Читать онлайн "Mao Zedong On Dialectical Materialism" - Knight Nick - RuLit

In studying the particularity of contradiction, unless we examine these two facets – the principal and the non-principal contradictions in a process, and the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction – that is, [p. 265] unless we examine the distinctive character of these two facets of contradiction, we shall get bogged down in abstractions, be unable to understand contradiction concretely and consequently be unable to find the correct method of resolving it. The distinctive character or particularity of these two facets[4-561]represents the unevenness[4-562] that is in contradiction. Nothing in this world develops absolutely evenly, hence the world as it is; we must oppose the theory of even development (or the theory of equilibrium).[4-563]The study of the various states of unevenness in contradictions, of the principal and non-principal contradictions and of the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction constitutes an essential method by which a revolutionary political party correctly determines its strategic and tactical policies both in political (and in military affairs). Therefore this question cannot be overemphasized.[4-564]

VI. The Identity and Struggle of a Contradiction[4-565]

When we have resolved the problem of[4-566] the universality and the particularity of contradiction, we must proceed to study the problem of the identity and struggle of[4-567] a contradiction; only by doing so can the study of the law of the unity of contradiction be completely resolved.

Identity, unity, coincidence, interpenetration, interpermeation, interdependence (or mutual dependence for existence), interconnection, or mutual co-operation – all these different terms mean the same thing and refer to the following two points: first, the existence of each of the two aspects of a contradiction in a process[4-568] presupposes the existence of the other aspect, and both aspects coexist in a single entity; second, in given conditions, each of the two contradictory aspects transforms itself into its opposite. This is the meaning of identity.

Lenin said:

Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical -under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another, -why the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another.

[p. 266] What does this passage mean?

The contradictory aspects in every process[4-569] are in opposition to each other, are in mutual disharmony, unequal in strength, at odds with one another, and in dispute; all are replete with such hostile phenomena. Without exception they are contained in all processes, phenomena, things, and thought.[4-570] A simple process contains only a single pair of opposites (yuanjia),[4-571] while a complex process contains two or more. And in turn, the pairs of opposites are in contradiction to one another. That is how all processes, phenomena, and things[4-572] are constituted and set in motion.

This being so, there is an utter lack of identity or unity. How then can one speak of identity or unity? In this do the strangeness and wonder of the world find themselves.

The fact is that no contradictory aspect can exist in isolation. Without its opposite aspect, each loses the condition for its existence. Just think, can any one contradictory aspect of a thing or of a concept in the human mind exist independently? It cannot. Without life, there would be no death; without death, there would be no life. Without “above”, there would be no “below”; without “below”, there would be no “above”. Without misfortune, there would be no good fortune; without good fortune, there would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty; without difficulty, there would be no facility.[4-573]Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat; without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without colonies, there would be no imperialist oppression; without imperialist oppression, there would be no colonies.[4-574] It is so with the opposition of both sides in all processes, phenomena, and things; in given conditions, on the one hand they are opposed to each other, and on the other they are interconnected, interpenetrating, interpermeating, interdependent, and in alliance – both in contradiction and in union – and this character is described as identity. In given conditions, all contradictions[4-575] possess the character of non-identity and hence are described as being in contradiction. But they also possess the character of identity and hence are interconnected. This is what Lenin means when he says that dialectics studies how there can be identity.[4-576] This is the first meaning of identity.

[p. 267] But is it enough to say merely that each of the contradictory aspects is the condition for the other’s existence, that there is identity between them and that consequently they can coexist in a single entity? No, it is not. The matter does not end with their dependence on each other for their existence; what is more important is their transformation into each other. In given conditions[4-577] each of the contradictory aspects within a thing transforms itself into its opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction.

Why is there identity here, too? You see, in the relationship between life and death, whether within an organism or in cellular life within an organism, life is transformed into death; life can never last indefinitely, and under certain conditions it moves towards its opposite, and changes into death. Death? Under certain conditions, death too can produce new life, and death is transformed into life; it is not something which comes to an end with death. One could ask: if there is between life and death no connection, no involvement or relationship, that is to say, no identity, why is it that the two opposed entities of life and death are capable of changing into one another?