76

[introduction.]

p We saw that the process of development is the passage of an old quality into a new quality at a definite stage of quantitative modification.

But what is the motive force, the source, of all development? A most important task of materialist dialectics is to answer that question. The starting-point for its answer is the contradictory nature of reality itself.

A Note on the History of Dialectics

p Even in ancient times people noticed that opposed properties, forces and tendencies were clearly evident and played a very important part in the infinite diversity of the external world. They noticed, furthermore, that opposites not only coexisted side by side, but that they were interconnected and that they arose in one and the same object or phenomenon, that they constituted different sides of a single thing or process.

p Many philosophers of ancient China, India, Greece and other countries held that the origin and existence of things could only be explained by understanding what opposites went to form them. In those times, hot and cold, dry and moist, empty and full, being and non-being, etc., were thought to be such opposites.

p The notion that the collision of opposites was the motive force in change was expressed already in antiquity. Thus, the ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, taught that "everything happens through struggle”, that struggle is the source—the “father”—of all things. The ancient dialecticians also noticed that opposites are not something ossified and immutable, that they are relative, that they differ from each other only in a certain sense, and that in certain circumstances one passes into the other, and vice versa. These were essentially brilliant conjectures, although often expressed in a naive form.

p In feudal society, where the Church persecuted all independent study of nature, the idea of the unity and struggle of opposites faded 77 into oblivion. At the time of the emergence of capitalist society the question of opposites again attracted attention. Such outstanding thinkers as N. Kuzansky (IfHh century) and Giordano Bruno (Kith century) taught that where the ordinary mind sees only irreconcilable opposites (the infinite and the finite, the crooked and the straight, etc.), a more profound mind detects the unity or the "coincidence of opposites”.

p Mechanistic natural science, which prevailed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, did not favour the development of dialectics and, in particular, the doctrine of opposites. However, even at that time penetrating thinkers who observed the events and relations of the pre-revolutionary epoch, which was full of acute conflicts and collisions, voiced far-reaching thoughts about the significance of opposites in social life and history. (See, for example, Diderot’s Rameau’s Nephew or Rousseau’s The Origin and the Reasons of Inequality.)

p The significance of opposites attracted the attention of a number of German philosophers at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the- nineteenth century, while with Hegel it became one of tho basic principles of his philosophy. Hegel conceived the process of development as movement from a unity through the disclosure of opposites to a new unity, as the passing of a thing or phenomenon into its opposite. He called the combination of opposite aspects in a phenomenon its “contradiction”. But being an idealist, he regarded the contradictions of reality as contradictions in the logical development of the absolute idea.

The founders of Marxism, who remodelled Hegel’s dialectics materialistically, preserved the term “contradiction”, but gave it a different, materialist meaning.

Dialectical Contradiction and Its Universal Character

p By a dialectical contradiction Marxism understands the presence in a phenomenon or process of opposite, mutually exclusive aspects which, at the same time, presuppose each other and within the framework of the given phenomenon exist only in mutual connection.

p For the ancient dialecticians, the doctrine of opposites and their “coincidence” was no more than a conjecture made on the basis of the immediate perception of reality, and thinking about it. For Marxist dialectics it is a conclusion from the facts accumulated by science as the result of investigating all fields of reality.

p Indeed, the study of the phenomena of nature, social relations or man’s mental activity reveals contradictions, i. e., conflicts of opposed aspects or tendencies.

p It stands to reason that so long as we examine a thing at rest, in a static state, we see in it merely different properties and features, and may overlook the “struggle” of opposites and, consequently, 78 fail to see any contradictions. But as soon as we try to follow the movement, the modification, the development of a thing, we instantly discover the existence in it of opposed aspects and processes.

p For example, when examining a prepared slide of a plant or animal cell under the microscope, we see no more than its structure, i. e., the cell wall, the nucleus, the protoplasm, etc. But if we observe a living cell, we shall see taking place in it the opposed processes of assimilation and dissimilation, the growth and dying away of its component parts.

p Opposites and contradictions are encountered in all fields of science. Mathematics deals with the opposed operations of addition and subtraction, differentiation and integration; mechanics with action and reaction, attraction and repulsion; physics with positive and negative electric charges; chemistry with the combination and dissociation of atoms; the physiology of the nervous system with excitation and inhibition in the cerebral cortex; and social science with the class struggle and many other opposites and, consequently, contradictions.

Human thought and cognition are also governed by the principle of dialectical contradiction. In the process of cognition, for example, we observe continuous conflicts of opposite views, contradictions between old theories and new facts, etc.

Development as the Struggle of Opposites

p The concept of contradiction is of crucial importance in analysing the process of development. In nature, social life and human thought, development proceeds in such a way that opposite, mutually exclusive sides or tendencies reveal themselves in an object; they enter into a “struggle”, which culminates in the destruction of the old forms and the emergence of new ones. Such is the law of development. "Development is the ‘struggle’of opposites,"^^28^^ wrote Lenin.

p It stands to reason that this proposition must not be understood too simply. The struggle of opposites in the direct, literal sense of the word occurs chiefly in human society. It is by no means always possible to speak of struggle in its literal sense as regards the organic world. And as regards inorganic nature the term is to be understood still less literally. That is why Lenin puts the term in quotation marks. These qualifications are necessary for a correct idea of the struggle of opposites.

p The division of a unity into opposites and the mutual counteraction or “struggle” of these opposites is the most fundamental and universal law of dialectics. As Lenin emphasises, the division oE unity and the cognition of its contradictory parts is one of the most fundamental features of dialectics, it is indeed "the essence of. dialectics”.^^29^^

79

p All development, whether the evolution of the stars, "the growth of a plant, the life of a man or the history of society, is contradictory in its essence. In fact, development in its most general sense signifies that at any given moment a thing retains its identity and at the same time ceases to retain it. Its definiteness remains, but at the same time it changes and becomes different.

p “There is a contradiction in a thing remaining the same and yet constantly changing, being possessed of the antithesis of ‘inertness’ and ‘change’,” Engels wrote. ^^30^^ A developing thing has within it the embryo of something else. It contains within itself its own antithesis, a “negating” element which prevents it from remaining inert and immutable. It contains an objective contradiction; opposite tendencies operate within it and a mutual counteraction or “struggle” of opposite forces or sides takes place, leading eventually to the resolution of the contradiction, to a radical, qualitative change of the thing.

p For many thousands of years the organic species which existed in, say, the so-called Tertiary period of the earth’s geological history remained unchanged and their forms were constant. But this constancy was relative. Changes accumulated in the organisms in the course of interaction with the changing environment. These changes were transmitted hereditarily and led ultimately to the origin of entirely new species of plants and animals. The constant interaction, or “struggle”, within each species between the antithetical tendencies of heredity and variability forms the inner basis of the evolution of the organic world.

p It follows that the stability of a thing, which presupposes a certain balance or equilibrium of opposites, can only be temporary and relative. Only the motion of matter, which continuously rejects old forms and gives rise to new ones, is eternal and absolute. In formulating this crucial proposition of dialectics, Lenin wrote:

p “The unity of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.”^^31^^

p The dialectical conception of development as the unity and struggle of opposites is opposed to the metaphysical conception. As Lenin stressed, one of the principal defects of the metaphysical conception of development was that it overlooked the internal motive force of the development of matter, that it ignored self-movement and considered the source of development to be external. In the final analysis, God was this external source which imparted motion to matter, but was itself outside matter. The metaphysical conception not only advanced a one-sided, and therefore distorted, notion of development, but led to fideistic conclusions, i.e., the recognition of a divine principle, arid, therefore, to the betrayal of science.

The dialectical conception of development is profound and full of meaning. "It alone furnishes the key to the ‘leaps’, to the ‘break 80 in continuity, to the ’transformation inlo the opposite’, to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.” According to this conception, Lenin wrote, "it is to knowledge of the source of ’s e I /’-movement that attention is chiefly directed".^^32^^ Since, it sees in the internal contradictoritiess of all things and phenomena the key to the comprehension of self-movement and development, the dialectical conception of development does not require any supernatural source of motion. It rejects the intervention of “ transcendental” forces in the life of nature, and therefore remains loyal to science.

Contradiction Is Always Concrete

p The above description of development as a struggle of opposiles is, of course, very general. It is applicable to every process of development and is therefore in itself inadequate for explaining any particular one, because there are no such things as opposites "in general”; opposites are always concrete and definite.

p Each thing or phenomenon contains innumerable interacting aspects. Moreover, each phenomenon is connected with the things and processes that surround it. This is why diverse external and internal contradictions can be found in all phenomena. In order to understand the development of a phenomenon, one must find out which is the principal, determining contradiction in the given process, what concrete opposites interact within it, what form their “struggle” assumes, and what role in that “struggle” is played by one aspect or another of the contradiction.

p The contradictions inherent in a phenomenon are not immutable and eternal. Like everything else in the world, they arise, develop and are finally resolved, causing a transition from the old qualitative state to a new one.

p In all cases, when studying the process of development, it is essential to make a concrete analysis of the forms assumed by the struggling opposites and of the stages passed through by the developing contradiction.

p The higher the stage reached by mailer in its development—-’ from inorganic nature through the organic world to human society— the more complex and ramified the process of development becomes. I n this process the struggle of such opposites as new and old becomes more and more important, and the differentiation and antithesis of the “revolutionary” and “conservative” aspects in the developing phenomenon become progressively sharper. Here too, of course, contradictions are not confined to the struggle of new and old, but in the final count it is this struggle—in the course of which the new overcomes the resistance of the old and asserts itself in life while the old, which has outlived its time, perishes—that determines the character of development.

81

The dialectical teaching of development focusses the investigator’s attention on a concrete analysis of the opposing tendencies disclosed in each phenomenon and demands active support for what is new, growing and progressive.

Antagonistic and Non-Antagonistic Contradictions

p In relation to social life, it is important to distinguish between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions.

p Contradictions between social groups or classes whose basic interests are irreconcilable are called antagonistic. Such are the contradictions between oppressors and oppressed, exploiters and exploited. In our time this applies above all to the contradictions between the working class and the capitalists. These will not disappear until the capitalist class has been deprived either by peaceful or non-peaceful means of political power and of the means of production, and thereby of the very possibility of exploiting working people. This can only take place through a socialist revolution.

p In politics, in practical activities, it is very important to bear in mind the antagonistic nature of the basic class contradictions in an exploiting society. To deny it leads inevitably to reformist mistakes. Opportunists and revisionists, for example, do not recognise the antagonistic character of the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the working class, and because of this advocate the reconciliation of classes. But such a policy is mistaken and harmful. It weakens the position of the working class and undermines the struggle of the working people for emancipation.

p Antagonistic contradictions are a historical phenomenon. They are engendered by an exploiting society and exist as long as this society exists.

p When the exploitation of man by man comes to an end, antagonistic contradictions gradually disappear as well. But this does not mean that no contradictions of any kind remain under socialism. "Antagonism and contradiction are by no means the same thing,” Lenin wrote. "Under socialism the first will disappear and the second will remain.” ’^^3^^

p Non-antagonistic contradictions will remain after the survivals of class distinctions are removed. For contradictions arise in society not only between classes, but also between different aspects of social life, for instance between production and consumption, between different sectors of the economy, between the requirements for development of the productive forces and the existing forms of economic management, etc. That is why there is nothing abnormal about the dialectical contradictions that arise in life.

p True, contradictions often involve anxieties and difficulties in life, work and struggle. Much energy has to be devoted to surmounting 82 them. But there is no advance without contradictions, without the struggle to resolve them.

p The principal place among social contradictions is held by the contradictions between the forces that fight for the new and those that defend the old. It is evident that there can be no development without the birth of the new and without its assertion in life, without struggle for the new. The coming into being of some phenomena and the obsolescence of others, contradictions and conflicts between them, and the triumph of the new over the old, are objective, regular features of social development.

p In the struggle to resolve contradictions, people tear down outmoded institutions and relations, overcome inertia and routine and rise to face now, more complex problems and attain more perfect forms of social life.

p What are the concrete contradictions occurring under socialism? "They are, in the main,” N. S. Khrushchov points out, " contradictions and difficulties connected with the rapid progress of socialist economy, with the growth of the material and cultural requirements of the people, contradictions between the old and the new, between the advanced and the backward.”^^34^^

The contradictions of socialist society are overcome by the working people under the leadership of the Marxist-Leninist Party through the rapid and continuous development of its material and technical resources and the further development of the economic system, and through improving administrative forms and promoting the socialist consciousness of the working people. The resolution of these contradictions leads to the further consolidation of the socialist system and advances society towards communism.

Bourgeois Ideologists Distort Dialectics

p In their efforts to refute materialist dialectics, many opponents of Marxism attack primarily the dialectical theory of contradictions. Most often they maintain that contradictions are always the result of logical inconsistency in thinking and that there cannot be any contradictions in reality itself.

p This “criticism” of the dialectical law of the unity and struggle of opposites is altogether baseless. In speaking of “contradictions”, materialist dialectics is concerned primarily with the contradictions existing in objective reality. These, of course, must be distinguished from contradictions that arise from inconsistent thinking and confused ideas.

p Contradictions due to incorrect thinking should not be confused with the objective contradictions existing in objective things. Although the word “contradiction” is the same in both cases, it means different things.

83

p The opponents of Marxism resort to yet another method of combating materialist dialectics.

p One of the most reactionary trends of idealist philosophy— neoHegelianism—became widespread in a number of capitalist countries after the First World War and has not lost influence to this day. Its followers distorted Hegel’s idealist dialectics, threw aside everything that was really valuable in it and tried to use it in combating Marxist philosophy for a sophistical  [83•*  justification of antiscientific and politically reactionary ideas.

p In particular, some rieo-Hegclians began to assert that the nature of life is such that it is inevitably marked by antagonisms, acute conflicts and tragic clashes, and that owing to the "tragic dialectics" of human life people will never be able to surmount the eternal contradictions that afflict society, that they will never be able to build their life on a rational and just foundation.

p These philosophers declare that the effort of the workers to replace the capitalist system with its contradictions by a socialist system pursues the unrealisable aim of putting an end to the dialectical development of society.

p By interpreting contradictions in this way these bourgeois philosophers seek to perpetuate capitalism and at the same time to discredit the working-class struggle for communism.

Every concrete form of contradictions, including social contradictions, is indeed resolved in the long run. The triumph of socialism in the U.S.S.B. and other countries proves conclusively that the contradictions inherent in capitalism are not eternal, just as capitalism itself is not eternal, and that these contradictions can be overcome.