The materialist viewpoint of dialectical materialism does not acknowledge that there are so-called non-material things in the world (independent spiritual things). Matter exists eternally and universally and is limitless in both time and space. If there is something in the world which has “always been thus” and “everywhere is the same” (like its unity) then that something is so-called objectively existing matter referred to by philosophy. If things such as consciousness are observed employing the thoroughgoing insights of materialism (that is, the insights of materialist dialectics), then so-called consciousness is no different; it is only[2-211] a form of matter in movement, it is a particular property of the material brain of humankind. It allows material processes external to consciousness to be reflected in consciousness, which is a particular property of the material brain. Accordingly, it is apparent that it is conditional when we make a distinction between matter and (p. 283) consciousness and moreover oppose the one to the other; that is to say, it has significance only for the insights of epistemology. Because consciousness and thought are only properties of matter (brain), the opposition of knowledge and existence, that is, the opposition between matter that knows and matter that is known,[2-212] cannot be sustained. In this way, the opposition of subject and object departs from the realm of epistemology and is without any significance. If, beyond epistemology, consciousness and matter are still placed in opposition, this is tantamount to foresaking materialism. In the world there is only matter and its various manifestations; and signified by this are the following – the subject itself is matter, the so-called materiality of the world (matter is eternal and universal), the objective reality of matter, and matter as the origin of consciousness. In a word, matter encompasses everything in the world. The saying goes, “Unity belongs to Si-ma Yi”; but we say, “Unity belongs to matter”. This is the principle of the unity of the world.
What has been discussed above is the theory of matter of dialectical materialism.
6. On Motion (On Development)
[p. 205] The first fundamental principle of dialectical materialism is its theory of matter; namely, the recognition of the materiality of the world, the objective reality of matter, and that matter is the origin of consciousness. This principle of the unity of the world has already been explained in the previous section “On Matter”.
The second fundamental principle of dialectical materialism is its theory of motion (or theory of development): that is, the recognition that motion is a form of the existence of matter, that it is an intrinsic property of matter, and that it is a manifestation of the diversity of matter; this is the principle of the development of the world. The principle of development of the world and the principle of the unity of the world referred to above are linked one to the other to become the complete world view of dialectical materialism. The world is none other than a material world of limitless development (or, the material world is one whose development is without limit).
(p. 234) The theory of motion of dialectical materialism cannot tolerate (1) thoughts on motion separate from matter; (2) thoughts on matter separate from motion; and (3) the simplification of matter in motion. The theory of motion of dialectical materialism has instituted an unequivocal and resolute struggle with these idealistic, metaphysical, and mechanical viewpoints.
The theory of motion of dialectical materialism is first and foremost in opposition to the idealism and religious deism of philosophy. The essence of all idealisms and religious deisms resides in their refusal to recognise the material unity of the world; they assume that the world’s motion and development are non-material, or were at the very beginning non-material, and are the consequence of the operation of spirits or God’s supernatural power. The German idealist philosopher Hegel believed that the contemporary world had developed out of the so-called “World Idea”; and in China, the philosophy of the Book of Changes and the moral theories of Song and Ming neo-Confucianism all engendered views of the development of the world which were idealist. Christianity asserts God created the world, and in Buddhism and the various Chinese fetishisms the motion and development of the world’s myriad things is put down to the supernatural. All of these explanations which contemplate motion divorced from matter are fundamentally incompatible with dialectical materialism. Besides idealism and religion, all pre-Marxist materialism and all present-day anti-Marxist mechanistic materialism, are proponents of materialist theories of motion when it comes to discussing natural phenomena, but the moment social phenomena are mentioned, they cannot but become [p. 206] divorced from material causes[2-213] and revert to spiritual causation.
Dialectical materialism resolutely refutes all of these incorrect views on motion and points out their historical limitations – the limitations of class status and the limitations of the degree of development of science – and constructs its own view of motion on a thoroughgoing materialism which takes the standpoint of the proletariat and the most advanced level of science as its basis. Dialectical materialism first of all points out that motion is a form of the existence of matter, it is an intrinsic attribute of matter (and not a function of some external impetus); to imagine motion without matter and matter without motion is equally incomprehensible. Materialism’s view of motion is in intense opposition to the views on motion espoused by idealism and deism.
(p. 285) The observation and study of matter divorced from motion results in a metaphysical theory of a static universe or a theory of absolute equilibrium. These consider matter to be eternally unchangeable, and that within matter there is no such thing as development; they also consider absolute immobility to be matter’s general or original state. Dialectical materialism resolutely opposes these viewpoints, and regards motion as the most universal form of the existence of matter and an inseparable property intrinsic to matter. All immobility and equilibrium have only relative significance, and motion is absolute. Dialectical materialism recognizes that all forms of matter possess the possibility of relative immobility or equilibrium, and moreover considers this differentiates matter, and consequently that it is the most important condition for distinguishing life (Engels).[2-214] However, it considers the condition of immobility or equilibrium to be only one of the essential aspects of motion, it is a particular condition of motion. The error of observing and studying matter separate from motion resides in overstating the importance of the factors of immobility or equilibrium, in concealing their limitations and substituting these partial factors for the whole, in generalizing a particular condition of motion, and in presenting them in absolute terms. The saying beloved of China’s ancient metaphysical thinkers, “Heaven changeth not, neither does the Dao”,[2-215] is indicative of this theory of a static universe; and although these thinkers recognised change in the phenomena of the universe and society, they refused to recognise it as change in their essence. From their perspective, the essence of the universe and society remained eternally unchangeable. And the principal reason that they thought like this was the limitations of their class; for if the feudal landlord class admitted that the essence of the universe and society is in motion and develops, then theoretically this was tantamount to signalling the [p. 207] death sentence of their own class. The philosophy of all reactionary forces is the theory of immobility. The revolutionary classes and masses have perceived the principle of the development of the world, and therefore advocate the transformation of society and the world – and their philosophy is dialectical materialism.
2-215
A quotation from Dong Zhongshu (179‒104BC). Mao also uses this quotation in the official text of