What do you think?
Rate this book
On Contradiction
Conhecido sobretudo como homem de ação, Mao Tsé-tung foi também o filósofo que discutia as tendências do pensamento revolucionário na China sob o calor dos acontecimentos.
Alguns dos escritos de Mao - como "Sobre a prática" e "Sobre a contradição" - são de leitura obrigatória para todos os que desejam compreender a filosofia política de um dos mais importantes revolucionários do século XX.
Alguns dos escritos de Mao - como "Sobre a prática" e "Sobre a contradição" - são de leitura obrigatória para todos os que desejam compreender a filosofia política de um dos mais importantes revolucionários do século XX.
58 pages, paperback
First published July 1, 1952
About the author
Mao Zedong
444 books429 followersMao Zedong, also transliterated as Mao Tse-tung, and commonly referred to as Chairman Mao, was a Chinese Communist revolutionary, guerrilla warfare strategist, Marxist political philosopher, and leader of the Chinese Revolution. He was the architect and founding father of the People's Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949, and held control over the nation until his death in 1976. His theoretical contribution to Marxism–Leninism, along with his military strategies and brand of policies, are collectively known as Maoism.
Mao rose to power by commanding the Long March, forming a Second United Front with Kuomintang (KMT) during the Second Sino-Japanese War to repel a Japanese invasion, and later led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's KMT in the Chinese Civil War. Mao established political and military control over most of the territory formerly contained within the Chinese Empire and launched a campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries. He sent the Communist People's Liberation Army into Xinjiang and Tibet but was unable to oust the remnants of the Nationalist Party from Taiwan. He enacted sweeping land reform by using violence and terror to overthrow landlords before seizing their large estates and dividing the land into people's communes. The Communist Party's final victory came after decades of turmoil in China, which included the Great Depression, a brutal invasion by Japan and a protracted civil war. Mao's Communist Party ultimately achieved a measure of stability in China, though Mao's efforts to close China to trade and market commerce, and eradicate traditional Chinese culture, have been largely rejected by his successors.
Mao styled himself "The Great Helmsman" and supporters continue to contend that he was responsible for some positive changes which came to China during his three decade rule. These included doubling the school population, providing universal housing, abolishing unemployment and inflation, increasing health care access, and dramatically raising life expectancy. A cult of personality grew up around Mao, and community dissent was not permitted. His Communist Party still rules in mainland China, retains control of media and education there and officially celebrates his legacy. As a result, Mao is still officially held in high regard by many Chinese as a great political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Maoists promote his role as a theorist, statesman, poet, and visionary, and anti-revisionists continue to defend most of his policies.
Mao rose to power by commanding the Long March, forming a Second United Front with Kuomintang (KMT) during the Second Sino-Japanese War to repel a Japanese invasion, and later led the Communist Party of China (CPC) to victory against Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek's KMT in the Chinese Civil War. Mao established political and military control over most of the territory formerly contained within the Chinese Empire and launched a campaign to suppress counterrevolutionaries. He sent the Communist People's Liberation Army into Xinjiang and Tibet but was unable to oust the remnants of the Nationalist Party from Taiwan. He enacted sweeping land reform by using violence and terror to overthrow landlords before seizing their large estates and dividing the land into people's communes. The Communist Party's final victory came after decades of turmoil in China, which included the Great Depression, a brutal invasion by Japan and a protracted civil war. Mao's Communist Party ultimately achieved a measure of stability in China, though Mao's efforts to close China to trade and market commerce, and eradicate traditional Chinese culture, have been largely rejected by his successors.
Mao styled himself "The Great Helmsman" and supporters continue to contend that he was responsible for some positive changes which came to China during his three decade rule. These included doubling the school population, providing universal housing, abolishing unemployment and inflation, increasing health care access, and dramatically raising life expectancy. A cult of personality grew up around Mao, and community dissent was not permitted. His Communist Party still rules in mainland China, retains control of media and education there and officially celebrates his legacy. As a result, Mao is still officially held in high regard by many Chinese as a great political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Maoists promote his role as a theorist, statesman, poet, and visionary, and anti-revisionists continue to defend most of his policies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews
January 30, 2021
When Parmenides tells us that "if a being is, it is impossible for it not to be" that implies that when it is not, it can't be at the same time, and with this, he is laying the foundations of logic and materialism. For his part, when the Cretan Epimenides formulates his famous paradox "all Cretans lie", he is posing a logical problem that is difficult to solve. If it is true, it denies itself because there is already one - he - who tells the truth. Aristotle commented to us in his Metaphysics that following his principle of non-contradiction: "it is impossible that, at the same time and under the same relationship, there is and does not occur in the same subject, the same attribute." It seems clear that in a specific disjunctive proposition if one of the terms is necessarily true, the other is false (or vice versa) since the same thing cannot be both true and false. In semantics it is formulated through the disjunctive conjunction «or» that forces us to choose between two statements that can never give at the same time - "you stay, or you go", that is to say: "if you stay you don't go and if you leave you don't stay".
Source: https://acracia.org/creer-o-no-creer-...
Source: https://acracia.org/creer-o-no-creer-...
April 18, 2021
Key takeaway, contradictions take place in everything, but only within given conditions.
Not all contradictions are antagonistic, but they can develop into antagonism. We must understand the different types of contradictions that exist, and prevent dogmatism.
There is always a primary contradiction, and a secondary contradiction but given the conditions, they can change.
Not all contradictions are antagonistic, but they can develop into antagonism. We must understand the different types of contradictions that exist, and prevent dogmatism.
There is always a primary contradiction, and a secondary contradiction but given the conditions, they can change.
December 24, 2017
clear, concise, and short exposition of a topic (materialist dialectics, contradiction) that is relatively simple to grasp but is generally written about in complicated ways by other theorists.
April 15, 2022
As an exposition of Marxist philosophy, this book is not very good. Mao gives all kinds of terminology without rigorously explaining why these categories are used, though they’re logical enough and this is understandable when talking to uneducated peasants. In ‘On Dialectics’, Lenin explained that contradiction was an aspect of dialectics rarely covered. This text only covers contradiction. It does not cover all of dialectics, not even the basics. I would recommend Plekhanov’s ‘Cant Against Kant’ and Lenin’s ‘On Dialectics’ to get a more rounded introduction. I would also recommend Dietzgen’s ‘The Nature of Human Brain Work’ for more advanced reading.
Mao viewed socialist transformation as a constant struggle, a process of constant struggle and change. Consequently, he focussed on applying the idea of contradiction to practical action. When it is proven that the trend of socio-economic development is going a certain way by the very nature of the system, it is imperative that people investigate the specifics of their local conditions and see what I’d the most important factor preventing that change. What is the most important thing that they can deal with as a single exercise, before moving on to the new most important problem so that social development is released to continue organically.
It is obvious why Mao wanted to teach this to his comrades. However, it does not give a full picture of dialectical philosophy. In fact, it takes us so far from the philosophical foundations of dialectics, that this is not immediately apparent to everyone as a work of Marxist thought. I myself used to regard this as more of a Chinese deviation from Marxism than actual Marxist philosophy. While watching a documentary which tried to explain Mao’s framework in a few sentences it clicked. Mao was not trying to give an exposition of abstract questions, who’s interested in the difference between an ontology of being and an ontology of beings when you’re fighting a war?
Don’t read this as if it is the end all and be all of philosophy. It is an introduction.
Mao viewed socialist transformation as a constant struggle, a process of constant struggle and change. Consequently, he focussed on applying the idea of contradiction to practical action. When it is proven that the trend of socio-economic development is going a certain way by the very nature of the system, it is imperative that people investigate the specifics of their local conditions and see what I’d the most important factor preventing that change. What is the most important thing that they can deal with as a single exercise, before moving on to the new most important problem so that social development is released to continue organically.
It is obvious why Mao wanted to teach this to his comrades. However, it does not give a full picture of dialectical philosophy. In fact, it takes us so far from the philosophical foundations of dialectics, that this is not immediately apparent to everyone as a work of Marxist thought. I myself used to regard this as more of a Chinese deviation from Marxism than actual Marxist philosophy. While watching a documentary which tried to explain Mao’s framework in a few sentences it clicked. Mao was not trying to give an exposition of abstract questions, who’s interested in the difference between an ontology of being and an ontology of beings when you’re fighting a war?
Don’t read this as if it is the end all and be all of philosophy. It is an introduction.
June 17, 2021
A cursory reading of this expository piece would necessitate the understanding that the Brahmin - Non-Brahmin antagonism is the principle contradiction in India's casteist society. It provides the Marxist rationale behind Ambedkar/Periyar's focus on dismantling Brahmanism. Mao's words highlight this simple truth: "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 that could have been done well."
The Communist parties of India must read Mao and search their souls. Some of them claim that both caste and class are the principal contradictions in India. Mao outrightly denies such sophistry and writes, " In any contradiction, the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, which unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect, which has gained the dominant position."
Mao also categorically demolishes the argument that caste is merely a part of the superstructure that is built on an economic base. This is what he has to say: "When the superstructure (politic,. culture, etc.) 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 the general development of history the material determines the mental and 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 economic base. This does not go against materialism; on the contrary, it avoids mechanical materialism and firmly upholds dialectical materialism." Thus, Mao wouldn't have any hesitation in calling Ambedkar and Periyar as true Marxists as against the revisionism of the Indian Communist parties.
The Communist parties of India must read Mao and search their souls. Some of them claim that both caste and class are the principal contradictions in India. Mao outrightly denies such sophistry and writes, " In any contradiction, the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, which unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. The principal aspect is one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect, which has gained the dominant position."
Mao also categorically demolishes the argument that caste is merely a part of the superstructure that is built on an economic base. This is what he has to say: "When the superstructure (politic,. culture, etc.) 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 the general development of history the material determines the mental and 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 economic base. This does not go against materialism; on the contrary, it avoids mechanical materialism and firmly upholds dialectical materialism." Thus, Mao wouldn't have any hesitation in calling Ambedkar and Periyar as true Marxists as against the revisionism of the Indian Communist parties.
May 6, 2024
I’m gunna certainly going to have to do a reread as some of this went over my head at times but another banger from Mao.
February 10, 2021
Historisch interessant.
July 18, 2022
In this longer work that briefly follows On Practice (just one month afterward), Mao gives one of the best expositions of Marxist dialectics in history. He gives extensive amounts of examples repeated over the same structure as his theorizing so the reader can comprehend the concept more easily. Mao tells us that dialectics is not only how socio-political/historical phenomena develop and progress, but also how all of nature, science, and objective reality progress and change. Change is precisely propelled by contradictions between opposing elements within certain things, concepts, or entities. The novelty[1] here is supposed to be that change emerges from the internal contradictions and conflicts of things, not from external forces that influence certain things. Rather, external causes “become operative through internal causes” and thus, the constant push into more contradictions in an ever-resolving way (that is, to resolve the contradictions), yet never being a fully resolved process, is--dialectics.
The universality of contradiction posits dialectics as a law of nature, like I mentioned before, that occurs everywhere: for math, it’s (+) vs. (-) or differential vs. integral, mechanics is actions vs. reaction, physics is positive vs. negative charges, chemistry is the combination and dissociation of atoms, and finally social science is class struggle! What’s great about this essay is that Mao fully fleshes out many examples of dialectics in a myriad of fields that include some of those above. Even if it comes off as very repetitive at times, it really helps any reader who reads the entire work understand what dialectics is and how it works.
He goes into further detail about the particularity of contradiction, i.e., the specific contradiction of an entity that makes it special. The particular contradiction is the defining essence of an entity; it marks the qualitative difference of one entity from another. The contradictions I listed are examples of particular contradictions because they are what differentiates math from mechanics, mechanics from physics, and so on. This helps us get a grasp of the bouncing-between-aspects nature of dialectics that furthers a very interesting dialectic between “generalization” and “understanding the essence of things,” which is an insight into the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge Mao puts forth in On Practice. He also touches on the concept of all-sidedness to teach communists a method of attaining knowledge and evaluating information and critiquing dogmatists. Then, of course, he applies the particularity of contradiction to the material conditions of China at the time.
Next, the concept I find particularly helpful in applying dialectics to my everyday life is the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction. The principal contradiction is the contradiction of utmost importance, at the moment, that must be dealt with. For example, if imperialism is in contradiction with nationalism, that must be resolved before capitalism’s contradiction with socialism can be resolved. Some great insights come from this discussion like critiquing liberal reformism as obsolete precisely because it doesn’t acknowledge contradictions at all, let alone the principal one, and that if capitalism is the domination of man by man, communism is the domination of man by thought. Using the latter as an example for the next concept, man vs. thought is a contradiction of two aspects, but clearly man is the principal aspect of the contradiction in this current period in history. Thus, principal aspects are contingent on the socio-politico-economic contexts of one’s time and space. A great relevant example is capitalism being subordinated by feudalism, then transforming into the dominant force in society. Only when the principal aspect changes by gaining predominance, the context or nature of the things changes accordingly.
Then, Mao talks about how identity is created by dialectics, that is, a theory of identity based on dialectics. This is not as important, but very philosophically interesting. It’s very Taoist; the idea that opposites are actually complementary because one thing cannot be understood without its opposite (e.g., there is no light without dark, no motion without stillness, no life without death, etc.) is actually dialectical. You can probably figure out why.
Lastly, Mao gives a quick note about antagonism in contradiction. A quote that sums it up is: “ the contradiction between town and country is an extremely antagonistic one both in capitalist society, where under the rule of the bourgeoisie the towns ruthlessly plunder the countryside…” “But in a socialist country and in our revolutionary base areas, this antagonistic contradiction has changed into one that is non-antagonistic; and when communist society is reached it will be abolished.”
[1] Just in terms of novelty for the intended reader, not that this is a completely new concept
The universality of contradiction posits dialectics as a law of nature, like I mentioned before, that occurs everywhere: for math, it’s (+) vs. (-) or differential vs. integral, mechanics is actions vs. reaction, physics is positive vs. negative charges, chemistry is the combination and dissociation of atoms, and finally social science is class struggle! What’s great about this essay is that Mao fully fleshes out many examples of dialectics in a myriad of fields that include some of those above. Even if it comes off as very repetitive at times, it really helps any reader who reads the entire work understand what dialectics is and how it works.
He goes into further detail about the particularity of contradiction, i.e., the specific contradiction of an entity that makes it special. The particular contradiction is the defining essence of an entity; it marks the qualitative difference of one entity from another. The contradictions I listed are examples of particular contradictions because they are what differentiates math from mechanics, mechanics from physics, and so on. This helps us get a grasp of the bouncing-between-aspects nature of dialectics that furthers a very interesting dialectic between “generalization” and “understanding the essence of things,” which is an insight into the dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge Mao puts forth in On Practice. He also touches on the concept of all-sidedness to teach communists a method of attaining knowledge and evaluating information and critiquing dogmatists. Then, of course, he applies the particularity of contradiction to the material conditions of China at the time.
Next, the concept I find particularly helpful in applying dialectics to my everyday life is the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of a contradiction. The principal contradiction is the contradiction of utmost importance, at the moment, that must be dealt with. For example, if imperialism is in contradiction with nationalism, that must be resolved before capitalism’s contradiction with socialism can be resolved. Some great insights come from this discussion like critiquing liberal reformism as obsolete precisely because it doesn’t acknowledge contradictions at all, let alone the principal one, and that if capitalism is the domination of man by man, communism is the domination of man by thought. Using the latter as an example for the next concept, man vs. thought is a contradiction of two aspects, but clearly man is the principal aspect of the contradiction in this current period in history. Thus, principal aspects are contingent on the socio-politico-economic contexts of one’s time and space. A great relevant example is capitalism being subordinated by feudalism, then transforming into the dominant force in society. Only when the principal aspect changes by gaining predominance, the context or nature of the things changes accordingly.
Then, Mao talks about how identity is created by dialectics, that is, a theory of identity based on dialectics. This is not as important, but very philosophically interesting. It’s very Taoist; the idea that opposites are actually complementary because one thing cannot be understood without its opposite (e.g., there is no light without dark, no motion without stillness, no life without death, etc.) is actually dialectical. You can probably figure out why.
Lastly, Mao gives a quick note about antagonism in contradiction. A quote that sums it up is: “ the contradiction between town and country is an extremely antagonistic one both in capitalist society, where under the rule of the bourgeoisie the towns ruthlessly plunder the countryside…” “But in a socialist country and in our revolutionary base areas, this antagonistic contradiction has changed into one that is non-antagonistic; and when communist society is reached it will be abolished.”
[1] Just in terms of novelty for the intended reader, not that this is a completely new concept
Read
March 27, 2023Good quotes:
metaphysics vs materialist dialectics:
"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...Metaphysicians hold that all the different kinds of things in the universe and all their characteristics have been the same ever since they first came into being. All subsequent changes have simply been increases or decreases in quantity. They contend that a thing can only keep on repeating itself as the same kind of thing and cannot change into anything different. In their opinion, capitalist exploitation, capitalist competition, the individualist ideology of capitalist society, and so on, can all be found in ancient slave society, or even in primitive society, and will exist for ever unchanged. They ascribe the causes of social development to factors external to society, such as geography and climate. They search in an over-simplified way outside a thing for the causes of its development, and they deny the theory of materialist dialectics, which holds that development arises from the contradictions inside a thing. Consequently they can explain neither the qualitative diversity of things, nor the phenomenon of one quality changing into another ."
"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things 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"
"Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes ."
internal vs external contradictions
"Simple growth in plants and animals, their quantitative development, is likewise chiefly the result of their internal contradictions. Similarly, social development is due chiefly not to external but to internal causes. Countries with almost the same geographical and climatic conditions display great diversity and unevenness in their development"
"Moreover, great social changes may take place in one and the same country although its geography and climate remain unchanged. Imperialist Russia changed into the socialist Soviet Union, and feudal Japan, which had locked its doors against the world, changed into imperialist Japan, although no change occurred in the geography and climate of either country"
"Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new."
"Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change... In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis"
contradiction is universal
"There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist"
"contradiction exists universally and in all processes, whether in the simple or in the complex forms of motion, whether in objective phenomena or ideological phenomena . . . .Contradiction is universal and absolute, it is present in the process of development of all things and permeates every process from beginning to end. "
"The old unity with its constituent opposites yields to a new unity with its constituent opposites, whereupon a new process emerges to replace the old. The old process ends and the new one begins. The new process contains new contradictions and begins its own history of the development of contradictions."
principal contradiction
"in capitalist society the two forces in contradiction, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, form the principal contradiction. The other contradictions . . . are all determined or influenced by this principal contradiction."
"In a semi-colonial country such as China, the relationship between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions presents a complicated picture. When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction, between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position"
"When imperialism carries on its oppression not by war, but by milder means--political, economic and cultural--the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people."
" whatever happens, there is no doubt at all that at every stage in the development of a process, there is only one principal contradiction, which plays the leading role. Hence, if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position. Therefore, in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to funding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved."
metaphysics vs materialist dialectics:
"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...Metaphysicians hold that all the different kinds of things in the universe and all their characteristics have been the same ever since they first came into being. All subsequent changes have simply been increases or decreases in quantity. They contend that a thing can only keep on repeating itself as the same kind of thing and cannot change into anything different. In their opinion, capitalist exploitation, capitalist competition, the individualist ideology of capitalist society, and so on, can all be found in ancient slave society, or even in primitive society, and will exist for ever unchanged. They ascribe the causes of social development to factors external to society, such as geography and climate. They search in an over-simplified way outside a thing for the causes of its development, and they deny the theory of materialist dialectics, which holds that development arises from the contradictions inside a thing. Consequently they can explain neither the qualitative diversity of things, nor the phenomenon of one quality changing into another ."
"As opposed to the metaphysical world outlook, the world outlook of materialist dialectics holds that in order to understand the development of a thing we should study it internally and in its relations with other things; in other words, the development of things 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"
"Contradictoriness within a thing is the fundamental cause of its development, while its interrelations and interactions with other things are secondary causes ."
internal vs external contradictions
"Simple growth in plants and animals, their quantitative development, is likewise chiefly the result of their internal contradictions. Similarly, social development is due chiefly not to external but to internal causes. Countries with almost the same geographical and climatic conditions display great diversity and unevenness in their development"
"Moreover, great social changes may take place in one and the same country although its geography and climate remain unchanged. Imperialist Russia changed into the socialist Soviet Union, and feudal Japan, which had locked its doors against the world, changed into imperialist Japan, although no change occurred in the geography and climate of either country"
"Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new."
"Does materialist dialectics exclude external causes? Not at all. It holds that external causes are the condition of change and internal causes are the basis of change... In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken, but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a different basis"
contradiction is universal
"There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist"
"contradiction exists universally and in all processes, whether in the simple or in the complex forms of motion, whether in objective phenomena or ideological phenomena . . . .Contradiction is universal and absolute, it is present in the process of development of all things and permeates every process from beginning to end. "
"The old unity with its constituent opposites yields to a new unity with its constituent opposites, whereupon a new process emerges to replace the old. The old process ends and the new one begins. The new process contains new contradictions and begins its own history of the development of contradictions."
principal contradiction
"in capitalist society the two forces in contradiction, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, form the principal contradiction. The other contradictions . . . are all determined or influenced by this principal contradiction."
"In a semi-colonial country such as China, the relationship between the principal contradiction and the non-principal contradictions presents a complicated picture. When imperialism launches a war of aggression against such a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the contradictions among the various classes within the country (including what was the principal contradiction, between the feudal system and the great masses of the people) are temporarily relegated to a secondary and subordinate position"
"When imperialism carries on its oppression not by war, but by milder means--political, economic and cultural--the ruling classes in semi-colonial countries capitulate to imperialism, and the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people."
" whatever happens, there is no doubt at all that at every stage in the development of a process, there is only one principal contradiction, which plays the leading role. Hence, if in any process there are a number of contradictions, one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position. Therefore, in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to funding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved."
June 28, 2021
"To consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the people is in fact to prepare the conditions for abolishing this dictatorship and advancing to the higher stage when all state systems are eliminated. To establish and build the Communist Party is in fact to prepare the conditions for the elimination of the Communist Party and all political parties. To build a revolutionary army under the leadership of the Communist Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in fact to prepare the conditions for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites are at the same time complementary."
truth facts from chairman mao
truth facts from chairman mao
August 5, 2022
Η γνωστή μπροσού��α του Μάο Τσε Τουνγκ είναι μια εκλαϊκευτική παρουσίαση του διαλεκτικού υλισμού ως μεθοδολογία απόκτησης της γνώσης, κατανόησης της ιστορίας και χάραξης πολιτικής. Γράφτηκε το 1937 και απευθυνόταν στα μέλη και στελέχη του ΚΚΚ που αμφιταλαντεύονταν ανάμεσα σε πολιτικές γραμμές. Παίρνοντας στοιχεία από φιλοσοφικά δοκίμια των Μαρξ και Λένιν, προσθέτει στοιχεία και της κινέζικης φιλοσοφίας κάνοντάς το ένα παγκόσμιο και συνάμα κινέζικο κείμενο.
Αναλύει την καθολικότητα των αντιθέσεων, καθώς και τις ειδικές πλευρές τους. Την μελέτη από το ειδικό στο γενικό και αντίστροφα, ως μια απαραίτητη διαδικασία για την εξαγωγή αντικειμενικών και όχι υποκειμενικών συμπερασμάτων και θεωρήσεων. Θεωρούμενη η ιστορία- και όλα τα φαινόμενα- ως κίνηση και ως εκδήλωση αντιθέτων μιλάει για τις καταστάσεις που τα συνοδεύουν: ανάπαυλα, σύγκρουση.
Θα μπορούσε όμως να παραθέσει περισσότερα και αναλυτικότερα παραδείγματα διαλεκτικής θεώρησης πάνω στην κύρια αντίθεση και την κύρια πλευρά της αντίθεσης, παραδείγματα που οδήγησαν σε λάθη ή επιτυχίες, για να στηρίξει τα παραπάνω (και η ιστορία ακόμα και τότε της ρωσσικής επανάστασης- και όχι μόνο- έδωσε πολλά, τρανταχτά), έστω σε μια μεταγενέστερη έκδοση, μετά την επιτυχία της κινεζικής επανάστασης. Το κείμενο πάντως, η γλώσσα που χρησιμοποιεί, είναι πολύ κατανοητή, δείγμα ότι δεν απευθυνόταν σε ακαδημαϊκούς και ούτε τον ενδιέφερε φυσικά κάτι τέτοιο.
Αναλύει την καθολικότητα των αντιθέσεων, καθώς και τις ειδικές πλευρές τους. Την μελέτη από το ειδικό στο γενικό και αντίστροφα, ως μια απαραίτητη διαδικασία για την εξαγωγή αντικειμενικών και όχι υποκειμενικών συμπερασμάτων και θεωρήσεων. Θεωρούμενη η ιστορία- και όλα τα φαινόμενα- ως κίνηση και ως εκδήλωση αντιθέτων μιλάει για τις καταστάσεις που τα συνοδεύουν: ανάπαυλα, σύγκρουση.
Θα μπορούσε όμως να παραθέσει περισσότερα και αναλυτικότερα παραδείγματα διαλεκτικής θεώρησης πάνω στην κύρια αντίθεση και την κύρια πλευρά της αντίθεσης, παραδείγματα που οδήγησαν σε λάθη ή επιτυχίες, για να στηρίξει τα παραπάνω (και η ιστορία ακόμα και τότε της ρωσσικής επανάστασης- και όχι μόνο- έδωσε πολλά, τρανταχτά), έστω σε μια μεταγενέστερη έκδοση, μετά την επιτυχία της κινεζικής επανάστασης. Το κείμενο πάντως, η γλώσσα που χρησιμοποιεί, είναι πολύ κατανοητή, δείγμα ότι δεν απευθυνόταν σε ακαδημαϊκούς και ούτε τον ενδιέφερε φυσικά κάτι τέτοιο.
Read
May 12, 2024This is really good at clearly explaining one of the core concepts behind dialectical materialism, though maybe it hits the same notes too frequently. Contradiction being the main driver behind class conflict and escalating tension and eventual resolution is explained very well. I like that the concept of principal contradictions and their surrounding components, and the ever changing status of them is also brought up.
January 5, 2022
la explicación más clara del materialismo dialéctico que he leído hasta ahora ! :- )
March 11, 2022
There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction nothing would exist.
July 23, 2022
I love the material but it seems like it was overcomplicated/longer than it needed to be. Could be a translation thing
September 5, 2023
another banger from Mao
March 26, 2021
A book of philosophy through the Maoist lens. I thought it was good, but Mao has definitely written better works than this that stand the test of time (ex. Combat Liberalism by Mao).
January 7, 2020
mao's in contradiction was a perfect book to follow up his book "on practice", and mao once again delivers deep thinking to the masses. as opposed to on practice, however, on contradiction seemed a lot more hard to read. there were some legitimately hard sentences and in the middle of the piece i was lost by the endless comparisons. mao tops the book off with a few great accessible words of wisdom and i'm for sure going to have to find a companion podcast or video to this peace to get the full idea of what chairman mao is trying to present.
November 8, 2009
A thought-provoking book that serves more as a look back to a different time than providing any deep insights for myself.
January 11, 2021
Why did the chicken cross the egg?
FOOL: "Why—after I have cut the egg i' th' middle and eat up the meat" (King Lear)
In the Paris Review interview, the poet J. H. Prynne professed to learn much from Mao's essay. It proposes a kind of organic ontology which takes its cue from Heraclitus, in its claim that everything is always already in the process of change, and Mao seems to want to create a more workmanlike version of dialectical materialism, sans dogma, while retaining its understated teleology. If Mao’s practical goal was to wrest the Chinese Communist Party from inflexible interpretations of Marxism—Leninism so that he had more room to maneuver, then his philosophical notion of contradiction and its qualifying ‘principle aspect’ allows Mao to draw on the sacred texts to vouchsafe the legitimacy of his own choice of tactics.
The basic trajectory of the essay moves in three stages. Firstly, it slackens the grip of strict historical materialism through reference to Lenin’s paradoxical reading of the Hegelian dialectic. Question: How can opposites be identical? Answer: When each thing needs its opposite equally. No life without death. No plus without a minus. In fact, Mao conceives of all physical phenomena as being in ‘contradiction’ with itself; which sounds generally plausible, but mysterious when applied to living plants and animals.
Consider the chicken and the egg as being in living contradiction. But, naturally, time being irreversible due to entropy and all, the chicken doesn’t return to the egg, even if the chicken will come to lay an egg and sublate the process. Rather than considering contradiction as an external force which independently drives things to change, Mao would have us consider universal (or absolute) contradiction, in tension with particular (or relative) contradictions. The Heraclitan flux has its speeds and slows by which one thing transforms into its opposite; but calculating the rates of exchange in particular individual transformations requires scientific observation and perhaps something of Ovid.
Arguably, Mao’s aim is to shunt forward the carriages on the stages-of-history train to explain how different paths to communism might occur and even suggest alternative destinations without shifting too far from the core tenets of Marxism-Leninism, and, in the process, encourage the Chinese Communist Party to be more astute, empirical, and specific when deducing what Mao now terms 'the principal contradiction', so they can it apart from the secondary contradictions which may obscure it. Question: What is the principle contradiction? An example: the principal contradiction in capitalism is between proletariat and bourgeoisie, while secondary contradictions (which are ultimately dependent and resolvable only by the principal contradiction) are those between bourgeois democracy and fascism. We are to believe that the resolution of the first contradiction would solve the latter but not vice versa.
Pragmatically, Mao operationalises this hierarchy of contradiction to a) identify certain points where secondary contradictions might gain prominence (e.g. The Chinese Communist Party’s temporary truce with the Kuomintang to resist Japanese imperialism) and b) to reassert the teleology towards communism by divergent paths (through the example of Soviet Russia’s dependence on the peasant laborers as opposed the industrial proletariat.) And that's the reason why ‘an egg and not a stone…can be transformed into a chicken', even as both are subject to universal contradiction. It relates to Marx’s notion that ‘all mythology masters and dominates and shapes the forces of nature through the imagination’; and, accordingly, ‘it disappears as soon as man gains mastery over the forces of nature.’ In Mao’s terms, this implicit rationalist teleology is grounded in an understanding of what he would term ‘necessary given conditions’: the way we can know whether something has changed only ‘quantitively’ rather than 'qualitatively'; although this depends on how you construe the inner/outer dualism which riddles Mao’s essay: Reading Mao's 'On Practice' is one tentative step forward.
To return to the ontology, along with Marx and Lenin, Mao claims that there is a) only matter in motion and b) contradiction between its forms; so far, so immanent. Where the first state of contradiction entails a kind of persistent equilibrium, the second state is destructive and dissolute, and resolves itself in sublating qualitative change. Mao’s revolution must come only when the conditions are right to facilitate such a leap; meanwhile, debate within the Chinese Communist Party is healthy and natural and inevitable. Or so he would claim in 1937.
Overall, Mao’s pedagogic intepretation of the perplexities of the Hegelian dialectic remain comparatively lucid and clear. Impressive also is his strategic deployment of dialectical philosophy to explain courses of action, to interpret historical conjunctures in accord with an over-arching communist teleology, but one which encourages greater scrutiny of the actual conditions ‘on the ground’. It also lends itself to the notion of ‘permanent revolution’ while leaving us with the question as to who has the necessary ‘scientific’ training enabling them to identify which historical tendencies are most principal. It would be curious to pair Mao’s implicit cosmology with that of Freud’s in his ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’, wherein the death-drive is simultaneously that thing which drives life into all its diverse ‘contradictions’; similarly, it would be interesting to speculate on how absolute and relative contradictions map onto de/re-territorialisations of Deleuze and Guattari, but who has time for that? Why did the chicken cross the egg? Because it was trying to yolk a paradoxical theory of time.
FOOL: "When thou clovest thy crown i' th' middle, and gavest away both parts, thou borest thy ass o' th' back o'er the dirt. Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou gavest thy golden one away" (King Lear)
FOOL: "Why—after I have cut the egg i' th' middle and eat up the meat" (King Lear)
In the Paris Review interview, the poet J. H. Prynne professed to learn much from Mao's essay. It proposes a kind of organic ontology which takes its cue from Heraclitus, in its claim that everything is always already in the process of change, and Mao seems to want to create a more workmanlike version of dialectical materialism, sans dogma, while retaining its understated teleology. If Mao’s practical goal was to wrest the Chinese Communist Party from inflexible interpretations of Marxism—Leninism so that he had more room to maneuver, then his philosophical notion of contradiction and its qualifying ‘principle aspect’ allows Mao to draw on the sacred texts to vouchsafe the legitimacy of his own choice of tactics.
The basic trajectory of the essay moves in three stages. Firstly, it slackens the grip of strict historical materialism through reference to Lenin’s paradoxical reading of the Hegelian dialectic. Question: How can opposites be identical? Answer: When each thing needs its opposite equally. No life without death. No plus without a minus. In fact, Mao conceives of all physical phenomena as being in ‘contradiction’ with itself; which sounds generally plausible, but mysterious when applied to living plants and animals.
Consider the chicken and the egg as being in living contradiction. But, naturally, time being irreversible due to entropy and all, the chicken doesn’t return to the egg, even if the chicken will come to lay an egg and sublate the process. Rather than considering contradiction as an external force which independently drives things to change, Mao would have us consider universal (or absolute) contradiction, in tension with particular (or relative) contradictions. The Heraclitan flux has its speeds and slows by which one thing transforms into its opposite; but calculating the rates of exchange in particular individual transformations requires scientific observation and perhaps something of Ovid.
Arguably, Mao’s aim is to shunt forward the carriages on the stages-of-history train to explain how different paths to communism might occur and even suggest alternative destinations without shifting too far from the core tenets of Marxism-Leninism, and, in the process, encourage the Chinese Communist Party to be more astute, empirical, and specific when deducing what Mao now terms 'the principal contradiction', so they can it apart from the secondary contradictions which may obscure it. Question: What is the principle contradiction? An example: the principal contradiction in capitalism is between proletariat and bourgeoisie, while secondary contradictions (which are ultimately dependent and resolvable only by the principal contradiction) are those between bourgeois democracy and fascism. We are to believe that the resolution of the first contradiction would solve the latter but not vice versa.
Pragmatically, Mao operationalises this hierarchy of contradiction to a) identify certain points where secondary contradictions might gain prominence (e.g. The Chinese Communist Party’s temporary truce with the Kuomintang to resist Japanese imperialism) and b) to reassert the teleology towards communism by divergent paths (through the example of Soviet Russia’s dependence on the peasant laborers as opposed the industrial proletariat.) And that's the reason why ‘an egg and not a stone…can be transformed into a chicken', even as both are subject to universal contradiction. It relates to Marx’s notion that ‘all mythology masters and dominates and shapes the forces of nature through the imagination’; and, accordingly, ‘it disappears as soon as man gains mastery over the forces of nature.’ In Mao’s terms, this implicit rationalist teleology is grounded in an understanding of what he would term ‘necessary given conditions’: the way we can know whether something has changed only ‘quantitively’ rather than 'qualitatively'; although this depends on how you construe the inner/outer dualism which riddles Mao’s essay: Reading Mao's 'On Practice' is one tentative step forward.
To return to the ontology, along with Marx and Lenin, Mao claims that there is a) only matter in motion and b) contradiction between its forms; so far, so immanent. Where the first state of contradiction entails a kind of persistent equilibrium, the second state is destructive and dissolute, and resolves itself in sublating qualitative change. Mao’s revolution must come only when the conditions are right to facilitate such a leap; meanwhile, debate within the Chinese Communist Party is healthy and natural and inevitable. Or so he would claim in 1937.
Overall, Mao’s pedagogic intepretation of the perplexities of the Hegelian dialectic remain comparatively lucid and clear. Impressive also is his strategic deployment of dialectical philosophy to explain courses of action, to interpret historical conjunctures in accord with an over-arching communist teleology, but one which encourages greater scrutiny of the actual conditions ‘on the ground’. It also lends itself to the notion of ‘permanent revolution’ while leaving us with the question as to who has the necessary ‘scientific’ training enabling them to identify which historical tendencies are most principal. It would be curious to pair Mao’s implicit cosmology with that of Freud’s in his ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’, wherein the death-drive is simultaneously that thing which drives life into all its diverse ‘contradictions’; similarly, it would be interesting to speculate on how absolute and relative contradictions map onto de/re-territorialisations of Deleuze and Guattari, but who has time for that? Why did the chicken cross the egg? Because it was trying to yolk a paradoxical theory of time.
FOOL: "When thou clovest thy crown i' th' middle, and gavest away both parts, thou borest thy ass o' th' back o'er the dirt. Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou gavest thy golden one away" (King Lear)
July 15, 2022
i won't speak much about mao as a person in this review because i haven't done excessive amounts of investigation into him. but the book itself i believe is well-written, i like his use of references to chinese culture such as popular sayings and folktales as well as historical examples to illustrate and explain philosophy and passages from marx and lenin. (anything that comes under the category of 'applied philosophy' i automatically take a liking to)
it's an excellent work of maoism, taken to mean a distinctly chinese adaptation of marxism/marxism-leninism, evident through the techniques i mentioned. in regards to the content, it provides a fascinating summary of the dialectical method, focusing mainly on contradiction (as you might expect) and the conditions required to enact change. it can get a little abstract at times, but mao firmly grounds it in reality and culture which makes it an engaging work of political philosophy.
it's an excellent work of maoism, taken to mean a distinctly chinese adaptation of marxism/marxism-leninism, evident through the techniques i mentioned. in regards to the content, it provides a fascinating summary of the dialectical method, focusing mainly on contradiction (as you might expect) and the conditions required to enact change. it can get a little abstract at times, but mao firmly grounds it in reality and culture which makes it an engaging work of political philosophy.
January 8, 2024
I often fail to rate political theory books as I am basing my rating on my previous education, not on what I have yet to learn, which is far greater than that I already know.
My knowledge on the Chinese Revolution and Maoism (This is the first Mao text I have read) falls greatly short, but what I can comment on is the quality of the writing of this work, and how throughly it explains all aspects of contradiction drawing from not only theory, but also historical examples. I consider myself a more informed Marxist and communist for reading it.
My rating however may change, at any point, as with any non fiction book or even fiction book, as I expand my understanding on the matter.
I absolutely adored this quote, I shall leave you with it:
“To consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the people is in fact to prepare the conditions for abolishing this dictatorship and advancing to the higher stage when all state systems are eliminated. To establish and build the Communist Party is in fact to prepare the conditions for the elimination of the Communist Party and all political parties. To build a revolutionary army under the leadership of the Communist Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in fact to prepare the conditions for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites are at the same time complementary.”
My knowledge on the Chinese Revolution and Maoism (This is the first Mao text I have read) falls greatly short, but what I can comment on is the quality of the writing of this work, and how throughly it explains all aspects of contradiction drawing from not only theory, but also historical examples. I consider myself a more informed Marxist and communist for reading it.
My rating however may change, at any point, as with any non fiction book or even fiction book, as I expand my understanding on the matter.
I absolutely adored this quote, I shall leave you with it:
“To consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat or the dictatorship of the people is in fact to prepare the conditions for abolishing this dictatorship and advancing to the higher stage when all state systems are eliminated. To establish and build the Communist Party is in fact to prepare the conditions for the elimination of the Communist Party and all political parties. To build a revolutionary army under the leadership of the Communist Party and to carry on revolutionary war is in fact to prepare the conditions for the permanent elimination of war. These opposites are at the same time complementary.”
January 18, 2022
"In identity there is struggle, in particularity there is universality, and in individuality there is generality."
The Foreign Language Press version provides commentary to help with understanding this important work.
The Foreign Language Press version provides commentary to help with understanding this important work.
November 25, 2023
wow more theorists should write as clearly as Mao
January 11, 2020
This text has to be lauded for its great accomplishment of the clearest explanation and usage of examples I've seen of historical and materialist dialectics. He takes what has been created by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin but exposes it beautifully and thoroughly.
Mao goes over the difference of world views between the essentialist and the dialectical. He describes the metaphysical perspective of believing in innate and unchanging essences as being unscientific and detached from reality and that this serves the purpose of maintaining the current power structures. He then advocates for the a dialectical approach that recognizes change as the real essence of the world and how in various fields everything is in motion because of their internal contradictions.
The author then explores both the universality of contradiction and dialectics and how it manifests itself in every totality but then also studies the minutiae of how they appear in specific cases, specially in historical and sociological contexts.
It is specially interesting to see how contradictions are laid out in being principal and secondary and how seeing which is the principal contradiction in a certain situation and which are the secondary might laid out the plans for a strategy. It is also important to notice that material conditions can lead up to situations where a secondary contradiction takes the turn as being principal and must be resolved in order to proceed with the resolution of the principal contradiction.
Mao then concludes on notes about the identity and how contradictions live inside the same entity and become each other and how the material situations inside each thing define what are its internal contradictions that lead up to its movement and evolution, on how the new supersedes the old, taking much from Lenin's interpretations from Marx and Hegel.
My greatest concern with this analysis is that although Mao rejects dogmatism and metaphysics and that he cites Lenin on the difficulty/impossibility of grasping the empirical totality of a contradiction, I still see that the assumption of the absoluteness of movement and contradiction as a sorts of Metaphysics and the rigidness in assuming that the dialectical view of Marxism-Leninism as the correct way of thinking as some sort of dogmatism. He allows for some flexibility and says that comrades that stray from this path should have opportunity to correct their ways but there still seems to be an absolutist view that this is the ultimate empirical and scientific view of the world which, for me, seems non-dialectical itself.
Mao goes over the difference of world views between the essentialist and the dialectical. He describes the metaphysical perspective of believing in innate and unchanging essences as being unscientific and detached from reality and that this serves the purpose of maintaining the current power structures. He then advocates for the a dialectical approach that recognizes change as the real essence of the world and how in various fields everything is in motion because of their internal contradictions.
The author then explores both the universality of contradiction and dialectics and how it manifests itself in every totality but then also studies the minutiae of how they appear in specific cases, specially in historical and sociological contexts.
It is specially interesting to see how contradictions are laid out in being principal and secondary and how seeing which is the principal contradiction in a certain situation and which are the secondary might laid out the plans for a strategy. It is also important to notice that material conditions can lead up to situations where a secondary contradiction takes the turn as being principal and must be resolved in order to proceed with the resolution of the principal contradiction.
Mao then concludes on notes about the identity and how contradictions live inside the same entity and become each other and how the material situations inside each thing define what are its internal contradictions that lead up to its movement and evolution, on how the new supersedes the old, taking much from Lenin's interpretations from Marx and Hegel.
My greatest concern with this analysis is that although Mao rejects dogmatism and metaphysics and that he cites Lenin on the difficulty/impossibility of grasping the empirical totality of a contradiction, I still see that the assumption of the absoluteness of movement and contradiction as a sorts of Metaphysics and the rigidness in assuming that the dialectical view of Marxism-Leninism as the correct way of thinking as some sort of dogmatism. He allows for some flexibility and says that comrades that stray from this path should have opportunity to correct their ways but there still seems to be an absolutist view that this is the ultimate empirical and scientific view of the world which, for me, seems non-dialectical itself.
September 4, 2023
Releyendolo ahora que sé algo más de materialismo dialéctico queda mucho más clara su importancia. Algo tan ambicioso como conocer y explicar una ley que abarque todo el desarrollo del universo y todo lo que este contiene, "la ley fundamental de la naturaleza y la sociedad y, por tanto, también la ley fundamental del pensamiento", la ley de la contradicción, suena a pura ficción. Y obviamente algo tan amplio, que aplique a tan inmensa variedad de procesos, no puede ser muy concreto, por lo que la primera vez que leí el texto me pareció que hablaba mucho para no decir casi nada, que decía lo que todo el mundo sabe de forma que nadie lo entienda.
Error.
Entender el materialismo dialéctico realmente sirve para realizar análisis más profundos en cualquier campo y previene cometer errores bastante extendidos, de empirismo, idealismo, metafísica y un largo etcétera. Filosofía moderna, filosofía realmente util en nuestras vidas que nos ayuda a avanzar en el atendimiento del mundo.
Es un libro imprescindible pero no el primero que leer sobre el tema. Es fácil de desechar como paja mental si no has comprobado previamente la utilidad del análisis del materialismo dialéctico.
Error.
Entender el materialismo dialéctico realmente sirve para realizar análisis más profundos en cualquier campo y previene cometer errores bastante extendidos, de empirismo, idealismo, metafísica y un largo etcétera. Filosofía moderna, filosofía realmente util en nuestras vidas que nos ayuda a avanzar en el atendimiento del mundo.
Es un libro imprescindible pero no el primero que leer sobre el tema. Es fácil de desechar como paja mental si no has comprobado previamente la utilidad del análisis del materialismo dialéctico.
April 9, 2022
I read this on the till at my workplace over two very boring shifts (boss makes a dollar, I make a dime, etc etc). Overly wordy at times but explains dialectical materialism and its enduring importance well.
January 15, 2020
Supposedly Mao's greatest contribution to Marxism.
September 18, 2021
Second read. Still a banger.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 94 reviews