maodun-fenxi

R — Original Text (Reading)

"In studying any process, if it is a complex process in which more than two contradictions exist, we must devote all our efforts to finding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved. The countless scholars and practitioners who do not understand this method end up as if lost in a sea of smoke, unable to find the center, and therefore unable to find the method for resolving the contradictions." — "On Contradiction" (August 1937)

I — Methodological Skeleton (Interpretation)

Any complex situation is woven from multiple contradictions (problems/tensions); there is no such thing as a single problem.
These contradictions are unequal—one of them is the "principal contradiction," which determines or influences the state of development of all the other contradictions.
The method for finding the principal contradiction: first systematically list all contradictions, analyze their nature and mutual relations one by one, and then determine which one is the bottleneck constraining everything.
The principal contradiction transforms with stages: the principal contradiction in the PMF stage (product value) and the principal contradiction in the scaling stage (organizational efficiency) are different, requiring dynamic reassessment.
After grasping the principal contradiction, the space for resolving other contradictions automatically opens up ("readily solved"); this is system dynamics rather than simple priority ranking.
Within the same contradiction there are also principal and secondary aspects—not only must the principal contradiction be found, but also the aspect that plays the leading role within that contradiction.

A1 — Application in the Book (Past Application)

Application 1: On Protracted War — Analysis of four pairs of contradictions reverses the "theory of national subjugation"

Problem: In the early period of the War of Resistance, two erroneous views prevailed—the "theory of national subjugation" (China is certain to perish) and the "theory of quick victory" (the war will end in three months)—making it impossible to form a correct strategy.
Use of the method: Mao Zedong systematically analyzed both China and Japan using four pairs of contradictions (strong/weak, large/small, progressive/retrogressive, many helpers/few helpers), determining that the strong/weak contradiction was the current principal contradiction, but that the progressive/retrogressive contradiction would over time transform into the dominant factor.
Conclusion: China would neither perish nor achieve a quick victory; it was bound to be a protracted war, and final victory would belong to China.
Result: On Protracted War became the most important strategic guiding document of the War of Resistance, and the course of the eight-year War of Resistance basically verified this prediction.

Application 2: On the Ten Major Relationships — Finding dynamic balance among ten pairs of contradictions

Problem: In 1956, China's economic construction copied the Soviet model, resulting in imbalances such as heavy industry being too heavy and agriculture and light industry being neglected.
Use of the method: Mao Zedong spent two months listening to reports from 34 departments and used contradiction analysis to distill ten pairs of relationships (heavy industry/light industry and agriculture, coastal areas/inland areas, economy/national defense, etc.), analyzing the principal aspect of each pair of contradictions and the conditions for its transformation.
Conclusion: "If one truly wants to develop heavy industry, one must develop light industry and agriculture more"—what appears to be a contradiction is in fact unified and requires dynamic balance.
Result: The Ten Major Relationships became an important guiding policy for China's economic construction, avoiding the extreme errors of the Soviet model.

A2 — Trigger Scenarios (Future Trigger)

Multiple concurrent problems, decision paralysis: The company simultaneously faces product problems, declining sales, accumulating technical debt, and team turmoil, and does not know which to solve first. Users will say: "There are too many problems, I don't know where to start" "Every one of them is important."
Endless debate, unclear direction: The team is divided on strategic direction—some say go ToB, some say go ToC, some say focus on retention first, some say focus on customer acquisition first. Users will say: "Everyone has a point, but opinions are not unified."
Stage transition, strategy failure: Methods that previously worked suddenly stop working, and the growth curve flattens. Users will say: "This used to work, but now it doesn't" "We seem to have hit a bottleneck period."
Limited resources, trade-offs required: Budget/manpower are insufficient to do everything, and one must judge what should be done and what should be cut. Users will say: "We want to do everything but end up doing nothing well" "Resources are never enough."
Surface prosperity, hidden dangers lurking: The data looks okay, but the founder's intuition says something is wrong, and deep problems need to be identified. Users will say: "The surface data is still okay, but something always feels off."

Language signals: When users mention words such as "priority" "most critical" "bottleneck" "choke point" "lever" "breakthrough point" "everything is important", this skill should be activated first.

Distinguish from adjacent skills：

vs Concentrating Superior Forces: this skill = diagnosis (finding the principal contradiction), the latter = treatment (concentrating resources to solve it)
vs the Principle of the Particularity of Contradiction: this skill = "which contradiction is most important", the latter = "what is the nature of each contradiction, and what method should be used"
vs the Seeking Truth from Facts Information Processing Method: this skill = a framework for finding bottlenecks, the latter = a method for processing raw information

E — Executable Steps (Execution)

Step 1: List the contradictions

List all visible contradictions/problems/tensions in the current situation, no fewer than 5, without rushing to rank them.
Completion standard: Each contradiction is expressed as "the tension between A and B" (e.g., "the contradiction between product experience and delivery speed"), and covers different dimensions (product/market/organization/finance).

Step 2: Determine the principal contradiction

For each contradiction, ask: If this problem were solved, would the other problems also improve significantly? If this problem worsened, would the other problems also worsen?
Through causal chain analysis, find the bottleneck contradiction that "pulls one hair and the whole body moves."
Stopping point: If no obvious principal contradiction can be found, it may be due to insufficient information—return to Step 1 to supplement data, or split an overly large contradiction into more specific sub-contradictions.

Step 3: Verify and track transformation

Verification: Use a counterfactual test—"If we ignored this principal contradiction and solved other contradictions first, what would happen?" If the answer is that they cannot truly be solved, then the judgment is correct.
Mark the principal contradiction of the current stage, and set periodic review nodes (quarterly or after each major change) to check whether the principal contradiction has transformed.
Completion standard: Produce a one-sentence conclusion: "The principal contradiction at the current stage is ___, and solving it will readily resolve problems such as ___. This contradiction is expected to transform under the condition of ___."

B — Boundary

Scenarios not to use

When the problem is already clear and singular: Do not over-analyze; execute directly. If the team already knows what to do, using contradiction analysis is a waste of time.
Moments of urgent crisis: When there is a fire, put out the fire first; do not analyze the system of contradictions behind the fire. After the crisis is handled, use this framework for review.
Purely execution-level problems: If the problem does not involve direction judgment and resource allocation (such as how to fix a certain bug), this framework is too heavy.

Failure modes (from counterexamples)

Dogmatism trap (ce01): Treating contradiction analysis as a formula to apply mechanically—mechanically listing contradictions and attaching labels, without deeply analyzing the particularity of each contradiction. The correct approach is that analysis must be followed by independent judgment.
Military egalitarianism (ce04): After listing the contradictions, still saying "every one is important," not daring to judge the principal contradiction; in essence, this is the "striking with two fists" mentality that fears giving anything up.
Formalist thinking (ce15): Classifying contradictions in a black-and-white way, refusing to acknowledge the complexity and many-sidedness of contradictions.

Author's blind spots

In his later years, Mao Zedong trusted too much in his own judgment of the "principal contradiction" and ignored others' differing analyses. Lesson: the judgment of the principal contradiction requires verification from multiple parties and cannot be decided arbitrarily by a single authority.

Related skills

Practical epistemology (depends-on): The cognitive foundation of contradiction analysis comes from practical epistemology—only through the cycle of practice-cognition can the principal contradiction be correctly identified and judged. First understand that "cognition comes from practice," then use contradiction analysis to make judgments.
Concentrate superior forces for annihilation warfare (composes-with): Contradiction analysis is a diagnostic tool (finding the principal contradiction), and concentrating superior forces is a treatment tool (concentrating resources to resolve the principal contradiction). The two form a complete chain of "diagnosis -> treatment."
Principle of the particularity of contradictions (composes-with): Contradiction analysis resolves "which contradiction is most important," while the principle of the particularity of contradictions resolves "what is the nature of each contradiction and what method should be used." The two are used together: first find the principal contradiction, then use the particularity principle to analyze its unique nature.
Three-stage protracted war model (composes-with): The three-stage protracted war model is a concrete application of contradiction analysis in the "weak versus strong" scenario—using the transformation of four pairs of contradictions to derive the three-stage strategy.