Forms of Struggle

At the end of the last post, I left a question: if struggle is absolute and never stops from beginning to end, do the two opposing sides always have to fight to the death?

Let me give you my answer up front: no. And I've paid tuition for this answer twice, once for struggling too hard and once for struggling too softly.

The time I struggled too hard was cutting fat. When I first started, I dieted hard and pushed my training intensity way too high, squeezing from both ends. My body soon couldn't take it. My resistance dropped, I was always catching colds, and a whole pile of problems came up.

The time I struggled too softly was gaming. I used to play PC games on and off. When I played, I felt uneasy, even a bit miserable, like I was wasting my time. That went on for a long time, until I finally made a decision: I sold the Windows PC at home outright.

In one case, I wore myself down fighting. In the other, I fought too politely and wasted a long time for nothing. Put those two tuition bills together and you get exactly what "On Contradiction" covers at the very end: the forms of struggle.

You Can't Escape the Struggle, but You Can Choose How to Struggle

By the section "The Place of Antagonism in Contradiction," "On Contradiction" is nearly finished. This is where Mao answers the question above. He says it plainly:

Antagonism is one form, but not the only form, of the struggle of opposites.¹

Antagonism is the struggle we usually imagine: a showdown, a falling-out, and in the end the entity blows apart and the two sides split for good. Revolution takes this form, and so does war. On a smaller scale, selling a PC takes the same form.

But Mao says this is only one form. Right after, he states it in full:

Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions.

The first half picks up from the last post: struggle can't be escaped, no wiggle room. The second half is new: you can choose how to struggle, and you have to, and the basis for choosing is the nature of the contradiction.

How do you tell natures apart? Roughly, there are two kinds. In one kind, the two sides' fundamental interests clash and can't be reconciled. Every day they coexist is another bad day. That's antagonistic, and the solution is a clean break. In the other kind, the two sides are actually in the same boat. The conflict is real, but their fundamental interests are the same. That's non-antagonistic, and the solution is adjustment and reshaping: straighten out the relationship so the two sides can keep moving forward in one entity.

Mao's example is differences of thinking within the Party. Comrades have different opinions. That's a contradiction, and there's always struggle over it, but the method is criticism and discussion. No guns needed. The table in Vol. 9 has this row: contradiction within the Communist Party is resolved by criticism and self-criticism.² At the same time he warns that the wall between these two kinds isn't fixed. A non-antagonistic contradiction handled badly can sharpen into an antagonistic one. And when conditions change, an antagonistic one may ease.

Struggle is absolute. The method of struggle is concrete. Whatever the nature of the contradiction, use the method that fits it.

This sounds ordinary, but it blocks the two most common mistakes. Use an antagonistic method on a non-antagonistic contradiction, and you turn your own people into enemies and a small thing into a big one. Use a non-antagonistic method on an antagonistic contradiction, and you're trying to negotiate with something that won't negotiate. You'll just be dragged along step by step.

My two tuition bills, one on each side, covered both mistakes in full.

I Treated My Body as the Enemy

First, the fat loss.

Most people starting a cut have a ruthless streak, and I was no different. I crushed my calories and maxed out my training intensity, wishing I could do a year's work in a month. While doing it, the logic in my head sounded smooth enough: fat is the enemy, and you hit the enemy with everything you've got.

The problem is that the fat grows on my own body. Between me and my weight, there's no life-or-death relationship at all. My body wants to live comfortably, I want to get leaner. The two goals look like they're fighting, but they're on the same side: getting leaner is for the sake of this body living better in the first place. It's a non-antagonistic contradiction through and through. The method it calls for is adjustment and reshaping, straightening out eating and training so the body can catch up bit by bit.

Instead I went to war by the rules for a contradiction between enemies. The result, as I said: my body broke down first, my resistance dropped, I was always catching colds, and the cut itself got dragged down. The harder I fought, the faster I lost, because I was bombing my own supply lines.

Later I changed the whole approach to a cut that fit into normal life. A gentler calorie deficit, training intensity matched to my body's recovery, resting properly when I needed to. The pace was slower, but I was steady, and my weight kept going down. Not a single day of this approach was intense, but it won.

With a non-antagonistic contradiction, winning was never about crushing the other side. If the other side collapses, so do you.

That PC Needed to Go

Gaming was exactly the opposite in nature.

Playing on and off was, at bottom, an attempt to coexist peacefully with games: play a little when I wanted to, stop when there was real work to do, the two sides working it out together. I carried out this plan very badly. When I played, I felt uneasy, with a voice in my head telling me I was wasting time. When I stopped for a while, my hands got itchy. It wasn't like a hobby. It was like a negotiation that could neither reach a deal nor break off.

Looking back now, that negotiation was doomed. The state I wanted and what games took from me simply couldn't be reconciled, in my case. Every round of "playing in moderation" just kept the contradiction alive a little longer. It was an antagonistic contradiction, and the right form for dealing with it was written from the start: a clean break.

So selling the PC, extreme as it looked, was actually the most right thing I did in the whole affair. It didn't adjust my relationship with games. It tore apart the very entity of "me and games sharing a room." Once that environment was cut off, the endless negotiation ended on its own, and I was in much better shape afterward.

Later I summed up the lesson in one sentence: when it comes to building habits, rather than doing something on and off, it's better not to do it at all. On and off sounds gentle, but it's the most draining, because it leaves a contradiction that should be broken hanging forever. Court in session every day, no verdict ever.

Put the two together and the principle comes out. The same me, struggling with myself in both cases. In one I used force where gentleness was needed. In the other I used gentleness where force was needed. I lost both ways. Use the wrong method of struggle, and the more strength you put in, the more you lose. And there's only one test for whether a method is right: first see clearly what the nature of the contradiction is. That brings us back to the key and the lock from Vol. 9: pinning down the nature always comes before choosing how to struggle.

As Wenchi Nears the Finish, the Method Has Changed Too

There's one more layer, one I'm going through right now.

I'm developing a product of my own, Wenchi, a writing tool that helps people write novels. In Vol. 10 I wrote about one of my sorrier moments building it. Here's what came after.

In the early development, the method of struggle could only be hard. Problems piled up, each one blocking the road, no way around. All I could do was pour in lots of time and energy and chew through them one by one. At that stage, telling myself to take it easy would have meant getting nothing done.

Now it's the finishing stage. The big framework is standing, and what's left is polishing the details, slowly smoothing out every spot. At this stage, the storm-the-fortress approach would actually do harm. Details are polished, not rushed. The more you try to finish everything at one stroke, the easier it is to mess up what's already in place.

Same product, same person building it, and the right method in the early and late stages is completely opposite. The reason is what Mao warned: the nature of a contradiction changes. Early on, the principal contradiction was hard problems blocking the road. It was sharp, so it had to be handled in a sharp way. Once the framework stood, the contradiction became the gap between rough and polished. It was gentle, so it had to be handled gently. The method of struggle not only has to fit the nature of the contradiction, it has to change as that nature changes.

The last post said balances break one after another. This post adds the second half: each time one breaks, it's worth asking again: is this contradiction still the same nature it was?

Seven Posts, One Framework

That brings the "On Contradiction" series to an end. Thread the seven posts together and they're really one question asked all the way down, layer by layer:

Post	What it asks	The answer in "On Contradiction"
Vol. 7	Why do things change?	The root is internal contradiction; external causes work through internal causes
Vol. 8	Is contradiction occasional?	Contradiction is in everything and there all the time
Vol. 9	Can one method fit all?	Each contradiction has its own nature; one key for one lock
Vol. 10	Which of many contradictions comes first?	Grasp the principal contradiction and the rest are readily solved
Vol. 11	Who has the say within one contradiction?	The leading side sets the nature, and the lead can switch sides
Vol. 12	How do the two opposing sides relate?	They depend on each other and coexist in one entity; union is temporary, struggle is forever
Vol. 13	So how should we struggle?	Match the method to the nature: reshape what should be reshaped, break with what should be broken

Vol. 7 opened by asking why the world changes. With this post, the answer is complete: because everything has contradiction inside it, and the two sides of a contradiction are always struggling. As they struggle, the lead switches sides, the balance breaks, the old entity gives way to a new one, and things change. Change has no finish line, because struggle has no finish line.

That sounds like a cold worldview, but after writing it out post by post over these months, I feel exactly the opposite. At the end of Vol. 9 I wrote: universality keeps you from panicking, particularity keeps you from being lazy. Now I can fill in the second half. The principal contradiction, the principal aspect, identity, and the forms of struggle together give an order for getting to work: first find where the contradiction is, figure out its nature, then see which of many contradictions is principal and which side of a pair has the upper hand, and finally choose a method of struggle according to its nature.

That order is everything "On Contradiction" leaves to an ordinary person. It won't solve any specific problem for you, but every specific problem you run into can get its starting point from here.

At the end of Vol. 3, I said I'd lay the two cornerstones of "On Practice" and "On Contradiction" before taking apart the other essays in Volume I. As of today, I've kept that promise. "On Practice" is about how knowledge comes about and how it's tested. "On Contradiction" is about how the world moves and changes. One helps you think clearly, the other helps you see clearly.

From here on, the posts will take these two tools back into the specific essays of Volume I.

The world will never stop changing, but people who understand change don't have to be dragged along by it.

---

Notes

Footnotes

1. From Mao Zedong, "On Contradiction," Section VI, "The Place of Antagonism in Contradiction." The original reads: "In class society, revolutions and revolutionary wars are inevitable, and without them, it is impossible to accomplish any leap in social development and to overthrow the reactionary ruling classes and therefore impossible for the people to win political power. ... But we must make a concrete study of the circumstances of each specific struggle of opposites and should not arbitrarily apply the formula discussed above to everything. Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of the contradictions." ↩

2. Refers to Mao's discussion in "On Contradiction" of how contradictions within the Communist Party are handled: "As long as classes exist, contradictions between correct and incorrect ideas in the Communist Party are reflections within the Party of class contradictions. ... At first, with regard to certain issues, such contradictions may not manifest themselves as antagonistic. But with the development of the class struggle, they may grow and become antagonistic. ... the contradiction between the correct thinking of many of our comrades and the erroneous thinking of Chen Duxiu, Zhang Guotao and others also did not at first manifest itself in an antagonistic form, but later it did develop into antagonism. At present the contradiction between correct and incorrect thinking in our Party does not manifest itself in an antagonistic form, and if comrades who have committed mistakes can correct them, it will not develop into antagonism." ↩