I am just going to admit this: I found this old post when I was looking for something else I had written and immediately thought of Karl. From there, I simply couldn’t resist poking the bear. I hope the Boss will leave this at the top of the page long enough to catch said bears attention 😉
People have a nearly infinite ability to fool themselves into believing they are smarter than they are. This is especially true of those among us who have a weak or even no moral compass. These people, though often well meaning, are a threat to society. Marx, and all of those who follow any of the many ideologies which spawned from his work, was such a person.
But first, before I show how and why Marx’s philosophy is fatally flawed, let’s establish a few common understandings. First, intelligence does not mean the same thing as understanding. How many smart people among us learned to memorize mathematical formulas while in school, formulas we used to pass our tests, but could not derive those formulas if they were asked? Can you derive the Pythagorean Theorem? How about the formula for determining the diameter of a circle? Most people can’t do this, but most of us can work the problems if we are provided with the equation and the numbers. Well, this is intelligence without understanding. Then, after understanding comes wisdom. Wisdom is the understanding of how we should use our intelligence: the understanding to making the right choice between “is vs. ought.” In other words, wisdom requires a solid moral compass.
The next thing we need to understand is that having compassion and empathy are not the same thing as having a moral compass. Just because you feel concern for your fellow man, it does not mean you have the understanding – the wisdom – necessary to know the best way to help your fellow man. Too often, those who think they are helping are actually doing greater harm.
Now, having established these common understandings, let’s look at some of the basic principles of Marx’s ideology – and examine why they are fatally flawed.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF MARXISM
We need to start by understanding that Marx didn’t develop anything new: he just blended the work of two other men. He took the principles of Feuerbach’s atheistic materialism and blended them with his mentor’s, Hegel’s, theory of dialectic. So, in short, Marx’s principle of dialectic materialism teaches:
All people and things in the universe and the universe itself are simply matter in motion. As matter moves, opposites attract. When opposites come together, conflict results and from the conflict comes change. (None Dare Call it Treason, p54)
Marx then argues that change is “inevitable,” and defines that change as ‘progress.’
The next thing we should understand is that Marx considered himself a scientist, and asserted that his work represented ‘scientific theories’ which explained the entire history of man and determined his future. In other words, Marx thought his ‘theories’ predicted a single, inevitable outcome. However, he also believed his theories could be used to transform man’s nature, and thus consciously directing his future. This is why George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Socialist movement, American Progressive movement and of Lenin/applied Communism, called Marx’s ideology “Scientific Socialism.” As self-proclaimed ‘scientists,’ communists have ‘scientific laws’ that underlie their beliefs and teaching. They include:
“There is no God. When Communists deny God, they simultaneously deny every virtue and every value which originates with God. There are no moral absolutes, no right and wrong. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are invalid.” (Report, The Communist Mind, House Committee on Unamerican Activities, May 10, 1960, p. 1726)
This conclusion is fully supported by Lenin, himself:
“We do not believe in eternal morality – our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle.” (Lenin, Selected Works, vol IX, p.475-8)
In short, Marxists believe that the ends justify the means (we will return to this shortly).
The next “law” states:
“Man is simply matter in motion. As such, he is without soul, spirit, or free will and is not responsible for his own actions.” (Report, The Communist Mind, House Committee on Unamerican Activities, May 2, 1957)
And the third law, the law meant to describe the means for transforming man, states:
“Man is an economically determined animal. Qualities of human intelligence, personality, emotional and religious life merely reflect man’s economic environment. The evil a man does is just a reflection of his environment.” (Report, The Communist Mind, House Committee on Unamerican Activities, May 2, 1957)
Lenin confirmed the Marxist refusal to acknowledge any restraint or decency in pursuing their goals. From his book, What is to be Done, 1902:
“Conspiracy is so essential a condition of an organization of this kind [communism] that all other conditions…must be made to conform with it.”
“…to agree to any and every sacrifice, and even – if need be – to resort to all sorts of devices, maneuvers, and illegal methods, to evasion and subterfuge, in order to penetrate the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on Communist work in them at all costs.” (Left Wing-Communism, and Infantile Disorder, p.38)
This mentality – a logical extension of Marx’s ideological teachings – is why the Communist views the Capitalist as little more than infected cattle that must be destroyed to preserve the herd. It accounts for why Communism has killed more than 100 million people – the very people it claims to be fighting for – since it was conceived and advanced as the solution to the oppression of man.
THE FATAL FLAWS OF MARXISM
The best, simplest way to refute Marx’s dialectic materialism is to point out that is it an absurdity because it is internally, structurally self-contradictory. First, and in the most basic terms, Marx was wrong in his assumption that the universe consists only of matter. By making this assertion, he omits other aspects of the universe such as energy, and the forces which act on matter and energy such as gravity. In fact, given that recent advances in physics suggest that matter could be described in terms of energy and the storage of potential energy, it may have been more accurate had Marx said the universe consists only of energy and various forms of energy. But either way, science has proven his most basic assumption is factually and demonstrably false. In logical terms, this is sufficient to destroy the bulk of Marx’s work, but it gets better.
If we accept that Marx was correct, and all things are made of matter and that man is purely a function of this matter and responds to the conflicts resulting from this matter, then how can he possibly argue that man can use his “scientific principles” to consciously direct the evolution of his own nature and the destiny of society? This would be an admission that man does have free will, and that he can act outside the confines of this supposed reaction to the environment. In fact, this would be – and is – an admission that there is some aspect of man that exists and acts outside of the universe and the universal laws of physics. In short, it is an admission that what Marx and all atheists call “the supernatural” actually exists. But it gets even better.
Modern science has found that there does appear to be some aspect of man that exists outside of our physical bodies and is essential to thought and decisions making. From a little known book I own:
Roger Penfield, a renowned father of modern neurosurgery, originally believed the mind was a natural part of the brain, and they functioned as one. However, after performing brain surgery on more than one thousand epilepsy patients, Penfield was eventually forced to conclude that the mind and the brain are actually separate things that interact with each other. One of the experiments he repeatedly performed was to artificially stimulate a conscious patient’s brain to cause parts of their body to move, to turn their head, to blink, to swallow and even talk. But when Penfield did this to his patients, they would repeatedly tell him that they hadn’t done any of these things; Penfield had. This indicated that we think of ourselves as being independent of our bodies. If we were simple machines, we shouldn’t be able to distinguish the source of an impulse. Furthermore, when Penfield told the patients to stop their arm from rising as he artificially stimulated it to rise, they would take their other arm and try to pull it down. And most important to our current discussion, Penfield was never able to make a patient believe something or make a decision about anything by artificially stimulating their brain. This indicates that belief and decision are independent of the brain, and thus, our physical bodies. As a result of his work, Penfield eventually concluded the mind exists in a non-physical reality independently from but interacting with the brain. In short, Penfield agreed with the Bible’s assertion that human beings are both body and spirit. This would imply that our consciousness is contained in our soul or spirit. What’s more, subsequent experimentation has confirmed his finding that the brain doesn’t appear to control belief or decision.
There have been other scientific observations that have suggested our identity is something more than a function of the matter that makes up our body. In “The Case for a Creator,” Lee Strobel interviews J. P. Moreland, a philosopher with a PhD. from the University of Southern California. Dr. Moreland recites the case of one of his student’s sisters who suffered a physical injury that led to a loss of memory and some changes in her personality. The point of the story is that the sister was never thought of as being a different person after this accident. Even when she had lost memory and developed a new personality, the sister was still thought of as the same person. However, if our identity were nothing more than the collection of our memories and personalities, then we would become different people with different identities should our memories and personalities ever change. It would also mean that we are not the same people now as we were ten years ago. Yet, none of us react this way toward our older self, or to people who have been injured and suffered memory loss and/or personality changes. We still think of these people as being the same person, just as we still think of our younger self as still being us. In the case of Moreland’s student’s sister, she was married before the accident, got divorced after it but, eventually, remarried her old husband. This strengthens the implication that the essence of who we are as individuals is separate from the matter that makes up our bodies.
There are additional cases where people have lost parts of their brains, yet we still consider them to be the same person. In one case, a woman lost some 47% of her brain, yet she was still able to function. She was not considered to be 53% of who she used to be, nor was she considered to be a different person after she lost part of her brain. This would seem to indicate that our identity is not a function of our brain. Rather, it suggests that who we are – our soul – manifests itself through an interaction with our brain, which then controls our bodies and the way we interact with the world around us. This would mean that, even if we suffer brain damage, we are still the same person and have the same mind, but we can’t interact with the world as well as before because parts of the brain necessary to control our bodies have been damaged or removed. It might help to think of who we are as our spirit and the brain as the conduit our spirit uses to interact with the physical universe. Scientific observation and the results of repeated testing strongly indicate that this is actually the case.
Finally, there are observations such as those found in a year-long study by British researchers and published in Resuscitation magazine. In this study, physician Sam Parnia and neuropsychiatrist Peter Fenwick studied the near-death experiences of sixty-three heart attack patients who had been declared clinically dead. Roughly ten percent of these patients reported having clear and rational thought and even memories during the time they were clinically dead. The effects of oxygen deprivation and drugs were accounted for and ruled out by the researchers in each of these cases, and the accuracy of their memories confirmed by the medical personnel who were treating them at the time. Among the results of this study, the formerly skeptical Dr. Parnia changed his mind and now asserts that, though more research is needed, science has discovered that the mind or consciousness does appear to exist independent of the physical body.
These and other recent discoveries have led well known and respected men to conclude that there does – in fact – appear to be an aspect of what it means to be human that cannot be accounted for by the pure materialism of Marx’s dialectic:
“I am constrained to believe that there is what we might call a supernatural origin of my unique self-conscious mind or my unique selfhood or soul.”
–John C. Eccles, (neurophysiologist and Nobel lariat.)
“For me now, the only reality is the human soul.”
–Sir Charles Sherrington, (Nobel Prize winner and founder of the modern understanding of the human brain and spinal cord.)
If you are interested in a more thorough refutation, you can read The Absurdity of Karl Marx’s Dialectic.
In short, Marx was wrong! His assertions were clearly absurd, which made him irrational. And those who persist in clinging to ideas based upon what has been demonstrated to be incorrect assumptions are as irrational as he was. But, rather than examine this failed ideology, these same people would rather defend it – even though it demands their eventual death. How much more evidence do you need to accept my assertion that Marxism and its advocates are irrational?