Rev Left Radio - [BEST OF] Mao's “On Contradiction”: The Dialectic of Revolution

Episode Date: April 20, 2025

ORIGINALLY RELEASED Jul 25, 2019 In this episode, Alyson and Breht dive into Mao Zedong’s seminal text On Contradiction—a cornerstone of Marxist philosophy and revolutionary praxis. Written in the heat of anti-imperialist struggle, Mao develops a distinctly materialist theory of dialectics rooted in motion, contradiction, and transformation. We explore his concepts of principal and secondary contradictions, the universality of contradiction, and how this framework guided revolutionary strategy in China and beyond. Whether you’re steeped in Marxist theory or new to dialectical thinking, this episode unpacks one of the most influential philosophical works of the 20th century with clarity, depth, and revolutionary urgency. ---------------------------------------------------- Support Rev Left and get access to bonus episodes: www.patreon.com/revleftradio Make a one-time donation to Rev Left at BuyMeACoffee.com/revleftradio Follow, Subscribe, & Learn more about Rev Left Radio HERE

Hello everyone and welcome back to Red Menace. Today we are covering On Contradiction by Mao. It's a really fascinating text, one that I don't think enough people read, so I'm really excited to get into this and explore the philosophy. This is more, I think it's fair to say, It's more philosophy heavy than some of the other texts, but it's eminently applicable to organizing, which we'll get into in this episode as well.

But before we start, I have a few announcements up top. One is we are doing a collaboration with Bad Mouse, the YouTuber, on this text. So Bad Mouse is making his own video on Contradiction, and we are doing this episode on Contradiction. We're going to link to one another's shows in each other's show notes and just have sort of a collaborative effort where you have two resources to really engage with this text and internalize it from two different perspectives using two different mediums if you listen to us on podcast purely

and look at Bad Mouse on YouTube. So looking forward to that. All that will be in the show notes of this episode. So you can go and click that after you watch this episode. And then as always, we're on Twitter at red menace, red underscore menace underscore pod. We're on Patreon at patreon.com forward slash red menace. And a way to help us out if you don't have any money, which we totally understand, is just to rate and review us on whatever podcast app you have.

It really helps increase our reach. It sort of pumps the algorithm, so our show will pop up as a recommended show for more people with more ratings and reviews. So that's a really great way that you can help us without spending a penny, and we really appreciate it. And if you haven't already, definitely subscribe to our YouTube page. It's a revolutionary left radio.

We put all our Red Menace as well as our Revolutionary Left radio content on that YouTube page. So definitely subscribe if you haven't. And Allison, would you want to read our $20? our tier patrons? Definitely. So yeah, we have a shout-out for our patrons who give to us at a really high level, which we super appreciate and helps us make this show work. So we have Seth Walker, we have Dylan Bucerd, Addington Publishers, who you should absolutely check out. They have some awesome texts that they are putting out on there. Anton Peneckowick and Comrade Garlick Jr., as

always. Thank you so much for your support. It really means the world to us and helps us put out this show. So it's really, really appreciated. Absolutely. And we're going to mention this later in the show, but I'm just going to do it up top as well. We are also. We are also, working with Mark's Madness podcast on the next text, which is going to be on practice. We'll flesh that out at the very end. We'll tell more details. We're still working out some of the details behind the scene, but I wanted to give an upfront shout out to the Mark's Madness Pod. Go check them out. They do some of the similar work we do from a different angle. They spend more time on text. They'll put out episodes on chapters of text, one at a time, which is pretty

interesting. So, you know, it's a little deeper dive, and if you want to dive into more of these materials, that's another resource that you can go check out. But having said all that and getting all that out of the way, I think is ready to dive into the text. So, Allison, if you're ready, let's go. Awesome. Okay. So, yeah, for our first section, we summarized the text, and I'll go ahead and just start us out. So in this text, Mao is basically seeking to explain the law of contradiction.

And in order to help explain sort of the philosophical underpinnings of dialectical materialism in an easy to understand way. So this essay was originally adapted from lectures that Mao gave at the counter-Japanese university, which were then formalized into an actual essay. And there's a lot of interesting stuff going on, and I really recommend that you take the time to read this essay. It's not particularly long. It's very easy to work through, and you now will have this episode to help you through it. But there's some interesting features that happen here, including Mao sort of making links between Chinese philosophy and dialectical materialism, and even contrasting the dialectical view with earlier Chinese philosophy. And so this text operates as an interesting text in many ways, but one way is that it sort of

offers an example of dialectical reasoning that's outside of the European philosophical canon, which is particularly unique. So Mao begins by stating that, quote, the law of contradictions in things, that is the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics. End quote. So given the centrality of this law, Mao asserts that we need to understand it in order to develop a materialist outlook. And this law might sound abstract right now, but Mao is going to give us examples that will really unpack what it means. And it's going to take a second, but if you stick with it, we'll really get there. So in order to really unpack this, Mao wants to talk about what he sees as the two world outlooks that are

sort of in competition with each other. And so these two outlooks represent sort of diverging understanding of the development of things in the world. On the one hand, he says you have the metaphysical or vulgar materialist or mechanical and vulgar evolutionist outlook. And on the other hand, you have the dialectical outlook. This sort of division should sound similar to what Engels does in socialism, Utopian and Scientific's second chapter, where he sort of contrast traditional metaphysics with dialectics. Mao is doing something very similar here. So the first outlook is the metaphysical outlook. And Mao explains that this outlook developed not only in Europe, but also has its grounds in Chinese philosophy, which had its own metaphysical views

and its own approaches to vulgar evolutionism. So Mao explains that, quote, the metaphysical or vulgar evolutionist world outlook sees things as isolated, static, and one-sided. It regards all things in the universe, their forms and their species, as eternally isolated from one another and immutable. Such change as there is can only be an increase or decrease in quantity or a change of place. Moreover, the cause of such an increase or decrease or change of place is not inside things, but outside them. That is, the motive force is external. Metaphysicians hold that all the different kinds of things in the universe and all of their characteristics have been the same ever since they first came into being. And again, this should really sound similar

to what Ingalls outlines when he talks about the metaphysical view, that understands things as static, unchanging, and in isolation. So this is one of the world outlooks. Mao says that this world outlook really developed in Europe as the crass sort of mechanical imperialism and began to dominate in the 17th and 18th centuries. But he says that likewise in China, this kind of metaphysical thinking was actually present within cultural and religious practices of the time. He looks towards a Chinese idiom, heaven changes not. Likewise, the Tao changes not. As an example of this unchanging focus on isolation and staticness within traditional Chinese philosophy.

And Mao also points out that this isn't just sort of an abstract idea. It played an ideological role within China. The feudal landlord class used this idea of stasis and the unchangingness of the Tao in order to justify the continuance of the status quo and to push back against revolutionary demands for change made against them. Mao also notes that the bourgeois as they began to develop within China imported the European philosophy of metaphysics back into the country as a way of looking at the world. So in contrast to this outlook, Mao examines the outlook of materialist dialectics.

He explains that this view, quote, holds that in order to understand the development of a thing, we should study it internally and in its relation with other things. In other words, the development of a thing should be seen as their internal and necessary self-movement, while each thing in its movement is interrelated with and interacts on the things around it. The fundamental cause of development of a thing is not external, but internal. It lies in the contradictions within the thing. There is internal contradiction in every single thing. Hence, it's motion and development. Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of development. And while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary

causes. So again, here we understand things in relationship with the other things around them. They are not in isolation. And they are also not. static. They change over time. They transform because they have these contradictions within them that constantly keep them moving. The other philosophical point that Mao is delineating that might be a little more difficult to grasp is this idea of external or internal causes. Mao says changes to things happen from internal contradictions within them, not simply external forces being applied on them. And this is one way he says dialectics varies from the metaphysical view. So Mao is very careful to assert that this view does not claim that all change is caused

by internal factors, however. He doesn't really deny that external causes for change exist, but rather, Mao explains that external causes operate as the conditions for a change to occur, whereas the internal causes operate as the basis on which a change occurs. Now, this might sound kind of abstract, but one way to think about this is that external causes can only change something if the internal causes to a thing are already there and developed in a way that would allow that change to occur. So Mao therefore concludes that, quote, external causes become operative through internal causes." And again, because this is really abstract, Mao gives this an example that might help us understand this. In order to demonstrate this, he gives

the example of an egg. He notes that at the correct temperature, a fertilized egg will develop into a chicken, but at the same time, you can put a rock in that same temperature, and it will not develop into a chicken. So, why is this the case? Mao says this is because the egg has an internal cause within it, which is the basis for the change. The external factor, the temperature, acts on that internal cause, and that internal cause doesn't exist within a rock because a rock is not a fertilized embryo that can change into something. So even if you put it in the same external circumstances, it does not generate the same effect. Now again, these are kind of fine-tooth philosophical distinctions, but I think Mao will make it clear why they matter. So having

explained this more abstract outlook, Mao applies it to politics and revolution in order to once again sort of make it concrete. He explains that the October Revolution opened the possibility for other revolutions around the world, when the Bolsheviks took power that inspired people in other countries and showed that it was possible. And yet, the external cause of the Bolshevik revolution is not what caused revolution within China. Mao says that external cause helped create the conditions for it to be possible, but it was the class contradictions internal to Chinese society itself, which were the primary condition necessary for that revolution to occur. And so again, when we look to politics, we can see how Mao thinks that the

causes of change and development are internal to the things that we're analyzing, even on the scale of looking at Chinese society. Mout also observes the way that contradiction plays out internally within revolutionary parties, so it's not just revolutionary struggles, but when we look at our own organizations, contradictions are acting themselves out there. He writes, In China in 1927, the defeat of the proletariat by the big bourgeoisie came about through an opportunism and then to be found within the Chinese proletariat itself, inside the Communist party. When we liquidated this opportunism, the Chinese Revolution resumed its advance. Later, the Chinese Revolution again suffered severe setbacks at the hands of the enemy because adventurism

had arisen within our party. When we liquidated this adventurism, our cause advanced once again. So even within our own organizing, Mao sees these contradictions playing out and they can drive us forward or backwards in our struggle. Mao also notes that dialectics, you know, as a historical idea, precedes Marxism and was developed in both China and Europe. So again, even Ingalls notes that you can find the idea of dialectics all the way back to the Greeks. This is not something totally new, but this is a more mature and holistic dialectics and a less naive one that understands the way that dialectics operates throughout all of existence as a universalizing function. So now concludes this section by saying, quote, The dialectical world outlook teaches us primarily how to observe and analyze the movement of opposites in different things,

and on the basis of such analysis to indicate the methods for resolving contradictions. it is therefore most important for us to understand the law of contradiction in things in a concrete way." End quote. And so here Mao really emphasizes why this super abstract philosophical concept is important. It gives us insight into how to move politics forward. It gives us insight into how to work within our organizations against opportunism. It gives us a ton of insight into how the world functions on the whole. So now moving on to the next section of the text, Mao wants to look at what he calls the universality of contradictions. So Mao argues that dialectical materialism doesn't simply explain abstract theoretical issues,

but it actually maps onto the study of the natural sciences as well. And this is a bold claim that I think we should really consider thoroughly. He explains that as soon as Marxists really start to develop the dialectical world outlook, they found that it was able to explain a whole host of phenomena. And this for Mao was really proof for the universality of contradiction. Most Marxists understand universality, according to Mao, but they don't necessarily understand particularity. which Brett will talk about in a second, but Mao says universality needs to really be understood first

so that we can come to grips with dialectics. So Mao explains that the universality of contradiction has sort of two separate meanings. First, it means that contradictions exist in the process of development of all things, and the other is that in the process of development of each thing, a movement of opposite exists from beginning to end. Again, this sounds abstract, so let's go ahead and try to break down what that means. Let's look at a contradiction, like the contradiction between the proletariat and the capitalists. On the one hand, both of those are self-negating forces. Their interests are at odds with each other, and they can't peacefully coexist. But on the other hand, they both require the other to have meaning. Without the bourgeoisie, the proletariat would not be

the proletariat, and without the proletariat, the bourgeoisie would not have a workforce to extract value from. And so the contradiction has this sort of universality in that sense. But the other point that Mao makes is that within contradictions, those things exist at the very beginning of a contradiction occurring, and we'll get into that more specifically in a second. So at first, this claim does seem abstract, but Mao clarifies as a bit in order to make it easier to understand by citing Lennon's analysis of contradiction in various fields of study. He writes, quote, in mathematics, plus and minus, differential and integral. In mechanics, action and reaction, in physics, positive and negative electricity. In chemistry, the combination and dissolution of atoms.

In social science, the class struggle and war to fit offense and defense, advance and retreat, victory and defeat are all mutually contradictory phenomena. One cannot exist without the other. The two aspects are at once in conflicts and interdependent, and this constitutes the totality of war and pushes the development forward and solves its problems." So this is the universality of contradiction playing itself out in various different ways. When we look at math, when we look at science, we can see it happening according to Mao and Lenin. So Mao also asserts that contradiction is not simply present in the natural sciences and mathematics, but it also plays out an ideology as well. Again, he argues, quote, every difference in men's concepts should be regarded

as reflecting an objective contradiction. Objective contradictions are reflected in subjective thinking, and this process constitutes the contradictory movement of concepts, pushes forward the development of thought, and ceaselessly solves the problems in man's thinking, end quote. So again, this isn't just a political reality, but he really says how we produce knowledge and how we think functions also through the universality contradiction. So the universality of contradiction. So the universality contradiction also means that when a new process emerges, it is already constituted on the basis of contradiction. Let's think about capitalism again, for an example. When capitalism was birthed into the reality, it immediately had a contradiction between the proletariat and the

bourgeoisie. It immediately had a contradiction between socialized labor and individual appropriation. It didn't have to reach maturity for those contradictions to exist. The very birth of capitalism was created with those contradictions. And so we can see that the universality of contradiction extends to the beginning of new political processes as well. All right. So, after having demonstrated the universality of contradiction, Mao moves toward a discussion of the particularity of contradiction. Or put another way, after having explained how contradictions operate in general, he is now

going to explain how they operate in specific individual instances. Mao says that everything contains within itself its own particular contradiction, and it's precisely this particular contradiction in a thing. thing, which constitutes its individual essence and thus distinguishes it from other things. He notes that everything is interdependent and interconnected, nothing can be separated from the whole, but each thing is distinct from every other thing via its particular contradiction. Every form of society, every form of ideology, every form of struggle has its own particular contradictions. Every field of science, too, has its own contradictions, and it's the particular

their contradictions in different objects of study, which differentiate branches of science. In mechanics, there is the contradiction between action and reaction, while in physics, the contradiction consists in positive and negative electricity. If, for example, the contradiction between positive and negative charges didn't exist in physics, we would not have a universe at all, as the interaction between electrons and protons are fundamental to the structure of our cosmos. In the same way, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, is fundamental to the structure of capitalism, as is the contradiction, as Allison said,

between the social nature of production and the individual ownership of the means of that production. As we discussed in depth in our first episode of Red Menace on Engels' famous text, Socialism, Utopian, and Scientific. Now, it's essential to remember here that we must understand both the universality of contradiction as well as the particularity of it if we hope to understand either on its own.

There is a dialectical relationship between the, universal and the particular. As Mao says, unless we understand the universality of contradiction, we have no way of discovering the universal cause or universal basis for the movement or development of individual things. And unless we study the particularity of contradiction, we have no way of determining the particular essence of a thing which differentiates it from other things. No way of discovering the particular cause or particular basis for the movement or development of a thing. And no way of distinguishing one thing from another or of demarcating fields of science end quote but this raises the question of sequence and the question is this in what order

do humans learn about these things mouse says that the sequence of knowledge starts with knowledge of individual or particular things and then moves toward knowledge of things in general only after humans understand the particular essence of many different individual things can we move to an understanding of things in general this is broadly known as inductive reasoning starting from the specific and moving toward the general. However, once this move has been made, humans then move back to the study of particular things, back to the specific from the general, using their now-understood knowledge of the general to guide and help structure a more rigorous exploration of various concrete things which have

not yet been studied or studied deeply enough. Okay, I know that's a lot. So let's take what I just said and try to understand it with an example. Let's use Darwinian evolution as an example here, since most people are at least somewhat familiar with it. So how did Darwin come up with the theory of evolution via natural selection? Well, in a simplified way, he started with the study of individual animals. Famously, on his travels around the Galapagos Islands, as a young man, he studied the beaks of finches, which is a type of small bird. He found that on different islands, the beaks of the finches were different,

in both form and function. Darwin eventually realized that one species, namely the finch, had spread out to different islands and thus different environments, and that their beaks had been modified based on those different environments. So finches who lived in an area where nectar from flowers were the main food source had long, skinny beaks to reach the deep inside the flowers to extract the nectar, while finches who lived in an area where seeds were the main food source developed short stout beaks for breaking and crushing the shells. From this study of individual and many particular birds,

as well as countless other species, of course, Darwin moved to the general and showed how these individual instances all pointed to a general law known as evolution via natural selection. Then, after the general universal law of evolution was established, biologists went back to particular individual organisms and studied them through the lens of natural selection. This eventually led to the understanding of genetics, which became a scientific field of study all its own,

the development of antibiotics, gene editing, and much more. Hence, through this process, knowledge increased, and our understanding of biology was taken to an entirely new level. and the process begins again. This is also, of course, the way that Marx and angles came to understand capitalism and develop historical materialism, which we then use to make sense of our specific conditions to this very day. Mao concludes, quote, thus cognition always moves in cycles, and so long as the scientific

method is strictly adhered to, each cycle advances human knowledge a step higher and makes it more and more profound, end quote. This is, in summarized form, the Marxist theory of knowledge. Moving on, Mao pivots from discussing the study of particular contradictions in things and toward a discussion of the particular contradictions in processes. Since we understand dialectics as a constant process of change, any study of the contradictions in an object or form must also be a study of the process of its development.

Moreover, each process of development is qualitatively different and therefore calls for different methods in order to resolve it. And Mao says we must emphasize and start from this point. Let's quote Mao at length here because nobody's better at explaining this stuff than Mao himself. Quote, qualitatively different contradictions can only be resolved by qualitatively different methods. For instance, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is resolved by the method of socialist revolution. The contradiction between the great masses of the people and the feudal system is resolved by the method of democratic revolution. The contradiction between the colonies and imperialism is resolved by the method of national liberation war.

Contradiction within the Communist Party is resolved by the method of criticism and self-criticism. The contradiction between society and nature is resolved by the method of developing the productive forces. Processes change. Old processes and old contradictions disappear. New processes and new contradictions emerge. And the methods of resolving contradictions differ accordingly. In Russia, there was a fundamental difference between the contradiction resolved by the February Revolution and the contradiction resolved by the October Revolution, as well as between the methods used to resolve them. The principle of using different methods to resolve different contradictions

is one which Marxist-Leninists must strictly observe. The dogmatists do not observe this principle. They do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds of revolution, and so do not understand that different methods should be used to resolve different contradictions. On the contrary, they invariably adopt what they imagine to be an unalterable formula and arbitrarily apply it everywhere, which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what was originally well done.

End quote. Mao then goes on to argue that in order to understand particular contradictions in a given process, one must understand the two aspects of each contradiction in that process. You see, contradictions are dichotomies, right? They have two sides. They are also interconnected in bigger totalities. So the contradiction between you and your boss when you ask for a raise, is one concrete instance of the bigger contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

And in order to grasp that contradiction and to ultimately resolve it, we must understand both sides of that contradiction as much as we possibly can. In other words, we must avoid what Mao calls one-sidedness. If, for example, you go into your boss's office to ask for a raise, only having contemplated your side of things, only your perspective and your interests, and having failed to think deeply about also about your boss's perspective, interest, the strategy or method you employ and asking for that raise will likely be naive,

one-sided, and ultimately less effective. You have to know yourself as well as your enemy in order to be able to navigate the contradiction between the two of you effectively. You have to know what your bosses' weaknesses are, where their sympathies lie, what mood they are in, what the financial standing of the business is as a whole, etc. In this way, you can craft a strategy for when and how to approach the situation. This truth applies not only to you and your boss, but but also to the scaled-up context of organizing against our class enemies, of fighting wars, or an opposing imperialism. Mao says, quote,

To be one-sided means not to look at problems all-sidedly. For example, to understand only China, but not Japan. Only the proletariat, but not the bourgeoisie. Only the peasants, but not the landlords. Only the favorable conditions, but not the difficult ones. Individual parts, but not the whole. Only the defects, but not the achievements. 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, end quote. In short, you must study both aspects of any given contradiction with equal depth and rigor in order to develop an effective method. Lenin said that the most essential thing in Marxism is the concrete analysis of concrete conditions. Mao said that in studying a problem, we must shun subjectivity, one-sidedness, and superficiality. Lenin and Mao are saying the same thing. and it behooves us all to listen to them.

Digging even deeper, Mao goes on to argue that not only must we study the particular contradictions in a thing, and not only must we study the particular contradictions in a process, but we must also study the particular contradictions in each stage of a process. This is because, as Mao says, quote, although the nature of the fundamental contradiction in the process of development of a thing and the essence of the process remain unchanged,

the fundamental contradiction becomes more and more intensified, as it passes from one stage to another in the lengthy process. In addition, among the numerous major and minor contradictions which are determined or influenced by the fundamental contradiction, some become intensified, some are temporarily or partially resolved or mitigated, and some new ones emerge. Hence the process is marked by stages. If people do not pay attention to the stages in the process of development of a thing,

they cannot deal with its contradictions properly. For instance, when the capitalism of the era of free competition developed into imperialism, there was no change in the class nature of the two classes in fundamental contradiction, namely the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, or in the capitalist essence of society. However, the contradiction between these two classes became intensified. The contradiction between monopoly and non-monopoly capital emerged. The contradiction between the colonial powers and the colonies became intensified.

The contradiction among the capitalist countries resulting from their uneven development manifested itself with particular sharpness, and thus there arose the special stage of capitalism, the stage of imperialism, or monopoly capitalism. Leninism is the Marxism of the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution, precisely because Lenin and Stalin have correctly explained these contradictions and correctly formulated the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution for their resolution. End quote. In summary, when studying the particularity of a given contradiction, we must study the two

aspects of one, the contradiction in each thing or object, two, the contradiction in each thing or object's process of development, and three, the contradiction at each stage in that process of development. The dogmatist errors that Mao rails against throughout this chapter all stem from abandoning this systematic and methodical study, often out of laziness, idealism, or both. They turn away from dialectics, and in so doing fall prey to its opposite. Dogmatism. Chapter 4 is the principal contradiction. So Mao begins chapter 4 by asserting that there are still two points to address concerning the particularity of contradiction which need attention.

And those are one, the principal contradiction, and two, the principal aspect of a contradiction. The principal contradiction is exactly what it sounds like, the primary contradiction. Mao explains that there are many contradictions in the development of a complex thing. For instance, there are many different contradictions in capitalist society, but the principal contradiction in capitalist society is the one between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This principle contradiction goes on to determine, influence, or otherwise shape the development of other contradictions. In capitalist society, some of these secondary contradictions which exist under the principal contradiction of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie include contradictions between the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie, between the peasants and the proletariat,

between bourgeois democracy and bourgeois fascism, and even between segments of the rule. class as in the contradiction between Democrats and Republicans here in the United States. And while all of these contradictions jostle and shift and interpenetrate, the fact remains that there is and can only be one principal contradiction which plays the leading role. To fail to grasp this principle contradiction means almost by definition one will fail to resolve the secondary or subordinate contradictions. Being able to distinguish between the principle and subordinate contradictions is a skill communist must develop and sharpen. Moving on to the second point at part of this chapter, Mao asks rhetorically,

in any given contradiction, whether principle or secondary, should the two contradictory aspects be treated as equal? He answers in the negative. I said above that one should study both aspects of a contradiction with equal depth and rigor, but that does not imply that both aspects of a given contradiction are equal in power or intensity. For even within a single contradiction, the two aspects themselves differ. One aspect must be the principal aspect, and the other must be the principle aspect, and the other must be the secondary aspect. The nature of a thing is determined, as Mao says,

mainly by the principal aspect of a given contradiction. One aspect gains the dominant position. Now, this might sound weird, but it's not at all difficult to grasp. It's very clear that in capitalism, the bourgeoisie is the dominant aspect over the proletariat. If the opposite were true, we would be in a socialist transition period. To assert that they could be both equally strong in a static state of affairs is anti-dialectical and incoherent.

though I'm sure there are plenty of liberal idealists who believe this is true, or at least think that it's possible. However, understanding that every contradiction at any given time has a dominant aspect and a subordinate one dissolves such confusion and brings clarity in its wake. To understand all of this a little bit better, we must understand the contradiction between the new and the old. So going back to Mao, Mao explains, quote, 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 and accordance with its essence and external conditions.

This is the process of the new superseding the old. In each thing, there is a 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 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. He goes on.

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, stripped of power, when it, too, gradually dies out. The proletariat, which is much more numerous

than the bourgeoisie and grow 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. End quote. So it's the contradiction between the new and the old that ensures things never fall into a static pendulum swing back and forth. For the moment the principal aspect of a principal contradiction gets overwhelmed by its opposite, it undergoes a qualitative change.

Finally, to close out these chapters, I want to quote Mao once again to highlight how it's precisely the sort of dialectical thinking which permeates this entire text that prevents and cuts against the sort of mechanical and reductionist thinking that can and often does lead many Marxists down the road to dogmatism. I think this quote highlights the flexibility and precision of thought that makes Mao such a wonderful thinker and leader. He says, quote, when we engage in study, the same holds good for the contradiction in the passage from ignorance to knowledge.

At the very beginning of our study of Marxism, our ignorance of or scanty acquaintance with Marxism stands in contradiction to knowledge of Marxism. But by assiduous study, ignorance can be transformed into knowledge. scanty knowledge into substantial knowledge and blindness in the application of Marxism into mastery of its application. Some people think that this is not true of certain contradictions. For instance, in the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces are the principal aspect. In the contradiction between theory and practice, practice is the principal aspect.

In the contradiction between the economic base and the superstructure, the economic base is the principal aspect. and there is no change in their respective positions. This is the mechanical materialist conception, not the dialectical materialist conception. True, the productive forces, practice, and the economic base generally played the principle and decisive role. Whoever denies this is not a materialist. But it must also be admitted that in certain conditions,

such aspects as the relations of production, theory, and the superstructure, in turn manifest themselves in the principle and decisive role. When it is impossible for the production, forces to develop without a change in the relations of production, then the change in the relations of production plays the principal and decisive role. The creation and advocacy of revolutionary theory plays the principle and decisive role in those times of which Lenin said, without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement. When a task

has to be performed, but there is as yet no guiding line, method, plan, or policy, the principle and decisive thing is to decide on a guiding line method plan or policy. When the superstructure, politics, culture, et cetera, obstructs the development of the economic base, political and cultural changes become principal and decisive. Are we going against materialism when we say this? No. The reason is that while we recognize that in general development of history, the material determines the mental, and that social being determines social consciousness,

we also, and indeed must, recognize the reaction of mental on material things, of social consciousness on social being, and of the superstructure on the social consciousness on economic base. This does not go against materialism. On the contrary, it avoids mechanical materialism and firmly upholds dialectical materialism. God damn, I love Mao. Allison? Awesome. So yeah. Next, Mao moves into the last two chapters of the text, and first he's going to look at the concept of identity and struggle in relation to contradictions. So he explains that the meaning of identity as follows. Quote, identity, unity, coincidence, interpenetration, interpermeation, interdependence, or mutual dependence for existence, interconnection, or mutual cooperation.

All these 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 the process of the development of a thing presupposes the existence of the other aspect, and both aspects coexist in a single entity. Second, in a given contradiction, each of the two contradictory aspects transforms itself into its opposite. This is the meaning of identity, end quote. So let's break down exactly what Mao is saying with these sort of two concepts of identity that are at play. So Mao explains that opposites exclude each other by their very nature, but that they also rely on each other in order to have meaning

in the first place. Mao says that this relationship defines every process in existence, and that simpler processes often contain a single opposition within them, while more complex ones can contain countless oppositions within them. The individual aspect of contradictory, cannot exist on their own. They rely on each other. However, they only exist in relation to their opposites. Mao sums things up really simply by stating, quote, without life, there would be no death, and without death, there would be no life. Without above, there would be no below, and without below, there would be no good fortune, and without good fortune, there would be no misfortune. Without facility, there would be no difficulty, and without difficulty, there would be no

facility. Without landlords, there would be no tenant peasants, and without tenant peasants, there would be no landlords. Without the bourgeoisie, there would be no proletariat, and without the proletariat, there would be no bourgeoisie. Without imperialist oppression of nations, there would be no colonies or semi-colonies, and without colonies or semi-colonies, there would be no imperialist impression of nations, end quote. So in this sense, opposites can be said to be identical to each other, in as much as they're mutually constitutive of each other, and rely on each other, even though they're negating of each other as well. This is a complex idea, but this is only the first meaning of identity.

The second understanding and meaning of identity is the more important one in many ways. So another meaning that must be grasped concerns, quote, their transformation into each other. That is to say, in given conditions, each of the contradictory aspects with anything transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of it. identity and contradiction. End quote. So Mao provides the concept of bourgeois revolution in order to demonstrate exactly how the transformation occurs. He explains that in the proletarian revolution,

for example, the working class goes from being the ruled to being the ruler, and the capitalist class goes from ruling to being the ruled. Thus, we can see that there is identity derived from transformation of one into the other. He also looks that in the anti-feudal revolutions, the way that the landlord class goes from being a class that possesses land and brings it to others to a class that doesn't have land. So identity in the second sense means the transformation of one aspect of the contradiction into the other aspect of the contradiction. Mao summarized this is this theory as follows. Quote, 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. End quote. Marxes are thus concerned with examining and really explaining the constant movement and transformation, which occurs in all social processes and phenomena. And this concept of identity is crucial to us because that transformation of one into the other is precisely what we want to achieve by building socialism to depose the capitalist class and substitute the proletarian class for the ruling class during the transitionary period. Mao carefully explains this a little bit further, however. He's not claiming, of course, that anything at any time can transform into anything else. That's an absurd idea. He poses the question, once again, why is it that an egg can transform into a chicken,

while a stone cannot. And his answer to this is that contradiction and identity exist in specific and necessary conditions, and that outside those conditions, there's no identity at all. He finally concludes that, quote, when we said above that the two opposite things can coexist in a single entity and can transform themselves into each other, because there is an identity between them, we are speaking of conditionality. That is to say, that in given conditions, two contradictory things can be united and can transform themselves into each other. But in the absence of these conditions, cannot constitute a contradiction, cannot constitute and coexist in the same entity, and cannot transform themselves into one another. End quote. So the transformation that exists as a part of

identity only happens in specific and certain contexts, and this is crucial. So in the final section of the text, Mao turns to analyzing the difference between antagonistic and non-intaginistic contradictions. Mao explains that the struggle between opposites within a contradiction can take both antagonistic and non-intaginistic forms. And with a single contradiction, you may see that struggle vacillate between the two in various conditions. So he looks at class struggle as an example of this change between antagonism and non-intaginism. So in class society, oftentimes class struggle is really non- antagonistic, inasmuch as it hasn't broken out into open violence and open class warfare. Under liberalism, there is an attempt to mediate

the enmity between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And while this attempt will always fail over the long term, it can put the class struggle into a somewhat non-intaginistic form. but then crisis occurs, then change occurs, and suddenly you have revolution. And when revolution occurs, what you are seeing is the contradiction expressed through last struggle becoming antagonistic. It becomes violent. It becomes ruptuous. And it changes into something else entirely. And in this antagonistic form, we see society move forward as identity functions, and one is transformed into the other by these open forms of antagonistic contradiction. So we need to then understand the way that certain catalysts like crisis,

can move a non-intagynistic contradiction into being an antagonistic contradiction. And this concept is of the utmost importance for Mao because it demonstrates the historical inevitability of revolutions and of revolutionary wars in class society. The fact that liberalism may achieve temporary non-intaginism does not mean that revolutions are impossible because non-intaginism is just a temporary state of a contradiction. It will always eventually reach an antagonistic phase. Social development occurs as a result of these revolutions because only this openly antagonistic movement can create the conditions by which contradictions are transformed. Mao, of course, cautions against applying this formula dogmatically or mechanistically, as he

always will, and stresses this need to investigate the specific conditions in which revolutions occur. He writes, quote, however, we must make a concrete study of the circumstances of each specific struggle of opposites, and should not arbitrarily apply the formula discussed above to everything. Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the method of resolving contradiction, that is, the form of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by open antagonism, while others are not. And in accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions were originally non-intaginistic, develop into antagonistic ones,

while others, which were originally antagonistic, develop into non-intaginistic ones. The insights garnered from this theory of antagonistic and non-intaginistic contradiction do not just apply to the big picture of revolution, but also apply to struggle within communist movements and organizations themselves. So we can look, for example, at what Mao points to, is the disagreement between Lenin and Stalin on the one hand, and Bukharan and Trotsky on the other hand. For many years within the Bolsheviks and then within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, there was non-intaginistic struggle around these disagreements. But obviously, it reached a point where that struggle became antagonistic and purging occurred. And this is an example of how

that change can occur within an organization itself. Mao makes sure to point out that antagonistic contradictions can be avoided, however, by party members and factions being willing to make material investigations, recognize when they're wrong, and to self-criticize and correct their incorrect ideas. As long as this process is moving, the contradiction within a party does not necessarily have to reach a point of antagonism. So, finally, Mao concludes this text with a brief summary of the importance of summarizing of studying contradictions, and I'll simply relay most of that idea here. Quote,

the law of contradictions and things, that is the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society, and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook. It represents a great revolution in the history of human knowledge. The struggle of opposites is ceaseless. It goes on both when the opposites are coexisting and when they are transforming themselves into each other, and becomes especially conspicuous when they are transforming themselves into one another. This, again, is the universality and absoluteness of contradiction. In studying the particularity and relativity of contradiction,

we must give attention to the distinction between the principal contradiction and the non-principle contradictions, and to the distinction between the principal aspect and the non-principle aspect of contradiction. In studying the universality of contradiction and the struggle of opposites in contradiction, we must give attention to the distinction between the different forms of struggle. Otherwise, we shall make mistakes. if through study we reach a real understanding of the essentials explained above, we shall be able to demolish dogmatist ideas,

which are contrary to the basic principles of Marxism, Weminism, and detrimental to our revolutionary cause, and our comrades with practical experience will be able to organize their experience into principles and avoid repeating empiricist errors. These are a few simple conclusions from our study of the law of contradictions, end quote. And I think that summarizes really well the crucialness of this text for Marxists. Yep.

And that right there concludes section one. Now, I want to say that we understand this is one of our more difficult text. It's more philosophically sort of deep and difficult. The words he uses, the nuance distinctions he makes, it can be confusing. And so, you know, if you're a little bit confused still, don't worry. These next two sections are specifically so we can sort of tease out some of these things, apply it to our organizing today and show how this text is still relevant and how we can actually put it into practice.

And then again, this is why we're doing this collab with Badmouse, right? We want to give multiple resources, multiple ways to engage with this fairly difficult text so you can have a better understanding. And I'll also say that the text itself, I mean, on contradiction, I think in my book, was only 50 pages long. So, you know, a lot of this stuff is difficult, but the text itself is pretty short. So with the bad mouse collab and with these next couple sections and also if you're interested to go reading the book, you can really get a good understanding of this philosophy

and come to really appreciate how nuanced and interest. it is and how kind of changes the way that you look at the world and and sort of see it in all of its constantly changing, churning, blossoming beauty. It's kind of fascinating in that way. So that's section one, section two of course discussion questions and then section three. We will apply this theory to practical organizing and to our lives in the here and now. Okay, I will start section two with a question for Allison. So Mouse speaks to the universality of contradictions in this text. And in many ways, this text harkens to a now unpopular philosophical framework which proposes universal validity.

This sort of approach has been critiqued by post-structural and post-modern schools of thought as a reckless universalization of knowledge that is actually derived from specific cultural and historical context. So with that in mind, how would we reply to such criticism of the philosophical universality underlying Mao's theory in this piece? So, yeah, I think that, you know, if you look at contemporary criticisms of Marxist, that are coming from the left in some way. This is one that you hear a lot. Post-structuralism and postmodernism, which are these overarching terms that refer to very contradictory theories. If we can draw general traits from them, often have a skepticism towards the idea of universality

and the idea that there's knowledge that's universally applicable in all instances. And I think Mao is making claims about universality here. The idea that contradiction exists within everything, and that contradiction is a law that is at play everywhere, and that the insights of contradiction are universally applicable, is this kind of universalizing philosophy that is often not very popular today. So what is it that Mao is doing and why is it maybe not as bad as many of these critics might think? So on the one hand, I think I want to point out that Mao is not making some sort of enlightenment, rationality sort of argument about how it is that humans have a perfect understanding of the world. He's not doing that. And he's not playing

into those concerns that a lot of post-structuralists and postmodernists might be scared about. And in fact, though Mao is claiming that there is a universal aspect of contradiction, he's very careful to point out that we need to understand contradictions in their particularity, though. So while no matter where you go in the world and whatever it is you try to explain, contradiction is going to be the lens that you should look through it, what the actual form of that contradiction is, the way to struggle around it and the ways that it manifests are going to be particular to the context in which they manifest. And so I actually think that within what we see here with Mao, we see what is neither sort of the brash enlightenment rationality idea that Penny have critiqued, or sort of subjectivity

and relativism on the other end. It almost is a dialectical synthesis that exists in between both of them. On the one hand, you have universality, and on the other hand, you have particularity, and you can't understand one without the other. The universal usefulness of understanding contradictions plays out in specific context and has to be grasped that way. So really, when we look at it in that sense, I think that we can see that Mao's ideas avoid a lot of the criticisms about maybe grand narratives and universal views of truth. And at the same time, I actually think Mao is useful for criticizing some of the philosophical ideas that postmodernists and post-structuralists are concerned about. Mao doesn't like dogmatism. He doesn't like mechanistic applications

of reason and metaphysics. And in that sense, the sort of brash and maybe arrogant epistemologies of Europe that assume that they have grasped the real world in all of its ways and can understand how it plays out everywhere mechanistically is exactly the sort of thinking that Mao is cautioning against. The vulgar evolutionism of European metaphysics is just as bad as other mistakes. And Mao gives us the ability to understand that dogmatic and mechanistic assessments of the world that ignore cultural particularity, that ignore national particularity, and even to an extent ignore the personal particularity of those involved in processes of contradiction are arrogant mistakes that have universalized too far.

Where Mao's useful, though, is he doesn't give up on the idea of universality in favor of the idea of particularity. He finds a way to balance both of them dialectically and show how they rely on each other in order for us to have an actual assessment of the world. Yeah. Could not agree more. Perfect answer, in my opinion. And yeah, that dialectical approach to knowledge sort of hedges against the worst excesses of both sides of that debate. So, yeah, incredibly well said. Awesome. So I'll go ahead and with the next question. So I'm interested in Mao's thoughts on contradictions. within the Communist Party and movement. So here in the United States, we have obviously a very fractured movement that you could see as being plagued by diverging theories and goals. I mean, we spend most of our time arguing with each other, right? So there are very clear divergences which are happening there. And so I guess my question is that when we're navigating these disagreements,

how do we delineate between disagreements which, you know, are simply our comrades diverging on specific points and disagreements wherein comrades might be forwarding reactionary interest that reflect broader class struggle? The reason I ask this, right, is that matter says that within our own conflicts, these reflect broader class contradictions. So I'm wondering how we parse that out. Okay, so I'm going to give my best shot, and then, you know, you can criticize it or give me your thoughts as well. But, you know, I think, you know, the first thing that comes to mind is, you know, I think

by putting the analysis that Mao gives us in this text into practice really truly and sincerely and consistently can be a great first step when it comes to analyzing this problem, right? Understanding the nuances of contradictions is essential, not only to think in the flexible and critical way that dialectical materialism demands of us, but it's also eminently useful to apply in these concrete situations. By studying both the universal and particular contradictions of our time and place, we can better understand how these divergences of thought play into the broader struggle. In Lenin and Mao, we see their ability to navigate inter-left conflict in a strategic way, and depending on the contradictions of their situation, this could lead

them to either struggle with their fellow leftists toward unity or to take a more hostile approach and disassociate with them. In Lenin, we see someone who in one context saw how the call for dissent or criticism within the movement worsened the situation overall and weakened the movement as a whole, while in another context we see him defending the importance of debate within the movement. In Mao, we see even in this very text how he refers at times to quote-unquote our dogmatist comrades, showing how even though he feels they have succumbed to a great error, he is still their comrade and is willing to put in the work to educate them out of that dogmatism,

which this work goes a long way in doing. In fact, one of the main reasons he wrote this book is precisely to clarify and help produce better thinking in the party. At other times, though, he understands that the situation calls for a more extreme and hostile measure, as when he called for the cultural revolution, seeing the contradictions within the party and within the broader Chinese culture very clearly. And this sort of strategic and sober analysis of conditions and the consequent posture they take towards these errors, I think speaks volumes and shows us at least a path forward with regards to these issues. You know, while we will never be able to pull out a specific answer on how to handle a

specific situation from a given text, what we can and should do is pick up the methodology that these revolutionaries are teaching us and apply it in as principled and consistent a way as we can in order to find the correct route forward in any given circumstance. And then added to that, lastly, I would just also add this. this idea of subjectivity. Mao is also warning against subjectivist forms of thought. And one way that that can manifest is letting your, you know, personal disputes and beefs with individual people or personality clashes sort of hide behind ideological disputes. You see this a lot in organizing where the fundamental contradiction is primarily between two individuals clashing for whatever

reason, but the sort of veil it's given is that it is a real debate about principled, you know, strategy or ideology or whatever. And so I think, you know, Mao is, especially in our hyper-egoic, hyper-individualist American society, Mao is telling us to put aside that egoic, subjectivist way of dealing with other people and take this broader dialectical approach to organizing and our own approaches to these specific problems. So I guess that's my initial reaction and thought to that question, but I'd love to hear yours. Absolutely. I mean, I think that insight on subjectivity is so important, right? Because you can just tell when you're watching disagreements on the left that oftentimes the nitpicking

that's happening is about trying retroactively to find an ideological disagreement that maps onto a personal beef between two people, essentially. And I feel like you just see this all the time. And yeah, I hadn't even really thought of applying Mao in that particular way to thinking through this question. But I think that that's true. And I think it didn't. demonstrates how important it is for us to keep our eyes as organizers and as communists on not just our own personal feelings about things and working from there, but working on a real actual materialist assessment of the conditions in which our movement is operating in and then hashing out disagreements from there with actual strategy tactics

instead of sort of subjective feelings about other organizers. Yeah, exactly. All right. So last question, then we'll move on to the application of theory section. so in chapter three Mao is discussing dogmatism and he says quote 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 so you know just to make sure listeners sort of understand the reference to empiricism in this context can you like briefly tell us what empiricism is and what the Marxist critique of it is in the context of this passage and text definitely so in order to understand this I think I'm going to reference a little bit on practice which talk about later, because Mao really impacts this here. But Mao references in many of his works, actually, this classic distinction within philosophy between rationalism and empiricism. And in the most abstract sense, these are sort of competing epistemological theories of how we

come to know things. Rationalism in maybe its most purified intense forms, you can see, for example, in Descartes. It's this idea that it's deductive thought within the mind that brings us to real knowledge. Descartes, if you read the meditations, for example, says that we have to doubt all senses. Those can't give us certainty. We have to start with our own thinking, and that is the beginning of knowledge. In contrast to this, you can have empiricism, and empiricism basically starts by looking at sense impressions, the way that you experience the world as a starting point for knowledge, and argues that rationality does not give you certainty, but what you experience gives you something closer to certainty, at least. Within this field of study, there

are differences. For example, you have empiricists like Hume, who suggests that while empiricism cannot give us certain knowledge, it can only give us inferential knowledge, it's really the only basis on which we can come to understand the world is through our experience. And then you have thinkers like Locke who are a little more confident about the kind of knowledge we can get from our experience and the certainty that empiricist thought offers us. So that's kind of the divide that's being talked about there. In on practice, I think Mao really explains what his problem with empiricism is, which is that it completely ignores the role of rationality and reason on the one hand, and it substitutes a subjective understanding of the world.

So Mao wants to insist that empirical experiences and reflection on those experiences are important parts of knowledge and how we experience the world is crucial. But that's not the end point and that's not the whole of the story. We have to dialectically understand empirical experiences and reason in relation to each other. When we have the experience, that is the specific thing. And then we use thought and we use reason to abstract that out into generality. and again, we can return to specificity with it. So in terms of Mao's thoughts on empiricism, empiricism is in a sense just not enough. It's one side of the coin and it's the subjective side

that never moves beyond immediate sense impressions. And of course, this makes sense, right? The way we experience the world doesn't immediately tell us everything about it. We had to reflect on those experiences. And in on practice, especially, Mao's going to insist that we don't just reflect on it abstractly in our minds. We test these ideas in the world. We see how they work in practice. We take the generalizations that we come to from empirical reasoning and from rational thought, and we see if they work in the world, and from there we can conclude the rightness of a position. So the problem with empiricism is that it's undialectical and it's subjective, and it doesn't grasp all the many complicated moves that are involved in creating knowledge for humans. Yeah, well said. Thank you for that. I just wanted to make sure people understood that criticism because that word pops up a few times, and it's not really fleshed out in this text, at least. But, you know, in that context as well as in the earlier question about post-structuralism and post-modernism, you see how this dialectical way of thinking really works to, you know, cut against any single-minded, you know, thinking on either side of the problem.

Dialectics is a method by which you can, you can, you know, purge that from your own thinking and never fall prey to one-sidedness, as Mao calls it. And empiricism in this context is an example of that one-sidedness. All right. So that sums up a segment two, and we are ready to move on to part three, application of theory, my favorite part. So my first point for the application of theory that I want to look at is how this text can give us insight into the sort of divided socialist left in the United States today, as we talked about in our discussion section a little. And I want to elaborate a little bit more on that and apply Mao's concepts of antagonistic and non-intagionistic contradictions to our current movement. So, again, the socialist movement in the U.S. is incredibly divided, and I really don't think anyone can argue with that. So if you look at individual organizations, even like the DSA, you have,

I have lost track of how many caucuses and factions, fighting with each other, disagreeing with each other, and diverging not just on theoretical, but also on practical goals for the organization. The Socialist Left in the U.S. has many visions of where it wants to go, and they are often contradictory to each other, so we need to understand why that's happening and how that's working. So one thing that I've heard from a lot of leftists in response to this is, well, we all hate capitalism. We all have the same enemy. So why is it that we're so fractured and fighting with each other?

Can't we set those things aside and work together to fight against capitalism? And I think Mao gives us some insights into why that is maybe a somewhat naive approach to things and why we need a more nuanced approach. So Mao is helpful for understanding why our movement is so fractured and for understanding the solutions to that fracturing. He argues that the universality of contradictions, again, applies to the socialist forces themselves. Our movement is internally contradictory, and that shouldn't surprise us. It exists within class society, and it reflects the contradictions within class society.

These contradictions, of course, take on various different forms and particularities that we have to assess, but in general, they are often reflective of class interests. As such, we can only understand the divisions within the socialist movement in the broader context of class society. Today, among those who call themselves socialist, there's those who genuinely push the class interests of the proletariat, but unfortunately under that same name, there are those who genuinely push the interests of the capitalist class, and we need to distinguish between them. Those who support collaboration with Democrats, those who support using organization funds to elect bourgeois and unaccountable politicians, instead of building class power, those who treat the state as a mediating force that can ease tensions of class society, and those who

seek a more humane capitalism as an end goal, all express sort of one-sided. of the contradiction within the socialist movement. On the other hand, those who work among the masses to build solidarity and consciousness, those who reject class collaboration with bourgeois parties like the Democrats, those who seek to build a militant and theoretically equipped

base among the masses, and those who ardently reject reformism constitute the other half of that same contradiction. Within those disagreements and within those contradictions, we see diverging class interests playing out. What Mao reveals to us in this is that this contradiction does not have to

an antagonistic contradiction in all instances. If opportunists and chauvinists who call themselves socialists are actually willing to investigate, to self-criticize, and to correct their class collaborationist positions, then the contradiction can be worked out in a non-intaginistic manner. This is obviously the goal that we should be working towards, and it's why inter-left criticism is so important when it's done in good faith. When we are actually critiquing each other and struggling around these divergent interests and struggling around these contradictions, we can create changes in our positions. We can self-criticize and we can move away from incorrect ideas and keep this contradiction non-intaginistic. That said, we can't pretend that these contradictions

don't exist either, and often I'm afraid that the concept of left unity gets used to sort of ignore that. We can't place some amorphous goal of left unity above all else and use it to justify a lack of struggle around these issues. The contradictions within the socialist movement must be a site of ideological struggle. And this doesn't mean baseless sectarianism, which blows up personal disagreement and distaste to the level of violence. And it also doesn't mean transforming the contradiction into an antagonistic contradiction prematurely. The present socialist movement in the United States is small, and by most accounts it's relatively powerless. It'd be premature to say this is an antagonistic contradiction. Struggle against opportunists should be engaged in so that more can be

brought in line with the class interests of the masses and not petty bourgeois socialist intellectuals. To declare the contradiction antagonistic would be premature, but also to ignore the contradiction at all would be opportunism. We can't choose not to struggle with each other for the sake of unity. Struggle is the only way that true unity can be achieved in the long term. So what we can take away from this text in terms of a practical application for the left today is the ability to undertake a dialectical assessment of our movement. We can look at socialist organizations in the U.S. We can look at our position within those organizations through the lens of contradiction and gain more insights. It allows us to understand our organizations and subcultures are not free of contradiction,

and it shows us how understanding contradiction can provide more clear insight into the direction our movement is going and how we might correct that direction if it is the wrong one. Yes, I love that. Absolutely. Okay, so my turn. On contradiction by Mao represents for me not only a seminal work of communist philosophy, but also an essential text for organizers today. Mao is an example of a truly dialectical thinker, and more than that, he was writing this text in the midst of helping lead a world historical revolutionary process, merging theory and practice in a way that, aside from Lenin, very few revolutionaries have done. We can and should study him, not just as communist intellectuals, but as organizers, because woven into the fabric of this entire work is an implicit call to action. Mao is not analyzing contradictions as a purely intellectual exercise, like the vast majority of philosophy. would. Rather, he is analyzing contradictions because he understands that it is essential for

revolutionary strategy. Being able to think in such a robustly dialectical fashion is a core asset to anyone who actually wants to change this rotten world for the better. The systematic and methodical way of thinking that Mao argues for and puts on display in this work is indispensable for any revolutionary movement that seeks to actually be successful. One of the most direct and beautiful manifestations of taking the content of this work seriously is what we know is the mass line. The mass line is an organizing strategy formalized by Mao that is dialectical by definition and which puts into practice the theory which is explicated in this text. For those who do not know, the mass line is an organizational method developed by Mao

and his comrades during the Chinese Revolution. In quick summary, it's a tactical approach that a vanguard party or even just regular organizers like many of us take toward the masses in which communist organizers go humbly to the people to consult with them about their material needs, their current experiences, their grievances, et cetera, then interpret and consolidate them within the framework of Marxism or Marxism, Leninism, and finally produce a policy or a plan based on that direct feedback from the people. Once the policy or plan is put into action, the organizers go back to the people to see how that line of action is playing out and being received. Adjustments are made, and the process

begins again. This is a highly effective organizing strategy, which, when done correctly, genuinely serves the material needs of our class and of our people. In the United States, the most famous example of this was done by the Black Panther Party, and this is without a doubt a core component of their success and a primary reason for their development into the revolutionary vanguard of that time. It is not only effective in and of itself, but it is also a primary way in which a cadre or organization, or ideally a Marxist party, can stay an intimate contact with the masses. It is in this way that we systematically tie ourselves to the broader proletariat, that we humbly serve them, and by which we go about gaining the support of more and

more people. And this strategy cannot work over the long run if it lacks the ability to perceive and correctly analyze the contradictions that abound in this process. Because even at the level of local organizing, being able to have a concrete analysis of a concrete condition, being able to understand how a broader process is unfolding, being able to navigate the contradictions between an organization and the people that serves, or a party in the broader social context in which it is operating, is absolutely essential for success. Both mechanical and reductionist forms of Marxism, as well as the seemingly infinite amount of idealism or utopianism, blossoming out of many left tendencies, lack this quality. And that is why time and time again

these formations hit a dead end. In opposition to those failed approaches, I know some MLM comrades in my city who are working with others in different parts of the country to develop an analysis of the concrete conditions and contradictions in each city and locality with the goal of eventually bringing them together into a broader analysis of the conditions and contradictions in the society as a whole. The idea is that each organizing circle knows their own city the best. And after applying the sort of analysis that Mao is championing in this text, they can come to a clear materialist understanding of their local conditions, which they can then combine with the understanding produced in other localities

and then use that as a framework to move forward as a whole. And it's precisely this sort of committed study, dialectical thinking, inexhaustible organizing, dogged loyalty to oppressed and working class people and principled application of the mass line that represents the best of Maoism, in my opinion. And insofar as Marxist and Leninists can bring these things on board in their organizing efforts, I believe it represents the best path forward for the principled left on this continent. one rooted in study, in humbly serving the people, and in a commitment to the clear-eyed materialist analysis and systematic strategizing that makes principled MLs and MLMs unique

on the radical left. Lastly, I want to remind everyone listening, sitting as we are in a truly uncertain and depressing period of history, of Mao's concept of non-entagonistic contradictions and its implications and its implications for our organizing. As Allison explained above, this means that class struggle, while always happening on some level, is often suppressed, happening behind the scenes or under the surface and out of sight. This, if viewed by itself, can sometimes seem like we have no chance of winning. It can make us feel as if there is no hope.

But what Mao and Marx back in the day reminds us is that this is always a temporary state of affairs. And while these struggles can be hidden or submerged for a time, they will, especially in times of crisis, erupt into open conflict, sometimes very suddenly and unexpectedly. This all reminds me of that wonderful Lennon quote when he says, There are decades when nothing happens, and there are weeks when decades happened. Marks, Mao, and Lennon are getting at the same thing, and the implicit idea is that we must always be prepared. We must organize even in the worst of times. We must agitate and educate and learn and cultivate within ourselves the traits and skills that will be necessary when the struggle explodes once again into plain sight.

I know firsthand just how difficult and frustrating organizing can be. I know how deadening, endless meeting after meeting can be. And I even know that little sense of doubt that creeps in from time to time that makes one wonder if any of this is worth it. But what we must remember is that we are all constantly laying the foundation for future action. That even in times like our own, when reaction is on the rise and the ruling class has an iron grip on a burning world, we must keep building, brick by brick. In fact, it's especially in these times when we must build. For, as the old cliche puts it, the night is darkest before the dawn, and if we take dialectics seriously, we understand that

this state of affairs cannot go on forever, that it will come crashing down one way or another, and it's our responsibility to operate in whatever context or epoch we happen to be born into. When I become discouraged, I often think of how Mao must have felt on the long march. I think of Lenin in exile, unsure if he would ever return home. I think of Che, Fidel, and their 80 comrades bobbing in the ocean waves on the grandma heading to Cuba, to go head to head with the Batista regime. I think of the workers in Catalonia hanging up the No Pasadon banner

above the entrance to their city, and I think of the nameless heroes of the Paris commune, bravely building their barricades while the forces of brutal French reaction descend upon them. And when I think of these things, I become emboldened and inspired once again. I shake off my fear and my doubt, and I realize that I am playing my humble role

in something much larger than myself. And that gives me strength. It should give all of us strength. Alison? Incredibly well said, honestly, very, very well said. And following that, and maybe a slightly less dramatic approach, I want to look at one more application of this text, specifically the way that we can kind of, on a meta-textual level,

look at this text as an example of how to write theory, and how to write theory that's oriented towards the masses. Reading this text, I was just honestly blown away by how effectively Mao is able to convey really complex philosophical ideas in a straightforward and concise manner. stuff being talked about here is really difficult to wrap your mind around. It's based in really abstract reasoning. It draws very fine distinctions, and it's hard to grasp, but Mao does a pretty good job of explaining it. As someone who honestly is hopelessly verbose in both my written and

my verbal communication, I'm incredibly jealous of Mao's ability to just take an idea and communicate it as directly as possible, and I think it's something that we need to emulate. I want to suggest that really one of the most important things we can learn from this text when viewed on this level is how to write effective and understandable theory that can be easily digested by the masses. The tradition of summarizing complex philosophical ideas into more straightforward works has a long history within the Marxist tradition. You can look to Ingalls writing, for example, the principles of communism, utopian, and scientific, which are more short and straightforward examples of complex Marxist ideas, compact in a way that anyone could really read in a short amount of time

and without a formal philosophical education or background. Obviously, more time that background helps, but we want to be able to reach people who don't have either of those, and so that tradition has always been there within Marxism. So we see Mao execute this strategy nearly perfectly in this text. In writing about contradiction, Mao provides both abstract and concrete examples and examines both small-scale and larger historical-scale examples

in order to explain his concepts. We learn about eggs and stones, but we also learn about national revolutions and the relation between classes, all tied into an abstract structure of dialectics. Mao speaks abstractly of laws of contradiction and of abstract notions of universality, particularity, and identity, but at the same time, these abstract concepts are always related to easily understandable examples, and then from there applied to politics and history. When Mao discusses the concept of identity, for example, as we saw previously,

he abstractly just explains that there are two meanings to identity, and that identity is central to understanding contradiction. This might not yet tell your average reader very much about why it's important. The statement's highly abstract and it's only particularly meaningful at first to those who have an understanding of dialectics. But Mao then makes it more concrete by explaining simply that identity speaks to the transformation of one half of a contradiction into the other. This still operates at an abstract level, although it becomes more concrete. And then in order to make this idea even more understandable, Mao then looks to the transformation of the landlord class into a landless class. So he takes us to history, he takes us to revolution, and shows us

what identity playing out looks like. This is, of course, a recent historical example when Mao wrote this enacted under communist rule, and that the readers of this essay would be familiar with. Peasants in China would remember the dispossession of the landlord class and immediately be able to connect it with the ideas that Mao is explaining to them. And suddenly, this abstract identity takes on a very specific and easy to understand meaning. Mao looks to examples that the masses will understand from their own lives in order to explain and demonstrate to his readers how the concept of identity functions and how political transformation functions. Mao, therefore, really does succeed in taking a highly abstract concept and making it

understandable and relatable to the working people who make up the base of the communist movement. It's an incredible feat what is accomplished in this essay. The style of writing must be adopted by socialist today, and I say this as a criticism of myself as much as of anyone else. Because Marxism and communism have developed an attachment to the academy, many socialists, myself included, have learned to write in an academic manner which can often obfuscate meanings by defaulting to linguistic flourish in academic style. This needs to be pushed back against

when producing theoretical work meant to educate potential revolutionaries. We should look to Mao as a model of the type of writing we should be engaged in. And I don't mean by this that everything needs to be written in the most simple English possible. There are times when we are having highly abstract internal theoretical debates within the more advanced revolutionary forces. And at those times, it's okay to get more abstract in our style. But we have to think about intention. And if none of our theory is oriented towards the masses and educating them, then we're failing in our job as communists.

My hope is that Red Menace can help to make these complex ideas more concrete, honestly. And I would hope that our previous episodes have done a good job of doing that. But while reading on contradiction, I was just blown away by how hard it is to even paraphrase. Mao because he says everything so succinctly and straightforward in the first place, and it's really just well explained as it is. And I think that one application we can take is to look at how Mao operates in this text, look how he proves points, and look how he writes, and emulate that in our own theoretical work, so that we can do political education that extends beyond the socialist intelligentsia. Yeah, I could not agree more. You know, Mao has taught me so much

precisely because he takes that approach. He's so easy to understand, and I absolutely adore that about him and totally agree that we should replicate that. And insofar as that's what we're trying to do here on Red Menace, I hope we're somewhat successful at sort of propagating that idea because it really is essential. All right. So finally, this is the last part of Section 3. So throughout this text, Mao refers to dogmatists as the opposite of dialecticians. And I want people to really internalize this truth. Our critics, most of whom clearly do not understand our positions in any meaningful way whatsoever, love to call Marxist dogmatists. I've often said that one of the best parts of being a Marxist is that almost none of our opponents actually understand our position while

we almost always understand theirs. And one of the worst parts of being a Marxist is that almost none of our opponents actually understand our position while we almost always understand theirs. But what Mao shows us here is that, contrary to what anti-Marxists of all stripes might naively or cynically think, it's precisely the sort of laziness and unwillingness to study our actual philosophy and theory on the part of so many of our critics that makes them dogmatic. On the flip side, it is our commitment to studying our conditions, to analyzing contradictions, to applying the materialist lens that works against dogmatism in our own ranks. It will always be easier to not do this, whether one is a Marxist or not.

It will always be easier to just grab random ideas you subjectively prefer out of the air, or to lazily regurgitate third-hand criticisms of theories you don't understand, or to endlessly engage in pedantic sectarian squabbles on social media. Not only is it easier, it often comes with the added bonus of obtaining a smug sense of superiority without having to do the work to earn it. And to be clear, this is not something alien to Marxists. Countless Marxists take this same lazy approach, and when a Marxist is lazy, they almost always succumb to dogmatism. It's easier, after all, to parrot some doctrine than it is to learn and apply the methodology behind it.

On other sides of the radical left, we see this lazyness. manifest in the form of putting abstract ideas ahead of materialist analysis, of finding a set of beliefs and insisting they can be shoved into any context. It will always be easier to scream smash the state than it is to understand how the state arises, how it actually functions, and under what conditions it might be possible to be stateless. It will always be easier to scream authoritarianism at somebody or vote for an electoral candidate than it is to put in the work to become a genuine and leader yourself. It will always be easier to jump on some social democratic campaign than it is to actually organize people in one's community outside the confines of elections

and bourgeois institutions. It will always be easier to huddle up with five of your friends and declare yourselves a party than it is to go out and earn the mass support that is the necessary prerequisite for that party. And it will always be easier when times get dark to turn away from it all and recoil into your own personal life, eschewing any obligation or responsibility to others. But all of these things, as Mao shows us, are forms of dogmatism. When talking about employing different methods in different context by studying the concrete conditions one is operating in, Mao says, quote, the dogmatists do not observe this principle. They do not understand that conditions differ in different kinds of revolution, and so do not

understand that different methods should be used to resolve different contradictions. On the contrary, they invariably adopt what they imagine to be an unalterable formula and are arbitrarily apply it everywhere, which only causes setbacks to the revolution or makes a sorry mess of what originally was well done. In another passage, Mao says, our dogmatists are lazy bones. They refuse to undertake any painstaking study of concrete things. They regard general truths as emerging out of the void. They turn them into purely abstract, unfathomable formulas, and thereby completely deny and reverse the normal sequence by which human beings come to no truth. What Mao is urging us to do is to reject this dogmatism and to avoid this laziness. He is encouraging us to become truly

dedicated to the cause, in good times and in bad, and to push ourselves to study and to learn and to develop and to organize, and to be humble while doing it all. Contrary to the messaging of our hyper-individualist consumer society, we do have an obligation to others. We are responsible for our fellow human beings, and liberation is found not through consumption and bourgeois individualism, but rather through collective struggle, through subordinating your personal ego to the genuine pursuit of emancipation for everyone. And in this text, as in so many others by him, Mao puts yet another set of tools in our hand and urges us to fight on. That's how we're going to end this text. And again, the next text is going to be on practice. We are collaborating with

the Mark's Madness podcast, and we will put that out when it comes out. So if you want to get a head start on that. Please be my guest. Anything you want to say before we wrap up, Allison? Yeah, I just kind of want to reiterate the encouragement that this is a complicated text and it's very philosophical and it can be hard to grasp. But if you're having trouble with it, I really recommend, as I do with all the texts we read, but really with this one, sit down with it and work through it on your own and it's going to help immensely. This is available on marxist.org. Again, it is not that long. You can sit through it and probably get it done in one very long sitting or in a few shorter ones and it will help bring clarity to actually engage with the

text. I think this is an incredibly important text for all the reasons we've analyzed and I really encourage you to dive into it and take what it says seriously. Yep. Couldn't I agree more. And again, if you like what we do here and you want access to bonus content, you can support us on patreon.com forward slash red menace or, you know, rated review us on iTunes or any podcast app. It really does help increase our reach. You know.