92

p The Chinese philosophical review Chieh-hsiich yan-chiu describes Mao Tse-tung’s “contribution” to materialist dialectics as follows: "Comrade Mao Tse-tung said that the law of the unity and struggle of opposites is the basic law of the world. Developing Lenin’s teaching on the essence of dialectics, Mao Tse-tung proved that the law of the unity and struggle of opposites is the basic law of materialist dialectics. Mao Tse-tung showed the inner relationship between the law of the unity and struggle of opposites and other laws of dialectical materialism. By creatively and comprehensively revealing the essence of the law of the unity and struggle of opposites, Comrade Mao Tse-tung raised the Marxist- Leninist doctrine to a new level. This is Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s great contribution to Marxist-Leninist philosophy.”  [92•1  The article goes on to declare the Maoist “dialectics” an instrument of cognition of the world and of revolutionary struggle.

p The Maoist claim that Mao was the first to point to the law of the unity and struggle of opposites as the basic law of materialist dialectics is completely unfounded. It is well known that Lenin repeatedly insisted on this point, as for example in the following statement. "In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.”  [92•2  "The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts... is the essence (one of the “essentials”, one of the principal, if not the principal 93 characteristics or features) of dialectics.”  [93•1  This idea was to be found in Soviet philosophy manuals of the early thirties.  [93•2 

p The Maoist claims that Mao Tse-tung contributed to the development of the law of the unity of opposites are likewise totally unwarranted. In actual fact, here as elsewhere, Mao is simply repeating a Marxist premise, though in a grossly distorted manner. Here are a couple of quotations from Mao Tse-tung, by way of illustration. "The interdependence of the contradictory aspects of a thing and the struggle between them determine the life and impel the development of that thing. There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction there would be no world.”  [93•3  " Contradiction is universal, absolute, existing in all processes of the development of things and running through all processes from beginning to end.”  [93•4 

p The recognition of the fact that contradiction impels development was a basic principle of Marxist thought from the outset, and Mao Tse-tung has added nothing here.

p Mao goes on to say that ".. .first, each of the two aspects of every contradiction in the process of development of a thing finds the presupposition of its existence in the other aspect and both aspects coexist in an entity; second, each of the two contradictory aspects, according to given conditions, tends to transform itself into the other.”  [93•5  This is also discussed quite frequently in the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.  [93•6 

p Finally, Mao writes that "the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and relative, while the struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute"  [93•7 , which is a repetition, 94 practically word for word, of a well-known thesis of Lenin’s.  [94•1 

p In "On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”, published in 1957, Mao Tse-tung gives the following short exposition of the law of the unity and conflict of opposites. "Marxist philosophy regards the law of the unity and conflict of opposites as the basic law of the universe. This law operates universally in nature, human society and the human mind. The opposite sides of a contradiction coexist in unity and struggle, and this impels the movement and change of things and phenomena. Contradictions exist everywhere and the fact that they are different in character simply depends on the nature of different things and phenomena. The unity of opposites is conditioned, temporary and transient for every concrete thing (phenomenon) and hence relative, while the struggle of opposites is absolute. Lenin spoke very clearly of this law." (Emphasis added.—M.A., V.G.)

p None of the above quotations from Mao Tse-tung can be said to contradict Marxist theses. But then they are not Mao’s own original statements but simply the repetition in simplified terms of statements from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, and above all Lenin. This does not, however, mean that Mao Tse-tung adopts a Marxist standpoint in his understanding of the laws of materialist dialectics in general, or the law of the unity and conflict of opposites in particular. In explaining them in simple terms he frequently expresses non-Marxist views. This is not always immediately apparent, firstly because they appear in association with well-known correct theses from the classics of Marxism-Leninism, and secondly because they are phrased in Marxist language. With regard to the latter, it can be said that there the resemblance of the Maoist dialectics to Marxism-Leninism ends.

p As for Mao’s “development” of materialist dialectics which his supporters harp on about, this proves to be nothing more than a reversion to the naive dialectics of the ancient Chinese, and distortion or outright revision of Marxist dialectics. We have already mentioned that Mao Tsetung has a very hazy notion of the spiritual and cultural 95 values of other countries. This explains his nihilistic attitude towards them, his vulgarisation of world philosophical traditions.  [95•1  Maoist dialectics are a peculiar Chinese brand of dialectics, for they are based almost entirely on the national philosophical tradition and ignore many of the finest achievements of world philosophy.

p If we turn to Chinese philosophy we shall see the idea of opposite principles in nature and society running through its entire history; moreover, this idea has been defended by representatives of various ideological trends.

p There are references to pairs of opposites and their mutual interpenetration and passing into one another in the ancient Taoist treatise Tao Te Ching (The Way of Life). These views contain dialectical ideas in embryo form. "Transformation of a thing into its opposite is the movement of the Tao.” "Since there is beauty there is ugliness too. Man’s goodness is attended by his wickedness. For is and is not come together. Hard and easy create one another; long and short are relative; high and low are comparative; pitch and sound make harmony; before and after are a sequence.” "In order to make a thing yield it is necessary to strengthen it. In order to destroy something it is necessary to first let it prosper....” A similar view was held, fifteen centuries later, by the materialist Chang Tsai, who wrote: "Two opposites—the invisible and the visible, movement and rest, integration and disintegration, clean and dirty—yet in the long run are all one and the same."  [95•2  ".. .As a phenomenon occurs, so its counterpart occurs. The other member of the pair must be its opposite. As there is opposition, so there is hostility. Hostility inevitably ends in reconciliation, and thus the hostility is resolved.”  [95•3 

p We find the same idea of pairing things in nature and society in the works of Chang Tsai’s contemporaries, the Cheng brothers. Thus, Cheng Hao writes: "The principle inherent 96 in things and phenomena consists in that nothing is isolated but everything is dual; the pairs are not pre-established but occur naturally.... All things and phenomena without exception have the counterpart—the male and female principle, good and evil. When the male principle grows the female decreases, when the (quantity of) good increases, the ( quantity of) evil decreases—this is the principle.”  [96•1  Chu Hsi, who reinterpreted Confucianism and raised it to the level of the official doctrine of the feudal-imperial power in China, also expressed similar ideas. "East—West, up—down, winter— summer, day—night, birth—death, all these are pairs of opposites. The phenomena of nature only exist in pairs.”  [96•2 

p The seventeenth-century philosopher Wang Chuang-shan wrote: "The invisible must inevitably become visible, the visible contains the invisible, and in the long run it is all one. When something appears, the invisible is here and the visible there.... And in the long run it is all one. Gathering is gathering of that which is dispersed, and dispersal is the dispersal of that which is gathered, and it is all one. That which is clean can become dirty and that which is dirty always contains clean elements, and it is all one. Two opposites are used together, creating opposite phenomena. Each essence has two manifestations. Thus, water has one essence, but turns to ice when it is cold and to steam when it is hot; the differences between ice and steam are sufficient to know the definite essence of water.”  [96•3 

p The theory of two opposite forces, the Yang and the Yin, representing the masculine and feminine principles combined in the Chi, original matter, remained of great importance in Chinese philosophy right down to modern times.

p One of the major materialist philosophers of ancient China, Wang Chung (27-104) said: "All things are born of the union of the parts of Chi, heaven and earth, just as a child is born of the union of the parts of Chi, man and woman."  [96•4  97 “The heaven and earth are like unto man and woman."  [97•1  Chu Hsi held the same view: "Originally between sky and earth there was only Chi, consisting of the soft Yin and the hard Yang.”  [97•2  The relationship between the two opposite forces expressed in a strict system of mutual engendering and supercession of one another was regarded as the universal law of existence. Many Chinese philosophers held that the correlation of the Yang and the Yin was the basis of the mutual engendering and mutual defining of the five original elements constituting matter, and with the aid of this dualist system sought to explain the cause of movement and the process of change and transformation in nature. The theory embodied the view that all things and phenomena were universally related. This view was an essential part of Chinese philosophy, and especially materialist trends, right down to the 1920s, and it was shared by Sun Yat-sen.

p These cosmological conceptions also had a strong influence in shaping Mao’s ideas at the formative stage, and this explains why he is so fond of backing up various theories with references to the relationship between the sky and the earth. Suffice it to recall his expression "The sky will not collapse and fish will go on swimming.”

p This also explains why of all the laws of materialist dialectics it was the law of the unity and conflict of opposites that attracted Mao’s attention most. This is the source of his famous "theory of duality" advanced in 1957.

p In speaking of materialist dialectics Mao makes frequent references to the ancient Chinese philosophers, especially Lao Tzu and the heroes of the novel Water Margin. But the dialectical ideas developed by the Chinese philosophers of the past were schematic and naive, and never found expression in a general ontological law. The Chinese philosophers tend to treat these interpenetrating opposites somewhat superficially and in isolation. The opposites are essentially separate from one another in time and space, and their transformation into one another is not so much a dialectical process as a series of outward, superficial changes and interchanges. Development is treated as cyclical, the alternation of the Yang and Yin, movement and rest, and 98 pairs of opposites characterised the supercession of the old by the new.

p The Chinese philosophers did not go beyond a statement of the fact that opposites exist in nature and that they supercede one another. One looks in vain for an explanation of the causes or content of the process or for theories of the identity of opposites. Hence their failure to explain the transformation of things into their opposite. For all his use of Marxist terminology and frequent recourse to quotations from Lenin, Mao Tse-tung’s understanding of opposites in nature has remained basically at the level of naive dialectics.

p To begin with, while recognising the conflict of opposites, Mao does not reveal the true essence of the process. His speech to a meeting of the Politburo of the CPC Central Committee held in Uchang on December 1, 1958, which the Maoists are so fond of referring to is worthy of citation in this respect. "Just as all objects and phenomena in the world have duality (this is the essence of the law of the unity of opposites), imperialism and all reactionaries also have duality—they are both real and paper tigers. History shows that before winning power and for a short time after they had seized it, slave-owners, feudal landlords, and the bourgeoisie were active, revolutionary, and progressive classes, representing real tigers. Later, as the slaves, the peasantry and the proletariat—classes representing their opposites—- gradually grew and waxed in strength and waged an ever fiercer struggle against them, the slave-owners, the feudal landlords and the bourgeoisie underwent a reaction: they became reactionary, backward classes, became paper tigers, and in the end were, or shall be, overthrown by the peopie....”

p If we ignore for the time being Mao’s use of the term "real and paper tigers”, it is clear that he does not really go beyond a formal acceptance of the law of the unity and conflict of opposites and does not reveal the inner mechanism by which it operates. Slave-owners, the feudal landowners and the bourgeoisie did indeed cease to be the bearers of social progress in the course of historical development, and were gradually replaced in this role by more progressive classes. But to say this is to say nothing, for to simply state the facts of socio-historical development falls short of 99 historical dialectics. The Marxist theoretician—which Mao’s supporters would have us believe Mao to be—must reveal the dialectic of the process by which one class supercedes another, since knowledge of the causes of movement and development of antagonistic societies provides the basis for constructive activity for the revolutionary transformation of the world.

p The concomitance and mutual exclusiveness of opposites is determined by their dialectical nature. Opposites are interpenetrating, so that the slave-owners, the feudal lords and the bourgeoisie were pregnant with their opposites—the slaves, the peasantry and the proletariat—from the outset. The unity of these opposites lies in the fact that they are concomitant and mutually exclusive and this unity can only be eliminated by destroying its underlying causes—- antagonistic society. In other words, this unity is destroyed in the course of the class struggle and social revolution.

p Mao Tse-tung treats contradiction as a mechanistic, outward opposition, as can be seen from the following. " Without life, there would be no death; without death there would also be no life. Without ‘above’, there would be no ‘below’, without ‘below’ there would also be no ‘above’. Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, there would also be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty; without difficulty, there would also be no facility. Without landlords, there would be no tenant-peasants; without tenant-peasants, there would also be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without a proletariat there would also be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of the nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies; without colonies or semi-colonies, there would also be no imperialist oppression of the nations. All opposite elements are like this.. .".  [99•1 

p Even if we ignore the fact that this is practically word for word repetition of one of Lao Tzu’s theses, we must still note that Mao is treating contradiction as a mechanistic contrast between outward opposites. Mao frequently uses such terms as “good—evil”, “hot—cold” and so on for these opposites, and it must be said that while such propositions 100 were justified two thousand years ago when the idea of contradictions of objective being and human thought was first being advanced, in the twentieth century, in the light of present-day scientific knowledge, this just is not enough. Scientific dialectics must reveal the inner contradictions inherent in objects and show the real process of the development of phenomena consisting of two opposites. In other words, it must analyse the self-movement of a given phenomenon.

p The term “good—bad” applied to these opposites by Mao is insufficient to give a correct impression of the complex, contradictory processes by which nature and society develop. It is not only that these terms cannot be said to have a precise, invariable meaning. More important is the fact that Mao uses them for the purpose of reinforcing his distorted interpretation of social processes and covering up his policy failures. He declares counter-revolutionary disturbances in the socialist countries to be “good” as serving to strengthen the new social system; likewise the death of a large number of people in social revolutions, as bringing closer the victory of the people; or a new world war, since it would, in his opinion, make possible the destruction of capitalism. This kind of “dialectics” has the same relationship to Marxism-Leninism as alchemy has to chemistry.

p A purely mechanistic unity of obvious contrasts is simply a vulgarisation and distortion of scientific dialectics. Nor can all obvious opposites be said to represent two sides of the same thing, two sides of a single phenomenon or process. For example, the bourgeoisie (commercial, middleman, bureaucratic) in many developing countries can exist without a proletariat, the proletariat can exist without the bourgeoisie in socialist society, and the feudal landowner can exist without the tenant-farmer.

p As Engels wrote: "True, so long as we consider things as at rest and lifeless, each one by itself, alongside and after each other, we do not run up against any contradictions in them. We find certain qualities which are partly common to, partly different from, and even contradictory to each other, but which in the last-mentioned case are distributed among different objects and therefore contain no contradiction within. Inside the limits of this sphere of observation we can get along on the basis of the usual, 101 metaphysical mode of thought. But the position is quite different as soon as we consider things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence on one another. Then we immediately become involved in contradictions.”  [101•1 

p Mao Tse-tung understands the interdependence and reciprocal influence of opposites mechanistically. He writes that opposites are transformed into one another, but he understands their mutual supercession and interpenetration simply as changing places, as when the oppressed peasant, for example, takes the place of the landowner when he triumphs, and the landowner, after the defeat of his class, takes the peasant’s place. According to Mao, the same thing happens after the triumph of socialist revolution: "the proletariat, once the ruled, becomes the ruler, while the bourgeoisie, originally the ruler, becomes the ruled, and is transferred to the position originally occupied by its opposite. This has already taken place in the Soviet Union and will take place throughout the world.”  [101•2 

p Thus Mao appears to be suggesting that as a result of the triumph of the socialist revolution, the exploited (the workers) become the exploiters, and the exploiters (the capitalists) become the exploited class (“is transferred to the position originally occupied by its opposite”), which is patently absurd.

p Mao is reported by the Hungweiping press to have declared at a meeting that "the oppressors and the oppressed are transformed into one another; such is the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the landowners on the one hand and the workers and peasants on the other”. He thus exchanges gradual, stage-by-stage development for a cycle with the repetition of one and the same. One cannot help being reminded of the cyclic theory of Chinese naive dialectics.  [101•3 

p Mao Tse-tung understands the transformation of things and phenomena into their opposites perfectly literally. In actual fact, the picture is far more complicated. Each thing or phenomenon represents the sum and unity of opposites, 102 but one side of the contradiction is always subordinate to the other. The following passage from Marx examines this point. "Proletariat and wealth are opposites; as such they form a single whole. They are both forms of the world of private property. The question is what place each occupies in the antithesis. It is not sufficient to declare them two sides of a single whole.

p “Private property as private property, as wealth, is compelled to maintain itself, and thereby its opposite, the proletariat, in existence. That is the positive side of the contradiction, self-satisfied private property.

p “The proletariat, on the other hand, is compelled as proletariat to abolish itself and thereby its opposite, the condition for its existence, what makes it the proletariat, i.e., private property. That is the negative side of the contradiction, its restlessness within its very self, dissolved and selfdissolving private property....

p “Within this antithesis the private property owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian, the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter, that of annihilating it.”  [102•1 

p Unlike Mao Tse-tung, Marx goes beyond a mere recognition of the conflict of opposites as the cause of development to reveal the mechanism of the conflict. Mao Tse-tung fails to grasp the main point, the fact that the conflict of opposites inevitably becomes progressively more acute until it comes to a head and the result is the solution of the given contradiction, its “removal” and the appearance of a new one, the old unity of concrete opposites giving way to a new unity of different concrete opposites. It is a qualitative change that takes place, and not simply a swapping of places. The proletariat does not become the bourgeoisie, but a qualitative change occurs in the historical role of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as opposites. At some point the bourgeoisie loses its progressive role to the proletariat. This is what makes inevitable the defeat of the bourgeoisie and the triumph of the proletariat, the struggle between them eventually leading to the disruption of their inner links and the annihilation of this particular unity of opposites, with capitalism giving way to socialism.

103

p “When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property.”  [103•1 

p Mao Tse-tung erases the qualitative differences involved. Lenin said that flexibility of concepts where applied subjectively was tantamount of eclecticism and sophistry. By this definition Mao is certainly a sophist. As an example of his sophistry let us examine his statements that "War is transformed into peace... . Peace is transformed into war. .. .”  [103•2  and "War passes into peace and peace passes into war. Peace is the opposite of war. If there was no war, how could we have the word ‘peace’?”  [103•3 

p War and peace are certainly opposite concepts, and when one starts the other ceases. But this does not make them opposites of the same phenomenon, mutually determining. Mao Tse-tung, on the basis of his over-simplified, Philistine understanding of these two phenomena as mutually opposed, regards them as social opposites expressing the essence of social development. According to this logic the alternation of peace and war is an inevitable result of the selfdevelopment of the contradictory sides of the social organism. In actual fact, however, war and peace are not two sides of a single phenomenon but two different forms of political relations between states. The outbreak of war is determined not by the development of peace as a form of inter-state relations but by the contradictions inherent in the nature of capitalist society. Mao’s “explanation” of the transition from war to peace and vice versa is simply a further demonstration of the poverty of his “dialectics”.

p Mao examines the law of the unity and conflict of opposites without reference to the relationship between the categories of possibility and reality, whereas in fact the solution of any contradiction is clearly inseparable from the transformation of the possible into the actual, since the solution of a contradiction and the transformation of possibility into reality are two sides of the same process of 104 development. The existence of possibility is determined by the inherent contradictions between objects and phenomena. A new world war is a possibility in present-day conditions, but the existence of this possibility does not necessarily mean that it will become a reality.

p The possible only becomes actual as the result of the struggle and triumph of one opposite over another, and this depends on the quantitative and qualitative differences between the possibilities of the given opposites. Thus, if at one time the forces of war had a far greater possibility of triumphing than did those of peace, today the position has been reversed. The combined strength of the countries of the socialist community, the international labour and national liberation movements is sufficient to prevent the imperialists from resorting to war as a means of solving international disputes, and mankind is in a position to banish war as a form of international political relations.

p Thus, war and peace being two quite different social phenomena, Mao’s assertion about the inevitable alternation of war and peace fails to reveal their true essence.

p The practical activity of the Maoists in the world arena during the last decade or so shows that Mao’s exercises with the problem of war and peace are patently political in character and are called upon to justify the policy of unleashing a new world war.

p Mao Tse-tung evades the question of leaps forward in social development, a question that is of great importance. Marxist dialectics hold that the development of the conflict of opposites eventually leads to a qualitative change in the form of a leap forward. Thus, the struggle between the landowners and the peasants, and indeed the whole struggle between exploited and exploiters leads to a leap forward in social development and the replacement of one social system with another. The cause of this leap forward is to be sought in the inner contradictions, the conflict of opposite trends arising in the process of development of a social formation such as capitalism.

p Apart from distorting the law of the unity and conflict of opposites, Mao completely ignores two other fundamental laws of dialectics, so that his theory of development is incomplete and truncated, for it deals only with the cause 105 of development but fails to examine how it operates or its prospects.

p At the same time Mao declares contradiction the only form of relationship between objects and phenomena. This approach places all the emphasis on the external aspect of the question, lumps together all kinds of different relations thereby concealing the real contradictions that determine the inner life, self-movement and development of an object or phenomenon. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that Mao should launch into an earnest discussion of the problem of the contradictions between a stone and a chicken, and between a stone and war. "Why can only an egg be transformed into a chicken but not a stone? Why is there identity between war and peace and none between war and a stone? Why can human beings give birth only to human beings but not to anything else?”  [105•1 

p Engels had the following to say on this subject. "Two different things always have certain qualities (properties of corporeality at least) in common, others differing in degree, while still others may be entirely absent in one of them. If we consider two such extremely different things— e.g., a meteorite and a man—in separation, we get very little out of it, at most that heaviness and other general properties of bodies are common to both.”  [105•2 

p Instead of revealing and analysing real contradictions actually existing in life, Mao Tse-tung engages in a sophist game of artificially producing contradictions by contrasting various phenomena formally. Mao regards dialectics as the sum of examples often chosen at random. In a speech at a meeting in 1958 he declared: "Limited things pass into boundless things, and boundless things pass into things with limits. The dialectics of ancient times passed into medieval metaphysics, and medieval metaphysics passed into the dialectics of modern times. The world is also in a process of transition and is not eternal. Capitalism passes into socialism, and socialism passes into communism. Communist society too will be in a process of transition, and will have its beginning and an end, and will certainly be divided into stages, or a new name will be invented for it; it will 106 not remain static and unchanging. To maintain that there will be only quantity and not quality is contrary to dialectics. There is nothing in the world but that it is born, develops and perishes. The ape became man and people appeared, but eventually the whole of mankind must perish. It will turn into something else and the earth will no longer exist. The earth is bound eventually to perish. The sun is already much cooler than it was in ancient times. Once every two million years an Ice Age begins, and when it comes living things will perish en masse.... I am mentioning all this in order to remove the fetters from our thinking and enable us to think more freely.”

p The above passage reflects all the defects of the Maoist dialectics. Firstly, the transition of one thing into another is treated simply as a change of places; secondly, development is understood not as the negation of the old by the new, but simply as repetition of what has already been, as a circular or regressive movement. Consequently, there are no grounds for assuming, as the Maoists claim, that Mao Tse-tung has "shown the inner link between the law of the unity and conflict of opposites and other laws of dialectical materialism”. In fact Mao fails to grasp the true essence of the law of the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative changes, and ignores the law of the negation of a negation, which reveals the general direction of development.

p Mao frequently reduces the problem of contradictions to its everyday and even Philistine level, treating the basic law of dialectics in a vulgar, primitive manner, as in the following statement, reported in the Hungweiping press. "The son becomes the father, the father becomes a son, woman becomes man and man becomes woman. Naturally a direct change is impossible here, but after marriage sons and daughters are born, and is not this a transition?”

p Such theoretical exercises do not take us a single step forward in the study of the complex interrelationships that exist in nature and society. The dialectic is turned into a collection of truisms. Take the following passage for example. "We must learn to take an all-sided view of questions, and not only see the front side of things and phenomena but also their reverse side. In certain circumstances bad may produce good results and good may produce had results. 107 Lao Tzu said over two thousand years ago: ’Happiness abides in misfortune, and misfortune abides in happiness.   [107•1 

p There is nothing new in what Mao says here, for it has been known to the Chinese peasants for centuries and found expression in all kinds of proverbs and sayings. For example, after a series of unsuccessful attempts, Chinese peasants find the most rational way of planting rice. Naturally, the peasants can say that bad (failure) has led to a good result, thereby expressing their understanding of the various stages of the labour process. But Mao Tse-tung would have us regard this as a great achievement of dialectical thought.

p Underlying Mao’s vulgarisation of dialectical materialism is a basic misunderstanding of the relationship between philosophy and practical activity in production and the revolutionary struggle, a misinterpretation of the role of philosophy as a form of social consciousness. Thus, we find in a philosophical journal: "The workers and peasants have a rich practical experience. They are spontaneous materialists. Working, they do not doubt the objective existence of machines, buildings, soil, agricultural implements, and they are also spontaneous dialecticians for they observe the relationship between various stages of production and the succession of the various seasons of agricultural work. At the present time we find that when the workers and peasants read articles written by professional philosophers they cannot understand them, but they have no difficulty in understanding the philosophical works of Chairman Mao.”  [107•2 

p While accepting the conflict of opposites, Mao fails to understand that the process of development of a contradiction is itself contradictory, for not only is each of the two sides of a contradiction opposed to the other, but itself contains contradictory sides, so that there is no such thing as “pure” opposition. Thus, if we take the capitalist class, it is easy to distinguish differences and contradictions between the big capitalists and the small capitalists, between the various bourgeois parties, etc. There are also contradictions within the capitalist camp in general, as between the ruling circles of the USA and France to take a current 108 exampie. This, as Lenin pointed out, is an extremely important factor. It means that at a certain stage of the political struggle the interests of the proletariat may coincide on some (minor) issues with the interests of some of the capitalists. It also means that in certain circumstances the interests of the countries of the socialist community may coincide on a number of issues with the interests of the ruling circles of some bourgeois country. In such circumstances, Lenin insisted that it was necessary to urge a “union”, a “ combination” of opposites. This explains among other things the struggle of the European communist parties for the creation of anti-monopoly unions including part of the bourgeoisie, and the conclusion of political agreements between the Soviet Union and certain capitalist countries, viz., the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World War.

There is no room for such “union” and “combination” of opposites in Mao’s version of the law of the unity and conflict of opposites. The Maoists commit the serious error of failing to regard contradictions as a process and are thus unable to understand the dialectics of social development. Significant in this respect is the Maoist criticism of the theses contained in the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union concerning the transformation of the dictatorship of the proletariat into a state of the whole people. The Maoists stress the coercive function of the dictatorship of the proletariat and insist that it is necessary throughout the period of the transition from socialism to communism. They treat the dictatorship of the proletariat as something constant and static; they do not realise that it is a complex social phenomenon, a unity of opposites, whose reciprocal influence and conflict makes it a process, in a constant state of flux and change. Lenin emphasised that "the dictatorship of the proletariat means a persistent struggle—bloody and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative—against the forces and traditions of the old society".  [108•1  The dictatorship of the proletariat, viewed as a real process, is exhausted at some stage of development and passes into a state of the whole people.

<			>
<<		The Theory of Balance in Lieu of Materialist Dialectics	>>
<<<	CHAPTER III -- THE IDEALIST ESSENCE OF MAOIST PHILOSOPHY	CHAPTER V -- MARXIST-LENINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND MAOIST ``LEAPS'' IN THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE	>>>

http://leninist.biz/en/1971/PVMT176/4-Eclecticism.Posing.as.Dialectics	1,340 titles  •  155 online
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z	Created= 2008 May 25
At@ Leninist . Biz ... we mean Business !	leninistbiz Loaded=