I've been learning about 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?

Seeking aN EASY transition from Hegel to Marx for a stupid person who understands Hegel's Phenomenology of Geist.

The stupid person is me.

I just finished a thesis using Hegel and I got through his phenomenology using an LLM to guide me through each page of The Routledge Guidebook To Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

Yes, the GUIDEBOOK was too complex for me.

My brain is totally fried and mush especially from the thesis. I want something that will be easy enough and engaging enough that I will not find it too difficult to understand and most importantly will actually finish.

I don't want to use an LLM this time I want something digestible.

I don't think I would have finished Hegel's Phenomenology if my degree wasn't resting on it. Now that it's not, I need to go EASY MODE on myself.

However the CATCH, DEAR READER, THAT MAKES THIS A FUN CHALLENGE, is that I do indeed understand Hegel a fair amount (though only his Phenomenology of Geist)

I think this drive and love for Hegel may give me the juice and motivation to finally try and understand Marxism and Leninism and beyond.

I currently have NO BACKGROUND IN MARX OR LENIN

Maybe this is too crazy an ask and I should just start with whatever the general easy way in is. I'd rather you not say The Communist Manifesto because I'd quite like one resource to guide me through Marxism and preferably to Leninism too.

Edit: please see my comment. Maybe a good approach to this would be 1. What are the easy intros to Marxism and Leninism 2. Which of these uses a dialectical, embodied approach perhaps with historical examples and evolution of ideas? Perhaps like Hegel's Phenomenology and perhaps like the recommended "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific".

I asked this elsewhere and never got a response, so I’m trying here.

The 1922 Rand Revolt was an extremist left wing-right wing revolution in South Africa which was typified by the slogan "Workers of the World, Unite and Fight for a White South Africa!"

To provide some context, I am a South African history buff who has been doing extensive research on the Rand Revolt as a part of my personal research project. Whenever I post about the Rand Revolt on Reddit, I will sometimes come across comments by redditors who say that Lenin and the International communist community outright opposed and even got mad at the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) over this "racist opportunism", but evidence of this is rarely if ever provided.

One of the Sources i have is from a 1922 writeup from Captain William Urquhart MC, who claims that:

\\\*Before the recent disturbances Communistic speakers warmly championed the rights of the natives. How then is one to explain the false attitude assumed by them in professing to favour “A White South Africa” An explanation will be found in the report of the proceedings of the Third International at Moscow in 1920 (Possibly the 2nd World Congress?). There a plan of campaign in the British colonies was discussed with the full knowledge that the Communistic ideal had not taken root in them. Lenin advocated the turning to account of the Nationalist movement, and so converting any Nationalist rising that might occur into one for the rule of the proletariat. South Africa was specifically mentioned in this discussion. It was pointed out by Trotzky that five men in a room could cause a revolution by exploiting discontent irrespective of its original cause. The Lenin-Trotzky plan was worked on the Witwatersrand.\\\*

Is there any truth to this? What was the reaction of Lenin and other notable communists to this revolt?

In Peirce's phenomenology of signs, he describes the primary as follows:

This mode of existence exists authentically within the being of the subject, as if it were unrelated to anything else. It can only be a possibility. Because as long as things do not interact with each other, any claim that these facts have any existence is meaningless; unless they themselves are existence, they cannot have any relationship with other things.

Here, I discovered this "quality itself"Just as Hegel criticized Kant's thing-in-itself as an utterly abstract and hollow concept that is suffocating, I strongly agree with Peirce that the vividness of sensation is fleeting. Once this vividness disappears, it falls into the categories of second and third nature. However, Peirce precisely presupposed a "quality itself" using symbolic language.

I have no prior knowledge of Pierce's primary theory here, so I don't understand why it is set up in such a way as to avoid the idealistic tint of base. At the same time, Marx criticized the impossibility of this perceptual intuition in his outline on Feuerbach. Actually, I am looking for a comparative study between the two.

That is to say, I urgently want to know whether Peirce's pragmatism and semiotics can be compared and critically reconstructed with Marxism. Here, I am not referring to Baudrillard, Zizek, or other philosophers who conduct phenomenological analysis from a semiotic perspective. I think that is boring, because it seems that no one has directly "attacked" Peirce's phenomenology of symbols.