NOTE TO THE READER: In the interest of full disclosure, I want to make it known beforehand that I am openly hostile to the idea of the dialectic, and for reasons which I hope I will soon make perfectly clear.
Karl Marx developed a political theory he called ‘dialectic materialism.’ A ‘dialectic‘ is basically the inversion of opposites. In other words, a ‘dialectic’ is when a concept or process finds its reality in its opposite. For example: something becomes hot by becoming cold; or a thing ceases to exist by coming in to existence. But George Orwell may have explained it better with his term, ‘double-think,’ which is: ‘a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas.’
Now, before I go any further, let me say that I am fully aware that dedicated Marxists are going to vehemently disagree with my definitions of the dialectic. That’s fine: they are free to disagree all they like, but that does not make my definitions wrong. It just means they do not see or understand their error for reasons I am about to explain.
In my post about ‘Contradictions,’ I explain that a contradiction is an absurdity. An absurdity is something that is not real, something that does not and cannot exist in the objective or ‘real’ world. By definition, this means that anyone who sincerely believes in and embraces an absurdity is out of touch with the real world. Well, as impolitic as this may be to say, the common term for someone who is out of touch with the ‘real’ world is ‘insanity.’ So let me say this clearly:
Yes! I am saying that I believe Marxists are insane.
Now, let me prove my claim. We start with the foundation of Marxist theory: the notion of ‘material dialectic.’ Marx believed that nothing is permanent. Everything changes; everything is in a constant process of becoming and ceasing to be.
OK, stop right there. If you have read my post on the applied logic in reference to contradiction, then you may already recognize that this assertion is self-contradicting. And, if it is self-contradicting, then it is absurd, which means — in the terms we are currently using — ‘insane.’ So, how is it self-contradicting? Simple:
Marx says nothing is permanent.
Then he says everything is in a constant state of change.
That constant state of change is permanent, which cannot be according to his first claim.
Therefore, Marx’s idea of the material dialectic is base on a self-defeating contradiction and, therefore, is an absurdity — as is everything which flows from it.
Now, as I stated earlier: anyone who sincerely believes in and embraces an absurdity is ‘insane.’ Ergo, Marxists are insane. But then, so are all those who believe in the ideas which flowed from it. Ideas such as Communism and Socialism…
These ideas — Marxism, Communism and Socialism — do not exist or function in the real world. This is because they violate the principles of Natural Law. Now, it is true, they can be given the appearance of existing, but only for a short time. It is much like sweeping water up hill with a broom: it can be done, but only for so long. Eventually, the weight and volume of the water overcomes your ability to hold back the force of gravity and the water floods past your broom. Well, this is what happens in all Communes and Socialist economies/Nations. They can be made to work for a short time but, eventually, the Natural Las governing human nature and economics eventually take over and they fail. Venezuela is the most recent example of this fact: and I say ‘fact’ because this has ever been the result of all Communist/Socialist systems. They have all failed in the span of one lifetime — or less (keep in mind that this does not mean a nation has to cease to exist. The ‘resetting’ of a government indicates the failure of the previous government).
Other illustrations of the point I am trying to make would be:
Flying: just because you manage to get up in a balloon, plane, helicopter or other device, this does not mean you can now fly. As soon as the power allowing you to fly runs out, gravity will prove to you that you cannot fly, you can only ride in a machine that flies, and even then, only so long as it has the power to defy gravity.
One cannot spend forever without producing. Even if you borrow the money, someone else is still producing the money you borrow. Therefore, you are just passing off the production to another person, but you are still dependent upon production. Nor can one just ‘print’ money. This is because that money has no value behind it because there is no production behind it. Therefore, it soon becomes useless — like it has in Venezuela. Sooner or later, the laws of economics will assert themselves.
One cannot change the nature of a thing by changing the word we use to discuss that thing. For example: if it is believed that the word ‘handicapped’ carries a bad connotation, one cannot change that image in the mind of other people simply by forcing them to use the word, ‘challenged.’ The word may change, but the image or the nature of the issue does not. This is because words do not create the nature of a thing, instead, words are used to describe or discuss that nature. The thing is not created by the word, the word is created to discuss or describe the thing. The laws of language and logic do not bend to the whim of the ‘insane.’
So, hopefully the reader can see that, while we may be able to convince ourselves that an absurdity is true, this does not make it true. However, if we believe that something is true simply because we believe it, that does makes us insane. Hence, the Marxist is insane because he or she believes in something that is not true, and it is not true by definition. In this case, that would be the definition of ‘contradiction.’