Since opposites contradicting form a whole, the two opposites exclude all else, making a whole the opposite of almost all. We see there a contradiction, because the two opposites seem to not be opposed at all, but rather than form a whole, instead form the beginning of a trajectory connecting to the first two seemingly contradictory points. The two contradictions form the whole, form almost all, form some of the whole, and so forth. Instead of two opposites, we have an array of points which all in fact form one whole. The unity of opposites is itself opposed to an array of differing points united into a single object. Are the theory of objects and the objects themselves really opposed or part of a single trajectory of an object from objective reality to present consciousness to past memory and so forth? The unity of opposites survives this contradiction, in that the trajectory is itself opposed to a cycle, which can be and must be reversed along the same line they progress along. So, if two opposites are opposed, neither one cancels out the importance of the other and both are saved.

As a practical application in a military context, a defeated army may save their nation by giving up the war on acceptable terms to their people. A soldier may follow the illegal orders of a commander knowing they are illegal because he is afraid to be called a rat and killed by the mafia. The mafia spies on witnesses for the prosecution and intimidates witnesses or worse. Soldiers refusing orders appear on lists for the mafia. All this leads to all those soldiers now following orders from us, the revolution, for witness protection from the revolution as part of our plan to form revolutionary tribunals in the military (as with every workplace, which are themselves filled with hidden violence) with soldier-elected (or worker-elected) judges. This frees them from mafia spies, prison, and war itself with only the cost to them of following our (written) orders instead of their commanders’. This only presupposes that they cannot convince their present commanders to follow our orders as well. They can stay in place and follow their commanders orders and follow ours as well. Eventually, we will replace them in the official positions if their internal class composition leads them to support the capitalist class above revolutionary commanders. In cases where our orders contradict their official commanders’ orders, our orders should involve lesser personal risk (and less risk of accidents for workers) to the soldiers than their commanders’ (or managers’). That really depends on the specific situation that each soldier or worker must suffer through. In normal situations, we assume the soldier is causing the suffering, but in fact that assumption leaves out a basic fact about human nature: that we would not hurt anyone if no one was hurting us. The soldier in fact suffers in the present from potential injuries due to the present intent to injure occupying the minds of the opposing army.

This goes to show the vital importance of philosophy, especially in the minds of armed men but in the minds of working men in general. It is the philosophy in those minds which determines how their weapons will be used or how their tools will be used.