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. That
is to say, in given conditions, each of the contradictory aspects within a
thing transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position to that of its
opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction.
Why is there identity here, too? You see, by means of revolution the
proletariat, at one time the ruled, is transformed into the ruler, while the
bourgeoisie, the erstwhile ruler, is transformed into the ruled and changes its
position to that originally occupied by its opposite. This has already taken
place in the Soviet Union, as it will take place throughout the world. If there
were no interconnection and identity of opposites in given conditions, how
could such a change take place?
The Kuomintang, which played a certain positive role at a certain
stage in modern Chinese history, became a counter-revolutionary party after
1927 because of its inherent class nature and because of imperialist
blandishments (these being the conditions); but it has been compelled to agree
to resist Japan because of the sharpening of the contradiction between China
and Japan and because of the Communist Party's policy of the united front
(these being the conditions). Things in contradiction change into one another,
and herein lies a definite identity.
Our agrarian revolution has been a process in which the landlord
class owning the land is transformed into a class that has lost its land, while
the peasants who once lost their land are transformed into small holders who
have acquired land, and it will be such a process once again. In given
conditions having and not having, acquiring and losing, are interconnected;
there is identity of the two sides. Under socialism, private peasant ownership
is transformed into the public ownership of socialist agriculture; this has
already taken place in the Soviet Union, as it will take place everywhere else.
There is a bridge leading from private property to public property, which in
philosophy is called identity, or transformation into each other, or
interpenetration.
To consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat or the
dictatorship of the people is in fact to prepare the conditions for abolishing
this dictatorship and advancing to the higher stage when all state systems are
eliminated. To establish and build the Communist Party is in fact to prepare
the conditions for the elimination of the Communist Party and all political
parties. To build a revolutionary army under the leadership of the Communist
Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in fact to prepare the conditions
for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites are at the same time
complementary.
War and peace, as everybody knows, transform themselves into each
other. War is transformed into peace; for instance, the First World War was
transformed into the post-war peace, and the civil war in China has now
stopped, giving place to internal peace. Peace is transformed into war; for
instance, the Kuomintang-Communist co-operation was transformed into war in
1927, and today's situation of world peace may be transformed into a second
world war. Why is this so? Because in class society such contradictory things
as war and peace have an identity in given conditions.
All contradictory things are interconnected; not only do they
coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions,
they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the
identity of opposites. This is what Lenin meant when he discussed "how
they happen to be (how they become) identical--under what
conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another".
Why is it that "the human mind should take these opposites
not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves
into one another"? Because that is just how things are in objective
reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective
things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and
relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself
into its opposite. Reflected in man's thinking, this becomes the Marxist world
outlook of materialist dialectics. It is only the reactionary ruling classes of
the past and present and the metaphysicians in their service who regard opposites
not as living, conditional, mobile and transforming themselves into one
another, but as dead and rigid, and they propagate this fallacy everywhere to
delude the masses of the people, thus seeking to perpetuate their rule. The
task of Communists is to expose the fallacies of the reactionaries and
metaphysicians, to propagate the dialectics inherent in things, and so
accelerate the transformation of things and achieve the goal of revolution.
In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what
we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete
transformations of opposites into one another. There are innumerable
transformations in mythology, for instance, Kua Fu's race with the sun in Shan
Hai Ching, [17] Yi's shooting down of nine suns in Huai Nan
Tzu, [18] the Monkey King's seventy-two metamorphoses inHsi Yu
Chi, [19] the numerous episodes of ghosts and foxes
metamorphosed into human beings in the Strange Tales of Liao
Chai, [20] etc. But these legendary transformations of
opposites are not concrete changes reflecting concrete contradictions. They are
naive, imaginary, subjectively conceived transformations conjured up in men's
minds by innumerable real and complex transformations of opposites into one
another. Marx said, "All mythology masters and dominates and shapes the
forces of nature in and through the imagination; hence it disappears as soon as
man gains mastery over the forces of nature." [21] The myriads of changes in mythology (and also in nursery tales)
delight people because they imaginatively picture man's conquest of the forces
of nature, and the best myths possess "eternal charm", as Marx put
it; but myths are not built out of the concrete contradictions existing in
given conditions and therefore are not a scientific reflection of reality. That
is to say, in myths or nursery tales the aspects constituting a contradiction
have only an imaginary identity, not a concrete identity. The scientific
reflection of the identity in real transformations is Marxist dialectics.
No comments:
Post a Comment