The Development Of Mind - Selected Works Of Ale...

Before Marx, materialism examined the problem of knowledge apart from thesocial nature of man and apart from his historical development, and was thereforeincapable of understanding the dependence of knowledge on social practice,that is, the dependence of knowledge on production and the class struggle.Above all, Marxists regard man's activity in production as the most fundamentalpractical activity, the determinant of all his other activities. Man's knowledgedepends mainly on his activity in material production, through which he comesgradually to understand the phenomena, the properties and the laws of nature,and the relations between himself and nature; and through his activity inproduction he also gradually comes to understand, in varying degrees, certainrelations that exist between man and man. None of this knowledge can be acquiredapart from activity in production. In a classless society every person, asa member of society, joins in common effort with the other members, entersinto definite relations of production with them and engages in productionto meet man's material needs. In all class societies, the members of thedifferent social classes also enter, in different ways, into definite relationsof production and engage in production to meet their material needs. Thisis the primary source from which human knowledge develops.Man's social practice is not confined to activity in production, but takesmany other forms--class struggle, political life, scientific and artisticpursuits; in short, as a social being, man participates in all spheres ofthe practical life of society. Thus man, in varying degrees, comes to knowthe different relations between man and man, not only through his materiallife but also through his political and cultural life (both of which areintimately bound up with material life). Of these other types of social practice,class struggle in particular, in all its various forms, exerts a profoundinfluence on the development of man's knowledge. In class society everyonelives as a member of a particular class, and every kind of thinking, withoutexception, is stamped with the brand of a class.Marxists hold that in human society activity in production develops stepby step from a lower to a higher level and that consequently man's knowledge,whether of nature or of society, also develops step by step from a lowerto a higher level, that is, from the shallower to the deeper, from the one-sidedto the many-sided. For a very long period in history, men were necessarilyconfined to a one-sided understanding of the history of society because,for one thing, the bias of the exploiting classes always distorted historyand, for another, the small scale of production limited man's outlook. Itwas not until the modern proletariat emerged along with immense forces ofproduction (large-scale industry) that man was able to acquire a comprehensive,historical understanding of the development of society and turn this knowledgeinto a science, the science of Marxism.Marxists hold that man's social practice alone is the criterion of the truthof his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man'sknowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in theprocess of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientificexperiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve theanticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with thelaws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he willfail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects hisideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and canthus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by "failure is themother of success" and "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit". Thedialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primaryposition, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practiceand repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practiceor separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, "Practice is higherthan (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity ofuniversality, but also of immediate actuality." [1] TheMarxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstandingcharacteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialecticalmaterialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality:it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theoryis based on practice and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledgeor theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective resultsin social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth. Thestandpoint of practice is the primary and basic standpoint in the dialecticalmaterialist theory of knowledge. [2]But how then does human knowledge arise from practice and in turn serve practice?This will become clear if we look at the process of development of knowledge.In the process of practice, man at first sees only the phenomenal side,the separate aspects, the external relations of things. For instance,some people from outside come to Yenan on a tour of observation. In the firstday or two, they see its topography, streets and houses; they meet many people,attend banquets, evening parties and mass meetings, hear talk of variouskinds and read various documents, all these being the phenomena, the separateaspects and the external relations of things. This is called the perceptualstage of cognition, namely, the stage of sense perceptions and impressions.That is, these particular things in Yenan act on the sense organs of themembers of the observation group, evoke sense perceptions and give rise intheir brains to many impressions together with a rough sketch of the externalrelations among these impressions: this is the first stage of cognition.At this stage, man cannot as yet form concepts, which are deeper, or drawlogical conclusions.As social practice continues, things that give rise to man's sense perceptionsand impressions in the course of his practice are repeated many times; thena sudden change (leap) takes place in the brain in the process of cognition,and concepts are formed. Concepts are no longer the phenomena, the separateaspects and the external relations of things; they grasp the essence, thetotality and the internal relations of things. Between concepts and senseperceptions there is not only a quantitative but also a qualitative difference.Proceeding further, by means of judgement and inference one is able to drawlogical conclusions. The expression in San Kuo Yen Yi,[3] "knit the brows and a stratagem comes tomind", or in everyday language, "let me think it over", refers to man's useof concepts in the brain to form judgements and inferences. This is the secondstage of cognition. When the members of the observation group have collectedvarious data and, what is more, have "thought them over", they are able toarrive at the judgement that "the Communist Party's policy of the NationalUnited Front Against Japan is thorough, sincere and genuine". Having madethis judgement, they can, if they too are genuine about uniting to save thenation, go a step further and draw the following conclusion, "The NationalUnited Front Against Japan can succeed." This stage of conception, judgementand inference is the more important stage in the entire process of knowinga thing; it is the stage of rational knowledge. The real task of knowingis, through perception, to arrive at thought, to arrive step by step at thecomprehension of the internal contradictions of objective things, of theirlaws and of the internal relations between one process and another, thatis, to arrive at logical knowledge. To repeat, logical knowledge differsfrom perceptual knowledge in that perceptual knowledge pertains to the separateaspects, the phenomena and the external relations of things, whereas logicalknowledge takes a big stride forward to reach the totality, the essence andthe internal relations of things and discloses the inner contradictions inthe surrounding world. Therefore, logical knowledge is capable of graspingthe development of the surrounding world in its totality, in the internalrelations of all its aspects.This dialectical-materialist theory of the process of development of knowledge,basing itself on practice and proceeding from the shallower to the deeper,was never worked out by anybody before the rise of Marxism. Marxist materialismsolved this problem correctly for the first time, pointing out bothmaterialistically and dialectically the deepening movement of cognition,the movement by which man in society progresses from perceptual knowledgeto logical knowledge in his complex, constantly recurring practice of productionand class struggle. Lenin said, "The abstraction of matter, of alaw of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in short, allscientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect naturemore deeply, truly and completely." [4]Marxism-Leninism holds that each of the two stages in the process ofcognition has its own characteristics, with knowledge manifesting itselfas perceptual at the lower stage and logical at the higher stage, but thatboth are stages in an integrated process of cognition. The perceptual andthe rational are qualitatively different, but are not divorced from eachother; they are unified on the basis of practice. Our practice proves thatwhat is perceived cannot at once be comprehended and that only what iscomprehended can be more deeply perceived. Perception only solves the problemof phenomena; theory alone can solve the problem of essence. The solvingof both these problems is not separable in the slightest degree from practice.Whoever wants to know a thing has no way of doing so except by coming intocontact with it, that is, by living (practicing) in its environment. In feudalsociety it was impossible to know the laws of capitalist society in advancebecause capitalism had not yet emerged, the relevant practice was lacking.Marxism could be the product only of capitalist society. Marx, in the eraof laissez-faire capitalism, could not concretely know certain laws peculiarto the era of imperialism beforehand, because imperialism, the last stageof capitalism, had not yet emerged and the relevant practice was lacking;only Lenin and Stalin could undertake this task. Leaving aside their genius,the reason why Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin could work out their theorieswas mainly that they personally took part in the practice of the class struggleand the scientific experimentation of their time; lacking this condition,no genius could have succeeded. The saying, "without stepping outside hisgate the scholar knows all the wide world's affairs", was mere emptytalk in past times when technology was undeveloped. Even though this sayingcan be valid in the present age of developed technology, the people withreal personal knowledge are those engaged in practice the wide world over.And it is only when these people have come to "know" through their practiceand when their knowledge has reached him through writing and technical mediathat the "scholar" can indirectly "know all the wide world's affairs". Ifyou want to know a certain thing or a certain class of things directly, youmust personally participate in the practical struggle to change reality,to change that thing or class of things, for only thus can you come intocontact with them as phenomena; only through personal participation in thepractical struggle to change reality can you uncover the essence of thatthing or class of things and comprehend them. This is the path to knowledgewhich every man actually travels, though some people, deliberately distortingmatters, argue to the contrary. The most ridiculous person in the world isthe "know all" who picks up a smattering of hearsay knowledge and proclaimshimself "the world's Number One authority"; this merely shows that he hasnot taken a proper measure of himself. Knowledge is a matter of science,and no dishonesty or conceit whatsoever is permissible. What is requiredis definitely the reverse--honesty and modesty. If you want knowledge, youmust take part in the practice of changing reality. If you want to know thetaste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you wantto know the structure and properties of the atom, you must make physicaland chemical experiments to change the state of the atom. If you want toknow the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution.All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience. But one cannot havedirect experience of everything; as a matter of fact, most of our knowledgecomes from indirect experience, for example, all knowledge from past timesand foreign lands. To our ancestors and to foreigners, such knowledge was--oris--a matter of direct experience, and this knowledge is reliable if in thecourse of their direct experience the requirement of "scientific abstraction",spoken of by Lenin, was--or is--fulfilled and objective reality scientificallyreflected, otherwise it is not reliable. Hence a man's knowledge consistsonly of two parts, that which comes from direct experience and that whichcomes from indirect experience. Moreover, what is indirect experience forme is direct experience for other people. Consequently, considered as a whole,knowledge of any kind is inseparable from direct experience. All knowledgeoriginates in perception of the objective external world through man's physicalsense organs. Anyone who denies such perception, denies direct experience,or denies personal participation in the practice that changes reality, isnot a materialist. That is why the "know-all" is ridiculous. There is anold Chinese saying, "How can you catch tiger cubs without entering the tiger'slair?" This saying holds true for man's practice and it also holds true forthe theory of knowledge. There can be no knowledge apart from practice.To make clear the dialectical-materialist movement of cognition arising onthe basis of the practice which changes reality--to make clear the graduallydeepening movement of cognition--a few additional concrete examples are givenbelow.In its knowledge of capitalist society, the proletariat was only in theperceptual stage of cognition in the first period of its practice, the periodof machine-smashing and spontaneous struggle; it knew only some of the aspectsand the external relations of the phenomena of capitalism. The proletariatwas then still a "class-in-itself". But when it reached the second periodof its practice, the period of conscious and organized economic and politicalstruggles, the proletariat was able to comprehend the essence of capitalistsociety, the relations of exploitation between social classes and its ownhistorical task; and it was able to do so because of its own practice andbecause of its experience of prolonged struggle, which Marx and Engelsscientifically summed up in all its variety to create the theory of Marxismfor the education of the proletariat. It was then that the proletariat becamea "class-for-itself".Similarly with the Chinese people's knowledge of imperialism. The first stagewas one of superficial, perceptual knowledge, as shown in the indiscriminateanti-foreign struggles of the Movement of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, theYi Ho Tuan Movement, and so on. It was only in the second stage that theChinese people reached the stage of rational knowledge, saw the internaland external contradictions of imperialism and saw the essential truth thatimperialism had allied itself with China's comprador and feudal classes tooppress and exploit the great masses of the Chinese people. This knowledgebegan about the time of the May 4th Movement of 1919.Next, let us consider war. If those who lead a war lack experience of war,then at the initial stage they will not understand the profound laws pertainingto the directing of a specific war (such as our Agrarian Revolutionary Warof the past decade). At the initial stage they will merely experience a gooddeal of fighting and, what is more, suffer many defeats. But this experience(the experience of battles won and especially of battles lost) enables themto comprehend the inner thread of the whole war, namely, the laws of thatspecific war, to understand its strategy and tactics, and consequently todirect the war with confidence. If, at such a moment, the command is turnedover to an inexperienced person, then he too will have to suffer a numberof defeats (gain experience) before he can comprehend the true laws of thewar."I am not sure I can handle it." We often hear this remark when a comradehesitates to accept an assignment. Why is he unsure of himself? Because hehas no systematic understanding of the content and circumstances of theassignment, or because he has had little or no contact with such work, andso the laws governing it are beyond him. After a detailed analysis of thenature and circumstances of the assignment, he will feel more sure of himselfand do it willingly. If he spends some time at the job and gains experienceand if he is a person who is willing to look into matters with an open mindand not one who approaches problems subjectively, one-sidedly and superficially,then he can draw conclusions for himself as to how to go about the job anddo it with much more courage. Only those who are subjective, one-sided andsuperficial in their approach to problems will smugly issue orders or directivesthe moment they arrive on the scene, without considering the circumstances,without viewing things in their totality (their history and their presentstate as a whole) and without getting to the essence of things (their natureand the internal relations between one thing and another). Such people arebound to trip and fall.Thus it can be seen that the first step in the process of cognition is contactwith the objects of the external world; this belongs to the stage of perception.The second step is to synthesize the data of perception by arranging andreconstructing them; this belongs to the stage of conception, judgement andinference. It is only when the data of perception are very rich (not fragmentary)and correspond to reality (are not illusory) that they can be the basis forforming correct concepts and theories.Here two important points must be emphasized. The first, which has been statedbefore but should be repeated here, is the dependence of rational knowledgeupon perceptual knowledge. Anyone who thinks that rational knowledge neednot be derived from perceptual knowledge is an idealist. In the history ofphilosophy there is the "rationalist" school that admits the reality onlyof reason and not of experience, believing that reason alone is reliablewhile perceptual experience is not; this school errs by turning things upsidedown. The rational is reliable precisely because it has its source in senseperceptions, other wise it would be like water without a source, a tree withoutroots, subjective, self-engendered and unreliable. As to the sequence inthe process of cognition, perceptual experience comes first; we stress thesignificance of social practice in the process of cognition precisely becausesocial practice alone can give rise to human knowledge and it alone can startman on the acquisition of perceptual experience from the objective world.For a person who shuts his eyes, stops his ears and totally cuts himselfoff from the objective world there can be no such thing as knowledge. Knowledgebegins with experience--this is the materialism of the theory of knowledge.The second point is that knowledge needs to be deepened, that the perceptualstage of knowledge needs to be developed to the rational stage--this is thedialectics of the theory of knowledge. [5] To think thatknowledge can stop at the lower, perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledgealone is reliable while rational knowledge is not, would be to repeat thehistorical error of "empiricism". This theory errs in failing to understandthat, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objectiveworld (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experienceto so-called introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial,reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully toreflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherentlaws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct therich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential,eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one tothe other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system ofconcepts and theories--it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual torational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or moreunreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructedin the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objectivereality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this,vulgar "practical men" respect experience but despise theory, and thereforecannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack cleardirection and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasionalsuccesses and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution,they will lead it up a blind alley.Rational knowledge depends upon perceptual knowledge and perceptual knowledgeremains to be developed into rational knowledge-- this is thedialectical-materialist theory of knowledge. In philosophy, neither "rationalism"nor "empiricism" understands the historical or the dialectical nature ofknowledge, and although each of these schools contains one aspect of thetruth (here I am referring to materialist, not to idealist, rationalism andempiricism), both are wrong on the theory of knowledge as a whole. Thedialectical-materialist movement of knowledge from the perceptual to therational holds true for a minor process of cognition (for instance, knowinga single thing or task) as well as for a major process of cognition (forinstance, knowing a whole society or a revolution).But the movement of knowledge does not end here. If the dialectical-materialistmovement of knowledge were to stop at rational knowledge, only half the problemwould be dealt with. And as far as Marxist philosophy is concerned, onlythe less important half at that. Marxist philosophy holds that the most importantproblem does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world andthus being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these lawsactively to change the world. From the Marxist viewpoint, theory is important,and its importance is fully expressed in Lenin's statement, "Withoutrevolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement."[6] But Marxism emphasizes the importance of theory preciselyand only because it can guide action. If we have a correct theory but merelyprate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then thattheory, however good, is of no significance. Knowledge begins with practice,and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then returnto practice. The active function of knowledge manifests itself not only inthe active leap from perceptual to rational knowledge, but--and this is moreimportant--it must manifest itself in the leap from rational knowledge torevolutionary practice. The knowledge which grasps the laws of the world,must be redirected to the practice of changing the world, must be appliedanew in the practice of production, in the practice of revolutionary classstruggle and revolutionary national struggle and in the practice of scientificexperiment. This is the process of testing and developing theory, thecontinuation of the whole process of cognition. The problem of whether theorycorresponds to objective reality is not, and cannot be, completely solvedin the movement of knowledge from the perceptual to the rational, mentionedabove. The only way to solve this problem completely is to redirect rationalknowledge to social practice, apply theory to practice and see whether itcan achieve the objectives one has in mind. Many theories of natural scienceare held to be true not only because they were so considered when naturalscientists originated them, but because they have been verified in subsequentscientific practice. Similarly, Marxism-Leninism is held to be true not onlybecause it was so considered when it was scientifically formulated by Marx,Engels, Lenin and Stalin but because it has been verified in the subsequentpractice of revolutionary class struggle and revolutionary national struggle.Dialectical materialism is universally true because it is impossible foranyone to escape from its domain in his practice. The history of human knowledgetells us that the truth of many theories is incomplete and that thisincompleteness is remedied through the test of practice. Many theories areerroneous and it is through the test of practice that their errors are corrected.That is why practice is the criterion of truth and why "the standpoint oflife, of practice, should be first and fundamental in the theory of knowledge".[7] Stalin has well said, "Theory becomes purposelessif it is not connected with revolutionary practice, just as practice gropesin the dark if its path is not illumined by revolutionary theory."[8]When we get to this point, is the movement of knowledge completed? Our answeris: it is and yet it is not. When men in society throw themselves into thepractice of changing a certain objective process (whether natural or social)at a certain stage of its development, they can, as a result of the reflectionof the objective process in their brains and the exercise of their subjectiveactivity, advance their knowledge from the perceptual to the rational, andcreate ideas, theories, plans or programmes which correspond in general tothe laws of that objective process. They then apply these ideas, theories,plans or programmes in practice in the same objective process. Andif they can realize the aims they have in mind, that is, if in that sameprocess of practice they can translate, or on the whole translate, thosepreviously formulated ideas, theories, plans or programmes into fact, thenthe movement of knowledge may be considered completed with regard to thisparticular process. In the process of changing nature, take for example thefulfilment of an engineering plan, the verification of a scientific hypothesis,the manufacture of an implement or the reaping of a crop; or in the processof changing society, take for example the victory of a strike, victory ina war or the fulfilment of an educational plan. All these may be consideredthe realization of aims one has in mind. But generally speaking, whetherin the practice of changing nature or of changing society, men's originalideas, theories, plans or programmes are seldom realized without any alteration.This is because people engaged in changing reality are usually subject tonumerous limitations; they are limited not only by existing scientific andtechnological conditions but also by the development of the objective processitself and the degree to which this process has become manifest (the aspectsand the essence of the objective process have not yet been fully revealed).In such a situation, ideas, theories, plans or programmes are usually alteredpartially and sometimes even wholly, because of the discovery of unforeseencircumstances in the course of practice. That is to say, it does happen thatthe original ideas, theories, plans or programmes fail to correspond withreality either in whole or in part and are wholly or partially incorrect.In many instances, failures have to be repeated many times before errorsIn knowledge can be corrected and correspondence with the laws of the objectiveprocess achieved, and consequently before the subjective can be transformedinto the objective, or in other words, before the anticipated results canbe achieved in practice. But when that point is reached, no matter how, themovement of human knowledge regarding a certain objective process at a certainstage of its development may be considered completed.However, so far as the progression of the process is concerned, the movementof human knowledge is not completed. Every process, whether in the realmof nature or of society, progresses and develops by reason of its internalcontradiction and struggle, and the movement of human knowledge should alsoprogress and develop along with it. As far as social movements are concerned,true revolutionary leaders must not only be good at correcting their ideas,theories, plans or programmes when errors are discovered, as has been indicatedabove; but when a certain objective process has already progressed and changedfrom one stage of development to another, they must also be good at makingthemselves and all their fellow-revolutionaries progress and change in theirsubjective knowledge along with it, that IS to say, they must ensure thatthe proposed new revolutionary tasks and new working programmes correspondto the new changes in the situation. In a revolutionary period the situationchanges very rapidly; if the knowledge of revolutionaries does not changerapidly in accordance with the changed situation, they will be unable tolead the revolution to victory.It often happens, however, that thinking lags behind reality; this is becauseman's cognition is limited by numerous social conditions. We are opposedto die-herds in the revolutionary ranks whose thinking fails to advance withchanging objective circumstances and has manifested itself historically asRight opportunism. These people fail to see that the struggle of oppositeshas already pushed the objective process forward while their knowledge hasstopped at the old stage. This is characteristic of the thinking of alldie-herds. Their thinking is divorced from social practice, and they cannotmarch ahead to guide the chariot of society; they simply trail behind, grumblingthat it goes too fast and trying to drag it back or turn it in the oppositedirection.We are also opposed to "Left" phrase-mongering. The thinking of "Leftists"outstrips a given stage of development of the objective process; some regardtheir fantasies as truth, while others strain to realize in the present anideal which can only be realized in the future. They alienate themselvesfrom the current practice of the majority of the people and from the realitiesof the day, and show themselves adventurist in their actions.Idealism and mechanical materialism, opportunism and adventurism, are allcharacterized by the breach between the subjective and the objective, bythe separation of knowledge from practice. The Marxist-Leninist theory ofknowledge, characterized as it is by scientific social practice, cannot butresolutely oppose these wrong ideologies. Marxists recognize that in theabsolute and general process of development of the universe, the developmentof each particular process is relative, and that hence, in the endless flowof absolute truth, man's knowledge of a particular process at any given stageof development is only relative truth. The sum total of innumerable relativetruths constitutes absolute truth. [9] The developmentof an objective process is full of contradictions and struggles, and so isthe development of the movement of human knowledge. All the dialectical movementsof the objective world can sooner or later be reflected in human knowledge.In social practice, the process of coming into being, developing and passingaway is infinite, and so is the process of coming into being, developingand passing away in human knowledge. As man's practice which changes objectivereality in accordance with given ideas, theories, plans or programmes, advancesfurther and further, his knowledge of objective reality likewise becomesdeeper and deeper. The movement of change in the world of objective realityis never-ending and so is man's cognition of truth through practice.Marxism-Leninism has in no way exhausted truth but ceaselessly opens up roadsto the knowledge of truth in the course of practice. Our conclusion is theconcrete, historical unity of the subjective and the objective, of theoryand practice, of knowing ant doing, and we are opposed to all erroneousideologies, whether "Left" or Right, which depart from concrete history.In the present epoch of the development of society, the responsibility ofcorrectly knowing and changing the world has been placed by history uponthe shoulders of the proletariat and its party. This process, the practiceof changing the world, which is determined in accordance with scientificknowledge, has already reached a historic moment in the world and in China,a great moment unprecedented in human history, that is, the moment for completelybanishing darkness from the world and from China and for changing the worldinto a world of light such as never previously existed. The struggle of theproletariat and the revolutionary people to change the world comprises thefulfilment of the following tasks: to change the objective world and, atthe same time, their own subjective world--to change their cognitive abilityand change the relations between the subjective and the objective world.Such a change has already come about in one part of the globe, in the SovietUnion. There the people are pushing forward this process of change. The peopleof China and the rest of the world either are going through, or will go through,such a process. And the objective world which is to be changed also includesall the opponents of change, who, in order to be changed, must go througha stage of compulsion before they can enter the stage of voluntary, consciouschange. The epoch of world communism will be reached when all mankind voluntarilyand consciously changes itself and the world.Discover the truth through practice, and again through practice verify anddevelop the truth. Start from perceptual knowledge and actively develop itinto rational knowledge; then start from rational knowledge and activelyguide revolutionary practice to change both the subjective and the objectiveworld. Practice, knowledge, again practice, and again knowledge. This formrepeats itself in endless cycles, and with each cycle the content of practiceand knowledge rises to a higher level. Such is the whole of thedialectical-materialist theory of knowledge, and such is thedialectical-materialist theory of the unity of knowing and doing.NOTES1. V. I. Lenin, "Conspectus of Hegel's The Science ofLogic". Collected Works, Russ. ed., Moscow, 1958, Vol. XXXVIII,p. 205. 781b155fdc