In a semi-colonial country such as China, the relationship between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions presents a complicated picture. Before a semi-colony suffered from imperialist oppression, its principal contradiction was the contradiction between the feudal or semi-feudal system and the broad masses of the people. All other contradictions are determined by this principal contradiction. However, when such a society suffers under imperialist oppression, the internal principal contradiction temporarily changes into a non-principal contradiction, and the contradiction between imperialism and the entire, or almost entire, semi-colonial society becomes the principal one, determining the development of all other contradictions. The status of the principal or non-principal contradiction changes at this time according to the extent of imperialist oppression and the extent of the people’s revolution of the semi-colony.
For instance, when imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes[4-531] can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country [p. 260] (including what was the principal contradiction, between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position. So it was in China in the Opium War,[4-532] the Yi He Tuan War, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894, and so it is now in the present Sino-Japanese War. Externally, the American War of Independence, the war between England and South Africa, the war between Spain and the Philippines, and so on, have all been like this.
But in another situation, the contradictions change position. When imperialism carries on its oppression not by war, but by milder means -political, economic, and cultural – the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two form an alliance; opposition changes to unity between the two for the joint oppression of the masses of the people. At such a time, the masses often resort to civil war against the alliance of imperialism and the feudal classes, while imperialism often gives secret assistance to the internal ruling strata to oppress the internal revolutionary war, and so avoids direct action.[4-533]Thus the internal contradictions become particularly sharp. For instance, in China, the Taiping War, the revolutionary war of 1911, the great Revolution of 1925‒27, the war of the Soviets after 1927;[4-534] externally, there were the February and October revolutions in Russia (Russia too had had many semi-colonial characteristics), the revolutionary characteristics of the numerous civil wars in Central and South America, and so on. Wars among the various ruling groups in the semi-colonies also manifest the intensification of internal contradictions; there have been many of these in China, and Central and South America, which fall into this category.[4-535]
When a[4-536] civil war develops to the point of threatening the very existence of imperialism and its running dogs, the domestic rulers,[4-537] imperialism often adopts other methods in order to maintain its rule; it either tries to split the revolutionary front from within, for example, the treachery of the Chinese bourgeoisie in 1927, or sends armed forces to help the domestic rulers[4-538] directly, for example, the latter period of the civil war in the Soviet Union, and the present war in Spain (editor’s note: the Spanish civil war lasted from 1936‒39). At such a time,[4-539] imperialism and the domestic feudal classes and even the bourgeoisie stand completely at one pole while the masses of the people stand at the other pole.[4-540] It is clearly evident at such a time that the principal external contradiction between imperialism and the semi-colony, and the principal internal contradiction between the feudal forces and broad masses of people, [p. 261] almost merge to form a principal contradiction which determines the development and status of the other contradictions.
But whatever happens, there is no doubt at all that at every stage in the development of a process, there is only one principal contradiction which plays the leading role.
Hence, if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position. Therefore, in studying any process,[4-541] we must firstly ascertain clearly whether it is a simple or a complex process. If it is a complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to finding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved. This is the method Marx taught us in his study of capitalist society. Likewise Lenin in his study of imperialism,[4-542] and Lenin and Stalin in their study of the economics of the transitional period in the Soviet Union, have taught us this method. There are thousands of scholars and men of action who do not understand it, and the result is that, lost in a fog, they are unable to get to the heart of a problem and naturally cannot find a way to resolve its contradictions.
As we have said, one must not treat all the contradictions in a process as being equal but must
distinguish between the principal and the secondary contradictions, and pay special attention to grasping the principal one. But, within a contradiction, whether principal or secondary, should the two contradictory aspects or profiles (cemian) be treated as equal? Again, no. In any contradiction, and at whatever time, the development of the contradictory aspects or profiles is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic; that is, when they seem to be in equilibrium, there is in fact no absolute equilibrium. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction.[4-543]
But this situation is not static; the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction transform themselves into each other.[4-544] In a given process or at a given stage in the development of a contradiction, A is the principal aspect and B is the non-principal aspect; at another stage or in another process the roles are reversed – [p. 262] a change determined by the strength of the struggle between the two sides.[4-545]
For instance, for a long period the bourgeoisie has occupied the principal position in capitalist society, playing the leading role, while the proletariat remained subordinate to it. However, prior to and after the revolution, the proletariat changes into the principal position and plays the leading role, while the bourgeoisie changes in the opposite direction. The Soviet Union on the eve of the October Revolution was like this.[4-546]
4-531
Addition in official text: “…except for some traitors…”; SW I, p. 331; XJ I, p. 295.
4-532
Official text reads: “…of 1840, the Sino-Japanese War of 1894, and the Yi He Tuan War of 1900…”; SW I, p. 331; XJ I, p.296.
4-533
Official text reads: “…while imperialism often employs indirect methods rather than direct action in helping the reactionaries in the semi-colonial countries to oppress the people,…”; SW I, p. 332; XJ I, p. 296.
4-534
Official text reads: “This is what happened in China in the Revolutionary War of 1924‒27, and the ten years of Agrarian Revolutionary War after 1927”. SW I, p. 332; XJ I, p. 296.
4-535
Official text reads: “Wars among the various reactionary ruling groups in the semi-colonial countries, e.g., the war among the warlords in China, fall into the same category”. SW I, p. 332; XJ I, p. 296.
4-539
Official text reads: “At such a time, foreign imperialism and domestic reaction stand quite openly at one pole while the masses of the people stand at the other pole…”; SW I, p. 332; XJ I, p. 296.
4-540
Addition in official text: “…thus forming the principal contradiction which determines or influences the development of the other contradictions. The assistance given by various capitalist countries to the Russian reactionaries after the October Revolution is an example of armed intervention. Chiang Kai-shek’s betrayal in 1927 is an example of splitting the revolutionary front”. SW I, p. 332; XJ I, p. 297.
4-542
Official text reads: “Likewise Lenin and Stalin taught us this method when they studied imperialism and the general crisis of capitalism and when they studied the Soviet economy”. SW I, p. 332, XJ I, p. 297.
4-543
Addition in official text: “The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position”. SW I, p. 333; XJ I, p. 297.
4-544
Addition in official text; “…and the nature of the thing changes accordingly”. SW I, p. 333; XJ I, p. 297.
4-545
Official text reads: a change determined by the extent of the increase or decrease in the force of each aspect in its struggle against the other in the course of the development of a thing”. SW I, p. 333; XJ I, p. 297.
4-546
This paragraph has been deleted from the official text, and the following one inserted in its place:
“We often speak of ‘the new superseding the old ’. The supersession of the old by the new is a general, eternal, and inviolable law of the universe. The transformation of one thing into another, through leaps of different forms in accordance with its essence and external conditions – this is the process of the new superseding the old. In each thing there is contradiction between its new and its old aspects, and this gives rise to a series of struggles with many twists and turns. As a result of these struggles, the new aspect changes from being minor to being major and rises to predominance, while the old aspect changes from being major to being minor and gradually dies out. And the moment the new aspect gains dominance over the old, the old thing changes qualitatively into a new thing. It can thus be seen that the nature of a thing is mainly determined by the principal aspect of the contradiction, the aspect which has gained predominance. When the principal aspect which has gained predominance changes, the nature of a thing changes accordingly”. SW I, p. 333; XJ I, pp. 297‒298.