The philosophy of dialectical materialism and its twin, historical materialism, was developed by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. This philosophy was first applied to a large group by Lenin, when the Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917. Marx and Engels took the classical dialectic, expanded upon by Hegel, of thesis – antithesis – synthesis, and postulated a conflict of opposites. At the heart of the Marxist dialectic is the idea of contradiction, with class struggle playing the central role in social and political life, as workers struggle against the privileged classes. Marxism emphasizes continual conflict until a true communist state is established, supposedly ruled by the “proletariat,” the social class of industrial workers.
According to Wikipedia,
“The dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate stage between a capitalist economy and a communist economy, whereby the post- revolutionary state seizes the means of production, and compels the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party.”
If this sounds like gobbledygook to you, join the club! Like anything based on materialist concepts, Marxism is a confusing mess of utter nonsense. It has been deliberately designed to confuse people, because when you analyze it, it is irrational. Marxism has been used by psychopaths and anti-social personalities (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.) to create societal unrest and, ultimately, establish a totalitarian dictatorship.
Modern advertisers, propagandists, narrative promoters, political groups, and “color revolution” advocates have adapted the materialist dialectic very effectively. First, create a “problem” (thesis), then establish “opposition groups” to rail against the problem (antithesis), and then offer a “solution” (synthesis) that will establish the goals of the group.
Example: Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was first demonized (“Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!”) then media railed against the dictator and his human rights violations, then the solution was proposed: the demolition of the country in an all-out attack, called “shock and awe” by the U.S. military. We saw this all on our TVs as CNN and other news outlets breathlessly showed bombs falling on the evil Iraqi dictator and his minions in Baghdad.
Of course you don’t have to be a communist to support the materialist dialectic. You can be any kind of ambitious psychopath, and promote your war in the name of “supporting democracy.”
The cancer industry is another example. In 1969 Richard Nixon called for a “War on Cancer.” Since 1969 hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on “fighting cancer.” (You see the inherent materialist conflict of opposites working here.) Yet the cancer cure rate – which should be the goal of any sane, reasonable effort against a disease – has not improved since 1969. Medical authorities talk about the “five year survival rate” for a certain type of cancer, not a complete cure. [1] In 2023 people still die of cancer at about the same rate they did over a half-century ago. Yet we are told to “Stand Up to Cancer” and contribute more and more money to cancer research. At the MLB All-Star game in July, an entire stadium of people held up “Stand Up to Cancer” signs. The looks on almost all of the faces (including the broadcasters) was uniformly grim, almost as if everyone knew they were participating in a scam.
I’m sorry to be so bitter and cynical about this, but too many of my friends and acquaintances have died of this horrible disease in my lifetime (including my mother), and the story is always the same: surgery, chemotherapy, and then eventual death. Oh, a pathetic few percent actually do get cured using this allopathic approach, just enough to give people hope. But despite the tremendous sums spent on cancer research, the cure rate stays the same. I have concluded that cancer research isn’t about curing cancer. It’s about “fighting” cancer, or “standing up” to cancer. Somebody please tell me what the hell that means.
As you may have guessed, after contributing for years to various groups associated with cancer research, I just gave up. I never give money to these people anymore, because after 54 years no progress on a real cure for cancer has been made. (“We have made great strides in early recognition of cancer!” Congratulations.)
In the materialist dialectic, solutions always proceed from an artificially created clash of opposites. Because conflict is at the heart of the deluded philosophy of materialism (which is the tried and true modus operandi of modern governments, despite their claims to democratic or idealistic motivation) tension and discord is the inevitable result.
Without tension and conflict, the oppositional philosophy of the materialist dialectic must fail, for it depends utterly upon conflict and resistance. Non-resistance, and creating in a positive fashion, can defeat those who thrive upon opposition and confrontation. Thus does Light penetrate the darkness and dissolve it.
________________________________________
[1] According to cancer.org, “A cure means that the cancer has gone away with treatment, no more treatment is needed, and the cancer is not expected to come back. It’s rare that a doctor can be sure that cancer will never come back. In most cases it takes time to know if the cancer might come back. But, the longer a person is cancer free, the better the chance that the cancer will not come back. More often, when treatment appears to be successful, doctors will say the cancer is ‘in remission,’ rather than cured.’” [emphasis mine] See “Can Cancer be Cured?” at https://www.cancer.org/cancer/understanding-cancer/can-cancer-be-cured.html
This is the abysmal state of cancer research after 54 years of fighting it.
Click the link below to see all newsletters since 2006
Get Email notifications from my Substack when new posts come out. Type your email into the box
"True love is empowering people to see their greater potential" --- John Payne