Abstract

Recently a number of periodicals have published articles discussing again the 1964 "debate" on the question of "one divides into two" and "two combine into one," the great majority of which clearly affirm that "two combine into one" is also material dialecticalism. I still have some differing views concerning this scholarly question of the theory of "two combine into one." In 1964, those "authorities on theory" such as Guan Feng devised a strategy of schemes which turned the proper scholarly discussion of the problem of "one divides into two" and "two combine into one" into a "political movement." The so-called criticism of "two combine into one," which politically damaged those comrades who advocated the "two combine into one" viewpoint, destroyed the thorough implementation of the Party directive "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend," undermined our socialist intellectual democracy and created theoretical confusion, the ill effects of which were very serious. These problems should be exposed and criticized, and the lesson of this experience really must be correctly summed up. In addition, during the Great Cultural Revolution, those "authorities on theory" furthermore consciously attempted to suggest that the "Tang emperor Xiaowen,"* under the auspices of the "Revolutionary Great Criticism Writers Guild of the Institute of the Central Committee of the Communist Party," had written a number of articles "criticizing" the so-called "Three Great Debates," including "two combine into one." Using all kinds of devices and lines of attack, including a great deal of false slander and lies, they even dubbed comrades such as Yang Xianzhen* as "counterrevolutionaries." This too should be exposed and criticized, and firmly overturned. However, can "two combine into one" ultimately be used to describe scientifically the law of the unity of opposites, is it ultimately, like "one divides into two," part of the materialist dialectic? This question still needs to be clarified by continuing discussion. Comrades with differing points of view must be allowed to express their various opinions on an equal basis, and free debate must be encouraged. Only in this way will scholarly theory profitably develop in our nation. In this spirit, I would now like to talk about some of my own views concerning the question of "one divides into two" and "two combine into one," in the hope that Comrade Yang Xianzhen and others will offer their advice or corrections