What Is the Stuff of the Mar.xian "Contradiction"?
After the publication of L_e_n_i_n's "Philosophical Notes", All "M_a_r_x_ist specialists" have "unanimously" contended that the kernel of "dial-ectics" is the idea of "unity of the opposites". So f_ar as I know, E_n_g_e_l_s summarized the principles of dial-ectics into 3 tenets in the first place, which are, respectively, the principle of the transformation between quantity and quality, the principle of unity of opposite, and the principle of negation of negation. L_e_n_i_n's "Philosophical Notes" firstly prescribed E_n_g_e_l_s' second principle (the principle of unity of opposite) is central to dial-ectics. And "opposites" of course presuppose contradictions. For the readers of these "M_a_r_x_ist Classics", it is natural to ask, "what constitutes a contradiction?" Most people would think this question is too childish ----- common sense has clearly informed us what is a contradiction. L_e_n_i_n himself also gave us some example about what a contradictions is like. All of them seem conform our common senses. In his essay "On the Question of Dial-ectics" which included in "Philosophical Notes", L_e_n_i_n gave us examples of contradictions as such:
In mathematics: + and -, differential and integral,
In mechanics: action and reaction,
In physics: positive and negative electricity,
In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms,
In social science: the class struggle.
Yes, I admit that these examples all conform our common senses. But common senses also tell us that one word can have more than one meanings. For example, C=h=i=n=e=s=e word "hua" can means both "flower" and "spend". But I think no one would mistake "spend money" for "flower money". So what about the word "contradiction"?
Every time I'm forced to read these textbooks of i_d_e-o-l_o_g_ical education, I feel that these "specialists" seem never ask themselves what the word "contradiction" means in a specific place. I have a strong sense that these "M_a_r_x_ist specialists" have long forgotten what is "stealing concept."
According to my analysis, the word "contradiction" has five different meanings.
The first meaning is the description of the state that a thing is both itself and not itself simultaneously. Or things have both two identities at one time. We know that this does not exist in reality but can exist in our reasoning processes. And the latter is a kind of logical f_allacy.
The second meaning is that, two pa-rties are in the state of conflicts (usually the result of the antagonism between the interests of each pa-rty). But the "contradiction" in this sense when seen in the perspective of the first meaning is not a contradiction. Because they cannot be both in conflict and not in conflict at one time.
The third meaning, which may not be accepted by some people, is the description of a kind of phenomena, i.e., many things can be "naturally" divided into two parts or categories; or, the dichotomies. Such as female/male, positive/negative, long/short, and so on. But when we see this "contradiction" in the perspective of the first and the second meanings, it is definitely not a contradiction. Because there is no questions of being both A and non-A. And difference is not equal to conflict. And for dead things there is no such thing as "interest".
The forth meaning is that two things cannot be both retained. If you choose one you must give up another. This meaning is apparently different from those three meanings aforementioned. And when you begin to choose to retain something or not, you are going through value-judgments. Things cannot have a value in themselves.
The fifth meaning is rather an expression people's feelings. Sometimes we see some things act in a sense that they negate each other or dispel each other. Such as the combination and dissociation of atoms. E_n_g_e_l_s' "negation" is apparently the result of this "contradiction."
And there is another meaning of this word. I think this meaning can be only intelligible for C=h=i=n=e=s=e. C=h=i=n=e=s=e off-icial pr-op-ag-an-da always labels any cause or undertaking as "contradiction." Such as "Tightly catch hold of the contradiction of the construction of our country, because this is the principal contradiction at present."
According to the related materials available to me, the "contradiction" which M_a_r_x_ists thought a revolutionary contribution to human intellectual endeavor is the "contradiction" in the first sense.
M_a_r_x_ists proclaim that "dia-lectical materialism" is the highest development of materialism. Before the proposal of his materialism, M_a_r_x thought that there had been two kinds of materialisms. One is "unadorned materialism", and the other is "metaphysical materialism." (For M_a_r_x_ists the word "metaphysical" means "anti-dial_ectical") M_a_r_x once approved the "positive significance" of "metaphysical materialism". But he then pointed out three "pitf_alls" of it: 1) reducing every process to mechanical movement; 2) not regarding things as dynamic processes but take them as stationary, mutually isolated entities; 3) the historical view is still "idealistic". M_a_r_x thought his philosophy is the "greatest revolution in the history of philosophy. One main reason is that his philosophy regards things as dynamic processes. This conquered the second "defect" of old materialism.
M_a_r_x highly praised his philosophy which takes things as dynamic processes. One axiom of M_a_r_x_ism contends that all things are in motion, and motion is the way things exist. "Process" is synonymous to "motion". As a process, it will take some time for one thing to transform into another thing. So there will be some interim products. In M_a_r_x_ists' eyes, those interim products disprove the law of identity. E_n_g_e_l_s said, "Hard and f_ast lines are incompatible with evolutionary theory." "Dial-ectics doesn't know so-called hard and f_ast lines, it doesn't know so-called universally tenable 'either-or's. It allows metaphysical differences transform into each other. In addition to 'either-or' it also acknowledges 'both-and' to some extent." "A=A is not applicable to organisms." "Even in inorganic world, there is in f_act no abstract identities." "The principle of the old law of identity, i.e., A=A …… has been refuted in every circumstance." "The abstract identities are enough when used in our daily lives, where only a short period of time and a constraint scope are in consideration." "But for systematic sciences, abstract identities are not enough." (Quoted from one essay "Dial-ectics" of "Natural Dial-ectics").
From these quotations we can see that M_a_r_x_ists represented by E_n_g_e_l_s disdain the Law of Identity. Whether the Law of Identity "can't see things that change" is another question which I will not address here. But the objective existence of the "contradiction" E_n_g_e_l_s affirmed by disdaining the Law of Identity is the "contradiction" in the first sense aforementioned, i.e., a thing can be both A and non-A.
But I think we still have common view on what the "old" identity is. For example, if a stick is one half red and another half blue, these two f_acts are both parts of its identity. Identity is the sum of the attributes that make things be themselves. The f_act that one-half red and one-half blue does in no way challenge the law of identity. But in this case, it gives people an impression that there is a "contradiction" ---- the "contradiction" in the third sense. But the two "contradictions" indeed represent two different concepts. So a laughable scene appears: in the very same essay, E_n_g_e_l_s stealthily interchanged the two concepts without any trail.
In order to proved the "limitation" of the old "A=A", E_n_g_e_l_s enumerated two examples: "positive and negative number", and "polarization". He intended to use them to prove that "two par-ties in contradiction coexist in one entity" and "two par-ties in contradiction can transform into each other". E_n_g_e_l_s wrote," If you cut off one piece of magnet, its center will be polarized, and its ends remain in polarization." "And in reverse, we can call West "East" and call East "West"; we can say that the sun rises from the west. It doesn't matter." Obviously, E_n_g_e_l_s intended to take the objective existence of the "contradiction" in the third sense as the evidence of the objective existence of the same word "contradiction" in the first sense.
This means, in the early "classics" of M_a_r_x_ism E_n_g_e_l_s had committed the f_allacy of interchanging concepts. And M_a_r_x seemed never pointing out his mistake. And this kind of mistake should not been committed by the two mentors, for their reportedly "genius".
Even E_n_g_e_l_s didn't see his f_allacy. So when recalling that after E_n_g_e_l_s the right to develop M_a_r_x_ism were taken over by these "professional rev-olu-tion-ists", we can infer that the scholarly level of these "M_a_r_x_i_s_ms" would become degraded. And the "Great Philosophers" are more prone not to notice what their "contradiction" exactly means.
After E_n_g_e_l_s, those ones who are "qualified to develop M_a_r_x_ism" almost know nothing about science. What they care are only two things: one is how to seize power, the other is how to hold power. Either of them must offend a lot of people. But they are readily to see this. Because M_a_r_x_ism has provided them with the methodology to cope with this situation, i.e., the view of contradiction. But note here, the "contradiction" is the one not in the first sense, nor in the third sense, but in the second sense. Since then dealing with the interpersonal relationships (or political aff_airs) became the first business of the leaders, so the "contradiction" they comprehend is usually that in the second sense. Because of their terrible "scholarship", they never notice the second sense is different from the first and the third senses.
One C=h=i=n=e=s=e textbook for i_d_e-o-l_o_g_ical education says, "The contradiction between "productive force" and "( interpersonal ) relationship in production", and the contradiction between economic bases and superstructures are the fundamental impetuses that drive the society to progress. And in class society, the contradiction and conflicts between opposite classes are the direct impetuses that drive the class society to progress." There appears three "contradiction"s. The former two are in the forth sense, i.e., the "productive force" and "relationship in production" cannot be both retained. If you want to retain the existing productive force, you must change the existing interpersonal relationship in production. But the last "contradiction" is in the second sense, i.e., the conflicts of interests between "bourgeois" and "proletariats". The f_allacy appears again.
The textbook also says, "Every society has contradictions. In class society, the contradictions are the contradictions between bourgeois and proletariats. While in classless s_o_c_i_a_l_i_s_t society, the main contradiction is the contradiction between the growing material and spiritual needs of people and the lagging social production." Again, we can easily see that the first "contradiction" is the one in the second sense, and the second "contradiction" is the one in the forth sense. The C-o_m-m_u-n_i-s_t Pa-rty hold that everything contains contradictions, so "perfect" s_o_c-i_a_l_i_st society also has contradictions. It appears that C-o_m-m_u-n_i-s_t Pa-rty wants to attain the logical consistency, but what it forgets is that the logical law of identity is central to the logical consistency.
When M_a_r_x_ism developed into the stage of "M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng Thou-ght", it became more ignorant about the logical consistency. M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng knew nothing about science and philosophy. He was only fond of political trickeries. The so-called " M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng Tho-ught" is just the generalization and glorification of M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng 's "glorious history" of seizing power. And the so-called "contradiction" is the conflicts between M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng and C=h=i=n=e=s=e Ku-om-in-tang. Or according to C=h=i=n=e=s=e official wording, "The contradiction between C=h=i=n=e=s=e people and imperialism, feudalism and burea-uc-ratic capitalism". No matter which was true, they are all the "contradictions" in the second sense. After his break with USSR, M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng thought himself the leader of the "international c-o-m-m-u-n-i-s-t mov-ement". And he suddenly became fond of being the "creative philosopher". M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng always lessoned the "philosophical workers" with vulgar words. He also developed the theory about how to resolve the contradictions. He said, "It is like one eat another. For example, how to resolve our contradiction with the Ku-omi-nta-ng reaction-aries? We seize their weapons, and assimilate their surrendering soldiers, then the contradiction resolved." After C_u-l_t-u_r-a_l R-e_v-o_l-u_t-i_o-n, one C=h=i=n=e=s=e philosopher commented that, M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng was totally muddleheaded then, and what he proposed are all wrong. He criticized that, "If a man and a woman get married, in which a contradiction is resolved, but there is no question of one eating another." His criticism makes sense. But I think this has nothing to do with M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng 's mental condition. This is totally due to the f_act that no M_a_r_x_ist has ever clarified what the "contradiction" exact means. If M_a_r_x or E_n_g_e_l_s did never com-mit such a clumsy mist-ake, these clumsy "great philosophers" like M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng would have no chance to jeopardized the world.
After M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng 's death, the word "contradiction" received an extra meaning in C=h=i=n=a, that is the sixth meaning aforementioned. The Aut=hor=ity calls any thing they are handling "catching hold of the contradiction". The things they are doing are "the principal contradictions" or "the principal aspects of the contradiction". And things they currently don't do are the "non principal contradictions" or "non principal aspects of contradictions". Thus, the Au=th=or=ity always adhering to the kernel of M_a_r_x_ism: "the principle of the unity of the opposites". So we can see not only the word "contradiction" f_ails to express an exact meaning, but also the word "contradiction" itself has degenerated.
Along with the corruption of the word "contradiction" is the f_act that the "theorists" become not able to see an obvious contradiction. In any i_d_e-o-l_o_g_ical education material, when we read the chapter " M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng Thou=ght", it says, "The features of C=h=i=n=a then were: extreme imbalance in the development of economy and politics; capitalist economy was underdeveloped; ru-ling classes disaccorded with each other; the cities had no power to rule the countryside, the countryside was in the state of de f_acto inde-pendence. C=h=i=n=a had been in a state of disintegration for the most of time." But when we read the chapter "D(e)n-g X[i]a[o]p[i]ng The-ory", when mentioning T{a}i{w}a-n Problem, it says, "Unification is the mainstream." This implies that C=h=i=n=a had been in the state of unification for the most of time. Then what had been the situation of C=h=i=n=a with regard to the question of integrity? Maybe this is the practice of the principle of "unity of the opposites"?
As to those five example L-e-n-i-n enumerated, obviously the former three are in the third sense; the forth one is in the fifth sense; and the last one is in the second sense. They are not the same thing.
L_e_n_i_n once proudly said, "For half of the century there have been no one who really understand M_a_r_x_ism." Of course his meaning was that he was the first genius since the naissance of M_a_r_x_ism. I also want to say, for 160 years since the publication of the C{o}m{m}u{n}i{s}t Manifesto, there has been no one who understands the kernel of M_a_r_x_ism ---- the unity of the opposite or the term "contradiction". Of course, I say so not because I'm a genius, but because I have luckily not been transformed into a retarded person by various "M_a_r_x_i_s_ms".
In mathematics: + and -, differential and integral,
In mechanics: action and reaction,
In physics: positive and negative electricity,
In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms,
In social science: the class struggle.
Yes, I admit that these examples all conform our common senses. But common senses also tell us that one word can have more than one meanings. For example, C=h=i=n=e=s=e word "hua" can means both "flower" and "spend". But I think no one would mistake "spend money" for "flower money". So what about the word "contradiction"?
Every time I'm forced to read these textbooks of i_d_e-o-l_o_g_ical education, I feel that these "specialists" seem never ask themselves what the word "contradiction" means in a specific place. I have a strong sense that these "M_a_r_x_ist specialists" have long forgotten what is "stealing concept."
According to my analysis, the word "contradiction" has five different meanings.
The first meaning is the description of the state that a thing is both itself and not itself simultaneously. Or things have both two identities at one time. We know that this does not exist in reality but can exist in our reasoning processes. And the latter is a kind of logical f_allacy.
The second meaning is that, two pa-rties are in the state of conflicts (usually the result of the antagonism between the interests of each pa-rty). But the "contradiction" in this sense when seen in the perspective of the first meaning is not a contradiction. Because they cannot be both in conflict and not in conflict at one time.
The third meaning, which may not be accepted by some people, is the description of a kind of phenomena, i.e., many things can be "naturally" divided into two parts or categories; or, the dichotomies. Such as female/male, positive/negative, long/short, and so on. But when we see this "contradiction" in the perspective of the first and the second meanings, it is definitely not a contradiction. Because there is no questions of being both A and non-A. And difference is not equal to conflict. And for dead things there is no such thing as "interest".
The forth meaning is that two things cannot be both retained. If you choose one you must give up another. This meaning is apparently different from those three meanings aforementioned. And when you begin to choose to retain something or not, you are going through value-judgments. Things cannot have a value in themselves.
The fifth meaning is rather an expression people's feelings. Sometimes we see some things act in a sense that they negate each other or dispel each other. Such as the combination and dissociation of atoms. E_n_g_e_l_s' "negation" is apparently the result of this "contradiction."
And there is another meaning of this word. I think this meaning can be only intelligible for C=h=i=n=e=s=e. C=h=i=n=e=s=e off-icial pr-op-ag-an-da always labels any cause or undertaking as "contradiction." Such as "Tightly catch hold of the contradiction of the construction of our country, because this is the principal contradiction at present."
According to the related materials available to me, the "contradiction" which M_a_r_x_ists thought a revolutionary contribution to human intellectual endeavor is the "contradiction" in the first sense.
M_a_r_x_ists proclaim that "dia-lectical materialism" is the highest development of materialism. Before the proposal of his materialism, M_a_r_x thought that there had been two kinds of materialisms. One is "unadorned materialism", and the other is "metaphysical materialism." (For M_a_r_x_ists the word "metaphysical" means "anti-dial_ectical") M_a_r_x once approved the "positive significance" of "metaphysical materialism". But he then pointed out three "pitf_alls" of it: 1) reducing every process to mechanical movement; 2) not regarding things as dynamic processes but take them as stationary, mutually isolated entities; 3) the historical view is still "idealistic". M_a_r_x thought his philosophy is the "greatest revolution in the history of philosophy. One main reason is that his philosophy regards things as dynamic processes. This conquered the second "defect" of old materialism.
M_a_r_x highly praised his philosophy which takes things as dynamic processes. One axiom of M_a_r_x_ism contends that all things are in motion, and motion is the way things exist. "Process" is synonymous to "motion". As a process, it will take some time for one thing to transform into another thing. So there will be some interim products. In M_a_r_x_ists' eyes, those interim products disprove the law of identity. E_n_g_e_l_s said, "Hard and f_ast lines are incompatible with evolutionary theory." "Dial-ectics doesn't know so-called hard and f_ast lines, it doesn't know so-called universally tenable 'either-or's. It allows metaphysical differences transform into each other. In addition to 'either-or' it also acknowledges 'both-and' to some extent." "A=A is not applicable to organisms." "Even in inorganic world, there is in f_act no abstract identities." "The principle of the old law of identity, i.e., A=A …… has been refuted in every circumstance." "The abstract identities are enough when used in our daily lives, where only a short period of time and a constraint scope are in consideration." "But for systematic sciences, abstract identities are not enough." (Quoted from one essay "Dial-ectics" of "Natural Dial-ectics").
From these quotations we can see that M_a_r_x_ists represented by E_n_g_e_l_s disdain the Law of Identity. Whether the Law of Identity "can't see things that change" is another question which I will not address here. But the objective existence of the "contradiction" E_n_g_e_l_s affirmed by disdaining the Law of Identity is the "contradiction" in the first sense aforementioned, i.e., a thing can be both A and non-A.
But I think we still have common view on what the "old" identity is. For example, if a stick is one half red and another half blue, these two f_acts are both parts of its identity. Identity is the sum of the attributes that make things be themselves. The f_act that one-half red and one-half blue does in no way challenge the law of identity. But in this case, it gives people an impression that there is a "contradiction" ---- the "contradiction" in the third sense. But the two "contradictions" indeed represent two different concepts. So a laughable scene appears: in the very same essay, E_n_g_e_l_s stealthily interchanged the two concepts without any trail.
In order to proved the "limitation" of the old "A=A", E_n_g_e_l_s enumerated two examples: "positive and negative number", and "polarization". He intended to use them to prove that "two par-ties in contradiction coexist in one entity" and "two par-ties in contradiction can transform into each other". E_n_g_e_l_s wrote," If you cut off one piece of magnet, its center will be polarized, and its ends remain in polarization." "And in reverse, we can call West "East" and call East "West"; we can say that the sun rises from the west. It doesn't matter." Obviously, E_n_g_e_l_s intended to take the objective existence of the "contradiction" in the third sense as the evidence of the objective existence of the same word "contradiction" in the first sense.
This means, in the early "classics" of M_a_r_x_ism E_n_g_e_l_s had committed the f_allacy of interchanging concepts. And M_a_r_x seemed never pointing out his mistake. And this kind of mistake should not been committed by the two mentors, for their reportedly "genius".
Even E_n_g_e_l_s didn't see his f_allacy. So when recalling that after E_n_g_e_l_s the right to develop M_a_r_x_ism were taken over by these "professional rev-olu-tion-ists", we can infer that the scholarly level of these "M_a_r_x_i_s_ms" would become degraded. And the "Great Philosophers" are more prone not to notice what their "contradiction" exactly means.
After E_n_g_e_l_s, those ones who are "qualified to develop M_a_r_x_ism" almost know nothing about science. What they care are only two things: one is how to seize power, the other is how to hold power. Either of them must offend a lot of people. But they are readily to see this. Because M_a_r_x_ism has provided them with the methodology to cope with this situation, i.e., the view of contradiction. But note here, the "contradiction" is the one not in the first sense, nor in the third sense, but in the second sense. Since then dealing with the interpersonal relationships (or political aff_airs) became the first business of the leaders, so the "contradiction" they comprehend is usually that in the second sense. Because of their terrible "scholarship", they never notice the second sense is different from the first and the third senses.
One C=h=i=n=e=s=e textbook for i_d_e-o-l_o_g_ical education says, "The contradiction between "productive force" and "( interpersonal ) relationship in production", and the contradiction between economic bases and superstructures are the fundamental impetuses that drive the society to progress. And in class society, the contradiction and conflicts between opposite classes are the direct impetuses that drive the class society to progress." There appears three "contradiction"s. The former two are in the forth sense, i.e., the "productive force" and "relationship in production" cannot be both retained. If you want to retain the existing productive force, you must change the existing interpersonal relationship in production. But the last "contradiction" is in the second sense, i.e., the conflicts of interests between "bourgeois" and "proletariats". The f_allacy appears again.
The textbook also says, "Every society has contradictions. In class society, the contradictions are the contradictions between bourgeois and proletariats. While in classless s_o_c_i_a_l_i_s_t society, the main contradiction is the contradiction between the growing material and spiritual needs of people and the lagging social production." Again, we can easily see that the first "contradiction" is the one in the second sense, and the second "contradiction" is the one in the forth sense. The C-o_m-m_u-n_i-s_t Pa-rty hold that everything contains contradictions, so "perfect" s_o_c-i_a_l_i_st society also has contradictions. It appears that C-o_m-m_u-n_i-s_t Pa-rty wants to attain the logical consistency, but what it forgets is that the logical law of identity is central to the logical consistency.
When M_a_r_x_ism developed into the stage of "M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng Thou-ght", it became more ignorant about the logical consistency. M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng knew nothing about science and philosophy. He was only fond of political trickeries. The so-called " M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng Tho-ught" is just the generalization and glorification of M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng 's "glorious history" of seizing power. And the so-called "contradiction" is the conflicts between M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng and C=h=i=n=e=s=e Ku-om-in-tang. Or according to C=h=i=n=e=s=e official wording, "The contradiction between C=h=i=n=e=s=e people and imperialism, feudalism and burea-uc-ratic capitalism". No matter which was true, they are all the "contradictions" in the second sense. After his break with USSR, M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng thought himself the leader of the "international c-o-m-m-u-n-i-s-t mov-ement". And he suddenly became fond of being the "creative philosopher". M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng always lessoned the "philosophical workers" with vulgar words. He also developed the theory about how to resolve the contradictions. He said, "It is like one eat another. For example, how to resolve our contradiction with the Ku-omi-nta-ng reaction-aries? We seize their weapons, and assimilate their surrendering soldiers, then the contradiction resolved." After C_u-l_t-u_r-a_l R-e_v-o_l-u_t-i_o-n, one C=h=i=n=e=s=e philosopher commented that, M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng was totally muddleheaded then, and what he proposed are all wrong. He criticized that, "If a man and a woman get married, in which a contradiction is resolved, but there is no question of one eating another." His criticism makes sense. But I think this has nothing to do with M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng 's mental condition. This is totally due to the f_act that no M_a_r_x_ist has ever clarified what the "contradiction" exact means. If M_a_r_x or E_n_g_e_l_s did never com-mit such a clumsy mist-ake, these clumsy "great philosophers" like M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng would have no chance to jeopardized the world.
After M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng 's death, the word "contradiction" received an extra meaning in C=h=i=n=a, that is the sixth meaning aforementioned. The Aut=hor=ity calls any thing they are handling "catching hold of the contradiction". The things they are doing are "the principal contradictions" or "the principal aspects of the contradiction". And things they currently don't do are the "non principal contradictions" or "non principal aspects of contradictions". Thus, the Au=th=or=ity always adhering to the kernel of M_a_r_x_ism: "the principle of the unity of the opposites". So we can see not only the word "contradiction" f_ails to express an exact meaning, but also the word "contradiction" itself has degenerated.
Along with the corruption of the word "contradiction" is the f_act that the "theorists" become not able to see an obvious contradiction. In any i_d_e-o-l_o_g_ical education material, when we read the chapter " M[a]o Z[e]d[o]ng Thou=ght", it says, "The features of C=h=i=n=a then were: extreme imbalance in the development of economy and politics; capitalist economy was underdeveloped; ru-ling classes disaccorded with each other; the cities had no power to rule the countryside, the countryside was in the state of de f_acto inde-pendence. C=h=i=n=a had been in a state of disintegration for the most of time." But when we read the chapter "D(e)n-g X[i]a[o]p[i]ng The-ory", when mentioning T{a}i{w}a-n Problem, it says, "Unification is the mainstream." This implies that C=h=i=n=a had been in the state of unification for the most of time. Then what had been the situation of C=h=i=n=a with regard to the question of integrity? Maybe this is the practice of the principle of "unity of the opposites"?
As to those five example L-e-n-i-n enumerated, obviously the former three are in the third sense; the forth one is in the fifth sense; and the last one is in the second sense. They are not the same thing.
L_e_n_i_n once proudly said, "For half of the century there have been no one who really understand M_a_r_x_ism." Of course his meaning was that he was the first genius since the naissance of M_a_r_x_ism. I also want to say, for 160 years since the publication of the C{o}m{m}u{n}i{s}t Manifesto, there has been no one who understands the kernel of M_a_r_x_ism ---- the unity of the opposite or the term "contradiction". Of course, I say so not because I'm a genius, but because I have luckily not been transformed into a retarded person by various "M_a_r_x_i_s_ms".