, the nature of the thing also changes.

In capitalist societies, capitalism has transformed from a subordinate position in the old feudal society into a dominant force, leading to a change in the nature of society from feudalism to capitalism. In the new era of capitalist society, feudal forces transition from being dominant to subordinate, gradually moving towards extinction, as seen in countries like Britain and France. As productive forces advance, the bourgeoisie evolves from a new progressive class to an old reactionary class, ultimately being overthrown by the proletariat and transitioning into a class stripped of private means of production and lost power, also moving towards extinction. The proletariat, which vastly outnumbers the bourgeoisie and has grown alongside it while being oppressed, is a new force that, starting from a subordinate status, gradually strengthens to become an independent and historically leading class, ultimately seizing power and becoming the ruling class. At this moment, the nature of society transforms from the old capitalist society to a new socialist society. This is the path that the Soviet Union has traversed and that all other nations must inevitably follow.

In the case of China, imperialism occupies the primary position in the formation of semi-colonial contradictions, oppressing the Chinese people, thus transforming China from an independent nation into a semi-colonial state. However, circumstances are bound to change. In the struggle between the two sides, the forces that arise under the leadership of the proletariat will inevitably transform China from a semi-colonial state back into an independent nation, while imperialism will be overthrown, and old China will inevitably evolve into new China.

The transition from old China to new China also involves changes in the relationship between the old feudal forces and the new people's forces within the country. The old feudal landlord class will be overthrown and transformed from rulers into the ruled, gradually moving towards extinction. The people, under the leadership of the proletariat, will change from being ruled to becoming the rulers. At this point, the nature of Chinese society will change from the old semi-colonial and semi-feudal society to a new democratic society.

This kind of mutual transformation is supported by past experiences. The Qing Dynasty, which ruled China for nearly three hundred years, was overthrown during the Xinhai Revolution. The Revolutionary Alliance led by Sun Yat-sen achieved a victory at one point. During the revolutionary wars from 1924 to 1927, the united revolutionary forces of the Communist Party and the Nationalist Party transformed from a weak force into a powerful one, successfully executing the Northern Expedition, while the once-dominant warlords were defeated. In 1927, however, the people’s forces led by the Communist Party were severely impacted by the reactionary forces of the Nationalist Party and diminished considerably; nonetheless, after purging internal opportunism, they gradually grew stronger again. In the revolutionary bases led by the Communist Party, the peasants transformed from being ruled to becoming rulers, while the landlords experienced the opposite transformation. The world always follows the pattern of new replacing old, continuously undergoing metabolism, eliminating the old and bringing forth the new.

At certain times in the revolutionary struggle, difficult conditions often outweigh favorable ones. In such instances, difficulties become the primary aspect of the contradiction, while ease becomes the secondary aspect. However, through the efforts of revolutionaries, difficulties can gradually be overcome, leading to the emergence of favorable new situations, where difficulties yield to favorable conditions. The post-1927 situation of the Chinese revolution and the circumstances of the Red Army during the Long March exemplify this. Currently, during the Sino-Japanese War, China finds itself in a difficult position, but we can change this situation and fundamentally alter the conditions for both sides. Conversely, favorable conditions can also transform into difficulties if mistakes are made by the revolutionaries. The victories of the revolution from 1924 to 1927 turned into failures after 1927, and the revolutionary bases that developed in southern provinces were also defeated by 1934.

In studying theoretical knowledge, a similar contradiction exists between ignorance and knowledge. When we first began studying Marxism, the contradiction between our ignorance or limited understanding of Marxism and the knowledge of Marxism was evident. However, through diligent study, we can transform ignorance into knowledge and limited understanding into profound comprehension, shifting from a blind adherence to the ability to freely apply Marxism.

Some may feel that certain contradictions do not operate this way. For instance, in the contradiction between productive forces and productive relations, the productive forces are considered primary; in the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is primary; and in the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is primary. Their positions do not transform into one another. This perspective reflects mechanical materialism, not dialectical materialism. Indeed, productive forces, practice, and economic base typically exhibit a decisive primary role—anyone who denies this is not a materialist. However, under certain conditions, aspects like productive relations, theory, and the superstructure may also assume the decisive primary role. For instance, when productive relations must change for the productive forces to develop, the alteration of productive relations then has a primary determining effect. As Lenin stated, “Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement,” which means that the establishment and advocacy of revolutionary theory assume a primary and decisive role when certain actions (any actions) lack guidelines, methods, plans, or policies. When the political and cultural superstructure obstructs the development of the economic base, reforms in politics and culture become the primary determining factor. Is this perspective incompatible with materialism? No, it is not. We acknowledge that in the general historical development, material things determine spiritual matters, and social existence determines social consciousness; but we also recognize and must acknowledge the reciprocal action of spiritual matters—the effect of social consciousness on social existence and the influence of the superstructure on the economic base. This recognition does not contradict materialism; rather, it avoids mechanical materialism and adheres to dialectical materialism.

In studying the specificity of contradictions, if we do not analyze the primary and secondary contradictions and the primary and non-primary aspects of contradictions, meaning we fail to examine the differences between these two types of contradictions, we will be caught in abstract research and unable to comprehend the specific situation of contradictions, thus hindering our ability to identify correct solutions for them. The difference or specificity between these two types of contradictions reflects the imbalance of contradictory forces. There is nothing in the world that develops absolutely in balance; we must oppose balance theories or equilibrium theories. Simultaneously, this specific situation of contradictions and the changes in the primary and non-primary aspects throughout the developmental process illustrate the forces that enable new things to replace old ones. Studying the various forms of imbalance in contradictions and the relationships of primary and non-primary contradictions, as well as primary and non-primary aspects of contradictions, becomes one of the important methods for revolutionary parties to correctly determine their political and military strategies and tactics, something all Communists must pay attention to.