Qualitatively different contradictions can only be resolved by qualitatively different methods. For instance, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is resolved by the method of socialist revolution; the contradiction between the colonies and imperialism is resolved by national[4-443]war; the contradiction between the great masses of the people and the feudal system is resolved by the method of democratic revolution;[4-444] the contradiction between the proletariat[4-445] and the peasantry[4-446] is resolved by the socialization of agriculture; contradiction within the Communist Party, is resolved by the method of ideological struggle;[4-447] the contradiction between society and nature is resolved by the method of developing the productive forces. Processes change, old processes and old contradictions disappear, new processes and new contradictions emerge, and the methods of resolving contradictions differ accordingly. In Russia, there was a fundamental difference between the method used for resolving the contradiction resolved by the February Revolution and the contradiction resolved by the October Revolution.[4-448] It is a principle to use different methods to cope with different contradictions.
In order to reveal the particularity of the contradiction in any process,[4-449] in their totality or interconnections, that is in order to reveal the essence of the process, it is necessary to reveal the particularity of the two aspects of each of the contradictions in that process; otherwise it will be impossible to discover the essence of the process. This requires the utmost attention in the study of problems.[4-450]
A major process contains many contradictions.[4-451] For instance, in the course of China’s bourgeois-democratic revolution, where the contradictions are exceedingly complex, there exist the contradiction between imperialism and the entire Chinese society, the contradiction within Chinese society between the feudal system and the great masses of the people, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the contradiction between the peasantry and the petty bourgeoisie[4-452] on the one hand and the bourgeoisie on the other, the contradiction between the various ruling groups,[4-453] and so on. These contradictions cannot be treated in the same way since each has its own particularity; moreover, the two aspects of each contradiction cannot be treated in the same way since each aspect has its own characteristics. We who are engaged in the Chinese revolution [p. 254] should not only understand the particularity of these contradictions in their totality, that is, in their interconnections, but should also study the two aspects of each contradiction as the only means of understanding the totality. When we speak of understanding each aspect of a contradiction, we mean understanding what specific position each aspect occupies, what concrete forms it assumes in its interdependence[4-454] with its opposite, and what concrete methods are employed in the struggle with its opposite, when the two are both interdependent,[4-455] and also after the interdependence breaks down. It is of great importance to study these problems. The principal feature of Leninism is that it is the science which studies the various forms of struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.[4-456]
In studying a problem we must shun subjectivity, one-sidedness and superficiality. To be subjective means not to look at problems objectively, that is, not to use the materialist viewpoint in looking at problems. This has already been discussed in Chapter Two, and I will return to it at the end of this section. Now I come to a discussion of one-sidedness and superficiality.[4-457] To be one-sided means not to look at problems all-sidedly, for example, to understand only China but not Japan, only the Communist Party but not the Guomindang, only the proletariat but not the bourgeoisie, only the peasants but not the landlords, only the favourable conditions but not the difficult ones, only the gentleman but not the scroundrel, only the present but not the future,[4-458] only oneself but not others, only pride but not modesty,[4-459] only the defects but not the achievements, only the plaintiffs case but not the defendant’s, only underground[4-460] work but not open[4-461] work, and so on. In a word, it means not to understand the characteristics of both aspects of a contradiction. That is what we mean by looking at a problem one-sidedly. Or it may be called seeing the part but not the whole.[4-462] That way it is impossible to find the method for resolving a contradiction, it is impossible to accomplish the tasks of the revolution, to carry out assignments or to develop inner-Party ideological struggle correctly. When Sun Wu Zi said in discussing military science, “Know the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger of defeat”, he was referring to the two sides in a battle. Tang Taizong[4-463] also understands the error of one-sidedness when he said, “Listen to both sides and you will be enlightened, heed only one side and you will be benighted”. But our comrades often look at problems one-sidedly, and so they often run into snags, [p. 255] In the countryside, if two families or clans are engaged in conflict, the mediator must recognize the reasons for the conflict on both sides, the bone of contention, the present situation, demands, and so on; only then will he be able to think out a method of resolving the dispute. There are such people in the countryside who are good at mediation, and they are constantly invited to mediate when a dispute arises; these people actually understand the dialectic of which we speak, the need to understand the particular characteristics of the various aspects of a contradiction. In the novel Shui Hu Zhuan, Song Gongming[4-464] thrice attacked the Zhu village. Twice he was defeated because he was ignorant of the local conditions and used the wrong method. Later he changed his method; first he investigated the situation, and he familiarized himself with the maze of roads, then he broke up the alliance between the Li, Hu, and Zhu villages and sent his men in disguise into the enemy camp to lie in wait.[4-465] And on the third occasion he won. There are many examples of materialistic dialectics in Shui Hu Zhuan, of which the episode of the three attacks on Zhu village is one of the best. On several occasions Lenin spoke of the need to observe a problem from all sides, resolutely opposing one-sidedness.[4-466] We should remember his words. To be superficial means to consider neither the characteristics of a contradiction in its totality nor the characteristics of each of its aspects; it means to deny the necessity for probing deeply into a thing and minutely studying the characteristics of its contradiction, but instead merely to look from afar and, after glimpsing the rough outline, immediately to try to resolve the contradiction (to answer a question, settle a dispute, handle work, or direct a military operation). This way of doing things is bound to lead to trouble.[4-467]
4-444
The last two clauses are in reverse order in the official text; SW I, pp. 321‒322; XJ I, p. 286.
4-446
Official text reads: “…and the peasant class in socialist society is resolved by the method of collectivization and mechanization in agriculture”. SW I, p. 322; XJ I, p. 286.
4-448
Addition in official text: “…as well as between the methods used to resolve them. The principle of using different methods to resolve different contradictions is one which Marxist-Leninists must strictly observe. The dogmatists do not observe this principle; they do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds of revolution and so do not understand that different methods should be used to resolve different contradictions; on the contrary, they invariably adopt what they imagine to be an unalterable formula and arbitrarily apply it everywhere, which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what was originally well done”. SW I, p. 322; XJ I, p. 286.
4-449
Addition in official text: “…in the development of a thing…”; SW I, p. 322; XJ I, p. 286.
4-450
Official text reads: “This likewise requires the utmost attention in our study”. SW I, p. 322; XJ I, p. 286.
4-451
Official text reads: “There are many contradictions in the course of development of any major thing”. SW I, p. 322; XJ I, p. 286.
4-454
Addition in official text: “…and in its contradiction…”; SW I, p. 323; XJ I, p. 287.
4-456
Addition in official text: “Lenin meant just this when he said that the most essential thing in Marxism, the living soul of Marxism, is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Our dogmatists have violated Lenin’s teachings; they never use their brains to analyse anything concretely, and in their writings and speeches they always use stereotypes devoid of content, thereby creating a very bad style of work in our Party”. SW I, p. 323; XJ I, p. 287.
4-457
Official text reads: “I have discussed this in my essay ‘On Practice’”. SW I, p. 323; XJ I, p. 287.
4-458
Official text reads: “…only the past but not the future…” SW I, p. 323; XJ I, p. 287.
4-459
Addition in official text: “…only individual parts but not the whole…”; SW I, p. 323; XJ I, p. 287.
4-462
Addition in official text: “…seeing the trees but not the forest”. SW I, p. 323; XJ I, p. 288.
4-465
Addition in official text: “…using a strategem similar to that of the Trojan Horse in the foreign story”. SW I, p. 324; XJ I, p. 288.
4-466
Addition in official text: “Lenin said:
…in order really to know an object we must embrace, study, all its sides, all connections and ‘mediations’. We shall never achieve this completely, but the demand for all-sidedness is a safeguard against mistakes and rigidity”. SW I, p. 324; XJ I, p. 288.
4-467
Addition in official text: “The reason the dogmatist and empiricist comrades in China have made mistakes lies precisely in their subjectivist, one-sided and superficial way of looking at things. To be one-sided and superficial is at the same time to be subjective. For all objective things are actually interconnected and are governed by inner laws, but instead of undertaking the task of reflecting things as they really are some people only look at things one-sidedly or superficially and who know neither their interconnections nor their inner laws, and so their method is subjectivist”. SW I, p. 324; XJ I, pp. 288‒289.