Law of the unity and the struggle of opposites

The law of the unity and the struggle of opposites is the fundamental law of dialectical materialism and the very "kernel of dialectic" itself. As Lenin emphasized, it is the teaching of how contradictions may be and are identical; under what conditions they are identical; how they turn into each other and so become identical; why the mind of man must not accept these opposites as dead or frozen but as living, conditional, mobile, the one always in process of turning into the other.

This law constitutes the central principle of Marxist philosophy, expressing that all development proceeds through the unity and conflict of internal opposites. It is the key that unlocks understanding of "leaps," "interruption of gradualness," "conversion into an opposite," "abolition of the old and the emergence of the new." Unlike metaphysical thinking which views development as linear and sees contradictions as mere errors (where "something 'final,' eternal, immutable, simple, is the unmistakable characteristic of the metaphysical method), dialectical materialism recognizes contradiction as the very engine of all motion and development in nature, society, and thought.

Historical Development of the Concept

Pre-Marxist Understanding

The recognition of opposites within processes has ancient philosophical roots, stretching back to Heraclitus who proclaimed: "This order of things, the same for all, was not made by any god or any man, but was and is and will be for ever, a living fire, kindled by measure and quenched by measure." Lenin directly utilized Heraclitus's formulations when developing the basic law of dialectic, recognizing in this ancient philosopher an early, though naive, expression of the unity of opposites.

Heraclitus understood that "strife is justice" and that "war is the father of all and king of all," recognizing the creative role of conflict in development. However, without the materialist foundation and scientific understanding of social processes, these insights remained at the level of poetic intuition rather than a systematic method for understanding reality.

Hegelian Contributions and Limitations

Hegel's contribution to dialectics represented a significant advance over previous philosophical systems, though still in idealistic form. Hegel recognized that development proceeds through contradictions, as expressed in his understanding of the triadic process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The new element introduced by Hegel was his recognition of the dialectical movement of thought from a lower grade to a higher and on this ground resolves the question of the connection of the sensational and the logical, criticizing the one-sidedness both of empiricism and rationalism.

Hegel understood that the whole mass of its previous content is raised, and through its dialectical course forwards so far from losing anything, from leaving anything behind, it brings with itself all it has acquired and enriches and expounds its own being. This represented a significant advance over mechanical thinking, which could only see development as simple accumulation or linear progression.

However, Hegel's dialectic remained trapped within idealism. He viewed contradictions as ultimately reconcilable within the Absolute Idea, failing to grasp their irreconcilable nature in material reality. The reactionary element in Hegel's philosophy was precisely this tendency to seek reconciliation of opposites rather than their revolutionary resolution. Modern neo-Hegelians like Bradley, and Gentile, the philosopher of Fascism, act as did the reactionaries of Hegel's day; they seize on this reactionary side of the Hegelian philosophy and develop a theory of reconciliation of opposites. For Hegel, the dialectical process culminated in the reconciliation of all contradictions within the Prussian state, revealing the conservative political implications of his idealist dialectic.

Marxist Transformation

Marx and Engels transformed Hegel's idealist dialectic into a materialist science of development, placing it the right side up again by grounding it in the material conditions of social existence rather than the movement of abstract thought. They were "the first to show the essentially revolutionary character of this law." Their genius lay in recognizing that contradictions are not merely logical or conceptual but are rooted in the material conditions of existence, particularly in the social relations of production.

Engels provided the classic formulation that clarified the materialist basis of dialectics:

"Dialectic shows that to hold that basis and consequence, cause and action, identity and difference, being and essence, are unalterable opposites, will not bear criticism. Analysis shows the presence of one pole in latent form within the other, that at the determined point one pole goes over into the other and that all logic is developed only from the moving of these two opposites in one another's direction."

— Engels

Marx and Engels took the revolutionary side of Hegel's philosophy, reworking it critically to develop the law of the unity and conflict of opposites as a materialist principle applicable to the analysis of concrete historical processes. Their application of this law to the analysis of capitalism revealed the fundamental contradiction between the social character of production and the private appropriation of its products, a contradiction that manifests in the periodic crises of overproduction and ultimately necessitates the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system.

In Capital, Marx demonstrated how the law operates within the commodity form itself, where use-value and exchange-value exist in unity yet constantly struggle against each other. The commodity simultaneously embodies both aspects, yet their development pulls in opposite directions, ultimately leading to the contradiction's resolution through the revolutionary transformation of the social relations of production.

Lenin's Theoretical Advance

Lenin made the decisive theoretical advance with his formulation of the relativity of the unity of opposites and the absoluteness of their conflict. This was his central contribution to dialectical materialism:

"The unity (the coincidence, identity, resultant force) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, and relative. The struggle of the mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, as movement and evolution are."

— Lenin

This formulation resolved a critical theoretical problem that had plagued previous interpretations of dialectics. Earlier thinkers, including Plekhanov, had recognized the presence of opposites but failed to grasp the irreconcilable nature of their struggle. Lenin's insight revealed that the unity of opposites is always temporary and conditional upon specific historical circumstances, while their struggle constitutes the very essence of development.

Lenin emphasized that this proposition was neglected and not understood by the Menshevist idealists. He further formulated dialectic as:

"Not only is there unity of opposites, but there are transitions of every definition, quality, trait, aspect, property into each other (into their opposites)."

— Lenin

In his Philosophical Notebooks, particularly in his notes on Hegel's Logic, Lenin developed this law through concrete analysis of philosophical problems. He stated:

"Knowledge is the eternal endless approximation of thought to the object. The reflection of nature in man's thought must not be understood in a 'dead manner,' abstractly, 'without movement, without contradiction,' but as an eternal process of movement, as the emergence of contradictions and their resolution."

Lenin's application of this law to the analysis of imperialism revealed the fundamental contradiction between the development of productive forces on a global scale and their appropriation by competing national monopolies. This contradiction manifested in World War I and necessitated the transition from capitalism to socialism, beginning in the weakest links of the imperialist chain.

Theoretical Explanation

Division of Unity

The law operates through what Lenin called the "division of unity." This is not an external division imposed from outside but an internal process by which a unified whole contains within itself contradictory elements that develop and eventually lead to transformation.

"The division of unity, the disclosure of essential opposites in the object is the essence of dialectics. This is the essence of the so-called contradiction, the kernel of dialectics."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 145

This principle means that every phenomenon, process, or system contains within itself contradictory tendencies that constitute its very essence. For example, in a capitalist enterprise, the unity of production contains the contradiction between capital and labor, between the social character of production and private appropriation. This contradiction is not accidental but essential to the nature of the capitalist enterprise itself.

The division of unity operates through what we understand as:

"Every particular is by thousands of [relations] connected with other particulars — the sum-total of these relations determines the 'thing' as such, as a unity of defined properties. Thus the 'thing' is a product of the universal connection of things, a product of their relations."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 260

This means that no phenomenon can be understood in isolation but only through its relations with other phenomena, and within these relations, contradictory tendencies inevitably emerge. The unity is always a unity of opposites, never a simple, homogeneous whole.

The division of unity explains why development is not linear but proceeds through leaps and interruptions of gradualness.

He speaks at leaps of the breaking of continuity, of the transition of quantity into quality. But he has not seized the main, the essential thing in the conception of development. He has not understood the duality which is found within the unity, in other words the unity and conflict of opposites, fundamental conception which alone gives the key to the understanding of leaps in evolution of breaks in gradualness, of the transition of quantity into quality, in fact, of the whole developmental process in nature and history."

For instance, in biological evolution, the unity of a species contains the contradiction between genetic stability and mutation. For long periods, the unity appears stable (what Engels called "the gradual crumbling to pieces, which did not alter the general look and aspect of the whole"), but eventually, the accumulation of quantitative changes leads to a qualitative leap where "the sunrise, in a flash and at a single stroke, brings to view the form and structure of the new world."

Relativity of Unity, Absoluteness of Struggle

The most profound aspect of the law is Lenin's formulation regarding the relativity of unity and absoluteness of struggle:

"The unity (the coincidence, identity, resultant force) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, and relative. The struggle of the mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, as movement and evolution are."

— Lenin

This means that the unity of opposites exists only under specific historical conditions and is always temporary, while their struggle constitutes the very essence of development. The unity is merely the starting point from which the struggle develops, not a stable equilibrium to be maintained.

This principle has profound implications for understanding revolutionary processes. In the context of class society, the unity between classes exists only under specific conditions of production, and this unity is always temporary and relative. The struggle between classes, however, is absolute and constitutes the driving force of historical development.

"There is no internal contradiction without a unity of conflicting aspects within, without a general basis of conflict which expresses itself in the relative identity of opposites. But unity and identity, which are the necessary form of the movement of the contradiction, are at the same time conditioned by it as by the actual content of the development."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 186

This means that unity and struggle are inseparable moments of the same process. The unity provides the necessary basis for the struggle to occur, while the struggle determines the nature and duration of the unity.

The relativity of unity explains why all social formations are historically transient. Feudalism contained within itself the contradiction between the feudal lords and the emerging bourgeoisie, a contradiction that eventually led to the bourgeois revolution. Similarly, capitalism contains the contradiction between capital and labor, which will ultimately lead to its revolutionary overthrow.

The absoluteness of struggle explains why development is not peaceful and harmonious but proceeds through conflict and revolution. Movement flows out of the opposition or collision of opposing elements. Without the struggle of opposites, there would be no development whatsoever.

This principle also explains why reformist attempts to eliminate class struggle through compromise and reconciliation are doomed to failure. The unity between classes under capitalism is relative and temporary, while their struggle is absolute. Any attempt to reconcile these opposites can only be temporary and will ultimately give way to renewed and intensified struggle.

Mutual Penetration of Opposites

A key aspect of the law is the mutual penetration of opposites, which Lenin called "the identity of opposites." This principle means that opposites contain elements of each other within themselves and can transform into each other under certain conditions.

"To disclose the mutual penetration, the identity of opposites in any process is the central problem of our theory of knowledge, of materialistic dialectic."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 162

This mutual penetration is not merely a logical possibility but a material reality. For example, in capitalist production, the working class contains within itself the seeds of the new socialist society, while the bourgeoisie contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The working class develops the productive forces that will ultimately make socialism possible, while the bourgeoisie's drive for profit leads to the concentration and centralization of capital that creates the objective conditions for its own overthrow.

"The mutual penetration of opposites, being the expression of the basic scientific laws underlying the process, becomes possible and is realized only in some particular complex of conditions."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 162

This means that the transformation of opposites into each other occurs only under specific historical conditions. For instance, the transformation of quantitative changes into qualitative leaps occurs only when a critical threshold (the "nodal line of measurements") is crossed.

Concrete examples of mutual penetration include:

• Mechanical action without its counteraction

• Chemical dissolution of atoms indissolubly connected with their union

• Electrical energy declaring itself in the form of opposite electricities — positive and negative

• The commodity form containing both use-value and exchange-value

• Capitalist production containing both the development of productive forces and the tendency toward crisis

The mutual penetration of opposites explains why development is not merely external but proceeds from within. Every unit contains a contradiction, and that each stage in the development of a process — both negation and negation of negation — emerges as a determined phase in the development of the unity of opposites.

This principle also explains why the new emerges from within the old rather than being imposed from outside. Socialism does not come from outside capitalism but develops within it as its negation. The seeds of the new society are contained within the womb of the old.

Concrete Examples

Class Struggle

The most significant application of the law is in understanding class society and the revolutionary process:

"Only the conflict of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie resolves the question of the crash of capitalism. That is why our party carries on a very fierce war against the theory of drift, which weakens the struggle of the proletariat and by this means strengthens its opponents and makes it possible for capitalism to go on maintaining itself."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 180

Marx's analysis of capitalism demonstrated this law in action:

"Marx disclosed in all its terrible nakedness the general law of capitalist accumulation, with the absolute impoverishment of the working class as its obverse side, thus showing the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 180

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites reveals that capitalism contains within itself the contradiction between the social character of production and the private appropriation of its products. This contradiction manifests in multiple ways:

1. The contradiction between the development of the productive forces and the relations of production

2. The contradiction between the tendency toward the socialization of labor and private ownership

3. The contradiction between the unlimited expansion of production and the limited capacity of the market

4. The contradiction between the international character of production and the national character of appropriation

These contradictions are not external to capitalism but constitute its very essence. They develop within the unity of the capitalist system, initially appearing as mere quantitative changes, but eventually reaching a point where they manifest as qualitative leaps—the periodic crises of overproduction that disrupt the entire system.

During periods of relative stability, the unity of the capitalist system appears dominant—the working class accepts exploitation, the bourgeoisie maintains its rule, and the system appears to function smoothly. However, this unity is always temporary and relative, while the struggle between classes is absolute and constantly developing.

As the working class develops from a "class in itself" to a "class for itself," it begins to understand its historical role and organize for revolutionary struggle. This process is not linear but proceeds through the unity and struggle of opposites within the working class itself—between reformist and revolutionary tendencies, between different sectors of the working class, between theory and practice.

The revolutionary crisis occurs when the contradictions within capitalism reach their highest point, when the unity of the system can no longer contain the struggle of its internal opposites. The growing intensity of the conflict of these opposites leads to the necessity of their final resolution and liquidation. This conflict creates also all the necessary conditions and possibilities for it.

Lenin applied this understanding to develop revolutionary strategy during the Russian Revolution. He recognized that the unity of the bourgeois-democratic revolution contained the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and that the proletariat could lead this revolution to its completion only by transforming it into a socialist revolution. This was the essence of his April Theses, which rejected the Menshevik theory of "permanent revolution" that sought to reconcile the opposites rather than lead their struggle to its conclusion.

New Economic Policy (NEP)

The NEP period in Soviet Russia provided a concrete example of contradictory forces in unity:

"Abolish one of these aspects and you will no longer have the N.E.P." (Stalin)

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 163

The NEP contained multiple contradictions that existed in unity:

1. The contradiction between socialist and capitalist elements in the economy

2. The contradiction between the working class and the peasantry

3. The contradiction between industry and agriculture

4. The contradiction between planning and the market

These contradictions existed in unity during the NEP period, but their struggle was absolute and constantly developing. The unity was relative and temporary, conditioned by the specific historical circumstances of the post-civil war period.

The NEP contained irreconcilable contradictions that would eventually lead to its negation:

"The understanding of this aspect of the law of the unity and conflict of opposites has made possible a correct analysis of the economic situation, of the mutual relations of classes and parties and consequently has determined the policy of our Party."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 185

During the NEP period, the Soviet state consciously utilized the capitalist elements to rebuild the economy while simultaneously strengthening the socialist sector. This was not a reconciliation of opposites but a temporary unity that allowed the socialist elements to develop their strength relative to the capitalist elements.

The contradiction between the socialist and capitalist sectors manifested in multiple ways:

• The "scissors crisis" between industrial and agricultural prices

• The struggle over grain procurement

• The conflict between the state sector and private trade

• The ideological struggle between socialist and capitalist tendencies

These contradictions developed in intensity until they reached a point where the unity of the NEP could no longer contain them, leading to the transition to full socialist construction through collectivization and industrialization.

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites explains why the NEP could not be a permanent solution but was necessarily a transitional period. As the socialist elements developed their strength, the conditions for their final victory over the capitalist elements matured, leading to the negation of the NEP itself.

Form and Content

The contradiction between form and content demonstrates the law in cultural and ideological development:

"And this is only to be explained by the contradiction of form and content, by their conflict, which is only one of the concrete ways of showing the basic law of dialectic— the law of unity and conflict of opposites."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 179

This contradiction operates in multiple spheres:

1. In literature and art, where new content eventually bursts through old forms

2. In political organization, where new social relations require new forms of state

3. In scientific thought, where new discoveries require new theoretical frameworks

4. In everyday life, where changing material conditions transform cultural forms

For example, during the transition from feudalism to capitalism, the old forms of the feudal state, religion, and culture came into conflict with the new content of bourgeois production relations. Initially, the new content developed within the old forms (as when the bourgeoisie used the language of Christianity to justify its rise), but eventually, the contradiction became so acute that the old forms had to be shattered and replaced by new ones.

In the realm of scientific thought, the contradiction between form and content is evident in paradigm shifts. When Copernicus proposed the heliocentric model, it contradicted the dominant geocentric framework. Initially, the new content (heliocentrism) was forced into the old form (Ptolemaic astronomy), but as the contradictions accumulated, a new theoretical framework had to be developed.

"At first — impressions, as in a flash, then — something is distinguished, then — ideas of quality are developed (leading to a definition of a thing or phenomenon) and subsequently, ideas of quantity. Then study and reflection direct the thought to questions of identity and difference — basis — essence. All these moments or steps of knowledge are directed from the subject to the object, verify themselves by practice and proceed through this verification to truth."

This process of knowledge development proceeds through the unity and struggle of opposites between old and new forms of thought. The new content of scientific discovery initially appears as an anomaly within the old framework, but as contradictions accumulate, it eventually shatters the old form and creates a new one.

The same process operates in revolutionary political thought. Marxist theory initially developed within the framework of bourgeois democracy and utopian socialism, but as the contradictions between the content of proletarian revolution and these old forms became apparent, a new theoretical framework had to be developed.

Misinterpretations and Criticisms

Right Opportunism and Reconciliation of Opposites

The most dangerous misinterpretation treats the unity of opposites as their reconciliation:

"The conception of the unity of opposites as their reconciliation is also characteristic of the positions of the Right."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 191

This leads to reformist politics that avoid revolutionary struggle:

"The right wing of the older reformism and of modern reformist socialism are based on theories of this sort and derive from the idea of the reconciliation of opposites. Thus instead of Marx's proposition on the irreconcilability of the conflict of classes, they preach a harmony of interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat..."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 390

This misinterpretation fundamentally misunderstands the law by treating the unity of opposites as permanent rather than temporary and relative. It fails to grasp that the unity exists only as the starting point for their struggle, not as a stable equilibrium to be maintained.

The reconciliation theory manifests in multiple ways:

1. The belief that class contradictions can be resolved through social reform rather than revolution

2. The notion that imperialism can be transformed into "peaceful" capitalism through international agreements

3. The idea that socialist and capitalist elements can coexist indefinitely without conflict

4. The view that the state can be transformed into an instrument of the working class without smashing the bourgeois state apparatus

This misinterpretation has profound political consequences. By treating the unity of opposites as reconciliation, it leads to the abandonment of revolutionary struggle and the acceptance of capitalism as permanent. It transforms the law of the unity and struggle of opposites into its opposite—the law of the reconciliation and harmony of opposites.

In not one of their works is a criticism of the theory of the reconciliation of opposites to be found." This theoretical deficiency leads directly to political capitulation to the bourgeoisie.

Historically, this misinterpretation manifested in the policies of Bernstein and the German Social Democrats, who argued that capitalism could be gradually transformed into socialism through parliamentary reforms. It also appeared in the policies of Kautsky, who developed the theory of "ultra-imperialism" where imperialist powers would reconcile their differences and establish lasting peace.

During the NEP period, this misinterpretation appeared in the views of Bukharin, who argued for the "growing into socialism" through the development of the kulak (wealthy peasant) elements. This position failed to recognize that the unity between socialist and capitalist elements during the NEP was temporary and relative, while their struggle was absolute and would eventually require the liquidation of the capitalist elements.

Mechanistic Interpretations

Mechanists like Kautsky fundamentally misunderstand the law by treating development as a purely external process rather than one driven by internal contradictions:

"Kautsky thus completely fails to understand negation dialectically, fails to see that every unit contains a contradiction, and that each stage in the development of a process — both negation and negation of negation — emerges as a determined phase in the development of the unity of opposites."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 367

As a mechanist, Kautsky would like to separate these two stages by an absolute interval in time, not understanding that in actual development the destruction of the old is also the emergence of the new.

Mechanistic interpretations make three fundamental errors:

1. They view development as a purely quantitative process without qualitative leaps

2. They treat contradictions as external rather than internal to processes

3. They separate the destruction of the old from the emergence of the new

For mechanists, development is simply the accumulation of quantitative changes without the interruption of gradualness. They fail to understand that the breaking of continuity, of the transition of quantity into quality is not random but follows from the unity and conflict of opposites, fundamental conception which alone gives the key to the understanding of leaps in evolution.

Mechanists like Plekhanov recognized the presence of opposites but failed to grasp their irreconcilable conflict:

"Plekhanov admits the presence of a diversity of opposite aspects or properties and of their mutual interaction in objects and processes. He knows that it is impossible to understand their mutual connection, this combination of opposites, on the basis of formal logic; it requires the application of dialectical logic. But here he remains, for he does not understand that 'the combination of opposites' in processes is not only a unity but also a conflict of opposites, that the conflict of indissolubly connected 'mutually penetrating' opposites determines the movement, is the basic law of development."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 179

Plekhanov's error was treating contradictions as merely transitional rather than fundamental:

"Plekhanov understands the law of contradiction only as the statement of the transition of a form into its own individual opposite. Ignorance of this law led him to declare that one should study, on a basis of formal logic, the moments of comparative stability in any given process."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 179

This mechanistic approach led Plekhanov to reject the possibility of socialist revolution in Russia, arguing that Russia had to pass through a full stage of bourgeois development before socialism could be on the agenda. He failed to grasp that the unity of opposites in Russian society contained the possibility of skipping the full bourgeois stage through the revolutionary action of the working class in alliance with the peasantry.

Bukharin's mechanistic approach is similarly flawed:

"self-movement, Bukharin requires the determination of external forces that collide with each other. Lenin speaks of the division of the unity, requires the disclosure of the internal identity of opposites, the establishment of the concrete character of the connections of opposing aspects and their transitions. Bukharin requires the mere finding of independent forces."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 193

Bukharin's error was treating development as the result of external collisions rather than the internal division of unity. During the NEP period, he failed to see that the contradictions within the NEP itself would lead to its negation, instead believing that the NEP could be extended indefinitely through the "growing into socialism."

Theory of Equilibrium

The theory of equilibrium represents another misinterpretation that treats the unity of opposites as a stable state rather than a temporary and relative condition:

"The theory of equilibrium proceeds from the view-point of the reconciliation of opposites. For the upholders of this theory the state of equilibrium is the phase when opposites are reconciled. The upholders of this theory perpetuate the unity of opposites in their old form."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 180

This theory holds that unity cannot be removed by internal forces, it is to be removed only by external action. For them the Leninist proposition of the absoluteness of the conflict of opposites is a door with seven seals!"

The theory of equilibrium makes two fundamental errors:

1. It treats the unity of opposites as permanent rather than temporary and relative

2. It attributes development to external rather than internal forces

For proponents of equilibrium theory, development occurs only when external forces disrupt the equilibrium, not through the internal struggle of opposites. This leads to a passive view of history where revolutionary change requires external intervention rather than emerging from within the process itself.

This misinterpretation manifests in multiple ways:

• The belief that imperialism can maintain a stable equilibrium through international agreements

• The notion that class society can achieve lasting harmony through social reform

• The view that socialist construction can proceed without internal contradictions

• The idea that the transition from capitalism to socialism can occur through gradual evolution rather than revolutionary transformation

The theory of equilibrium leads directly to political passivity and reformism. If development requires external forces rather than the internal struggle of opposites, then revolutionary action becomes unnecessary or even counterproductive.

Historically, this misinterpretation appeared in the policies of Karl Kautsky, who developed the theory of "ultra-imperialism" where imperialist powers would establish lasting peace through international agreements. It also appeared in the views of Bernstein, who argued that capitalism could be gradually transformed into socialism through parliamentary reforms.

Relationship to Other Dialectical Laws

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites is the foundation for all other dialectical laws, serving as their theoretical basis and methodological core.

Law of the Negation of the Negation

The law of negation of negation is derived from the law of unity and struggle of opposites:

"The law of negation emerges as the further concretization of the law of the unity of opposites. It appears as the general law of development of processes in nature, in society and in our thought."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 387

Without understanding the unity and struggle of opposites, the negation of negation becomes an empty formalism. The negation of negation expresses the spiral character of development through contradictions, where a process returns to certain features of its initial stage but at a qualitatively higher level.

The negation of negation operates through the unity and struggle of opposites in the following way:

1. An initial stage or thesis contains internal contradictions

2. These contradictions develop until they lead to the negation of the initial stage (antithesis)

3. The antithesis itself contains new contradictions that lead to its own negation (synthesis)

4. The synthesis returns to certain features of the initial stage but at a qualitatively higher level

For example, in Engels' barley seed example:

- The seed (thesis) contains the contradiction between its potential and actual form

- This contradiction develops into the plant (antithesis), negating the seed form

- The plant itself contains the contradiction between its individual existence and reproductive capacity

- This leads to the production of new seeds (synthesis), negating the plant form while returning to the seed form but with quantitative and qualitative enrichment

Without the unity and struggle of opposites, this process would be inexplicable. The negation of negation is simply the concrete expression of how the struggle of opposites proceeds through successive stages of development.

"Synthesis breaks down within itself the previous stage and returns as it were to the thesis, but to a thesis enriched by the development of the antithesis."

This process is only possible because of the unity and struggle of opposites within each stage of development.

Transformation of Quantity into Quality

The transformation of quantity into quality is another concrete expression of the fundamental law:

"As Lenin showed, the dialectical law that connects quantity with quality is only an example, a partial case of a more general principle which he formulated as follows: 'Not only is there unity of opposites, but there are transitions of every definition, quality, trait, aspect, property into each other (into their opposites).'"

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 149

The transformation of quantity into quality occurs precisely because of the unity and struggle of opposites within a process.

"He speaks at leaps of the breaking of continuity, of the transition of quantity into quality. But he has not seized the main, the essential thing in the conception of development. He has not understood the duality which is found within the unity, in other words the unity and conflict of opposites, fundamental conception which alone gives the key to the understanding of leaps in evolution of breaks in gradualness, of the transition of quantity into quality, in fact, of the whole developmental process in nature and history."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 299

The transformation of quantity into quality operates through the unity and struggle of opposites in the following way:

1. A process develops quantitatively while maintaining its qualitative identity

2. Within this quantitative development, contradictory tendencies develop

3. At a certain point (the "nodal line of measurements"), these contradictions become so acute that they lead to a qualitative leap

4. The new quality contains new quantitative relations, beginning the process anew

For example, in water's transformation from liquid to gas:

- As heat (quantity) is added, the water molecules move faster while remaining in liquid state (quality)

- Within this process, the contradiction between molecular cohesion and kinetic energy develops

- At 100°C (the nodal point), this contradiction becomes so acute that the liquid state is negated and gas state emerges

- The gas state has new quantitative relations (greater volume, different pressure-temperature relationships)

This transformation is only possible because of the unity and struggle of opposites within the water molecules themselves. The cohesion and kinetic energy exist in unity yet constantly struggle against each other, leading eventually to the qualitative leap.

The text explains the nodal line of measurements:

"Pure quantity exists only in abstraction. In objective actuality every quantitative definiteness appertains to a certain quality. Three, four, five, etc. as generalities do not exist, but there are three or four trees, stones, tons of iron, metres of cloth, etc."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 276

This means that quantitative changes always occur within a specific qualitative context, and at certain critical points, they lead to qualitative transformations. Without the unity and struggle of opposites, these transformations would be inexplicable.

Practical Significance for Proletarian Revolution

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites has profound practical implications for revolutionary practice, serving as the theoretical foundation for Marxist strategy and tactics.

Revolutionary Strategy

Understanding the law allows for correct revolutionary strategy by identifying the main contradiction in any historical situation and directing revolutionary forces accordingly:

"The lessons we get from Trotskyism and right opportunism teach us the necessity of disclosing the specific quality of the internal contradictions of any process."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 387

This means recognizing that within the complex web of contradictions in any society, one contradiction is dominant at any given historical moment. The revolutionary party must identify this main contradiction and orient its strategy around it.

For example, during the Russian Revolution:

- In 1917, the main contradiction was between the working class and the bourgeoisie (represented by the Provisional Government)

- After the October Revolution, the main contradiction became between the Soviet state and the forces of counter-revolution (both domestic and international)

- During the NEP period, the main contradiction was between the socialist and capitalist elements within the Soviet economy

Failing to identify the main contradiction leads to strategic errors. Trotskyism made this error by treating the contradiction between the working class and peasantry as the main contradiction during the NEP period, rather than recognizing that the contradiction between socialist and capitalist elements was primary.

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites also explains why revolutionary strategy must be flexible and responsive to changing conditions. As the main contradiction changes, so must the revolutionary strategy. This is why Lenin emphasized the importance of the concrete analysis of concrete conditions.

The law further explains why revolutionary strategy must address both unity and struggle. For example, during the democratic revolution in Russia, the Bolsheviks recognized the temporary unity between the working class and peasantry against tsarism, while simultaneously preparing for the struggle between these classes after the democratic revolution's completion.

This understanding prevented the Bolsheviks from falling into the errors of both Menshevism (which sought to limit the revolution to its bourgeois-democratic stage) and Trotskyism (which sought to immediately transition to the socialist stage without addressing the democratic tasks).

Analysis of Transitional Periods

The law provides the method for analyzing transitional periods like the NEP by recognizing their contradictory nature:

"We have all been learning a little Marxism; we have been learning how and when it is possible to unite opposites. Even more important is the fact that the revolution has compelled us to be continually uniting opposites in practice. But let us remember that these opposites may be united so as to obtain either mere discords or asymphony."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 170

Transitional periods are characterized by the unity of opposites that are in constant struggle. The NEP, for example, united socialist and capitalist elements, but this unity was temporary and relative, while their struggle was absolute.

The law helps distinguish between temporary tactical alliances and fundamental strategic errors that compromise revolutionary principles. For example:

- The temporary alliance with the peasantry during the democratic revolution was strategically necessary

- The temporary use of bourgeois specialists during the NEP was tactically necessary

- But the attempt to permanently reconcile socialism and capitalism would be a fundamental strategic error

The law explains why transitional periods cannot be permanent solutions but are necessarily temporary stages on the road to socialism.

"The understanding of this aspect of the law of the unity and conflict of opposites has made possible a correct analysis of the economic situation, of the mutual relations of classes and parties and consequently has determined the policy of our Party."

This understanding allowed the Bolsheviks to navigate the NEP period successfully, using the temporary unity of socialist and capitalist elements to rebuild the economy while simultaneously strengthening the socialist sector until the conditions for full socialist construction were mature.

Understanding Revolutionary Leaps

The law explains how revolutionary leaps occur as the resolution of accumulated contradictions:

"Thus it is impossible to separate evolution and revolution from each other. They are necessarily connected together and actual development appears as their unity."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 299

Revolutionary leaps are not arbitrary breaks with the past but the necessary resolution of contradictions that have developed over a long period.

"Slowly and quietly ripe for the new form it is to assume, loosens one fragment after another of the structure of its previous world. This gradual crumbling to pieces, which did not alter the general look and aspect of the whole, is interrupted by the sunrise, which, in a flash and at a single stroke, brings to view the form and structure of the new world."

This process is evident in the Russian Revolution:

- The contradictions of tsarist autocracy developed over decades

- These contradictions manifested in the 1905 Revolution, World War I, and the February Revolution

- Finally, in October 1917, these accumulated contradictions led to the revolutionary leap

The law explains why revolutionary leaps are necessary and inevitable. As long as the main contradiction in a society remains unresolved, it will continue to develop until it reaches a point where the existing order can no longer contain it.

The law also explains why revolutionary leaps must be prepared through patient work during periods of relative stability. Without an irreconcilable, pitiless negation nothing new can emerge. This negation cannot occur without the prior development of the contradictions that make it necessary.

However, we must be wary of a simplistic understanding:

"If we follow the method of the Deborin school we shall interpret this unity as follows: the Right Wing takes its stand on evolutionism, the Left Wing on revolutionism. Dialectic reconciles these opposites, reaching a synthesis of them both. All is well and everyone is satisfied!"

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 299</ref>

This vulgar interpretation fails to grasp that the unity of evolution and revolution is itself a unity of opposites that develops through struggle.

International Relations

The law applies to the contradictions between socialist and capitalist systems:

"The contradictions between the capitalist and socialist systems do, of course, influence the development of socialist..."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 204

These contradictions manifest in multiple ways:

- The contradiction between the social character of production and private appropriation (capitalism) versus the planned character of production for use (socialism)

- The contradiction between imperialist exploitation and anti-imperialist struggle

- The contradiction between the tendency toward war under imperialism and the tendency toward peace under socialism

The law explains why peaceful coexistence is possible but temporary and relative, while the struggle between systems is absolute. As Lenin stated, "peaceful coexistence" does not mean the reconciliation of opposites but their temporary unity under specific historical conditions.

The law also explains why the struggle between systems is not merely military but occurs on all fronts:

- Economic competition

- Ideological struggle

- Political influence

- Technological development

For example, the Cold War was not merely a military confrontation but a manifestation of the deeper contradiction between the capitalist and socialist systems. The arms race itself was a quantitative expression of this qualitative contradiction.

The law further explains why the development of socialism occurs in the context of this contradiction.

"The fact that this piece of iron weighs three tons, and that four, is quite fortuitous for iron as a definite chemical element. The fact that in this country there are three trusts, in that ten, says something 'final,' eternal, immutable, simple, is the unmistakable characteristic of the metaphysical method.

The development of socialism cannot be understood in isolation but only in relation to the capitalist system it is replacing.

Treating quantitative differences (like the number of trusts) as if they represent something absolute and unchanging, rather than recognizing these differences as surface manifestations of deeper qualitative contradictions. The metaphysical method mistakenly believes that counting trusts tells us something essential about the nature of the economic system, when in reality this quantitative difference is merely an external symptom of the underlying qualitative contradiction between socialist and capitalist relations of production.

Methodological Implications

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites has significant methodological implications for scientific and revolutionary practice, serving as the foundation for the dialectical method.

The Principle of All-Sidedness

The law requires the principle of all-sidedness in the analysis of any phenomenon:

"discussion of trade unions. Speaking of the demands that are put forward by dialectical logic in its study of an object, he picks out the most important, the study of an object as that which sums up and is permeated by the past, in all its relations and all its fullness. He adds 'We never shall attain this completely, but the demand for allsidedness will save us from errors and deadness.' We shall never get a reflection of an object that will hold good for ever, since nature, society and thought are endlessly evolving, but we shall get an ever more complete reflection."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 248

This principle means that no phenomenon can be understood in isolation but only through its relations with other phenomena. For example, to understand a commodity, one must examine:

- Its relation to labor

- Its relation to use-value

- Its relation to the market

- Its relation to the social relations of production

- Its historical development

The demand for all-sidedness is not merely a call for comprehensive knowledge but a recognition that phenomena exist only through their relations with other phenomena. Every particular is by thousands of relations connected with other particulars — the sum-total of these relations determines the 'thing' as such, as a unity of defined properties."

This principle rejects both idealist and mechanistic approaches to knowledge:

"Proceeding from the ground that every object of knowledge in the last resort appears before us in its sensed form, they have exalted to an absolute, the discreteness, the specific character that belongs to it as a moment, and have in this way deprived the object of every internal necessary connection."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 255

The principle of all-sidedness explains why bourgeois science often falls into error—it examines phenomena in isolation rather than in their concrete connections. For example, bourgeois economics examines the commodity in isolation rather than as part of the capitalist system of production.

Concrete Analysis of Concrete Conditions

The law requires the concrete analysis of concrete conditions as the foundation of revolutionary practice:

"In the study of a thing in its changes and also in the changes wrought in it by our practical activities, we must proceed from the thing itself." The thing itself must be scrutinized in its relations and its development," wrote Lenin, formulating the first of the three basic elements of dialectic.

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 248

This means that revolutionary practice must be based on a thorough understanding of the specific historical conditions in which it operates. General formulas and abstract principles are insufficient; what matters is how contradictions manifest in concrete historical circumstances.

For example, the Bolsheviks did not apply the general principles of Marxism mechanically to the Russian situation but analyzed the specific contradictions of Russian society:

- The contradiction between the autocracy and all classes

- The contradiction between the working class and bourgeoisie

- The contradiction between the peasantry and landowners

- The contradiction between Russia and imperialist powers

This concrete analysis allowed them to develop the strategy of the proletarian-led democratic revolution, which was appropriate to Russia's specific conditions.

The law explains why the concrete analysis of concrete conditions is necessary: because the unity and struggle of opposites manifests differently in different historical contexts. What appears as the main contradiction in one context may be secondary in another.

The demand for concrete analysis is not relativism but a recognition that truth is always concrete.

"To understand how opposites become identical is only possible by means of a careful, concrete and profound analysis of the process, by a study of the movement of all its basic aspects at its different stages, of all the conditions and possibilities of their transitions."

The Unity of Theory and Practice

The law requires the unity of theory and practice as the foundation of revolutionary science:

"At first — impressions, as in a flash, then — something is distinguished, then — ideas of quality are developed (leading to a definition of a thing or phenomenon) and subsequently, ideas of quantity. Then study and reflection direct the thought to questions of identity and difference — basis — essence. All these moments or steps of knowledge are directed from the subject to the object, verify themselves by practice and proceed through this verification to truth."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 241

This process reveals that knowledge develops through the unity of theory and practice. Theory emerges from practice, is tested in practice, and returns to practice in a refined form. The unity of theory and practice operates through the unity and struggle of opposites:

- Theory without practice becomes empty dogma

- Practice without theory becomes blind empiricism

- Their unity creates revolutionary science

This principle explains why Marxist theory is not a closed system but constantly develops through its application to concrete revolutionary practice. Each new historical situation reveals new aspects of the unity and struggle of opposites, requiring the development of theory.

The law also explains why the unity of theory and practice is not automatic but requires conscious effort. A correct grasp of the whole serves as a guiding principle in the examination of the details. The first synthetic stage of knowledge prepares one for the study of the parts, gives a general orientation for a further analytical investigation.

This means that revolutionary theory provides the framework for understanding concrete practice, while concrete practice tests and develops revolutionary theory.

The Principle of Development

The law requires understanding all phenomena in their development rather than as static entities:

"It is impossible to understand actuality with any degree of fullness, it is impossible to understand an object in its self-movement, until you disclose in it the cycle, the connection of its beginning and end."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 330

This means that phenomena must be understood as processes rather than fixed entities. For example:

- A commodity must be understood as part of the circulation process

- A class must be understood as part of the historical development of class society

- A revolution must be understood as part of the historical development of social formations

The principle of development reveals that all phenomena contain their own negation within themselves. So this dialectical philosophy dissolves all conceptions of final, absolute truth, and of a final absolute state of humanity corresponding to it. For it nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher.

This principle explains why revolutionary practice must be forward-looking rather than backward-looking. It is not enough to understand the present; one must understand where present contradictions are leading.

The principle of development also explains why revolutionary strategy must be flexible. As conditions develop, so must revolutionary strategy. This is why Lenin emphasized the importance of "the flexibility of tactics."

Conclusion

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites is the cornerstone of Marxist philosophy.

"With the constant test of practice, has made of the new philosophy a virile and sinewy intellectual instrument. Its outlines are rough and its details unfinished. It needs elaboration, expansion, much filling in of detail, a good deal of correction and revision, but in spite of this it is fundamentally an excellent illustration of its own thesis, the emergence on a higher level of a new evolutionary type, the fruit of the clash of opposites, the working out of older systems to exhaustion and yet to fulfilment..."

— A Textbook of Marxist Philosophy, p. 255

Understanding this law dialectically—as expressing the irreconcilable struggle of opposites rather than their reconciliation—is essential for revolutionary practice. The law reveals that development occurs not through external forces but through the internal contradictions of processes themselves.

For the proletariat, mastery of this law provides the theoretical foundation for understanding the historical necessity of socialist revolution and the transition to communism. As Lenin emphasized, this understanding prevents dialectics from becoming "a barren negation, a word-play" and instead makes it a powerful tool for revolutionary practice.

The law of the unity and struggle of opposites is not merely an abstract philosophical principle but the very method of revolutionary practice. It provides the key to understanding all development in nature, society, and thought, and to transforming that understanding into revolutionary action.

Without this law, Marxist theory would be reduced to a collection of unrelated observations; with it, Marxism becomes a powerful scientific method for understanding and changing the world. As Marx stated in the "Theses on Feuerbach," the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. The law of the unity and struggle of opposites provides the theoretical foundation for that revolutionary transformation.

See Also

• Dialectical materialism
• Negation of the negation
• Transformation of quantity into quality
• Dialectics
• Marxist philosophy
• Relativity of the unity of opposites
• Absoluteness of the struggle of opposites

Further Reading

• Marx, Karl. Capital, Volume I.
• Engels, Friedrich. Anti-Dühring.
• Engels, Friedrich. Dialectics of Nature.
• Lenin, V.I. Philosophical Notebooks, particularly notes on Hegel's Logic.
• Stalin, J.V. Dialectical and Historical Materialism.