Reading Notes on Li Da’s *Outlines of Sociology*

(January–March 1938)

**Outlines of Sociology**

**Part One: Materialist Dialectics**

**Chapter One: Materialist Dialectics Viewed as a Synthesis of the History of Human Cognition**

**Section One: The Prehistory of Materialist Dialectics**

**I. Human Cognition in the Primitive Era**

The sole scientific method of sociology is materialist dialectics. This scientific method interprets society as an organism that is in a state of constant development and is full of vitality. The study of such an organism demands an objective analysis of the relations of production that constitute a given society, and an exploration of its [functions and development, i.e., the special laws of motion of the transition from one kind of organism to another, higher kind]. This is a necessary precondition for the role of consciousness in relation to the historical process. However, merely exposing the aforementioned laws is not sufficient; what is necessary is to, based on the exposed laws, point out the methods for practice.

Point out practice, transform society—this is the fundamental thesis of this book. —to bring about the transformation from one kind of social organism to another, higher kind of social organism. The above is the fundamental thesis first raised in this book, which also constitutes the entire backbone of this book. The explanation of this thesis should be divided into the following five major parts: … Fifth, explain social ideology and its correct relationship with the economic structure, and theoretically reconstruct the concrete contours of the various societies in reality. [pp. 1-2]

Materialist dialectics is the only scientific worldview. This worldview is something actively created by absorbing the fruits of the entire history of human cognition. Therefore, when we study the general principles of materialist dialectics, we must adopt the standpoint of historicism, explain the process of the gestation, birth, and development of materialist dialectics, and point out that this philosophical history is the summation, the total and the conclusion of the history of human cognition.

Primitive humans' views on the objective world

The history of human cognition encompasses the process of human understanding of the objective world from primitive times up to the present. Hence, when we trace the historical preparation for materialist dialectics, we cannot but trace back to the cognition of humans in the primitive era.

In the long process of labor, they transformed nature on one hand, and transformed themselves (their physiology and nature) on the other.

Emerging from an animal state, primitive humanity, in the course of their protracted struggle with nature (i.e., the labor process), on the one hand transformed nature, and on the other, simultaneously transformed their own physiological organs and innate qualities. Due to the exertion of shouting during labor, they reacted upon their respiratory and vocal organs, promoting the development of the larynx, and gradually became capable of producing articulate sounds of speech. Speech is a result of human labor behavior, and also

A result, a means of communication, a prerequisite for cognition. Only with concepts expressed through speech could thinking begin.

The development of the brain is a result of labor.

a means of mutual communication among humans, and simultaneously a prerequisite for humans beginning to understand nature.

In their labor process, humans' nervous systems became more complex, their brains greatly enlarged, and at the same time, the interactions among humans in economic life and psychological life also developed. Due to the emergence of speech, humans were able to use speech to describe representations of external things, to give names to actions and objects, and thereby create verbal concepts. Once humans possessed verbal concepts, they were capable of initiating the activity of thinking.

Two characteristics of primitive thinking: (1) Nature is as animated as humans. (2) Nature and humans mutually transform. This is primitive dialectics, which formed the animism of the primitive thought system.

Primitive thinking had two characteristics. The first was that primitive people regarded natural objects or natural phenomena as animated existences just like themselves… The second was the representation concerning the transformation of one object into another object, and the representation concerning the transmission of animal characteristics to humans… Although this kind of thinking of primitive people was very childish and laughable, their view of nature as an active, mutually transforming world can be said to be the embryonic form of a dynamic worldview, and can also be called "primitive dialectics." The animism of the primitive thought system can be said to have been formed based on the aforementioned characteristics.

All things are the results of the activity of souls. Animism was the view of primitive people who believed that all things possessed souls, and consequently, they regarded all things as the results of the activity of souls. All things

Animism is a higher stage of development of primitive thought. Previously, primitives could not distinguish nature from themselves; now they were able to distinguish themselves from the natural world. This was entirely a result of humanity's struggle against nature.

Animism is a higher stage of development of primitive thinking. Previously, primitive people could not distinguish nature from themselves; now they were able to distinguish themselves from the natural world. This was entirely a result of humanity's struggle against nature.

Consciously struggling against nature

In the production process, due to the constant recognition of new aspects of nature, they could change the methods of struggle against nature, and simultaneously changed their mode of life. Consequently, surplus products emerged, technology was improved, and human dominance over nature increased. At such a time, animism appeared in the thought system, enabling the division of the world into matter and soul.

This was humanity's first attempt to understand nature, becoming the beginning of a conscious struggle against nature.

Natural domination, social domination, and animism are the three sources of primitive religion.

The essence of religion is the worship of supernatural forces, believing that supernatural forces dominate individuals, society, and the world. This arises entirely from the fact of not understanding natural forces and social forces. Its earliest forms were two: one was ancestor worship, the other was the worship of natural objects.

As production developed, the animism of the primitive thought system later evolved into a primitive religious worldview. The sources of the primitive religious worldview can be divided into three aspects. The first source is the fact that primitive people were dominated by nature… The second source is the fact that primitive people were dominated by social relations… The third source is the pre-existing animism. This is the ideological source of religion.

The earliest form of religious belief is the worship of the souls of ancestors. The religion of ancestor worship is closely related to the production relations of the kinship system. The objects of worship are clan gods, tribal gods, etc. The second form is the worship of natural objects, i.e., fetishism. Fetishism is closely related to a lack of understanding of natural phenomena. The objects of worship are water, fire, wind, thunder, the sun, animals, plants, etc.

As described above, the essence of religion is the worship of supernatural forces, something that arises based on the belief that supernatural forces dominate individuals, society, and the entire world. The emergence of religious concepts began in primitive times. This arises entirely from the fact of not understanding natural forces and social forces. Along with the development of material production, human understanding of natural phenomena gradually progresses, because

Mao Zedong's handwritten reading notes on *Outlines of Sociology*.

As their understanding of natural forces gradually increases, the first root cause from which religion arises gradually diminishes. However, the class system of society becomes established, and social forces are still felt to be incomprehensible; add to this that animism is deeply ingrained in people's minds, so religion still exists, but its form and content change according to each specific social formation. This is one aspect. On the other hand, due to the development of production and the gradual understanding of natural and social forces, philosophy also emerges.

and so the first root of religion—the fact of being dominated by natural forces—gradually lost its existence, and religious concepts also began to waver. But on the other hand, due to the development of productive forces, the emergence of surplus products, the formation of private property, the establishment of the slavery system, etc., the fact of the incomprehensibility of social forces still persisted; at the same time, the animistic beliefs of primitive times still deeply penetrated people's minds, dominating the spirit of a portion of people. Therefore, along with the transformation from primitive society to slave-owning society, the primitive religious worldview developed along another line, evolving into various religions corresponding to the different stages of social development (such as the religions of ancient slave-owning society, medieval feudal society, and modern capitalist society, explained in Part Five). On the other hand, a philosophical worldview formed based on scientific cognition began to emerge. (However, within the idealist worldview, the foundation of animism and the religious worldview still persists).

**II. Dialectics in Ancient Natural Philosophy**

The stage of development that historically superseded primitive society was ancient slave-owning society. Compared with primitive society, slave-owning society was a higher, more progressive society. Due to the development of material productive forces, the split between masters

Initially it was a division of labor, later it became antagonism.

and slaves into classes, the division of labor between mental labor and physical labor transformed into an antagonism between the two. People engaged in mental labor were exempted from material productive labor, relying for their livelihood on the means of subsistence produced by physical labor. As a result, they had the so-called "necessary leisure" to engage in abstract speculation, and to ponder the questions of how the universe arose and how it is constituted. The philosophical worldview was formed under such a premise.

Without necessary leisure, philosophy cannot emerge, and this leisure is due to society progressing to the slave system. Productive forces developed, surplus products increased, society split into slave owners and slaves. The former, by exploiting the latter, were able to be relieved from labor, having the time to engage in scholarly studies, and only then could philosophy appear. This is a tremendous leap in the history of human cognition.

The oldest philosophy is the natural philosophy of ancient Greece. This was a new worldview that arose in opposition to primitive religious concepts. The emergence of this new worldview, besides the precondition of the antagonism between mental and physical labor, also had its social and historical basis.

Why materialist philosophy could only appear when society progressed to a slave-owning society. Could it not have appeared in Greece earlier than that? Because: (1) Only then could people gradually gain insight into the laws of nature, only then could they begin to explain the world using a perspective different from religion; (2) It was necessary to wait until there were handicrafts and commerce, with commercial slaves, they had money and leisure, only then could the motivation to pursue profound learning arise; (3) Only with the experience of commodity exchange, the cultivation of the abstract ability of thought could they engage in philosophy; (4) Only then was contact with foreign peoples, and the broadening of geographical and spiritual horizons required.

Slave-owning society, in its initial phase of existence, the Greek era, could promote the development of productive forces because the efforts of slave owners in production were directed at improving production techniques, enhancing the productivity of slave labor, and as a result, handicrafts and agriculture experienced considerable progress. Due to the advancement of production techniques, people were gradually able to glimpse the laws of natural phenomena, and began to explain the world using a perspective different from religion. Second, as a consequence of the development of handicrafts and agriculture, commerce also flourished. The ancient Greek natural philosophers mostly resided in the commercially developed cities along the coast of Asia Minor. The merchants living in such places accumulated substantial wealth, possessing the necessary free time, means, and motivation to acquire knowledge. Third, the merchants residing along the coast of Asia Minor frequently sailed across the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, engaging in the exchange of many different kinds of goods. Their attention to goods was not focused on the natural properties of the goods, but on the difference between the purchase price and the selling price. They were accustomed to converting various goods of different quantities into money and comparing their numerical amounts. Consequently, they naturally cultivated the ability for abstraction. As Heraclitus said: "All things are an exchange for Fire, and Fire for all things, just as wares for gold and gold for wares"[1]. This is the material root of these things. [1] See Heraclitus, *Fragments*. (Cf. *Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy*, Commercial Press, 1961 edition, p. 27)

Contact with foreign peoples, with the flourishing of commerce, the scope of the merchants' activities expanded more and more, and their spiritual horizons also broadened more and more. They came into contact with many different peoples, acquiring knowledge of various production techniques and preliminary sciences (such as mathematics, geometry, astronomy, geography, etc.), as well as knowledge about various different religions, morals, customs, and habits. Therefore, amidst all this particular experience and knowledge, they could seek a universal, necessary factor, and their capacity for abstract thought was further enhanced.

The above constitutes the historical basis for the emergence of ancient natural philosophy. Due to the development of technology, handicrafts, commerce, and navigation, and the broadening of geographical and spiritual horizons, the idea of opposing the religious distortions, which were remnants of the past clan society, and explaining the world based on natural facts, was established. Thus, ancient natural philosophy sprouted upon the above historical foundation and emerged as a new worldview opposing religion. [pp. 2-9]

The First Version

The founders of ancient natural philosophy were the "Ionian" philosophers—Thales (624–546 B.C.), who was the first to offer a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. He said that the universe originated from water, that water is the source of all things and the true essence of all existence. All other elements are derived from water. This view holds that all matter is a single substance and that everything can transform into one another. This marks the first emergence of materialism and dialectics, though in a very rudimentary form.

The second great philosopher was Heraclitus. His major contribution lay in discovering the broad outlines of dialectics. He was a materialist, like the philosophers before him. [Note: Thales, now translated as Thales or Thales. Ancient Greek materialist philosopher.]

Similarly, he argued that the universe is composed of the four elements: fire, water, air, and earth. He proposed that these four elements transform into one another. He said: "Fire originates from the extinction of earth, air from the extinction of fire, water from the extinction of air, and earth from the extinction of water." He also described the universe as an everlasting fire of water, fire, air, and earth. This is a metaphor, symbolizing that fire is an expression of the continuous process of change among these four elements. From his understanding of the material constitution of the universe, he arrived at the proposition of the "universal change of all things." He used the apt statement, "All things flow," to express his dynamic view of the universe. This is his materialism. Furthermore, he employed the metaphor, "You cannot step into the same river twice," to illustrate all changes in the natural and human realms. This idea of the ceaseless change of all things is a fundamental thought in dialectics. According to his insight into perpetual change, the entire universe is infinite and eternal in time, boundless and unlimited in space. This universe, constantly changing, is never the same entity. As for why all things in the universe "flow," in other words, what exactly causes the change of all things in the universe? On this question, his explanation was quite correct. He maintained that all changes occur amid contradictions. He said: "Strife is the father of all things, the king of all things. Struggle makes some things gods and others men; makes some people slaves and others free." He also said: "Strife is everywhere; truth is discord, and it is essential to know that everything comes into being through strife." According to this view, all things transform from one form to another due to the struggle of internal opposites within them. "The struggle of opposites is the driving force that causes all change and all development." This is also a fundamental principle of dialectics. In summary, he expressed this idea in a general way. He also applied this thought to the relationship between being and non-being. He said that the polar opposition of being and non-being is synthesized within the concept of becoming. This means that the process and essence of all things lie in the synthesis of polar opposites. Among the Greek philosophers, "the great and glorious Heraclitus" is truly the "father of dialectics."

Notes on Reading Li Da's "Outline of Sociology"

"Fire extinguishes earth, earth extinguishes fire, fire extinguishes air, air extinguishes water, water extinguishes earth." He also said: "The universe is an everlasting fire," using this to metaphorically represent the ceaseless change of all things. He also said, "You cannot step into the same river twice," likewise a metaphor for the constant flux in nature and society. In his view, the universe is infinite in both time and space, perpetually changing. Not only that, but he also identified the cause of change. He believed that all things transform from one form to another due to the struggle of internal opposites. Everything proceeds amidst contradictions. He said: "Struggle is the father of all things," "Struggle is everywhere; truth is discord." In this way, he expressed the ideas of dialectics through a general method, marking the first time in human epistemological history—hence his title as the father of dialectics.

Democritus

Next, we come to the pinnacle of ancient materialists, Democritus (c. 460–350 B.C.). [Note: Democritus (c. 460–370 B.C.), now translated as Democritus or Democritus. Ancient Greek materialist philosopher.]

Opposing idealist philosophy, he advocated a thoroughly materialist philosophy. He believed that matter is composed of extremely minute, impenetrable particles, namely atoms; and its motion results from the combination of these atoms with empty space. The impenetrable atoms move within the void, separating and combining in various ways, thereby constituting the diversity of the material world. He regarded matter, humanity, the soul, and thought all as various combinations of atoms that share the same essence but differ in form. In this way, he ascribed appropriate specific forms to all things. He considered atomic, material motion to arise from its own inherent properties. He attributed this inherent quality of matter—the indivisible particles, atoms—to their combination, separation, and various configurations.

Natural science at the time was still in a very rudimentary state, so Democritus's worldview remained primitive and naive. Regarding the constitution of the material world, he made the following observation: All existents in the universe—fire and water, earth and sky, matter and humanity, the souls of plants or humans—are all various combinations of atoms that share the same essence but differ in form. Atoms of water have one kind of form; atoms of earth have another form; extending this principle, humans and their thoughts also arise from atomic combinations and each possess their own specific forms. Thus, Democritus assigned a unique particular form to every single thing in the universe.

According to Democritus's assertion, although the forms of atomic combinations vary, all atoms share the common properties of being material, indivisible, and impenetrable. Since all atoms are impenetrable, the objects formed by their combination (such as water, fire, air, earth) are also impenetrable. This raised the question: how can impenetrable objects move? To resolve this problem, he posited the existence of empty space. He believed that all existents are composed of extremely minute, impenetrable material particles which move within the void, combining and recombining to constitute all the diversity of the material world. Thus he said: "In reality, nothing exists except atoms and the void." The existence of anything else is entirely denied. Democritus took atoms and the void as the fundamental principles of the material world, and the principles of atoms and void express an understanding that unifies being and non-being. He asserted that the various combinations of atoms give rise to all kinds of material things, while the void is the condition for material motion. He regarded motion as inseparable from matter; the void is the condition for the material motion he spoke of—a mechanical, kinetic motion. This mechanical kinetic motion, in turn, is the law of material change, the causal necessity of the world. In this respect, he already attempted to seek the cause of self-motion within the material world itself. Although his view of material motion was mechanical and kinetic, he regarded it as the fundamental law of material transformation and the causal necessity of the universe, thereby attempting to find the cause of its own motion within matter itself.

The Second Version

Representing the ideology of the ancient reactionary aristocracy was ancient idealist philosophy. The historical bases for its emergence and development are sixfold: (1) The profound class differentiation and struggle arising from the downward development of the Greek slave economy triggered a conflict between aristocratic and democratic ideologies, with the former taking idealist philosophy as its foundation; (2) Because slavery obstructed technological progress, slave owners ceased to study natural phenomena related to technological improvement and focused their attention instead on the study of social phenomena, leading to the rise of moral philosophy and theories of the state; (3) Since free citizens universally despised physical labor as they were removed from it, they exaggerated the importance of spiritual elements, giving rise to idealist philosophy; (4) Consequently, within the realm of consciousness, the aristocracy also disdained and loathed philosophies that studied "base matter," considering idealist philosophy the only truth; (5) The earlier materialist philosophies, limited by the scientific standards of the time, were inevitably naive, simplistic, and self-contradictory, rendering them contemptible in the eyes of idealist philosophers; (6) Because materialist philosophy was merely objective.

Fourth, in the realm of ideology, the philosophy that previously studied natural phenomena and base matter was seen by the aristocrats, who regarded themselves as possessing a noble spirit, as something injurious to their self-esteem and highly repugnant. Consequently, the objects of contemplation for the aristocrats and their attendants shifted from the material world on earth to the spiritual world in the heavens. Moreover, the earlier materialist philosophy, constrained by the naïve scientific knowledge of its time, was inevitably self-contradictory in content, which the aristocratic scholars considered a dry and insipid thing. In addition, the earlier natural philosophy only intuitively spoke of the dialectics of objective reality, without ever addressing the dialectics of the subjective—that is, the dialectics of thought. This is also a reason why ancient materialism gave way to ancient idealism.

Based on the above historical conditions, the ancient idealism representing the ideology of the reactionary aristocracy emerged on the stage of philosophical history and entered into struggle with the earlier materialism.

Annotations on Reading Li Da’s *Outline of Sociology*

A manuscript of Mao Zedong’s annotations on reading *Outline of Sociology*.

A manuscript of Mao Zedong’s annotations on reading *Outline of Sociology*.

The dialectics of reality,

did not pay attention to the subjective

dialectics of thought,

so idealism emphasizing

logic arose to

take its place. The above six

points are all historical

reasons why ancient

idealism replaced ancient

materialism and developed.

As the first

representative to struggle against materialism

and advocate idealism in

moral theory and epistemology—

Socrates,

his positive significance

is that he raised moral theory

and epistemology, which had never

been raised before, introducing

philosophy into the two

realms of society

and thought, raising in moral theory

the dialectic of the relationship between knowledge

and action,

The earliest representative of ancient idealism was Socrates

(Sokrates, 469–399 BC). The central issue of Socrates’

doctrine was to advocate the unity of knowledge and virtue,

regarding the pursuit of knowledge as the means to attain morality. In his view,

evil was the product of ignorance, and good was what was beneficial. In order to know why good was beneficial,

one must know its best source.

This source was the customs and habits of the ancestors. Therefore, he rejected the emerging democratic

system and upheld the traditional aristocratic system.

In epistemology and in the interpretation of general philosophical problems,

Socrates was an idealist. He treated the universal that arrives at thought and exists within thought

as the basis of individual sensory phenomena. He

maintained that the purpose of cognition was to seek this universal. Thus, Socrates,

in idealist epistemology, raised the issue of the dialectic

of the universal and the particular, although he did not resolve this issue.

and raised in epistemology

the dialectic of the relationship

between the universal and the particular. These were his great achievements.

Yet his thought was reactionary and idealist.

His moral theory, which asserts that knowledge determines action,

regards the pursuit of knowledge as the means to attain morality, views evil as the product of ignorance, and good

as the product of knowledge, contains one aspect of truth. But first, what he called

knowledge was understanding the customs and habits of the ancestors, thus advocating a return to antiquity,

rejecting new knowledge, upholding the traditional aristocratic system, and rejecting the emerging democratic system;

hence he was reactionary. Second, he only recognized the influence that knowledge

exerts on

action, but did not know that the source of knowledge lies in action (practice),

that action is the foundation determining knowledge and also the criterion for testing knowledge;

hence he was idealist. His epistemology, which asserts that the purpose of cognition

lies in proceeding from the sensory particular to the rational universal, is correct.

But he considered the latter to be the basis of the former, and this is idealism.

Plato’s thought is objective idealism,

and his entire system is

reactionary and erroneous.

He held that only the Ideas are eternally

true, real existences, and that the Ideas

existed before the world and humans came into being.

Next, the philosopher who arose after Socrates was the objective idealist Plato

(Platon, 427–347 BC). Plato was the person who most fiercely opposed materialism;

he once advocated burning the atomist writings of Democritus. He maintained that the essence of worldly things

should not be sought in base matter, but rather in the Ideas. According to his opinion, the world we perceive

through our senses is not truly real existence; it is merely a projection of the eternally existing world of Ideas and concepts.

He illustrated this point with the following metaphor. He said, suppose I sit within a

The world and human thought are

both products of the Ideas, shadows

of the Ideas. This

is a thorough idealist system

that stands the real world

on its head. From this,

he constructed the logic of Ideas,

maintaining that the object of cognition is the Ideas

and not the sensory world, and that the method

of cognition is to engage in thought

based on empty, contentless concepts. Yet Plato’s positive role

also lies in his logic of Ideas. For in his logic

of Ideas, he demonstrated the role of concepts in thought.

This demonstration of the role of concepts in thought

has groundbreaking significance

in the history of human cognition.

hollow space surrounded by walls. The hollow space is enclosed on all sides, with only the top

open. At this time, above the hollow space, people are walking and stars are moving. The shadows

of these people and stars then fall on the opposite wall. Just like these shadows, the sensory world

is a projection of the truly real Ideas. According to Plato’s thought, the Ideas and concepts

are existences that were present before the world and exist above the world, while the world and our thinking

are both products of these Ideas. Thus, Plato was an objective idealist.

Plato asserted that the Ideas are the creator of existence and the highest, sole, true, real world,

hence he maintained that the object of cognition is precisely these Ideas. To cognize the Ideas, we must rely on

thought within concepts. Therefore, he created the logic of Ideas. But Plato’s concepts

are concepts that contain no material content, therefore they are dead, immobile concepts; hence cognition that relies on

dead, immobile, contentless concepts is also only dead, immobile, contentless mysticism. We do not wish here

to examine his mysticism; we will only briefly mention a point of his thought with positive significance—

his logic of Ideas. His logic of Ideas demonstrated the role of concepts in thinking. [pp. 10–18]

Annotations on Reading Li Da’s *Outline of Sociology*

Section 2: The Formation and Development of Materialist Dialectics

IV. The Development of Materialist Dialectics

From the preceding explanation, we can see that materialist dialectics

was forged in the process of philosophical struggle. Philosophical struggle

is a reflection of political struggle; this proposition

is the key to our understanding of the emergence and development of materialist dialectics. When its founders first

stood on the position of radical democracy, in the realm of philosophy they joined the Left Hegelians,

using philosophical struggle to reflect political struggle. After they accepted the influence of Feuerbach,

definitively became materialists, and critically assimilated the Hegelian dialectical method

to study the various concrete problems of society, they further used the newly created spiritual weapon of materialist dialectics

to engage in a struggle on two philosophical fronts—against the idealism representing

bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology and against old materialism. This struggle reflected

the actual struggle between the proletariat they represented and the bourgeoisie. [pp. 75–76]

Struggle is exactly dialectics.

Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics Viewed as a Philosophical Science

Section 1: General Characteristics of Dialectical Materialism

II. The Overcoming of Idealism and Dialectical Materialism

Therefore, dialectical materialism does not metaphysically negate all

Meaning absolute

the past history of philosophy, nor is it a simple, crude denial of all

idealism, but only *sublates* it in the dialectical sense

*Sublation*…

all idealism. … [p. 104]

III. The Concept of Matter

The form of existence of matter is, first and foremost, motion. Motion is the fundamental form of the existence of matter. Matter and motion

are inseparably united. “Matter without motion is as inconceivable as motion without matter”[1]. This proposition

indicates the objective reality of the world—motion, which is matter in motion or the motion of matter.

This proposition demonstrates: absolutely motionless matter or absolutely static matter, neither

exists[2]; apart from matter, one cannot speak of motion; [3] and the motion of matter

is extremely complex.

“Matter is matter in motion. Without motion there is no matter, without matter there is no motion. But the motion of matter

is the self-motion of matter. The source of the self-motion of matter is the internal contradictions of matter,

the struggle of opposites.…” [pp. 111–112]

Time and space, like matter, are objective realities that exist independent of human consciousness

and are reflected by consciousness. The representations of time and space are the reflections of objective, real time and space

in human consciousness. Objective, real time and space are continuously developing

and changing; thus the representations of time and space reflected in human consciousness

[1] See Engels, *Anti-Dühring*. (*Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 1972 edition, p. 99)

[2] Mao Zedong crossed out the word “entirely” in the original text.

[3] Mao Zedong added a sentence here: “Apart from motion, one also cannot speak of matter.”

Annotations on Reading Li Da’s *Outline of Sociology*

are also relative and developing. These relative representations, as they develop daily,

increasingly approach objective, absolute truth. Just as the mutability of the doctrine on the structure of matter

does not negate the objective reality of matter, the representations of time and space also do not negate the

the mutability[1] their objective reality. [pp. 114–115]

Section 2: The Object of Materialist Dialectics

I. Materialist Dialectics Viewed as the Unity of Worldview and Method

… A worldview is a generalization of the results of the individual sciences; it is intimately related to the developmental level

of the individual sciences. At a time when the individual sciences have not yet reached a high level of development,

a scientific worldview cannot be established… . [p. 120]

Chapter 3: The Laws of Materialist Dialectics

Section 1: The Law of the Unity of Opposites

I. The Unity and Struggle of Opposites

Internal opposites … There is no thing in the world that does not possess internal contradictions.

transforms into external opposites Every thing’s interior possesses various opposing elements;

these opposing elements are what create the contradictory nature of things. The division of the unified object

into opposites, and the cognition of its constituent components full of contradictions—this

is the quintessence of dialectics. [p. 166]

Contradiction is precisely motion All motion itself is contradiction, and the source of all self-motion

is the internal contradiction of the thing in motion. … When materialist dialectics studies the self-motion of objects,

it certainly does not deny the role of external conditions. But between external contradictions

and internal contradictions, there is a dialectical interaction. The action of external contradictions

passes through the internal contradictions of a specific thing and is thereby refracted. Only by exposing

the internal contradictions of objective reality—the source of self-motion—can the essence of the development of natural

and social phenomena be understood. [p. 168]

The internal contradictions of a thing are necessarily accompanied by the struggle of opposites, and are resolved

through the struggle of opposites, thereby transforming into a new form. However, the development of a thing due to internal contradictions

and the struggle of opposites sometimes adopts the form of continuous change, and at other times adopts the form of

discontinuous change (interruption of continuity, i.e., leap). In cases where continuous change is adopted,

the contradiction does not develop into an irreconcilable, antagonistic or hostile contradiction. Conversely,

in cases where discontinuous (i.e., leap) change is adopted, the contradiction develops into an antagonistic

or hostile contradiction. Thus, contradiction and antagonism have points of convergence, yet are also

mutually distinct. Mechanists (like Bukharin) equate contradiction with antagonism; this is mistaken.

Antagonism is Antagonismus. In mechanics, Antagonismus is interpreted as the impulse of two forces

Annotations on Reading Li Da’s *Outline of Sociology*

Breakthrough, that is, the counter-repulsion of two forces; but in the philosophy of materialist dialectics, Antagonismus is interpreted as the stage where conflict reaches a direct state and contradictions intensify, namely, antagonism or hostility. Therefore, in the interpretation of dialectics, all antagonism (or hostility) is a developmental stage of contradictions${ }^{[1]}$, but not all contradictions necessarily develop to the stage of antagonism. [pp. 172–173]

As for the development of contradictions without antagonism, they only pass through stages of partial resolution. Each new developmental stage of the contradiction is a manifestation of its partial resolution. All changes in nature or society that do not take the form of leaps fall into this category. The contradiction between the Proletariat and the peasants is such a contradiction.…… [p. 174]

Section 2: The Law of the Transformation from Quantity to Quality and from Quality to Quantity

1. Quality, Quantity, Quality-Quantity

At first glance, the quantity and quality of a thing appear completely independent of each other. Things possessing the same quality can increase or decrease in quantity. Quantities of different sizes but the same quality can exist in things of different qualities; conversely, the same quantitative determination can exist in things of different qualities.…… [p. 189]

Quality Same but Quantity Different

3. The Theory of Leaps

Thus, qualitative transformation is a leap—a proposition confirmed by all history, both of nature and of society.…… [p. 200]

Section 3: The Law of the Negation of the Negation

1. The Meaning of the Law of the Negation of the Negation

Why Repetition?

In the course of its contradictory development, a thing’s lower developmental stage prepares the stage of its own self-negation, that is, the stage of transforming into a new, higher stage that is its opposite. This is the negation in which the succeeding stage overcomes the preceding stage. This negation creates an inherent connection between these two stages,[1] preserving the positive results of the preceding stage in the succeeding stage. However, when the second stage, driven by new oppositions, transitions to the third stage that follows, the development of the thing replays certain features and properties of the original lower stage, so that in appearance this third stage seems to return to the first stage. Yet the process of development, enriched by subsequent advances, reproduces those repeated properties and features on a higher foundation. Thus, viewed as a whole, the developmental process traces a spiral as it advances.…… [p. 205]

[1] Mao Zedong changed the character “级” (stage) to "段" (segment).
[2] Mao Zedong deleted the character "上" (on) from the original text.

# Source: en:auto-trans