It can thus be seen that in studying the particularity of any kind of contradiction – the contradiction in each form of motion of matter, the contradiction in each of its processes of development, the two aspects of the contradiction in each process, the contradiction at each stage of a process, and the two aspects of the contradiction at each stage – in studying the particularity of all of these contradictions, we must not be subjective and arbitrary but must analyse it concretely. Without concrete analysis there can be no knowledge of the particularity of any contradiction.[4-513]
Marx and Engels[4-514] have provided us with excellent models of such concrete analysis.
When Marx and Engels applied the law of the unity of contradictions[4-515] to the study of the socio-historical process, they discovered the basic causes of social development to be the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction of class struggle,[4-516] and also the resultant contradiction between the economic base and its [p. 258] superstructure (politics, ideology).[4-517]
When Marx applied this law to the study of the economic structure of capitalist society, he discovered that the basic contradiction of this society is the contradiction between the social character of production and the private character of ownership. This contradiction manifests itself in the contradiction between the organized character of production in individual enterprises and the anarchic character of production in society as a whole. In terms of class relations, it manifests itself in the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.[4-518]
On the question of using dialectics in the study of objective phenomena, Marx and Engels[4-519] were not in any way subjective and arbitrary but, from the concrete conditions in the actual objective movement of these phenomena, discovered their concrete contradictions, the concrete position of each aspect of every contradiction and the concrete inter-relations of the contradiction, and so on.[4-520] We must study this attitude, which is the only correct one in study.
The relationship between the universality and the particularity of contradiction is the relationship between the general character and the individual character of contradiction. By the former we mean that contradiction exists in and runs through all processes from beginning to end; motion, things, processes, the world, and thinking – all are contradictions. To deny contradiction is to deny everything. This is a universal truth for all times and all countries, which admits of no exception. Hence the general character, the absoluteness of contradiction. But this general character is contained in the[4-521] individual character, the general character is made manifest in each individual character; without individual character there can be no general character. If all individual character were removed, what general character would remain? It is because each contradiction is particular that not one thing in the whole universe is the same, that change is limitless, and that its existence is temporary, and therefore relative.[4-522] Su Dongpo stated “If things are observed as they change, then heaven and parth can’t even remain for a moment”. In modern terms, it could be said that what he was speaking of was the particularity of contradiction, its relativity. “If things are observed unchanging, all the things and myself will last forever”.[4-523] This speaks of the universality of contradiction, its absoluteness. This truth concerning general and individual character, concerning absoluteness and relativity, is the quintessence of the theory of contradiction.[4-524] If this is understood, then anything can be mastered (yi tong bai tong\, what the ancients called “to be familiar with the Dao” (wen Dao), viewed from today’s perspective is to be familiar with the Dao of contradiction.
[p. 259] V. The Principal Contradiction and the Principal Aspect of a Contradiction
There are still two points in the problem of the particularity of contradiction which must be singled out for analysis, namely, the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction.
There are many contradictions in a complex process,[4-525] and one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determines or influences the existence and development of the other contradictions.
For instance, in capitalist society the[4-526] contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie forms the principal contradiction. The others[4-527] such as those between the remnant feudal forces[4-528] and the bourgeoisie, between the peasant petty bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, between the proletariat and the peasant petty bourgeoisie, between non-monopoly capitalists and finance[4-529]capitalists, between bourgeois democracy and[4-530]fascism, among the capitalist countries and between imperialism and the colonies, are all determined or influenced by this principal contradiction.
4-513
Addition in official text: “We must always remember Lenin’s words, the concrete analysis of concrete conditions”. SW I, p. 328; XJ I, p. 292.
4-516
Official text reads: “…they discovered the contradictions between the exploiting and exploited classes and also the …”; SW I, p. 328; XJ I, p. 292.
4-517
Addition in official text: “…and they discovered how these contradictions inevitably lead to different kinds of social revolution in different kinds of class society”. SW I, p. 328; XJ I, p. 292.
4-518
A major addition in the official text here, which reads as follows:
“Because the range of things is vast and there is no limit to their development, what is universal in one context becomes particular in another. Conversely, what is particular in one context becomes universal in another. The contradiction in the capitalist system between the social character of production and the private ownership of the means of production is common to all countries where capitalism exists and develops; as far as capitalism is concerned, this constitutes the universality of contradiction. But this contradiction of capitalism belongs only to a certain historical stage in the general development of class society; as far as the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production in class society as a whole is concerned, it constitutes the particularity of contradiction. However, in the course of dissecting the particularity of all these contradictions in capitalist society, Marx gave a still more profound, more adequate and more complete elucidation of the universality of the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production in class society in general.
“Since the particular is united with the universal and since the universality as well as the particularity of contradiction is inherent in everything, universality residing in particularity, we should, when studying an object, try to discover both the particular and the universal and their interconnection, to discover both particularity and universality and also their interconnections within the object itself, and to discover the interconnections of this object with the many objects outside it. When Stalin explained the historical roots of Leninism in his famous work.
4-519
Addition in official text: “…and likewise Lenin and Stalin always enjoin people not to be …”; SW I, p. 330; XJ I, p. 294.
4-520
Addition in official text: “Our dogmatists do not have this attitude in study and therefore can never get anything right”. SW I, p. 330; XJ I, p. 294.
4-522
Official text reads: “It is because each contradiction is particular that individual character arises. All individual character exists conditionally and temporarily, and hence is relative”. SW I, p. 330; XJ I, pp. 294‒295.
4-523
This quotation from Su Dongpo is taken from the first of two prose poems entitled
4-524
Official text reads: “…of the problem of contradiction in things; failure to understand it is tantamount to abandoning dialectics”. SW I, p. 330; XJ I, p. 295.
4-525
Official text reads: “…in the process of development of a complex thing…”; SW I, p. 331; XJ I, p. 295.