Jump to content

Dialectical materialism: Difference between revisions

Fixed typos
m (Added ref to Communism)
(Fixed typos)
Line 15: Line 15:
== Hegel’s theory of dialectic ==
== Hegel’s theory of dialectic ==


Hegel believed that what makes the universe intelligible is the understanding of it as an eternal cycle wherein [[Spirit]] comes to know itself as Spirit. This Spirit knowing of itself as Spirit comes through logic, though nature, and through mind-Spirit or ''Geist''.<ref>Hegel used the word ''Geist'' to describe a central principle of his philosophy. The word is the etymological origin of the word ''ghost'', but this term has lost much of its original meaning in English. Analagous words in other languages are the Greek ''pneuma'', Latin ''spiritus'', and Sanskrit ''prama''. One element of the breadth of the original meaning in English is found in the term ''Holy Ghost''. ''Geist'' can be translated as “consciousness,” mind or Spirit. Hegel’s use of this term is indicative of his departure from atheistic rationalism.</ref> He saw logic as positive pure Spirit. He saw nature as the negative creation of Spirit which bears the mark of its creator, in other words, [[Matter]]. He saw Spirit coming to know Spirit through Alpha, through Omega, through the masculine and feminine polarity of the universe; and then through ''Geist'', through self-consciousness, self-expression in history, self-discovery in art, religion and philosophy. That ''Geist'', then, becomes the individual [[Christ Self]] positioned in the midst of the Spirit-Matter being which you are, here and now.
Hegel believed that what makes the universe intelligible is the understanding of it as an eternal cycle wherein [[Spirit]] comes to know itself as Spirit. This Spirit knowing of itself as Spirit comes through logic, though nature, and through mind-Spirit or ''Geist''.<ref>Hegel used the word ''Geist'' to describe a central principle of his philosophy. The word is the etymological origin of the word ''ghost'', but this term has lost much of its original meaning in English. Analagous words in other languages are the Greek ''pneuma'', Latin ''spiritus'', and Sanskrit ''prana''. One element of the breadth of the original meaning in English is found in the term ''Holy Ghost''. ''Geist'' can be translated as “consciousness,” mind or Spirit. Hegel’s use of this term is indicative of his departure from atheistic rationalism.</ref> He saw logic as positive pure Spirit. He saw nature as the negative creation of Spirit which bears the mark of its creator, in other words, [[Matter]]. He saw Spirit coming to know Spirit through Alpha, through Omega, through the masculine and feminine polarity of the universe; and then through ''Geist'', through self-consciousness, self-expression in history, self-discovery in art, religion and philosophy. That ''Geist'', then, becomes the individual [[Christ Self]] positioned in the midst of the Spirit-Matter being which you are, here and now.


Hegel believed that thinking always proceeded according to the dialectic pattern. An initial positive thesis is immediately negated by its antithesis. Further thought produces a synthesis, which again produces an antithesis. The process continues, but not indefinitely, for it is circular. The culmination is the absolute, the return of thought to Source or to Spirit.
Hegel believed that thinking always proceeded according to the dialectic pattern. An initial positive thesis is immediately negated by its antithesis. Further thought produces a synthesis, which again produces an antithesis. The process continues, but not indefinitely, for it is circular. The culmination is the absolute, the return of thought to Source or to Spirit.
Line 63: Line 63:
Marx distinguished five economic forms or modes of production: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalistic, and [[Socialism|socialistic]].
Marx distinguished five economic forms or modes of production: primitive communal, slave, feudal, capitalistic, and [[Socialism|socialistic]].


Under the first, the means of production are socially owned. Under the second, the slave owner owns them. Under the third, the feudal lord partially owns them while his men have some property. Under the fourth, the capitalist owns the means of production, but not his men. He can longer dispose of his workers as he pleases, though they are compelled to work for him. Under the fifth, which has not yet come into existence, the workers themselves will own the means of production, and with the abolition of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, production will reach its fullest development. From the point of view of both production and of, each of these stages represents an advance upon its predecessor, in accordance with the dialectic principle that every new stage takes up whatever was of value in that which it has negated.  
Under the first, the means of production are socially owned. Under the second, the slave owner owns them. Under the third, the feudal lord partially owns them while his men have some property. Under the fourth, the capitalist owns the means of production, but not his men. He can no longer dispose of his workers as he pleases, though they are compelled to work for him. Under the fifth, which has not yet come into existence, the workers themselves will own the means of production, and with the abolition of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, production will reach its fullest development. From the point of view of both production and freedom, each of these stages represents an advance upon its predecessor, in accordance with the dialectic principle that every new stage takes up whatever was of value in that which it has negated.  


Marx saw the separate stages of social progress each represented by a social class: feudalism by the nobility; capitalism by entrepreneurs, which he called the “bourgeoisie”<ref>''Bourgeoisie'' is French word originally referring to dwellers in a city, as opposed to the peasants who dwelt in rural areas. It was later used as a legal term for those who had rights of citizenship and political rights in a city. These were often merchants, craftsmen and business owners. The revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw the ascendance of the borugeosie over the nobility who had ruled in earlier centuries. Marx had great disdain for the bourgeoisie, and the word has come to be used a pejorative description for the middle class.</ref>; socialism by the workers, the proletariat.<ref>''Proletariat'': (French) from the Latin ''proletarius'',  “producers of offspring.” The term was used in ancient Rome to refer to poor freedmen, including artisans and small tradesmen, the lowest rank among Roman citizens, whose primary contribution to the state were their offspring (''proles''). In Marxist philosophy the term is used to refer to those who do not own capital or the means of production and who earn their living by selling their labor.</ref> Marx maintained that the victory of the new class cannot be limited by a democracy which substitutes ballots for bullets and requires respect for inalienable rights.  
Marx saw the separate stages of social progress each represented by a social class: feudalism by the nobility; capitalism by entrepreneurs, which he called the “bourgeoisie”<ref>''Bourgeoisie'' is a French word originally referring to dwellers in a city, as opposed to the peasants who dwelt in rural areas. It was later used as a legal term for those who had rights of citizenship and political rights in a city. These were often merchants, craftsmen and business owners. The revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries saw the ascendance of the bourgeoisie over the nobility who had ruled in earlier centuries. Marx had great disdain for the bourgeoisie, and the word has come to be used as a pejorative description for the middle class.</ref>; socialism by the workers, the proletariat.<ref>''Proletariat'': (French) from the Latin ''proletarius'',  “producers of offspring.” The term was used in ancient Rome to refer to poor freedmen, including artisans and small tradesmen, the lowest rank among Roman citizens, whose primary contribution to the state were their offspring (''proles''). In Marxist philosophy the term is used to refer to those who do not own capital or the means of production and who earn their living by selling their labor.</ref> Marx maintained that the victory of the new class cannot be limited by a democracy which substitutes ballots for bullets and requires respect for inalienable rights.  


In the class struggle which Marx witnessed following the Industrial Revolution, he professed extreme sympathy for the injured and the insulted laboring masses. This sympathy for the downtrodden characterizes this entire philosophy. It originates in the sympathy of the Devil for himself: “Feel sorry for me. I have gotten kicked out of heaven. God has denied me his light, his bread, his energy, his consciousness; now give me what God has failed to give me.”
In the class struggle which Marx witnessed following the Industrial Revolution, he professed extreme sympathy for the injured and the insulted laboring masses. This sympathy for the downtrodden characterizes this entire philosophy. It originates in the sympathy of the Devil for himself: “Feel sorry for me. I have gotten kicked out of heaven. God has denied me his light, his bread, his energy, his consciousness; now give me what God has failed to give me.”
Line 83: Line 83:
We can obviously see that history has followed these steps. But this has not happened according to the interpretation of Marx. This evolution has been the result of karma—the karma of ignorance of the law of the individual Christ. It was not necessary to go through these stages. These were not dependent on one another. They did not come out of this dialectic. They came out of the fact that, one by one, step-by-step, the individual was evolving a Christ consciousness, and therefore he gained a greater and greater enlightenment of the law of economics set forth by Jesus Christ and the flow of the abundant life.<ref>See lecture by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Economic Philosophy of Jesus Christ,” October 6, 1978, available on DVD and audio album ''[http://store.summitlighthouse.org/the-seduction-of-socialism-and-the-responsibility-of-freedom-dvdsmp3 The Seduction of Socialism and the Responsibility of Freedom]'' and in audio from [http://www.ascendedmasterlibrary.org Ascended Master Library].</ref> And we have come to the greatest principle of that abundant life in the guru-chela relationship in the free-enterprise system. That is the evolution of the Christ consciousness by the cycles of Alpha and Omega, as thesis and antithesis and synthesis of the Christ within us.
We can obviously see that history has followed these steps. But this has not happened according to the interpretation of Marx. This evolution has been the result of karma—the karma of ignorance of the law of the individual Christ. It was not necessary to go through these stages. These were not dependent on one another. They did not come out of this dialectic. They came out of the fact that, one by one, step-by-step, the individual was evolving a Christ consciousness, and therefore he gained a greater and greater enlightenment of the law of economics set forth by Jesus Christ and the flow of the abundant life.<ref>See lecture by Elizabeth Clare Prophet, “The Economic Philosophy of Jesus Christ,” October 6, 1978, available on DVD and audio album ''[http://store.summitlighthouse.org/the-seduction-of-socialism-and-the-responsibility-of-freedom-dvdsmp3 The Seduction of Socialism and the Responsibility of Freedom]'' and in audio from [http://www.ascendedmasterlibrary.org Ascended Master Library].</ref> And we have come to the greatest principle of that abundant life in the guru-chela relationship in the free-enterprise system. That is the evolution of the Christ consciousness by the cycles of Alpha and Omega, as thesis and antithesis and synthesis of the Christ within us.


Marx uses his theory as the justification that socialism is the next phase of economic determinism. It is not. Socialism is and ever has been the fallen state of man and woman. And with this logic, the fallen ones are trying to take from us is the foundation of the Golden Age economy and to return us to the most primitive form of life on earth. Socialism was never born in the 1850s. It has been around as the subtle lie within the being of the individual for millennia.
Marx uses his theory as the justification that socialism is the next phase of economic determinism. It is not. Socialism is and ever has been the fallen state of man and woman. And with this logic, the fallen ones are trying to take from us the foundation of the Golden Age economy and to return us to the most primitive form of life on earth. Socialism was never born in the 1850s. It has been around as the subtle lie within the being of the individual for millennia.


== The problem of materialism ==
== The problem of materialism ==