Theory of 'Combine Two into One' is a Reactionary Philosophy for Restoring Capitalism (1971)

by the Revolutionary Mass Criticism Writing Group of the Party School Under the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

Beijing Review 14, no. 17, 23 April 1971, 6-11

Our great leader Chairman Mao points out: “All things invariably divide into two.” “The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the basic law of materialist dialectics.” (On Contradiction.)

This scientific thesis of Chairman Mao’s profoundly expresses the objective law of things and penetratingly expounds the core of materialist dialectics.

It is a sharp weapon for the proletariat and revolutionary people in carrying out the three great revolutionary movements – class struggle, struggle for production and scientific experiment, a sharp weapon for consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and steadfastly continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The wide dissemination of the concept one divides into two among the people met with the extreme hatred and fear of a handful of class enemies. In 1964, the renegade, hidden traitor and scab Liu Shao- chi instigated the renegade Yang Hsien- chen, his agent in philosophical circles, to set off a heated debate on whether one divides into two or “combine two into one.”

The proletarian headquarters headed by Chairman Mao directly led this struggle involving a matter of cardinal principle in philosophy in China. With Mao Zedong Thought as their weapon, workers, peasants and soldiers, revolutionary cadres and revolutionary intellectuals criticized the reactionary theory of “combine two into one” and demolished it by the revolutionary dialectics of one divides into two. As the theoretical basis for Liu Shao- chi’s counter-revolutionary revisionist line, the theory of “combine two into one” permeated the political, economic, ideological, cultural, art and other fields.

To eliminate the remaining poisonous influence of Liu Shao-chi’s counter-revolutionary revisionist line in all spheres of endeavor, we must further criticize the bourgeois idealism and metaphysics of Liu Shao-chi and Yang Hsien-chen and other such political swindlers, and criticize the reactionary theory of “combine two into one.”

A Reaction to Continuing Revolution Under Dictatorship of Proletariat

On the orders of Liu Shao-chi, traitor Yang Hsien-chen, who long ago had prostrated himself before the Kuomintang reactionary, came out at every crucial juncture in the socialist revolution to launch attacks on the Party in the field of philosophy.

He frenziedly opposed Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line and tried to use the reactionary world outlook of “combine two into one” to remould our Party and country. In 1952, Yang Hsien-chen concocted his notorious theory of “a synthesized economic base” which preached the combining of socialist economy with capitalist economy, giving a touch of theoretical flavor to Liu Shao-chi’s sinister program for developing capitalism – “co- operation among the five economic sectors and consolidation of the new democratic system.”

In 1958, Yang Hsien-chen, with ulterior motives, advocated “using identity of contradiction” and by insinuation attacked our Party because it “talked only about the struggle between the opposites, but not their unity.” His aim was to provide philosophical ground for Liu Shao-chi’s theory of “the dying out of class struggle” in opposition to Chairman Mao’s great work On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.

From 1960 to 1962, Liu Shao-chi’s counter-revolutionary clique plotted counter- revolutionary restoration all along the line from the top down, in close co-ordination with the anti-China chorus of imperialism, revisionism and reaction. At that time Yang Hsien-chen ran here and there to spread his reactionary philosophy, opposing more frantically than ever Chairman Mao’s brilliant philosophical thinking. He babbled that the unity of opposites meant “common points,” shouting that we had “common points” with U.S. imperialism and that we and modern revisionism had “common points with some differences.”

He openly stood for “combining” the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, socialism and imperialism, Marxism and revisionism, into one. Chairman Mao was the first to perceive the danger of the counter- revolutionary plots of Liu Shao-chi and his gang and time and again warned the whole Party and the people of the whole country to guard against revisionism. At the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Party Central Committee held in 1962, Chairman Mao put forward more fully the basic line from our Party during the entire historical period of socialism and issued the great call: “Never forget class struggle.”

Under Chairman Mao’s wise leadership, our Party intensified propaganda and education in the revolutionary dialectics of one divides into two , launched the socialist education movement on a broad scale, initiated open polemics against modern revisionism whose centre is the Soviet revisionist renegade clique, and dealt the class enemies at home and abroad hard blows. However, all these warnings and struggles did not and could not change the counter- revolutionary nature of Liu Shao-chi, Yang Hsien-chen and company, who were impatient to restore capitalism. Yang Hsien-chen first openly peddled the theory of “combine two into one” in the lecture room of the former advanced Party school.

After careful planning, this reactionary philosophy was launched for the public in 1964. Lenin says that the struggle in philosophy “in the last analysis reflects the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society.” (Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.) The concocting of the theory of “combine two into one” was intended externally to meet the needs of imperialism and social-imperialism in subverting great socialist China, and internally to meet the needs of the counter- revolutionary restoration by the bourgeoisie. It is a hack philosophy serving Liu Shao- chi’s efforts to restore capitalism, and runs counter to continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Out-and-Out Bourgeois Idealism and Metaphysics

To oppose Marxist philosophy, all opportunists and revisionists did their best to negate the boundary between materialism and idealism as well as between dialectics and metaphysics. In peddling the reactionary theory of “combine two into one,” the renegade Yang Hsien-chen resorted to this kind of base counter- revolutionary tactics. He dressed this reactionary theory up as dialectics and prated that “combine two into one” and one divides into two have “the same meaning.”

He deliberately tried to negate the fundamental antagonism between one divides into two and “combine two into one.” Lenin pointed out: “The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts is the essence of dialectics.” (“On the Question of Dialectics.”) “In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.” (“Conspectus of Hegel’s Book The Science of Logic .”)

Chairman Mao developed this great idea of Lenin’s further in his On Contradiction, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People and other important philosophical works. Chairman Mao says: “The law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally, whether in the natural world, in human society, or in man’s thinking. Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change.” (On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.)

The concept one divides into two that Chairman Mao put forward profoundly and concisely summarizes the law of the unity of opposites and grasps the heart of materialist dialectics. According to the concept one divides into two, there are contradictions in everything. The two aspects of a contradiction depend on and struggle with each other, and this determines the life of all things. The natural world, society and man’s thinking are full of contradictions and struggles, and there is no such thing as “combine two into one.”

Without contradiction, there would not be the natural world, society, and man’s thinking; nothing would exist. Contradictions are present in all processes of things and permeate all processes from beginning to end, and promote the development of things. The constant emerging and resolving of contradictions – this is the universal law of the development of things.

Applying the concept one divides into two in examining socialist society, we have to recognize that throughout the entire historical period of socialism, there are classes, class contradictions and class struggle, there is the struggle between the two roads of socialism and capitalism, there is the danger of capitalist restoration, and there is the threat of subversion and aggression by imperialism and modern revisionism.

To resolve these contradictions, we must strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat and steadfastly continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even in a communist society, there will be contradictions and full of struggles between the new and the old, the advanced and the backward, and right and wrong.

Only those who adhere to and apply this concept to guide revolutionary practices are thoroughgoing dialectical materialists. To deny the concept “one divides into two” means to deny the universality of contradiction and to betray materialist dialectics, and this inevitably leads to political betrayal of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The core of the theory “combine two into one” lies in merging contradictions, liquidating struggle, opposing revolution, combining the proletariat with the bourgeoisie, combining Marxism with revisionism, combining socialism with imperialism and social-imperialism. This out- and-out reactionary bourgeois idealist and metaphysical world outlook are diametrically opposed to the world outlook of one divides into two.

Refute Theory of “Common Needs”

Yang Hsien-chen repeatedly said that the identity of a contradiction consisted of “common points” and “common things.” He distorted Lenin’s thesis on the identity of contradiction, alleging that “the identity in the sphere of dialectics” was “seeking common needs.” Let us read what the great Lenin wrote on the subject.

Lenin pointed out: " Dialectics is the teaching which shows how opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical – under what conditions they are identical, transforming themselves into one another, – why the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another." (“Conspectus of Hegel’s Book The Science of Logic.”)

Lenin here is talking about the identity of contradiction. Is there any trace of “common points” and “common needs” in this? Yang Hsien-chen was blatantly lying and slandering Lenin when he alleged that what Lenin meant by the identity of contradiction was “common needs.” In On Contradiction, Chairman Mao incisively explains Lenin’s thinking on the identity of contradiction. Chairman Mao clearly points out: “All contradictory things are interconnected: not only do they coexist in a single entity in given conditions, but in other given conditions, they also transform themselves into each other. This is the full meaning of the identity of opposites.”

Chairman Mao’s teaching clearly tells us: The first meaning of the identity of contradiction is that the two contradictory aspects are interdependent in given conditions. For instance, during the period of China’s new-democratic revolution, the contradictory aspects, the masses of the people and imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, did not exist in isolation from each other. Each aspect had the other as the condition for its existence and they coexisted in a single entity.

We should interpret the first meaning of the identity of contradiction only in this way and should never allow Yang Hsien-chen to distort it into having “common needs.” Were there any “common needs” in the interdependence between the masses of the oppressed people and imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, as the other. In the contradiction in which the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are the two opposite aspects, the relation between them is that of the exploiter and the exploited, and the needs of one are fundamentally opposed to the needs of the other.

Chairman Mao also stressed that the matter does not end with the interdependence of the two contradictory aspects on each other for their existence and, more important, in given conditions, each of them transforms itself into its opposite, changes its position to that of its opposite. This is the second meaning of the identity of contradiction. Our Party led the Chinese people in decades of heroic struggle aimed precisely at creating conditions for the promotion of the transformation of things so as to achieve the goal of the revolution.

For instance, after the new-democratic revolution, the masses of the people who had long been oppressed and exploited transformed themselves into masters of the country, and imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism, the three enemies that oppressed and exploited the people, were completely overthrown. Through the socialist revolution in the ownership of the means of production, individual ownership of farming and handicrafts was transformed into socialist collective ownership, and capitalist ownership of industry and commerce was transformed into socialist ownership by the whole people.

The renegade Yang Hsien- chen used every means to oppose these revolutionary transformations. To call a spade a spade, his reactionary theory of “common needs” is nothing but an attempt to make the proletariat and other working people submit for ever to the misery of exploitation and enslavement, and to permit imperialism, the landlords and the bourgeoisie to sit on their backs for ever. Refute Theory of “Inseparability” Yang Hsien-chen endlessly preached that the opposite aspects were “links that cannot be separated.” He blabbed that learning dialectics means “learning how to link the two opposing ideologies.”

This is a clumsy attempt to tamper with materialist dialectics. Materialist dialectics holds that the nature of a thing is the contradictoriness within the thing and its separability. Engels pointed out: “Dialectics has proved from the results of our experience of nature so far that all polar opposites in general are determined by the mutual action of the two opposite poles on each other, that the separation and opposition of these poles exist only within their mutual connection and union, and conversely, that their union exists only in their separation and their mutual connection only in their opposition.” (Dialectics of Nature.)

That is to say, we cannot talk about the links between the two opposite aspects apart from their struggle and separability. The struggle of the opposite aspects inevitably leads to the breaking up of their interconnection, to the disintegration of the entity, and to change in the nature of the thing. Therefore, the interconnection between the opposite aspects is conditional and relative while their separability is unconditional and absolute.

As Chairman Mao points out: “In society as in nature, every entity invariably breaks up into its different parts, only there are differences in content and form under different concrete conditions.” (Speech at the Chinese Communist Party’s National Conference on Propaganda Work.)

There is nothing in the world that cannot be separated.

The development of objective things has time and again exposed the rotten metaphysical idea that a thing cannot be separated. Have there not emerged various old and new anti-Marxist revisionist factions in the course of the development of the international communist movement? In the course of the development of our Party, there emerged the “Left” and Right opportunist lines of the renegades Chen Tu- hsiu and Wang Ming and Liu Shao-chi’s counter-revolutionary revisionist line.

Chairman Mao’s proletarian revolutionary line has won great victories precisely through struggles against these erroneous lines. Therefore, revolutionary “separation” is not a bad but a good thing. It helps raise the people’s ideological consciousness, enhances the unity of the revolutionary people, promotes the development of the proletariat revolutionary cause, and impels society forward. Yang Hsien-chen did not say a word about the struggle and transformation of contradictions and completely denied the separability of a thing, describing the dependence of the opposite aspects on each other for their existence as “links that cannot be separated.” In fact, there are no dead and rigid links free from contradictions and transformation. Yang Hsien-chen had vicious political motives for advocating the theory of “inseparability.”

When the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production reached a high tide in China in 1956, he came out sermonizing like a priest that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie “will both benefit if they come together, and will both suffer if they separate.” This is of the same mould as the fallacies advocated by Liu Shao-chi such as the bourgeoisie’s “exploitation has its merits” and the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have an “identical stand.” This fully shows that they are a gang of faithful lackeys of the bourgeoisie.

The contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is, in essence, antagonistic and irreconcilable, and can be resolved only by socialist revolution. As Chairman Mao pointed out in 1959, in the period of socialist revolution the life-and-death struggle between the two big opposing classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie – “will continue . . . for at least twenty years and possibly half a century. In short, the struggle will not cease until classes die out completely.” In a sense, by steadfastly continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat separates completely from the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes.

In the life-and-death struggle between these two classes, how can we “combine two into one”? If we should “combine two into one” with regard to the bourgeoisie, forget classes and class struggle and forget the dictatorship of the proletariat, "then it would not be long, perhaps only several years or a decade, or several decades at most, before a counter-revolutionary restoration on a national scale would inevitably occur, the Marxist-Leninist party would undoubtedly become a revisionist party, a fascist party, and the whole of China would change its color.

Comrades, please think it over. What a dangerous situation this would be! That Yang Hsien-chen spared no effort to preach that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie should “combine” and not “separate” was precisely for the purpose of realizing the counter-revolutionary plot of restoring capitalism.

Refute Theory of "Synthesis Means ‘Combine Two Into One’ "

Yang Hsien-chen and company also alleged that analysis means ‘one divides into two’ while synthesis means ‘combine two into one.’ “This is not only a question of their ignorance of Marxist philosophy; their real purpose was to cut asunder the dialectical relation between analysis and synthesis and to substitute reactionary metaphysics for materialist dialectics.

Marxist philosophy tells us that analysis and synthesis are an objective law of things and at the same time a method for people to understand things. Analysis shows how an entity divides into two different parts and the struggle between them; synthesis shows how, through the struggle between the two opposite aspects, one prevails, defeats and eliminates the other, how an old contradiction is resolved and a new one emerges, and how an old thing is eliminated and a new thing triumphs. In plain words, synthesis means one “eats up” the other.

The course of historical development is: What is revolutionary always “eats up” what is reactionary, and what is correct always “eats up” what is wrong. But this has to go through many complicated and tortuous struggles. As Chairman Mao points out: “Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history, such is the history of civilization for thousands of years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism; standing in opposition to this viewpoint is historical materialism.” (Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle.)

The history of mankind’s civilization is one of class struggle, one in which the revolutionary classes defeat and "eat up "the reactionary classes. Imperialism headed by the United States, social- imperialism and all other exploiting systems will eventually be “eaten up” by socialism and communism. This is an objective law independent of man’s will. When reflected in men’s minds, such objective analysis and synthesis require that we make a concrete analysis of the movement of opposites in all things and, on the basis of such analysis, synthesize and point out the nature of the question involved and determine on the methods to resolve them.

Different types of contradictions are resolved by different methods. It is quite clear that objective or subjective analysis and synthesis can only be “one divides into two” and not “combine two into one.” Analysis and synthesis are closely connected. There is synthesis in analysis and analysis in synthesis. As Engels said in reference to the science of chemistry: "Chemistry, in which analysis is the predominant form of investigation, is nothing without its opposite pole – synthesis.: (Dialectics of Nature.)

Yang Hsien-chen and company denied the connection between analysis and synthesis and said that "analysis means ‘one divides into two’ while synthesis means ‘combine two into one.’ “This is the same stuff as the bourgeois dualism preached by Trotsky: “Politics – Marxist, art – bourgeois.” Chairman Mao points out in On Contradiction: “It was not until Marx and Engels, the great protagonists of the proletarian movement, had synthesized the positive achievements in the history of human knowledge and, in particular, critically absorbed the rational elements of Hegelian dialectics and created the great theory of dialectical and historical materialism that an unprecedented revolution occurred in the history of human knowledge.”

Chairman Mao has most profoundly explained how the founders of Marxism analyzed and synthesized the achievements in the history of human knowledge. Marx and Engels neither affirmed nor negated Hegelian dialectics in its entirety, but, dividing one into two, criticized its idealist shell and absorbed its rational kernel.

This analysis and synthesis fully demonstrated the thoroughgoing proletarian revolutionary spirits and scientific attitude which they consistently advocated. They set a brilliant example for us to follow. The process of summing up our experience is also one of analysis and synthesis. By undertaking various kinds of struggles in social practice, men have accumulated rich experiences, some successful and some not. In summing up experience, it is necessary to distinguish the right from the wrong, affirm what is correct and negate what is wrong.

This means, under the guidance of Marxism-Leninism- Mao Zedong Thought, reconstructing the rich data of perception obtained from practice, “discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside,” raising perceptual knowledge to the level of rational knowledge and grasping the inherent laws of a thing. The movement of opposites – one divides into two – runs throughout this process. With the experience summed up in this way, we are able to uphold the truth and correct our mistakes, “popularize our successful experience and draw lessons from our mistakes.”

Reactionary Trend of International Revisionism

Was the reactionary philosophy “combine two into one” created by renegades Liu Shao-chi, Yang Hsien-chen and their ilk? No! It is nothing but a variant of the theory of “conciliation of contradictions” of the old-line opportunists and revisionists under new historical conditions. Since the emergence of Marxism, the mortal enemies of scientific socialism have openly advertised the reactionary theory of “conciliating contradictions.”

Proudhon declared that he wanted to “seek the principle of accommodation” so as to conciliate the contradictions of capitalist society. Duhring uttered such nonsense as the world is “indivisible” and “there are no contradictions in things.” The reactionary chieftains of the Second International vainly attempted to replace revolutionary dialectics with vulgar evolutionism and replace the Marxist theories of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat with the theory of “class collaboration.” Kautsky trumpeted that “there are no two classes in a society that do not have common interests. There were common interests even between the slave-owner and his slaves.” “There are indeed common interests between the capitalists and the workers.” One and all, they are only fleeting intruders in history.

Relentless criticism and exposure by Marx, Engels and Lenin showed these types up in their true colors. After the victory of the October Revolution in Russia, Deborin and company jumped forth to frenziedly oppose Lenin’s theory of the unity of opposites.

They maintained that contradictions appeared not at the inception of a process but only when it had developed to a certain stage and that the resolution of contradictions was the “conciliation of opposites.” This theory of “conciliation of contradictions” of Deborin’s was a reflection in philosophy of Bukharin’s theory of the “dying out of class struggle” which alleged that “capitalism will peaceably grow into socialism.”

This reactionary philosophy for the restoration of capitalism was sternly criticized by Stalin. But after the Khrushchev renegade clique usurped Party and state power in the Soviet Union, it blatantly revived and developed Deborin’s reactionary philosophy so as to restore capitalism in an all-round way. Posing as a savior, Khrushchev clamored: “The world is whole and indivisible in face of the threat of nuclear disaster. That is where we all are the human race.”

The Khrushchev renegades shamelessly described this renegade revisionist philosophy as “creatively developing Marxism-Leninism.” When these renegades stirred up a revisionist adverse current against Marxist philosophy, our great leader Chairman Mao, with great proletarian strength of mind, repeatedly stressed the great significance of disseminating materialist dialectics. Chairman Mao pointed out: “We want gradually to disseminate dialectics, and to ask everyone gradually to learn the use of the scientific dialectical method.” (Speech at the Chinese Communist Party’s National Conference on Propaganda Work.)

In his speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in 1957, Chairman Mao once again expounded in a deep-going way the revolutionary dialectics of one divides into two, and gave a head-on blow to the revisionist adverse current.

The historical experience of the international communist movement has repeatedly proved that if a Marxist-Leninist political party does not observe, analyze, and handle problems from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, it will commit mistakes and degenerate politically.

Since the Soviet revisionist renegade clique has thoroughly betrayed dialectical materialism and historical materialism and completely betrayed the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has inevitably gone further and further down the road of revisionism and degenerated into social-imperialism.

The reactionary theory of “conciliation of contradictions” has become a tool today for soviet revisionist social-imperialism in intensifying its fascist dictatorship, pushing an aggressive policy and in collaborating with U.S. imperialism and contending with it for world hegemony. The Soviet revisionists vehemently clamor for the creation of a “socialist community” and “giving first place to common interests.”

This is a vain attempt on their part to obliterate the differences between the aggressor and the victim, the exploiter and the exploited, the controlling and the controlled. They want the working people of the countries in the “community” to sacrifice their own interests, give up their independence and sovereignty and “merge” completely into the “entity” of colonial rule by social-imperialism. But the reactionary theory of “conciliation of contradictions” cannot in the least save them.

The inherent laws of dialectics are independent of the will of the revisionists.

It has become an irresistible historical trend today for the people of the whole world and many small and medium-sized countries to unite and opposite hegemony by the two superpowers, U.S. imperialism and social- imperialism, and draw a clear line of demarcation between themselves and the two superpowers.

The revolutionary dialectics of “one divides into two” is striking firm root in the hearts of the people and is being grasped by more and more Marxist- Leninist political parties and revolutionary people. It has become their sharp weapon in opposing imperialism, modern revisionism and the reactionaries of various countries.

So long as they integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice in the revolutionary movement of their respective countries, the revolutionary people of all lands will overthrow the entire old world and win final victory in the proletarian world revolution.

人民日报
1971-03-29

“合二而一论”是复辟资本主义的反动哲学

中央党校革命大批判写作组

伟大领袖毛主席指出:“事物都是一分为二的。”“事物的矛盾法则,即对立统一的法则,是唯物辩证法的最根本的法则。”(《矛盾论》)毛主席这一科学论断,深刻地揭示了事物的客观规律,精辟地阐明了唯物辩证法的精髓,是无产阶级和革命人民进行阶级斗争、生产斗争和科学实验三大革命运动,巩固无产阶级专政,坚持无产阶级专政下继续革命的锐利武器。

光辉的一分为二的思想在人民群众中的广泛深入传播,引起了国内外阶级敌人的极端仇视和恐惧。一九六四年,叛徒、内奸、工贼刘少奇指使他在哲学界的代理人、叛徒杨献珍挑起了一场关于一分为二和“合二而一”的激烈论战。这是当时国际国内尖锐复杂的阶级斗争在意识形态领域里的反映。斗争的实质,归根到底,就是坚持无产阶级专政、巩固社会主义制度,还是取消无产阶级专政、复辟资本主义制度的问题。

以伟大领袖毛主席为首的无产阶级司令部直接领导了这场哲学战线上的重大原则斗争。广大工农兵、革命干部和革命知识分子以战无不胜的毛泽东思想为武器,对刘少奇、杨献珍的反动的“合二而一论”展开了批判,使他们在一分为二革命辩证法面前遭到了可耻的失败。

“合二而一论”是刘少奇反革命修正主义路线的理论基础,它曾经渗透到政治、经济、思想、文化、艺术等各个领域。史学领域中的“让步政策论”,文艺领域中的“时代精神汇合论”、“无冲突论”、“中间人物论”,以及杨献珍抛出的“综合经济基础论”,都是“合二而一论”的具体表现。为了肃清刘少奇反革命修正主义路线在各个领域的余毒,我们必须进一步批判刘少奇、杨献珍一类政治骗子的资产阶级唯心论和形而上学,批判反动的“合二而一论”,用毛主席的哲学思想武装我们的头脑,认真改造世界观,提高执行毛主席的无产阶级革命路线的自觉性。

“合二而一论”是对无产阶级专政下继续革命的反动

当反动的“合二而一论”受到批判时,叛徒杨献珍无耻地狡辩说,搞出一个“合二而一论”,是因为“脱离了政治,脱离了当前的斗争形势”①,是“随意抓来,胡乱使用”的②。这完全是欺人之谈。

无数事实证明,这个早就跪倒在国民党反动派脚下出卖灵魂的杨献珍,在社会主义革命的每个关键时刻,都在刘少奇的指挥下跳出来,从哲学战线上向党发动进攻,疯狂反对毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,妄图用“合二而一”的反动世界观来改造我们的党,改造我们的国家。

一九五二年,杨献珍就炮制了臭名昭著的“综合经济基础论”,宣扬社会主义经济同资本主义经济“合二而一”,为刘少奇的“五种经济合作,巩固新民主主义制度”的发展资本主义的黑纲领涂上理论色彩。一九五八年,杨献珍别有用心地大叫大嚷要“利用矛盾的同一性”③,含沙射影地攻击我们党“只讲对立面的斗争,不讲对立面的统一”④,为刘少奇的“阶级斗争熄灭论”提供哲学根据,对抗毛主席发表的《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》这部伟大著作。

一九六○年到一九六二年间,刘少奇反革命集团紧密配合帝、修、反的反华大合唱,策划了自上而下的
反革命复辟活动。这时,杨献珍象条疯狗一样,东奔西跑,到处散布他的反动哲学,更加猖狂地反对毛主席的光辉哲学思想。杨献珍胡说什么对立的统一就是“共同点”,叫嚷什么我们同美帝国主义有“共同点”⑤,同现代修正主义只是“同中之异”⑥,明目张胆地要无产阶级和资产阶级、社会主义和帝国主义、马克思主义和修正主义“合二而一”。

毛主席最早察觉了刘少奇一伙反革命阴谋的危险性,反复告诫全党、全国人民要警惕出修正主义。在党的八届十中全会上,毛主席更加完整地提出了我党在整个社会主义历史阶段的基本路线,发出了“千万不要忘记阶级斗争”的伟大号召。在毛主席英明领导下,我们党加强了对一分为二革命辩证法的宣传和教育,广泛开展了社会主义教育运动,同以苏修叛徒集团为中心的现代修正主义进行了公开论战,给国内外阶级敌人以沉重的打击。但是,所有这些警告和斗争,并没有也不可能改变刘少奇、杨献珍一伙的反革命本性,他们急不可待地要复辟资本主义。杨献珍煞费苦心地从明代封建文人方以智的《东西均》一书中找到了“合二而一”这个词儿,如获至宝,用来概括刘少奇一伙的反革命哲学。在刘少奇的走狗林枫的扶持下,杨献珍在原高级党校的讲坛上公开贩卖“合二而一论”,暗地里还咬牙切齿地咒骂一分为二是“打人的哲学”。在杨献珍的授意下,他的门徒写成了宣扬“合二而一”的文章,由他修改定稿。一九六四年,经过一番精心策划,在一阵反革命的紧锣密鼓声中,反动的“合二而一论”终于抛到了社会上。

列宁说过:哲学上的斗争,“归根到底表现着现代社会中敌对阶级的倾向和思想体系”。(《唯物主义和经验批判主义》)“合二而一论”的出笼,在国际上是适应帝国主义、社会帝国主义颠覆伟大的社会主义中国的需要,在国内是适应资产阶级反革命复辟的需要。它是为刘少奇复辟资本主义服务的御用哲学,是对无产阶级专政下继续革命的反动。杨献珍企图以什么“脱离政治”、“随意抓来,胡乱使用”之类的鬼话,来掩盖“合二而一论”反动的阶级本质和政治目的,是骗不了任何人的!

“合二而一论”是彻头彻尾的资产阶级唯心论和形而上学

一切机会主义者、修正主义者为了反对马克思主义哲学,总是拚命抹杀唯物论和唯心论、辩证法和形而上学的界限。叛徒杨献珍在贩卖反动的“合二而一论”时,正是采取了这种卑鄙的反革命伎俩。他竭力把“合二而一论”打扮成辩证法,胡说什么“合二而一”同一分为二是“一个意思”⑦。这种鱼目混珠的手法,丝毫也改变不了一分为二同“合二而一”的根本对立。

列宁曾经指出:“统一物之分为两个部分以及对它的矛盾着的部分的认识,是辩证法的实质。”(《谈谈辩证法问题》)“可以把辩证法简要地确定为关于对立面的统一的学说。这样就会抓住辩证法的核心,可是这需要说明和发挥。”(《黑格尔“逻辑学”一书摘要》)

毛主席在《矛盾论》、《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》等重要哲学著作中,进一步发展了列宁的这一伟大思想。毛主席说:“对立统一规律是宇宙的根本规律。这个规律,不论在自然界、人类社会和人们的思想中,都是普遍存在的。矛盾着的对立面又统一,又斗争,由此推动事物的运动和变化。”(《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》)毛主席提出的一分为二的思想,最深刻、最简明地概括了对立统一规律,抓住了唯物辩证法的核心。

按照一分为二的观点,任何事物都包含着矛盾。矛盾着的两个方面的相互依赖和相互斗争,决定一切事物的生命。无论是自然界、社会或人们的思想,都充满着矛盾和斗争,而不是“合二而一”。没有矛盾,就不成其为自然界,不成其为社会,不成其为人们的思想,也就没有世界。矛盾存在于一切过程中,并贯穿于过程的始终,推动事物的发展。矛盾不断出现,又不断解决,这是事物发展的普遍规律。

把一分为二的观点贯彻到社会主义社会,就是要承认在社会主义整个历史阶段中,始终存在着阶级、阶级矛盾和阶级斗争,存在着社会主义同资本主义两条道路的斗争,存在着资本主义复辟的危险性,存在着帝国主义和现代修正主义进行颠覆和侵略的威胁。要解决这些矛盾,必须加强无产阶级专政,坚持无产阶级专政下的继续革命。到了共产主义社会,也还会有矛盾,充满着新与旧、先进与落后、正确与错误的斗争。正如毛主席指出的,“除了沙漠,凡有人群的地方,都有左、中、右,一万年以后还会是这样。”只有坚持并运用这种观点,指导革命实践,才是彻底的辩证唯物论者,才是真正的无产阶级专政下继续革命的战士。否认一分为二,就是否认矛盾的普遍性,就是背叛唯物辩证法,在政治上就必然背叛无产阶级革命和无产阶级专政。

“合二而一论”的要害,就是那个“合”字,就是融合矛盾,取消斗争,反对革命,从而把无产阶级“合”到资产阶级那里,把马克思主义“合”到修正主义那里,把社会主义“合”到帝国主义、社会帝国主义那里。这种反动透顶的资产阶级唯心论和形而上学的世界观,同一分为二的世界观是水火不相容的。我们必须彻底驳掉杨献珍为维护这种反动世界观而制造的各种诡辩。

驳“共同要求”论

杨献珍喋喋不休地说什么矛盾的同一性就是“共同点”、“共同的东西”⑧。他歪曲列宁关于矛盾的同一性的论断,胡说:“辩证法范畴的同一性”,就是“找到一个共同的要求”⑨。

让我们来看一看伟大的列宁是怎样说的吧!

列宁指出:“辩证法是一种学说,它研究对立面怎样才能够同一,是怎样(怎样成为)同一的——在什么条件下它们是同一的、是相互转化的,——为什么人的头脑不应该把这些对立面当做僵死的、凝固的东西,而应该当做活生生的、有条件的、活动的、互相转化的东西。”(《黑格尔“逻辑学”一书摘要》)请同志们注意:列宁在这里讲的矛盾的同一性,哪里有一丝一毫“共同点”、“共同要求”的影子?杨献珍胡说什么列宁所讲的矛盾的同一性就是“共同要求”,这完全是造谣诽谤。

毛主席在《矛盾论》中精辟地解释了列宁关于矛盾的同一性的思想。毛主席明确指出:“一切矛盾着的东西,互相联系着,不但在一定条件之下共处于一个统一体中,而且在一定条件之下互相转化,这就是矛盾的同一性的全部意义。”

毛主席的教导,清楚地告诉我们:矛盾的同一性的第一种意义,就是矛盾着的双方在一定条件下的互相依存。例如,在我国新民主主义革命时期,人民大众同帝国主义、封建主义和官僚资本主义之间,无产阶级和资产阶级之间,都不是孤立存在的,而是各以同自己对立着的方面为存在的前提,共处于一个统一体中。对于矛盾的同一性的第一种意义,只能作这样的理解,而绝不容许象杨献珍那样歪曲为“共同要求”。难道被压迫的人民大众同帝国主义、封建主义和官僚资本主义之间是因为有什么“共同要求”而互相依存的吗?当然不是。即使民族资产阶级在一定时期中参加民族民主革命的统一战线,同无产阶级之间有一定的反帝反封建的共同要求,但这也绝不是无产阶级和资产阶级这对矛盾的同一性。当我们谈到这种共同要求时,是把无产阶级、农民、小资产阶级和民族资产阶级作为矛盾的一方,同以三大敌人为矛盾的另一方对立起来说的。从无产阶级和资产阶级作为矛盾的双方来说,他们是剥削和被剥削的关系,各自的要求是根本不同的。

毛主席还强调指出,矛盾着的双方不是互相依存就完了,更重要的,它们在一定条件下还各向着同自己相反的方面转化,向着自己的对立方面所处的地位转化。这是矛盾的同一性的第二种意义。我们党领导中国人民几十年来的英勇奋斗,正是为了创造条件,促成事物的转化,达到革命的目的。例如,经过新民主主义革命,使长期被压迫、被剥削的人民大众转化为国家的主人,压迫和剥削人民大众的三大敌人被彻底打倒。经过生产资料所有制方面的社会主义革命,使农业和手工业的个体所有制转化为社会主义集体所有制,工商业的资本主义所有制转化为社会主义全民所有制。叛徒杨献珍则千方百计地反对这种革命转化。他那种反动的“共同要求”论,说穿了,就是要无产阶级和劳动人民永远处于被剥削、被奴役的悲惨境地,让帝国主义和地主资产阶级永远骑在他们的头上作威作福。

杨献珍从他反动的“共同要求”论出发,竭力抹杀我们党同彭德怀反党集团之间两个阶级、两条道路、两条路线斗争的实质。他说:“一九五九年,在庐山会议上进行了反对右倾机会主义的斗争,这不是两条道路的斗争”。还说:党内两条路线“都是走社会主义的”。⑩把这话说明白点,就是反革命修正主义分子彭德怀也是走“社会主义道路”的。

一九五九年庐山会议上,毛主席明确指出:“庐山出现的这一场斗争,是一场阶级斗争,是过去十年社会主义革命过程中资产阶级与无产阶级两大对抗阶级的生死斗争的继续。”

叛徒杨献珍公然反对毛主席的指示,为彭德怀反党集团辩护,这并不奇怪。杨献珍本来就是彭德怀“军事俱乐部”的一员干将。在我们党召开庐山会议之际,彭德怀在山上,杨献珍在山下,上下呼应,一唱一和地猖狂攻击社会主义建设总路线,似乎要把半个庐山轰倒。党的八届八中全会揭露了彭德怀一伙的反革命罪行,杨献珍却为其鸣冤叫屈。一九六二年,他又和彭德怀互相勾结,大搞反革命翻案活动。这就充分证明:杨献珍和彭德怀之间的的确确有“共同要求”,那就是共同反党、反社会主义、反毛泽东思想、反毛主席的无产阶级革命路线。

伟大领袖毛主席深刻地指出:“修正主义者抹杀社会主义和资本主义的区别,抹杀无产阶级专政和资产阶级专政的区别。他们所主张的,在实际上并不是社会主义路线,而是资本主义路线。”(《在中国共产党全国宣传工作会议上的讲话》)毛主席这个科学论断,一针见血地揭露了刘少奇、杨献珍之流的反革命真面目,击中了他们的所谓“共同要求”论的要害。

驳“不可分离 ”论

杨献珍不厌其烦地宣扬什么对立面是“不可分离的联系”?。他还胡说:学习辩证法,就是“要学会把两个对立的思想联系在一起的本事”?。这是对唯物辩证法拙劣的篡改。

唯物辩证法认为,事物的本性,就是事物内部的矛盾性,可分性。恩格斯曾经指出:“辩证法根据我们过去的自然科学实验的结果,证明了:所有的两极对立,总是决定于相互对立的两极的相互作用,这两极的分离和对立,只存在于它们的相互依存和相互联系之内,反过来说,它们的相互联系,只存在于它们的相互分离之中,它们的相互依存,只存在于它们的相互对立之中。”(《自然辩证法》)这就是说,不能离开对立面的斗争性和可分性来谈对立面的联系。对立面的斗争,必然引起相互联系的破裂,引起统一物的分解,使事物发生性质的变化。因此,对立面的相互联系是有条件的,相对的,而可分性则是无条件的,绝对的。

正如毛主席指出的那样:“在人类社会和自然界,统一体总要分解为不同的部分,只是在不同的具体条件下,内容不同,形式不同罢了。”(《在中国共产党全国宣传工作会议上的讲话》)世界上没有一样东西是不可分的。客观事物的发展,一次又一次地戳穿了形而上学者所谓事物不可分割的陈腐观念。在国际共产主义运动的发展过程中,不就产生过各种反马克思主义的新老修正主义派别吗?在我们党的发展过程中,也出现过叛徒陈独秀、王明的“左”右倾机会主义路线,以及刘少奇的反革命修正主义路线。毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,正是在同这些错误路线的斗争中取得了伟大的胜利。所以,革命的“分”,不是坏事,而是好事。它促进人们思想觉悟的提高,促进革命人民的团结,推动无产阶级革命事业的发展,推动社会的前进。杨献珍闭口不谈矛盾的斗争性和转化,根本否认事物的可分性,把对立面的相互依存变成了“不可分离的联系”。事实上,这种僵死的、没有矛盾的、没有转化的联系,是根本不存在的。
杨献珍鼓吹“不可分离”论,有着极其阴险的政治目的。一九五六年,正当我国生产资料所有制的社会主义改造处于高潮的时候,他象牧师一样出来说教,说什么无产阶级和资产阶级“合则两利,离则俱伤”?。这同刘少奇鼓吹的反动的“剥削有功”论完全是一模所铸,充分暴露了这帮家伙都是资产阶级的忠实走狗。

无产阶级和资产阶级的矛盾,从本质上说,是对抗性的,不可调和的。这种矛盾,只有通过社会主义革命才能解决。正如毛主席一九五九年指出的,在社会主义革命时期,无产阶级同资产阶级两大对抗阶级的生死斗争,“至少还要斗二十年,可能要斗半个世纪,总之要到阶级完全灭亡,斗争才会止息”。因此,在整个社会主义革命时期,无产阶级对资产阶级是“实行独裁或专政的关系,而不能是什么别的关系”。无产阶级必须从政治、经济、文化等各个领域彻底清除资产阶级和一切剥削阶级的污毒,无产阶级必须在上层建筑其中包括各个文化领域中对资产阶级实行全面的专政。坚持无产阶级专政下继续革命,从一定意义上说,就是无产阶级同资产阶级以及一切剥削阶级实行彻底的分离。在这两个阶级的生死搏斗中,怎么能“合二而一”呢?如果我们同资产阶级搞“合二而一”,忘记了阶级和阶级斗争,忘记了无产阶级专政,“那就不要很多时间,少则几年、十几年,多则几十年,就不可避免地要出现全国性的反革命复辟,马列主义的党就一定会变成修正主义的党,变成法西斯党,整个中国就要改变颜色了。请同志们想一想,这是一种多么危险的情景啊!”杨献珍大肆鼓吹无产阶级和资产阶级要“合”,不能“离”,正是为了实现复辟资本主义的反革命阴谋。

驳“‘合二而一’的综合”论

杨献珍之流还胡说什么“分析是一分为二,综合是‘合二而一’”?。这不只是对马克思主义哲学无知的问题,他们的真实用意,是妄图割裂分析和综合的辩证关系,用反动的形而上学偷换唯物辩证法。

马克思主义哲学告诉我们,分析和综合既是事物的客观规律,又是人们认识事物的方法。分析表明了统一体分裂为两个不同部分以及它们之间的斗争;综合就是通过对立面斗争,一方克服、战胜、消灭另一方,旧矛盾的解决和新矛盾的产生,旧事物的消灭和新事物的胜利。用通俗的语言来说,综合就是一个“吃掉”一个。历史的发展方向,总是革命的“吃掉”反动的,正确的“吃掉”错误的,但这需要经过一系列复杂的曲折的斗争过程。正如毛主席指出的那样:“阶级斗争,一些阶级胜利了,一些阶级消灭了。这就是历史,这就是几千年的文明史。拿这个观点解释历史的就叫做历史的唯物主义,站在这个观点的反面的是历史的唯心主义。”(《丢掉幻想,准备斗争》)一部人类的文明史,就是阶级斗争的历史,革命阶级战胜、“吃掉”反动阶级的历史。以美国为首的帝国主义、社会帝国主义以及一切剥削制度,终究要被社会主义和共产主义所“吃掉”。这是一个不以人们意志为转移的客观规律。这种客观的分析和综合,反映到人们的头脑里来,就要求具体分析各种事物的矛盾运动,并根据分析,加以综合,指明问题的性质,给以解决的办法。矛盾的性质不同,解决的方法也不同。事情很清楚,无论是客观的还是主观的分析和综合,都是一分为二,而不是“合二而一”。

分析和综合是紧密联系着的。分析中有综合,综合中也有分析。正如恩格斯在谈到化学这门科学时所说的,“以分析为主要研究形式的化学,如果没有它的对极,即综合,就什么也不是了。”(《自然辩证法》)杨献珍之流否认分析和综合的联系,说什么“分析是一分为二,综合是‘合二而一’”,这同托洛茨基所宣扬的“政治——马克思主义的;艺术——资产阶级的”那种资产阶级二元论,完全是一路货色。

毛主席在《矛盾论》中指出:“直到无产阶级运动的伟大的活动家马克思和恩格斯综合了人类认识史的积极的成果,特别是批判地吸取了黑格尔的辩证法的合理的部分,创造了辩证唯物论和历史唯物论这个伟大的理论,才在人类认识史上起了一个空前的大革命。”毛主席极其深刻地阐明了马克思主义创始人怎样分析和综合人类认识史的成果。马克思、恩格斯对黑格尔的辩证法不是绝对肯定,也不是绝对否定,而是一分为二,批判其唯心论的外壳,吸取其合理的内核。这种分析和综合,充分体现了他们一贯主张的彻底的无产阶级革命精神和科学态度,为我们作出了光辉的典范。

毛主席在《改造我们的学习》中指出,对于近百年的中国史,“应先作经济史、政治史、军事史、文化史几个部门的分析的研究,然后才有可能作综合的研究”。毛主席在这里又一次深刻地指出了综合和分析的内部联系,以及离开了科学的分析就不可能有科学的综合。毛主席早在三十年前就提出的这个任务,仍然有待于我们努力去完成。

我们总结经验的过程,也是分析和综合的过程。人们在社会实践中从事各项斗争,积累了丰富的经验,有成功的,有失败的。总结经验,就要分清正确和错误,肯定正确的,否定错误的。要做到这一点,就要在马克思主义、列宁主义、毛泽东思想指导下,将实践中得来的丰富的感性材料,加以“去粗取精、去伪存真、由此及彼、由表及里”的改造制作工夫,由感性认识上升到理性认识,掌握事物的内部规律性。这自始至终贯穿着一分为二的矛盾运动。有了这样的总结经验,我们就能够坚持真理,改正错误,“使那些有益的经验得到推广,而从那些错误的经验中取得教训”。对自己所做的工作,不用一分为二的观点认真总结经验,这实质上是“合二而一论”的一种表现,对革命事业是有害的。

“合二而一论”是国际修正主义的反动思潮

“合二而一”的反动哲学是叛徒刘少奇、杨献珍之流的什么新创造吗?不是!他们的“合二而一论”,只不过是老机会主义者、修正主义者的“矛盾调和论”在新的历史条件下的变种。

马克思主义产生以后,科学社会主义的死敌就公开鼓吹“调和矛盾”的反动理论。蒲鲁东宣称要“找出一个调和的原理”来调和资本主义社会的矛盾?。杜林胡诌世界是“不可分割的”,“在事物中没有任何矛盾”?。

第二国际的反动头目妄图用庸俗进化论来代替革命的辩证法,用“阶级合作”论来代替马克思主义的阶级斗争和无产阶级专政的学说。考茨基就宣扬什么“一个社会里没有两个毫无共同利益的阶级。甚至奴隶主和奴隶之间也有共同利益”?,“资本家和工人之间确有共同利益”?。所有这些家伙都不过是历史上匆匆的过客,他们都分别在马克思、恩格斯和列宁的淋漓尽致的批判和揭露之下,现出了丑恶的原形。

十月革命胜利以后,当苏联人民在斯大林领导下,进入实现社会主义的国家工业化和农业集体化时期,德波林之流跳出来疯狂反对列宁的对立统一学说,认为矛盾不是一开始就在过程中出现,要等过程发展到一定的阶段才出现,而矛盾的解决,就是“对立面的和解”?。德波林的这一套“矛盾调和论”,是布哈林的“资本主义和平长入社会主义”的“阶级斗争熄灭论”的哲学表现。这种复辟资本主义的反动哲学,受到斯大林的严肃批判。德波林的唯心论和形而上学在中国共产党内曾经发生极坏的影响。伟大领袖毛主席在《矛盾论》中深刻地批判了德波林的反动哲学。

但是,自从赫鲁晓夫叛徒集团篡夺了苏联的党政大权以来,为了在苏联全面复辟资本主义,公然复活和发展了德波林的反动哲学。赫鲁晓夫摆出一副救世主的架势,大喊大叫:“面对着热核灾难的威胁,世界只有一个,而且是不可分割的。在这里,我们都是人。”?他们所豢养的有学位的奴仆们也应声而起,叫嚷:对立统一规律“过时了”,统一“成了社会进步经常起作用的源泉和动力”,等等。他们恬不知耻地把这套修正主义的叛徒哲学,叫做“创造性地发展马克思列宁主义”。马克思主义辩证法从来没有象这样受到攻击、歪曲和糟蹋。

正当这伙叛徒们在哲学战线上兴妖作怪,掀起一股反对马克思主义哲学的修正主义逆流的时候,伟大领袖毛主席以无产阶级的伟大气魄,反复强调了宣传唯物辩证法的重大意义。毛主席指出:“我们要求把辩证法逐步推广,要求大家逐步地学会使用辩证法这个科学方法。”(《在中国共产党全国宣传工作会议上的讲话》)一九五七年,毛主席在各国共产党、工人党莫斯科会议上再次深刻阐明了一分为二的革命辩证法,给修正主义逆流以迎头痛击。

国际共产主义运动的历史经验一再证明:一个马克思列宁主义政党,如果不用辩证唯物论和历史唯物论的观点去观察问题,分析问题,处理问题,就会犯错误,就会在政治上堕落。苏修叛徒集团彻底背叛了辩证唯物论和历史唯物论,也彻底背叛了无产阶级革命和无产阶级专政,就只能在修正主义道路上愈走愈远,并且堕落为社会帝国主义。

今天,反动的“矛盾调和论”,已经成为苏修社会帝国主义强化法西斯专政、推行侵略政策、同美帝国主义相互勾结、争霸世界的工具。他们大肆叫嚣什么建立“社会主义大家庭”,要把“共同利益置于首位”。这就是妄图抹杀侵略和被侵略、剥削和被剥削、控制和被控制的区别,要“大家庭”中的这些国家的劳动人民牺牲自己的利益,放弃自己的独立和主权,完全“融合”到社会帝国主义殖民统治这个“整体”之中。然而,反动的“矛盾调和论”,丝毫也救不了他们。辩证法的固有规律是不以修正主义者的意志为转移的。今天,全世界人民和许多中、小国家团结起来,反对美帝国主义、社会帝国主义这两个超级大国的霸权主义,同他们一分为二,已成为不可抗拒的历史潮流。

历史告诉我们,从马克思主义产生以来,一直存在着一条反唯物辩证法的黑线。刘少奇、杨献珍之流的反动的“合二而一论”,就是这条黑线在中国的一个突出表现。马克思主义辩证法正是在同这条黑线的斗争中发展起来的。

坚持一分为二的革命辩证法,进一步巩固无产阶级专政,把无产阶级专政下继续革命进行到底
一分为二的革命辩证法,是无产阶级的科学的世界观和方法论,是毛主席关于无产阶级专政下继续革命学说的哲学基础。只有学好用好一分为二的革命辩证法,才能深刻理解和实践无产阶级专政下继续革命的伟大理论,自觉地执行毛主席的无产阶级革命路线。

经过四年多的无产阶级文化大革命,我们已经取得了伟大胜利,我国的无产阶级专政空前巩固。但阶级斗争仍然在政治、经济、思想、文化各个领域继续进行着。阶级斗争的形式会变化,阶级矛盾决不会消失;阶级敌人的手法会翻新,反动本性决不会改变。还应该看到,意识形态领域里的阶级斗争,要经过几十年、几百年,才能得到解决。如果不坚持一分为二的观点,看不到阶级斗争的长期性、复杂性、曲折性,就要犯“左”的或右的错误。

毛主席教导我们:“党内不同思想的对立和斗争是经常发生的,这是社会的阶级矛盾和新旧事物的矛盾在党内的反映。党内如果没有矛盾和解决矛盾的思想斗争,党的生命也就停止了。”(《矛盾论》)阶级斗争的长期性,决定了党内两条路线斗争的长期性。经过无产阶级文化大革命,打倒了叛徒、内奸、工贼刘少奇及其代理人,清理了阶级队伍,整顿了党的组织,提高了广大党员的觉悟,我们党比以往任何时候都更加纯洁,更加坚强,更富于战斗力。这是毛主席无产阶级建党路线战胜刘少奇反革命修正主义建党路线所取得的伟大胜利,是一分为二的唯物辩证法的胜利。但是,如果认为从此我们的队伍就百分之百的纯了,不存在路线斗争、思想斗争了,这种天真的想法,不符合唯物辩证法。按照一分为二的观点,纯是相对的,不纯是绝对的。完全的纯是没有的。在我们党的历史上出现过陈独秀、王明、张国焘这些不齿于人类的叛徒,全国解放以来,又出现了彭德怀、高岗、饶漱石反党联盟和刘少奇反革命集团,但他们都没有能够搞垮我们的党。我们在毛主席的英明领导下,揭露了他们的反革命面目,粉碎了他们的反党阴谋,批判了他们的错误路线,使我们的党更加巩固,更加壮大,进一步在毛泽东思想的原则基础上团结起来,争取更大的胜利。

两条路线的斗争,总是同两种世界观的斗争紧密联系着的。因为任何一条政治路线都是以一定的世界观为基础的。坚持资产阶级世界观的人,必然会背离和反对毛主席的革命路线,执行反革命修正主义路线。要提高执行毛主席革命路线的自觉性,就必须认真读书,学好用好毛主席的哲学思想,认真地、坚持地、深入持久地开展革命大批判。同时,要努力改造世界观,不断克服头脑中的资产阶级唯心论和形而上学,克服骄傲自满、固步自封等脱离群众、脱离实际的错误思想和作风。用毛泽东思想观察一切,分析一切,我们就能够分清无产阶级革命路线和反革命修正主义路线,识别真假马克思主义,抵制王明、刘少奇、杨献珍一类的政治骗子而不上他们的当,也就能够沿着毛主席的革命路线,进一步把巩固无产阶级专政的任务落实到每个基层,把无产阶级专政下继续革命进行到底,在夺取社会主义革命和社会主义建设的新胜利中,为人类做出较大的贡献。

注:
① 杨献珍的书面“说明”(一九六五年四月)。
② 杨献珍的书面检讨(一九六四年十月)。
③ 《略论两种范畴的“同一性”》(一九五八年八月)。
④ 《关于规律的客观性和主观能动作用问题》(一九五八年十一月)。
⑤ 《怎样总结历史经验,教育干部提高干部》(一九六二年一月)。
⑥? 《哲学引言》(一九六一年十一月)。
⑦ 《“是——是,否——否;是——否,否——是”是什么意思》(一九六三年十一月)。
⑧ 《整风问题》(一九六四年一月)。
⑨ 《认识论》(一九六三年十一月)。
⑩ 《给新疆班讲课记录》(一九六二年五月)。
? 《要学会掌握对立统一去做工作,在实际工作中尊重辩证法》(一九六四年四月)。
? 在一九五六年的一次讲课。
? 黎明在一九六四年五月的一次讲课。
? 参见马克思:《哲学的贫困》。《马克思恩格斯全集》第四卷,第一七三页。
? 参见恩格斯:《反杜林论》。人民出版社一九七○年版,第三十八、一一六页。
? 考茨基:《国债的经济影响》(一九一五年四月)。
? 考茨基:《唯物史观》第二卷(一九二七年)。
? 德波林的“自我批评”。
? 赫鲁晓夫:《全面彻底裁军是各国人民的和平和安全的保障》(一九六二年七月十日)。
(原载《红旗》杂志一九七一年第三期)