You’ve probably noticed terms like “contradiction”, “antagonism”, “principal aspect”,
and so on being used throughout this series.
And used quite differently to how they might be understood in the popular context.
We’ve spoken about the antagonistic contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie,
and about how the bourgeoisie is the dominant aspect in capitalism.
But what does this actually mean?
What exactly is a contradiction?
Where do we find these contradictions?
How exactly do we determine which aspect of the contradiction is dominant?
Are contradictions always antagonistic, or can they be non-antagonistic?
Isn’t this all just abstract nonsense with no bearing on the real world?
Today we’re gonna take to look at the answers to these questions and more.
Welcome to Socialism 101, a series designed to help educate people with no prior knowledge
on the basics of socialism and communism from an ML and MLM perspective with short and (hopefully)
easily-digestible videos.
If this sounds interesting to you, then hit subscribe and turn on the notification bell
below.
What exactly is a contradiction?
David Harvey states that “A contradiction is when two seemingly opposed forces are simultaneously
present within a particular situation, an entity or an event.”
So, when we refer to contradictions, we’re referring to the presence of the two opposing
forces within phenomena – within objects, within processes.
We refer to each of these opposing forces as the “aspects” of the contradiction.
The proletariat constitutes one aspect of a contradiction, while the bourgeoisie constitutes
the other aspect.
Now, these contradictions are everywhere, emerging within every facet of existence,
both in ideological phenomena and objective phenomena– in mind and matter.
Contradiction is universal, and this movement of opposites exists within all objects and
processes from beginning to end.
“Every single thing in the world is in motion – if it is no longer in motion, it ceases
to exist.
This is even true of inanimate objects that are made up of cells that are put together
at the same time they are breaking down and decomposing”
Every single thing has its own internal contradictions, constituting the primary fundamental cause
of its motion and development – while interactions and interrelations with other things, external
contradictions, are secondary factors in development.
That being said, while contractions exist everywhere, and everything is interconnected,
each contradiction contains its own unique, particular characteristics which constitute
the nature and essence of that thing.
An egg and a rock have very different contradictions internally within each of them.
And when subjected to similar external factors, such as applying heat, one of them will transform
into chicken, while the other will remain… a rock.
This is because, despite both being subjected to the same external force of heat, there
are particular internal causes within the egg providing the basis for this transformation
into a chicken.
So, while contradiction itself is universal, each particular contradiction is unique.
Even to the point where you’ll notice that the contradiction between similar forces will
be handled differently in different circumstances.
For example, class struggle – even specifically between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie
– manifests in different ways in different places and times.
While of course having similarities due to the universal aspects of this contradiction,
the Bolshevik Revolution and the Chinese Revolution played out very differently due to the unique
particularities of each situation.
The particularities of contradictions have to be studied carefully in order to understand
how they are properly resolved.
As Mao states in On Contradiction, “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 working class and
the peasant class in socialist society is resolved by the method of collectivization
and mechanization in agriculture; contradiction within the Communist Party is resolved by
the method of criticism and self-criticism” and so on and so forth.
Different contradictions are resolved in different ways – there is no “one size fits all”
approach.
Now, when we’re analysing contradictions, we’ll notice that there’s a seemingly
endless number of contradictions that exist at a given time, so we always have to ask
“What is the Principal Contradiction?”
“There are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one
of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine
or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions.
For insta ce, in capitalist society the two forces in
contradiction, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, form the principal contradiction.”
The principal, or primary, contradiction has a knock-on effect that influences all other
contradictions, which we call secondary contradictions.
Examples of secondary contradictions would be the contradiction between the petty-bourgeoisie
and the big bourgeoisie, between competing capitalist powers, between bourgeois liberal
democracy and fascism, and so on.
These secondary contradictions are all determined, or at least heavily influenced, by the primary
contradiction.
Though, importantly, the primary contradiction is not permanently fixed, or static, and can
shift over time.
Secondary contradictions can become primary and vice versa.
Now, when looking at contradictions, we always need to uncover what the Principal Aspect
of that contradiction is.
While we need to study all aspects and avoid being one-sided in our analysis, the principal
aspect, or dominant aspect, will determine the nature of a thing, so we always need to
ask “Which aspect is stronger in a contradiction?”
For example, in the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie
is the principal, dominant aspect (they’re the stronger force due to their bourgeois
state apparatus - their police, their military, and so on).
Now, the existence of the bourgeoisie doesn’t automatically make a society capitalist, such
as in the late stages of feudalism when the bourgeoisie existed as a smaller, weaker force.
It’s only when the bourgeoisie becomes the dominant force, that can we say that the nature
of a society is definitively capitalist.
However, similarly to the shifting principal contradiction, the principal aspect of a contradiction
is also not fixed or static, and instead is always changing as a result of the struggle
of opposites.
The bourgeoisie may be dominant right now, but it hasn’t always been this way, and
it won’t always be.
Through revolutionary class struggle, putting a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in place,
the proletariat becomes the principal or dominant aspect of the contradiction, fundamentally
changing the nature of the society – though we’ll return to the implications of this
point a little bit later.
Now, the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is what we would call
an “antagonistic” contradiction – this is a hostile relationship of exploitation
that can’t be resolved peacefully, as history bears testament to.
However, there are also non-antagonistic contradictions that can be resolved peacefully.
As mentioned earlier, the contradiction between the proletariat and the peasantry is non-antagonistic
and can be resolved through the means of agricultural collectivisation and mechanisation – problem
solved without even so much as a scratch!
Let’s say you and your friend have a disagreement over whether or not a certain country is socialist.
This in itself is a non-antagonistic contradiction, so the two of you can simply sit down and
have a chat about it and come to a resolution together.
There’s no need to kill each other over it.
But, unfortunately, this is a problem on the left, where non-antagonistic contradictions
are often treated as antagonistic.
Minor disagreements about this or that become sources of huge amounts of hostility, transforming
non-antagonistic contradictions unnecessarily into points of antagonism.
Conversely, political centrists, rightists, and opportunists generally have the opposite
problem where they treat antagonistic contradictions as non-antagonistic, proposing peace where
the only solution is force.
For example, the antagonistic contradiction between a brutal occupying colonial force
and a colonised people is sometimes treated as something that can be resolved peacefully
through the ballot box.
But, as Frantz Fanon reminds us, “decolonization is always a violent event”.
So, we need to carefully study each particular contradiction to understand whether it’s
an antagonistic contradiction that can only be resolved by force, or a non-antagonistic
contradiction that can be resolved peacefully, and then act accordingly.
Now, why does all this matter?
Why do we need to understand dialectics, historical materialism, contradiction and so on?
Because, as the big man once said; “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point is to change it”.
And if we want to change the world, then we need to understand it and its laws of motion.
Misunderstanding dialectical materialism as the philosophical basis for motion and development,
and particularly the law of quantitative change and qualitative transformation, leads people
to erroneous views of socio-historical development - specifically reformist, incrementalist views
focused entirely on quantitative changes rather than on qualitative transformations.
For example, pushing the idea that you can just vote in socialism, or somehow reform
capitalism all the way to communism without revolution, which is ahistorical and demonstrates
an acute misunderstanding of dialectics.
And many people who call themselves Marxists make these mistakes all the time.
In fact, many of these same people even struggle with basic questions like “What is capitalism?”
or “What is socialism?”, which can only be sufficiently answered with a thorough understanding
of contradiction.
What do I mean by this?
Mao teaches us that “The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect
of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position”
As such, in a given society, when the bourgeoisie is the principal aspect, the nature of that
society will be capitalist.
However, Mao continues, “But this situation is not static; the principal and the non-principal
aspects of a contradiction transform themselves into each other and the nature of the thing
changes accordingly.”
The dominator will become the dominated and vice versa.
And this means that when the proletariat becomes dominant, and the bourgeoise dominated, the
nature of the society itself within which this is happening fundamentally changes, putting
it on the road to communism.
The implications of understanding the principal aspect of a contradiction gives us unique
insight into the question of whether or not this or that society is socialist.
While there are certainly many specific characteristics of this transition period, it’s no longer
simply a shallow question of communist aesthetics or sloganeering about the commodity form,
but rather a scientific socialist examination of class contradiction that asks “which
aspect is dominant?”
Now how does a class enforce its dominance?
Well, to answer this, we can ask how does the bourgeoisie maintain its dominant position?
To put it bluntly, primarily down the barrel of a gun.
Specifically, through bourgeois state violence, or the threat of it, largely through its police
and military forces.
Which is why the police break strikes and repress the workers when we try to unite,
and why they facilitate forced evictions – they protect private property and the capitalist
class, not the proletariat.
And as long as these bourgeois state forces remain in place, unchallenged by a proletariat
able to match its strength to defend our own specific class interests, the bourgeoisie
will remain dominant in the contradiction and capitalism will prevail.
Today we’ve taken a look at the meaning of contradiction.
We’ve touched on its Universality and Particularity, the Principal contradiction, the Principal
Aspect of contradiction, and the place of Antagonism in contradiction.
We’ve also considered why studying all this matters, addressing what can sometimes feel
like abstract philosophising by examining the concrete real-world implications of dialectical
materialism.
As always, these videos are just introductions to much larger subjects.
To deepen and fully develop your understanding, you need to struggle with these topics a lot
more – so make sure to continue working through the reading about contradiction and
dialectical and historical materialism in the description box below.
Next up, we’ll be looking at Utopian Socialism and Scientific Socialism.
Thank you to all the supporters on Patreon, I couldn’t do this without yous.
Thank you Ian McShea, Yugopnik, Mattias Högnäs, Anix Magnus, Boricua Guerilla, Ryan Hodgson,
soup, Evan Crossland, Madeleine, sonic232, Sagan, Michaela Schmid, Christian Nipales,
Cormac O’Broin, Brian Ruiz, Alfonso Dingo Torres, Mecholova, keytothefields, Rotgardist,
Todd Sprang, NikedeSade, TrainHXIII, Meowcifur, Hunter Johnson, Rare Hero, Donal O Coisdealbha,
Six Ní Bhaoighealláin, lepanneän, Kale Marx, Roja, Blair Dawn, Rich Vert, MLMinPractice,
Eric Lindahl, Zekay Goodie, Laverna Wintermore, kyle rapp, Vučko, Michael stone, Doctoma,
Ayob Farah, bekey, Pastor Joubert, Romuald Beddiar, A Mouthwash Bottle, MrMiyamoto, Kyle
King, Jack M, Wonderbad, Moelohim, JT Chapman, José, Joseph Sheppard, Jack Shneidman, Comrade
Amara, WealthForThe99Percent, Sp00p, and Trailer Park Communist.
Cheers everyone, agus slán go fóill.