Claim. Historical development occurs through harmonious give-and-receive action between subject and object, never through struggle — so Marxism’s claim that history develops through the struggle of opposites is factually false.
Elaboration. Lee elaborates the law of give-and-receive (B. Law of Give and Receive Action) as the explicit anti-thesis to Marx’s dialectical materialism. When correlative subject and object share a common purpose and perform harmonious give-and-receive, development happens in every field — nations prosper when government/people share national-prosperity purpose; enterprises prosper when investors, managers, workers, engineers, and machinery have mutual subject-object give-and-receive.
The key empirical claim: ‘Give and receive action is harmonious, and is never oppositional or conflictive.’ Lee concedes that ‘struggles may become an impetus for development’ — they can shake old structures loose — but insists ‘while the struggle is going on, development will come to a standstill or may even retrogress.’ The materialist claim that struggle is the developmental mechanism is ‘quite erroneous; it proved to be a false theory concocted solely for the purpose of justifying class struggle.’
Lee combines this law with correlativity into a broader ‘law of give and receive action’ — they are ‘two sides of a coin.’ Correlativity establishes the structure; give-and-receive establishes the dynamics.
The argument is empirical-historical: actual cases of development (a prosperous enterprise, a thriving nation) display cooperation among differentiated roles, not class warfare. Marxist counter-examples (the Industrial Revolution arose through class conflict, capitalist development depends on extracted surplus value) are not engaged here; Lee asserts rather than argues.
The claim is foundational for UT’s vision of an ideal world: a world peace order is achievable because harmony, not antagonism, is the natural law of development. Critics from labor-theory traditions engage on whether ‘common purpose’ between manager and worker is empirically real or ideological mystification of an actually antagonistic relation. UT presupposes the former; Marxism the latter. Worth a thread on whether UT can accommodate any productive role for conflict (e.g., reformation, revolution against tyranny) given its strong harmony commitment.
See also. development-through-harmony-not-contradiction, history-is-good-vs-evil-not-class-struggle, ut-correlatives-vs-opposites