Skip to comments.The Absurd Case of Karl Marx's Dialectical Fundamentalism
Posted on 07/15/2011 8:53:37 AM PDT by Olympiad Fisherman
Marx sharply criticized those who tried to solve their problems philosophically or religiously, i.e., in thought, and advocated that they can only be solved by changing reality in practice so that the problem disappears. In other words, philosophy and religion had to be brought down to earth so that secular redemption could come through revolutionary practice, and not through thought or faith. As such, it was Marx who infamously wrote the philosophers have only interpreted the world differently, what matters is to change it. Due to their indifference to the material necessities of life, philosophy and religion could thus only maintain the oppressive status quo. Henceforth, revolutionary, political activism became the hallmark of Marxist tradition ...
(Excerpt) Read more at gulagbound.com ...
By that logic, the next time a marxist makes me angry I should simply kill him, thereby "changing reality in practice" so that my problem "disappears", instead of just walking away and reminding myself that the world is big enough to house people of differing political philosophies. Someone please correct me if I have misinterpreted Herr Marx.
That happened all to often of course.
I actually read Das Kapital. It’s like reading a phone book. I dare you to read the first 50 pages and stay awake. You don’t have to take Marx apart because the Democrats/liberals/socialists don’t actually read his crap. They just want to take power and find they can’t do it in the system they’re in. So, they start talking about redistributing land and wealth and the stupid in the society believe them, and kill a bunch of innocent people, and then put in charge the people who weren’t smart enough to rise to the top in the old society. Talk about a death-spiral of government.
My number one problem with Marx's entire philosophy was his reliance on "Dialectical Materialism," which in effect ignores the fact that economies are NOT static systems. It also infers that we can understand anything, and then change it. And that man is the master of the world, and nothing is beyond his reach. Sort of like saying that if we understand a wild animal we can control it. Interestingly enough, that may work from time to time, but once it doesn't work, bad things happen.
Virtually every individual profesing to be a Marxist/Leninist believes dialectical materialism is the proper philosophy for understanding and changing the world. Indeed, what dialectical materialism is to the Marxist, God is to the Christian, Virtually all the ways Christians describe God - eternal, infinite, uncreated, indestructible, lawgiver, life, mind, etc. - Marxists assign to dialectical matter. Making matter the essence of all things is called metaphysical materialism, This philosophy affirms matter as ultimately real and denies the reality of God. It is a "sort of godless theology."
Yes, I can understand Democrats now........
Yes, I know, but he is still their hero. It is precisely because they do not read Marx that they do not understand what Marxism really is.
You will have to explain what bfl means, but I am a bit afraid to find out.
It also helps explain their progressive hope in the future and all that talk about hope and change. Without understanding Marx, those are just slogans that most people do not understand.
You are not the only one to have a hard time reading Das Kapital - it is a universal problem.
Chuckle -- ever try reading you some George Soros? On his bastardization of "Open Society," or on (gulp) "Fallibility?"
Karl Marx on drugs (and about as evil) for the imaginary, helter-skelter piles of abstraction upon abstraction. Freud would have loved to meet Georg; straight to the couch; might have made a fortune in Rothschild money off him, exploring Soros' rationalizations.
I call it the "Nero complex" - burn it down and rebuild it with their own design.
Hard leftists want to embolden & empower the "lumpenproletariat" - the poorest of the poor. This gives them an army (physical, economic, etc.) to appropriate and/or destroy the competition (evil capitalists). Then they can step in and take over.
Looking at Obamanomics through this lens and it all makes perfect sense.
“Bump for later”, as in for later reading. The “f” isn’t as diabolical as you might think.
Thanks Olympiad Fisherman. Marx devised a climactic model for what he called history; he did so by misappropriating the Hegelian dialectic, which has no big finish. Marxism is for people who don’t like change in any form, and prefer to live in one of those gated communities with all the bylaws, like in that episode of The X-Files.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.