By Musa T. Bey

Introduction: The Motion Beneath All Things

The world is not still. It is not flat, uniform, or frozen in time. The world is alive with motion, tension, struggle, and transformation. This movement is not random; it has structure and logic. At the very heart of that motion—whether in nature, history, human relationships, or systems of power—resides a basic dynamic force: contradiction.

To understand contradiction is to understand the engine of change. To wield it in struggle is to engage with the most potent weapon available to the oppressed. The theory of contradiction, developed within the tradition of dialectical materialism, is not simply a theory of how things are, but of how things become. It is a method of analysis and a guide to revolutionary action.

In this extended article, we explore the depths of contradiction: its philosophical roots, its revolutionary development, its application in anti-colonial and Black liberation struggles, and its enduring relevance in confronting racial capitalism and imperialism today. This is not just philosophy—it is praxis.

I. Contradiction in Dialectical Materialism

1.1 The Dialectical Lens: Life as Struggle and Transformation

Dialectical materialism, the philosophical foundation of Marxism, is rooted in the idea that reality is material and constantly changing through internal contradictions. Unlike metaphysical worldviews that see the world as static or governed by eternal laws, dialectics posits that everything comes into being, changes, and passes away through the movement of opposites within it.

Contradiction, then, is not an error or anomaly. It is the principle of motion—the conflict between opposing tendencies that gives rise to new forms and new realities. The growth of a seed into a tree, the shift from feudalism to capitalism, the rise of revolts within empires—all are examples of contradiction at work.

1.2 Engels and the Scientific Foundation of Dialectics

Friedrich Engels systematized the dialectical method in works like Dialectics of Nature, where he laid out three fundamental laws:

The transformation of quantity into quality: Gradual changes accumulate until a critical threshold is crossed, leading to qualitative transformation—revolution, not reform. The unity and struggle of opposites: All entities are composed of opposing forces. Their interaction drives development. The negation of the negation: Each phase negates the one before it, but does so by preserving and transcending it—a process known as sublation (Aufhebung).

These laws are rooted in material reality, not abstraction. They form the basis for understanding history, society, and nature as interconnected, dynamic totalities shaped by internal contradictions.

II. Lenin: Contradiction as Revolutionary Science

2.1 The Sharp Edge of Class Antagonism

Vladimir Lenin sharpened the application of contradiction to the era of monopoly capitalism and imperialism. He recognized that capitalism, far from stabilizing, was becoming more volatile and violent due to its internal contradictions. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin analyzed how capital had reached a stage where:

Competition was replaced by monopolies; Production outgrew national borders, leading to colonial conquest; Finance capital dominated productive capital, deepening crisis and inequality.

These contradictions between capital and labor, between imperialist powers, and between the oppressor nations and the colonized world, created the conditions for world revolution.

2.2 Uneven Development and the Weakest Link

Lenin’s dialectical insight into uneven development was critical. Contradictions do not develop equally across all places. Revolutionary potential is not always found in the most industrially developed nations, but often at the periphery—the weakest links in the imperialist chain. Russia in 1917. China in 1949. Cuba in 1959. Guinea-Bissau in 1973.

For revolutionaries, this meant understanding contradiction not in the abstract but in the concrete totality of a specific historical situation.

III. Mao Zedong: Contradiction as Method and Compass

3.1 “On Contradiction”: A New Synthesis

In his 1937 essay On Contradiction, Mao Zedong synthesized and extended the dialectical tradition. Writing in the midst of war and revolution, Mao proposed several critical developments:

Every process contains multiple contradictions; they interact, shift, and evolve. Among these, one is principal—it shapes and conditions the others. The principal contradiction can change depending on the phase of struggle. Within each contradiction, there is a primary aspect—the dominant force at a given time.

This framework became essential for revolutionary strategy. During China’s anti-Japanese war, the principal contradiction was between the Chinese nation and Japanese imperialism, not between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. To fail to grasp this would be to misdirect the revolutionary movement.

3.2 Contradictions Among the People

Mao also made a crucial contribution by distinguishing contradictions among the people from contradictions between the people and the enemy. While the latter were antagonistic, the former were non-antagonistic and could be resolved through dialogue, criticism, education, and transformation—not repression.

This insight remains vital for building mass movements that are democratic, inclusive, and capable of navigating internal difference without fragmentation.

IV. Black Radical Thought and the Contradiction of Racial Capitalism

4.1 W.E.B. Du Bois: The Veil and the Color Line

W.E.B. Du Bois, one of the foremost thinkers of the 20th century, identified the “color line” as the defining contradiction of the modern world. In Black Reconstruction in America, Du Bois revealed how the Black proletariat was both exploited and socially excluded—integral to capital yet denied humanity.

The contradiction of Black life under U.S. capitalism was a dual exclusion: as labor and as person. This contradiction was not peripheral—it was foundational.

4.2 Cedric Robinson and the Racial Regime of Capital

Cedric J. Robinson, in Black Marxism, showed that capitalism was never a neutral economic system that became racist—it was racial from the beginning. The transatlantic slave trade, colonialism, and racial regimes of labor were not anomalies but constitutive contradictions of capital itself.

For Robinson and the Black Radical Tradition, revolution must confront not just class but the specific racialization of capitalist social relations. The principal contradiction in the U.S. context cannot be understood outside the intertwining of race, class, gender, and empire.

V. Contradiction and the Revolutionary Organizer

5.1 Strategy, Tactics, and the Dialectical Method

To be a revolutionary is to study and engage contradictions in motion. We must ask:

What is the principal contradiction in this moment? How does it shape secondary contradictions? Which contradictions are antagonistic and which are not? How are contradictions developing—and what forces are intensifying or resolving them?

Organizers must read the terrain dialectically, not dogmatically. Strategy must be flexible, concrete, and rooted in the shifting conditions of struggle.

5.2 Internal Contradictions and Mass Struggle

Movements fail not just because of repression, but because they are unable to resolve internal contradictions—around leadership, patriarchy, political line, nationalism vs. internationalism, reform vs. revolution. A revolutionary organization must be a laboratory of contradiction, practicing criticism and self-criticism, transforming itself as it transforms the world.

VI. Today’s World: Crisis, Collapse, and Revolutionary Opportunity

We are living in an age of deepening contradiction:

Ecological collapse vs. endless accumulation; Mass unemployment vs. hyperproductivity; Surplus population vs. militarized borders; State surveillance vs. collective autonomy; Rising fascism vs. renewed mass resistance.

Capitalism cannot resolve these contradictions—it can only displace or deepen them. This is why reform is not enough. Revolution is not simply desirable—it is necessary.

But revolution does not happen spontaneously. It emerges when contradictions reach a breaking point, and when revolutionaries have built the capacity to intervene, to unify the people, and to forge new historical possibilities.

Conclusion: The Struggle is the Site of Transformation

Contradiction is the heartbeat of revolution. It reminds us that no power is permanent. No system is immune to crisis. No domination is absolute. Even in defeat, the oppressed carry the seeds of transformation within them.

The theory of contradiction is not a philosophical ornament. It is a guide to action, a weapon for struggle, and a framework for liberation. It teaches us to see the world as it really is—and as it could become.

As revolutionaries in the 21st century, we must reclaim and develop this theory in the face of planetary breakdown and human possibility. Because in the words of Mao: “Wherever there is struggle, there is contradiction, and wherever there is contradiction, there is life.”