DIALECTIC MATERIALISM (LECTURE OUTLINE)
[Text] Chapter I Idealism and Materialism
This chapter discusses the following problems:
(1) Two opposing camps of philosophy;
(2) Distinction between idealism and materialism;
(3) Origin and development of idealism; and
(4) Origin and development of materialism.
(1) Two Opposing Camps of Philosophy
The entire history of philosophy is the history of struggle and development
of idealism and materialism, the two opposing schools of philosophy. All
philosophical thoughts and factions are variations of these two basic schools.
All philosophical theories are created by people belonging to a definite
social class. The consciousness of these people is historically determined
by a definite social life. All philosophical theories express the need of a
definite social class and reflect the level of development of social productive force and the historical stage of man's knowledge of nature. The fate
of a philosophy is determined by the degree it satisfies the need of society.
The social origin of idealism and materialism lies in the social structure
of class contradictions. The original idealism was the product of ignorance
of the primitive barbarian man. Later, as productive forces developed,
scientific knowledge also developed. Consequently, idealism should have
declined and been replaced by materialism. However, from antiquity to modern
times, idealism has not declined. On the contrary, it has developed further
and become a close rival of materialism. The reason is that society is
divided into classes. On the one hand, the oppressing class cannot but
develop and consolidate its idealism for its own interest. On the other
hand, the oppressed class, similarly, cannot but develop and consolidate

its materialism for its own interest. Both idealism and materialism exist
as tools of class struggle, and the war between the two schools of philosophy
will continue until the elimination of classes. In its process of development,
idealism represents the ideology of the exploiting class and has a reactionary
function. Materialism is the world outlook of the revolutionary class. In
a class society, materialism grows and develops continuously in its struggle
against the reactionary philosophy--idealism. For this reason the struggle
between idealism and materialism always reflects the struggle between the
interest of the reactionary class and that of the revolutionary class. No
matter whether a philosopher is conscious of it or not, his philosophic inclination is always influenced by the political orientation of the class to which
he belongs. Any inclination in philosophy always directly or indirectly
supports the basic political interest of the class the philosopher belongs.
In this sense, the implementation of a certain philosophical inclination is
a special form of the policy of the class the philosopher belongs.

The special characteristic of the Marxist philosophy, dialectic materialism,
is to explain clearly the class attributes of all social consciousness
(including philosophy). It openly declares its proletarian nature, wages
a resolute struggle against idealism of the capitalist class, and subordinates
its function to the general task of overthrowing the capitalist institution,
establishing proletarian dictatorship, and building socialism. In the present
stage in China, the mission of philosophy is subordinated to the general task
of overthrowing imperialism and semi-feudalism, thoroughly implementing the
democracy of the bourgeois class, establishing a brand new Chinese Democratic
Republic, and preparing to transform the present society to a socialist and
Communist society with peaceful means. Philosophical theories and political
practices should be closely related.

(2) Distinction Between Idealism and Materialism

Where is the basic difference between idealism and materialism? It lies in
the opposite answers given by the two schools in regard to the basic problem
of philosophy, that is, the problem of the relationship between spirit and
matter (the problem of the relationship between consciousness and existence).
Idealism considers spirit (consciousness, concept, and subject) as the origin
of everything in the world and matter (natural or social object) as subordinate to spirit. Materialism holds that matter exists independent of spirit,
while spirit is only subordinate to matter. From the opposite answers to
this basic problem, diversified opinions arise on all other problems.

From the viewpoint of idealism, the world is probably a synthesis of our
different kinds of senses, or it is the spiritual process created by our or
worldly rationality. The external material world is viewed as an illusion,
or an external shell of spiritual elements. Human knowledge is viewed as
subjective and a product of spirit.

Conversely, materialism holds that the unity of universe lies in its
material property. Spirit (consciousness) is one of the properties of

matter. It occurs only when matter develops to a definite stage. Nature,
matter and the objective world exist outside of spirit and independent of
spirit. Human knowledge is a reflection of the objective world.

(3) Origin of Idealism and Its Development

Idealism considers that matter is a product of spirit. It turns the real
world upside down. What is the origin of this philosophy, and where is the
source of its development?

As mentioned before, idealism occurred as a product of the ignorance of
primitive man, but after the development of production the primary condition
that enabled idealism to become a philosophical thought was the separation of
physical and mental labor. As a result of the development of social productivity, division of labor occurred in society. Further development of
division of labor produced people who devoted themselves exclusively to mental
labor. At a time when social productivity was relatively low, the separation
of physical and mental labor was not complete. But after the emergence of
classes and private property, when exploitation became the foundation for
the existence of the dominating class, great changes began. Mental labor
became a special privilege of the dominating class, while physical labor
became the fate of the oppressed class. The dominating class began to examine
their own relationship with the oppressed class in a topsy-turvy way. They
thought that it was not the laborers who provided them with materials for
living. Instead, they thought, it was they who provided the laborers with
materials for living. For this reason, they despised physical labor and
generated the viewpoints of idealism. Eliminating the distinction between
physical and material labor is one of the conditions for eliminating the
philosophy of idealism.

The social origin which enabled the philosophy of idealism to develop is mainly
the fact that this philosophy consciously expresses the interest of the exploiting class. The superiority of the idealist philosophy in all cultural
realms should be explained by this fact. If the exploiting class did not
exist, idealism would lose its social origin. The final extinction of the
philosophy of idealism will come only after the elimination of classes and
the establishment of a Communist society.

We must look for the origin that accounts for the development and intensification of idealism and its ability to become a rival of materialism in the
process of man's knowledge. When man uses concept in thinking, there is a
possibility for him to slip into idealism. When man thinks, he cannot but
use concepts. This will apt to make our knowledge split into two aspects.
In one aspect are the individual and special things and events. In another
aspect are the concepts of a general nature (such as this judgment: "Yenan
is a city.") The specific and the general are originally related and inseparable. When they are detached, they are separated from the objective
truth. The objective truth demonstrates the consistency between the general
and the specific. Without the specific, the general does not exist.

Without the general, there can be no specific. If we separate the general
from the specific, then the general is considered the objective body and the
specific is considered only a form of general existence. This is the method
used by all idealists. They use consciousness, spirit, and concept to replace
the objective substance which exists independent of man's consciousness. With
this as a starting point, the idealists stress the dynamic nature of human
consciousness in social practice. They are unable to point out the truth of
materialism that consciousness is limited by matter. Instead, they say that
only consciousness is dynamic, while matter is nothing but a collective body
of immobile things. Driven by class motivations, the idealists use all methods
to exaggerate the dynamism of consciousness and develop it one-sidedly to
such an extent that it is infinitely expanded in the mind to become a dominating thing. Matter is covered up and made subordinate to consciousness.
They affirm this artificially expanded thing as the general outlook of the
universe, and even worship it as an idol or demigod. Idealist economics excessively exaggerate the immaterial side of exchange, and elevates the status
of the principle of supply and demand to that of the fundamental law of capitalism. Many people saw the dynamic function of science in social life, but
did not know that this function is ruled and limited by a definite social
production relationship. They therefore came to the conclusion that science
is the motive force of society. Idealist historians regard heroes as the
creators of history. Idealist politicians consider politics as an omnipotent
thing. Idealist militarists practice the principle of fighting-to-the-death
in war. Idealist revolutionaries advocate Blanquism. All these are exaggerations of subjective dynamism. Our thinking cannot reflect the object all at
once as a whole. It is only an infinite, colorful, vivid and dialectic process
of knowing things close to their reality. Based on this characteristic of
human thinking, the idealists exaggerate certain individual aspects of this
process. Unable to correctly reflect this process, they distort it. Lenin
said: "Human knowledge is not developed along a straight line, but along a
curve. Any section of this curve can become an isolated and integral section
of straight line. This section of straight line can possibly lead you to
confusion. Linearity and one-sidedness are 'not seeing the forest for the
trees'; obstinacy, subjectivism, and subjective blindness--all these are the
origins of idealist epistemology." "Idealism one-sidedly exaggerates one
fragment or one aspect of the process of cognizance into a mysterious absolute
thing divorced from matter and divorced from nature. It is correct to say
that idealism is religious dogma."

Pre-Marxist materialism (mechanical materialism) did not emphasize the dynamism
of thinking in cognizance. It only gave thinking a passive function, and
regarded thinking as a mirror to reflect nature. Mechanical materialism took
a violent attitude toward idealism without paying attention to the origin of
idealist epistemology. Therefore, mechanical materialism could not prevail
over idealism. Only dialectic materialism correctly points out the dynamic
nature of thinking and, at the same time, points out that thinking is limited
by matter. It points out that thinking occurs in the process of social
practice and also dynamically directs practice. Only this type of dialectical
theory of "unity between knowledge and practice" can thoroughly prevail over
idealism.

(4) Origin of Materialism and Its Development
Recognition of the existence of external matter independent of consciousness
is the foundation of materialism. This foundation is acquired by man through
practice, the practice of labor and production. The practice of class
struggle and the practice of scientific experimentation enabled man to depart
from superstition and fantasy (idealism), to gradually recognize the nature
of the world, and to reach materialism.

Primitive man, who could only use simple tools and yielded to the force of
nature, was unable to explain the changes surrounding him. Therefore, he
asked help from the spirit. This is the origin of religion and idealism.

In the long processes of production, man came in contact with nature surrounding him, acted on nature, changed nature, and secured things for clothing,
food and shelter in order to make nature more suited to the interest of man.
This convinced man that matter does objectively exist.

In social life, relationships and influence occur between one man and another.
In class society, class struggle went on. The oppressed class weighed the
situation, estimated their strength and made plans. When their struggle
succeeded, they firmly believed that their opinion was not a product of
imagination, but a reflection of the material world which objectively exists.
When the oppressed class failed in their struggle because of the adoption
of wrong plans, and when they succeeded in their struggle after changing their
plans, they began to understand that they could reach their goal only if
their subjective plans were based on a correct knowledge of the material
property and rules of the objective world.

The history of science proved to man the material property and regularity
of the world, and made him realize the uselessness of the fantasy of religion
and idealism, and finally accept the conclusion of materialism.

In short, in the long history of practice--the history of human struggle
against nature, the history of class struggle, and the history of science--man,
for the necessity of living and struggle, thought about the reality of material
and its rules, proved the correctness of the philosophy of materialism, and
found the ideological tool for his own struggle--the philosophy of materialism.
As social production developed to a higher and higher degree, class struggle
became more and more developed; scientific knowledge further exposed the
"secrets" of nature, the philosophy of materialism became more and more developed and consolidated; gradually became able to liberate himself from the
dual oppression of nature and society. When it was necessary for the bourgeois
class to struggle against the feudal class and before the proletariat had
become a threat, the bourgeoisie also found and used materialism as a tool
in their own struggle, and believed at one time that the things and events
surrounding them were products of matter rather than products of spirit.
until they themselves became rulers and the struggle of the proletariat
threatened their position did they give up this "useless" tool, and pick up
another tool--the philosophy of idealism.
Not

The proletarian class, the grave diggers for capitalism, is materialist by
nature. But, due to the fact that the proletarian class is the most advanced
class in history, the materialism of the proletarian class is different from
the materialism of the capitalist class. The former is more thorough and
more profound, characterized only by dialectics and not by mechanism. The
proletarian class absorbed the fruits of all practices in human history and,
through their practice and their spokesmen and leaders--Marx and Engels--created
dialectic materialism. It maintains not only that matter exists independent
of and separated from human consciousness, but also that matter is changing.
It thus becomes a completely systematic and totally new world outlook and
methodology. This is the philosophy of Marxism.

Chapter II Dialectic Materialism
This chapter discusses the following problems:
(1) Dialectic materialism as a weapon of proletarian revolution;
(2) Relationship between the heritage of old philosophy and
dialectic materialism;
(3) Consistency of outlook of the universe and methodology in
dialectic materialism;
(4) The problem of object in philosophy;
(5) Theory of matter;
(6) Theory of movement;
(7) Theory of time and space;
(8) Theory of consciousness;
(9) Theory of reflection;
(10) Theory of truth; and
(11) Theory of practice.

The following is a brief discussion of our viewpoints on these problems.
(1) Dialectic Materialism as a Weapon of Proletarian Revolution
This problem has already been discussed in Chapter I. We shall talk about
it briefly again.
Dialectic materialism represents the universal view of the proletarian class.
The proletarian class uses dialectic materialism as its spiritual weapon in

its struggle and as its philosophical basis for its various opinions. Only
when we view the world from the proletarian standpoint can we correctly and
completely grasp dialectic materialism. Only when we start from this viewpoint can the real world be truly and objectively known. This is due to, in
one respect, the fact that the proletarian class is the most advanced and
most revolutionary class; and in another respect, the fact that dialectic
materialism is the most correct and most revolutionary outlook of the universe
and methodology in which a highly precise scientific characteristic is closely
associated with a thorough and uncompromising revolutionary characteristic.

The proletarian class in China has now shouldered the historical responsibility
of carrying the democratic revolution of the bourgeois class. It must adopt
dialectic materialism as its spiritual weapon. If dialectic materialism is
accepted by the proletarian class, the Communist Party, and all revolutionary
elements who are willing to take a stand on the side of the vast proletarian
class, they will have the most correct and the most revolutionary universal
view and methodology, and they will be able to correctly understand the
development and changes of the revolutionary movement correctly, propose
correct revolutionary tasks, unite with their allies, defeat reactionary
theories, take correct actions, avoid mistakes in their work, and reach the
goal of liberating and rebuilding China. Dialectic materialism is especially
a required subject of study for those cadres who direct revolutionary movements
because subjectivism and mechanism, the two erroneous theories and working
methods, often lead cadres into wrong actions in violation of Marxism, and
into wrong ways in revolutionary movements. In order to avoid and to correct
this shortcoming, it is necessary for cadres to study dialectic materialism
self-consciously, and rearm their minds.

(2) Relationship Between the Heritage of the Old Philosophy and Dialectic
Materialism

Modern materialism is not a simple successor to the various old schools of
philosophy. It was born and developed in the struggle against the dominant
philosophy of the past and in the struggle of freeing science from idealism
and myth. The Marxist philosophy, dialectic materialism, has not only inherited the best product of idealism, the fruits of Hegelian philosophy, but
also overcome the idealism of that school of philosophy and materialistically
transformed Hegel's dialectics. Marxism is not only the continuation and
consummation of all the past development of materialism, but also an opponent
of the narrowness of all the old schools of materialism, that is, the
mechanical and intuitive materialism (mainly French materialism and Feuerbach
materialism). Marxist philosophy, dialectic materialism, took over the
scientific heritage of the past culture and at the same time gave it a revolutionary transformation to become the most correct, the most revolutionary,
and the most complete philosophical science unprecedented in history.

After the 4 May 1919 Movement, as the proletarian class of China consciously
walked onto the political stage, and as the nation's scientific standard
continued to rise, a Marxist philosophy movement developed. However, during

the initial stage of China's materialist movement our understanding about
dialectics was inadequate. As a result, the capitalist mechanical materialism
and the Deborin school's subjectivism predominated. When the revolution of
1927 failed, our understanding of Marxism-Leninism improved, and materialist
dialectic thinking gradually developed. Recently, due to the seriousness
of national and social crises and due to the purge of philosophy in the Soviet
Union, a broad movement of dialectic materialism began among the thinkers in
China.

Due to the backwardness of Chinese society, the current dialectic materialism
thinking in China is not a continuation or transformation of China's own
philosophical heritage. It came, rather, from learning Marxism-Leninism. In
order that dialectic materialism will take root and advance in China and will
definitely guide the Chinese revolution toward an ultimate triumph, it is
necessary to struggle against all existing obsolete philosophy, to raise a
banner of criticism on the ideological front all over the country, and thereby
to liquidate the philosophical heritage of ancient China.

(3) Consistency of the Outlook of the Universe and Methodology in Dialectic
Materialism

Dialectic materialism is the proletarian outlook of the universe, and at the
same time it is also the method used by the proletarian class to know the
surrounding world as well as the method for revolutionary action. It is a
unity of the outlook of the universe and methodology. The idealist Marxist
revisionists think that the substance of dialectic materialism lies in its
"method." They sever method from the general philosophical outlook of the
universe, and sever dialectics from materialism. They don't understand
Marxist methodology--dialectics--which is not like Hegelian idealist dialectics,
but materialist dialectics. Marxist methodology can never be separated from
Marxist outlook of the universe. On the other hand, mechanical materialism
not only views Marxist philosophy as a general philosophical outlook of the
universe without its dialectics, but also regards this kind of outlook as
the conclusion of mechanical natural science. They do not understand that
Marxist materialism is not simple materialism, but dialectic materialism.
These two separated views of Marxist philosophy are wrong.
is a unity of outlook of the universe and methodology.

Dialectic materialism
(4) The Problem of the Object of Dialectic Materialism--What Does Materialist
Dialectics Study?

Lenin considered materialist dialectics (as a Marxist philosophy) as a study
of the laws of development of the objective world, as well as a study of the
laws of development of cognizance (which reflects the objective world through
various categories in dialectics). He said that logic is not an external
formal study of thinking; it is rather a study concerning the law of development of all material, natural and spiritual things. In other words, logic
is the total, summation, and conclusion of human knowledge about the world.
Although Lenin emphasized the significance of materialist dialectics as a

general scientific methodology, he did this because dialectics is the conclusion
drawn from the history of our cognizance about the world. Hence he said:
"Dialectics is the history of cognizance."

The above is Lenin's definition of materialist dialectics as a science and
its objectives. What he means is as follows: First, just as any other
science, materialist dialectics has its object of study. The object is the
most general laws of development of nature, history, and human thinking. The
task of materialist dialectics is not to think from our head the relationship
between various phenomena, but to observe the relationship between the various
phenomena from the phenomena themselves. This viewpoint of Lenin's is basically
different from that of the members of the minority faction of the idealists
who regard category (divorced in fact from specific science or specific knowledge)
as the object of study of materialist dialectics. This is because of the
fact that the members of the minority faction of idealists attempt to establish
a philosophical system of categories isolated from the development of human
knowledge about the reality of epistemology, history, social science and
natural science. By so doing, they have in fact abandoned materialist dialectics. Second, the various branches of science (mathematics, mechanics,
chemistry, physics, biology, economics and other natural sciences and social
sciences) are for the study of the various aspects of the material world and
its development. Therefore, the principles of the various sciences are
narrowly limited by each specific realm of study. But materialist dialectics
is not so. It summarizes, draws conclusions about, processes and generalizes
all the valuable contents of all specific branches of science and other
scientific knowledge of mankind. Thus, the concepts, judgments, and principles
of materialist dialectics are extremely broad (including the most general laws
of all sciences, and hence including the substance of the material world).
In this respect, it is an outlook of the universe. On the other hand, materialist dialectics is the foundation of true scientific logic and epistemology
liberated from all empty thinking, clericalism, and metaphysics. Therefore,
it is also the only realistic objective methodology for the study of specific
sciences. It is further clear why we say that materialist dialectics or
dialectic materialism is the unity of the outlook of the universe and methodology.
So the mistakes of those who distort and vulgarize Marxism and deny Marxism
as a philosophy can be understood.

Concerning the problem of the object of philosophy, Marx, Engels and Lenin all
opposed separating philosophy from reality or making philosophy something
independent of substance. They pointed out the inevitability of philosophy
growing out of actual life and based upon the analysis of actual life and
actual relationships. They specially opposed using logical concepts and
logic as the objects of study as practiced by the formalists and members of
the minority faction of the idealists. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all interpreted
materialist dialectics as a theory concerning development. Engels regarded
materialist dialectics as "a theory discussing the general principle of
development of nature, society and thinking." Lenin considered materialist
dialectics as "the most multi-faceted, the richest and the most profound theory
of development." They all considered "the formulas of all principles of

development offered by other schools of philosophy as narrow, without
substance, and severed from the process of development of nature
and society." (Quotation from Lenin) The reason by materialist dialectics
is called the most multi-faceted, the richest, and the most profound theory
of development is nothing but that it reflects the contradictions and the
leaping nature in the process of natural and social changes in the most multifaceted, the richest and the most profound way.

There is another problem to be resolved about the object of philosophy; that
is, the consistency between dialectics and logic.

Lenin emphatically pointed out the identity among dialectics, logic, and
epistemology, saying that this is "an extremely important problem." He said:
"These three terms are superfluous. They indicated only one thing." He was
fundamentally opposed to those Marxist revisionists who treat these three
theories as entirely independent of one another.

Materialist dialectics is the only scientific epistemology, and the only
scientific logic. It deals with the growth of our cognizance of the external
world and the development of such cognizance; the transformation from not
knowing to knowing and from not completely knowing to completely knowing;
and reflection of the laws of development of nature and society which deepens
enhances daily in the mind of mankind. This is the unity between materialist
dialectics and epistemology. Materialist dialectics studies the most general
laws of development of the objective world, and reflections of the most
developed form of the objective world in our mind. This is how materialist
dialectics studies the process of development of realistic things, and the
laws of occurrence, disappearance and mutual transformation of phenomena.
At the same time, it also studies the phenomena of the human mind which reflects the laws of development of the objective world. This is the unity
of materialist dialectics and logic.

In order to understand the relationship between dialectics, logic, and
epistemology thoroughly, we shall examine in the following how dialectics
resolves the problem of mutual relationship between logic and history.

Engels said: "As far as the method of thinking of all schools of philosophy
is concerned, the advantage of Hegel's method is its extremely rich sense of
history. Although Hegel's form is abstract and idealistic, the development of
his thinking parallels the development of world history. Moreover, history
is in fact a verification of our thinking. History often proceeds rapidly in
a complex manner. Because of this, if we obey history, we must not only pay
attention to a lot of unimportant material, but also interrupt our train of
thought. This is the only suitable method and this is the logical method.
This logical method is still fundamentally the historical method except for
the elimination of the form of history and its accidental characteristic."
This viewpoint of "unity of logical development and historical development"
was given full attention by Marx, Engels, and Lenin. "The category of logic
is the simplification of the innumerable characteristics of external existence
and activities." Category is a separated segment which helps us to know the
links of different networks. "The activity of human practice is a repeated

application of human consciousness to various formulas of logic. Then, these
formulas acquire the significance of an axiom. It takes thousands and millions
of times of repeated practice for a theoretical formula to be stabilized in
human consciousness. All these formulas have some perpetual prejudice because they are the results of thousands and millions times of practice before
they take on the characteristics of axioms." The above sayings of Lenin
point out the fact that the characteristics of materialist dialectical logic
are not the same as those of formal logic, which looks upon principles and
categories as empty things existing independently from contents and unrelated
to contents. Materialist dialectical logic is also different from Hegelian
logic. Unlike Hegelian logic which regarded category as concepts isolated
from and independent of the material world, materialist dialectical logic
treats concepts as manifestations of material movements reflected and transplanted to our mind, and then processed by our brain. Holding the view of
unity between existence and thinking, Hegel treated the unity among dialectics,
logic and epistemology in the same way as unity in idealism. On the contrary,
in Marxist philosophy, the unity of dialectics, logic and epistemology is
built on the foundation of materialism. Only if materialism is used to resolve
the problem of the relationship between existence and thinking, and only if
the viewpoint of the reflection theory is taken, can the problem of dialectics,
logic, and epistemology be thoroughly resolved.

The best model of using dialectical materialism to resolve the problem of
the mutual relationships between logical things and historical things is
Karl Marx's "Capital." It discusses the historical development of capitalist
society, and at the same time discusses the logical development of that
society. What "Capital" analyzes is the dialectics of the development of
various economic categories reflected by the growth, development, and extinction
of capitalist society. The materialist solution of this problem is based
upon using the materialist objective history as the foundation, and using
concept and category as the reflection of this realistic history. The unity
of logic and history of capitalism and the unity of logic and epistemology
of capitalist society are illustriously expressed in "Capital." From
"Capital," we can understand a little bit about the unity among dialectics,
logic and epistemology.

The above concerns the problem of the object of dialectic materialism.

(5) Theory of Matter

Marxism took over and developed the line of materialism in philosophy. It
correctly resolved the problem of the relationship between thinking and existence; that is, it thoroughly and materialistically pointed out the materialistic character of the world, the objective existence of matter, and the fact
that matter is the origin of consciousness (or the reliance of consciousness
on existence).

The acceptance of matter being the origin of consciousness is based on the
premises of the materialistic character of the world and its objective
existence. The first condition for one to belong to the camp of materialism

is his acceptance of the existence of the materialistic world independent of
man's consciousness--that is, the world existed before the appearance of mankind, and it existed after the appearance of mankind. Acceptance of this
point is the basic premises for any scientific study.

How can we prove this point? There are many proofs. Man is in contact with
the external world at all the times, and must use cruel ways to deal with
the oppression and resistance of the external world (nature and society).
Man can and should overcome these oppressions and resistance. The human social
practice demonstrated in the historical development of human society is the
best proof. China does not doubt the objective existence of Japanese imperialism which invaded China, nor the objective existence of the Chinese
people. The students of the Anti-Japanese Military and Political University also
never doubted the objective existence of the university and the students
themselves. These things are all material things which exist independent
of and separate from our consciousness. All these are the basic viewpoints
of materialism, or the philosophy of materialism.

The materialistic viewpoint in philosophy is different from the materialistic
viewpoint in natural science. If we say materialistic viewpoint in philosophy
is to point out the objective existence of matter, and that the so-called
matter is the entire world which is separated from man's consciousness and
exists independently (this world acts upon man's senses to cause man's feelings and to cause man to have reflection from feelings), then this statement
is absolute, and will never change. The materialistic viewpoint in natural
science concerns the study of the structure of matter, such as the former
atomic theory and the current electronic theory. Such statements change with
the advance of science and are relative.

To use dialectic materialism to distinguish the materialistic viewpoint in
philosophy and that in natural science is a necessary condition for the
implementation of the materialistic viewpoint in philosophy. This point has
a great significance in the struggle with idealism and mechanical materialism.

On the bases of the theory of electrons, the materialists smashed the absurd
theory about the extinction of matter. Those who held this absurd view did
not know that the advancement of scientific knowledge concerning the structure
of matter is sufficient proof of the correctness of the theory of matter in
dialectic materialism. As a result of modern discoveries in natural science
and the discovery of electron theory, it has been proven that certain material
attributes exhibited in old material concepts (such as weight, hardness,
impenetrability, inertia, etc.) exist only in certain material forms, and do
not exist in other material forms. This fact breaks down the narrowness and
one-sidedness of the old materialist view toward matter, and proves the
correctness of dialectic materialism which accepts the materialistic characteristics and the objective existence of matter. The materialist view of
dialectic materialism sees the unity of the material world from its multiple
characteristics, i.e., the unity of matter's multiple characteristics. This
type of concept of matter does not contradict at all the perpetual movement

or change from one form to another. Ether, electrons, atoms, molecules,
crystalline cells, social phenomena, mental phenomena, etc., represent
various stages of development of matter. They are temporary states in the
history of the development of matter. Scientific studies bring about profound discoveries of all kinds of material states (the discovery of the
multiple characteristics of matter), and these discoveries only enrich the
contents of the concept of matter of dialectic materialism. How can there
be any contradictions? It is necessary to make a distinction between the
concept of matter in philosophy and that in natural science, because the
former is broad and the latter narrow, but they are not contradictory. The
broad concept of matter includes the narrow concept of matter.

The concept of matter of dialectic materialism does not recognize any nonmaterial things in the world (independent and spiritual things). Matter
exists permanently and universally in time and space. If we say that there
is in this world a thing which "has always been so," or which "is so everywhere" (as far as its consistency is concerned), then that thing is the so called objectively existing matter in philosophy. When consciousness is viewed
from thorough materialism (that is from the viewpoint of materialist dialectics), it is nothing but a state of matter, a form of material movement,
a special characteristic of the material brain, and that kind of special
characteristic of the material brain reflected from matter outside of
consciousness to consciousness. Thus, our distinction between matter and
consciousness, and our setting up the two opposing each other are conditional.
That is to say, the distinction is meaningful only in epistemology because
consciousness or thought is only an attribute of matter (brain). Therefore,
the opposition between cognizance and existence doesn't go beyond this.
This type of opposition between the subject and the object has no meaning
beyond the realm of epistemology. If cognizance is set up opposing matter
outside the realm of epistemology, we are revolting against materialism.
In this world there is only matter and its various manifestations. The
subject itself is also matter. This is what is meant by the material attributes
of the world (matter is perpetual and universal), the objective reality of
matter, and matter is the origin of consciousness. In short, matter is
everything in the world. We say "all belongs to Ssu-ma I," and "all belongs
to matter." This is the principle of unity of the world.

The above is the concept of matter in dialectical materialism.

(6) Theory of Motion (Theory of Development)

The first basic principle of dialectic materialism is its acceptance of the
material nature of the world, the objective reality of matter, and matter
being the origin of consciousness. This unity theory of the world has been
discussed in the aforementioned theory of matter.

The second basic principle of dialectic materialism is its theory of motion
(or the theory of development). It acknowledges that motion is the form of
material existence, i.e., the inner attributes of matter. Motion is an expression of the multiple attributes of matter. This is the theory of development of the world. A combination of the development theory of the world and

the aforementioned unity theory of the world forms the entire outlook of the
universe of dialectic materialism. The world is nothing but an infinite
development of the material world (or the material world is developing without
limit).

The concept of motion of dialectic materialism will not permit (1) mental
motion separated from matter, (2) mental matter separated from motion, or (3)
simplification of material motion. The concept of motion is established after
a resolute struggle with idealistic, metaphysical and mechanical viewpoints.

First of all, the theory of motion of dialectic materialism is opposed to
idealism in philosophy and theism in religion. The basic characteristic of
all idealism and theism is their denial of the material unity of the world.
They imagine that the motion and development of the entire world are without
matter, or there is no matter at the very beginning. It is, rather, the
result of spiritual action or the power of God. The German idealist philosopher
Hegel believed that the actual world was developed from the so-called "concept
of the world." In China, believers of Chou I and Li Hsueh of the Sung and
Ming Dynasties all expressed idealistic concepts of the development of the
universe. The Christians say that God created the world. Buddhists and
fetishists in China ascribe the development of everything in the universe to
spiritual power. All these views separating human thinking from matter are
incompatible with dialectic materialism. Not only idealists and clergymen,
but all the materialists before Marx, and all the current anti-Marxist
mechanical materialists maintain materialistic theory of motion when they
talk about natural science. But when they talk about social phenomena,
they no longer adhere to materialistic principles, and ascribe everything to
spiritual reasons.

Dialectic materialism resolutely refutes all these erroneous concepts of
motion, points out their limitations--the limitations of their class status
and the limitation of scientific development, and builds its own concept of
motion thoroughly on materialism from the standpoint of the proletarian
class and based on the most developed scientific standard. First of all,
the dialectic materialists points out that motion is the form of existence
of matter, and is an inner characteristic of matter (not due to external
force). It is just as impossible to imagine motion without matter as to
imagine matter without motion. They set up a materialistic concept of motion
sharply opposed to the idealist or theist concepts of motion.

If we observe matter isolated from motion, it will be a metaphysical theory
of a stationary universe, or the theory of absolute equilibrium. Those who
subscribe to this theory maintain that matter is unchanging, and that there
is no such thing as development in matter. They believe that an absolute
standstill is the general state of matter, or the primitive state of matter.
Dialectic materialism firmly opposes this point of view. It believes that
motion is the most common form of material existence, and an inner and
inseparable attribute of matter. All static and equilibrium states have only
relative meaning, while motion is absolute. Dialectic materialism acknowledges
that all material may have the possibility of being in a stationary state
or a state of equilibrium. It also believes that this is the most important

condition for distinguishing matter and, therefore, is also the most important
condition for distinguishing life. (Engels) However, dialectic materialism
believes that being in a stationary state or in a state of equilibrium is
only one of the elements of motion, or a kind of special condition of motion.
The mistake of observing matter without reference to motion lies in the exaggeration of the elements of standstill or equilibrium. These elements are wrongly
used to cover up or to substitute for the entirety. A special condition of
motion is generalized to become absolute. An ancient Chinese metaphysical
thinker had a favorite saying: "Heaven does not change; reason does not change."
His theory is one of stationary universe. Although the followers of this
saying acknowledge the changes in universe and social phenomena, they deny
these changes as changes of matter itself. In their eyes, the substance of
the universe and society is forever unchanging. The main reason for their
thinking is their class limitation. If the feudal landlord class acknowledges
that the substance of the universe and society is moving and developing, it
would be like theoretically declaring their own death sentence. The philosophy
of all reactionary forces is always a motion-less philosophy. In view of the
principle of development of the world, the revolutionary class and the people
advocated for the transformation of this society and world. Their philosophy
is dialectic materialism.

Moreover, dialectic materialism does not accept simplification of the concept
of motion, or reduce all motion to one form--the form of mechanical motion.
This is the characteristic of the old materialistic concept of motion. The
old materialism (French materialism of the 17th and 18th century and the
German Feuerbach materialism of the 19th century) accepted the permanent
existence and permanent movement (unlimited movement) of matter, but it was
confined to a metaphysical outlook of the universe. Not only that their
social viewpoint reflected a viewpoint of idealist development, even in natural
science they ascribed the unity of material world to a certain one-sided
characteristic, or to one form of motion--mechanical motion. The cause of
this type of motion is external force. It is a motion like that of a machine
which is pushed by an external force. They do not explain matter of motion
from internal causes and the multiple nature of relationships. They explain
motion simply from external form they have discovered, or from external reasons.
In this way, the multiple characteristics of the world are lost. They explain
all motions in the world as a change in location and a decrease or increase
in quantity. Motion is described as a phenomenon of matter being at one
location during a certain moment of time and at another location during
another moment. If there is a change, it is only a change in numerical increase or decrease. There is no change in characteristics and all changes
are cyclical and will repeatedly produce the same result. Dialectic materialism is at odds with this. It considers motion not as simple displacement or cyclical motion. But as infinite varieties of matter. Motion is
looked upon as transformation of matter from one form to another, the
unification and motion of matter in the world. Engels said: "All high-level
forms of motion are inevitably associated with the form of mechanical (external or molecular) motion. For example, if there is no change in heat or
electricity, chemical reactions will be impossible. If there is no mechanical

(molecular), heat, electrical and chemical changes, organic life will be impossible. This, of course, cannot be denied. But if there exists some form
of low-level motion, they cannot include the substance of major forms of motion
under various conditions." These words are absolutely in conformity with
reality. Even if we consider only the simple mechanical motions, we cannot
explain them from the metaphysical viewpoint. We should know that all forms
of motion are dialectical, even though their dialectical contents and their
multi-faceted nature may be greatly different. Thus, mechanical motion is
still dialectic motion. When we say that a body "is" at a certain location
at a certain moment, that body is, in fact, "at" a certain location, and yet,
at the same time, "not at" that certain location at that particular moment.
The so-called "being" at a certain location and the so-called "immobile" state
are but special situations of motion. The body is in fact in motion. Matter
moves within a limited time and within a limited space. Matter is continuously
overcoming the limitations in order to go out of fixed time and space to become an unceasing flow of motion. Mechanical motion is only one form of motion
of matter. In the actual world, it does not exist absolutely independent,
and it is always related to other forms of motion. From heat, chemical reaction,
light, and electricity to organic and social phenomena, all of them are special
forms of motion. At the turn of the 20th century, the greatest achievement
of natural science was the discovery of the principle of motion transfer.
It pointed out that the motion of matter is always transforming from one form
to another. After transformation, the new form and the old form are substantially different. The reason for material transfer is internal and not external. The transfer is not caused by external mechanical drive, but by the
struggle within the matter itself between two mutually contradictory elements
of different nature. Due to the discovery of this law of motion transfer,
dialectic materialism is able to expand the theory of material unity in the
world to the history of nature and science. The world is observed not only
as a matter in perpetual motion, but also as matter advancing from a lower
form of motion to a higher form of motion. The world is thus observed as a
development as well as a process. In other words, "the unity of the material
world is a process of development." In this way, the cyclical theory of old
materialism is destroyed. Dialectic materialism observes the form of motion
of nature and society in a profound way and in its numerous aspects. It
considers that the process of development of the world as an entity is perpetual
(with no beginning and no end), but at the same time the form of the specific
motion in each historical process is temporary (with a beginning and an end).
This is to say that it occurs under a definite condition and disappears under
a definite condition. It believes that the process of development of the
world from a lower form of motion to a higher form of motion demonstrates
both its historical and temporary characteristics. But at the same time, no
one form of motion is in a perpetual long stream (a long stream with no
beginning and no end). Based on the principle of opposition and struggle
(the reason for motion), the form of each motion always moves to a higher
level. It moves straight forward, but as far as each individual form of motion
is concerned (or as far as each specific process of development is concerned),=
the motion may change its direction, or may be backward. When the advancing
motion is combined with the retreating motion, the resulting motion is a
complex helical motion. The new form of motion occurs as an opposite to the
old form of motion, but at the same time the new form of motion preserves

many elements of the old form of motion. The new things grows out of the
old. New forms, new characteristics and new attributes emerge from the
disruption of continuity, or from a break-through, but the link and the mutual
relationship between things and events cannot be absolutely destroyed.
Finally, dialectic materialism believes that the world has no end. This is so
not only in its entity, but also in its parts. Are not electrons and atoms
the same in demonstrating a complex and endless world?

The basic form of motion of matter also determines the various subjects of
natural and social sciences. Dialectic materialism observes the development
of the world as a forward motion from an inorganic through an organic to the
highest form of matter (society). The relationship arising from this form
of motion becomes the foundation of the corresponding sciences (inorganic
science, organic science, and social science). Engels said: "The various
kinds of science analyzes a special form of motion or the mutual relationship
of a series of forms of motion. Thus classification of science is to arrange
and classify various motions according to the original order of motion.
Only on this point can classification be meaningful."

The entire world includes human society and the motions of matter in various
forms. Therefore, we cannot forget the various forms of motion of matter.
There is no so-called "matter in general," or "motion in general." In this
world, there are only concrete matter and motion in various forms. "Matter
and motion are only simple terms. In these terms we include all things and
events sensed by us according to their common characteristics." (Engels)

The above is the theory of motion of the world in dialectic materialism or
the principle of world development. This thinking is the essence of Marxist
philosophy. It is the proletarian outlook of the universe and methodology.
If all the proletarian revolutionaries use this explicit science as a weapon,
they will understand this world and can rebuild this world.

(7) Theory of Time and Space

Motion is a form of material existence. Space and time are also forms of
material existence. Moving matter exists in time and space, and the material
existence of time and space is the premises of the motion of matter itself.
Time and space cannot be separated from matter. "Matter exists in space"
is to say that matter itself has the characteristic of expansion. The material
world is a world in which there exists the characteristic of expansion. This
is not to say that matter is placed in a non-material empty space. Space
and time are not independent non-material things. They are not subjective
forms of our senses, but forms of existence of the objective world. They do
not exist outside of matter; nor does matter exist outside of them.

Regarding space and time as a form of material existence is a thoroughly
materialistic view. This concept of space and time is basically opposite
to the following idealistic concept of space and time:

(1) Kantian concept of space and time: Space and time are not regarded
as objective reality, but objective forms of intuition.

(2) Hegelian concept of space and time: The concept of developing space
and time is approaching absolute concept.

(3) Machian concept of space and time: Time and space are different kinds
of senses, and "tools for harmonizing experience."

All these idealistic viewpoints do not accept the objective reality of time
and space. They do not accept the fact that the concept of space of time,
during its own development, reflects the form of materialistic existence.
These erroneous theories have been refuted by dialectic materialism one by
one.

On the problem of space and time, dialectic materialism must not only struggle
with those idealistic theories, but also struggle with mechanical materialism,
especially Newton's theory of mechanics which regards space as an immobile,
empty frame with no relationship to time, and puts matter into this empty
frame. Opposing this theory, dialectic materialism points out that our concept of space is developing. "Aside from moving matter, there is nothing
else in the world. If moving matter is not in space and time, there will be
no possibility of motion. Man's concept of space and time is relative, but
when all these relative concepts are put together, they become absolute truth.
These relative concepts are developing uninterruptedly along the line of
absolute truth, and are approaching closer and closer to absolute truth
everyday. Man's changing concept about space and time can never overthrow
the objective reality of the two. This is similar to the fact that the changing character of scientific knowledge about the form of motion and matter
cannot overthrow the objective reality of the external world." (Lenin)
The above is the theory of time and space of dialectic materialism.

(8) Theory of Consciousness

Dialectic materialism maintains that knowledge is a product of matter, a form
of development of matter, and a special characteristic of a definite state
of matter. This materialistic and historical theory of consciousness is
basically opposed to the viewpoints of all idealists and mechanical materialists concerning this problem.

According to Marx, consciousness originally develops from the inorganic world
which has no consciousness to the animal world which has a low level of
consciousness, and finally to mankind which has a high level of consciousness.
The high level of consciousness is inseparable not only from the physiological
development of the high nervous system, but also from the social development
of labor and production. Marx and Engels have emphatically pointed out the
dependence of consciousness upon the development of material production and
the relationship between consciousness and human language.

The so-called consciousness is a special characteristic of a definite form of
matter which constitutes a complex nervous system. This kind of nervous system
can only occur in a high stage of natural evolution. In the entire inorganic,
vegetative and low animal world, there is no possibility for consciousness
to occur internally as well as externally, that is, the possibility of selfreflection, or the possibility of understanding the process of self-reflection.
The objective physiological process in our nervous system parallels the subjective expression which, internally, takes the form of consciousness. To
objective things, this physiological process is a process of certain matter,
but to the material body equipped with a brain this process is, at the same
time, subjective psychological behavior.

There is no such thing as the spirit of the substance of a special thinking.
There is only the matter for thinking--the brain. This matter for thinking
is a matter of special quality. It develops to a high degree along with the
development of language in the social life of mankind. This kind of matter
possesses the ability to think as its special characteristic--a characteristic
that other matters do not possess.

However, the vulgar materialists maintain that thinking is a matter derived
from the brain. This viewpoint distorts our concept in regard to this problem.
It is necessary to know that thinking, emotion, and conscious behavior are
not things which have such characteristics as weight, expansion, etc.
Consciousness, weight and expansion are different characteristics of the
same matter. Consciousness is an inner state of matter in motion, and reflects the special characteristic of the life process which occurs in moving
matter. This special characteristic cannot be separated from the process
of objective nervous function, but is also the same as that process. If the
two are confused, the special characteristic of consciousness is obliterated.
This is the viewpoint of the vulgarized materialism.

Similarly, the mechanical theory of the fake Marxism agrees with the opinion
of certain capitalist rightists in the field of psychology. They, in fact,
obliterate consciousness. They consider consciousness, a physiological process,
as a special characteristic of a high-level substance, without seeing that
consciousness is a product of social practice of mankind. They equate the
subject with the object, and replace both with one-sided mechanical objective
world. This viewpoint which confuses consciousness with physiological process
is hardly different from eliminating the basic problem of thinking and existence in philosophy.

Menshevik idealism attempts to use a compromising theory to replace Marxist
epistemology. It harmonizes materialism with idealism, using the "alliance"
of objectivism and subjectivism to oppose the principle of dialectics. But
their principle is neither mechanical objectivism, nor idealistic subjectivism,
but the principle of concrete objective and subjective history.

There is also the strange theory of Plekhanov who maintained that matter is
alive. His remark "rock also has consciousness" fully expresses his opinion

that consciousness does not occur in the process of development of matter,
but exists in all matter at the very beginning. Later, it exists in low-level
organic bodies and man, different only in degrees. This type of anti-historical
opinion is also basically opposed to the viewpoint of dialectic materialism
which regards consciousness as possessing material characteristics. Only
the materialist theory of consciousness is the correct thought regarding the
problem of consciousness.

(9) Theory of Reflection

To a thorough materialist, just regarding matter as the origin of consciousness is not enough. One has to accept that matter can be known to consciousness.

Concerning the problem as to whether or not matter can be known, it is a complex problem, so complex that all the old philosophical schools were unable
to resolve it. Only dialectic materialism can correctly resolve this problem.
The position of dialectic materialism is opposed to the non-cognizable theory,
and different from the blunt theory of realism.

Hume and Kant's non-cognizable theory separates the cognizing subject from
the object. It believes that it is impossible to go beyond the limits of
the subject--an unsurpassable ditch between the "self-existing" matter and
its image.

Mach's reality theory equates the object with feelings, maintaining that
truth has established its complete form in feelings. At the same time,
Machists do not understand that feeling is the result of external action.
Nor do they understand the positive function of the subject during the process
of cognizance, that is, the transformation work done by external action in
the sense organs and the brain (or the formal expression of image and perception).

Only the reflection theory of dialectic materialism affirmatively answered
the question of cognizability, and this answer becomes the "soul" of Marxist
epistemology. This theory points out that our images and percepts are not
only induced by objective things, but also reflects them. It also points out
that images and percepts are neither products of the voluntary development
of subjective bodies as the idealists say, nor symbols of objective things
as said by those who maintain that nothing is cognizable. Such images and
percepts are reflections of objective things, photographs, or copies.

Objective truth exists independent of subjective bodies. Although reflected
in our feelings and percepts, objective truth does not take a complete form
immediately. The form is completed step by step. It is a mistake to think
that objective truth has taken a completed form in our feelings. Truth is
gradually acquired. The blunt theory of reality is wrong.

Although objective truth does not take the completed form all at once in
our feelings and percepts, it is by no means non-cognizable. The reflection
theory of dialectic materialism opposes the theory of non-cognizability.

It believes that consciousness can reflect objective truth during the process
of cognizance. The process of cognizance is a complicated one during which
the unknown "self-existing thing," as it is reflected in our image and percept,
becomes "my thing." Feelings and thoughts are not what separate us from the
external world as Kant said. They are, in fact, links between us and the
external world. Feelings and thoughts are reflections of the external objective world. Thoughts (images and percepts) are nothing but "material things
that have appeared and transformed in man's brain." (Marx) During the process
of cognizance, the material world becomes more intimately, more accurately,
more many-sidedly, and more profoundly reflected in our cognizance. To wage
a two-front struggle against Machism and Kantism is the task of Marx epistemology.

The dialectic materialist reflection theory maintains that our ability of
knowing the objective world is limitless. This is exactly opposed to the
opinion of those who believe that human ability to know is limited. However,
we are not close to the absolute truth. Every time, we come to a line defined
by history. Lenin said: "The approach of our knowledge to the objective
absolute truth is limited by history, but the existence of this truth is
absolute, and the fact that we are continuously getting closer to the truth
is also absolute. The external form of a picture is historically conditional,
but the existence of the objective reality which is the model of that picture
is absolute. We accept the fact that man's knowledge is limited by historical
conditions and that truth cannot be acquired once and for all, but we are not
those who believe that things are not cognizable. We do not accept that truth
can be completed in the historical movement of man's cognizance." Lenin also
said: "Let us not understand the reflection of nature in man's thoughts in a
rigid and absolute way.. Cognizance is not motionless, or without contradictions. Cognizance is perpetually in the process of motion, that is, the
perpetual process of movement of the occurrence of contradictions and the
resolution of contradictions." The movement of cognizance is a complicated
movement full of contradictions. This is the opinion of the dialectic materialistic epistemology.

In epistemology, all philosophies reflect the historical viewpoint, and none
regards cognizance as a process. All these viewpoints are therefore narrow.
The narrowness of the theory of experience creates a gap between feeling and
percept.
The narrowness of rationalism causes percepts separated from feeling.
Only dialectic materialism which regards cognizance as a process (the theory
of reflection) thoroughly eliminates this kind of narrowness and places
cognizance in a materialistic and dialectic perspective.

The reflection theory points out that the process of reflection is not not
limited to feelings and images. It also exists in thoughts (in abstract
concepts). Cognizance is therefore a moving process from feeling to thinking.
Lenin once said: "Cognizance which reflects nature, is not a simple, direct,
and total reflection. It is a formation process of many abstract thoughts,
concepts, etc."

Meanwhile, Lenin also pointed out: "The cognizance process from feeling to
thinking is a flying and leaping action." On this point, Lenin precisely

clarifies the experience and rationality elements in cognizance and the viewpoint of dialectic materialism concerning their mutual relationship. Many
philosophers do not understand that the movement of cognizance is a sudden
change occurring in the moving process from feeling to thinking (from image
to concept). Therefore, to understand this sudden leaping change produced
from contradictions is to understand the dialectic unity concerning the unity
of feeling and thinking. This is the most essential element for understanding
the substance of Lenin's reflection theory.

(10) Theory of Truth

Truth is objective, relative, and absolute. This is the materialist dialectic
theory of truth.

First of all, truth is objective. Accepting the reality of matter and the
opinion that matter is the origin of consciousness is the same as accepting
truth being objective. That is to say, the objectively existing material
world is the only source of our knowledge or concepts, and there is no other
source. Only idealists deny the independent existence of the material world
separated from man's consciousness--this is the basic principle of idealism.
They maintain that knowledge or concepts are produced by the subject body,
and the object body is unnecessary. Therefore, they accept subjective truth
and deny objective truth. This does not conform to facts. Any knowledge or
any concept which does not reflect the regularity of the objective world is
not scientific. It is not objective truth, it is only subjective, selfdeceiving superstition or delusion. The purpose of mankind is to change
the environment. All practical actions, whether they are productive or not,
are commanded by thoughts (knowledge). If these thoughts do not coincide
with objective regularity, then the latter is not reflected in the brain of
man. If the objective regularity did not form the contents of man's thoughts
or knowledge, his action will certainly not be able to bring him to his goal.
The so-called subjective errors in revolutionary movements indicate this
situation. (The reason why Marxism becomes the scientific knowledge of revolution is that it correctly reflects the actual regularity of the objective
world. It is the truth of the objective world.) All anti-Marxist thoughts
are wrong because they are not based on objective regularity and are completely
subjective imagination. Some people said that whatever is generally accepted
is objective truth. (Subjective idealist Bogdanov so said.) According to
this viewpoint, religion and prejudice are also objective truth, because although they are absurdities, they are accepted by the majority of people.
Sometimes correct scientific thoughts cannot compete with these absurdities.
Materialist dialectics is fundamentally opposed to this. It believes that
only the knowledge that correctly reflects objective regularity can be called
truth and all truth must be objective. Truth and absurdity are absolutely
opposed to each other. In order to judge whether a knowledge is truth or not,
it is only necessary to see whether it reflects objective regularity. If it
does not agree with objective regularity, then no matter whether it is accepted
by everyone, or no matter how it is widely supported or enthusiastically
described in a revolutionary movement, it must be treated as erroneous or
absurd.

As materialist dialectics accepts objective truth, it accepts absolute truth.
When we say the contents of knowledge reflecting the objective world, we are
saying that the object of our knowledge is that perpetual and absolute
world. "Knowledge of truth concerning nature is perpetual and infinite; it
is, therefore, absolute." (Engels) Objective absolute truth does not become
our knowledge all at once in its entirety. We reach absolute truth through
the endless process of development of our knowledge through numerous introductions of relative truths. The aggregate of numerous relative truths is the
expression of absolute truth. The common denominators of human thinking lead
us to absolute truth. Absolute truth is the accumulation of relative truths.
During each stage of scientific development, new seeds are sown into the sum
total--the absolute truth. The element of truth in each scientific principle
is relative. Absolute truth can only be expressed through innumerable relative.
Absolute truth can only be expressed through innumerable relative truths.
If not expressed through these innumerable relative truths, absolute truth
has no way of being known. Materialist dialectics does not deny the relativity
of knowledge. However, this is only to point out the limitations of objective
truth as far as history is concerned. We are not saying that knowledge itself
is only relative. Scientific knowledge is different from errors. The former
shows and describes the objective absolute truth. This is the viewpoint of
dialectics concerning the relationship between absolute truth and relative
truth.

There are two viewpoints. One is metaphysical materialism and the other is
idealist relativism. Both are wrong on the problem of mutual relationship
between absolute truth and relative truth. Based upon the cardinal metaphysical
principle "the material world does not change," the metaphysical materialists
believe that man's thinking also does not change. They believe that in the
process of human knowledge, the never-changing world is known to man all at
once. That is to say that they deny absolute truth, which they say, is acquired
by man in one stroke. They regard truth as motionless, dead, and not developing. Their mistake does not lie in that they accept absolute truth.
In this respect, they are correct. Their mistake lies in their failure to
understand the historical nature of truth, in their not treating the acquiring
of truth as a process of cognizance, and in their failure to understand that
absolute truth is released step by step during the process of development of
human knowledge. Each forward step in this process shows some contents of
absolute truth. As far as the entire truth is concerned, each forward step
has its relative significance. Metaphysical materialist opinion on truth is
an extreme view in epistemology.

Another extreme concerning the problem of truth in epistemology is idealist
relativism. They deny absolute truth and accept only its relative meaning.
They believe that a scientific discovery does not contain absolute truth, and
hence it is objective truth. Truth is regarded as subjective and relative.
Because of this, all erroneous theories have their right of existence. Thus
imperialist aggression of weak nations and exploitation of the working masses
by the ruling class become truths because truth is subjective and relative
anyway. The result of denying objective truth and accepting subjective truth

has, of necessity, brought about this kind of conclusion. The original
purpose of idealist relativism is to defend the ruling class. For instance,
the purpose of relativist pragmatism (or empiricism) is exactly so.

In view of the above, neither metaphysical materialism nor idealist relativism
can correctly resolve the problem of the mutual relationship between absolute
truth and relative truth. Only materialist dialectics can give the correct
answer to the problem of the mutual relationship between thinking and existence.
With this answer, the objectivity of scientific knowledge is affirmed, and
the meanings of absolute truth and objective truth are correctly understood.
This is the theory of truth of materialist dialectics.

(11) Theory of Practice

(There is no text for this section in the original manuscript. There is no
explanation for its absence. Editor)

Chapter III Materialist Dialectics

In the last two chapters, the two problems "idealism and materialism" and
"dialectic materialism" were discussed. Dialectics was briefly mentioned.
Now let us discuss this subject systematically. The Marxist world outlook
(called outlook of the universe) is dialectic materialism, not metaphysical
materialism (or mechanical materialism). This difference is a serious
heaven-turning earth-shaking problem. What is the world? From ancient times
to now, there are three answers. The first is idealism (be it metaphysical
idealism or dialectic idealism). It maintains that the world is created by
mind or the God. The second is mechanical materialism. It denies that the
world is mind's world, and maintains that the world is a material world,
but the material is not developing and not changing. The third is the Marxist
answer which refutes the first two, maintaining that the world is not created
by our mind, and not made of undeveloping matter. Instead, it is a developing material world. This is dialectic materialism. The Marxist way of looking
at the world is to turn the image in man's eyes around. Is it not a great
earth-shaking argument? The argument that the world is a developing material
world has long existed in ancient Greece, but due to limitations at that time,
it was only simply and generally stated. It was called simple materialism.
If there were no such argument, it would be impossible for science to have a
foundation. This argument is basically correct. Later, Hegel created dialectic
idealism, maintaining that the world is developing, but is created by mind.
His theory is idealist development theory. His theory of development (dialectics) is correct, but his idealist development theory is wrong. In the
West, in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, the idealism of the bourgeois
class in France and Germany is mechanical idealism. They were right in saying
that the world is a material world, but very wrong in saying that the world
is moving like a machine, and that it has only quantitative and positional
changes without qualitative changes. Marx inherited simple materialism and
transformed mechanical materialism and dialectic idealism into historically
unprecedented and scientifically based dialectic materialism, which has become
a weapon for the proletariat of the world and for the revolution of all
oppressed people.

Materialist dialectics is a Marxist scientific methodology, a method of
cognizance, as well as a world outlook. The world is basically a developing
material world. This is a world outlook. Using this world outlook to look
at the world, to study the problems of the world, to direct revolution, to
work, to produce, to direct warfare, and to argue with other people is a
methodology. In Marxism, world outlook and methodology are one thing. Dialectics, epistemology, and logic are also one thing.

We wish to talk about dialectics systematically. It has many categories,
many rules, and many principles (these terms have the same meaning).

What are the rules of materialist dialectics? Among these rules, which are
the basic ones, and which are the subordinate ones but indispensable in
materialist dialectics? What are the unresolved problems? What are the side
issues?

Why these laws are the original rules of the objective world rather than
subjectively created? Why do we wish to understand and learn these laws?

This complete theory of materialist dialectics was created by Marx and Engels.
Lenin developed this theory. With the triumph of the socialist revolution
in Russia and the world revolution, this theory came to a new stage of development, and its contents were further enriched. The categories contained
in this theory are as follows:

The law of unity of contradictions;

The law of mutual changes between quality and quantity; and

The law of negation of negation.

The above are the basic laws of materialist dialectics. All these laws were
negated by metaphysical philosophy (philosophy opposed to the theory of development), although the ancient Greeks had simply but unsystematically
pointed out the meaning of some of the laws, and later Hegel developed these
laws along the idealist line. It was Marx and Engels who transformed the
Hegelian laws into the most basic portions of the Marxist world outlook and
methodology.

In addition to the above laws, there are the following related categories:

Substance and phenomena;

Form and content;

Cause and effect;

Bases and conditions;

Possibility and reality;
Accidental and inevitable; and
Chain and link.

Some of these categories have been emphatically studied in metaphysics and
idealist dialectics, others have only been partially studied, and still others
were new categories proposed by Marxism. When these categories are in the
hands of Marxist revolutionary theoreticians and practitioners, their idealist
and metaphysical cloak is ripped off, their one-sidedness is overcome, and
their true form is discovered. As time advances, their contents are greatly
enriched to become the important elements of scientific methods. Combining
these categories and the aforementioned basic categories, a complete and
profound materialistic dialectical system is formed.

All these principles and categories are not created by man's thoughts, but
original principles of the objective world. All idealists say that matter
is created by spirit. In their eyes, philosophical principles, rules, or
categories are of course created by the mind. Hegel, who developed dialectic
system, looked at dialectics in this way. In his eyes, dialectics is not a
rule abstracted from the history of nature and society, but purely rational
system of the mind. After this system is created by man's mind, it is then
applied to nature and society. Marx and Engels ripped off Hegel's mythical
cloak and got rid of his idealism, putting dialectics in the place of materialism.
Engels said: "Dialectical rules are abstracted from natural and human history,
and they are nothing but the most general rules of development of natural
and human history. In essence, they may be summarized into the rule of mutual
change of quality and quantity, the rule of unity of contradictions, and the
rule of negation of negations." Dialectical rules are rules of the objective
world, and at the same time they are also rules of the subjective mind. Rules
in human mind are nothing but reflections of the rules of the objective world
through practice. As we have said before, dialectics, epistemology and logic
are one and the same thing.

Why do we learn dialectics? We learn dialectics in order to transform this
world, and to improve the old relationship between man and man and between
man and matter. In this world, most people are suffering. They are controlled
by a few people and oppressed by various political and economic systems.
People living in China are under inhuman dual oppressions--national and social.
We must change this old relationship in our strife for national and social
liberation.

Is it necessary to learn dialectics in order to rebuild China and rebuild the
world? Since dialectics is the most general principle of development of
nature and society, if we understand it, we shall have acquired a scientific
weapon, and we shall be equipped with a theory and method suitable to our
practice of transforming the nature and society. Materialist dialectics
itself is a science (philosophical science). It is the starting point of
all sciences, and it is also methodology. Our revolution is also a kind of

science, called social science or political science.
If we do not understand
dialectics, we will not be able to do our work well. All mistakes in revolution were due to violations of dialectics. If we understand dialectics, great
and powerful effect will be generated. If we analyze things that have been
done correctly, we find that they were done according to dialectics. Therefore, all revolutionary comrades, and first of all the cadres, should carefully study dialectics.

Some people say that there are many people who understand dialectics and are
actual materialists. Although they have never read books on dialectics, they
are always right in their work, and they always follow the materialist dialectic method. In this case, it is unnecessary for them to study dialectics.
Materialist dialectics is a complete and profound science. Those revolutionaries who are endowed with materialistic and dialectical brains may learn
dialectics through practice, but their knowledge is not systematical, not so
complete and so profound. As a result, they are unable to see the bright
future of their movement, to analyze the complicated process of development,
to grasp the important links in politics, or to deal with all aspects of
revolutionary work. Therefore, they still have to study dialectics.

Some people say that dialectics is profound and hard to understand, and
that it is impossible for an ordinary person to learn dialectics. This kind of
talk is also wrong. Dialectics consists of principles of natural and social
thinking. Anyone who has some social experience (experience in production
and class struggle) knows some dialectics. Those who have more social experience will know dialectics more. But their knowledge is scattered and
confused, and falls within the realm of common sense. To enhance their common
sense about dialectics and put it in order is not difficult. The reason why
people think dialectics is difficult is lack of good books on dialectics.
Many of the books published in China are either poorly written or not well
written. So much so, people are afraid to read those books. Books interpreting dialectics should use popular language and intimate experience. I believe
that this kind of book will be written eventually in the future. This lecture
of mine is not good either because I myself am a beginner in the study of
dialectics, unable to write a good book. Probably I can in the future. This
is only a wish. It may become true, depending upon the progress of my study.

* War of Resistance University, No 6, Chapter 1, 8 April 1938
No 7, Chapter 2, 6 May 1938
No 8, Chapter 2, 22 May 1938

* "Democracy," Vol 1, No 1 (Chapter 1) March 1940
Vol 1, No 2 (Chapter 1) 20 March 1940