I've been reading marxist theory, but the ways contraddictions are discussed leaves me pause. Hope some people here can help me understand better.

Sussinctly, for what is relevant to my doubts, here is my current understanding of it:

Contraddictions are what all motion (as in change) in the universe is predicated upon.

Contradictions are relationships wherein tendencies of motion

1) oppose one another

2) are premises of the existence of one another.

Contraddictions exist within all things and between all things.

Why does it have to be a contraddiction that drives motion? What is so illogical about a relationship where there is a singular tendency of motion? I can think of cases that fit that description, for example, two identical charged particles interacting, there will be quantitative changes in speed and relative position as they repel each other, yet what is the contraddiction?

Mao in "on contraddiction" and Lenin in "on the question of dialectics" agree that the contradiction in such cases is between action and reaction. This answer is unsatisfactory, while it's true that it fits part 2) of the definition, and while it's true that the force vectors point in opposite direction, action and reaction are applied to two different object, they are not opposing tendencies of motion in the dialectical sense, failing the arguably more fundimental part 1) of the definition.

Also, Engels argues that all changes of positions are caused by the contraddiction of something being in that place and not in another place. This line of argument seems to be unfalsifiable: if we observe something change from A to B, we can always attribute that change to the contraddiction that A was A and not B. A more straightforward explanation is that there is a singular tendency for position to change based on velocity.

Is there something i'm missing in these examples? Is my understanding of what contraddictions are incorrect?

I think talk of nations as the agents of international power activity is a dark hangover at this point from the 20th century World Wars, where business was tethered more concretely to nation-states' through the war efforts mass mobilization (through drafting too) that led business to take more concrete sides and choose homelands. During the world war it made sense to say "the USA" landed in Europe because the masses and business based in the US were coordinated in the war effort.

But it makes sense to switch to talking of the agents of power as international corporations (e.g Black Rock) the way we used to -- and mistakenly still do -- talk of nation-states, though, after the cold war, which also would have been more accurately described not as the USA vs. the USSR, but as the Rockefellers', Carnegies, and Morgans etc. vs the USSR, using the American state for it's ends.

I think communists really should consider moving away from talking of nation-states as the agents of power, as it also ineluctably sounds like an indictment of the masses who compose it.

​

No communist is running In America

Its fund conce traction camps and ice wars, Israel- rep

Or fund social programs like education, affordable collge, affordable food and housing.

Trump is seizing businesses and countries

Maybe be concerned about all thr Nazis