U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Is dialectics One Divides Into Two or Two Unites into One?

User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 832
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Jan 2008, 19:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Post 18 Jul 2010, 19:27
The "One Divides into Two" Controversy (一分为二) was a philosophical debate about the nature of contradiction that took place in China in 1964. The concept originated in Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks. The philosopher Yang Xianzhen, originated the idea of Two Unites into One which he said was the primary law of dialectics. The Maoists interpreted the Aesopian meaning of this to be that capitalism could be united with socialism. Ai Siqi wrote the original attack on Yang, and was joined by Mao himself. After the 1976, Yang was rehabilitated as well as the concept of two uniting into one.
Kamran Heiss
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 26 Jul 2010, 22:01
Reading a few of these papers, I have to agree with the two unites into one argument, as an abstract consideration.

Individual molecules have their own kinetic energy which together form what is called temperature, as an emergent property that makes no sense from each particular, but which has it's own applications; Ideology could even be considered the same way, as intersubjective discourse that with each person being a node where this gets actualized, but without it being possible to speak of class-consciousness from any individual, abstracted from society.

But how does this talk of emergence be equated to uniting socialism and capitalism? We might say that there is a dominant mode of production, which allows other modes of production so long as they are subsummed by the first. That's certainly true in capitalism, where there are a number of institutions and much social wealth created in a non-capitalist way, without this non-capitalist component meaning that the mode of production is not capitalism. There are also feudalistic remnants in capitalism that were reduced or completely removed after a long period of time. Guilds, trades, and certain traditions still remain, as some values from that era (with less and less relevance).

Likewise, socialism has to start from capitalism, not ex-nihilo. This means dealing with a large number of remnants of capitalism and even capitalist components for a certain period of times. The important part is that this must always be subsummed under the socialist mode of production. It can never be allowed to have an independent existence, and much less, influence the dominant (socialist) mode of production. There is no uniting of capitalism with socialism, merely the phasing of one for the other. The boundary between one and the other should be the topic of concrete debate, not of proclaiming of abstract principles.

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.