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 complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we
must devote every effort to funding 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
and Stalin taught us this method when they studied imperialism and the general
crisis of capitalism and when they studied the Soviet economy. 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, in any given contradiction, whether principal or secondary, should
the two contradictory aspects be treated as equal? Again, no. In any
contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes
they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative,
while unevenness is basic. 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. The nature of a thing is determined mainly
by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the
dominant position.
But this situation is not static; the principal and the
non-principal aspects of a contradiction transform themselves into each other
and the nature of the thing changes accordingly. 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--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.
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.
In capitalist society, capitalism has changed its position from
being a subordinate force in the old feudal era to being the dominant force,
and the nature of society has accordingly changed from feudal to capitalist. In
the new, capitalist era, the feudal forces changed from their former dominant
position to a subordinate one, gradually dying out. Such was the case, for example,
in Britain and France. With the development of the productive forces, the
bourgeoisie changes from being a new class playing a progressive role to being
an old class playing a reactionary role, until it is finally overthrown by the
proletariat and becomes a class deprived of privately owned means of production
and stripped of power, when it, too, gradually dies out. The proletariat, which
is much more numerous than the bourgeoisie and grows simultaneously with it but
under its rule, is a new force which, initially subordinate to the bourgeoisie,
gradually gains strength, becomes an independent class playing the leading role
in history, and finally seizes political power and becomes the ruling class.
Thereupon the nature of society changes and the old capitalist society becomes
the new socialist society. This is the path already taken by the Soviet Union,
a path that all other countries will inevitably take.
Look at China, for instance. Imperialism occupies the principal
position in the contradiction in which China has been reduced to a semi-colony,
it oppresses the Chinese people, and China has been changed from an independent
country into a semi-colonial one. But this state of affairs will inevitably
change; in the struggle between the two sides, the power of the Chinese people
which is growing under the leadership of the proletariat will inevitably change
China from a semi-colony into an independent country, whereas imperialism will
be overthrown and old China will inevitably change into New China.
No comments:
Post a Comment