The Absurdity of Marxism and Dialectic Materialism

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?

30 thoughts on “The Absurdity of Marxism and Dialectic Materialism

  1. B just articulated; my “amorphous” understanding that “collectivism” KILLS the human spirit. Spirit, that amorphous “light” or “spark” which is so unbelievably radiant and beautiful in persons.

      • B – you nailed it succinctly.

        Now the problems with a post like this (yes, I am being critical …but in a good way) is that it is such a solid case that it would require great effort to either expand upon it, or refute it. No one is going to discuss it for that very reason. LOL

        Good article. 🙂

  2. I was on the table, having a stent put in the ‘widowmaker’. As the stent was being placed, plaque squeezed out on the heart side, blocking the blood flow completely. I had been awake for the procedure, and I wondered why the doc asked me if I was still “with us”. ‘Yeah”, I replied, I did not realize that I was lying there for a time, completely gone, while they raced another stent up there to re-open the vessel. I saw no tunnel, didn’t see anything special, I just lost a minute or so of consciousness without realizing any time had passed.
    I/m not saying that NDE’s are bogus, just that my mind and whatever the ‘soul’ is must have shut down simultaneously. I wish that I had seen something, heard HIS voice, I want answers just as much as anybody.
    Brain are funny things, complex things, I wouldn’t say that we are far enough along science-wise, to answer the questions B raises here with any confidence.
    However, until we can reproduce a brain in the lab (a time still far down the line, IMHO), there is a place for the soul, whatever it is, in our lives, laws, and culture. Communism sucks, B’s post goes a long towards explaining why.

    • Ok, to whomever voted Melfamy’s post downward, can you say why? The post is not outlandish. We really do not know as much about the brain as we’d generally like to know.

    • For what it’s worth:

      The people who conducted this study said that only 10% of the NDE they studied were “unexplainable.” But in those 10% of the cases, the patients clearly recalled information they could have had NO WAY to know had they died in the sense that skeptics believe we die. This is what forced their conclusions.

      • I was being sort of wistful, Joe, It would have been nice to remember something! I don’t doubt other people’s experiences, and it would have definitely been a game changer had I had an NDE.

        • Melfamy,

          There is a catch to NDE’s. Very few people ever hear about the ones that are not “lightness and happiness.” Search NDE on YouTube. There are several that report waking up in what they describe as hell, and their experiences DID change their lives.

    • Mel,
      When I had my pacemaker/defib installed (mmfff tears ago) I was worried about the test procedure.(You know; stop the heart, then see if the device will restart it) So , I asked our pastor to pray for me. Well he came by the hospital to see me,but I was already in surgery, and he had to leave before I got out of recovery. When I recovered from anesthesia, my wife and I were talking about the pastor, and I mentioned what a nice prayer he gave. She asked me what about it, and I told her the part I thought was most helpful to me. She was amazed because when he gave the prayer , he and I were on different floors of the hospital.
      Do I believe? Youbetcha!

    • There is a Book called Old Souls…about children who remember being alive before. The interesting thing is that these experiences were / are word-wide….and many included “proof” the child couldn’t have known.

  3. “For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.” – Karl Marx

    To me, this underpins Marx’s goal for the destruction religion, thus leaving “The State” the only deity.

  4. Penfield’s experiments on patients who were heavily sedated and whose body was physically manipulated. Then asking the patient if they remember being physically manipulated. Is ridiculous. The patients were under anesthesia, of course they won’t remember. Even under a weak anesthesia, like sleep, physical manipulations cannot be remembered. If I tickle your feet while you are asleep, and stimulate your brain through the sensation of touch, enough to get you to squirm. Then I later ask you when you awake if you remember being tickled, you will probably say no.

    Energy is a material thing that effects the material world. I can bottle up energy in a battery or see it discharge in the form of lighting. Gravity is a property of matter. Materialism is dealing with the world. With actual things in the world, not souls and spirits.

    The case about the woman who lost her memory has more to do with how society treats people who have lost their memory. If her family had abandoned her, would that mean that materialism is correct? Of course not, it just means that her family had developed an attachment to the person and were willing to continue a relationship with her. Except for her husband. When you said she remarried, do you mean she remarried the same man or another man?

    The stories about people functioning without most their brain is pretty cool. I read, before I ever started visiting this site, that the parts of the brain can take on the functions of parts that are missing.

    “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.”
    in the above, when it says memories, what memories is it referring to?

    the Quotes by John C. Eccles and Sir Charles Sherrington, are irrelevant unless I know what evidence is making them say what they do.

    • Sorry, Karl, but this is NOT how the reports of the study read. The patients were under a local anesthesia because their skulls were opened up, but they were conscious because they had to communicate with the people conducting the experiment as they did it. read the reports. They say they would cause the patient to raise their arm and the patient would tell them they didn’t do that. This implies the patient was fully conscious and aware. The report also says they were never able to influence a decision. Again, that requires the patient to be fully conscious to test it.

      Energy is material? How much does energy weigh? How much does a graviton wave weigh, Karl?

      Gravity is a property of matter? PROVE IT! The fact that you do not understand the fundamental problem I have just presented you speaks volumes to your credibility, especially your claims to science. Gravity is just the best explanation we have to explain our observations. Einstein speculated that gravity is actually a curve in the space-time continuum. If this were true, then gravity would NOT be a property of matter, but possibly of the space-time continuum, or a result of the concentration of matter. Either way, it is sufficient to conclude that we do not KNOW what gravity is: we merely describe it in terms we can understand and which appear to be accurate — according to our ability to perceive.

      What evidence? THEIR OWN STUDIES! Try reading them sometime. After all, I read what Marx wrote so I can understand what he had to say; so why wouldn’t you read what scientists have done to see why they drew the conclusions they did — unless you’re scared? 😉

      See, folks, I told you this would be fun 🙂

      • If a human can be influenced to do something against their conscious wishes, is that not making a stronger case for materialism. That the movements and actions of humans originate from the brain.

        When I say energy is material, I mean energy exists. Are you trying to say energy is equal in non-existence to souls and spirits?

        Gravity is a property of matter since, gravity has not been observed without matter. For instance you need two things to have an effect of gravity. To say gravity exists without matter would require us to observe matter orbiting nothing, like a planetary system orbiting around a starless, or blackhole-less, center.

        Einstein said mass creates the curves in space Without mass there are no curves.

        Can you summarize the studies of Eccles and Sherrington?

        • A person never does anything against their will. They can refuse. So I’m not sure what point you think you are making here.

          You said everything is material. If it is material, it must have mass. Now you are admitting that you cannot weigh energy, though you admit it exists. And — somehow — you STILL do not see the contradiction in that…LOL :-))

          Ah, but gravity HAS been observed without a connection to a given mass. Why do you think I mentioned graviton waves? And even if it can be proven that gravity is connected to matter, you STILL have not met my challenge. You see, IF Einstein was correct, what you call an orbit is actually a spiraling or “falling” inward — like water down a toilet.

          Yes, mass may well create the curve, but if this is the case, you just defeated your claim that gravity is a property of matter. If Einstein is correct, then gravity is a RESULT of CONCENTRATED matter. These are NOT the same thing.

          You see, you don’t know what you think you know, and THAT is the whole point of the post. So, by trying to prove me wrong, you have demonstrated I am correct. Thank you 🙂

          • “A person never does anything against their will. They can refuse”

            Apparently a skilled brain surgeon can make a person raise his or her arm.

            Where does Marx or any other materialist philosopher deny the existence of energy? There is quite a difference between energy and morality or any other concept of man. I think you are trying to disprove materialism by saying materialism denies energy exists. you think by disproving this false strawman of materialism you can open the door to gods, spirits, free-will and hyper-dimensional toads.

            What experiment showed gravitons being emitted from something that is not mass?
            You toilet analogy is correct. I don’t see how that proves matter-less gravity.

            I don’t understand the usage of the word “concentrated matter.” An isolated soda can in space still has a gravitational field, as does a billion soda cans stuck together.
            Are you saying gravity is a property of “concentrated matter” but not matter?

            • You either don’t listen well, or you refuse to acknowledge the facts here because you know they will destroy you. They made the person raise their arm, BUT THE PATIENT TOLD HIM THEY DID NOT DO IT!

              There are two important points here:

              1 — The patient was aware of something being done to them that, if they were just a meat machine, they should not have been able to determine whether they did it or not.

              2 — They knew they had not given the command to their arm.

              You kno what, there are THREE points: and this last one puts the nail in your coffin.

              If they could tell their arm was raised and that they did not do it, this means FREE WILL IS NOT MATERIAL! It is something outside of the physical body.

              Karl, my friend, sooner or later I hope you will face the truth. And in this case, the truth is that Marx was wrong and that what you think you know — what all of us think we know — is seldom the way we think it is. The best we can do is describe the way things appear to us, and a strict materialist interpretation can’t even come close to describing everything man sees and experiences in this world.

              • So a patient who was conscious with their eyes open, could notice their arms were being raised without their consent.
                This is hardly new.

                You say the patient is conscious, but why do you expect them to not know what is happening to them. You don’t need free will to not consent to a surgeon playing with you body. The lack of a soul or free will does not mean the human body can be played or toyed with, without the human body knowing. Even machines know when there is something wrong with them, they put out error codes.

                About gravity and asteroid belts.
                There are certain distances at which things won’t fall into the source of the gravitational pull.

                Gravity is a very weak force, that is why tiny objects can fly away from a space shuttle.

                • Distances where gravity doesn’t work, huh? So you just admitted the stars DON’T form by gas clouds condensing — or don’t you realize this?

                  Keep trying, Karl. One of these times you might get something to actually stick 😉

                  • don’t be so dumb. There is a distance where the gravity of the smaller object is far enough from the larger object that the gravitational pull of both objects cancel each other out.

            • As for gravity: if it worked the way science says it does, why is there an asteroid belt? Wouldn’t it have condensed into another planet? Same thing for the rings around the planets.

              If the space shuttle has gravity, then why do small chips of paint float away from it in space? Surely the shuttle is large enough to attract a fleck of paint!

              You see, much of what science tells us is a “best guess” at how things appear to work. And, often times, what we observe doesn’t match that best guess. Sadly, when this happens, most people ignore the contradiction instead of looking for an explanation. You do this quite often. Too bad ignoring it doesn’t actually make it go away, huh? 🙂

        • Currently,
          Many scientists advocate a theory that there is “dark matter” with no mass … Which also affects gravity and light.

          • They advocate it because we have learned enough to know that either this dark matter MUST exist, or most everything we “know” isn’t true. Sort of proves my point in the post, doesn’t it? 😉

          • That’s interesting …. That coincides with the recent discovery of the…” Dark Mass of Useless Congressmen…” ….woth no Morals.

            Which also affects Gravity and Light….and thus they sucking up every bit of Hope and everyones Money and Future woth out any hope of escape…..the Washington Black Hole let’s no light escape but keeps a record of innocent person’s life.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.