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. I have
discussed this in my essay "On Practice". 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 Kuomintang, 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 past but not the
future, only individual parts but not the whole, only the defects but not the
achievements, only the plaintiff's case but not the defendant's, only
underground revolutionary work but not open revolutionary work, and so on. In a
word, it means not to understand the characteristics of both aspects of a
contradiction. This is what we mean by looking at a problem one-sidedly. Or it
may be called seeing the part but not the whole, seeing the trees but not the
forest. That way it is impossible to kind the method for resolving a
contradiction, it is impossible to accomplish the tasks of the revolution, to
carry out assignments well or to develop inner-Party ideological struggle
correctly. When Sun Wu Tzu said in discussing military science, "Know the
enemy and know yourself, and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger of
defeat", [11] he was referring to the two sides in a battle. Wei Chengi [12] of the Tang Dynasty also understood 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. In the novel Shui
Hu Chuan, Sung Chiang thrice attacked Chu Village. [13] 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 Chu Villages and sent his
men in disguise into the enemy camp to lie in wait, using a stratagem similar
to that of the Trojan Horse in the foreign story. And on the third occasion he
won. There are many examples of materialist dialectics in Shui Hu
Chuan, of which the episode of the three attacks on Chu Village is one
of the best. 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.[14]
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. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment