In studying the particularity of contradiction, unless we examine these two facets – the principal and the non-principal contradictions in a process, and the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction – that is, [p. 265] unless we examine the distinctive character of these two facets of contradiction, we shall get bogged down in abstractions, be unable to understand contradiction concretely and consequently be unable to find the correct method of resolving it. The distinctive character or particularity of these two facets[4-561]represents the unevenness[4-562]that is in contradiction. Nothing in this world develops absolutely evenly, hence the world as it is; we must oppose the theory of even development (or the theory of equilibrium).[4-563]The study of the various states of unevenness in contradictions, of the principal and non-principal contradictions and of the principal and the non-principal aspects of a contradiction constitutes an essential method by which a revolutionary political party correctly determines its strategic and tactical policies both in political (and in military affairs). Therefore this question cannot be overemphasized.[4-564]
When we have resolved the problem of[4-566] the universality and the particularity of contradiction, we must proceed to study the problem of the identity and struggle of[4-567] a contradiction; only by doing so can the study of the law of the unity of contradiction be completely resolved.
Identity, unity, coincidence, interpenetration, interpermeation, interdependence (or mutual dependence for existence), interconnection, or mutual co-operation – all these different terms mean the same thing and refer to the following two points: first, the existence of each of the two aspects of a contradiction in a process[4-568]presupposes the existence of the other aspect, and both aspects coexist in a single entity; second, in given conditions, each of the two contradictory aspects transforms itself into its opposite. This is the meaning of identity.
Lenin said:
[p. 266] What does this passage mean?