Second, the partisan principles of philosophy and the contemporary controversy, lenin, for the first time, explicitly, comprehensively and systematically addressed the partisan principles of philosophy in the authoritative order. “it is impossible not to lose sight of the philosophical partisan struggle, which ultimately manifests the tendencies and ideological systems of the rival classes of modern society. The latest philosophy was as partisan as it was 2,000 years ago. Materialism and mindism are, in essence, two parties in struggle.” this is an overview of the philosophy-party principle, which implies philosophical partyism, party- and class-based relationships, and how to adhere to philosophical partyism. It was argued that the confrontation between mind-based and materialism was conditional, and that when philosophy evolved to the marxist stage, materialism and mind-basedism united, marxism itself went beyond materialism and mind-basedism, since marxism based its own philosophy on practice. For example, “the transcendental nature of a restatement of the idea of practice” says: “marxist philosophy can no longer be accommodated in a model of traditional materialism versus the mindist sects ... The secret of the birth of marxist philosophy, the essence of change, lies precisely in the transcendence of thought and materialism.” “grange's understanding of marx philosophy says: “grange neither recognizes materialism nor philosophies, but believes that it should go beyond these two theories to achieve a unity in human practice. ... This fundamental view of grange is the essence of his philosophy, which demonstrates his profound understanding of marx philosophy.” this limits the partisan nature of philosophy to a certain philosophies; portrays marxist philosophy as suprapartisan; and considers materialism and mindism as reconcilable. “is it objective to be a source of consciousness? If you answer yes, you are a materialist. If you answer no, you will not be complete, and you will inevitably fall into subjectivity and agnosticism”. The question of the source of knowledge is an “old question of perception”, “which has been discussed from the very beginning with philosophy”, “it is not old-fashioned”, and no matter what new terminology or terminology is created, can avoid the question of material and conscious first. There's always a name here, a concept that reflects the objective world. Or is it itself objective? Whether or not the objective world is recognized as the source of the concept is the key to the division of philosophical sects. Philosophy is different from other sciences, which either study only material phenomena or only conscious phenomena. Unlike philosophy, it conducts both material and awareness studies, both in relation to substance and consciousness. The relationship between substance and consciousness is the most fundamental of the world as a whole, encompassing all phenomena and their interrelationships, with the most universal meaning and the essence and commonality of things. Lenin described substances and consciousness as a broad-based concept and, therefore, in defining and determining the relationship between the two concepts of substance and consciousness, the absolute contrast between the two, i. E., determining who is the first, could not be replaced by another formula. The rivalry between heart and materialism cannot be overcome or reconciled. “... Ley was confused because he had given himself an unsolved task: to `conciliate' the confrontation between the materialist and mindist schools in the new physics.” in all the mahists' writings, the "overlord" of materialism and cynicism, and the foolish desire to transcend the `old' rivalry between them, as is the case with a red line. The essence of “reconciliation” or “overstepping” was the product of a capitalist attack on marxist philosophy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They seek, on the one hand, to distort the new results of the natural sciences and to deny material beyond their consciousness; on the other hand, to create new terms, terms that label their philosophy beyond materialism, the latest natural science philosophy, in order to deceive readers to replace marxist philosophy. This is the case with maherism, which was criticized by lenin, after which many bourgeois philosophical schools resorted to super-partyism, using the method of reconciling marxism and mind-basedism to spread cynicism, such as existential marxism, structuralist marxism, etc. Indeed, the latest natural sciences do not provide any evidence of supraparty philosophy. The maherists use electronic discovery to justify the disappearance of substances and the existence of sports. The fact is that, while the quality of electronics varies according to the circumstances of the movement, this change is still a change in material phenomena outside of me and is not diverted by the will of the people. This can only be evidence of a deeper understanding of the properties of the substance than of its disappearance. The development of quantum mechanics does not provide an argument for material disappearance. While philosophy must evolve as science develops, the absolute nature of material decision-making consciousness, materiality and ideological antagonism can only be constantly proven by scientific development and cannot be overturned. While the focus in lenin's "secretism " is on the emphasis on materialism, he also recognizes the objective intermediate route in philosophy. The advent of the middle course in modern philosophy is a large phenomenon, and can it be concluded that the middle wing is reconciling materialism with mindism? Can't. Because the centrist is a faction that is shaken between materialism and heartism, they “mechanically mix some of beclayism's fragmented rhetoric with the idea of natural science, which spontaneously stands in materialist perception”. The middle parties have made a compromise, but they have not reconciled the two, but have mixed two fundamentally different points of view in different proportions. “sometimes special emphasis has been placed on this factor of the mixture and sometimes on another factor。
