The identity of opposites (it would be more correct perhaps, to say their “unity” – although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society). The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their “self-movement”, their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites.[1-61]
Moreover, in this as in other aspects of his philosophical writing, Lenin draws heavily on Engels to legitimize his own position. In both Anti-Dühring and Dialectics of Nature, Engels had referred to the ubiquity of contradictions, pointing out that a dialectical conception of reality which considers “things in their motion, their change, their life, their reciprocal influence” immediately becomes “involved in contradictions”.[1-62] In Anti-Dühring, Engels stresses this aspect of dialectics:
If simple mechanical change of place contains a contradiction, this is even truer of the higher forms of motion of matter, and especially of organic life and its development…. Life is therefore also a contradiction which is present in things and processes themselves, and which constantly asserts and resolves itself…[1-63]
The view that the unity of opposites constituted the most fundamental law of dialectics was thus well established in Marxist philosophy prior to the 1930s, and the Soviet texts on philosophy which Mao was to draw on so heavily in his own writings on dialectical materialism were to further reinforce the centrality of this law. For example, the text by Mitin and others entitled Dialectical and Historical Materialism referred to the law of the unity of opposites as the “fundamental law (jiben faze) of materialist dialectics”.[1-64] Similarly, Li Da’s Shehuixue dagang described this law as the “basic law” (genbenfaze) of dialectics which incorporated all other laws, including the law of the “negation of the negation”.[1-65] Mao could thus call on a well-established body of philosophical thought to assert the law of the unity of opposites to be the “most basic law” of materialist dialectics. It has been suggested, however, that evidence of Mao’s divergence from orthodoxy is provided demonstration through his elevation of this law at the expense of the other two; indeed, both Western[1-66] and Chinese[1-67] scholars have argued that Mao eventually came to reject one of the three laws of dialectical materialism, that of the “negation of the negation”. Let us pause to consider this charge, for it bears on the proposition being advanced here that categories of Soviet Marxist philosophy did constitute a significant and persistent influence on Mao’s philosophical thought. If it is possible to find in Mao’s subsequent writings a rejection of one of the philosophical laws embraced in his Lecture Notes on Dialectical Materialism, it could betoken a significant change of direction in Mao’s thought and cast doubt on the degree of influence which Soviet philosophical categories exerted.[1-68]
On 18 August 1964, Mao held an informal conversation on various aspects of philosophy with several old comrades. Although it is not certain how many were present at this talk on philosophy, it appears that the group was a small one; only three other persons are actually identified as being in attendance with Mao – Kang Sheng, Chen Boda, and Lu Ping. In the course of the conversation, Mao made a number of provocative statements, but we will restrict our attention here to just one of these: his apparent rejection of the law of the “negation of the negation”. On being asked by Kang Sheng if the Chairman would “say something about the problem of the three categories”, Mao responded:
